The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1887-05-07 00:00:00

AN IMPORTANT CLAIM FOR WAGES IN

THE CHAIN TR 03E.

At the Rowley Regis Police Court, on Wednesday,
the magistrates (Nlessrs. W. Bassano, H A. Wiggin,
and J. 11. Smith) were occupied for several hours in
he Lring a eams affecting the chain trade. The plain-
tiff was William Beddard, chaitimaker, New Town,
Ceadley tleath, whe sued Eli Willetts, chain menu-
f Aurer, Dudley Woof, for .24 14s. 11-i 1., being the
balance of wages due. Mr. W. Waldron represented
the plaietiff, and Mr. T. Homer the defendant.
For the plaintiff it was shown that on March
23rd he defendant gave him 15cwt of iron at 4s,
3d., 1 lcwt. of 7 16 at 7s, and scwt. of at 95., to be
made into best chain, and upon the work being
completed the chains were taken to the defendant's
Lrehouse. For some reason the defendant refused
to pay intro than £3, hence the acti iii.
In reply to 7‘f.r. Homer the plaintiff said the chain
produced by t defendant at a previous Court was
not made by ..o or his workmen. The chain was
not well in .a. The chain brought to the
Court that (1.4 was not made by him or any of his
workmen.
By Mr. Waldron : The defendant wished him to
make the chain at 5 per cent. under the 4s. or
revised list of prices.
Several witnessess having been called in suport of
the plaintiff, Mr. Homer addressed the Bench for
the defence, and said he had to confine himself to
the question of the identity of the chain?, because it
hadibeen admitted by the plaintiff and his witnesses
that the chains wore only ai "scrap." He s'iould
be able to prove by a large number of witna ses that
the e alas produced at the Court on that Lila ; he
previous occasion were made by the plaiatitt and
his witnesies. He would as!c—Was it likely that an
cenployer would be guilty of such a wicked aul
iuiquitous act as to produe had work made by an
other man in order to do an injustice to the
pl Liutiff ? An employer guilty of each an act
deserved severe punishment, but he felt sure that
his client, who was a ress)ectable tradamau, would
no be guilty of such a cruel act.
On the suggestion of the magistrates the chains
were tested by independent persons who pronounced
the iron to be good but the workmanship bad.
Mr. Waldron said much time might have been
saved had the defendant permitted the plaintiff and
his witnesses to have inspected tins chains when
stored in the warehouses. When they went on
Saturday he ordered them away.
The defendant was then called, and stated that in
consequ,Arce of the plain t:ff having called upo I him
and solicited orders he gave him one on Nlareli 23rd.
U2on the chaias being brought t his warehouse he
bun 1 that the work was bal, and he told him that
the chai is were useless, and that if he would pay
him the Jost of the iron he could take them home
By Me. Waldron: He would solemnly swear that.
the chat 15 produced a'c, that and a previous Court
were m. Li by the plaintiff and his workmen.
Several witnesses were called who corrobrated
thc evide Lee of the defendant.
Ii repi / to the Beach, defendant said he refused
to .:ow the plaintiff and his witnesses to inspect
th, iron on Saturday because it was not convenient,
he being engaged at business.
Mr. Bassett° said the Bench had given every
consideration to the case, because it was a puzzli
one, and also an important one, because if the plain-
titl,was rightithe defendant had been guilty to

monstroua wickedness. They, however, thought
that the plaintiff and his witnesses were mistake!),
as the identity of Vie iron had been elearly estat
Pshed. The defendant had sustained a loss by iron
valued at £8 10s. being spoilt, and a verdict would
be given for the defendant, No order was made as
to costs.

Great interest was taken in the hearing of the
case.