The Sun.
London, England, 1864-12-30 00:00:00

Decision under the “ Truck Act."

In the Sheffield County Court on Wednesday a decision
of considerable importance under the Truck Act was deli-
vered by Mr T. Ellison, judge. On the previous Wednesday
an action had been heard in which the Messrs. Hattersley,
fender manufacturers, of Wentworth-street, sought to re•
cover £6 15s. 2d, from a man named G. Ryalls, of Bond-
street, for goods sold. It appeared at the trial that the
defendant had been in the employment of the plaintiffs as a
foreman, and that he had purchased from them a gold
watch, an iron bedstead, a quantity of perfumes, and other
articles, which were to be paid for, as the plaintiffs alleged,
by weekly instalments, but which were in reality, as the
defendant asserted, paid for by stoppages from his wages
each week. He alleged that he and other workmen were
compelled to purchase goods from the plaintiffs as a means
of retaining their situations. The defendant's solicitor, Mr
Gould, raised the objection that this evidence brought the
case within the Truck Act, but the plaintiffs contended that
the defendant, being a foreman, was not a "workman or
artificer" within the meaning of that act, The defendant
replied that he had frequently worked at the manufacture
of fenders as an ordinary workman; and the judge said he
could not discover that the foreman was anything more
than a workman of a higher grade. The case was adjourned
until yesterday, when his honour asked Mr Fretson if he
had been able to find any cases in which it was held that a
foreman was not a workman ? Mr Fretson replied he had
not. The Judge observed that the defendant's evidence was
that he bought things constantly from the plaintiffs, and
that he had between £6O and £7O worth of goods from
them, and that certain sums were deducted from his wages
every week. He also said that he himself Worked at the
trade as fender maker. Originally he was a workman, then
he was made foreman, but during part of the time in which
he held that post he worked at the trade as an ordinary
workman, and that that was part of his business. Mr Gould
objected that the defendant Was an artificer, and ne relied
also upon the act generally as showing that a contract such
auch as had been shown was void) as against the policy of
the law, but there did not appear to him (the judge) to be
any case for the defendant upon that ground. The 6th sec-
tion of the act, however, was a sufficient answer to the de-
maul of the plaintiffs in this case. The section enacted
that "no employer of any artificer in any of the trades enu-
merated should be entitled to maintain any action or suit
against any such artificer for or in respect of goods or mer-
chandise, &c., supplied to any such artificer by such em-
ployer while in hie employment, or on account of his wages
or in reward of his labour." If the section had stopped there
there might have been a question, but it went on to say,
"or for or in respect of any goods sold or delivered to
him at any shop or warehouse kept by such employer, or
in the profits of which such employer had a share,"
From the evidence in this case it was quite clear that the
employer was in the habit of selling goods to the workmen
he employed ; and the question then arose, was the defen-
dant, being a foreman, an artificer ? He had given that
point the best consideration he could, and ho thought
that a foreman was clearly within the meaning of the act,
and that view was supported by the defendant's evidence,
which showed that he had worked as an ordinary work•
man. He must hold that a foreman was an artificer
within the meaning of the act, and there would be judg-
ment for the defendant, Without costs.—Mr Gould applied
for costs, Tho defendant's case had not been heard, but
judgment had been given upon it technical point, Whilst
there was a good defence upon the merits. —Mr Fretson—
You would scarcely have relied upon the technical defence
if you had bad a gcod answer otherwise,--The Judge—l
supposed Mr Gould had no answer upon the merits, and
I dealt with the defence as a technical defence. In truth,
the defendant says, " I have had the goods, and I owe
you money, but you are not entitled to recover." I don't
say that I assume you had no other defence, but I am
rather inclined so to think, I do hot think you would
have raised that defence if you had had a better.•—Judg•
went for the defendant, without costs.

SUICIDE ON THE BRIGHTON RAILWAY.—On
Sunday evening, as one of the plate-layers at the Red. hill
station was examining the line he came upon the body of a
female whose head had been severed from her body by a
passing train. The deceased has not been identified, but it
was evident she must have committed suicide, and the
coroner's jury returned a verdict to that effect,