{"character_count": 1448, "word_count": 263, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9172000288963318], "ccnet_perplexity": [1854.4000244140625], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
INTERESTING TR1AL-The Supreme Court OF laSsacn"-
e,. have been occupied days in hearing the aIg
~ Of Mr. Rantoul and Attorney General Austin upon me
excepons from Judge Thatcher decision some time ie
in the Municipal Court that or Two or more JolFneyeh 20
,e.uade another no, 10 work employer was coz


-ocv ind;c;able at common law Itseems that one u'
and x other ournevnaH boo,akers were convicted OF De
longing TO society te keep up wages and OF hayns usea
erson but no coercion to induce another soo'na"e n0I
70 work for particular Nh RantoI eonen'ea


that the ac, complained of offence against the a"S O'
Massachusetts, ROT at common law because the col'i'@
on laws OF England which oTgnaedin the time OF EdvaFd
III and Elizabeth and repealed in 1924 had never
been adopted here from the British code This ne e''a


.bed by thorough historical argument be contended'
100 that there could be no conspiracy in view OF the common
law unless the act TO be done q itself II dene ndc'a
b! or ac,onabe The Attorney General admitted thai he
should prefer TO let the subec, be submitted only 10 the good


sense Of the coraunty But part ct Ms daiy 10
drec, the Grand Jury in the exercise of their duty nor mas
tina, bod any legal discretion excuse any person tor Vo
a,ion of the law OF the land He argued the case at length
,ontendnr that the act charged offence known 70 the
common law. The opinion of The Cour; will probably no;
be given immediately