The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-03-12 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF OF LORDS.—TUESDAY
Their Lordships met at five o'clock.
THE MORTAR CONTRACTS.

The Earl of DERBY inquired as to the truth of the
statement made by Mr. Monsell in the other House, that
contractors had supplied mortars, in which pieces of iron
had been inserted to conceal flaws in the metal. He
called upon the Government to state also the names of
the contractors who committed the fraud, and by whom
it was discovered.

Lord PANMURE said, unfortunately, the statement of
the clerk of the ordnance was well founded. The names
of the contractors who supplied the mortars in question
was Messrs. Griscell and Co., and they had inserted the
pieces of iron so skilfully that it escaped the eyes of the
Government inspector, and was only discovered in proving
them at Woolwich, after firing ten rounds. The Govern-
ment would not of course entrust Messrs. Griscell with
any more contracts, but it was yet doubtful whether the
Government had power to proceed against them by law.

The Agricultural Statistics Bill, the Mutiny Bill, the
Marine Mutiny Bill, the Out-Pensioners (Greenwich and
Chelsea) Bill, the Consolidated Fund (X 26,000,000) Bill,
the Drainage Advances Act Amendment Bill, and the
Delamere Forest Bill, were severally passed a second
reading.

The Leases and Sales of Settled Estates Bill was read
a third time and passed.
The LORD CHANCELLOR presented a Bill to Amend the
County Courts Act.
Their Lordships rose at ten minutes past seven o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-TUESDAY.

There being only 32 members present at four o'clock
the House stood adjourned till tomorrow (Wednesday,:

twelve o'clock

LIVERPOOL COUNTY COURT.-YESTERDAY

(BEFORE JOSEPH PJLLOCK, Big., JUDGE.)

IMPORTANT TO PRINTERS.

ALLEN V. OUSELY

The plaintiff is a foreman printer, and the defendant is
proprietor and editor of the Liverpool Herald, newspaper ;
and the action was broutht to recover £B, being a month's
wages in lieu of a month's notice on dismissal Mr. Gro-
eott appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Himo for the
defendant.

The plaintiff, on being sworn, said in answer to Mr.
Grocott, that he had been employed at the Herald office
by Mr. Thomas John Ousely at the established wages of
£2 a week, and Bd. an hour for nightwork. He had been
employed there from the 31st of December last until the
2nd of February, when he was dismissed without notice.
On that day he left the office about four o'clock in the
morning, the hour at which they generally went to press,
and returned about half-past eleven o'clock, as was his
practice, to clear the office. He found it shut. and went
to the publishing office in search of Mr. Ousely, who said
he should not enter the office, nor get the key lest he might
rob him [(Mr. Ousely). It was then arranged that the
plaintiff should meet him at the Oxley Elms, public-house,
in the Old Haymarket, (Mr. Ousely's " local habitation,")
at. half-past twelve o'clock, but on returning to the office
he found Mr. Ousely inside and actively employed in
throwing the men's aprons into the street. The custom
of the trade was always a month's notice on either side in
the case of foremen, and a fortnight's notice in the case of
journeymen constantly employed.

Cross-examined by Mr. Hime : Received no notice to
leave from Mr. Houghton. Recollects Saturday, the
19th of January. On that day Mr. Houghton called him
aside, in the underwriters' room, and told him that he
(Mr. Houghton) had hitherto found all the money for the
affair (the Herald) and that he could not pay longer than
a fortnight more. He said that he found himself in diffi-
culties, and that Mr. Ousely promised to bring in money
into the concern, but did not. He asked what notice the
men would require, and plaintiff replied a fortnight for
them, and a month for himself. He then said if Mr.
Ousely brought the money as he promised, all would go
on well, but that if he did not, then the plaintiff would
consider that he had received, for himself and his men,
the usual notice. Plaintiff believed 'Mr. Houghton was
part proprietor—at least he furnished the money. On
the 2nd of February he received his wages from Mr.
Houghton, and mentioned that he was leaving, and also
that the door had been locked on him. Plaintiff moved
his things from the office on the following Monday, and
on the 11th of February was employed by Mr. Fraser.

Mr. Hime then put in the rules of the Liverpool Typo-
graphical Society, of which the plaintiff admitted himself
a member, but both he, and the witnesses examined on
his behalf, declared that the
_rule as to notice, did not
apply to foremen.
Mr. W. Lewis, Mr. John Fairclour,h, and Mr. Gabriel

Lloyd, deposed to the practice of the trade being a
month's notice on either side in the case or foremen, and
a fortnight for men.

Mr. [lime for the defence, contended that the plaintiff
had discharged himselt in leaving under the circum-
stances as detailed, and that by the custom of the trade

he was not entitled to more than a fortnight's notice,
which he had received from Mr. Houghton, on the 19th
January. He called
Mr. Thomas Houghton, clerk in the underwriters' office,
who deposed that he was, for some time, connected with
the Herald as one of its proprietors, and that on the 19th
January he told the plaintiff, that it would depend on
certain arrangements to be made by Mr. Ousely, whether
the paper would be continued or not, and that, therefore,
he would consider that he had received for himself and
the men the customary notice.

To Mr. Grocott : On that occasion he mentioned that
he would require a months' notice for himself.

Mr. William Jones, secretary of the -Typographical
Society, Mr. John Nelson and Mr. John Lyndon, on being
sworn, deposed that they knew no custom in the trade,
which required that a foreman should receive and give a
months notice, unless in the event of a special agree-
ment.

His Honour, in giving his judgment said, that the case
as presented to the court, did not at all involve the ques-
tion of the custom of the trade in regard to foremen. He
thought that that custom was very doubtful.
Whether it entitled the plaintiff to a months'
notice, or not, he was not called on to say, because what-
ever the custom might be, he was of opinion that the
plaintiff was entitled to such notice from another circum-
stance in the case. On the 19th January a conversation
took place between the plaintiff and Mr. Houghton, and
as was clear from the evidence of both sides, on that occa-
sion the plaintiff claimed a month's notice for himself
and a fortnight's notice for the men. Mr. Houghton was
admitted to be entitled, from his position, to enter) ain
any such claim; and when he (his Honour) found that
neither Mr. Houghton nor Mr. Ouseley made any objec-
tion to that claim, he considered that a special contract
existed between the plaintiff and Mr. Houghton that he,
at all events, should have a month's notice. That month's
notice should be taken as having commenced on the 10th
January and only a fortnight having expired on the 2nd
February. he was entitled to re-over an additional fort-
night's wages. The verdict should therefore be for the
plaintiff for £4, with costs.