Page:Cole v. State (210 Ark. 433).pdf/5

 Williams from working. At trial it was sought by those who are now appealing to have such testimony excluded. This motion was denied because the Court thought (as it said in refusing to give defendants' requested InstructonInstruction [sic] No. 11), "a threat is an element of violence".

So, it will be seen, the trial was conducted upon the assumption that, although the indictment did not allege threats were made, evidence of threats was admissible to prove the use of force and violence—because, as the Judge stated, "a threat is an element of violence". Certainly a threat of bodily harm or material damage or serious inconvenence may, in certain circumstances, become an element of violence; but the nature of the attempted coercion, the situation of the parties and the subject-matter causing disputation—these and other factors would ordinarily enter into the transaction and affect the event.

Section 2 of Act 193 undertakes to define an unlawful assemblage. It is made unlawful for any person, "acting in concert with one or more other persons, to assemble at or near any place where a 'labor dispute' exists and by force or violence prevent or attempt to prevent any person from engaging in any lawful vocation, [and it shall be unlawful] for any person acting either by himself, or as a member of any group or organization or acting in concert with one or more other persons, to promote, encourage, or aid in any such unlawful assemblage".

Trial of the defendants preceeded as though there had been an admission that the men who composed the picketing group constituted an unlawful assemblage. There is no such admission. Proof is not satisfactory that the strikers bore a direct grievance against any but Williams. Williams was attacked by Campbell and Campbell paid the penalty of life for his rashness. No one testified that others struck or attempted to strike Williams. On this point the version given by Willie Brown is informative. He was among the number who