The Recent Strike of Fillers at Denaby Main Colliery

Mr HH Hickmott, acting under instructions from Mr WH Chambers, the manager of the Denaby Main cholerae applied to the magistrates for orders of commitment against Eli Brunt, Thomas Benton, James Bailey and Thomas Mullins, fillers employed at the colliery, in default of the payment of a fine of 10 shillings imposed upon them by the bench on 9 August last. None of the defendants appeared, but Eli Brunt was represented by his mother.

Mr Hickman stated that in August last Denaby Main Colliery Companies summoned between 80 and 90 of their workmen “fillers,” for absenting themselves from work without giving the proper notice, and the bench made an order in majority of cases that they should pay 10 shillings each, including costs.

The four defendants were among those fined, but they have since refused to pay the money, in fact, they defied the order of the Bench.

Police Constable Kendall stated that the defendants had no goods upon which to destrain. There were single men and kept themselves.

Mr WH Chambers, manager of the colliery, said in the month of August an order was made against the four defendants for the payment of 10 shillings. Nominal damages claim by the company for breach of contract. The average earnings of the defendant at the present are 24 shillings each week. He considered that this was ample evidence of means of ability to pay the money.

The Chairman: Ought you not to produce the books to show that the order was made.

Mr Hickmott: Perhaps Mr Rhodes could prove that.

The Chairman: When was the order made?

Mr Hickmott: On 9 August.

The Clerk: What is the largest amount these men have received. Could you swear that they have received 24 shillings?

Mr Chambers: Yes

The Bench then decided that if the money was not paid the defendants would have to go to prison for seven days.

Mrs Brunt stated that her son got his foot hurts shortly after the fine was levied, and was therefore unable to work. He had only worked two weeks after the order was made.

Mr Chambers stated that Brunt worked three weeks after the order was made, and then had plenty of time to pay. He refused to pay, however, until this summons was served upon him. He was quite willing, if the mother would agree to pay as she said, to allow the order to stand over.

Mr Hickmott remarked that the object of the summonses was to prove to the other men that the order could be enforced.