Inspectors. Sir George Grey said that the suit was brought, not under the Factory Act, but Lord Campbell's; but the Judge told the Attorney-General, on the trial, that under Lord Campbell's Act he had no case, and that, but for the 21st section of the Factory Act, he would be out of Court. "The desire of the widow herself" was certainly necessary to the prosecution; but when the Factory Inspectors had excited that desire by their representations, and obtained her sanction, the whole affair was taken out of her hands. Here intervened the stretch of law and power by the Secretary of State, which placed the respective parties in the following position:—
Messrs. Wild were liable to injury by a verdict either way.[1] If there had been a verdict in their favour, they must have paid the widow's costs as well as their own,—she being a pauper. In case of an unfavourable verdict, they would have had to pay damages in addition to all the costs. As it ended, the government must pay their costs out of some public fund. If the plaintiff had won the suit, she would have been the Factory Inspector or the Secretary of State. If she had lost it, she would have been the pauper widow Ashworth. Surely a state of affairs which induces sharp practice, and a stretch of law and power
- ↑ The 25th section of the Factory Act provides, "And in case a verdict shall be found for the defendant, or judgment shall be recovered against the plaintiff, or the plaintiff shall be non-suited, the defendant shall have the like remedies for his costs, against the Inspector, as he might have had against the plaintiff."
But upon this provision, a very able lawyer, Mr. Lumley, has given the following opinion:—"It is difficult to see how this can be done according to the practice of the courts. A defendant has a writ of fi. fa. or ca. sa. for the recovery of his costs against the plaintiff" (i.e. in all actions between ordinary individuals). "But such writ cannot be issued, as a matter of course, against the Inspector, who will not be the plaintiff on the record."
From the spirit evinced by the Government and the Inspectors in the actions under discussion, and in all their proceedings against the factory occupiers, it cannot be doubted that payment of the costs of the defendant would be refused, while the doubt, expressed by Mr. Lumley, exists of the power to enforce their payment. Further legal proceedings would have to be resorted to, his own share of the costs of which the defendant would have to pay, if he was successful, and, if unsuccessful, the costs of the government officers also.
