Mexborough and Swinton Times, December 19, 1902
The Denaby and Cadeby Strike.
The Ejectment Applications Granted
750 Homes to Be Broken Up.
At the Doncaster West Riding Police Court on Saturday, the chief business was the application of Mr. W. M. Gichard, of Rotherham, on behalf of the Denaby and Cadeby Colliery Company Limited, for ejectment orders against James Bolton and 750 other miners. Mr. G. W. Andrews again represented the men, the applications, it will be remembered, having been adjourned from a fortnight previous, so as to allow Christmas to pass before they took effect.
The magistrates on the Bench were Mr. G. B. C. Yarborough (in the chair), Messrs. W. J. Huntriss, G. Battey, J. W. Hodgson, J. C. Coulman, and Major Dove. Clerks, employed by the company, and various policemen were present to prove the serving of the notices to quit, the houses being the property of the company, and the miners weekly tenants.
Mr. Andrews, on the first evidence as to notice being given, made a technical objection as to the way the notices were served; but the Chairman said it had been the custom of the court to hold that an agreement in writing, duly signed and stamped, was “prima facie” evidence.
Mr. A. H. Barnard, agent, produced the company’s agreement, and a copy of the resolution, passed on November 17th, under the seal of the company, authorising Mr. Chambers, the managing director, to act as agent in giving the notice, and also for the application of ejectment orders.
Mr. Andrews raised the point that Mr. Chambers had not signed the document in his capacity as agent, but as chairman of the colliery company.
The Chairman ruled that there was no necessity for the word agent to follow the signature.
Mr. Gichard intimated that one case would be withdrawn, and the others would stand good.
The magistrates then took the applications in streets, and even with this way of dealing with them, the long list took over an hour and a half to go through.
At the conclusion Mr. Andrews pleaded that the men might be allowed the maximum limit, remarking that the notices allowed not less than 21 days, and not more than 30 days from the time of being served, and he said that it would be an act of mercy if the magistrates granted the maximum limit, and some arrangements might be arrived at in the meantime. He was not speaking on that point under instructions, but he hoped a settlement might take place, and if the 30 days limit were allowed it was not impossible that the desired settlement might take place during that time.
Mr. Gichard asked that the minimum time only be allowed, as they had had a fortnight’s adjournment, and there were over 700 ejectments to be carried out.
The Chairman agreed with Mr. Gichard that the ejectments would be a work of considerable magnitude, and the bench must consider those who had to carry out the orders.
Mr. Gichard again protested against any longer than 21 days being granted for the adjournment of cases might go on for ever.
The Chairman: We must make the usual order, and the police must use their discretion. No doubt they will have to consult with their superior officers as to what ought to be done under the circumstances.
No doubt the police would not see any undue harshness, or anticipate any period which was absolutely less than necessary for the enforcement of the order.
Previous to the above important application Mr. Gichard appeared for the same Company in an action against John Roberts, miner, of Old Whittington, for a judgement summons of 23s., which sum was part of the £6 damages and costs made against defendant for leaving his work at Denaby without giving 14 day’s notice. Mr. Gichard said the defendant had partly paid, and was willing to pay the other on his (Mr. Gichard’s) application for an adjournment for three weeks, which was granted.