The Sun.
London, England, 1853-10-01 00:00:00

TRADE COMBINATIONS.

At the Guildhall police court, yesterday, Francis
Friend, James Friends Robert Brind, Joseph hiarper, Shr.
James Cochran, Michael Connor, John Robinson, and
Thomas Clark, printers, in the employment of Mr. Jack-
son, the publisher, of Angel-street, St. Martin's-le- St
Grand, were summoned to answer a charge of conspiring 20
together to procure the dismissal of Frederick Spence, a 13
journeyman printer, in the same employ, and to pre-
vent his continuing at work in that establishment. 31
Mr. Humphreys attended for the prosecution, and 27
Mr. Lewis for all the defendants.

The evidence taken on the former occasion was read

over, and.

Frederick Spence was then examined. He said—
There were two chapels held in the office on the 15th of
September, and all the defendants were present ; but I
was not called to either of them. All the dofendants
worked in the samo room with me during the time I
was there.

Cross-examined—l said Francis Friend had always
treated me well. I
.never said I did not wish to carry
on these proceedings, but the trade made me. What F.
Friend said to me was this, " I hope, Mr. Spence, you
have no ill-feeling against me." I said, " Certainly
not. I have no vindictive feeling against any man in
the establishment. It is purely a trade question whe-
ther you have a right -to persecute a man as I have
been." I did not say that the trade supported me in
these proceedings, nor anything to that effect.
Mr. Jones, the foreman over the defendants, said—l
employed Spence on the 13th of September, and dis-
charged him on the 16th ; but previous to my doing the
latter, Harper and Robinson came to me. It was either
on the Thursday afternoon or Friday morning, I don't
remember,.which, and I cannot tell by my books now.

Alderman Lawrence—You are speaking rather to 20
facts than dates, I presume. 14
50
Witness--Yes, sir ; when Harper and Robinson came 20
to me, the former asked me if I knew the man Spence, 11:\
or anything about him. I said I knew nothing of him, SO
t.
neither did I recognise him as a printer when he ap- st.
plied for work ; but that he mentioned a circumstance 20
which recalled to my recollection my having seen him 1?
at work where he had been employed. Harper then 50.
said Spence was a person he should not like to be coin- 40
pelled to work with, or, if he did, he should not asso- 25
ciate with him as long as he (Spence) continued to work 0
there. Robinson said nothing but merely " yes," or 812 E
"no," according to what was proposed between us St.
That was all that occurred. St.

Mr. Humphreys—We shall see presently.
Tallis's name mentioned in the conversation ?
Witness —I think it was mentioned by one of them,
but I cannot say which it was.
Mr. Humphreys—And how was it mentioned ?
Witness—l believe that it was merely that Spence
was a person who had been at Tallis's.

Was not

Mr. Humphreys—Did he say " been" or " worked"
at Tallis's ?

Mr. Lewis—l object to that question. You may
ask the witness what was said, but you must not lead
him.

Mr. Humphreys—Very well, then, we'll get at it in
another way. When he said that Spence had " been"
at Tallis's, what impression did it make on your mind ?
Mr. Lewis—l must object to that question also, as a
man's opinion cannot be received as evidence.
Alderman Lawrence—Well, Mr. Lewis, all we want
is to get at the facts, and I think the question put by
Mr. Humphrey's is a very proper one. If a man came
to me and said he had been at any other place I should
have presumed he meant he had worked there, and I
have no doubt that was the impression on Mr. Jones's
mind.

Witness—My impression was that Spence had worked
at Tallis's, and was therefore not considered a free man.
I have now stated all, to the best of my belief, that
passed. It was not altogether in consequence of that
communication that I discharged Spence, for I only en-
gaged him for that week, and probably the next, so that
I could discharge him at the end of the first week.
When I discharged him his first week was finished.
That requires explanation. It is the custom in our
establishment to pay the men on Friday, so that if a
man came to work on Monday, his week would end on
Friday, and he would be paid for five days. When I
discharged Spence he said, " Have you any objections
to me ?" I said I had not ; and he then said' "Are
there any ?" I replied. " I suppose there must be some,
but not on my part." I then referred him to the men,
and he asked me which of them he should apply to. I
told him Francis Friend, because he was the oldest
hand in the establishment. All the defendants present
were in the employ of Mr. Jackson at the time Spence
was at work there. I was not present at either of the
chapels held by the men, as the foremen are never
allowed and never mix with them.

Cross-examined—Not a sentence passed relative to
Spence's being discharged, beyond what I have already
stated. All the defendants are respectable hard-work-
ing men. The other reasons I had for discharging
Spence were, that if I had one person working in the
place who would be likely to create a disturbance, or be
be sent to "Coventry," as it is termed, I should feel I
ought to discharge the individual, and keep peace in the
establishment. I also knew that if I discharged him at
the time I did, he would be able to get work ; but if I
kept him on for another week he would have lost both
places. I did not discharge him for want of work, nor
was it suggested to me by any of the men, for I should
not have taken a suggestion from them.
Re-examined—I did not know of the chapels being
held until Spence informed me. If I had heard nothing
from Harper and,Robinson I should not have thought of
discharging Spence. The men coming and complaining
to me interfered with what would have been the u,ual
course of proceeding.