Court Of Common Pleas, We...
The Times, 1824-07-16T00:00:00

Biefore t7e LoRD CHIEF JTJsTIcE and a Comonn n.ur-,. jur. iEiDWARD LAIVES opened the pleadings. This was an ac- tion of trover; and the declaration stated, that the defendant had seized and converted to his own use certain tools belonging to the plaintiff. The defendant pleaded " notguilty;" and upon that point issue was joined. illr. Sergeant TA.DDY stated the plaintiff's case to the jury. The plaintiff in this action was a journeyman cabinet-maker; and the defendant was a master cabinet-maker, carrying on business at No. 22, St. Paul's Church-yard. The plaintiff had been in the emplovy ment of the defendant, but left it in conseauence of a dis ute re. garding the rate of his wages. The plaintift thought that hV was entitled to be paid for his work on the terms stated in the Union Book, wlhich had been sanctioned by Alr. Bond, the magistrate ; and the defendant was of opinion that those terms werc too hiigh. The plaintiff, finding that he could not obtain the wages which he thought that he ought to have, irntimated to the defendant that he should look for employment elsewhere, antI as a proof that he was in earnest declared his intention of taking his chest of tools else- where. 'Ihe defendatnt, however, thought proper to detain those tools, stating, :hat he woould knock downt anyperson who should at- tempt to take them away from him. It was to recover this chest of tools that the present action was brought. He understood that the defendant said that he had a right to detain it, because there was a sium of motuey due from the plaintiff to the defendant at the time. MIr. Sergeant VA,uGsiA..-No such thing. We were indebted to the plaintiff a few shillings ourselves at the time. Mr. Sergeant TADny.-That made his case still stronger, as it cut away one of the grounds on which the defencdant's case, in his opinion, rested. He wouid prove his case by evidence. and would leave it for the jury to tletermine, by their verdict, whether they would authorize a master to detain the tools of his servant, to the utter ruin and destruction of the latter. He ought to state to them, that since the commencement of this action Mr. Toplis had come to his setises, an(i bad sent to the plaintift the chest which formed the subject matter of tlis action. If the defendant had paid the costs which his client had incurred at that time, he woulld have heard no- tlhing more of tlis action; but as head not thoeaht proper to do so, the plaintiff was obligetl to proceed with it, to guard himself from future liabilities. The defendant, whatever he had done with the tools of the plaintiff, had certainly provided himself with two good toolb for working in that Court (alluding to Alessrs. Sergeants Vaughan and Pell, wvho were of counsel for the defentiant) ; but he trusted that no other tools would be allowed to wvork in that Court save law and justice. MIr. Sergeant PELL, smiling.-Oh, you'll fliid my learned friend law, antI me to be justice, before you come to the close of this case. The LottD CuiEF JUSTICE.-I trust that nobody will be able to make tools of law and justice in this court. A laugh.) lr. Sergeant TADDY then callcd his first witness, whose name was Brand. On his getting into the witness-box, Air. Sergeant VAUGHIAN said that he must, before his learned friend proceeded to examine the witness, put a few questions to him to see whether he was a dis- interested witness. Ile thett asked him whether he had subscribed, dlirectly or indirectly, tu thec funds out of whichi the extpensea of this tcetion are to hedefrayed. The witness answered decidedly in the neg-ative. Examined by Air. EDw. LAWES.-I know Wim. Teasdale; tie is aJourneyman cabinet-maker. He was in the employ of Alr. Toplis, the defendant, who resIdes ut No. 22, St. Paul's church-var,i. On the 31st of AMarch, I saw a tool-chest be'longing to W. Tea-edalp in Mlr. Toplis's Yard. I went to assist Teasdale oait Of the yard with it. Air. Toplis caine out of the counting-house into the frent shop, and met me. He asked me where I was goinpg. I ssaid I was going to assist Teiseale out With his cheut. He said,c Teasdale shouldrnot have his chesL" I asked a Wh notr " He replied that Teas- dole had not fini8hed his work told r. oplis that Teasdale was not going to leave his wr nitee;bnh wanted to take his chest to aniother shop weeh a o tfl prices, in order to insure it. Teasdale camupanathese tim-e demanded his chest, saying that lie ha letottossfiint to finishi his work that afternoon. Air. Tolssi ht''adale should not finish it that afteroon. d wonted his tools, be- cause he had a wite and fi r support. Mr. Toplis said that was nothingto him hems Inishis work regu- larly; for if he spoil-ed it, he ir. olswudel his chest anid tools lo pay for it. The plaintiff dmne h hs of the defendh. an_gi the next day ; buit it was, again refuised to him, C_sseamninedl by Mfr. Sergeant VAUGstAN...4 haV'e beardfromn Teasudale that he has received hiis chest of tools lately. I am not a member of the society which defends thiu action. I was turned out of it about a week ago, I believe toiae a witness8 in this action. I did not contribute to the fund for paying the expenses of this action. Being asked for what purpose the society in question was insti- tilted, The LORDs CZetrE JUSTICa, ruled that the wvitness could not be compelled to answer that questi6n. He had ho hesitation in sayitig that if the society in question were instituted by the mien for the puirpose of keeping the masters in order, the -members of it were in- dictable for an illegal conspiracy. AMr. Sergeant VAUqH,%N Was haPpy to hear his Lordship make that cbservation in the hearing of the witness. He truste that the witness, wheni he was re-atimiitted into the society rom. which he had bLeen expelled, wOuld inform his brQth*rMi) bc~Tjses of the olbserva.. don which his Lordship had just flsadl h-garding indictattle eon.. spiracies. The witness then~ coqn tued, Our society is institutea to ensrure Our tool-chiests against fire. I left Al r. Toplis's epion amt be cauise I could not et sufficient wages ; Teasdale 1e b r the same reason. Ido not now what you meanb by ' aerl strike. To the best of my knowledge only three nie etMr ohs I swear that it is not the custom of the trad fQ Orn 1e cabinet.. niakers to deposit their tools with temse aiemkrtl their work is finishe, I ee er htteews al ereement to that effect alway's made between Ar olsadhsmn have not 11~arned from Teasdala that hewsoe spi fewnsil lings by MVr. Toplis, at the time he asefb isto ew toild me thathe thouht they were abou qae I am aware that about a week after Toplis first said thuat he would detain these tools Tesa-dale received a message from him, desiring himi to coe n takethe awy fom his premises, and that Teasdale refused to (10 so. He said that he would not take the toel-chest then, as it would bring all the expenses of this action upon hirmself. AE that timne a welt had been served upon Mr. Toplis by desire of Mlr. Teasdsle. There was not to my knowledge any meleting of' anv Society to -re- commiend the bring othsatoagitMr Lpl. I swear tha. Ione atededa Scity eeing I ont kowwhat you betesimoy o ' me lswifthes Soitas anth aetetiorney.th tor. cheltsbysAire Toplis.eOnIhis cbyssr.xTeinatlen He isinot, to myveknowledge soliio toamenro the Society of Jotrneyme -aie. maers Cained aesoTecel f h it action, notwekno that Tewasde dostrnkotpa the coss of tite the estmon ofthe astwitessas of thedeto entio 4ofth wtoo-' les inths cu. I d an kow hereason whv. That I1 swear. lumbeed thm.ow any mmbersthissociety c4~ists of. I never There migt be thre; t0*~ ;tiihb do iotkow herethesocity eets iroes not goeet at the~ QJt end Where is your club-room ?-I don't think it light ', answer that' question. The LORD CHIEF JUxSTI told himt that he must answer the question. The witness then proceeded :-I tbiflk it is in New Compton- street. The signis the Coach and'HorXeL. Alr. Walls, the plaintifF's attorney, was then examined. He de- pose(rthat he had( received hisg instractions fromn Teasdale. On his cress-examination he stated that he knkewofno society2 had attended no meetings, nor committees, had received no Instructions from a-nyI body but his client, and that he looked to no person else for remu- neration. AMr. Sergeant VAUGHANr said, that lt& would state to the jury, withiout any reserve, the circumstances Out of which this action had arisen; because he was convinced, that if the jurty should be cbm. pelled to give a verdict, with nominal damrages, against hiis client, his Lordship would prevent him from being saddled with costis) by certifying asto the amount of dama.ges. The plaintiff was acabinet.. MakerofgreatrespFctability,carryingon-besine.jsinSt.Paui'sChurch- yardl. He was irk the habit of employing a great numnber of jour- neymen, of whom the defendant, as they had heard proved in evi- dlence, some time ago was one. The defendlant had been under an im- pression, that when a man came Into his service to perform a certain piece of workt, he was entitled to retain his chest or tools ini deposit, until that piece of work was IAnished. Whethet the defendiant was right or wrong In that inmpression, lhe would neot pretend at that mno- ment to decide; he would only dali uipOn thenti to conaider the pecu- liar dirtidmstances undler WI ich he had determinesi to retaiin thte tool, chest of the present plaintifli it was9 in evidence, that at the time he declared his intention of etaining them, there was a partial strike~ amongst the journeymen mabinet-makers. The plaintiff, not being satisfied with the wages he received fromi the defendant, told the de- fendant that he shouald leavehis service, and carry his talcnt toabetter mnarkeL. Now theplaintiff had unqestienablya righttodotlifs, if he did it without any combination with others; bitt herewasalmostevery roof that could be wished of an extensive combination with others. Were was a club, and a societv, anti a clerk, and a roll froni which two persons were struck oflrfojno othier reason th=to entitl thlem to become witnesses for the plaintiff against the dolendant in the pre-. sent action. And what had those two persions proved ? That the plaintiff had a piece of work to perform for the defendant, anzd that hewished to remove his tools fromn the defendant's premises before be had performed it. Hie would admit that the defecndant had re- tained these tools; but how long liad he retained them ? Why it was in evidence that before a week- had elapsed from the dlay on which he seized them, he sent to the p aintifT to tell him that he might have possession of them and thatth had refused to take them. And why had he reftused ? Keause he liked an action, and because ho was informed that one fartching's damages would carrymcots. He was not, however, aware of one point-that if his Lordship certified, and he (Slir. Sergeant Vaughan) trusted that hie ivottld, he would have his owin costs to ay, and would niot be able to exctract them from the poc'ket of t 'e defendant. He would'allow that the defendant might be wrong in detainiing the tools,, but then the jury, ouaght to recollect that the plaintitffhad contracted with the deferndant to leave his tools with hiim till lie had finished his work, that he had left his work unfinished, and that he was liable to have an action brought against himn by thie defendant for not having completed the contract ito whiceh he liad entered. The defenidant, hlowever did not wishi to oppress the plaintiff with law, though the plaintfi&had evincd a very different feeling towards the defendant. The plaintiff had found an attorney-and in a large metropolis like London.attornies of all characters could be found-to bring this action; and had, nevertheless, sent, within the short comipass of a month, to the de- fendant's house, and had obtained possession of the very property whiich served astlie ground-work of this action. Now he would ask, the jury what damage was the plaintiff proved to have sustatined ? The to6ls were not even saidI to be injured. EHad, theni, the plaintiff suffered any loss f'rom the want of theim? Certainly not, or some evi- dence woiuld have been produced to prove it. lie was afraid that their verdict must pass against his client, because the writ had been served upon himn before the tools had been returned to the plaintiff. But what did they think of the plaintiff's conduct, who hiid gone forward withi this action~ after he had receivedc his tools, at a timge whets the defendant, if he had sit pleased, could hiave brouglht an action against him for a breach of contract ? He knew that the jury would not return more than noominal damages in this case ; anid he trusted that, considering aill the CirCtuMstances of it, his lordship wvouild not refuse to certify as tothieamount ofthose da- mages, Ile put it to his lordship wethcler...-.. The L.a RCHIEF JTJSTIcE._Tha sis amatter,Brother Vaughan, that ought not to be talked of. You know it is irregular. Even if the jury give such a verdict as YoU anricipate, I will niot certify, be- cause you have talked of it. Mlr. Sergeant VAUGHAN allowed that he was irregular in allud- ing to hiis lords;hip's certiticate, but trusted that his lordship would not inflict on the head of the client the punishment which was due to the inadvertency of the advocate. A Juror asked whether the work- of the plaintiff had ever been finished ? Mr. Sergeant TADnsY replied in the affirmative, and Mlr. c_r- geant PELL in the neetative. The LOan) CHIEF' JUSTvrc.-.That does not appear either one way or the other yet, I think. Mfr. Sergeant PE LL.-Then I will call a Witness to put the mat- ter nut of dispute. Joseph Tkorley deposed as follows :-I am tbe foreman of Mr. Toplis. I recollect the time when this dlispute took place regarding the tools. I do not recollect the precise day whien 1Mr. Toplis was servedI with the writ, but I know that he was so served. This no- tice (looking at one produced) was served by me on Tea.sdale on the 5th of April last ; it was be fore I heard that Mr. Toplis had been served with a copy of a writ. The notice was put in and read. It required the plaintiff to take away from the defendant's premiises the chest of tools which he had left there. The vwitness then procceded.-Tble plaiutifP did not take! away the chest upon receiving that notice. I saw him ai seconid timne aboat '15th of April. I called on him at thte shop where he then worked. I told hiim that he lied better come, Pettle his acceunt, and take his chest away. He4saidise would noL, th.at Mr. T,opli aa ttopped it, and had stopped it at his peril. Thechestremnalned with Mlr. Toplis till the,4th ofAMay. We tl,en took the chest dovn tohim at hislhouse. At the time the chest was sitopped, I supposedl that Tcasdale might be indebted a few sihillings to fels. Toplis. Teasdlale was at that timge at work upon a loo-table-it was not finisbed on the day that the nt abble took place.but on the day afterwards. It was finished by ?Teasdale anid two other mnen. I considler that it was not finished in a proper manner: it underwent a repair afterwlards, not in eonse- quence of any in~ry it had received, but in consequence dif the im- proper work of enadale. Cross-exumnined by Mr. Sergeant TADnY.-Tbe top of the table split. I think itwas8partly owing to bad workumanship. The wood was good. The materials, were not wet when they were delivered to Teasdale. The season of the ycar wouldI make things damp ; but it was the duty of the workman, to keep them properly aired by fire. I do not know that this wood had been laying for three days' in the wet, in Toplis'sI ad. I will not swear that it had or hadl not. Teasdiale finislic hi work the niext day. I never locked up his tool-chest, nor do I know who did. The chest wast in the ware-room, which was not uisuall kept loeked up. I never hecardI Mr. Tpi a that he had locked It up. He asked me if Teasdtalehdbruh in lils accounts. I said, "1 No, he lhad not" Ar.Toiste said to nie, "1 Let him bring his accounts, and then lethm ae his cliest." He mnight have said to Teasdale. " Go and make out you r account buit if there is one penny comning in to me, you shall iiut nave your chest."1 I have no recollection of ever he-aring Air. Toplis use such words. Re-examined.-.Theplantiff might ha,Ve had his chest any day after tdie 5th tif April. Mlr. Sergeafit TADD F hiere Psut in thie iirif. Air. Sergeant VAUGIAw said, that as this was ad eiitl dience onhth.epiar.tof the plainitiff, hie should beg leave to reply upon it. 1Thewrit wa put in tbr no other purpose thani to load the jury to in- fer that the writ wa~ served on the defendant before the defendant serve-d his notice dn Teasdale. I%ow jhe wrii couild aftord no evidence of that descriptoion hbecAuts6, though A ivey saluttary' act of Parlia- ment provided that there should be endorsed on evety writ the day en which it was sued out, It did not pr~ovide that there should be endorsed upon at the day on which it was served. Itf the plaintiff wanted to show the day on which it was served, hie had lila attorney in court who couldI give the jury that informa.. tian. If he refused to call him; thie inferentce was clear. Under these circumstances; lhe contended thai a mbrt shamefutl action had never comne into a court of ju?litie; Mnlr Sergeant TADDY replied. He contendedl that there *RA ici evidence, and that there ouight to be no suspicion. that this action was brotitht by any otlier person than the plaintiff. The plaintiff's attorney had sworn thiat he had received his instructionis fromn the plaintiff and frons nio person else - and what reasonable ground had been laid for discrediting his testimony ? It was said, by the other sidle that this action oug t toi hare beeni d1sosqainiuegiWhen the vslafn~ tiff recovered hnis properity j but why war he to _pay f'ot ekl5dhsen which the defendant had rendered necessary by atrording him a legal cause of action ? It was likewise said, that after the notice of the 5thi of April, he might have had his property at an( time for send- ing for it. But after it had been detained from ht m, he was not bound to send for it; it was rather the duty of'Cite defendant, if he repented of the detention, to ave Rent it to himt. It hadl been con. tended,that,the defendant had . right td retiln the todai; because the plaintiff liAd not 'rripleted his contract. This he dcnie4j if the plaintifr had left his work unfinishied, the dlefendatnt had hiis remedy either by a particular statutte of Queen Elizabeth, witiehs bad bteo framed to mieet such olibrnce.si or by an action. at law for a bieac;h of contract. If, then, the defendatnt was in the *iorig, the plaintiff was in the right and being in the rIglit, was enititled to'damages. Ats the tools were returned uninjured, he could onlv ask 'he jury' to give suich damages as would recompense the plaintiff for the' injury he had sustained by the temporary deprivatjou gf them which he had' undergone, Tlt LOP CHilEF JUSitCEd n 4vdreissjng the jury, told them htqti it was clear that the plaintiff iattt hiae a verdict, inasmuch as the Aefendan 'lit hatever to detain the tool-chest of the 1altiI~ Oe culdnotbutsusectthat the costs of this cohae wee tobe pid ot ofthe undsof some club. The knew othig ofany lub,thathe hd reeive hisinstruc- COSts oF suit, They mist not, horeveF, give encouragementte dubs. which were formed to keep up the price of labour ; those who formed such clubs ought to be informed that they were guilty of axa indict- able offence, and were peiesuing practices which, if successful, must ultimately prove most injurious to the trade of the country. Ile had told them that clubs for keeping up the price of labour were illegal; he would now add, that clubs forned by the masters for ffie purpose of depressing the wages of the men wrere equally inju. rious and equally illegal.. Every man had a right to carry his talent to thebest market be could find, and to demand as high a rateof re- muneration for it as he chose; but then he must notcombine with strangers, to prevent other persons from labouringat an Inferior rate of wages, or to dictate terms to the masters who employed them. On the other hand, the masters had a right to judge indivi. dually of the wages they could afford to give for a certain tpro- wrtion of labour,vbut they had no right to combine together tor the purpose of throwing out of employmencot those who would not work upon their terms. In short? combinations to depress wages were notless illegal than co2binations to raise them; ;and he trust- ed that both masters and mnen whould soon be wise enoughf to see that their mutual interests were best consulted by steering clear -c them. He again repeated his opinion thspt the plaintiff was entti; Tver- dict. It was true that the Vlasnhffsad been informed cn the 5th of April, thathe might have his tools forsending forthem; but heought to inform them thatthe plaintiff was:not bound to sendtSor them-a circumstance which the defendant seelned tohiave found out,by send- ing them to the plaintiff in the beginning of the montIs of Mlay. It was in evidence. therefore, that the painmtiff had been without his tools for more than a montb, and it was not unnatural to suppose, ,that he hgd sufTheed sgme iniuiry from the detention of them, ip6ee hse.could )ot wprk withdut haistools. They iwould therefore gife, him sfch temaperaee diimnge&as they thought wduld mnet the Justice of thie case. ishny dt' thEem c he d pA doubt, were.thsaelvcs I astes, but he was sure that would make no difference with them in estimating thedamages to which theplaintifF, a mere journeyman, I was entitled. They would do justice between him and his master; they would show the class of men to which the plaintiff belonged that the law made nodiffercnce between the rich and the pcor, but that it viewed both with an equal and impartial eye. By showing this, they would attach aU persons to the lawvs of the country, anl bv creating that attachment, thsey would gire to those laws additional strengtli 'Ishe jury deliberated for a few minutes, and then re-turned a ver- dict itor the pIaintiff~.-Damages lOi. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, WESTMINSTER, JULY 15. TEASDAL.E V. TOPLIS.