Mexborough and Swinton Times March 27, 1885
Alleged Intimidation at Denaby Main
William Hobson, collier, Denaby, was summoned for intimidated John Guest, horsekeeper, Conisbrough, and also for using violence on complainant.
Mr Barker appeared for the Denaby Main company, and Mr Hall for the defendant.
Mr Barker said the prosecution arose out of the same proceedings as the former case. He would prove that Willie Hobson was one of the crowd and that he struck one of the deputies with a piece of dirt as he was going to his work.
He called John Guest, horsekeeper for the company, who stated that he had to go into the pit to feed the horses. William Hobson, the defendant, was a collier employed at the Denaby Main colliery. When returning from work on 6 March he saw a crowd of people near the pit gates. He was not followed by the crowd. An armful of sludge was thrown at him by someone, which struck him at the back of the neck. He did not see who threw it.
PC Hutchinson said he was on duty on 6 March. He saw the deputy returning from work. He saw the defendant come down the sidings of the Denaby Main colliery. When the complainant came out of the gates there was a crowd there. He saw Hobson strike the complainant with a handful of mud just as the latter was coming out of the gate.
By Mr Hall: The crowd knew that witness was present. A man named Henry Guest was there, but he did not say, “come lads let’s of a cheer.” He saw Henry Guest struck as well.
Mr Hall: Why can’t you answer a question. You thought you would throw that in, “I saw him struck as well.”
In further cross examination witness said he did not hear the crowd cheer but he heard them shout “Bah?” and “Black sheep.” He saw Alfred Dainty and Stevenson there. He did not hear Henry Guest speak to them them as they passed and say, “Hello Bill how are you getting on?” He (witness) was at the opposite side of the road and there were some people between him and Hobson.
Re-examined by Mr Barker: The people in the crowd were shouting, “Bah, Black Sheep”; they were all hooting and ‘baahing’ and not cheering.
PC Carter said he saw Hobson throw a lump of soil at John Guest which hit him on the back.
By Mr Hall: He was with the other policeman, and the crowd was between them and the complainant.
Mr Hall, for the defence, contended that the defendant did nothing at all to the complainant, he merely happened to be standing in the crowd. One of the Guests came past and happened to see him, and said, “Hello Bill, how are you getting on? “If there were so many persons in the crowd his friend surely would have brought other witnesses besides the two policeman. There was a crowd between the police and Hobson, and his was going on it would be very easy to make a mistake. He would call someone who was with the defendant all the time, but never saw him do anything at all. Henry Guest as he came out of the gate said “Aren’t you going to give us a cheer,” and the crowd then cheered.
He called Thomas Dainty, one of the miners on strike, who said he was talking to Hobson when the last witness Guest came by. John Guest spoke to Hobson and asked him how he was, and he said “Middling.”Henry Guest asked whether they were not going to give a cheer, and put his stick up and shouted “Hurrah!” Hobson threw nothing at all and he could not have thrown anything without witnessing him. Mrs Plant and a man named Stevenson were close to them. Hobson never threw anything, but he (witness) knew a lad who did, and if the bench asked for his name he would give it.
By Mr Barker: he went to the pit gate because “the others” did. They were not shouting “Black sheep”; he heard some hooting and he did the same as the others; he hooted because the others did so. He saw someone throw at the complainant but did not see anything striking. He would say that the witness was telling untruths when he said he was hit at the back of the neck.
By Mr Hall: Where he was standing was a part of the highway
Alfred Stevenson, Hannah Plant and Hannah Barker all gave corroborative evidence, the Chairman said, taking the whole of the evidence into consideration, the Bench were of opinion as it was both a criminal charge and a serious one there was not sufficient evidence to prove the charge of personal violence.
Mr Barker said there was another charge against the same man for intimidation. The facts were precisely the same. He could not of course do more or less than he had done in the last case, and he would not occupy the time of the Bench with the thought the come to the same conclusion.
The Chairman thought in the evidence they had heard there was very little evidence of intimidation against Hobson.
Mr Hall objected to the case being gone into on the ground that it had been already heard and was only splitting up the case. The bench had already disposed of the case. They had already decided that the defendant did not commit violence to get the complainant to abstain from work.
PC Hutchinson was called and said that he saw a crowd of people and heard them shouting “Bah!” and “Black sheep.” The defendant was amongst the crowd. The crowd followed Sheldon and Cooke to their home. He first saw Hobson on a piece of waste land.
Mr Hall: Was Guest there?
Witness: I was explaining
Mr Hall: Was Guest there? Never mind explaining
Mr Barker: Don’t answer the question
Mr Hall said his objection was that what took place when Guest was not there had nothing to do with the case. The charge was that of trying to intimidate John Guest.
Witness (continuing) said he heard Hobson say “look at you – – – – coming down the colliery yard. Come on lads let’s give it the – – – –.” The two men coming down the yard were the two Guests. After he had said that Hobson went towards the Conisbrough crossing. He stopped at the gate and through some mode at John Guest.
John Guest and Henry Guest gave evidence in support of the case. The latter said he had not been to work since 6th March. He was coming from the pit yard on that day when a piece of “muck” hit him on the side of the head. He did not see anything done to his brother. He left off going to work because he was frightened.
Mr Hall contended that there was no evidence showing that John Guest had been compelled to abstain from working. It was very easy, because the others liked to go on strike to say that he was frightened.
Thomas Dainty, Alfred Stevenson and Hannah Plant stated that the defendant did not make use of the language referred.
The Chairman said that case different from the last. They had no doubt whatsoever that the crowd had assembled for the purpose of meeting the men coming out of the pit, and to intimidate them from doing work which they were entitled to do. The men were hooted and called “Black sheep,” and pelted with mud, all of which no doubt was intimidation. They had heard the evidence on both sides, but thought there was not sufficient to warrant them in coming to a conclusion that he was really guilty of intimidation. That being the case there would give the defendant the benefit of the doubt and dismiss the summons.