Barton v Harten

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 25 January 1925
• Date: 25 January 1925
• Court: King's Bench Division (Irish Free State)

K. B. Div.

Barton v. Harten

BARTON

and

HARTEN (1)

Trade union - Trade dispute - Workman arrested by Government Forces - Refusal of employer to reinstate the workman when released - Absence of trade dispute - Picketing of premises - Trades Disputes Act, 1906 (6 Ed. 7, c. 47), sect. 5, sub-s. 3.

Case Stated

Appeal, by way of case stated, in a matter of a complaint wherein Sergeant John Barton, of the Dublin Metropolitan Police, was complainant and Francis Harten was defendant, from a decision of Mr. Edmund Lupton K.C., one of the Divisional Justices of the Police District of Dublin Metropolis.

The case was stated for the opinion of the King's Bench Division, at the instance of the said Francis Harten pursuant to the provisions of 20 & 21 Vict. cap. 43.

At a sitting of the Dublin Metropolitan Police Court on the 12th day of November, 1923, before the said Divisional Justice, the said Francis Harten was charged in and by a certain summons for that he on the 7th day of November, 1923, at 68 Upper Dorset Street, within the Police District of Dublin Metropolis, with a view to compel Patrick Hogan, publican, 68 Upper Dorset Street, to abstain from doing an act which he had a legal right to do, viz.: to carry on his business at said premises, and also to compel persons from entering therein, did wrongfully and without legal authority watch and beset said above-mentioned premises by walking on the carriageway in front of the shop distributing handbills directing persons not to support said shopkeeper, and calling out: "Strike on here," there being no trade dispute between the said Patrick Hogan and his employees. And the said parties being then present, the said summons was part heard, and the further hearing was adjourned until the 14th day of November, 1923, when, the parties being then present, the hearing was resumed and finished, and the Divisional Justice ordered that the said defendant should pay for penalty the sum of ten shillings for that the said defendant, with a view to compel the said Patrick Hogan to abstain from carrying on his business at his said business premises until he

reinstates one Robert Cullen, a former employee, wrongfully and without legal authority did watch the business premises of the said Patrick Hogan on the 7th day of November, 1923.

The case stated set out the following facts, which were either proved or admitted:—

"1. On and prior to the 22nd day of October, 1922, the said Robert Cullen was employed from week to week as a publican's assistant by the said Patrick Hogan, who was then, and still is, a publican carrying on business at 68 Upper Dorset Street.

2. On the said 22nd day of October, 1922, the said Robert Cullen was arrested by the Government forces, and imprisoned by the Executive Government, and kept in prison until the 29th day of September, 1923.

3. Since the date of his arrest and imprisonment no communication of any kind passed between the said Robert Cullen and the said Patrick...