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

TRADE COMBINATIONS.

At the Guildhall police court, yesterday, Francis
Friend, James Friende Robert Brind, Joseph Barper,
James Cochran, Michael Cownor, John Robinson, and
Thomas Clark, printers, in the employment of Mr. Jack-
son, the publisher, of Angel-street, St. Martin's-le-
Grand, were summoned to answer a charge of conspiring
together to procure the dismissal of Frederick Spence, a
journeyman printer, in. the same employ, and to pre-
vent his continuing at work in that establishment.
Mr. Humphreys attended for the prosecution, and
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
facts than dates, I presume.
Witness—Yes, sir ; when Harper and Robinson came
to me, the former asked me if I knew the man Spence,
or anything about him. I said I knew nothing of him,
neither did I recognise him as a printer when he ap-
plied for work ; but that he mentioned a circumstance
which recalled to my recollection my having seen him
at work where he had been employed. Harper then
said Spence was a person he should not like to be com-
pelled to work with, or, if he did, he should not asso-
ciate with him as long as he (Spence) continued to work
there. Robinson said nothing but merely " yes," or
" no," according to what was propbsed between us
That was all that occurred.

Mr. Humphreys—We shall see presently. Was not
Tallis's name mentioned in the conversation ?

Witne:s—l 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.
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 cne. 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 Tanis'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 tile 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 bct'i
places. I did not discharge him fur 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 yobinson I sh ould not have thought of
discharging Spence. The men coming and complaining
to me interfered with what would have been the usual
course of proceeding.
Mr. Humphreys said this was the whole of his case,
and if it was required he would quote very excellent au-
thorities upon the subject in support of this being a com-
bination and a conspiracy.
Mr. Lewis said, the only persons at all impli-
cated were Francis Friend, Brind, Harper, and
Robinson ; and with regard to the other defendants
there was nothing to show they took any part in
the matter beyond attending the meetings or chapels
as they were called, and persons were not to be
liable to an indictment for conspiracy for holding
a chapel ; because some might be for and others against
the propositions. Brind took no part, although he was
present, in the conversation between Francis Friend and
Spence, and was therefore only a listener. There was
nothing whatever against James Friend, so that Francis
Friend was the only one left of those with whom Spence
bad communications, and he being only one person
could not conspire, as there must be two or more to
form a conspiracy. In the interview with the overseer
Harper made certain statements, but there was nothing
to show that he was deputed by the other men to make them, and Robinson merely said " Yes," or "No ;" but
the witness could not tell what it was in reply to. He
thought the case had been got up very unfairly, for in •
order to prevent the three original defendants from •
calling the others as witnesses on their side, the can
plaiaant had made them all defendants. ch
said it was a trade question, and he had no Spencedoubtit had
I
so, and if he had not been stopped by the magistrate on 4
the last occasion, he would have shown that proae-
cutien was supported by other parties from interested
motives. The fact of Harpers objection to associate
with Spence could not be construed
iinto conspiracy,emloy
.
as Mr. Jones might have retained him nthe p
and there being other men the same establishment besta lishment
The could have associated with them.only ground for
conspiracy was the inference drawn by Spence from
what was said by the defendants he '
had before named •
but it must be remembered that inferences were not

evidence. •
Alderman Lawrence said—With regard to the first
objection, as to Brind's being only a listener, he thought
that any party present at a proposition, and not dis-
senting, must. be taken as assenting. And with respect to
the chapels, be quite agreed with Mr. Lewis that the
men bad a right to call those meetings to arrange about
their work ; but it looked very suspicious the circum-
stance of Spence's being excluded each time. The
natural inference to be drawn was, that they were held
about him, and on inquiring of Francis Friend be found
that it was so, and that it was concerning his having
Worked at Tallis's. Then, there was the fact of the men

going to the overseer, and complaining to him, and
holding out a kind of threat which induced him to dis-
charge Spence. Now, if men join together in one corn-
In°ll cause against one person, all who are present,
although
only
one may speak, must be held as concur-
briing together in such a manner as to constitute a com-
anr°4. And such was the case in the present instance,
airar influence had b‘e exercised to exclude
Pence O Mr. Jackson's establishment. He, there-
fore, considered that a conspiracy had been proved to
his satisfaction, and he must send the case to be tried
before a higher tribunal ; but as he believed the defen-
dants were all very respectable men, he would accept
their own recognizances in 20/. to appear and take their
trial at the ensuing sessions at the Central Criminal
Court.

The defendants were then committed for trial, and
bound over separately in their own recognisances.