| Show SUIT TO ENJOIN fROM BO Bunk Stove and und Rungs Rings Co Wants Anu Federation of Lobor WE DONT DONi PATRONIZE LIST K 1111 liars I Ho Its lit Ili It tin II l t I 11 It an antul XH lawful tul nil tI N S Nor i H U in Tit i Mill uit co of tl I Nis Burk Steve A 0 Range I I V of Ht Nt t Lout loul brought i In i 4 i t pox jut J Hi Ile It matron of or 1 I it fi ft r li t the Ihn I h K pm 1 prole I rI 1 u i x h I leafing before br flair I ei Iwi I 1 l I lay i inthe In III Inthe I the IhO i url urt n Ih I t Columbia The h i i I 1 if j i ted attention alII li It r I III lh II n If U on an III I 1001 d I i I i I ml cal a nature It U le I rn fly n i e i ui to i that wh whatever th the of or f tin tilt district t ourt la I the lb case caa will ill be carried to 10 the court ourt of or the thi Untied United itRI A somewhat ir case IP la l pending before the th higher court being I hit hal le la known knowlI UK a the at IMP H a stilt null brought by b a hat manna maim urr r or of if Connecticut nat the I United which ik lit d l with wit t th the A Federation of Labor Mr roe 11 treble damages damage dma sustained d dIn In III the tb of or r the ers i n trade Iran tn liy b a boycott which hv he h claimed th Ih the i organisation und mid th the federation upon pon nis na products product an as a tar fur wt areal t I a as California Thu Tn hat timed claimed el that before the th boycott hl hi his interstate trade nan vae w about and that thaI th the boycott n hU hb h trace t l u yearly yearl earl The Che cane canela c cIs la le now before Iu t I the he h federal supreme court COUIL for fur argument Dec J 2 and the u la I to dt mill whether th tho lIerman law Jaw with its itA chit hi remedies appl apply to 10 l Imposed o D oth oy oythe the th III federation agh Ui Ito It ial ore oregon 01 0 gon the HU U UThe The Th bill ui of quit equip In I Ih Buck Buk Ko Koa ease a It heard hard 11 today toda rites clim It the mth l b by n li it IH Is Claimed tumid th the entire entile r j a of or th the are ar i on onH H special rial boycott In Lt uric tnie Case cane c while th tb the application of the Sherman law J la I onty int involved Inoh It tt do dues i int the th question whether the unfair and ande we e dont patronise aa as In the constitute an un at unlawful unlawful lawful boycott The plaintiffs plaintiff today presented lengthy arguments argument an u to t the boycott operation upon which they tM lI asked kiM kel a ore are 0 Injunction should br bl granted foi tor the defense objected to these affidavits The Th defense contend contended ed that the proceeding were we an attempt empt to Invoke the antitrust law la without warrant thereof and nd to 10 bring brUg b Into nto the of ot the I hr courts count of o oth the th District of ot Columbia p people ople all parts part of or the countr country ciao alto that the th subject not appropriate for foi in ill injunction junction The They 1 he argued that the t simply pi published a II We W e don dont l patron patronIse l Ise lIt Any attempt to 10 abridge Lb right to publish waa we w a violation of th tb the freedom fredom of speech anti and press prea II Argue Arcu Argument men ment mente occupied moat mat of the day |
