The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1871-08-19 00:00:00

A DECISION OF IMPORTANCE TO
TRADES' UNIONS.

At the Leeds Assizes, the 1,1181, of Porclaon r. Hartley anti
others " has been heard, and was an action got
able Importalwe as relating to the management of TrllllC3
UniollB

Mr. Scrjeant I Vllrien, Mr Komplay, and Mr. Rowdier wer,
for the plaintiff Mr. Dittby SeYnionr, Q. 1% Mr. Waddy, anff
Mr. Wilberforce were for the Ilefenclants.

I The ileclamtion was t .r conspiring to get the plaintiff
turned out of his employment. The plaintiff had been
, in the employment of Messrs. Watson and Snll, gluts
bottle manufacturers, for ten years. His father
an" grandfather hail ~.11 in their employment before. .
lie was employed a, a sort id managing. man, and
earnod 4:2 12s. per week. He was a munilicr of the ,
14 lass Bottle-Makeri of Yorkxhire l'nion Trade Pe, •
tection Society. The defendants, Simnel Hartley. •
Joseph Brown, and Henderson, all worked in the
shop. The plaintiff's account was that
...on the •2:It1, .‘f
March a in eeting of the w,okinen was Rohl. Hartiev
opened the meeting by saying that the business of the
meeting wasrespeaing the plane being made a blaek
sheep shop, as there was an tr,fri•••lnelit upby the
plaintiff and signed by the t''ii,.......5t, inithe the la•• 11
work eight (Sr ten luaus a day, nod to make the to, n
agree to discontinue to in moils-to of the ',lion. The
plaintiff denied the truth of what wat sai,l ; but it was
repeated by the other speakers. When the plaiGtiii
rose to deny the accusation Brown suit, " If thee dost
it sit down and hohl thee noise, 111 knock thee brains
Gut." Ile said the plaintiff never was nothing Mit a la.
fellow, and should not work anywhere but at t 'astief, e,
or Swinton, where there was a strong body of I' nit
men. Henderson said that plaintiff anti another
man nameil Barlow thought to give up 3.iviiis to
the Union, but they would do thou lsith at woo
and they should have it " hot." They said he sin odd
be kicked out like a hg; he hail pmed and starve,' ,
others, aud they would pine and starve Mtn, and see
how he liked it. The plaintiff said he tried to go out
of the door, and two Melt 1010 kept the door said they
• would throw him Old 14 the window. A resolution
, was ',wed to send a deputation to the master not to
eml.l"Y him any Ilwre, and another resolution :
was passed that anyone seen with the plaintiff or siocak.
big to him should be fined 3s, Smne one called hint a
scamp and thief at the meeting, and another shouted
"We've done thee, we've done thee, thou 'muck
lump !'"
Another workman named Barlow was called tO con-
flint this evidence, and Mr. Shenton one of the partners
in the firm of Memrs, lieatson was also called, and
stated what passed when the deputation waited upon
him. He had no fault at all to find with the plaintiff,
but he was obliged to discharge him, at, the others
declared they would leave work if he did not do so, and
the result would be that the works would be stopped,
and he would,, suffer great loss.
At the 6;4 of the plaintiff's case,
Mr. Seymour, Q.C., submitted that there was no
case. Trades Unions were lawful societies, and there
was nothing to render the acts in this case illegal.
The learned Judge said I am of opinion that there

a case. The question I shall(leave to the jury is
whether what was done by the defendant 3 was done
with the object of injuring or joinihhing the tilaintiff,
or merely with a view of forwarding or protecting their
own interest,.

Hartley, one of the defendants, stated that Render-
P.m informed hint of the scheme which the plaintiff
hail foamed to make Aletsrs. Reattisis a non union
place. He charged the plaintiff at the inciting.
Henderson then said what he knew, anti Barb iw and
Stafford said it was all true. The plaintiff then ilenied
it. No resolution was passed with respect to tilling
anybody live shillings who spoke to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff Was offered tither situations if he
would go away. Wain the deputation waited
on the master the witness said that "there. was
a very cruel and wicked conspiracy to concoct a
plot against us and our wives and children, to de-
prive us of our food and daily sustenance." The
nutster asked if they wished the plaintiff to be dis-
charged. The di-put:II:, in replied, " Not unit!, 4 the
masters wished, but if he was tart discilar;el iilcy 1111 et
discharge themselves." Noliody ever calk's] the plaintiff
a thief or a " numk lump." The principal glellll.l
upon which they brought the ...barge tem that the
plaintiff wishol to vet out of the Union.
Henderson, another defendant, is-at Thi., wa-
ne, ! prefaced every sentence with the W 4.14114 "of
course," which caused it dab:liter. He said that
Ilarlow told him that the plaintiff feel two yeaN
been til by One if the partners that as si.cal 4, ltt!itrlllj
11,411-111110111 AS 0..401 he W. RIM 111:11:e it ii Won -
Suihlist dill. The plaintiff tried b.i.er mei, them that
it wiinbl be very beneficial to leave the t liii in, Barlow
said there was an agreement in the office, and the plain-
tiff said he would gii and see if it WaS ready to be
signed. He came back and sail Mr. ( 'lenient, the
partner, saiil it was not ready. Staffoni said he should
not sign it unless he got ten guineas a year for signing.
lendeition said it ought to be signed that night. The
plaintiff then Wellt 11th, the office again, and came Lack
Still said that the :agreement WI" Dot bunt lip ; but
Mr. (lenient saiil ti him, " You say there is it meet-
ing to-morrow. I advise you as to what you dm Go
to the meeting with your men. Mind whom you
irlrwe confideace in, or they will betray you. (hr and
opi stir everything they di. iir say, and then 0/111e ie
ill the morning :Ind I trill have the agreement ready
and we will sign it.
Other witnesses were calleal to confirm these two
witnesses.
_

The trial commenced on Saturday awl lasted the
whole of Monday.
The learned dudge in summing up eaid this was a
ease ,if great ings.rtance, but he thought the guiding
principles were wit many. The nature of the comiihrint
was that three c.f. the I leTendants conilibusi together to
injure the plaintiff, and that they lii injure 'him. If
the injury was effected by untrue representations, it
was obvious there was a wrong for which the defernd
ants were answerable. If men combined together wit
for the purpose of injuring another, but fir the pro-
tection only of the legitimate intcre-ts they would not
be liable.

The jury returned a vvrlict 1-1. the plaintiff.—
Damages., MO.