Railway Times (20/May/1848) - Huddersfield and Manchester Railway

The following is a transcription of a historic article and may contain occasional errors.

HUDDERSFIELD AND MANCHESTER RAILWAY.

SHARPE v. NOWELL and HATTERSLEY.

This was an action brought by Mr. Dan Sharp, the subcontractor for the labour in erecting the Crimble and Huddersfield viaducts, against Messrs. Nowell and Hattersley, contractors for the works on the Huddersfield and Manchester Railway. The action was taken for trial to the Liverpool assize in August, 1847, and on Mr. Knowles, the defendants' counsel, presenting one item of the Huddersfield viaduct account to the presiding judge, which in its details occupied twelve pages, and there being items of nearly £7,000 each in the said account, he declined taking up the time of the Court with a case of such magnitude, and referred it, under judge's order, to John Unthank, Esq., barrister, of London, as arbitrer. The amount claimed by the plaintiff of the defendants was £4,645, being principally a progress balance on account of the Huddersfield viaduct, as the plaintiff had ceased work on the other portions of the line for which he had contracted. On the other hand, the defendants' statements shewed the plaintiff to be overpaid £3,624. Mr. Unthank, after sitting five days in the counsel chambers of the Liverpool Assize Court, and hearing one portions of the case, required the attorneys in the action to name a civil engineer to arbitrate upon, and finally report to him, the amount due to the plaintiff or defendants, on the Huddersfield viaduct account; when Walter John Malorie, Esq., civil engineer, of Huddersfield, was named by plaintiff's attorney, and an agreement, appointing him to the office, was drawn by the arbitrer, under consent of, and signed by, the attorneys in the case and himself. Mr. Malorie sat on the reference on his part of the case, at the Imperial Hotel, Huddersfield, for fourteen days, and reported the amount due on the Huddersfield viaduct account; and the final award has just been made by Mr. Unthank, declaring the amount of £3,038 12s. 5d. to be due from the plaintiff to the defendants; the plaintiff to pay also the costs of the cause. Mr. Thorpe, of Thorne, Yorkshire, was attorney for, and conducted the case on the part of the defendants: and Mr. Josephus J. Roebuck, civil engineer, of Huddersfield, made the measurements and valuations. Mr. Floyd, of Huddersfield, was attorney for, and conducted the case on the part of the plaintiff; and Mr. Joseph Hall, surveyor, of Huddersfield, and Mr. William Billington, civil engineer, of Wakefield, made the measurements and valuations.

Leeds Mercury.

Railway Times (20/May/1848) - Huddersfield and Manchester Railway

Categories

Articles about the Huddersfield and Manchester Railway and Canal Company | Articles from 1848 | Articles from the 1840s | Court cases and trials | Journal articles
This page was last modified on 6 November 2017 and has been edited by Dave Pattern.

Search Huddersfield Exposed