The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1875-07-24 00:00:00

THE ALLEGED BREACH OF CONTRACT IN
THE COAL TRADE.

KING AND OTHERS v. PARKER.
At the Worcester Summer Assizes (Nisi Prius
Court) before Mr. Baron Pollock, this was an action
to recover £641 13s damages for alleged breach of
contract. The case was partly heard on Friday, and
was finished on Saturday night last.
Mr. Matthews, Q.C., and Mr. Jelf were for the
plaintiffs; and Mr. J. J. Poraill, Q.C., Mr. Motteram,
and Mr. Bosanquet for the defendant.
Our readers will recollect the principal features of
this case. The plaintiffs are colliery proprietors at
Stourbridge and Nuthurend, and the defendant was
at the time the cause of action arose the proprietor
of the Mersey Wheel Works, Stourbridge. in the
autumn of 1572 the parties to the suit, having pre-
viously done business together, entered into a con-
tract—the plaintiffs to supply and the defendant to
receive, "4,000 parcels of Kibble coal," of 2,2401bs
each, at 15s 6d per tun, to be delivered into, the de-
fendant's trucks at the plaintiffs sidings at Cradley
or Netherentl. Thu contract contained the usual
provision against strikes, in the event of Ns Lich the
plaintiffs did not bind themselves to keep up the daily
supply of two trucks, for which the defeadant had
stipulated. It was alleged that directly the contract
was made the defendant did not act up to its pro-
visions, and that instead of sending two trucks for
the daily supply he allowed his receipts to fall largely
In urrear. Several communications were sent to him
respecting this course, to all of which it was said no
reply had been vouchsafed. The general result uf
his conduct was that up to the latter cud of March,
18/4, the defendant was in urrear of his receipts or
the stipulated quantity of coal to the extent of 1,U.A.)
tons. Ou March the 23th of that year, commenced
in South Staffordshire, a strike, lasting till the Istb
July, when Messrs. King and Co. gave the defendant
notice that they could not continue the supply.
They, however, intimated their willingness to go on
with it on the resumption of work by the colliers.
Meanwhil , however, coal had sunk in value to the
extent of tis 6d or is a ton, and the defendant re-
pudiated the contract, alleging as an excuse that tie
plaintiffs had faded or their bargain, and contritnit,
by their own conduct to thing about the strike,
which WAS of such lung durtitioa as to put an ch.:,
under the contract, to any further business transac-
tions between them. 'rue ;learned counsel for the
defence urged that the plaintiffs, who belonged tu
the Association of Colliery Proprietors, having, and
knowing that they had, this contract unhand, shouid
not have contributed to bringing about the strike by
demanding of their men a is per day reduction or
wages. lie urged as proof tuat colliery proprietors
iu the same neigubourbood at the time of the strike
were working their pits to great advantage, and that
tac same might have been dune by plaintiffs. With
reference to the statement of the non-arrival of the
defendant's trucks at the plaintiffs' sidings this was
broaght about by the plaintiffs' own neglect in block-
ing tile lines with empties, so that it was impossible
to gut them near. In reply to this the p aiutiffs said
that was a matter between the defendant and the
railway company, who, they admitted, were SO
hampered with trucks at the time that they were
utterly unable to deal with them, and they blocked
the sidings for a considerable length of time. The
main point in dispute was whether the plaintiffs,
having the contract in hand, were at liberty to re-
duce the wages of their men, and so bring about a
cessation of the supply which it was urged the de-
fendant was always ready to accept. The defendant
hinted that the plaintiffs reduced their men's wages
purposely to bring about the strike, but it was
strongly urged on their behalf that they were only
acting in concert with the other masters, and that
the exigencies of trade demanded such a course.—
His Lordship, as on the previous day, interposed
several times with a view to bring about an agree-
ment, but without success, until the facts on both
sides had been:elicited, when it was eventually agreed
to take the opinion of a superior Court, and to enter
a "verdict for the plaintiffs, subject to the opinion
of the Court whether the • defendant jupou the facts
proved is entitled to have tho verdict !entered for
him; the Court to draw the inference of facts, and
to lay down the principle on which the damages
ought to bo assessed; with leave to move; motion
to be made by the defendant.