The Express.
London, England, 1861-03-27 00:00:00

WORSHIP-STREET.

Charles linggsns, Y. 3, describing himself as •
said Joseph Chianti, 30, a chair maker, were orldrsti
before Mr. Leigh with violently assaulting James Dunn, a
carpenter.
Mr. Yana, who attended for the complainaot, stated the
facts. linen was in full employment, and had while so
engaged been taunted by the defendants with respect to the
nine hours movement, and a throat to tell " Potter" of bow
he was engaged. The Mr. Potter, it would be recollected,
waste man who last year made himself notorious by agitat•
in for tho " strike" to • very unfortunate extent, and it
would appear therefore that he was again in the
field for that purpose. How materially the
matter affected both muter* and men was too well
known, and any approach to intimidation must
he met by • strong band. In this instance there
apparently had not been any direct act that
would bring the defendant under the powers of the statute
relative to the intimidation of workmen, and therefore they
had only been charged with the asasult, but it was one of
• very aggravated character, and be (Mr. Yana) trusted that
the magistrate would mark his sense of the same by his
judgment on the perpetrators of it.
Complainant, whose eyes were blackened, and shirt collar
and waistcoat soaked with blood, then said, upon oath—" I
work for Mr. Mears, • builder, in the Hackney•road. About
3 o'clock this morning I was on a job near there, when the
defendants, whom I do not know, came up and said, " You
are a nice nine hours man." Another man wee with them.
One of them said, "rn tell Mr. Potter about you." I made
no reply. I don't know Potter, and don't wish to see him.
Mr. Hurleston, chief clerk—l am very glad to hear you
say so.
Complainant—He is secretary, I believe, to the Trades'
Union Strike. I was sawing floorboards at the time this
occurred. Defendants did not call the any name, but all
three eat on to me. I wax struck with some of the boards ;
don't know who hit me. It caused the injuries you me sad
I bled profusely. lam likely to lose my work.
Defendants—We did not touch him, and know nothing
about the strike ; we are of different trades to his.
Mr. Hurlestes—Thin is a niiademeanour, and in law all

in:omgal are 'molly guilty.
Mr. Leigh—Was there say. threat I
Complainant—Not any, gr.
After some confirmatory evidence, Mr. Leigh said
—This man (complainant) hr been considerably injured,
and I am bound to tell you that if the solicitor had
proceeded against you for the intimidation, I should have
dealt with you under the powers of the 6th Geo. IV.,
whereby an imprisonment of three mouths would have bees
the result, scoompnled by hard labour. Labourers must
sot be interfemd with by intimidation—they must be per
to work when they please, where they please, and at
whet price they please, without being dietabd to by other
workmen. It is clearly my opinion that by your words and
acts you meant to intimidate. Those who are in the daily
pursuit of their work to obtain their daily breed are not to
be knocked about sod coerced with impunity by the
thmOtlom and undeserving. I repeat that if the solicitor
bad deemed it requisite to osos you before MO charged with
the greater offeece, I should have dealt the law stringently,
and DOW ostler you to pay the full penalty attached to the
commission of violent assaults, via, U. each, or in default
two soothe' hoprimemtmt.