Mexborough & Swinton Times, February 6, 1904
The Great Trial in London
Sequel to the Denaby Strike
The Assault on Howden
Council and the Yorkshire Dialect
Mexborough & Swinton Times – Saturday 06 February 1904
On Friday morning, in King’s Bench No. 111, before Mr. Justice Lawrance and a special jury, the trial was resumed of the action brought by the Denaby and Cadeby Main Collieries (Limited) against the Yorkshire Miners’ Association and George Cragg, Joseph Smith, Enoch Kaye, Benjamin Pickard, M.P., John Wadsworth, William Parrott, John Smith, Fred Hall, John Nolan, and Henry Humphries. Edward Cowey was originally cited as a defendant, but being since deceased his name has been struck out of the record.
The plaintiffs, who are colliery proprietors, brought this action against the defendant association, the trustees of the defendant association, and other officers and agents of the association, to recover damages for having by wrongful and illegal means procured the plaintiffs’ men to go out on strike. The plaintiffs by their pleadings claimed (1) damages for a conspiracy to induce the men to break existing contracts; (2) damages for wrongfully inducing the men not to enter into new contracts; (3) an injunction to restrain the defendants from repeating the above wrongful acts and from paying away the funds of the association illegally. Particulars of special damage were
FILED CLAIMING £125,000.
The defendant association pleaded denying liability, and contended that, if the contracts had been broken, they were not broken by any act on the part of the defendant association, and further that, if the contracts were not broken, the men having been willing to go back, the plaintiffs suffered no damage. The other defendants, save and except Nolan and Humphries, who put in no defence, pleaded a general denial of the plaintiffs’ claim, and contended that the plaintiffs had not suffered any damages by reason of any wrongful or illegal acts of these defendants.
Mr. Eldon Bankes, K.C., Mr. Montagu Lush, K.C., and Mr. Cantley, M.P., appeared for the plaintiffs; Mr. Rufus Isaacs, K.C., Mr. Danckwerts, K.C., and Mr. Loewis for the Yorkshire Miners’ Association and the trustees; Mr. Atherley-Jones, K.C., M.P., Mr. S. T. Evans, K.C., M.P., and Mr. Compston for other defendants, with the exception of John Nolan and Henry Humphries, who have entered no appearance to the action.
THIRD DAY.
FRIDAY’S PROCEEDINGS.
The court was again crowded on Friday morning, amongst those present being Mr. W. H. Chambers, Mr. Buckingham Pope, Mr. J. Wilkie, Mr. H. S. Witty, Mr. J. Soss, and Mr. A. P. Barnard, on behalf of the company; Mr. J. Dixon, Mr. Fred Hall, Mr. G. H. Hirst, Mr. John Wadsworth, and Mr. W. Parrott, either as defendants or on behalf of the Yorkshire Miners’ Association. Mr. Ashton, the secretary of the Miners’ Federation, was also present, and amongst the spectators of the proceedings was Mr. Thomas Weston, of the “Reresby Arms,” Denaby Main.
UNDERMANAGER’S EVIDENCE.
Mr. JOHN SOAR was the first witness called. In examination by Mr. Eldon Bankes, K.C., he said he was under-manager at Denaby, and had been there for 20 years. The timbering rules came into force in August, 1901, and made no difference to the practice at his pit. He was present at the County Court case tried at Doncaster. He had made deductions for bag-dirt where the men failed to get it down. There were only about six men who made any disturbance about it. He got datallers to do the work and deducted the amount paid for getting the bag-dirt down. In no case did it exceed 1d. per ton.
TOTAL AMOUNT OF DEDUCTIONS was £17 5s. in six months. The bag-dirt in the pit had not altered in thickness or character in 20 years. It was his duty to engage the men at the colliery. Every man that worked at the pit was signed on by witness.
On July 17, he was at the colliery. The men began coming about 5 o’clock in large numbers. Some were dressed in pit clothes, some in plain clothes. Some had food and drink with them, some had not. He saw Nolan and Barnes there, going about among the men. The men asked for their lamps. If a man had been absent for a week he had to sign on again. He asked some of them to sign on. They refused to sign on, as they had a better job, and said they had got on the right track now. Only two men signed on on July 17.
What did Poynton say to you when he signed on?
Mr. ISAACS objected, as Poynton was not a defendant. There was no allegation that they conspired with Poynton.
Mr. BANKES said the complaint was that the defendants conspired among themselves with the workmen. What anyone did or said in pursuance of the alleged conspiracy was evidence.
Mr. JUSTICE LAWRANCE: What Poynton said to anyone not a defendant is not evidence.
Mr. BANKES said that very point was indicated in the defence, and the name of Poynton appeared in the particulars. The evidence was admissible because (1) it was an act of one of the conspirators set up in the statement of claim; (2) there was an issue whether the men did intend to come back to work at the time of signing the contract. The issue was whether they were willing or not.
Mr. ISAACS said he did not object to getting the acts of the men. What he objected to was getting at what they said.
Mr. JUSTICE LAWRANCE said he did not think that anything the men said was evidence.
—Examination continued.—Poynton was in his ordinary clothes, without food or drink. He signed the contract and did not go to work, and had not gone to work since. He was given a book with the timbering rules.
PRINTED NOTICES INTO A BUCKET near the office door. They put the notices into the bucket before he asked them to sign. A notice was put up that no variation had taken place as to the contract of employment. During the next fortnight the men came up to the colliery and went to the lamp-house and went away. None of them signed the book or offered to go to work. Some came in working clothes and some in plain clothes.
Cross-examined by Mr. RUFUS ISAACS, K.C., witness said if there was a complaint to be made it would be made to Mr. Chambers, but very probably he would hear of it first. He, however, had no power to deal with such questions as that of the bag-dirt, and should advise the men to go to Mr. Chambers. He knew that there was a good deal of feeling in 1899, 1900, and 1901 among the men about the bag-dirt. On June 28, 1902, deductions of £8 1s. were made from the payment of the men for one week. He went down to the four stalls where the men complained of the bag-dirt. The bag-dirt was not hard as rock. He was at the County Court in February, 1902, and did not hear the plaintiffs’ solicitor state that the bag-dirt used to be more tender. The bag-dirt was as thick as 30 inches in some places.
On July 17 several hundred men came to the Denaby pit. Some came in working clothes and others in plain clothes. There was nothing unusual in that, because they could not all go down in the morning. The lampman had instructions not to give them their lamps, because they
HAD NOT SIGNED ON.
The position he took was he was not going to allow the men to get their lamps or go to work until they had signed on. The result was that the men would not sign, but presented themselves for work every morning and afternoon. The men kept dropping off. The notices were all right if they had been given right, and before the men stopped the wheels. They ought not to have been put into a bucket. As a matter of fact, they were given to nobody.
Re-examined by Mr. ELDON BANKES: Witness said if the men had a serious complaint they must go to Mr. Chambers; if a trivial one it was made to witness. Three colliers went to each stall at the first shift, one at the second, and none at the third. In the ordinary way only those who were going to work in the first shift would present themselves in the morning. On July 17, he saw some of the committee men when he was going up to the colliery in the morning. These were Nolan, Croft, Birch, and Follows, moving about among the men.
WHAT TOOK PLACE ON JULY 17.
Mr. ARTHUR BREALEY, examined by Mr. MONTAGU LUSH, K.C., said he was under-manager for Cadeby Colliery and had been so for five or six years. On July 17 he was at the pit for the men to sign on. When he came up from the pit at 12 o’clock he saw notices strewn about over the floor of the office. There were no new terms in the new contract. On July 17 some of the men signed on. Some men came into the office. Most of the men were in their plain clothes.
HE ASKED THEM TO SIGN THE BOOK.
The men said they would have to sign new rules and a new contract, and it would be 12 months before they could come out again. He told them that it was a great mistake, and he asked them to see the book to re-sign. Some looked at the book and signed on. The attendance on the subsequent days gradually grew less. A notice was put up at the colliery that there was no change in the rules. The men that came to work between July 17 and August 12 were molested and interfered with.
Mr. ISAACS objected. It had to be shown that the defendants were responsible for that.
Mr. JUSTICE LAWRANCE: They must go by steps—(1) that there was molestation; (2) by whom. They had to go by steps.
Mr. ISAACS: What he wanted to know was whether they were going to connect that with the defendants. The evidence ought not to be admitted until it was said that they would connect that with defendants.
Mr. LUSH: I quite appreciate that. Of course, we have to prove it step by step. I want to prove first of all that there were assaults. Afterwards I think we shall be able to connect them with the defendants.
The JUDGE: I have taken a full note of your objection, Mr. Isaacs.
Mr. ISAACS, K.C.: I am much obliged.
Mr. LUSH (to witness): Did you see these acts of molestation yourself?—No, I did not, but I had complaints.
Mr. ISAACS, K.C.: I object to that. It is not evidence.
The JUDGE: The fact that he had complaints may be taken, but he must not tell us what the complaints were.
Mr. LUSH: Do you know a man who goes by the name of Brog?—Yes.
Is that his proper name?—I believe his real name is David Staley.
Are these the only names by which he is known?—No, sometimes he has been known as David Moon.
Mr. DANCKWERTS: Might I ask that the witness speak a little louder. His low tone, coupled with the dialect, makes it impossible to hear him and understand him.
The JUDGE: I am afraid I cannot help you to understand the dialect. (Laughter.) If he spoke in Welsh I have no doubt Mr. Evans could interpret it for you. (Laughter.) But the witness might speak a little louder.
Mr. DANCKWERTS: Thank you, my Lord. Perhaps he will repeat his last answer.
The JUDGE: What he said was that this man was known as Brog, but his real name was David Staley; but at other times he is pleased to call himself Moon. (Renewed laughter.)
Cross-examined by Mr. ISAACS, K.C.: Since the timbering rules were started there had been questions raised. The men have objected. They have never objected to me.
Do you know that there have been complaints?—I believe it has been mentioned in deputations to Mr. Chambers.
The practice before the new rules was to bring the timber into the working places of the men?—Yes.
And after the rules the practice was altered because it was thought sufficient if the timber was within 30 yards of the working place?—Really, it was just the same.
Now I put this question to you at the trial of Howden’s case, and you said: “Substantially the practice was to bring timber to the working places of the men.” Do you say so now?—Yes, I do, and it has not been altered.
But you only take it within 30 yards?—No, we don’t; where it is possible we take it to the working place now.
You say this is not one of the things the men objected to?—I say there is no necessity to object, because we have never altered the practice.
Cross-examined by Mr. ATHERLEY JONES, K.C., M.P.: You saw men at half-past twelve on the 17th of July coming to the pit?—Yes.
You saw about 200 men or more?—Yes.
Some of these men were in working clothes and some not?—Yes.
The men had no wish to see you, I think?—No, I don’t suppose so.
They wanted to go down the pit without signing on?—Yes.
You determined, acting of course under instructions, that they should not go to work without signing on?—They could not be allowed to.
Re-examined by Mr. BANKES, K.C.: The timber under the general rule had to be at the gate-ends, sidings, or working places. The gate-end or siding might be more than 30 yards from the face of the coal. After the new rules there was no difference in the place where they deposited the timber.
Thomas CHAPMAN, examined by Mr. Bankes, said he was a collier, working for the plaintiffs before the strike at the Cadeby pit. He was present at a meeting of the Cadeby committee. The officers were elected before the strike. Moon was elected.
HE WAS KNOWN AS “BROG”
at the colliery. He was present at a meeting on July 13th. It was addressed by Mr. Wadsworth and Mr. Walsh, and a resolution was passed that the men should take a ballot as to 14 days’ notice. The resolution was passed, “That this meeting of the Denaby and Cadeby workmen agree to resume work at the earliest convenience, and that the men be balloted as to whether they are prepared to serve 14 days’ notice to terminate their contract of service.” Papers were given out at the Station Hotel for a ballot.
Mr. BANKES: Was any check kept on the number of papers given to each man?—None whatever.
Mr. ISAACS: I object to any question of this sort being raised. It is not mentioned in the particulars. My friend is now proceeding to suggest in some way that the ballot was illegitimate. I submit he is not entitled to raise this question now. It was referred to in my learned friend’s opening, and I objected then because it was not in the particulars. Yet see where we are travelling now! Surely if my learned friend’s case has anything in it at all it is not necessary to go outside 100 pages of particulars.
Mr. BANKES: It is impossible to give particulars of every little point of evidence. The question I propose to ask is, whether this ballot was taken by means of papers, because your Lordship knows what the rules say about the use of ballots.
Mr. ISAACS: That is not the line you were taking when I stopped you. I objected to the last question because it was a suggestion that a number of papers were given to each man.
Mr. BANKES: Well we can get on then if that is all you objected to. To witness: Was this ballot taken by means of papers?—Yes.
Were ballot boxes used?—Yes; two.
Continuing, witness said he went to the pit on July 7th. He went in his working clothes, and he desired to go to work. He saw committee men in the road. They were Collier, Humphries, Dickinson, and Hirst. As the men went by, the committee said,
“COME HERE AND SIGN THIS PAPER.”
The papers were the 14 days’ notices. He was afraid to sign on. He met men coming back, who told him to go and check their notices in and come back. He spoke to Humphries about it, and said “We shall be sure to get in bother over this affair. We had better keep in a line with the union. They are sure to look after us.” All the men were not coming in their working clothes.
Cross-examined.—The men coming back said they had been refused their lamps, and it was no use going to work.
Mr. ISAACS: Did you throw your notice in the bucket?—There was no bucket at all. I dropped mine on the floor of the office.
Mr. BANKES: So far as your notice was concerned, did you wish to give notice?
Mr. ISAACS: I object to that. I have not asked a single question as to what the witness wished to do.
The JUDGE: It does not arise out of the cross-examination.
Richard SMEATON, examined by Mr. Cantley, M.P., said he was a corporal at Denaby pit.
What is a corporal?—Well, a corporal is manager of the boys at the bottom of the pit.
The JUDGE: What do you have to manage them for?—Managing the boys and the corves going along tram lines. (Laughter.)
The JUDGE: Now, Mr. Danckwerts, have you got the sense of that.
Mr. DANCKWERTS: I am afraid not. What are the corves?
Witness: Tubs. (Laughter.)
Mr. CANTLEY: Corves are the carriages which the boys have to bring from the coal face to the pit bottom. Witness has to look after the boys. He is a traffic manager.
Witness: I said so. (Laughter.)
Mr. DANCKWERTS: It is beautifully clear now. (Renewed laughter.)
Witness, continuing, said he heard of the meeting on the 20th June, and knew that the majority of the men stopped working. He did not go to work in consequence, but on July 16th he presented himself for work.
Mr. CANTLEY: Why did you not go to work after the 20th?—I heard there had been a meeting.
Mr. ISAACS: I don’t know what my friend wants more than the fact that there was a meeting, and he did not go.
Mr. CANTLEY: My question was why did you ask me to work next day?—Because I heard there had been a meeting and the men were not going to work.
Continuing, witness said on the 16th he went to the colliery to sign on, and the following day he went to work. He worked 11 days.
Mr. CANTLEY: Why did you stop then?—I was afraid.
When you signed on, did you get a rule book?—Yes.
As you were going back from the colliery on the 17th, did you meet some of the committee men?—Yes.
Did you show them your rule book?—Yes.
What happened then?—They were standing against the Miners’ Arms. I told them they would have to sign on again and showed them the book, and one of them took the book and read it. I took it home, and then at night I was down against the Ferry Boat, and a party asked me—
Mr. ISAACS: Really, my Lord, what a party asked him cannot be evidence. (Loud laughter.)
Mr. CANTLEY: What ultimately became of the rule book?—I lent it to a man named Granger, and the next time I saw it, it was in Mr. Bailey’s office at Barnsley.
Proceeding, witness said as he was going to the colliery on July 17th he saw two men named Vaughan and Smith standing by a table. They called witness and gave him a paper. It was a notice. He filled it up, and when he got to the pit he put it in a basket or bucket. He didn’t know which.
Mr. CANTLEY: Did you want to give notice?
Mr. ISAACS: I object to that, my Lord.
Mr. BANKES: It is a material fact whether these men were acting under compulsion or not.
Mr. ISAACS: I submit, my Lord, that the question of intention is for the jury.
The JUDGE: Why did you give notice?—I gave notice the same as the rest of them.
Why did you do that?—Because I was afraid to refuse.
Witness, continuing, said he worked for a fortnight and then stopped. He afterwards received strike pay, the first payment being a week after he stopped working.
Cross-examined. He had worked at the colliery since 1895. He heard the men talking about the bag-dirt. He knew the drift district in the Denaby Colliery. He heard the men complain that the bag-dirt was getting thicker and harder, also of the deductions made.
Mr. ISAACS: Am I right in saying that as a matter of fact the bag-dirt in the drift district did become thicker and harder?—I don’t know anything about the bag-dirt myself.
Don’t you, you work there?—I don’t work in it.
But come, Mr. Smeaton, if I had worked there since 1875, I think I should know.
Mr. BANKES: Not if you were a corporal. (Laughter.)
Mr. ISAACS: Oh! wouldn’t I. (Renewed laughter.)
To witness: I will put it another way. Have you heard the men repeatedly complain that the bag-dirt was getting thicker and harder?—Yes, and it was not the only thing I have heard them complain about.
I won’t ask you to repeat what they have said, but they have been pretty angry about it?—Yes.
And they have said so in no very gentle language?—Yes, sometimes. (Laughter.)
THE MAN THAT FOUGHT THE UNION.
WILLIAM HENRY HOWDEN was the next witness. Examined by Mr. Montagu Lush, K.C., he said he was the plaintiff’s agent in an action against the Yorkshire Miners’ Association which is shortly to be heard on appeal in the House of Lords. He said he formerly worked at Cadeby Colliery, but he was not a coal-getter. He was not present at the meeting on June 29th, but he heard about it.
BELLMAN CAME ROUND CRYING
the meeting on Saturday night. On Sunday evening he was going to work as usual, and when he got to the bottom of the street into the main road there was a party of committee men who asked him if he was aware what had happened at the meeting? He replied that he had heard rumours, and did not know the transactions altogether. They then said it had been passed that the wheels were to stop until grievances were adjusted. Witness said: Are we going to have union pay? Is the Union behind us? They said they did not know. He replied: I pay to the Union, and I am going to work according to the rules. This is an illegal affair, so I am going to my work.
The JUDGE: I understand his action was against the Union for paying strike pay unlawfully, because the men did not come out on strike according to the rules?
Mr. LUSH: That is so, my Lord. To witness: Did you say anything about why it was illegal?—I said it was contrary to rules not giving notice.
Can you give me the names of the committee who spoke to you?—There was Brog, Collier, Mosey, and Casey.
Continuing, he said he went to his work that night, and he worked regularly up to the time he was assaulted.
Do you recollect a notice being posted up about the pits being closed, in August?—I recollect a notice being sent to me that I was not to go any more. That was on a Tuesday night.
The JUDGE: What Tuesday night was that?—The Tuesday following the Monday I was assaulted.
Mr. LUSH: Tell us when it was; we were not there, you know?—I believe it was the 15th of August.
Between the day when you first heard of the strike and the day you were assaulted, I want you to give me some account of what had taken place. Did you go to work every day?—I worked six days a week.
About how many men were working?—As near as I can say, with the officials, at the time when they met us in full force on the Monday there would be about 70 or 80 of us working together.
Did the number of men get larger or smaller as time went on?—Well, after they began to meet us, and hinder the roadways, they fell off. They did not come up.
About how long had the crowd been lining the roadway?—There had been some in the roadway every day since the strike, but they came in full force on the Wednesday before the Monday when I was assaulted.
Do you recollect there was a mass meeting of the men about this time?—I was given to understand so.
Do you know of your own knowledge whether there was a mass meeting?—There had been a mass meeting on that day, on the Wednesday, and they came from that to meet us as we left the colliery.
Mr. ISAACS: I object to the witness stating anything about the mass meeting. He has told us he was not there. If there is any importance in it, it must be proved in the proper way, by somebody who was there.
Mr. LUSH: I don’t want you to tell me what you have been told, but did you, or did you not know there was a mass meeting?—Yes, but I was not present, because I was in the mine at the time.
Before the 13th of August, the day on which you say you were met in full force, you said there had been some men in the road. What had occurred? You were going to work?—If I was working on the night shift, when I was going home in the morning, there would be several of the committee and other men standing on Glasshouse Bridge.
Is that a bridge on the road leading to the colliery?—Yes.
When these men were there, what occurred?—They started booing us a little bit as we passed. They would not do it as we came up, but as soon as we had passed, and we could not see who did it, they began it.
About what time in the morning would this be?—Between five and six in the morning.
This happened up to the Wednesday?—Yes, it was a usual thing.
On Wednesday you say they came in full force?—Yes, on our way home.
What did they say, or what did they do?—They were hooting and booing, and calling us blacksheep.
CARRYING SHEEP’S HEADS
blackened on broom handles, and throwing old tin cans at us and drumming. This, added witness, continued after the Wednesday, but they were not so strong on Saturday, as a lot of them were away collecting. (Laughter.)
The JUDGE: What, tin cans to throw at you? (Laughter.)
Witness: No, my Lord, money.
Mr. LUSH: They didn’t throw that at you?—Not much. (Renewed laughter.)
What effect had these demonstrations on the number of men working at the mine?—The number got smaller. The men were terrified; they dare not turn up.
On Wednesday what happened to you?—I was about half-way between Kilner’s Bridge and Balby Street, when I was struck in the mouth by a man named Terrell. I had looked round to see who it was, and then he struck me on the temple, and knocked me to the ground.
What happened then, when you were on the ground?—There was a little bit of boot. (Laughter.)
Mr. DANCKWERTS: Is this a further sample of dialect, my Lord. (Laughter.)
The JUDGE: I suppose so, Mr. Danckwerts.
To witness: What was it happened?—They tried to kick me in the face.
The JUDGE: Oh, that is what you call a little bit of boot. (Laughter.)
Mr. LUSH: What happened then?—I got to my feet again somehow, and I had half a pick shaft in my pocket. I was going to use it, and that made them stand back a little bit. (Laughter.)
What next?—Then some police came up and escorted me home.
When you got home that evening did anything happen?—Yes, they followed me up to the house, and shouted “Fetch the —— out.” (Laughter.)
The JUDGE: Now, Mr. Danckwerts. (Laughter.)
Mr. DANCKWERTS: Nay, my Lord, I think I understand that. (Renewed laughter.)
Mr. LUSH: What else?—During the evening they began to smash the windows. Is that the substance of what took place on Monday?—Yes, that was on the 18th.
Were you much injured by these assaults?—I had two teeth loosened, but I was not particularly crippled. I think I got through very nicely. (Loud laughter, in which the whole Court joined.)
Proceeding, witness said on the last day he worked there were only ten men at work. The committee men of the branch
ENCOURAGED THE BOOTING,
etc. He took proceedings to stop the strike pay, as it was an illegal thing to do, and he succeeded. He was against the strike in the way it was carried out. He had been a member of the union for 16 years.
Cross-examined. He got lock-out pay, 10s. a week, from Aug. 1st till the date of the proceedings.
Mr. ISAACS: After you commenced your action, how did you live?—I was paid by the company.
You don’t live in Yorkshire now, do you?—No.
I will not ask you where you live, but how are you living now?—From hand to mouth. That is vague, and won’t do for me. Does the company pay you?—Yes.
And have done ever since your action commenced?—Yes.
What are they paying you?—It is £4 a week.
And you call that living from hand to mouth? (Laughter.) How long is this payment to go on?—There is no arrangement about that.
Is it not to continue until all the litigation is over?—I don’t know; I’ve got nothing in writing.
But at all events you expect it to continue?—Yes, I hope so. (Laughter.)
The company found the money for the action was brought, did you not?—Oh, of course not. (Laughter.)
And they are paying you £4 a week to live on?—Yes, I said so.
Re-examined, he had never heard of the bag-dirt question before the strike.
Mr. LUSH said he was in the Howden case, and it was stated from the first that the plaintiffs were paying Howden’s costs.
ANOTHER CADEBY MANAGER’S EVIDENCE
Mr. H. S. WITTY, the next witness, said he was manager of the Cadeby Company, and had been in the employ of that company since 1869. On July he got to the colliery at 5.45 a.m. He found the office
FLOOR STREWN WITH NOTICES.
No men were there when he got there. On August 13 a great crowd of people collected on the bridge leading to the colliery. The crowd were hooting and shouting at the men leaving the pit. On Aug. 15 there was a big crowd on the high road near the bridge.
CHAS. BERRY, re-examined, said he was manager at the Denaby Colliery. A notice was posted up at the colliery when the new timbering rules were passed. The men must have seen the notices. The colliery company provided more timber than before, but no further burden was put upon the men. On July 17, he saw the papers distributed to the men, and the committee men were present. He saw the men putting the papers in the bucket. The committee men asked him to accept the notices. He refused to accept the notices.
A. P. BARNARD said he was a member of the Institute of Mining Engineers, and was the agent of the collieries. The deductions of £8 1s. in respect of bag-dirt covered a long period. After Howden was assaulted no colliers came to work. Datallers were then put in. From Aug. 12 to 19 the datallers fell off from 30 to 16. A notice was issued then that the pit was closed. The pits were deteriorating day by day. They advertised for outside men in January.
Mr. ISAACS objected to the evidence travelling outside the particulars. The defendants were charged with a conspiracy, which was an indictable offence, and so amendment could be made in the particulars of an indictment.
Mr. BANKES said it was a civil action, and an amendment could be made.
Mr. JUSTICE LAWRANCE refused to allow an amendment.
Cross-examined: The strike ceased about the end of February.
Mr. WM. BERRY, examined, said he was a deputy at the Cadeby pit. Before the strike he was a collier there. He saw the committee men about on July 7, when he was going to work. A lot of men called out “black-leg.” When he was coming home there was a large crowd at the bridge, 300 to 400 men, women, and boys. An old lady tried to shove him to the ground. The crowd closed round him, and threw stones. He was struck at the back of the head by half a brick. He was taken into an hotel. He was jeered at when he was being escorted home. He saw Humphries and Collier directing the men on July 2nd. He was afraid to go to work after July 2nd. On October 8 he heard Croft make a speech, when he said he knew there were some rats creeping out of their holes and they would send ferrets to drive them in again. They threatened to
THROW HIM THROUGH THE WINDOW
GEO. RUSHFORTH said he worked in the Denaby pit. On June 29 he set off to work. Brog and Follows stopped him. He went on with Soar and worked. He was called a black-leg, and both men and women met him several times, and
HOOTED AT HIM.
as he left the colliery. He had more than once been struck by tins, cans, and just before he stopped working, which was when the Company gave notice to close the pits, he was escorted home by the police.
AR. HARRISON, examined by Mr. Bankes, said he was a corporal at Denaby. He was going to his work on the evening of June 29 when he was stopped by two men named Follows and Birch, who told him they had declared to stop the pulley wheels until they got their money back. He replied: “You won’t keep me if I’m getting nowt.”
The JUDGE: Now it is nothing, Mr. Danckwerts. (Laughter.)
Witness, continuing, said he was a member of the Union, but was not in benefit. After he left Follows and Birch he saw Mr. Witty and Mr. Soar, who told him to go to work. Witness kept at work for about seven weeks, and during all that time there were crowds of people on the roads. He was frequently called a black-leg.
As time went on did things get better or not?—They did not get so much better until it was over working.
Do you remember a Thursday in August, something happening to you?—I never took no dates.
Did you meet a man called Nolan?—Yes, at the bottom of Denaby old lane end.
What did John Nolan say to you?—He said what I was working for, after what had been agreed at the meeting, and I said I took no notice of him or his meeting either. (Laughter.)
What did he do then?—He started cursing me. (Laughter.) He said he hoped it would keep well for me and for those who were left.
Mr. ISAACS: That was a very magnanimous hope. (Laughter.)
Proceeding, witness said a deputy named White came up while he was talking to Nolan, and Nolan told White to put a pack of muck on him, Harrison, and
BURY HIM OUT OF THE ROAD
(Laughter) Witness, who worked in connection with the fire in the pit, had stones thrown at him several times.
Mr. ISAACS: This is travelling outside the pleadings.
Mr. LUSH: I think this time we have got the better of them, my Lord. On page 18 of the particulars—
Mr. ISAACS: I beg your pardon.
Continuing, witness said he went to and from his work during the fire the crowds repeatedly called him a “black-leg,” and somebody shouted: “The whole pit would be working if it wasn’t for such — pigs as you.”
Cross-examined by Mr. Isaacs: The crowds you speak of were men, women, and children?—Yes.
It does not seem to have hurt you?—No.
You never were frightened; you are not that sort of man, are you?—No. (Laughter.)
At this stage the hearing was adjourned until Monday morning at eleven o’clock.