IMPORTANT TO TRADE UNIONISTS.

Evening Star, Issue 11607, 18 June 1902, Page 8

IMPORTANT TO TRADE UNIONISTS.

The decision of the Court of Appeal has ] just been given in the case of Read v. the Society of Operative Stonemasons of Great Britam and Ireland, the quest.on at issue being one relating to apprenticeship. It appeared that the plaintini, Lewis George Kead, was apprenticed to Messrs Wigg and Wright, of Ipswich, having before that time been working for the firm as a laborer, earning 15s a week. The firm undertook to teach the young man the trade of a stonemason, and carried out their contract till May, 1901, when rumors reaching Mr Wigg as to the intention of the society to call out their members on strike in consequence of the apprenticeship of the plaintiff, which it was alleged was a breach by the firm of rule 6 of the working rules of the society. He wrote to the secretary espress.ng regret if the firm had unwittingly broken the rule, and suggesting that the plainiiff should he allowed to serve out his indentures. To this the secretary replied that unless the firm ceased to teach the plaintiff the trade of a stonemason the secretary would take prompt action by authorising their members to give two hours' notice to quit the firm's service. The rule alleged to have been broken was to the effect that boys entering the trade should not work more than three months without being legally bound apprentice, and in no case"to be more than sateen years of age, except masons' sons and stepsons, employers to have on an average one apprentice to everv four masons. The plaintiff was tweiitv-tive years of age, but as he was the Mm of a stonemason the firm did not tliink they were breaking the rule by admitting him to apprenticeship. Under the threat of the strike the firm reduced the plaintiff to his former position of a laborer. The plaintirf sued the defendants to recover damages, alleging that they had wrongfully and maliciously induced Messrs Wigg and Wright to break the agreement of apprenticeship, and thereby prevented him from <iu.'ihfy'in£! to earn the wages of'a journeyman stonemason —namely, 35s a week. The Cotiii'y Court Judge held that there was no cause of action against the defendants, who seemed to have acted bona fide in the interests of the society, and were not actuated by improper motives. Against this tbe plaintiff appealed. Mr Justice Darling, in delivering the judgment of the Court (comprising the Chief Justice of England, Mr Justice Channell, and himself), said that the Court were of opinion that it was not enough to justify the conduct of tbe defendants in inducing plaintiff's employe™ to break their contract with him that they acted bona fide and with proper motives, or that they honestly acted on a wrong understanding of the rules of the rociety to which the plaintiff's employers bad subscribed. On the other hand, the findings of the County Court Judge were not sufficient on which to award damages to the plaintiff. Therefore the case must go back for a new trial. The appeal was accordingly allowed with costs.