Mexborough and Swinton Times March 20, 1885
Alleged intimidation by Denaby Miners
On Saturday lost before G.B.C.Yarborough (in the chair), F.B.Frank, A Sturrock, and F.J.leather,Esq., At the Doncaster West Riding Police Court, Daniel McGrath, Collier, Denaby was summoned under three separate counts:
For intimidating, for using violence to, and for following about in a disorderly manner, Enoch Sheldon, a deputy, employed at the Denaby Main colliery.
The same defendant was also charged with two other accounts, with intimidating and following about Henry Cooke, another deputy at Denaby; and Alfred Stevenson, pony driver, and William Hobson, Collier, were charged with intimidating and using violence to Henry Guest, a horse keeper, at Denaby.
Mr Barker, barrister, Sheffield (instructed by Mr Parker Rhodes, solicitor, Rotherham) appeared for the Denaby Main colliery Company, who had instituted the proceedings, and Mr Hall represented the defendants.
At the outset, Mr Hall apply for an adjournment on the ground three summonses judging each of the defendants with using violence, and that was a more serious charge contained in the indictment, were always so dumb Friday afternoon, and consequently if clients were not prepared with their defence. There were a great number of other cases – application for ejectment orders – and he would suggest that those cases should send over a short time also. He thought if the suggestion were adopted the whole proceeding might end in something beneficial all round.
He appeared for the men, and it might have some effect if the cases were adjourned, besides arbitration was the order of the day, and, indeed, he thought that was a good way of settling disputes.
Mr Barker said as far as his clients were concerned proper information were laid, and the summonses were taken out on Tuesday, and really trumps been served on the following day. At present he must have the service of summonses proved.
The Chairman: I may say that Thursday is the day the summonses are at usually served here, and we think that is in reasonable time.
Mr Barker said he was prepared to go on. Instructions were that the summonses were served on Wednesday, on some further summonses which it had been thought advisable to take out, were served on Friday. He thought it would be as well to hear what the officer had to say who served the summonses.
The Magistrates Clerk said there had been some irregularity in the service of the summonses.
Mr Hall said the first batch of summonses were served on Wednesday afternoon, and then another lot about 4 o’clock on Friday afternoon, and when the officer serves the second lot you told the people that they need not trouble about the first lot, as they were withdrawn – there had been something wrong in them, and he had brought some further summonses in their place.
Mr Barker: There will be no withdrawals.
Mr Hall: That is why we are here. We understood that the first lot were withdrawn.
PC Kendall was then put in the box, and said he served the summons on the grass by leaving them with is mother. He left some on Wednesday, and one on Friday.
Mr Hall: Upon your oath, did you not tell them that the second summons was in the place of the other lot?
Witness: no; but the other constable that was with me said something about them
Did he say that the summons you served yesterday was in place of the other?
No – did he not pass the other summonses back?
He asked to look at them.
Mr Barker contended that all the charges arose after one transaction, and the defendant McGrath knew last Wednesday that he would have to appear and answer three of the four charges, and he might then have instructed someone to appear for him.
Mr Hall said his clients were present on the summonses been served on Friday. Yours Mr Barker were the summers has served on Wednesday were redrawn, because if they were going on with them that day, he should have to retire from the case.
Mr Barker said he proposed to take the ejectment cases first, and then deal with the others.
The Chairman: As far as these charges against the three men are concerned, you’re not going on with them now?
Mr Barker: No
Later on, after the ejectment cases cases were disposed of, Mr Barker said he would leave the question of adjournment with the bench. If it was thought it would prejudice the defence, he did not wish to go on.
After a little further argument, the case was adjourned till next Saturday.