Hide Articles List

12 articles on this Page

[No title]

Advertising

I -- ? ?- i? -? '? COLWYN…

THE RAINFALL AT BRYN EURYN.

> < ÇQ 55 > & _) 0 O ? . e?…

,THE LADIES BATHING PLACE,…

COLWYN BAY SPORTS.

ITHE COLWYN BAY PIER COMPANY.

News
Cite
Share

THE COLWYN BAY PIER COMPANY. ACTION BY A SOLICITOR. At the Wolverhampton County Court, on Monday, July 30th, before His Honour Judge Griffith, the case of Hill v. Bostock came on for hearing. The plaintiff, Mr H. Bliss Hill, solicitor, of Wolverhampton, sued Mr William Bostock, sugar refiner, of Liverpool, for £ 25, alleged to be due to him for commission for introducing the sale of a number of shares in the Colwyn Bay Pier Company, Limited.—Mr R. C. E. Plumptre appeared for Mr Hill, and Mr R. E. C. Kettle (instructed by Messrs Fowler and Langley, acting as agents for Mr Nunn, solicitor, of Colwyn Bay) for Mr Bostock.—Mr Plumptre stated that the defendant owned at Colwyn Bay a large estate, which was rather peculiarly situated. At its end was a narrow strip of land, which, if made a thoroughfare, would cause his estate to become exceedingly valuable. The Culwyn Bay Pier Company (when formed) proposed to buy this land, and Mr Bostock took great interest in the matter, finally becoming Chairman of the Directors. Mr Bostock was anxious to have new capital introduced into the concern, and, in one interview with Mr Hill, on August rst of last year, promised to pay him out of his own pocket 5 per cent. on all new capital he introduced. Mr Hill got Mr Nunn, of Colwyn Bay, to agree to put ^2000 into the concern, conditionally on his receiving the appointment of Secretary to the Company. Without Mr Hill's knowledge, the defendant approached Mr Nunn the latter put £500 in the Company, and was appointed Secretary. The plaintiff applied for his commis- sion, but his claim was denied. When Mr Hill wrote to Mr Bostock on the subject, the latter gentleman repudiated the suggestion that he had ever offered to give Mr Hill a commission for in- troducing new capital.—Mr Hill was sworn, and bore out the above statement, and Mr Holloway, architect, Birmingham, who had been employed to sell some of the Company's land, spoke to a con- versation in which the defendant promised Mr Hill and himself 5 per cent. commission on all new cap- ital introduced.—The defence was a total denial of the latter statement, and it was contended that the commission was to be paid in the sale of the Company's property.—In the witness-box, the defendant voluntarily stated that he had promised to try and induce the Directors to pay the plaintiff a commission, and upon being pressed said that it might have been for the introduction of new capital. -j udgi-netit was entered for the plaintiff, for the full amount claimed and costs.

THE MUSICAL GITANAS' GRAND…

CONWAY.

THE WELSH WESLEYAN WASHING…

Advertising