Slike strani
PDF
ePub

being now repealed; and, therefore, a combination among a body of workmen for a similar purpose is no longer indictable as a conspiracy.

The reconsideration of this subject, and the subsequent alteration of the law is probably in great measure owing to the proceedings in R. v. Brown and others (12 Cox Crim. L. Ca., 316), commonly known as the Gas Stokers' Case, tried before Mr. Justice Brett, in 1872. In that case the defendants were servants of a gas company, under contract of service, and, being offended by the dismissal of a fellow servant, agreed together to quit the service of their employers without notice and in breach of their contracts of service, by reason whereof the company were seriously impeded in the conduct of their business. Being indicted for a conspiracy, it was contended on their behalf that the statute 34 & 35 Vict. c. 31 (the Trade Union Act, 1871), having (by sect. 2) determined that no act shall be illegal merely by being in restraint of trade, and the 34 & 35 Vict. c. 32 (the Criminal Law Amendment Act), having defined the offence of "obstructing or molesting," and otherwise determined what shall be deemed to be offences as between masters and servants, it had virtually been declared that all other acts were not punishable. But it was held that the provisions of these statues had not affected the common law of conspiracy for which an indictment would lie.

The evidence in the case showed that the probable consequence of the refusal of the men to do their work was to plunge a great part of London in darkness. The learned judge, however, distinctly told the jury that they must not allow themselves to be influenced by the view that from there being an agreement between the defendants to cease work it would have had a most lamentable effect upon the city and the public. "I entirely agree,” his Lordship said, "that so far as these men were the servants of the Gas Company they had no obligation whatever with regard to the public; that they had no greater obligation than anybody else had. They had entered into no agreement with the public; the public paid them nothing for their labour, and they were under no further obligation to the public

than any other of the Queen's subjects." (12 Cox, p. 338). In a later part of his address to the jury with reference to the question how the Company might be affected or influenced by the act of the workmen, his Lordship said, "It comes to my mind to be an essential matter for you to consider what was the position of the Gas Company, and for that purpose you must consider what was the relation between the Gas Company and the public. As between the Gas Company and the public, the Gas Company were supplying the whole of the city of London, and a great part of what is called the West End of London, with gas. And the Gas Company would be under contract no doubt to supply a great many persons with gas. But whether they were under contract or not, you will ask yourselves whether the stoppage of such a large business, and the stoppage of it in that way,—namely that it would reduce the city of London and the suburbs to darkness --whether that would not be a tremendous blow to the Company, the employers of these men. I say nothing of the public; but is it not a case in which the men, however little intelligent they might be, would have it in their minds that their employers never would run the risk, and take the responsibility of putting the whole of London, or all that part of London which they supplied with gas, into darkness?" (12 Cox, p. 350.) His Lordship then proceeded to put it to the jury whether the workmen had not combined to compel the Company under the pressure of this responsibility to adopt a course which the workmen wished for, but which the Company were averse to.

This summing up clearly pointed out that the defendants could not be convicted of a conspiracy with respect to any inconvenience to which the public might be put by their joint act; but that such inconvenience, for which the Company would primarily be responsible, might properly be taken into consideration as influencing the Company to yield to the wishes of the defendants.

The defendants were convicted and sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment with hard labour. (12 Cox, p. 351.)

This case caused a considerable amount of feeling among the workmen throughout the kingdom; and one argument urged

against the propriety of the sentence was that, assuming the men had been guilty of such aggravated misconduct as would render each of them individually liable under the 14th section of “the Master and Servant Act, 1867," to punishment, that punishment at the utmost could only have been three months' imprisonment with hard labour; and that the punishment inflicted on the defendants was four times as severe.

Subsequently Her Majesty, by the advice of the then Home Secretary (Mr. Bruce) remitted eight months of the imprisonment and reduced the sentence to four months' imprisonment with hard labour. (Cox, ut supra.)

The principle of the objection that was urged against the sentence in the Gas Stokers' case is now adopted in this Act, by which any person convicted of a combination to do an act punishable on summary conviction shall not be imprisoned for more than three months, unless the statute creating the offence prescribes a longer time of imprisonment for the act when committed by one person, when the imprisonment is not to exceed such time in the case of such combination.

As has already been stated a mere combination of workmen to break a contract is, as a general rule, no longer punishable; but two exceptions are made to this rule; first, where the contract is with a company who supply any place with gas or water (sect. 4); secondly, where the probable consequence of a breach of contract would cause bodily injury to persons, or injury to property (sect. 5.)

In either of these cases the extreme punishment is a penalty of £20, or imprisonment with or without hard labour for three months.

And, as has been seen, the punishment will be the same in the case of a combination of workmen, as in that of a single individual. In these cases the Legislature has adopted the principle, which was carefully excluded by Mr. Justice Brett in the Gas Stokers' case, according to the then state of the law; viz., that where a breach of contract involves probable injury or inconvenience to those who are strangers to such contract. it may be punished

Breach of

contract by persons

supply of

criminally. But on the other hand a breach of contract which by a combination of workmen does not cause bodily injury or injury to property, though it might cause any amount of other injury to their employer is now no longer to be treated as an offence. For example, if a builder is bound by contract, under heavy penalties, to finish certain works within a specified time, and all his workmen being under contract of service, by agreement break their contract, and go on strike, though the builder might be utterly ruined by such a proceeding, it would be no offence in the workmen.

4. Where a person employed by a municipal authority employed in (e) or by any company (f) or contractor (f) upon whom is gas or water imposed by Act of Parliament the duty, or who have otherwise assumed the duty of supplying any city, borough, town, or place, or any part thereof, with gas or water, and wilfully and maliciously (g) breaks a contract of service with that authority or company or contractor, knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that the probable consequences of his so doing, either alone or in combination with others, will be to deprive the inhabitants (h) of that city, borough, town, place, or part, wholly or to a great extent of their supply of gas or water, he shall on conviction thereof by a court of summary jurisdiction (i) or on indictment as hereinafter mentioned (j), be liable either to pay a penalty not exceeding twenty pounds or to be imprisoned for a term not exceeding three months, with or without hard labour (k).

Every such municipal authority (e), company, or contractor (f) as is mentioned in this section shall cause to be posted up, at the gasworks or waterworks, as the case may be, belonging to such authority or company or contractor, a printed copy of this section in some con

spicuous place where the same may be conveniently read by the persons employed, and as often as such copy becomes defaced, obliterated, or destroyed, shall cause it to be renewed with all reasonable despatch.

If any municipal authority (e) or company or contractor (f) make default in complying with the provisions of this section in relation to such notice (1) as aforesaid, they or he shall incur on summary conviction a penalty not exceeding five pounds (m) for every day during which such default continues, and every person who unlawfully injures, defaces, or covers up any notice so posted up as aforesaid in pursuance of this Act, shall be liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding forty shillings (m).

(e) MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY.-See for the meaning of this expression in England, sect. 14; in Scotland, sect. 18 (1); in Ireland,

sect. 21.

(f) COMPANY OR CONTRACTOR.-As to who shall be deemed to be a company or contractor, see sect. 14.

(9) MALICIOUSLY.-For the meaning of this word, see sect. 15. (h) INHABITANTS. The result, or the "probable consequences," of a breach of contract must be of a public character, to bring it within the operation of this section. It must affect the inhabitants generally; and it will not be sufficient if only individuals are affected by it. Thus a breach of contract by one or more workmen, the consequence of which would be to deprive a firm, such as the owners of a large mill, of gas, or the proprietors of baths and wash-houses, of water, would not be an offence under this section.

(2) COURT OF SUMMARY JURISDICTION. -For a definition of this expression as respects England, see sect. 13; as to Scotland, sect. 18 (3); as to Ireland, sect. 26.

(j) INDICTMENT.-See sect. 9; see next note.

« PrejšnjaNaprej »