Sheriff's Court, Red Lion...
-DGWC_ LlRCUALI. iF,,, R- ri7-1- Ah'-4,? ' U. case, WvrCJI occupied between five and six hours, until late in the evening excited anl utcomnnon intercst tbroughout the trade, which causca the court to be greatly crowded, M3r. E. LAWES stated, that this was an action by a journeyman cabinetmaker againRt hix employer, for work and labour, amount- ing to 171. lfks. The defendants, Missrs. DaviA, of Bartiolokmew- close, city, having suffered judgment by default, now appeared, by counsel, to distpute the plaintiffs rate of charge, by way of redac- tion of damages. He would observe, it was a painful situation in which the labourer was placed, to be obliged to go to Law with his master: because the i-rnpvnn -, -:A C-, * rn .- port tle expeases of es law-suit, but the muaster manufacturer was In general of considerable opulence, and weuld most likely, in an attempt likethLs toreducetherateof jorneyrnen's wages,be support- ed by thejointeontributionofother mastermntnufacturers, for thepur- pose of defeating the plaintiff's demand; besides the future prejudice which attached to the individual, from that combi- nation of interests which would be raised against him In re- gard to future employment, wbo should have been marked out as the ungracious oervant who had had the itpudence to bi ng an action against hi8 masters. Now, one is d sup- pose in tlat view of this case, that altnest every reason wotltd opelate against a journeyman going to law with his master: thejourneyman, at all events, must havc fearful odds to encounter. The present de- fendants were persons of extensive trade and business, employing a great manny workmen; but he wvould say nothing about the respect- ability of their characters. He weuld tale tbe liberty of bringing' to the recollection of the jury a case of pttblic notoriety winh-=espet-uI this same plaintff and another house of master cabinetmakers byr whom he vas employed, who had not only driven him to the neces- sity of bringing an action for his waes detained from him, but tle& an action of trover for his tools, which they had refused to deliverup to him ; thus, not only taking the law into their own hands in refusing! him that subsistence-money he had earned, but having deterrnined br these unjustifizble measures that his future means ot subsistcnce, de- rivedf'rom histeols the implements ef his industrv, shculd be with- held from him. l}e did not mear. to say that such was the present case exactly, or that such wa the oppressive dispoeition of the pre- sent defendants towards the saFoe plaintiff on this occasion; but4 had said enough to create Jealausy and suspicion in tbe minds of - ury, that the present defienidants were actuated by thFe samespiri'f hostility towards him, arising from the recollection that he had pre- viously broaght an action against his employers. The jury wouldl therefore watch the motives of the defendants in this action with a. greater degree of suspicion and jealoursy. Altboagh servants in ge- neral were without the mesns of' uing their masters for wares, he would urt say that such was the case here; but the jury would give the plaintift'fe benefit of the general inference, which vas1 that sucb. might, in allprobability be temotivesfor the defendant?esiseting this honest denmand on tie part of theplaintiffi. The plaintifs claim on this occasion was for piece-work, in making' three mahogany pe- desal sideboaLrds; and either one or two loo-tables. Now, it hap- pened, that with the exception of one sideboard, the whole of these articles had bee- sold since thev were manutfactured * and if there had been any objection made to the quality of the werk, the jtuy would require evidence that such objections were made at the time the work was po'ipg on, or when it Vas completed. But the fact was, no objection was made to the first, second, or-even third side- board, until the plaintiff wanted his 'money. He should hall a Wit- ness who was in the emnploy of the deferdants as ajitneeman, and who would prove, that havinig seen this last article 'upon which ob- jections were now set up. the utmost extent of deduction that could be made was 5s.,' and to this the plintiff readily as- sented. But was it worth while thit a ]ouzbeSf=ms should be put to the expense of an action against his employers, 'hIch would cost him at least 201., nerely to recover tbe additional 55 ? His friend, Mr. Comyn, might disp;ute the plaintiff's demand, item by item, in order to strike off a balf- pennly or a farthing from each which, even if the defendant should gain after spending 201. in Law, would be but a poor satisfaction. What mustt have been the loss of time on the part of the pleinfiff, as well as ruinous costs since, even with this verdict in his lavOur to the full amonart, by extra csst lie could gain nothing but .anxiety 5nd loss of timne, in going backwards and forwards to hiis lawver, in being thus forcedX to co?me here for the reduction of a few sbdmings. The question here wasc3, oa{t whether the plaiatiff shoul have 51. or Bl.; but whether he shOaldl be reimbursed only some past of his rosts. It was a contest not forpin between these partes, sinc bath Snusi lose; but if the 4elan& couldcut down she present plait tiff's demand, be wo'.ia 'Ieat attemupt to cut dOwn thle fair reward Ieoflabour claiinea b,yatherjoumevmen In.thletrade. 'The defcndint, in hdvin4gei iiidgtneni go by deiAult, had doubtless admitted' the pliantiff's right 'to ieeoier, zana the only question was subject to 114t deductiOns to be suade. -Jiaw...Byley joubreyman cabinetmaker, examinted by AMyr LWEs.itne ss -,_ 1 blav een journeymtan and foreman in the trade for thnoe 24- yere. Remembers the plaintif with himself in the employ o i'defendants,y who carry on an extensive business as r manu. factorers for the,trade. They don't sell, but make for other master *ebinetmakers. Cbuharles Fleming, the plainifF, left defenidants employ about t ae ena yf Aprl or begirnning of iltay last. The first job charged in this demand was for a lbootabie. charged 21. 12s. Abour thia there Wm no0 dispute, but the plaintio having taken owfe 2s., making his demand fto that only 21. l0s. The next tRo jobs were three ?deta sidehoard a the lvat of which was objected to b M1r. Davi. Witness didl not think it was execwted quite so wetl as it ought tD have been, chaed 41h " s. I Id. i hinks this woild admit ot a deduction of ori per cent. Two davg ' time chargte IN.u; this wa agzeed by Mr. Cumyn to be admittetxas correcLt ter. Csobalbn.The matter in diseute between uts is he difference betwixt U.,7., which has been paid by defendants, and the 171. claibed by the plainti. nt ifeveess . .I beis the a few pldntifF bas received. e,e o. is the deount re BtiCRALL -e Did thatthey 'aintiff adtnit the ieceipt to you of Cout tia mind tht dar. Comsyf.at not the plaintiff a member Of society ot journymen cabinetmakers S Mr. LAwEhie 1 don't think that is t baterial. Ilr. Co3KdtYrx'st is most nateroab, and I insist in having It put. Wiente C55- have seen him there. Mr. 'g2qTn byComef Sir, don't yoa know that he is and are not yua]lor ember of thae societyve -i believte he is, btrt I don't by ot' me t.ly di am a member only for the protection of cy tool -. not sr. Wall, who siit thmee, attorney for the journeymen yetbin tsne~ socieat ytr s e-1 de not know that. I mv ll say he is not attorthey forstso ciyf rtety as a society. sthn6 ho py the Iattorney for thea ?-I don't know, but ho is' he pattornefos eanebody thiat applieh to him for co*ducting a cante. rxoranot all tine ourney m e bringing actions againsL their en ployris appy t hi ?-es,conceiving him as a skilful man. (A laugh.) cmand; althoh an attorney inh this action ?fhMr aFleming. At binso expensel ?I don't klow. I have never heard eitbprir. Wall or plaintiff say thaL he is the attorney who supports8journey mnen cabenEintker against their employers; or that he supports the cause now brought here. Wituess proceeded..The itemsa in plainrtif's amnount are very flumerotis...05 items. There are some- times disputes betwdeen journeymen cabinetmakers and their mas- ter, r mean to any betwcen item and rzasten who are s litigious." .Me. Coargys-e like that term "i litigious." R-examnined by Mr. LAW cE.-o. agiad. is hete charged instead of 2s. 44.; that is doubled by nristakee heWitnes,s here explained the different items of piece-work which formed the various items ao charge in plaintiffr bill which it wounw be too tedious to enumerate. On cotning to the article" qui,, at o n per vard-not law quizrks"M...~ LAw. s ob!5~,vea,h a ldt finthere were other quirks in toi c beaidesw is (Laughter.) Then, eurnin to a tbe rter, asked what shbtnand chat he hadif- ti wasJu.stl,cfarl,alhoetyeildtorcv, for i lad"A ks p - deineg shown bis note-book with the word quirk writ- Oh " said he, i that I ,ee Is much too plain for e(Laugnlter.) 'This Witnesd's testimony, which went through almost every itcm of the aCCount only varied the plainiffcs dernand A few shillinoss in reductiorn, witnes staeting that the ureduced bill was regulates by the Union Prfe.book, which formed'tht tandyd rates of payment for piece-work between jor binetmakcerv s and their ims- ies,p as had been mutually agrnees uboebetween them. Mr. Coutls fora, th lhe defendants,(addressed the jurv at consitler- abe length. The ac ountideabl o t p raitiffe ca rge being only a few pounds,Che aid, wastof cabinotmoment alsto the defendants, and it wae not fofp]ir th 'sakemn of the etriing deductions sought to be maid, he i ed thi c se , th atouro a they h ad thou h int of em ploying c ounsel; b uty tiia t t h iso p lai n tiff,uc o n f e d ete d w ith t ers b e lo n n g to t hle s od -ety of journe y men ca binet .-m ake s ashould attem pt to ex- tort a hihr rate Of paym n pieork titan had been esta- bished throughout the tradle. of the (lefendants in suf- ethring judgment b e w ko n that they, would incur a heavihe expense by endng een obtained a verdict, than by merely m dispuin th e plonif' Lemn on the ground of excess; f'or although the socet of journeymen foundi moneyvfor thisi action, yet in case of plaintf'sfIlure, thie defendanits wouldl have to look aoe the costs only f the plaintiff himself, who was not in circum- stances to pay thm.It was- fat from a spirit of persecution towards the p!aintiff as his leared friend hiad represented ; but to put down exorbitant charges in otherourneyuen, that they resisted plantiff's demand ; althoughi it was true that his learned friend, who above all things hated to go to law hiinaelf, would sooner pay an imposi- con than litigate the matter. M)lr. LAWES (interrupting).I beg you wil not publish that of tn.1 (Luhter.) lklr. Cosryx said, lie believed hin learned friend was not singu- lar, for he knew many persons who wrould rather submit to an -ex- tortionate charge than have litigation. But it was otherwise here, since nothing was more likely to agitate disputes in this trade than to have one rate of pa,yment set up by the journevmen, and an- other by their masters. Lbhe grievance hete was, that the plain- till' haa deliveeri at difrerent timer three several bills, contan- ing charges whbich he now consented to reduce; whereas it was in con- sequence of the excess which the plaintiff now in part admittedl, that ithe defendants had been induced to resiist his dlemand ; and they now canre here,. as to a comnpeteat tribunal, to saywwat the plain- tiff was justly, fairlv, and honestly entitled to receive; for it was of thie utmnost 'importuance to the whole trade that there should be one regulated price The learnedl gentleman di- vided his case into three points-Ist, that the plaintiff's dle- nrand waz exorbitant; 2dly, thtat certain deductionas ought to be made ; and 3dty, th-at the las3t sideboard made by the plaintiff was so badly executed, the defendanL could nor sell it withouit loss. The latte point he subsequently abandoned. TChe following witnesseit were called to reduce the plaintiff's rate of pay-ment:- Thomas Barrett. master cab~inetmaker, was one of those em- wiuchwas ffu fvir impositionsaand disputes. Witne.sshere referredtenthe severailitems of plaintiff's demand, whichi he averred (contrary to) the witness for thel,ntif=Were considerably over the rates established bytbat book. Isa ivngton, master cabinetmTaker, also considerably redluced the items of plaintiff's demand by the Union Price-book which, he said, lia had the honour of' assisting last witnessg In compiling. J7ames Tbanely, foremian t.i Slssres. Toplis, St. Paul's church. yard, concurred withi the former witnesses as to deduction. Cross-exatmined by Mr. LAwES.-Was a witness for defendants in ane-action broughit by the present plaintiff against BMessrs.. Toplis for detaining his tool-chest. 1 But (continued the witness) that was no disgrace to me I should think." (A laugh.) Several other witnesse were called for defendants, who reduced plaintiff's dense.nd to somewhere about 51., instead of 61., balance as claimed by the planliff. Mr. Cosexc again addressed the Jury as to the credibility of evi. ulence. M r. LAW ES replied. Mr, BinCHeALL having summed up thje evidence, the .Jury re- tired ; nod after a s-hort deliberation, found for the plaintiff-da.. snages 51. SHERIFF'S COURT, RED LION-sQuTARr, Nov. 17. DtASTER CARINETWAKEICS AND THEIR JOURNEYltEX. - FLEMING V. DAVIS.