The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1876-01-15 00:00:00

COUNTY COURT.

Evans v. Hardman 4, Co.—This action was tried
at the County Court, on Thursday last, before Mr.
Rupert Kettle,—Judge. Plaintiff is a builder, resid-
ing in Church-street, in this town, and the defendants
are the eminent firm "Hardman & C 0.," stained
glass manufacturers and church decorators, of Bir-
mingham.—Mr. Perry was for plaintiff. Defendants
were not renreser.ted by any legal gentleman; a Mr.
Hopkins, who is connected with the firm, appearing
to represent defendants.—Mr. Perry stated that the
action was brought to recover the sum of £26 14s
10d for the use of scaffold poles and other building
materials, let out on hire. Mr. Hopkins admitted hav-
ing had the use of the materials, but disputed the
charges as being exorbitant. He should prove, how-
ever, by plaintiff and his witnesses that this was not
the ease. Mr. Evans was called, and stated that he
had only charged defendants the usual prices for the
hire of the materials in question. Defendant asked
plaintiff how much the cement casks were worth.
The latter replied that probably one would get one
shilling each for them in Stourbridge. Defendant
here stated that according to the charges made the
defendant wished him to pay 9s for what he himself
had admitted was worth only ls.—Mr. Hicks said
he was a surveyor and an architect, and was familiar
with the prices charged for the hire of scaffolding
and other building materials. He had looked through
Mr. Evans's charges, and they were lower than usual.
Cross-examined by Mr. Hopkins: He had had 40
years experience as an architect, and was thoroughly
conversant with the prices charged for the hire of
materials in the building trade. Cement casks were
worth 48 Gd each—Mr. William Bloomer deposed
that he had looked through:plaintiff's charges, and
found they were rather below the usual average.—
Mr. Hopkins addressed his Honour for the defence,
and said the defendants (who are the well-known
firm of Hardman and Co., stained glass manufactu-
rers and decorators, of itiirmingham), were in busi-
ness in a large way, and had never had to dispute a
charge of that kind before. He should bring Mr.
Holmes who would prove that the charges were not
too much if taken for a few weeks, but when taken
for several months they were excessive. Those
cement cases which plaintiff had charged them £3
12s for, Mr. Hicks, his own witness, had stated were
only worth_4s 6d each. He then called Mr. Graham
Holmes, who said he was in business in Birmingham,
as a contractor. He had been in business for thirty
years, and had let out scaffolding to a very large am-
ount. His usual charges for five weeks per dozen,
for planks, would be is per dozen. If for 15 weeks,
they charged 6d per dozen. That was for scaffold-
ing boards. For a 41-round ladder he should charge
2s 6d per week.—His Honour said that Mr. Holmes'
evidence would show what were the Birmingham, but
was no criterion as to the tariff in use amongst
builders at Stouibridge.—lt ultimately transpired
that Mr. Holmes had done some work at Stamber
Mill, and at Kingswinford, and then charged the
same prices that he had been quoting.—Eventually,
his Honour gave a verdict for £l9 18s 9d, to carry
with it costs.

Dean v Packwood.—This was an action to recover 1
£l9 the value of two pigs which have been sold by
plaintiff to defendant.—Mr. Loxdale Warden (in-
structed by Mr. C. W. Collis), was for plaintiff,
and Mr. Perry for defendant.—Plaintiff is a horse
dealer, residing at The Thorns, and the defendant
is a pork butcher, at Dudley. On the sth October
last, defendant, accompanied by a man named
Hughes, came to plaintiff's house, and after some
bargaining purchased two pigs for the sum of £l6.
Defendant did not pay for the pigs at the time,
but said he would give plaintiff a call and pay him
in a few days. The next day Hughes took the
pigs away. About nine days- afterwards plaintiff
called upon defendant, who told hill:it-that he had
given the money for the pigs to Hughes, the day
after he had seen plaintiff. He added that he had
never had any opinion of Hughes. Plaintiff had
not instructed him to pay Hughes, who was not a
servant of his. Mrs. Dean corroborated her hus-
band. Defendant said on the day named he went
to plaintiff's house about the pigs. He asked Mr.
Dean about paying the money. The latter told
him he could payillughes,and it would be allright
He had paid Hughes the money. It was true
that Dean called for the money. The latter said
he should look to defendant !for the money, and
not to Hughes.—His Honour said in a case of dis-
puted agency like this, the onus of proof rested
with the defendant, who should have placed it
beyond a doubt that the man who received the
money was bona fide the agent of the plaintiff.
This defendant failed to do, and he should there-
fore give a verdict for plaintiff for the full amount
and costs,

ASSAULT CASE.—Jo,3eph Hemming was charged
with assaulting Alfred Kemp, at Hagley, on the
Bth inst. Complainant was in charge of a wagon
on the above date, and when near the Tree Urns,
he saw the defendant with a horse and cart in the
ditch by the side of the road. Shortly after he
passed defendant came up to him and pulled his
whip from under his arm, and struck him with it
on the head and legs. He did not strike defendant
in return. Thiawas corroborated by two witnesses.
Defendant alleged that complainant caused a por-
tion of the cart he was in charge of to come
against his horse, and he threatened him that if
lie did it again he would strike him with his whip
stock. He did not strike him, however, as com-
plainant 'went away. Defendant's statement was
corroborated by a witness named Jones, who was
with him at the time. Defendant was fined 2a, 6d
and costs; in default 14 days.
STEALING STRAW AND GRAlN.—Jeremiah Davis,
an elderly man, was charged with stealing on the
23rd December, two bags of oats and two bushels of
wheat, the property of Mrs. Eliza Waldron; and he
was further charged with stealing 3 cwt. of straw,
also the property of Mrs. Eliza Waldron, of High
Harcourt Farm, Clent.—Mr. Perry was for the pro-
secution, and Mr. Waldron for the defence.—From
the evidence it appeared that prisoner was farm bai-
liff to executors of Mr. Waldron, and on the above
dates he sold thtOrain and straw above-mentioned to
a man named Willetts. Prisoner was afterwards
apprehended on the charge by Police-constable Wal-
lace. For the defence, Mr. Waldron contended that
when defendant sold the straw and grain to Willetts
he did so in the most open manner possible, without
any concealment whatever, and he had offered the
money to Mrs. Waldron; but she had refused to re-
it. He had been authorised to sell farm produce
by his late master, Mr. Waldron, and that power
had never been taken away from him. This Was
denied by Mrs. Waldron, her son, and a Mr. Boucher
The only thing they ever knew him to sell being a
horse, the price of which had been fixed by them-
selves. Prisoner, who pleaded not guilty, was com-
mitted to take his trial at the ensuing Worcester
Sessions. Bail was taken in two sureties of £25
each, and himself in .R5O.
CAUTION TO APPRENTICICS.—,WiIIiam Basterfield
was summonedsby 4ohn Bloomer, builder for that
he being an apprentice did neglect his work on the
28th of December Old other days, and claimed .42
12s being at the rat Oof 4e per day. Mr. Perry
appeared for complainant. and Mr. Wall for the
defence. Complainant said that the defendant was
an apprentice to him to learn the trade. He gave
him holiday the day after Christmas day and de-
fendant has not been since. Defendant's wages
were four shillings per week. He had to employ la
man in his place and give him 5s per day. De-
fendant had been absent 13 days. Defendant's
father asked for arise of 3s per week which he re-
fused. Mr. Wall in defence, said that defendant's
father was an ignorant man, and thought heiwas
entitled to the 3s rise. Mr. Perry said he would
not press for the full amount claimed as &Riven-
sation. The Bench made an order on defendant's
father to pay 20a compensation and costs, and
ordered to return to work.
IF THERE ARE ANY LADLES who hive no: yet Us ed the
GLENFIRLD STARCH, they are respectfully solicited to
give it a Walt and carefully follow out the directions
printed on every package, and if this is done, they will
say, like the Queen's Laundress, it is the finest Starch
hey ever used. When you ask for GLENFIELD STARCH,
see that you get it, as inferior kinds are ofton substituted
or the sake of extra profit. Beware therefore of spur-
ns imitations.

pei.
ham

EXTENSIVE FAILURE IN THE IRON TRADE
AT BRIERLEY HILL.
A meeting of the creditors of John Saxton
Chambers, Edward Ellis, Joseph Shortridge Alli-
son, and Joseph Twentyman, trading under the
firm and style of "Chambers, Ellis, and C 0.," the
Dolph Iron Works, Brierley Hill. was held on
Tuesday, at the Great Western Hotel, Birmingham
Mr. (Evers, High Bailiff of the County Court, Stour-
bridge), the receiver of the estate, was elected to
the chair; and creditors were represented by Mr.
Harthill, Edgbaston ; Mr. C. E. Mathews, Birming-
ham ; Mr. W. Shakespeare, Oldbury; Messrs.
Bourne and Owen appeared for the Earl of Dud.
ley; and Messrs Ashurst, Morris, and Co., Lon-
don, were for the Midland Bank; Messrs. Hom-
fray and Holberton, Brierley Hill, and Messrs.
Gould and Elcock were for the debtors. There
was a large meeting of the creditors. The state-
ment of affairs set forth liabilities to creditors un-
secured, £8,087; partly secured, £4,724 Bs. 4d.
(less estimated value of securities, £3,671 175.) ;
leaving £1,052 lls 4d. to rank against the estate;
creditors to be paid in full, £6O Ss id.; making a
total indebtedness of £9,200 11.. Bd. Assets: By
stock loose at works, £739 8s 9d.; book debts, £393
19s. 10d. (estimated to produce £380); total assets
£1,116 Bs. 9a.
Debts to the amount of £6,000 were proved at
the meeting.
The Chairman read his report as receiver to
the estate. It ran to the effect that, immediately
on receiving his appointment, he proceeded to take
possession of the papers and property of the
debtors, and at the same time devoted several
hours to an inspection of the books of the firm.
He found that the book-keeping was very much in
arrear, so much so, in fact, that the books had
never been kept up, and he thought it would be
useless to attempt to work them f.p, and more es-
pecially as the memoranda were in a loose and con-
fused condition. For the purpose of the statement
he had endeavoured to obtain from the creditors
the proper amount due to them; but inasmuch as
the majority had not responded to his circular he
had had to adopt such invoices as were to be found,
and to rely on the memory of the debtors.
From the circumstances above stated he had found
it impossible to get at an accurate knowledge of
the mode of the debtors' dealings and the nature
and amount of their transactions. There was
doubtless much that required investigation, and
until two or three months labour nad been ex-
pended in making up the books it would be unfair
to all parties to give an opinion on the debtors'
transactions. He had, therefore, no figures to
give to the meeting other than those contained in
the statement of affairs now before the meeting.
Mr. C. E. Matthews asked what explanation was
to be given respecting the debtors' failure.
Mr. Homfray said no doubt the debtors would
give that themselves as far as they could. He
thought they had spent the money on their works.
He suggested that an adjournment would enable
the bank to see what could be done. The bank
claimed everything, their debt being £6,000.
They were entitled to everything except the
" loose " stock.
Mr. Matthews: Then, putting the bank on one
side, we have £B,OOO worth of creditors, with a
thousand pounds to pay them.
Mr. Shakespeare said he had been told that the
£750 assets represented as loose stock was more
likely to turn out to be £350 worth.
Mr. Chambers was then called in and subjected
to examination by Mr. Shakespeare. He said the
firm had been in business since 1871, putting into
it .2500. Mr. Parker subsequently joined, and put
in about £1,400. He afterwards went out in Jan
uary, 1872, and was paid nearly £BOO. The debt
owing by the firm to him was for coals and his
guarantee; they had had no bill transactions with
him for the last twelve months. The accounts all
appeared in the books. There was not a shilling
in the hands of the firm at the time of filing the
tition, when two weeks salary were due to the
ads.
Mr. Shakespeare: Who collected the money?
—I did.
What has become of the last week's collections
for work? what has been received up till now and
placed in the cash book, and in the Midland Bank
at Stourbridge :—On the Friday morning before
we filed our petition I put in £142.
And you have received not a farthing; and filed
your petition on Saturday ?—Yes.
Have you a house at Kingswinford?—No.
Is it Mr. Parker's ?—Yes.
Have you stated that you had mortgaged it to
Mr. Parker for £1,400 ?—I hate not.
Have you a father living ?—No.
Or a mother ?—Yes.
What interest have you under your father's
will ?—I don't know.
You don't know P—No ; I mean to say I never
heard the will read.
And you have not inquired whether you are
entitled to any interest under it or no?—I have
not. There was no solicitor at all in it. My eldest
brother, Thomas Chambers, of Ea,stwoo d, is the
executor. My father lived at Bow Vale Abbey, in
Nottinghamshire. I know he was comfortably
off, but I don't know the extent of his property.
There were eight children.
In the course of further examination, the debtor
said he had only kept two horses, but they cost
him nothing to keep. The members of the firm
drew £5 each a week out of the business. He had
not bought a prize dog at the late Dog Show at
Curzon Hall for an extravagant price. A draft of
an agreement had been drawn up and signed with
Mr. Harding, of Birmingham, for the sale of the
premises and plant belonging to the firm for
210,000.
Then these works, which you have put down for
£4,000, you had sold for .210,000?—Subject to con-
ditions, which were not carried out. No deposit
was paid.
By Mr. Homfray: The agreement for purchase
was all knocked on the head through the execu-
tions, that were put ;n.
By Mr. Shakespeare: He could not explain how
the deficiency had occurred. The firm had had
occasional valuations when they knew they were
getting behind, but they thought they would be
able to "work round" as the trade got better.
By Mr. Homfray: When they became proprie-
tors of the works there was only a steam hammer
on them, but now they consisted of all the necess-
ary principles and power for carrying on .a con-
siderable ironworks; they laid out what they got
in trade for the enlargement of the works, and
considered them now worth £lO,OOO as a going
concern.
Mr. Twentyman was next examined by Mr.
Shakespeare. He said he had put .22,400 into the
firm at different times, but it was all melted away.
He had nothing to do with the works or with the
ordering and paying for coal.
Mr. Chambers, in reply to a query by Mr. Shake-
speare directed to the above witness, said the
was not in debt a year and a half ago.
Mr. Shakespeare: Then in the course of that
time you have got into debt £10,000?
Mr. Chambers said the state of their affairs had
been reported on within that time by Mr. Sampson,
an accountant.
Mr. Ellis, who was next questioned, said no ac-
countant had been called in during the time he had
been in the firm, now two years, up till a month
ago, when he believed Mr. Fielding was brought
in by Chambers. (The debtors had been out of the
room on the occasion of the examination.) Mr.
Sampson had not been there since he had been a
member of the firm; it must have been before
that time. He had heard of several loads of coal
havinc, gone down the canal in their boats, but he
never knew they possessed any boats.
Mr. Shakespeare: Were you not surprised when
you knew the firm was this much behind ?—I was.
And you don't know where the money has gone
to ?—I don't: I should like to know. Had put
into the firm as his share £500; then £1000; and
he thought, £45.
By Mr. Homfray: Since they had been at the
works they had put in an engine, a twelve-inch
mill, a sixteen-inch mill, two mill furnaces, a pa.ir
of grabbing shears, a steam saw, andin fact every-
thing necessary to carry on the works of a good
trade.
Mr. Shakespeare: And you had the money from
the bank to do it with.
Mr. Ellis: We have put it in ourselves.
Mr. Shakespeare moved that the estate be liqui-
dated by arrangement, and not in bankruptcy. He
pointed out that the creditors would have equal
power by this method of examining thedebtors be-
fore the Registrar.
Mr: Austin (London) counselled a delay of ten
or fourteen days, in order to give an opportunity
of seeing what arrangements could be effected by
the bank.
A good deal of discussion followed, and harsh
and uncomplimentary terms were used towards
the debtors by several large creditors, who became
strongly excited through their losses by the firm.
Mr. Homfray offered a composition of half-a-crown
in the pound, but the offer was treated scornfully,
several of the creditors exclaiming that they would
"rather lose all" than accept such terms.
Eventually the motion for liquidation was car-
ried, and Mr. Spencer Dominy, of Birmingham,
and Mr. Evers were appointed trustees to the
estate, and Messrs. Dawes, Poiuton, Skelding,
Pearson, and Cookson a committee of inspection,
the debtors to be entrusted with the registra,ti
of the resolutions.
Formal meetings of creditors in respect to each
and several of the debtors' private estates were
then held. The private debts were comparatively
small, and the .sale of the household furniture, &c.,
it was said, would suffice to pay the creditors, in
full, the residue, if any, to go to the estate of the firm.
Similar resolutions were carried in each case as in
that of the firm. The proceedings then terminated.

firm

on