The Express.
London, England, 1853-11-30 00:00:00

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

OLD COURT.—This DAT.
MOM Ili WON ALDIMIKOI AND XL MT= ILL/ ID.

Francis Frtend, James Friend, Robert Bond, Jowls
Rooper,John Robinson, Martin O'Connor, Thomas Clark,
and John Cockrell, surrendered to take their trial for isnlaw-
Billy conspiring together to proems the dismissal of a fallow
"whams from his employment.
Mr. Bodkin conducted the prosecution; Mr. Clarkson,
Mr. Ballanthse, and Mr. Ferry were counsel for t►e de-
fendants.

It appeared from the opening statement of the learned
twamel, that the defendants were employed in the establish-
ment of Mr. Jackson, a copper-plate printer, in the City 01
London, and the prosecutor was a person named Frederick
Spence, who is by trade also a journeyman copper-plate
printer. It would seem that Spence had formerly been
employed in the establishment of Mr. Tails, and that a
short tints before he was engaged in that esta-
blishment there land been some disagreement be-
tweion the workmen and their employer, which ended in
strike, sad it speared that inconsequence of Spence and
some other workmen in the trade taking employment at
Messn. Tallies, they had become obnoxious to the other
members of the trade. Spence was clamed on the 13th of
September at Mr. Ja:ksoa's, sad after be bad been in the
service two or three days, he &marred that the defendants,

who were ell workmen 'employed in the establishment, held
upon two occasions what wee called in the trade a
"chapel," front which he was excluded, and when
he was paid his wages at the end of the week,
Mr. Jukes, t►e foreman, discharged him. He suspected
that the conferences held by the defendants had
reference to him, and he asked the foreman for an **plana-
tion, and he was by him referred to the defendant Francis
Friend, who in answer to the questions put to him by the
proescutor, said titer, were two reasons why he and the
ether men declined to work with hint, one of which was that
le had worked at Mr. Tallis's, which was a house they
disapproved of; end secondly, that he belonged to
• society which they did not acknowledge. In
tonsequence of these proceedings the prosecutor was dis-
•bargrd from the service of Mr. Jackson, but it appeared
that ia .s day or two afterwards he obtained a situation in
another establishment, where he was still engaged.

Spent*. the prosecutor, was called to prove the above
facts, but be was unable to give any evidence as to what
took place upon the occssion of the conference between tie
defendants. . .

Mr. Joan, the foreman, was also examined, but on his
be* 'AM the reason why he discharged the prosecutor
from Mr. Jackson's service, he said that in the first place
he had only engaged him for one week, and that finding
there was a disinclination on the part of the other workmen
to associate with him, sad that he %laid, consequently,
have been very uncomfortable if he had remained in the
service, and being also aware that he had another situation
to go to, he considered A better, for his own, sake, that he
should discharge hint.
Mr. Baron Alderson expressed an opinion that upon these
facts the present indictment could not be sustained. If, in-
deed, there had been any evidence to show that the defead-
ants, when they conferred together, had come to a determi-
nation not to work with the prosecutor, and to insist upon
hie dismissal, he was not at all prepared to say that it would
not amount to a wisdoms-altos at commrst law, but all that
appeared to bs proved was that the defendants, for some
MUM or other, declined to associate with the prosecutor.
Mr. Parry and Mr. Ballantine both said that they were
instructed on the part of the defendants to state that this
was really all they intended to do. The prosecutor was •
dissigreaablo person to them and they would not emaciate
with him.
A verdict of Net Guilty was then taken, and the defend•
ants were ordered to be immediately discharged.