I could not see any more for Frances, but there was a case in the Sheffield courts 1852 involving James Rixon brickmaker, Sheffield Independent, Saturday 11 December 1852
https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000181/18521211/013/0005 Apologies for any remaining OCR errors! -
"Disputed Hiring. — Clarence v. Mills. — This action, which was one of a series which have been pending in this County Court for some weeks past, was finally heard and adjudicated on Wednesday last It originated in a dis-pute between a number of brickmakers and the defendant, as to whether they were employed by him or a contractor named James Rixon. The defendant was the occupier of a brick-yard, on Cricket Inn road. On the 11th of May last, he entered into a written contract with Rixon, to make bricks at 13s. per 1000, Rixon finding labour. A dispute arose be- tween them as to the work. It was referred to arbitration, and decided in favour of Mills, it being shewn that he had overpaid Rixon £2. 10s. The workmen employed at the yard not having received their wages, summoned Mills, and these being dismissed by the Magistrates, several of the men brought actions in the County Court against Mills. The first of these was tried and decided on the llth November. It was brought by Charles Trolly, and was to recover £4. 17s. Judgment was given for the defendant Another action, against the same defendant, was brought by John Clarence. It was par- tially heard on the llth and 12th of November, arid then ad- journed until the 14th. The defendant and this witnesses not being present at the rehearing, judgment was for the plaintiff. A third action, brought by Robert Rixon for £5, was proceeded with the same day, and adjourned to the Ist of December, when Mr. Chambers, on the part of the de- fendant, applied for a new trial in the case of Clarence v. Mills, and asked his Honour to suspend his judgment on the case until that had been reheard. This the Judge acceded to, and on payment into Court of £5, for the costs of adjournment, a new trial was granted, which was appointed to be heard on Wednesday. The plaintiff, John Enoch, and John Snell swore positively to meeting Mills in the Haymarket, on Mon- day, the 10th of May, and his engaging with Enoch and the plaintiff. On the following day, between two and three in the afternoon, they went to the brickyard, and were set to work by the defendant.. ..On behalf of the defendant, Mr. Chambers called seven or eight witnesses, who proved that Mills was at Masbro' and Rotherham until late in the evening on tbe ?? of May, and was at Rotherham, Masbro', and Parkgate during the whole of the following day, so that he could not possibly have been at Sheffield. . . . Mr. Fretson, on behalf of the plain- tiff, replied, contending that the evidence adduced by the de- fendant was not inconsistent with that of the plaintiff. . . .The Judge did not consider that the liability of the defendant had been established. He thought the defendant hud acted in some respects indiscreetly, with regard to the position in which lie stood with the men ; but it had not been shown that he was the person who engaged them. He should, therefore, give a verdict for the defendant in both cases, and he trusted that it would be a final settlement of the question It was a pity, so far as the men were concerned, that they should lose their wages, but he did not think the defendant was liable Judgmeat was therefore entered for the defendant- No costs were allowed."
