Sheffield Daily Telegraph – Tuesday 09 February 1904

Denaby Strike Case

The Action in the High Court

Verdict Against the Union

In the King’s Bench Division of the High Court, yesterday, Mr. Justice Lawrance and a special jury resumed the hearing of the action brought by the Denaby and Cadeby Main Collieries (Limited) against the Yorkshire Miners’ Association and others for £150,000 as damages for alleged conspiracy and unlawful combination to induce the plaintiffs’ workmen to break their contracts by a strike in June, 1902. This was the ninth day of the trial.

Mr. Lush, continuing his final speech for the plaintiffs, contended that the first issue the jury had to determine in point of date and importance was that the strike, as plaintiffs said, of June 29th, when the men broke their contracts and came out, was not the spontaneous and voluntary action of the men at all. It was a strike which was procured and induced by the officers of the union, acting on the Denaby and Cadeby branches, and it was a subterfuge for them to pretend that it was the voluntary act of the men.

Counsel then contended that the bag dirt question which was put forward as the reason for the dispute and the cause of the men coming out, was a mere pretext, and that the reduction of 10 per cent. in wages was the real cause. He ridiculed the idea that all the loss and disaster resulting from the strike was to be incurred by the bag dirt question, which affected only 25 men, involving a total deduction of £60, or 17s. a week spread over these men. No evidence had been given that the bag dirt question was at the bottom of the dispute, that the bag dirt people took any part in it, or that the thickness of bag dirt provided a moral cause for the strike.

Another issue which the jury had to determine was whether the agents and officials of the union in doing what they did, believed that they were doing it in the interest of or for the benefit of the union.

It was contended that Nolan and Humphreys acted as agents and officials of the organisation to which they belonged, and the forces of which they endeavoured to enlist on their side.

He also argued that the union adopted what the officials did on June 29th, and between that date and the decision to pay strike pay, and not only so, but they used their union strength for the purpose of inducing the men not to go back to work. The union took part in a scheme by which the men were to give in their notices after the strike had occurred, so that they (the union) might throw dust in the eyes of anyone who tried to induce them, and shift the whole blame for the men not resuming work from their shoulders on to the shoulders of Mr. Chambers, the manager.

The men should only have gone back to pretend to work. They had in the resolution in which they declared their intention to go and take out their lamps, and in their adherence to the resolution of June 29th, which meant that they adhered to their intention to stop the wheels of the colliery.

It was said that the reason why the men would not sign on again was that a new rule with regard to timbering had been made, but nothing was said about that rule in the correspondence between Mr. Pickard and Mr. Chambers.

He ventured to say that of all things in the world, if this large organisation were to carry these schemes through, it would be well that they should be candid, truthful, and above-board, and he thought the jury would resent the conduct of the union in resorting to subterfuges and tricks, first with regard to the bag dirt question, then the ballot, and next as to going back to work.

The case was a history of subterfuges from beginning to end, and the conduct of those whom he was criticising had justly led them into the position that they had resorted to devices which were not worthy of the leaders of these great unions.

Counsel for the defendants had taken care that not one of the actors in this drama who knew the truth should go into the witness-box, and let light upon the dark places of this conspiracy.

Continuing, Mr. Lush asked the jury not to be misled by terms, tricks, and subterfuges, and he asked them whether the facts disclosed by the evidence did not lead everyone of them to the conclusion that this was a union job, as the men said it was.

He desired to call attention to the fact that the evidence was that on 2nd July the system of intimidation began, which became stronger and stronger. It was difficult to avoid scenes of violence. It was admitted that they could get angry, but there was one thing they could do: get officials to do their best to put a stop to it, and see that the men who wanted to work were allowed to do so.

His learned friend, Mr. Atherley Jones, had said there were one or two occasions upon which there was disorder by reason of women and children. That was at harvest time, and serious scenes occurred. Details were coming in, and the officials came to stop it. They did not get the Denaby Company to have the opportunity of protecting themselves. It was most remarkable coincidence that there was evidence pointed to intimidation from August 13th to August 18th, when men, women, and children got the roadway, and it was impossible for the men to get to their work without police assistance, and it was just the time when the dand that was in question arose.

There was another time, and that was in November, when the ladies took their parts in the riots and threw bricks and half bricks.

Why was that date chosen? It was a curious coincidence that that was the day when the fire occurred in the colliery. What did it mean?

He went on to draw his own conclusions, contending that the union officials at Denaby were encouraging by means of intimidation to keep the men idle when that emergency arose. Some men remained at work, and then it was that the officials chose the opportunity of bringing large crowds together.

Could they avoid the conclusion that this intimidation was used upon the working men by the officials to prevent the men from going back to work?

What did they think it meant when speaking of the men who were going to work, when he said “God help them”?

Mr. Lush said this was a complete travesty.

Mr. Jones retorted that he would take up the speech as delivered on November 10th.

Mr. Evans: The fire had not appeared on November 10th.

Mr. Lush: I am not saying that it did. He (Mr. Jones) had misled the jury in any way. Mr. Isaacs said he would not suggest for a moment that his learned friend would have misled the jury.

His Lordship remarked that he was perfectly able to say that he was curious that the intimidation was not continued at the time when the men wanted at work.

Mr. Jones then read the extract from Hurst’s speech, containing the phrase quoted by Mr. Lush.

Mr. Lush: My learned friend seems to think it is a prayer. (Laughter.) I do contend it was not addressed to the Divine Being, but that threat, as I understand it, it meant that the men would need some help to go to work. (Laughter.)

He was going to invite the jury to come to the conclusion that the union conspired to make the strike successful by means of these methods of intimidation, and that by their officials they conspired to induce the Denaby Company.

The men were entitled to combine, and to strike as long as they thought it right, and in this case they had tried to keep within the law by means of unlawful methods before and during the strike.

Whatever views of labour organisations they might have upon political or general grounds, he asked them to give their verdict in accordance with the facts of this case, and he ventured to have no hesitation in asking them to give a verdict for the plaintiffs.

The Judge’s Summing Up

Mr. Justice Lawrance afterwards summed up. He said the case had occupied a long time, but in his view not a single moment had been lost, because it was absolutely necessary that every bit of evidence should be given that could possibly afford any indication of what was in the minds or knowledge of parties throughout this matter, so that the jury could thoroughly understand the position of the trades unions in regard to the law.

Having briefly reviewed the circumstances under which the action was brought and the position of trades unions in regard to the law, his Lordship said the first question which arose was: Was the bag dirt question the real reason for the defendants, or on the real June, as said by the defendants, or was it the strike as alleged by the plaintiffs, as a mere pretence for years, and had been several compromises made?

One could easily understand—though he did not know whether it was so—that one part of the pit could become much easier, but he supposed the men took the rough with the smooth.

With regard to the bag dirt, however, he said that the men refused to do that, and Mr. Chambers thereupon said that he would do it himself. The matter afterwards came before the County Court twice, and before a Board of Arbitration, and it was difficult to say where the thing could have been conclusive in any way.

It was said by the plaintiffs that the dispute about the bag dirt was not the cause of the strike in any way, but that the real cause was dissatisfaction with the award given by Lord James.

Commenting on the timbering rules, his Lordship said they seemed to be valuable, because they afterwards formed an excuse for the men not signing on again. No one could doubt that when the men struck it was a breach of their contract.

It did not require a lawyer, but a man of common sense to know what a contract was. He had previously remarked that a grain of common sense could have settled the whole thing, and he thought that if someone had been sent down from the Miners’ Association in the first place, it would have been all right.

Why on earth it did not enter into the mind of Mr. Pickard, at an early stage, to say, “There are new rules coming into force; don’t sign any new contract,” he did not know. Upon that rock they split.

His Lordship proceeded to ask whether this was a bona fide strike by the men, or by their delegates, and commented on the speeches which were made.

The men who attended the arbitration to decide the point in dispute about the bag dirt had to excuse themselves.

Now, he held that after appointing someone to represent them they were bound like honest men by the decision of the arbitrators to abide by their decision. But they threw them over, and hauled them over the coals because the decision happened to be against them.

Passing from the question of facts, which was entirely for the jury, his Lordship said he would have to say a word about the law.

Any person who intentionally interfered with the legal right of another, such as procuring a breach of contract, committed an actionable wrong unless there was sufficient justification.

The excuse made in that case was that the defendants were acting in the interests of the men, but that was not an excuse; and the answer on the other side that they were acting in their own interests.

It was necessary for them to bear in their minds the nature of the contract, the position of the parties to the contract, the grounds of the breach, the means employed to procure the breach, the relations of the person procuring the breach with the person who broke the contract, and the object in procuring.

With regard to conspiracy, in order to make it actionable, some damage must have resulted.

In conclusion, his Lordship said he was sorry a commercial man had not had the moral courage to stand up in his place and tell the men that when they entered into a contract they must be expected to keep it.

He wished he had seen any indication from anyone present on behalf of the Miners’ Association—those people who came from headquarters—that instead of pandering to the passions of the men they had given them some good advice.

Rough and rude as these men might have been, he thought like Englishmen they would have appreciated plain and honest speaking.

If such advice had been given, it might have done a great deal of good, instead of leading to a great deal of misery.

The Verdict

The jury retired with a list of questions put to them by the Judge, and after an absence of an hour, returned into court, and returned a verdict for the plaintiffs on all points.

Nine questions which had been drawn up during the course of the trial were submitted to the jury, and answered in the affirmative.

The question of damages against the defendants will be dealt with by his Lordship at some future date.

Miners’ Leaders’ Disappointment

The officials of the Association were very disappointed with the result, which they described as grossly unfair.

From the commencement of the case they were of the opinion that no jury would find them guilty of intimidation, and the only satisfaction they got from the findings was that they were not held personally responsible for carrying on the strike by unlawful means.

They all agreed that the decision will strike a serious blow at trades unions, and the case will be taken to the Court of Appeal.

Some exception was taken to the judge’s summing up, which was dead against the Association.