Hide Articles List

10 articles on this Page

Advertising

PUBLICAN TO GIYE UP HOUSE.…

I POLLUTION OF THE OGMORE.…

[No title]

[No title]

Advertising

SECONDARY SCHOOL SITE.

UNDISCHARGED BANKRUPT'S OFFENCE.

Advertising

HOW BOOTS ARE MADE.

News
Cite
Share

HOW BOOTS ARE MADE. THE BRISTOL ACTION AGAINST A CAERAU BOOT DEALER. JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFFS. At the Bristol County Court on. Tuesday, his Honour Judge Austin resumed the hear- ing of tho remitted action Silverthorn and Child v. Yemm, which was a claim for JE23 15s. for goods sold and delivered. There was a counter-claim for £ 75. Mr. H. R. Wans- brough was for the plaintiffs, and Mir. E. C. H. Wethered, instructed by Mr. W. F. Cook (Messrs. Cook, Bennett and Co.) for Mr. Yemm. The case had previously occupied the court two days, though Mr. Wethered had stated that the claim was admitted, sub- ject to the defence and counter-claim. Plaintiffs were boot manufacturers, of Kinga- wood, and the defendant had a boot business at Caerau, near Bridgend. Mr. Wa.nsbrough asked to recall Mrs. Yemm, and the witness stated that one of the witnesses had been a lodger since Septem- ber. She gave 6s. lid. for the Bull Dog" boots. Those now produced were not used in the pits, but for evening wear. Mr. Wansbrough: For dancing? (Laugh- ter.) Witness: No, but after the men have left thepito. His Honour: How many consignments were there between the parties? Mr. Wansbrough Five. John Jenkins, foreman to Messrs. Hutch-ins and May, was also recalled, and in reply to Mr. Wansbrough said that he could not call boots which had runners a.nd' paper backing waterproof soles. Those now produced, and made by his firm, and stamped "waterproof soles," liad had the soles SOAKED IX BOILING GKEASE, which made the sole waterproof. Mr. Wansbrough: HaTe they paper back- ing? Witness: Leather board. His Honour If we are to discuss samples of boots from all the manufa-cturers of Bris- tol and Kingswood the case will last not only for the rest of my life, but the lives of many County Court Judges. The question is whether the boots are reasonably fitted for the purpose for which they were sold? Mr. Wansbrough pointed out that no-one had been called for the defendant to com- plain of the particular boots in question. In cross-examination, Mrs. Yemm had said that she did not believe any of the witnesses had bought the patented boots except Mrs. Evans. who had 4 pairs in Marth, 1908. and they had not heard of any dissatisfaction with regard to them. He submitted that the runner was not in substitution for anything. His Honour: The effect of a runner is, in the first place, to save solid soles being put in, and in the next place to make the outside of the boot look thicker. Mr. Wansbrough said he admitted the lat- ter but not the former. His Honour: What do you say is the use of the runner? Mr. Wansbrough said that one object was to keep in the outer row of nails. With re- gard to the leather board, that wa.s not in substitution for anything, but an additional protection against the wet. The traveller did not describe what the boots were made of. The extraordinary story had been told that he said that Devonshire butts were used. There was no sueh thing in the trade, and it appeared as if the whole STORY WERE A CONCOCTION. Defendant stated first that the boots were warranted for 12 to 18 months, and later that they were warranted for 10 to 12 months. All they had to rely on was the story told by Mr. Yemm that the boots gave dissatisfaction, that he had them ba-ek, and in place gave other boots, refunded1 the money, or had the boots repaired', and that this ruined his busi- ness. Mr. Wansbrough suggested that it was a defence raised when they were pressing for monov. They submitted that the boots came up to the warranty, if any warranty were given, and that they were good boots for the monev. Charles Hayden, traveller for the plaintiffs, as well as other firms, said he went to Caerau 011 the 11th February, 1908. He had not his samples with him. Ho went to Caerau with his brother-in-law because the latter thought of starting a boot business. Defendant said his business was for sale, and he wanted jE50 for the good-will. Aftet- the conversation be- tween defendant- and Mr. Lacey (witness's brother-in-law) witness introduced his own business. In reply to defendant, he said he had some patented boots that were selling well in collierv districts. He quoted them at 6s. 6d. Defendant asked if he had not a better on-e, and he replied that there was an- other make at 7s. 6d., which was heavier, and was also patented. Defendant asked what was the patent, and he toid him there were straps of leather to prevent the kicking out of the nails. Defendant gave an order for 12 pairs at 7s. 6d., and 011 subsequent occasions other orders. Nothing was mentioned on either side of the material in them. With regard to the boot now produced, the fact that half of the tip was worn off showed that the boot had had good wear. He had- sold' thousands of the PATEXTBD UXBREAKABI/E BOOTS, and they had given satisfaction all over the country. Cross-examined Mr. Lacey only went with him once, and that was the first time witness went to Caerau. Boots for colliers were then talked about. He did not say theirs were the best boots made in Kings wood. He di'd not promise to send a card stating that the boots were guaranteed unbreakable. Four cards were sent. Mr. Wethered Whatever unbreakable may mean, you guarantee every pair unbreakable, aecording to the card?—They are unbreafic- abie nntil they are worn. down. He did not say they were just as good as the Bull Dog" made by Coe, Church, and McPhemon, Bris- tol. John Lacey, brother-in-law of the previous witness, living at Kingswood, said the only occasion he had visited Caerau was on Feb- ruary 11th, 1908. Hayden described: the patented boots, and an order was given. Mrs, Yemni did not enter until afterwards. Evan Jones said he worked at one of Norths Navigation Pits, and lived, at Caerau. He bought the pair of boots pro- duced on September 26th, 1908, from Mrs Yemm, and was quite satisfied with them. They were very good boots. Cross-examined He had two pairs, thoser t- 1 i.0n and the others that were in court, which he wore in the pit. Witness admitted that he were down his heels quickly Mr. Wethered stated, that it was the only part of the boot worn. CAERAU MIXERS SATISFIED. Evan Rees Roberts, a repairer John Sea- ger, a haulier; William Hall, a collier; and Edward Regan, a haulier, also spoke to buy- ing boots manufactured by the plaintiffs, with: which they were well satisfied. Regan said lie worked in a dry colliery, and his Honour pointed out that such evidence was hardly re- quired. Mr. Wansbrough said they had had boots flourished before them which were said to- have broken tip under any conditions. How- ever, that was his only "dry" witness. (Laughter.) Boots which had been sent out to be opened up were now brought back to the oou;rt. Mr. Wethered said the backing to the in- sole -was of leather, and not of paper, and there were no runners. Richard Condon, a navvy and quarryman^ also spoke favourably of the boots. Mr. Wansbrough intimated that he pro- posed to call a. number of boot dealers. Benjamin Rees, of Caerau, stated that he had bought the patented and other boots from the plaintiffs, and had sold a large num- ber, without a single 00111 plaint, to colliers and others. He sold the patented boots at 8s. lid. COMPETITION WAS VERY KEEN, and be made colliers' boots himself for 8s. lid. The runners prevented the nails prick- ing the upper. Cross-examined He got a. better profit on the Silverthorn boota than on his own. The public liked "80 see hoots made on the premi- ses. He paid 6s. 6d. for the Silverthorn. If the leather was porus it dropped the nails. He did not put paper backings to his inneerr soles. Re-examined There would be no disadvan- tage if the leather board were put at the* back of the inner sole- Henry Loxton, of Maesteg; George Gib- bons, of Maerdy; Albert Lewis Gibbs, of Ebbw Vale; and Thomas Alfred Nicholas, of Cinderford, boot dealers, also stated' that they had found plaintiffs' boots satisfactory. Mr. Silverthorn was then called, and said he had been in the trade since he was 14- vearg of age. It was untrue that £ 5 was offered to Yemm to withdraw the case. A. runner was not a disadvantage to a boot. His Honour: What is the use of the runl- ner? Witness: It makes up the substance of the -j, edge, and. as was sensibly said by one of the witnesses, it prevents the points of the nails pricking the upper. Mr. tethered: Is not the purpose of leather board backing to fortify a cheap htt- sole r-It is to afford greater stability. Is the presence of the runner to deceive Ife* public as to the thickness of the sole?—No. Was there not an outcry some yeairs ago about the middles?—There was an outcry be- cause there were no middles at all. Mr. A. F. Moon, a boot and shoo manqtfato- turer, of Kingswood. said he had 25 years' experience and employed 100 baindis. The boots he h°d seen were, in his judgment* SUITABLE FOR COLLIERS, and the purpose for which they were sold. The patented boot, in his judgment, wias at very good boot. There was a great deal of misconception- about leather board backing, He had1 worn a pair of boots for two yeiacro with it, and had never had a drier boot. Cross-examined He was rather prefudioodl against leather board backing some year's ego", Edwin Pearce Saunders, boot titaniufaio- turer, of Kingswood, said he employed 30ft hands, and turned out about 7,000 pairs (ft week. Runners were not a disadvantage it properly put on, and were not in the boot8: he had examined. ■ John William Wetteon, another bootfjl manufacturer, of Kingswood, said be had hiftdfl 27 years' experience. He bad hi^>eoteKl il^M boots, and in his opinion they were very gotlH value. Cross-examined A solid middle might fcaVigfl a runner. -^R Mr. Wansbrough stated that that was hSjfl case, and, briefly addressing his Honour, oaffl-S tended1 that the boots were good value for ti money, and that there was no evidence < show that the boots in question were unssDbiBrtf factory. Mr. Wethered submitted that there wito 'I: breach of warranty. The boots were su plied as being reasonably fit for ooljiers, aiMXr it was abundantly clear that those boots w; not reasonably fitted for the purpose. ft VERDICT FOR THE PLAINTIFFS. ■ His Honour found that the boots were raoM sonably fitted for the purpose for which tfalB were sold, and that being so he said the «a< was disposed of. There would be a v for the plaintiffs for JE23 15s., with costs, Mt a verdict on the counter claim. In case M) Yemm desired to appeal, he assessed the dsngfl ages at £26. ,:|M