AS AFFECT WORK MEN, &C. by P., to depart from his hiring, contrary to the Act. Held that, II. CRIMINAL by reason of the enactment in the Metropolitan Police Act, 2 & 3 ING Vict. c. 71, s. 48, this conviction was sufficient, as it stated the offence in the words of 6 Geo. IV. c. 129, s. 3, although it did not set out the threats which were used, or allege to or against whom they were uttered. Perham, ex parte, 2 El. & El. 383. A resolution was passed by a society of bricklayers that no society bricklayer would work for B. until such time as he parted with some of his apprentices. The men in B.'s employment were accordingly withdrawn. In reply to a letter from B. requiring to be informed why the men were taken away, the resolution was communicated to him in a letter from the secretary. The secretary and the president of the meeting at which the letter was written having been convicted under 6 Geo. IV. c. 129, s. 3, of using threats to compel B. to limit the number of his apprentices: Held that in the absence of any evidence to show that the letter communicating the resolution, though apparently an explanation, was in fact meant as a threat, the conviction could not be sustained. Wood v. Bowron, 2 L. R. Q. B. 21; 36 L. J. M. C. 5; 15 W. R. 58; 15 L. T. N. S. 207. 129, s. 3. The workmen of S. had all struck, with the exception of one 4 Geo. IV. c man of the name of James. The men, however, agreed to resume work, but upon returning and finding James still at work, they gave over work and retired; and in answer to a question of the master why they did so, a deputation from a trades' union, headed by the appellant, attended, who said, "We've come about James; we shall not allow James to work." Whereupon the master said, "It is a very hard case. James was the only man who stayed to help me with the special orders in hand." Whereupon the appellant said, "Well, it's of no use, we have made up our minds. He shall not work; he's a scoundrel. Unless you discharge him, your men shall not be allowed to work." Held that the appellant brought himself within the meaning of the 6 Geo. IV. c. 129, s. 3. Shelbourne v. Oliver, 13 L. T. N. S. Q. B. 6; 30 The following cases decided in Scotland are also worthy of attention: In suspension of a conviction under the Act 6 Geo. IV. c. 129, the objection was taken that the complaint and relative oath were not dated. Lord Gillies (with whom concurred Lords Mackenzie AS AFFECT ING WORK MEN, &C. II. CRIMINAL and Moncrieff) held the objection good. "The date of a written document cannot be proved by parole. You cannot prove perjury where there is no date. Neither can the date be supplied by the deliverance of the judge." On the other side, Lord Medwyn (with whom concurred Lord Justice-Clerk Boyle) held that there was no authority by which summary petitions are required to be dated, and that it is not necessary that warrants of citation should have a date. The conviction was set aside on other grounds, 24th January, 1835. M'Leod; 13 Shaw, 1153. 4 Geo. IV. c. 129, s. 3. By the 7th section of the Act, one or more justice or justices are authorized, on complaint on oath, to summon a party complained of to appear before two justices, and on failure to appear such justices may grant a warrant to apprehend the party; or without summons, if such justices shall think fit, they may issue warrant to apprehend. One justice, on a sworn complaint, granted warrant to apprehend and convene, and the accused parties appeared before two justices, who convicted. It was disputed and not settled whether they appeared voluntarily or had been apprehended. The court, on suspension, quashed the conviction, because the first warrant was to apprehend and granted only by one justice. Lords Gillies, Moncrieff, and Justice-Clerk (Boyle), held the error fatal. Lord Mackenzie, on the contrary, held that it is a general principle, applicable to justices as well as to judges, that there shall be a quorum for trying the case, but not for giving a warrant of apprehension ; and with him concurred Lord Medwyn. The conviction was set aside. 24th January, 1835, M'Leod; 13 Shaw, 1153. Conviction set aside because, 1st, complaint was not on oath; and 2nd, that declaration had been improperly taken and used in evidence. 4th April, 1859, Cochrane; 3 Irv. 396. The statute requires a conviction to be filed in the records of the Quarter Sessions. Certain parties were convicted, and the two justices subscribed a conviction in the form given in the Act. The clerk sent with the prisoners a copy of the conviction, embodied in a letter addressed to the keepers of the prison. In a suspension, the court unanimously held that there should have been a commitment under the hands of the justices themselves. 24th January, 1835, M'Leod; 13 Shaw, 1153. An action of damages was subsequently dismissed, 10th June, 1837. The following case decided in Ireland may also be consulted : AS AFFECT MEN, &C. Indictment for inciting persons not to enter into the employ- II. CRIMINAL ment of R. S. The evidence showed that these persons had ING WORKentered into the employment of R. S. The prisoners being convicted, two questions were reserved-1st, Whether the offence 4 Geo. IV. c charged was an offence at common law; 2nd, whether the evidence supported the indictment. Held, in a case reserved, that the indictment was bad and the conviction wrong. The King v. Petitt, Jebb's Criminal Cases, p. 151. 129. AS AFFECT ING WORKMEN, &C. CHAPTER III. II. CRIMINAL LEGISLATION AS AFFECTING WORKMEN, SERVANTS, AND APPRENTICES. II. CRIMINAL As pointed out in a previous chapter (a), the Acts 22 Geo. II. c. 27, and 17 Geo. III. c. 56 (b), conferred upon the justices of 6 & 7 Vict. the peace criminal jurisdiction over certain classes of workmen. frauds and in cases of purloining or embezzlement of materials. These Acts c. 40, as to embezzle ment by workmen. Any person embezzling materials victed by oath of owner or ble witness. continued to regulate proceedings of this nature up till the year 1843. In that year, however, an Act was passed, intituled "An Act to amend the laws for the prevention of frauds and abuses by persons employed in the woollen, worsted, linen, cotton, flax, mohair, and silk hosiery manufactures, and for the further securing the property of the manufacturers and wages of the workmen engaged therein" (c). Upon the preamble that eight previous Acts, specially referred to, and including the two above mentioned, had not been effectual to prevent frauds, embezzlements, and abuses by persons employed in the trades referred to in the title, they are repealed in so far as they relate to the woollen, linen, cotton, flax, mohair, and silk manufactures, or any of them, or any manufactures made of these materials. In place of the provisions of the former Acts, it is, by the first pawning or section of the Act in question, enacted, that if any person is conmay be con- victed of pawning or embezzling any of the materials, tools, or apparatus therein referred to, by the oath of the owner of the other credi- materials, or of "any other credible witness or witnesses," before two or more justices of the peace, he shall forfeit the full value of the materials, and be liable in a penalty not exceeding £10, with costs as to the justices shall seem meet, which may be recovered by distress and sale. If there is no sufficient distress he may be imprisoned for a period not exceeding three calendar months, with or without hard labour. Penalty £10 and costs. (a) Chapter iii. pp. 95-98. (b) 22 Geo. II. c. 27; 17 Geo. III. c. 56. (c) 6 & 7 Vict. c. 40. AS AFFECT MEN, &C. If the said materials, tools, or apparatus are not returned to II. CRIMINAL the owner within fourteen days after being demanded, unless ING WORKsome reasonable and sufficient cause prevents this being done, it is provided, by the third section, that the person so neglecting or delaying to return them shall be subject to the same liabilities as workmen. if he had embezzled them. and embez zlement by Persons neglecting to return materials, tools, fourteen to same pen. Any person or receiving, selling, or pawning embezzled articles, held guilty of misdemean or. For penalty On proof by By section four it is enacted that persons knowingly purchas- ret ing or receiving embezzled materials or tools shall be deemed and &c., within adjudged guilty of a misdemeanor (d); and by the fifth section days, liable the same consequence will follow in the case of any one who alty. shall sell or pawn, or offer to sell or pawn, any such articles purchasing knowing them to have been embezzled. The oath of the owner or of other credible witness or witnesses is sufficient to conany vict. The punishment is provided for by the eleventh section. The sixth section provides that, on proof on oath that there is just cause to suspect that any such materials, tools, or apparatus vide sect. 11. have been fraudulently sold, pawned, pledged, purloined, or em- oath that bezzled, by the person to whom they were intrusted, or that they have been purchased, or received, or sold, or pawned, or offered to be so, by any person knowing them to have been purloined, sold, justice or taken from, or received from some person fraudulently dispos- warrant to ing thereof, any one justice may issue a warrant for apprehending such party; and if upon examination the charge shall be supported by evidence to raise " a strong presumption of guilt," the justice shall commit the person accused to the common gaol or house of correction, in order that he may be brought to trial at the next Petty Sessions, unless he enter into bail with two sureties to appear on the day to be fixed for his trial. there is just cause to sus pect that materialsare fraudulently may issue apprehend. workmen ne fulfil engage finishing By the seventh section workmen neglecting to fulfil their Penalties on engagements, and not finishing their work, or leaving without glecting to notice, are liable to a penalty not exceeding £2, and to pay any ments, not damage sustained by the materials intrusted to them, which may work, or be recovered by distress and sale; failing which, imprisonment out notice. may follow for any term not exceeding two months, with or without hard labour (e). (d) This term is defined by Blackstone as follows:-"A misdemeanor is in truth any crime less than felony, and the word is generally used in contradistinction to felony, and misdemeanors comprehend all indictable offences which do not amount to felony, 4 (e) This section is superseded by 30 & 31 Vict. c. 141, Schedule I. leavingwith |