The Sun.
London, England, 1853-09-27 00:00:00

TRADE COMBINATI ONS.

At the Guildhall police court yesterday Francis Friend,
James Friend, and Robert Brind, were summoned to
answer a charge of conspiring together, and, with other
persons, on the 15th of the present month, to procure
the dismissal of Frederick Spence from the service of
Mr. Peter Jackson (late Fisher and Co.), publisher, of
Angel-street, St. Martin's-le-Grand, and to prevent him
from being further employed in that establishment.
Mr. Humphreys, in opening the case, said this was a
combination among the printers in the employment of
Mr. Jackson, arising from a strike that recently took
place among the men in Mr. Tallis's establishment.
Mr. Tallis employed a greater number of apprentices
than the journeymen in the trade approved of, and his
Printers accordingly struck ; but ultimately the greater
portion returned to work without achieving their object.
The other journeymen in the trade passed a resolution,
to the effect that none of those men who returned, or
any who worked for Mr. Tallis thenceforward, should be
employed in any other house in the trade. It so hap-
pened that the complainant Spence was not in Mr.
Tallis's employ, either at or antecedent to the strike ;
but was engaged after the men returned to work, and
while everything was progressing smoothly. On the
10th of September, however, the complainant was, from
slackness of work, discharged from Mr. Tallis's service,
and on the 13th he applied at Mr. Jackson's establishment,
and was taken on by Mr. Jones, the foreman. He remained
there three days, and on the fourth day, which was the 16th
of Sept., he was told by Jones there was no more work for
him ; and on asking why he was discharged, Jones told
him it was on account of the complaints of the men, and
referred him to them for au explanation. Francis Friend,
on being asked by complainant, said the men objected
to work with him, because he had been in Tallis's house.
Complainant then inquired why he was singled out as
the victim ? and Francis Friend replied that the trade
had resolved not to work with any journeyman that had
worked for Mr. Tallis. On the day previous to this two
consultations, termed in the trade " chapels," were held
by the men in the room where complainant worked, but
he was excluded—and on the following morning before
he received his dismissal ho inquired what the chapels
were held for ? and Francis Friend said they were con-
cerning complainant and his having worked for Mr.
'Falb since the strike. Mr. Humphreys concluded his
statement by observing that men have a right to meet
and arm ange what hours they will work, and for what
amount of wages, but the law does not allow them to
combine with a view to control a workman, either to his
own injury or that of his master.

Frederick Spence said—l am a journeyman printer,
and was in the service of Mr. Tanis, the publisher, of
St. John-street, Smithfield, for several months, and
quitted his employment on the 10th September, because
work was slack. I applied at Mr. Jackson's on the 13th
of September, and was engaged by Mr. Jones, the fore-
man, for that week, and perhaps the next. On the third
day I applied for more work, but Mr. Jones declined
to employ me further, and referred me to Francis Friend,
the oldest workman on the establishment. On the 15th
of September a chapel was held before dinner, and another
after, and the whole of the workmen in the room were
called to attend them, but I was each time excluded,
although I was in the room during the time they were
held. On the following day I asked Francis Friend if
they were held about me, and he said they were, and
that it was about my having worked at Mr. Tallis's. I
asked him in the resence of the other defendants why
they would not work with me, and Francis Friend said
they had not a job for me to go on with. But on my
telling him there was work for me if they would work
with me, Francis Friend said he had forgotten the reason
of the men's objection, but he would tell me after dinner,
if I would call in. I did so, and Francis Friend then
told me there were two reasons against my being em-
ployed in Mr. Jackson's establishment ; the first was my
having been at Mr. Tallis's, and the other was that I be-
longed to a third society, which was not approved of, as
neither Mr. Tallis's house nor the society were recognised
by the trade. I asked why I was made the victim, and
Francis. Friend said I was not the only one, as the
objection extended to all in Mr. Tallis's employ, and to
all who might afterwards work for him. I asked him if
this persecution was to continue against me always on
that account, and he said he could not answer that
question. I have been thrown out of employment in
consequence of this objection on the part of the journey-
men in the trade.

Cross-examined by Mr. Lewis—l was engaged for
that week certain, but I was only paid for what work I
did during the three days I was allowed to work. The
other defendants did not say anything. They did not
corroborate Francis Friend. He did not tell me I might
work as long as I liked, but that he would not speak to
me. I was not in the strike at Mr. Tallis's ; it occurred
before I went there. I belong to a society, the object
of which is to assist each other when out of employ-
ment. That society has not found the funds for this
prosecution.
William Jones said—l am the foreman in Mr. Jack-
son's establishment. It is my duty to take on and dis-
charge workmen. Spence applied about the 13th of
September, and I engaged him ; but I discharged him
on the 16th, prior to which I had a communication with
two of the men in the room.

Mr. Humphreys—Who were those men?
Witness—.Am I obliged to answer that question ?
Mr. Humphreys—Certainly ; and we must have their
names.

Witness—Their names were Joseph Harper and John
Robinson. They worked in the same room with com-
plainant and the defendants.
Mr. Humphreys—What was the communication that
passed between you and the men you have named?
Mr. Lewis—l object to that question, as it does not
affect the defendants, and neither of them being present
at the time it cannot be received as evidence.
Mr. Humphreys said the summons is taken out against
the defendants and others, and as the objection is raised
I now apply to your worship for summonses against
Harper and Robinson, and request that the case be ad-
journed, that they may be jointly charged with the de-
fendants.

Mr. Lewis said—l object to Mr. Humphreys' applica-
tion, as my defence is, that of the three defendants only
one is implicated by the evidence, and the law requires
two persons to form a conspiracy.
Alderman Lawrence said perha• s it would be better to
adjourn the proceedings, and have the other men sum-
moned.

withatlhiceatwiointn.ess
he bench for the defence,
M
and having recapitulated all the leading points in the
under
rr eLI aeuwmmii ve
renew done
M.
ppmyevidence, he urged upon the Alderman's consideration
the absence of any evidence to show that the defendants
James Friend and Robert Brind had taken an active
s
part in the matter either one way or the other.
laar ieeoynn s'sa anidd
addressed I n
have
at
Alderman Lawrence said, without deciding upon the
charge of conspiracy, enough has been said to induce me
to adjourn the case, and issue the summonses applied
for ; and in so doing, I wish to observe, that although
Brind and Friend took no active part, their quiet acqui-
escence in the course adopted by their fellow-workmen
was in itself sufficient to lead any one to infer that they
were as much implicated in the conspiracy as the most
active.

The summonses were then adjourned, and the de-
fendants bound over in their own recognisauces to ap-
pear at the further hearing. Summonses were also
taken out against all the rest of the men, with but one
exception, who worked in the same room with the com-
plainant, and will be heard on the day of adjournment.