The Sun.
London, England, 1859-10-11 00:00:00

1 LAW INTELLIGENCE.-(
I

THIS DAY.

CLERKENWELL COUNTY COURT.
(Before Sergeant Jones.)
THE MASONS' LOCK-OUT,-IMPORTANT DECISION.-

WCEPHENS V. TOMBS.
Plaintiff is a mason, and defendant a master builder, and
the amount sought to be recovered was £2, being one week's
wage in lieu of notice, plaintiff being locked out on the Bth
August last.
Plaintiff said he was a mason, and had been engaged by
defendant at the rate of £2 per week upon some works at
Holloway. Ho was told the work would last some time,
and left another place for defendant's situation. On Friday,
the sth August, there was some talk about closing the
works, and on Saturday, the 6th, plaintiff was told by the
clerk that the works would not he opened on Monday.
Plaintiff was paid up to Friday night, and it was intimated
that very likely the works would be opened in a day or two.
On Monday and during the week plaintiff attended at the
works, but no employment was offered to him, and on Satur •
day, the 13th, he received 108., that sum being due for
workdone on the 6th. He demanded money for notice, but
that being refused, brought the present action.
By his Honour—He and the boy were engaged at £2
per week. Defendant said, in the first place, it was not
customary to give a week's notice ; and in the second plain-
tiff was only in the position of 10,000 masons who were
locked out at the same time.
His Honour—l have nothing to do with that. There is
no reason that plaintiff should suffer for the deeds of others.
I am not now trying the differences between the masters and
men, and hope I shall never have to do so.
Defendant—The works were also closed because the
party employing me did not pay me my money.
Plaintiff—When the works were closed on Monday, I
inquired where I could see Mr. Tombs, and was told he
was in bed, at six in the morning. (A laugh.)
Defendant's clerk was called, and said—lt was not usual
to give a week's notice. He did not see plaintiff about the
works after the lock-out.
Cross-examined—Witness was not at the works every
day.

Defendant--Your Honour will understand that on the
Oth of August I discharged all my hands, except the
foreman.
Mr. Woods said he was foreman to the defendant. It
was not customary to give masons a week's notice. All
the hands were discharged on the 6th. Witnees saw
plaintiff at the works in the course of the week.
His Honour—l have no doubt that plaintiff is entitled
to his claim. In this case he is not only kept about the
works, but defendant has actually wages earned in hand
until seven days after the lock-out.
Defendant—He could have had them by asking.
His Honour—lt is not for him to ask, but yeu to give.
Plaintiff—l was taken by defendant from a job at Pim-
lico to go and work at one at Holloway. Under an im-
pr3ssion created by defendant, who said the job would last
till Michaelmas, I removed my family and furniture from
Pimlico, and now, since the lock-out, lam working at
Pimlico and have to go home to Holloway.
His Honour—lt is really sad to see these differences be-
tween masters and men. The duties between masters and
men were reciprocal, and one should have consideration for
the other. Now, the moving of plaintiff from Pimlico to
Holloway was as much to him as going from one end of
the kingdom to the other would be to a person in a higher
sphere of society. It was time these quarrells ware at an
end.

Defendant—The works were open till within six weeks
of Michaelmas.
His Honour—A great difference to a person in plaintiff's
position. I see no reason to alter my opinion. Plaintiff
is clearly entitled to a verdict for the full amount claimed
with costs.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.-(THIS DA F.

MANSION-HOUSE

William Sugget, tinman, was charged with deserting his
wife and six children (the second time) on the 7th of
August last, and refusing to contribute towards their sup -
port, compelling them to go to the union, where one of the
children died in his absence.

His wife said he was living with another woman.
Tho prisoner said he went to the country to seek work.
The assistant relieving officer said the prisoner's wife
and children were inmates of the workhouse.
The Lord Mayor sentenced the prisoner to three months'
imprisonment with hard labour, and stated to him that if
he was brought there again he would be imprisoned 12
months as a rogue and vagabond, and whipped during that