Mexborough & Swinton Times – Friday 08 August 1902
John Cairns driver, Denaby, was summoned for intimidating John Thomas Hill, by using threats to him on July 26th.
Mr. Gichard appeared to prosecute, and Mr. J. W. Rowlands defended.
ln opening the proceeding, Mr. Gichard said they were instituted under the Conspiracy and Protection of Property I Act, 1875.
On the date in question the defendant threatened to throw the complainant into the river if he went to work again. Hill was one of the men who, during the continuation of the dispute at Cadeby Main Colliery, had remained at work.
On the date referred to, Hill was returning from work, and had proceeded so far as the bridge which spans the river, when he met the defendant, who first of all said to him “Can you give me a cig ?” meaning presumably a cigarette. Hill replied, ” I have not got one,’ when defendant retorted ” No, you ——– blackleg; if you go to work on Monday I’ll chuck you into the river.”
Prosecutor did not reply, and shortly afterwards walked away with his mother, who was present with him and had gone there on account of certain rumours she had heard , as to what was likely to take place, to look after her son.
Proceeding, Mr. Gichard went on to say that the case was not such a serious one as it appeared to be. It was necessary that those men who were willing to work should be allowed to do so, and in this there was no necessity whatever for any interference. The probability that if this kind of thing were not checked in its inception it would lead to more serious consequences in the future. He did not wish to the charge against the defendant, and he was instructed to say that the prosecutor would be satisfied if the defendant ware bound over.
Prosecutor, and his mother bore out the statement of Mr. Gichard.
Mr. Rowland submitted that the parties had been good friends, and so far as the threat was concerned, it was one of a conditional character—which was really no threat at all.
The Chairman said the Bench of opinion that no threat that amounted to intimidation had been used. They thought it was an ordinary case of threat, and dismissed the summons against the defendant.