London Central Omnibus Company' s Action.
Page 4
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
German Manufacturer and Former Director Sued.
After two days hearing, a case of much interest to the motor omnibus world was concluded in the King's Bench Division, before Mr. Justice Sutton, on Thursday last. The London Central Motor Omnibus Company, Limited, sued Mr. Sigfried Hermann Endie, a German motor manufacturer, who carried on the business of the Pax Motor Company, and whose London address is 21, Store Street, Tottenham Court Road, WC., claiming damages in respect of alleged failure to carry out the delivery of certain omnibuses in accordance with contract. The defence, denying that there was breach of contract, had a counter claim on account of the plaintiff company's refusal to take more omnibuses from the defendant, but Counsel for the plaintiff company explained the answer was that the fact of the contract's having been broken just died refusal.
Counsel traced negotiations concerning the position of Mr. Endie with the London Central Company, and the development of the Central Company from the beginning of 1906, when, he said, motorbuses were a comparative novelty and a good many people thought there was a fortune to be made out of them. A Mr. Witheringham seemed to have formed the idea of forming a motorbus company, and to have got into communication with Mr. Endie. in March, 1906, the latter entered into an agreement to supply too chassis to be built in accordance with the requirements of the Metropolitan Police, and he was to pay per week in respect of any chassis not delivered within four days of stipulated time. The contract was transferred to a syndicate, the Chrono Syndicate, and this concern in turn transferred it to the London Central Company, of which the defendant was a director. There was afterwards a modification in the contract, it being agreed that defendant should supply 30 complete omnibuses (excepting tires), and the plaintiffs paid 472,400 as part of the purchase price of L:8,000 for ten which, subject to approval, were to he delivered first. Sir William Miller and Mr. William B, Richardson (the managing director of the plaintiff company), together with an engineer (Mr. Sutton, formerly engineer to the New London and Suburban Omnibus Company), visited Berlin, where Mr. Endie had his works, and inspected a chassis of the type proposed to be supplied, but it was not in a sufficiently complete state to allow of its being tested. Counsel remarked that several features pointed out as likely not to pass the Metropolitan Police, defendant did not think of much importance, but said he would make alterations if the regulations could not be passed. The defendant had agreed to supply two or three omnibuses each week until ten were supplied to the company, and it was understood that he should supply more later on, when the company had funds for the purchase. Afterwards, the company agreed to pay defendant £400 more of the purchase money on the delivery of each chassis at Bristol, where the bodies were to be fitted, and a cheque was forwarded in respect of three chassis, defendant promising to hasten delivery. This was in August, but it was October before the plaintiffs could obtain an omnibus, and then only by paying the Bristol Wagon Company a sum due from defendant in respect of body building. The bus was submitted to Scotland Yard, but the authorities at once rejected it. There were a number of defects, but the principal one was the extraordinary noise made by the gear. Experimental alterations in connection with the gear did not effect sufficient improvement to give any chance of meeting the Metropolitan Police regulations.
Counsel explained that the plaintiffs claimed from Mr. Endie the difference between what they actually paid to defendant and for alterations, etc., in connection with the six buses delivered, and the amount that they (the plaintiffs) realised. The plaintiffs had paid altogether something like l,5,500 in respect of the chassis, and there was an actual loss of about £4,200. In ad dition, they were entitled to per week in respect of each bus, for nondelivery, in accordance with contract. This, briefly, was the plaintiffs' case.
Mr. William Benjamin Richardson, the managing director of the plaintiff company since its incorporation, during evidence, said he was previously managing director of the New London and Suburban Omnibus Company. Ile told the Court that the first complete bus, which ought to have been delivered on the 1st August, igo6, was not obtained until about the 15th October. The Bristol Wagon Company had to he paid..L900, that company making the bodies for Mr. Endie. The figure was made up of six bodies at ..150 each,
and each had to be paid for the mounting of three bodies at Hampton Wick. The first bus received and rejected by the Scotland Yard authorities was the same as the other five delivered, which were not submitted to the police. The six chassis were subsequently sold to Messrs. Friswell for .4.1,800, which was the best price that could be obtained. The sum actually received for the chassis was 18s., the plaintiffs having paid for the tires which were included in the
Originally the chassis were put up for sale by public auction, but it was impossible to obtain any bids. Witness added that, when the chassis had been placed with Messrs. Friswell to sell for the company, L.:1,00° was advanced on account of the sale price anticipated, in order in allow the company to meet a lial:ility due at that time. Asked if Mr. Witheringham, who had been mentioned, was not in reality a clerk to a Mr. Sheridan, he said he did not know what were their relations. With regard to the capital of the London Central Company, which on the prospectus was proposed at ...,260,000, Mr. Richardson explained that about £io,soo was issued. The company was now running 14 buses and had 16. The chassis inspected at Berlin was only approved subject to its passing the requirements of the police. He had never heard a motorbus make more noise than that in question when sent to Scotland Yard. Mr. Arthur Bassom, the Superintendent of the Public Carriage Department of the Metropolitan Police, deposed that the principal defect in the chassis submitted was undue noise. It was. the noisiest omnibus which had ever been submitted to him, and, in answer to his Lordship, the officer said that its noise was about three times as great as that of the ordinary omnibus travelling along the Strand. He gave details of other defects. The police regulations were not more stringent when the chassis in question was submitted than they were earlier in the year ; at no time would the chassis, in such condition as it was, have passed.
Other evidence having been called in support of the plaintiff company's case, Counsel for the defence contended that there was no evidence of any other undertaking except that Mr. Endie was bound to supply, and the company to take, chassis like that inspected and approved at Berlin. Nor did the penalty clause with regard to the payment of La per week for delay in delivery apply ; that sttpulation applied in the previous agreement for the supply by Mr. Endie of chassis, and not that for the supply of complete omnibuses. The contract was to supply chassis similar to that seen in Berlin. Commenting upon the low price for which the chassis were sold by the plaintiff company, Counsel said that similar chassis were running in different parts of the world for the carriage of goods, for which purpose they were very suitable as well as being suitable for omnibuses. It was quite possible some of the chassis in question were running on the streets to-day. If the plaintiffs had conducted affairs properly, Mr. Endie would have put the chassis in order to meet regulations. The defendant, giving evidence, said that he carried on business as the Pax Motor Company. He believed that Mr. Witheringham, who had been mentioned, was clerk to a Mr. Sheridan. In 1906, when he entered into agreement to supply chassis, he fulfilled a condition to find ;C6,000 for starting a company. The chassis which was seen at Berlin was of the same type as those that were ultimately delivered to the London Central Company.
In the result, after discussion between Counsel, the parties came to a settlement. By consent, judgment was given for the plaintiff company for 1,20o on the claim, and also judgment for the plaintiff company on the counterclaim, with costs.