The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1835-09-29 00:00:00

ASSAULT BY UNIONISTS.

A ruffianly fellow • named Thomas Heed, belonging to the
trades' union, was charged with assaulting Patrick Vague un-
der the following circumstances : —The prosecutor is a coach-
wheel-maker, and went into a manufactory in tw•hich the de-
fendant is foreman for the purpose of seeking► employment.
Defendant asked the-plaintiff whether he was a ❑nionist, and,
on being► answered in the negative, he said that he did Tint be-
long to the trade,•and that he bad no business to ask for work,
as he was nothing better than a black sheep. Complainant being
a native of Armagh, in Ireland, and, moreover, unused to the
cant terms of trade, felt offended at the defendant's manner, and
returned, " That he had as much right to ask for work as any one
else." The defendant then, in the presence of the rest of his
shopmates, took up the spoke of a gig-wheel and struck com-
plainant on the arm, the effect of which was, that the arm was
broken. Not content with this, defendant knocked him down
three times previous to his leaving the manufactory. In answer
to a question from the magistrate, complainant said that he was
on his way to Altnerica, but having to wait fora remittance from
his brother to carry him there, he wished to work in the interim.
The assault took place on Thursday evening. The prisoner in
his defence said that at the time the complainant called, he (the
)prisoner) was in liquor; and by the complainant's saying that
he bad received no relief from the trade, (being a tramp,) be
supposed he was not a coachwheel maker. Expressing contri-
tion for what he .had done, the magistrates said he must either
satisfy the complainant or submit to the award of the court.
The prisoner was willing to settle it, and having conferred with
the complainant in an adjoining room, he gave him a couple of
sovereigns as quits. The complainant subsequently came into
court and informed the magistrates that he was partly satisfied,
and holding up his mutilated wing, cried "There's no 'arm in
that."
Captain William Whittleton, of the brig Garland, appeared
to answer a f.immons procured against him by a young man
who had shipped with him at Greenock, as steward, and who
claimed a balance of £2 15s. for wages; in lieu of which, com-
plainant stated that the captain only offered him 6s. 6d.. The
captain stated, that it was true that the young man had shipped
with him as steward, but when be got to sea he found that he
was utterly unfit for the office whice he had undertaken. Ile,
therefore, called another boy into the cabin to officiate in that
capacity, and sent him forward, where he was equally inefficient,
as he did not know a single rope in the ship. He now claimed
£2los. per month, the wages which he would have received as
steward, but he (the captain) was of opinion that he•would be
overpaid by 30s. per month, which was what he had offered him.
As the name of the complainant Appeared in the articles for
£2 10s. per month, the captain was required to produce his wit-
nesses of the young man's inefficiency. The second mate was
then called, who stated that the complainant was no seaman,
but he could not say that he was no steward. He was no judge
of that point. lie knew that the captain had sent him forward,
but he could- not tell what for.. The complainant said that the
captain had kicked him-nut of the cabin one morning during
breakfast; that he had gone steward in several vessels,.and had
always given great satisfaction. Sir Thomas Braucher and Mr
Ellis were of opinion that the captain had not produced suf-
ficient evidence to verify his charge of incapacity against the
complainant.