The Sun.
London, England, 1860-06-11 00:00:00

tion I received I have reason to believe she had been

there with the defendant. I took their photographs
with me, and showed them to the lodginghouse-
keeper. I traced them next to Downshire-hill,
Hampstead, where I lost sight of them from that
time to this. I have not heard from my wife, nor
do I know where she is. My wife filed a petition
against me in the Divorce Court, on the 28th
February, 1800, after I had made inquiries, and
traced them. I have received letters from my
little boy, but they were without addresses. I
have never in my life committed any fami-
liarity with the plaintiff. There is no foundation
whatever for saying that I have committed adul-
tery with Mrs. Barnes. I first heard of it after
my wife first left my house. The day the de-
fendant came back for his things he put his head
into the surgery and said, " You are living with
Mrs. Barnes as your concubine." I made no reply.
I attended with my wife the child's funeral. The
plaintiff is very respectably connected. On the
night that Jane slept with the plaintiff, I went up
to her room to see her, to give her a draught. I
opened the door and found she was asleep. Until
this arose nothing had occurred to disturb the
mutual happiness of myself and wife. I don't
know where the defendant now resides. The de-
fendant is now a vendor of quack medicine. He
was an army surgeon.
Cross-examined—l am respondent in a petition
in the Divorce Court, on the grounds of adultery
and cruelty. *I have not pleaded adultery against
her. I have come here to raise it because my sus-
picions have been since aroused. I had no suspicion
of her adultery when Dr. Brown left my house.
Since then T have ascertained that he has taken his
meals with her, and has driven her about in his
carriage. She was at Southend with her aunt,
child, and one of the servants, and they resided with
her on Downshire-hill. I don't mean that they
dine apart from Miss Smith. This action is not
brought at my request, neither am I liable for the
expenses. The action is brought by my attorney
in the divorce petition, and who is my attorney in
an action for the libel. I don't knew that the writs
in the two actions were issued the same day. My
brother is my attorney. I don't know why he has
selected to try this first. It is 11 or 12 years since
I was charged with familiarity with a female ser-
vant in my own house. I did not beg to ask my
wife, nor did she intercede to prevent exposure. At
a party a message was sent to my wife that my
groom wanted to see her. I went out and returned.
I did not ask her to intercede. She went out and
interceded, and it was hushed up and my wife con-
doned it. We had only then been married two or
three years. I did not persuade my wife to marry
me against the will of her friends on account of
an act of gross immorality on my part. I kept a
young woman before I was married. I did not
leave the young woman at the lodgings and
absent myself. She passed as my wife. I paid
the rent. After I left the landlord brought an
action against me for the amount. I have never an-
nounced that my wife committed adultery with Dr.
Brown. I never accused her of it. I did not give
my counsel authority to say that the defendent had
seduced my wife. My wife was violent at the time
of the quarrel because I said that the defendant's
conduct was too familiar towards her. The first
intimation she gave me of her suspicions of the
plaintiff was when she saw me coming down the
stairs in my night shirt and trowsers the night I
had been to Prior's room to see that the candle was
put out. I called out the following morning, and
asked the plaintiff if it was true, to let her know
what my wife had said in order to clear up the ac-
cusation. My wife, when she asked leave to visit
her cousin, complained of illness. Dr. Winkworth
was called in, but he did not think there was any-
thing the matter with her. I did not refuse to pay
the expenses of her change of air and scene. When
I refused I might have said I could not afford it.
I did not provide her with anything when she left.
I had not threatened to turn her out of doers before
Dr. Brown received the telegraphic message to
come down. Iliad not threatened to separate her
from her child. I had a letter from her when she
was in Guildford•street. Before I called on her in
Guildford-street she said she would not go back un-
less I shook hands with Dr. Brown, and had his
children back. I did not promise it should be done.
I went on my knees and asked her to return. I
have never made any criminal charge against her
with Dr. Brown. I can't say when the people of
Horsham first commenced "cutting" me. Some
have. I have not been turned out of the billiard
room at the King's Head, but I was told not to
come to the whist club. I was not a member of the
club. It was after my wife left.
A number of letters were put in and read that had
passed between Dr. Burroughs and his wife, relative
to their conduct towards each other. The last from
the wife contained an intimation that with it he
would probably receive a copy of her petition that
had been presented to the Divorce Court.
The further hearing was then adjourned till
Monday.

THE BUILDERS' STRIKE-IMPORTANT

DECISIOX.

COMMITTAL OF TWO DELEGATES WITH

HARD LABOUR.

William Walsby, John Griffin, and William
Trimlett, respectably attired men, described as car-
penters and joiners, appeared before Mr. Corrie, at
the Clerkenwell police-court, on Saturday, to
answer informations which had been taken out
against them by their former employer, Mr. Philip
Anley, builder, &c., of Whitecross-street, St. Luke's,
which charged them as follows For that you,
on the 16th day of May, 1860, and within the space
of six calendar months n'ow last past, in the parish
of St. Luke, did unlawfully, by threats and intimi-
dation, endeavour to force the said Philip Anley,
then and there carrying on the trade of a builder,
to limit the number and description of his work-
men, contrary to the statute," &c. The second
summons was, " that they did unlawfully, by
threats and intimidation, endeavour to force their
master to make an alteration in his mode of eon,
ducting and carrying on his business," &c. There
was a summons against a Georgo Mogg for similar
offences, but this Hu,ghesman, 165 G, one of the
warrant officers of the court, had been unablo to
serve, as the defendant had got out of the way and
gone into the country.
Mr. Giffard, barrister (instructed by Messrs.
Mullens), attended for the prosecution ; Mr. Sleigh,
barrister, defended Walsby ; and Mr. Lewis, soli-
citor, attended for the other defendants,

Mr. Lewis said he had an objection to make to
the summons. The defendants were charged with
making use of "threats" and "intimidation," and
by the Act of Parliament they were separate
offences, and that being so the summons must be
bad in law.

Mr. Corrie said he could soon alter that by strik-
ing out one of the terms.

Mr. Lewis said the conviction would not be good,
as there would be two offences. Under this penal
Act of Parliament the proaecutu' ought to elect
which offence he would go upon,
Mr, -Muliens remarked that Mr. Lewis was vio-
lating the act of Parliament by taking any ob-
jection, for section 1 of Jervis's Act provides that
no objection be taken to the summons either in sub-
stance or in form.

Mr. Lewis said, what he objected to was that
two charges had been put in one summons,
Mr. Mullens having consented to strike out the
word " intimidation," 4 similar objection was made
to the words " number" and 4‘ description" in other
summons, but Mr. Cliffard having stated that pro-
bably there would be some difficulty if that course
was adopted,
Mr. Corrie said if there was a conviction it would-
probably be for one offence ; and after the state-
ment of Mr. Gaud, he did not think he ought to
make them elect.

Mr. Sleigh said he would take an objections, but
was prepared to meet the case upon its merits.
Mr. Gifford, ir. opening the case for the prosecu-
tion, said he was sorry to say that there was an ap-
parent revival of what he thought ha.-,1, been set-
tled. These strikes were nothing but: a species of

tyranny, and the sooner they were put an end to,
the better it would be for the working classes, who
always suffered a great deal from them. Having
stated the facts of the case, the learned gentleman
said there could be no doubt but that the threats
made use of by the defendants came within the
meaning of the act of Parliament, and the only
question was, whether the law would not restrain
these men from doing those unlawful acts which
brought ruin and destruction upon hundreds of fa-
milies. He then called

Mr. Philip Anley, who said—l am the complai-
nant in this case. I am a builder, and carry on
business at No. 72, Upper Whitecross-street, St.
Luke's. On the 15th of May last I had in my
employment a considerable number of joiners and
carpenters (about 100) and among them were two
men who were working with me under what is
known in the trade as the " declaration." On

the morning of the 16th of May my foreman
brought to me the paper which I now produce,
and which was 'then without signatures.
That paper was as follows:—" At a meeting
of the joiners in the employ of Mr. Anley, Tuesday
evening, May 15, 1860, it was resolved that Mr.
Anley be given to understand that unless the men
who are working under the declaration in his shop
be discharged, and we have a definite answer by
dinner time to that effect, we cease work imme-

diately." I returned that paper to my foreman,
with a message that as it had no signatures to it I
could not take it into consideration. About two
o'clock the same afternoon three men came to me

in the yard. Two of them were the defendants
Griffin and Walsby, and the other I know by sight.
One of the three said to me that they came to me as
a deputation from the men, and handed me the
same paper which I had seen in the morning, but
at this time it had upon it several signatures in
pencil. There were several other men near. I said
to the men " are these all your signatures ?" they
said " Yes ;" and I then said " have you well con-
sidered what you are about ?" They answered in
the affirmative. Aud I then asked them "if they
had any fault to find with me, with my foreman, or
with my clerks ?" and they all answered ".No." I
then asked them " have you any fault to find with
your wages," and they said " No." I said, " What
is it, then, that you do want 1-' and the answer that
I received was, "You must discharge those two men
who aro working under the declaration, and if you
do not we shall leave your work." I replied, " I
will not allow myself to be dictated to. I think
you have been too fast in your decision, and I shall
give you half an hour to reconsider the matter. If
you then come back to work I shall think no more
about it; if not, I would rather close my shop than
submit to your dictation." The three men then
went away. In about half an hour •all the men
came back together, and went towards the shop,
saying they were going to fetch their tools. I di-
rected my clerk to pay them, and he did so, and
they then all took away their tools, and have not
since returned to work. Since then my yard has
been picqueted by relays of these men, in order to
prevent other men from entering into my employ-
ment. They generally get in clusters of two and
three together. Trimlett was there about a fort-
night, and the other defendants have been there at
times.

Cross-examined by Mr. Sleigh—Walsby has been
in my employ for some time, and is a very good
workman.
Cross-examined by Mr. Lewis—l belong to the
society of builders. It is a trade society. The society
to which I belong have not instituted this prosecu-
tion. It is not principally mine, for they have given
me some assistance. I put ray casein their hands,
but lam prosecuting. The society is not a combi-
nation of masters to prosecute their Wbrkmen. The
men said that what they wanted was that the men
who were working under the declaration should be
at once dismissed, or they would cease working. I
made a communication to the society within a day
or two after the men had struck. I did not enter
into any negotiations with the defendants about
taking the men back. Two of them came to me,
but I did not send for them. I spoke to my fore-
men about them, because I wanted to find out their
places of residence. The trade society did not tell
me to do this. I had not heard of complaints by
the men of the document men using offensive terms
to the other men. After the strike all the men
came in under the document, but that has since
been done away with.
John Anley said—l am foreman to the complain-
ant. I remember, on the 16th of May, a paper being
handed to me to give to the complainant. I did so,
and returned it to the men, saying that Mr. Anley
could not take it into consideration until it was
signed. I saw them all write upon it. After it
was signed it was brought to me by Griffin. I told
the men that as it was a question between men and
masters they had better give it to him, and they
did so. After that all the men struck work.
Cross-examined—When the paper was in the
shop Trimlett was there, but I did not see him sign.
I do not know his handwriting.
Mr. Gifford said this was the case for the prose-
cution.
Mr. Sleigh submitted that there was no offence
committed by the defendants, and that there was
no infraction of the act of Parliament, either in
speech or in letter. Unquestionably this is a ques-
tion of the greatest importance, and its import-
ance was more so now than it was 100 years
ago, when the working classes were steeped in
ignorance. The question to be decided here was
whether the defendants were to act as freely as
those whose accident of birth or position in life ena-
bled them to move in a higher sphere. What was
the meaning of the word " threat l'" Why, it was to
menace ; and he should like to know where was the
evidence that these men had done that. Was he to
be told, in these days of enlightenment, that men
were not to complain to their masters; or, if they
did so, it was followed by a prosecution for using
threatening language. He would not tab ;any
technical objections, for he was there to try a great
public principle, and the partieswho instructed him
wanted it enunciated by the power of the law, and
not to escape punishment if they had offended the
law. If the master had gone into his shop and dis-
charged his men, would he have been punished if
he had given no reason ? No. Then, why should
the men ?
Mr. Corrie—lf they had walked away they would
not have committed the offence charged, although
they might have been indicted for a conspiracy.
Mr. Sleigh—Under the provisions of this act they
would not be liable. When they left they gave a
courteous 'reason, and substantially said, " We do
not feel ourselves comfortable ; there is no commu-
nity between you (the master) and us (the men),
and we will take our labour elsewhere." He con-
tended the defendants had not infringed the spirit
of the law, end were therefore entitled to be dis-
charged.
Mr. Lewis submitted that there was no evidence
against Trimlett, and asked for his discharge. He
was sorry to see that this act of Parliament was
being used for purposes for which it never was in-
tended. This was a very unfair proceeding, for if
the men had been indicted it would net have im-
posed upon the magistrate the painful necessity of
acting on a very penal clause of a very penal act
of Parliament, and sending respectable men to gaol
for three months. He hoped the magistrate would
discharge the defendants, for if they had done
wrong it was in ignorance of the law, and they held
been forced into it by the masters' society.
Mr. Corrie said—As has been said by Mr. Sleigh,
this case is of great importance not only to the de•
fendants, who are charged with a serious offence, but
to their fellow •workmen the " declaration men," to
their employers, whose business they have at-
tempted to stop, and to the public, upon whom will
probably be thrown the burden of supporting the
wives and families either of those who refuse to work
or of those who may be driven from their employ-
went. I would have taken further time to consider
what my judgment ought to be if I had enter-
tained any doubt on the subject. As, however, I
have no doubt upon the question, I will proceed at
once to dispose of the case. The question is, have
the defendants made use of a threat punishable
under see. 3of 6th Geo. IV. cap. 129. The law be-
fore this act, as Mr. Sleigh has said, was very
severe. This statute was passed to protect the work-
men and the masters. It recites that combinations
interfering with the free employment of labour are
injurious to trade and commerce, dangerous to the
tranquillity of the country, and especially prejudi-
cial to the interests of all who are' concerned in
them ; and that it was expedient to make further
provision for the security and personal freedom
of individual workmen in the disposal of their
skill and labour. The 3rd section then enacts, with
a view to carry out the object of the act, that it
shall be an offence punishable by
imprisonment,
"
with or without hard labour for three months, If
any person shall by threats endeavour to force any
person carrying on any trade or business tolimit
the tleseriptisin of his workmen." Have the defen-
dants been guilty of this offence ? They are proved
to have declared to their masters " that unless the
men who are working
under the declaration' in
his (the master's) shop be discharged, and we have
a definite answer by dinner time, we cease work
immediately?' In other words, we will strike, and
thus greatly inconvenience you, if we do not ere_
tirely stop your business. Mr. Lewis has asserted
If there
that there waa some personal objection to those
and I can
monelny, booott
on
ne bwahsantotioprporvoevdedsubcohfoareemasee.,
were such an objection it is most unfortunate that
they did not speak of it to Mr. Anley, as he would
no doubt have eorssidered it. The demand itself i,
a threat, assa 1 can only deal with the facts as they
;.stet and as they presented themselves to Mr.
Anley. In the case o$ the Queen v. Perham I
acted on the a.l4thoxitY of the Queen v, Rowlands,