Last modified: 28 October 2026
Home › People › John Buckmaster › T.A.F. Reynolds
NB TAF REYNOLDS is named several times as a banktupt in 1854
e.g.
Sun (London) - Wednesday 14 February 1855
https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0002194/18550214/204/0008
Also
Perry's Bankrupt Gazette - Saturday 10 April 1858
https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000207/18580410/002/0002
He gives his address in connectipn ith a sale of furniture, also in the 1850s
At some time, he is part of a delegation to rename Battersea Park, "Albet Park".
EXTRAORDINARY SUICIDE OF AN ATTORNEY'S CLERK.
Last evening Mr. W. J. Payne, the deputy City coroner, resumed and concluded an inquest at St. George's Workhouse, Mint-street, Borough, on the body of Thomas French, aged 41 years, who committed self-destruction in a coffee-shop in Friar-street, Blackfriars, a few days since. Deceased was in the employ of Mr. T. A. F. Reynolds, an attorney, of Chancery-lane, and on Wednesday, the 30th ult., he gave deceased 6d. to issue some county court summonses, and make inquiries. Deceased, however, got rid of the money, and did not issue the summonses. For some cause unexplained deceased did not sleep at home on the following Saturday night, and spent the next day with a friend, whom he promised at night to meet at ten o'clock next morning. Deceased went to Long's coffee-shop in Friar-street, Blackfriars, and asked for a bed, for which he paid 1s. On going into the bed-room he asked for a tumbler, and the servant took him a coffee-jug, which was found the next morning to have contained laudanum. On being called next morning he was found quite dead. A post-mortem examination proved that death had been caused by laudanum. Evidence was given to show that there had been some quarrel in the family, and that deceased had been depressed in spirits since he met with an accident by which he lost one of his legs. The jury returned a verdict of “Temporary Insanity.”
[BNA: Link.]
Claude comments: An interesting find — this predates the Buckmaster v Reynolds conflict by several years and shows Reynolds in a rather different light, as the author of what the paper calls a "calm and dispassionate pamphlet" on the Lammas Hall dispute. At this point he was still the parish solicitor in good standing, deploying his legal skills on behalf of the Churchwardens rather than against them. The paper's description of Battersea's "predisposition to disquietude" — diplomatically attributed to the Chemical Works — is a nicely oblique way of saying the parish was perpetually at war with itself.BATTERSEA.
Battersea, geographically considered, is one of the most quiet parishes within ten miles of the metropolis. If the position of a locality, therefore, could ensure parochial tranquility, it would most certainly be considered one of the very few favoured spots where the man of retirement might enjoy a state of perfect unanimity with all the inhabitants. But whether it has been owing to the obnoxious effluvia from the Chemical Works, which no doubt operates most powerfully on the human system, or from any other cause, it is quite evident that there has been for a length of time a predisposition to disquietude very prevalent in this parish. We shall not be sorry for it if the effect is to promote its prosperity. Stagnant water is injurious, and a little agitation purifies the stream and gives value to it. We will abandon all metaphors, however, and at once come to realities.
It is not our intention to discuss now the merits of the different questions that have created contention in Battersea. We shall advert to only one subject, and make but a few remarks in connexion with it. Many of our readers will remember that the parishioners of Battersea formerly possessed certain Lammas rights, which enabled them from the 3rd of September to the 13th of November to turn out horses, &c., on the unenclosed lands in Battersea, but which lands were purchased by the Battersea Park Commissioners for the purpose of the park. The sum of £1,000 was paid by them to the Churchwardens for the extinguishment of the right on the part of the parishioners. A committee was appointed at a Vestry meeting to consider the best means of appropriating the compensation fund, and they recommended that it should be expended towards the erection of a building where the parish business might be carried on, lectures delivered, &c., and that it should be called the “Battersea Lammas Hall,” the word “Lammas” being introduced to perpetuate the source from whence the fund for its erection was acquired. This report was approved by a majority of the ratepayers that voted on the occasion, and a number of Trustees were then appointed to act in concert with the Churchwardens in carrying out the desired object. So far all appears clear and satisfactory. The money was afterwards transferred into the names of some of the Trustees.
To this period we were tolerably well conversant with the facts. It was on the 3rd of February, 1854, when the above decision was formed, four years having since elapsed. We had looked and asked in vain for the “Battersea Lammas Hall,” and it was only the other day that the cause of the delay in building it was unfolded to us, by the perusal of a calm and dispassionate pamphlet containing a statement of facts for the consideration of the ratepayers and parishioners on this very subject, which has been just published by T. A. F. Reynolds, Esq. It is stated that the present Churchwardens had been excluded from the meetings of these Trustees on the ground that “the word Churchwardens used in the resolution appointing the Committee was meant to designate the then but not future Churchwardens.” This, assuming it to be true, appears to have been a most extraordinary objection.
But the principal cause of the delay seems to have arisen from a desire on the part of a considerable portion of the ratepayers that the £1,500 should be devoted towards the erection of a Cemetery, as a Lammas or Vestry Hall was not now required, according to their statement, nearly all the parish business being carried on at the Board of Works for the Wandsworth district, under the Local Metropolis Management Act. It is now, we believe, decided that a Battersea Lammas Hall is to be erected; it would therefore be useless for us to express an opinion on the preference of the one or the other proposal. The decision having been given in favour of the original resolution is greatly to be regretted that there has been so much contention on a subject which seems not to admit of disputation. We hope soon to see a commodious and ornamental building erected for the use of the inhabitants, so that our own and certainly a most requisite parish may have a building most requisite.
The greatest boon that has been conferred upon these localities is the new bridge, the park, and the railway station, all now open for the public use. A few years will work wonders in the regeneration and improvement of the neighbourhood, part of which was the focus of pestilence, and the sink of iniquity. And to the traveller to the southern coast, or the provincial towns in the suburbs, or the Crystal Palace, it will be of essential service. The long and tedious journey to London Bridge and back was frequently attended with greater expense than a trip to Brighton! A correspondent has written to us to stir up the omnibus proprietors, and call their attention to the subject of conveying passengers to and from the bridge, but we think they will not require much prompting. An organised plan will doubtless soon be in operation. The traffic being lessened to and from London Bridge, and the travellers from Fulham, Kensington, Brompton, &c., &c., requiring the nearer rail, will make a demand which will speedily be supplied. A great saving of time will be effected, as well as of a tedious journey. Indeed, it is a boon that will have a most salutary effect on all the district, both from a sanitary, commercial, and recreative point of view.
[BNA: Link.]
BATTERSEA.
Yesterday, a vestry meeting for the above parish took place at the Evening School-room, for the election of a churchwarden and other parochial officers for the ensuing year.
The Rev. J. Jenkinson, rector of the parish, occupied the chair.
After some discussion of a not very dignified character, it was proposed by Mr. Henry Poriss, and seconded by Mr. J. Purdy, that Mr. William Picking be elected as churchwarden.
Mr. Graham moved, and Mr. Poupart seconded, that Mr. Jacob Hart was a proper person to be elected as churchwarden.
On the motion of Mr. T. A. F. Reynolds, a division took place, the result of which was greatly in favour of Mr. Picking, who was then declared elected; but Mr. Graham, one of the supporters of Mr. Hart, together with some others, demanded a poll, when
Mr. T. A. F. Reynolds said that a poll could not be legally granted on such occasions as the present. The only time a poll could be demanded was at the May Meeting.
At this juncture the words from opposing parties became very high, which even extended to personal remarks. Order having, however, been restored,
The Chairman said that, while he occupied the chair, he could not grant a poll, as he was informed by Mr. Reynolds that it was not legal.
The election of vestry clerk was then proceeded with together with other officers; and the meeting broke up with thanks to the Chairman.
[BNA: Link.]
Claude: This is a nice companion piece to the Daily Telegraph report of the same day's events — the two accounts corroborate each other closely. The additional detail here is the founding meeting of the Battersea Ratepayers' Protection Society at the Duchess of York pub in Nine Elms on the same evening, which is clearly the embryo of the organisation that would eventually bring Reynolds down. The image of it as "a little plant" that would "soon grow up and increase in strength" has an almost prophetic ring in retrospect.BATTERSEA RATEPAYERS' PROTECTION SOCIETY.
A meeting of this society took place on Tuesday evening last, at Mr. Sharman's, the Duchess of York, Nine Elms, Battersea. This was the first meeting that had been held in this district of the parish, and the proceedings were principally confined to an exposition of the objects contemplated, the admission of members, &c. It was intimated that Mr. Hart would be unavoidably absent on the occasion, whereupon Mr. Parsons was requested to take the chair. He then stated that it was the duty of the ratepayers to watch over the expenditure of the parochial money; to elect those into office who will attend strictly to the interests of all the inhabitants; to see that property was fairly rated according to the value thereof, and to afford advice and to give protection to the parishioners generally. He next enforced the necessity that existed in Battersea for the ratepayers to enrol their names as members. The society might be considered at present as a little plant, but it would soon grow up and increase in strength, and he believed that it would be productive of great advantage to the parish. Several persons were then admitted as members, and the business of the evening terminated.
In the morning of the same day a Vestry meeting for the above parish took place at the Evening School-room for the election of a churchwarden and other parochial officers. The Rev. J. S. Jenkinson, the vicar, occupied the chair. It was proposed by Mr. H. Poriss, seconded by Mr. J. Purdy, that Mr. Picking be elected as churchwarden. Mr. Graham moved, and Mr. Poupart seconded it, that Mr. Jacob Hart should be elected to the office. On the motion of Mr. T. A. F. Reynolds, a division took place, the result of which was greatly in favour of Mr. Picking, who was declared duly elected. A poll was then demanded, but it was declared that a poll could not be legally granted on such occasions as the present. The only time a poll could be obtained was at the May meeting. This decision occasioned very high words, but ultimately order was restored, and the election of Vestry Clerk, &c., was proceeded with, and the meeting broke up with a vote of thanks to the rev. chairman.
[BNA: Link.]
Claude: A rich document — this is the earliest recorded instance of Buckmaster publicly moving a formal resolution against Reynolds, four years before the ballot-box incident of 1862. The Sinbad and the Old Man of the Sea metaphor deployed against Reynolds is vivid and clearly got a laugh. Also notable is Reynolds's brazen tactic of simply producing his own rival return of elected Vestrymen, disallowing votes he deemed irregular — a piece of procedural manipulation that anticipates the ballot-box storming of 1862.BATTERSEA RATEPAYERS' PROTECTION SOCIETY. THE LATE ELECTION FOR VESTRYMEN.
On Tuesday evening last a meeting of this Society took place at Mr. Harrison's, the “Prodigal's Return,” Bridge-road, Battersea. Mr. Farmiloe in the chair. Several highly respectable gentlemen were admitted as members.
Mr. Hart congratulated the meeting on the number of ratepayers that had voted for the nine new Vestrymen which were proposed by the Society, but it appeared that although they had a large majority there were certain parties who were determined, if possible, to keep the parish in subjection to their will, as would be seen from a document which he held in his hand. Battersea was now awake, and parishioners would henceforth not submit to be governed by any one individual or small clique of self-interested persons.
It was necessary to state that, when the ballot was demanded, there were four Inspectors of Votes appointed, and the following are copies of their returns, addressed to the Churchwardens.
27th May 1858. We, the undersigned, being Inspectors of Votes, duly appointed to examine persons duly qualified to the office of Vestrymen, and one other person in the place of Mr. H. Spencer, deceased, did, on the 29th day of the month, proceed to examine the votes deposited in the balloting-box used at the polling of the said parishioners the previous day, and which examination was adjourned to this day (May 31st), and have decided upon whom the aforesaid election has fallen, and the following is a list of the persons chosen by the said parishioners:
H. Juer, 175; W. Hewer, 135; S. Poupart, 155; H. Stares, 135; John Buryne, 155; F. Wilks, 135; George Finch, 135; Jonas Broad, 135; H. Passmore, votes in place of H. Spencer. Signed, Henry Juer.
The above was the Society's list. We next have the report of a second Inspector: I, the undersigned, being Inspector of Votes duly appointed, &c., having examined the votes, am unable to decide upon or deliver to you a list of persons chosen by the parishioners to act as Vestrymen, by reason of numerous legal difficulties suggested by Counsel and my own mind. Signed, Stephen A. P.
But now comes Reynolds and Co.'s list with the report: We, the undersigned, &c., having examined the votes taken at a poll in this parish at the late election of Vestrymen, having had Counsel read to us, having considered the matter, return the following list of persons, as chosen by the parish to act as such Vestrymen, as having the largest number of votes, and we return them accordingly as elected, viz.:—G. Lambert, James Walton, W. B. Henry Whiting, 79; S. Smith, Thomas Dives, W. Hewer, H. Carle, in place of H. V. Spencer, deceased. A number of votes having been disallowed on the ground of irregularity, and otherwise informally. Signed, T. A. F. Reynolds, Samuel Smith.
He (Mr. Hart) should like to hear some of the legal gentlemen, whom he was proud to see present, give their opinion on the subject.
A member wished to know whether any of the newly-elected Vestrymen had as yet taken their seats. He alluded to those whose names appeared on the ratepayers' list, and whom he considered were duly chosen.
Mr. [Finch] said he went and took his seat at the Vestry, but did not vote as they were threatened with an action, and thought it more advisable to refrain from voting until the next meeting, which would take place on Friday the 18th inst., by which time something further might transpire. He believed that the parishioners almost generally would support the Society if the facts were more generally known. It could not be expected that the new Vestrymen would take the responsibility upon themselves, unless they were supported. But he believed they need not fear on that account.
Mr. G. Finch was quite prepared to take a part in the proceedings of the next Vestry in spite of all intimidation. He had taken his seat at the Board, but as Mr. Thornton, the Vicar's churchwarden, who was a gentleman highly esteemed by the parishioners, had requested as a personal favour that the new members would not vote on that occasion, being desirous to obtain on his own account Counsel's advice, he had consented to wait until the next meeting. He was perfectly satisfied that the polling was so conducted that it amounted to nothing, and that the election by the Vestry would be decisive. He gave this opinion notwithstanding any contrary one from the Battersea attorney, whose conduct reminded him very much of “the old man of the sea,” who clung so close to the shoulders of poor Sinbad the sailor that he was nearly strangled by him; but at last Sinbad adopted an effectual course by which he got rid of him and saved his own life. Now, the Attorney-General to whom he had alluded stuck equally tight to the backs of the ratepayers, and must be thrown off or there would be no liberty or peace in the parish. (Laughter, and cries of Hear, hear.) He recommended at once a revision of the management of the Society in order to render its operations more effective and to secure the wealth and intelligence of the parish. The influence of the Society would then be still greater, and the “Picking Club” would soon be extinguished. He next referred to the “Lammas Hall,” and declared that they would ultimately have it.
Mr. Stewart approved of what Mr. Finch had just stated. They should remember that the Anti-Corn-Law League was commenced by a few individuals, but its stupendous operations soon became known to all classes of the community. Success would likewise attend their efforts, if properly directed. He declared, as a solicitor, that the poll was illegally conducted. Great credit was due to the Society.
Mr. Buckmaster alluded to the conduct pursued by Mr. Reynolds towards the ratepayers, and especially at the recent election and the day of polling. The ballot-box had been as good as closed to him before the proper hour, and the voters had been thus prevented from balloting. He moved the following resolution, when several persons at the same time rose to second it, and it was unanimously carried: that the members of this Society are of opinion that the conduct of Mr. Reynolds, during the late election of Vestrymen, in obstructing the ballot and using unbecoming language to the ratepayers, deserves the severest reprobation of this meeting.
It was also proposed that some most decisive proceedings should be immediately taken to bring the subject to issue, but the motion was withdrawn to ascertain the result of the Vestry on the 18th inst. The next Society meeting will be held at the Rising Sun Inn, Bridge-road, on Tuesday evening, the 22nd inst.
[BNA: Link.]
Claude: A wonderfully vivid piece. The detail of Reynolds being "carried about in effigy, and afterwards burned and buried" by the Battersea ratepayers — with his effigy dragged through the streets in a cart before the burning — gives a strong sense of just how deeply unpopular he had become. Mr. Ingham's dry observation that "the dog had nothing to do with the matter" is characteristic of the magistrate we have come to know. The unfortunate Taylor, asked whether he helped burn Reynolds in effigy, carefully clarifies only that he was "in town that day" — neither confirming nor denying that he would otherwise have joined in.WANDSWORTH — YESTERDAY. BURNING A SOLICITOR IN EFFIGY.
William Wilcox, a labourer, appeared before Mr. Ingham, to answer a summons charging him with having used abusive and insulting language to Mr. T. A. F. Reynolds, solicitor, of Battersea, whereby a breach of the peace might have been occasioned. The defendant pleaded not guilty.
The complainant stated that there had been a great deal of excitement in the parish of Battersea, in consequence of certain proceedings at the vestry meetings. Witness, who was solicitor to the parish, had been carried about in effigy, and afterwards burned and buried. On the afternoon of Thursday, the 26th ult., he was walking along the High-street, with Mr. Smith (a late overseer), and another gentleman was following behind, when he heard a person, who was identified by Mr. Smith as the defendant, call out, “There goes two rogues, and there is another following.” The words were coupled with most offensive expressions. He took no notice on that occasion, but on the following Saturday evening, while returning home with his mother and a large Australian dog, the defendant repeated the language, which was of a worse description. He returned to where the defendant was standing with a number of other men, and upon getting his name he found that it was the same person who had insulted him on the Thursday.
The defence set up was that Mr. Reynolds was under the influence of liquor on the Saturday, and that his dog ran against his (the defendant's) wife, and frightened her. Mr. Reynolds denied that he was intoxicated, or that his dog ran against the wife. It was from these annoyances that he wished to be protected, for he did not know where they would end. He had no dog with him on the Thursday.
Mr. S. Smith, the late overseer of Battersea, was called to prove the use of the insulting language on the Thursday, and a man named John Taylor was examined by the defendant to show that Mr. Reynolds was intoxicated on the Saturday, and that his dog frightened the wife.
Mr. Ingham asked the last witness if he assisted to burn Mr. Reynolds in effigy. Taylor said he never saw it. Mr. Ingham then asked if he saw Mr. Reynolds's effigy dragged about in a cart. Taylor answered that he did not help to do it, as he was in town that day.
Mr. Ingham said it was clear the dog had nothing to do with the matter, and that the feelings exhibited by the defendant arose out of the parish affairs. This kind of conduct must be put a stop to, but if the defendant promised not to repeat it, he would only order him to enter into his own recognisance to keep the peace for six months. The defendant consented, and was then bound over, but was locked up in default of paying 4s. costs.
[BNA: Link. Also: London Evening Standard - Thursday 09 September 1858 https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000183/18580909/038/0007]
A small but useful piece — it confirms Reynolds's Chancery Lane address (no. 67) in May 1859, just two months after his appointment as a London Commissioner to administer oaths in the High Court of Chancery. He is here acting as a witness to a routine commercial dissolution, the kind of bread-and-butter work that would have kept a Chancery Lane solicitor ticking over between his more turbulent Battersea adventures.We the undersigned, trading under the style or firm of R. F. Beioley and Son, at Canterbury, in the County of Kent, as Drapers, Silk Mercers, &c., have this day mutually DISSOLVED the Partnership existing between us. All Debts due to, and all Claims against the said Partnership, will be received and paid by R. F. Beioley, Senior, who will alone carry on the said business for the future.
R. F. Beioley, Sen.
R. F. Beioley, Jun.19th May, 1859.
Witness — T. A. F. Reynolds, Solicitor, 67, Chancery Lane.
R. W. Fletcher Beioley, Solicitor, 84, Basinghall Street, London.[BNA: Link.]
BATTERSEA.
A public meeting took place on Monday night at the Swan Tavern, Bridge-road, Battersea, for the purpose of adopting measures for establishing a Rifle Corps for Battersea and district; Mr. Robert Story in the chair.
Mr. J. Allen, the secretary to the movement, stated that he had been promised by Mr. Baker, of the Cedars, Battersea, that he would guarantee all the money required, or, with the influence of himself and friends, lighten the burden which otherwise would press upon the movement (hear, hear). He (Mr. Allen) would request them shortly to form a committee to carry out the details of the movement.
Mr. Haldain, jun., one of the South Middlesex Corps, attired in the uniform, attended the meeting for the purpose of giving any information required, and in the course of a somewhat lengthy address he pointed out the best means to adopt in forming the corps, and the necessary steps to be taken. He further observed that many young men were loth to join the corps, fearing the expense was great, but he begged to add that such was a mistaken notion, for in the corps in which he was they required but a guinea per annum, with no entrance fee, whilst the uniform would cost about £4. He should advise that when several names were upon the list they should then go round for subscriptions, for without that aid the movement would die out, as it was by no means self-supporting.
Mr. T. A. F. Reynolds then moved, “That the committee formed this evening be a preliminary committee to call a meeting, and to take such steps as they may deem necessary.”
Mr. Allen having seconded the resolution, it was carried, and the following gentlemen were elected as the committee: Messrs. G. Finch, Baker, Cross, J. Dagnete, and T. A. F. Reynolds.
Several other gentlemen having addressed the meeting, preliminary matters were arranged, and several members enrolled, the proceedings, which lasted to a late hour, concluded, thanks being passed to Mr. Allen, the secretary, and to the chairman.
[BNA: Link. Also Morning Chronicle - Wednesday 30 November 1859. https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000082/18591130/008/0003.
THE OVERSEERS OF BATTERSEA AGAIN.
At the Wandsworth Police-court, on Thursday, before Mr. Dayman, Mr. George Ayles, one of the overseers of the parish of Battersea, appeared to answer a summons taken out by Mr. T. A. F. Reynolds, solicitor, a ratepayer of Battersea. The summons charged Mr. Ayles with having refused to allow Mr. Reynolds to inspect some rate books for the years from 1856 to 1858, with the view of making extracts from them, whereby he had rendered himself liable to a penalty. Mr. Reynolds appeared in person to support the summons, and Mr. Bickley was present on behalf of Mr. Ayles. There was a large number of the Battersea people present to hear the proceedings.
At the request of Mr. Bickley, the witnesses on both sides were ordered out of court.
Mr. Reynolds said that this was a summons taken out by himself as a ratepayer of Battersea, and he relied upon the 161st section of the Metropolis Local Management Act, which stated that the rates collected under the Metropolis Local Management Act should be subjected to the same provisions as the poor rate, and under the Poor Law any ratepayer was entitled to examine and inspect the rate-books. He had made application to Mr. Ayles, and had been refused, and hence the present summons.
Mr. Bickley, dismissing the evidence, argued that supposing Mr. Reynolds had so applied, which was denied, that under the clause of the Metropolis Local Management Act referred to the local rates were not put upon the same footing as the poor rate. He read the following extract from the clause:—“and all such rates shall be allowed in the same manner, and be subject to all the same provisions in relation to appeal and to excusing persons from payment on account of poverty and otherwise, as the rate for the relief of the poor in the same parish.” He contended that under this provision there was no power to inspect rates. All that was said in those words was that the rates were to be subjected to the same provisions for appeal and excusing persons from poverty and otherwise, the same as the poor rate.
The magistrate would read the clause as Mr. Bickley read it, which was, if there were any other grounds upon which a person could be excused his rate, except upon the grounds of poverty, but as he could not think of any other ground of excuse, he read the “and otherwise” to mean that the rates under this Act were to be liable to all the provisions which governed the poor rate.
A long argument took place between Mr. Bickley and the magistrate upon this point, Mr. Bickley urging that the “and otherwise” had only reference to excusing from the payment. The magistrate, however, decided against Mr. Bickley, but of course would be willing to grant a case for the Court of Queen's Bench, as it was a point that ought to be decided.
Mr. Bickley then urged that under the Act relating to the Poor Law, there was only power to inspect existing rates, as there was no law that he knew of to punish the Overseer for even destroying closed rates.
Mr. Reynolds referred the magistrate to the words of the Act, which said “the rates,” not mentioning the existing rates.
The magistrate would here again decide in favour of Mr. Bickley, if it could be shown that closed rates could never be used for any purpose, but he could think of many cases when the old rate books might be produced with good effect. As for instance, in the Courts of the Revising Barrister, or a man might complain of his rating having been increased more than his neighbours. And assuming there was no provision to punish an overseer for destroying a rate-book, yet supposing that the rates were not destroyed, the overseer he thought was bound to allow an inspection. Therefore he must decide the law against Mr. Ayles, but, as he said, he thought the case ought to be tried in the Court of Queen's Bench. He would, therefore, now go into the evidence.
Mr. T. A. F. Reynolds was then sworn. He said that he was a ratepayer of the parish of Battersea, and in consequence of a paper having been circulated through the parish, he consulted with Mr. Stephen Neate as to its contents. The result was that he called upon Mr. Ayles between ten and eleven o'clock one morning, in company with Mr. Neate. He (witness) said to Mr. Ayles, “I have called upon you as an overseer, myself being a ratepayer, for you to allow me an inspection of the rate books in your possession.” He answered, “I decline to speak you; you have come with a witness: I'll have nothing to do with you.” As he (witness) was walking out of the shop, Mr. Ayles added, but whether he spoke to him or Mr. Neate he could not say, “I'll see you in private, if you please.” He and Mr. Neate then walked off.
Cross-examined — He did not ask to see the rate-books from 1856 to 1858, but he asked for the rates made under the Metropolis Local Management Act. He knew Mr. Ayles had the rates, although he had never admitted to him having the rate-books. He did not ask to see the current rate-books. He could not swear that Mr. Ayles spoke to him when he said, “I'll see you in private, if you please.” The words might have been addressed to Mr. Neate. At present, he did not hold possession of any rate-books, and he had never done so, except when employed and paid as solicitor. He held two bankers' books, one of which had been lent him, because of this circular which had been issued. He could swear that he did not know there was any dispute in the parish as to who was churchwarden.
Mr. Bickley then asked if there was evidence of a refusal. The Magistrate thought there was; of course he could not enter into the party spirit which existed in the parish. Mr. Reynolds made the application standing upon his right as a ratepayer.
Mr. George Chadwin (Vestry Clerk), John Hercoll (the beadle), Mr. C. T. Jones (rate collector), and Mr. W. T. Hillyer (an overseer), were then examined with a view to proving that the books in question were in the possession of Mr. Ayles.
The Magistrate here intimated that he must adjourn the further hearing of the case, and no harm could arise from it, as his decision would only be with a view to taking it to the Court of Queen's Bench.
Mr. Reynolds hoped the other side would be satisfied with the magistrate's decision, and reminded his worship that there was a penalty for not allowing this inspection.
The Magistrate said that, of course, as this was only trying a right, the penalty should, he considered, if proved, be merely nominal.
Mr. Bickley assured the magistrate Mr. Ayles had not possession of the books in question.
The further hearing was then adjourned till Thursday next, when the remainder of the witnesses will be examined.
[BNA: Link.]
Claude: A good illustration of Dayman at work — careful, precise, and alive to the technical difficulty that the summons specified one offence (refusing to allow extracts and copies) while the evidence only proved a different one (refusing inspection). His remark that “as there was a penalty he must be very particular” is characteristic. Reynolds loses on a technicality of his own making, having drafted his summons too narrowly. The detail of Reynolds serving a subpoena on Mr. Webb the previous evening — a man he had never spoken to before — to compel his attendance gives a flavour of Reynolds's aggressive lawyerly methods even when acting as his own advocate.THE RIGHT OF RATEPAYERS TO INSPECT RATEBOOKS.
The summons taken out by Mr. T. A. F. Reynolds, solicitor, of Battersea, against Mr. Ayles, one of the overseers of the parish, came again before Mr. Dayman, the Police magistrate at Wandsworth, on Tuesday last, according to adjournment. It will be remembered by our readers that the summons stated that Mr. Ayles, as overseer, “having the custody of divers rates made under the authority of the Metropolis Local Management Act for the purposes of the said parish, from the year 1856 to 1858 both inclusive, did unlawfully refuse to permit the said T. A. F. Reynolds, a person rated in and for the rates, at a reasonable time to take copies and extracts from the said rates.”
The case was adjourned because the magistrate had not time on that day to hear the whole of the evidence that could have been given upon that occasion.
Mr. Stephen Neate said that he resided in Battersea, was one of the sidesmen, and had been for many years an overseer. A fortnight ago that day he went with Mr. Reynolds to the defendant's house, when the complainant asked to see the rate books. Mr. Ayles said to Mr. Reynolds, “I shall not speak to you; you have a witness here.” Mr. Reynolds said, “I brought him with me to look at the rate books.” Mr. Ayles then said, “I shall not speak to you in the presence of a witness; I will speak to you privately if you like.” He believed these words were addressed to Mr. Reynolds. He then said to Mr. Reynolds that it was of no use waiting there, and they both left. Cross-examined — The remarks made about speaking in private were made by Mr. Ayles in his shop. He would not swear that the words were not also said outside the shop of Mr. Ayles.
Mr. Griffin, of Battersea-square, said he was one of the collectors of rates of Battersea. He was acquainted with several of the rates made in 1857 and 1858. He had not those rate books in his possession. He was impeded in the collection of them, because they were not made up. He had seen the rate books in question in the possession of Mr. Ayles about six weeks ago. Cross-examined — He could not say to a week; but it was not more than eight, and then upon one occasion Mr. Ayles asked him to take them away with him.
Mr. H. W. Webb was a carpenter at Battersea. He saw Mr. Ayles about eight days ago, and that person told him that Mr. Reynolds called at his house with a person named Neate, and that he (Mr. Ayles) objected to show the rate books to Mr. Reynolds, because that gentleman brought a witness with him. Cross-examined — He never had seen Mr. Reynolds to speak to him till the previous night, when that gentleman brought him a subpoena to attend the court and give evidence upon what he (witness) had told Mr. Allen.
John Allen was churchwarden of the parish of Battersea. Mr. Reynolds then asked this witness whether he was present at a meeting of the Board when a certain resolution was passed about the rate books. Mr. Bickley objected to the question. His client was not present, and what was said in his absence was not evidence.
Mr. Reynolds did not wish to occupy the time of the Court any longer. That was his case.
Mr. Bickley said that he should not call any witnesses, but ask the magistrate to dismiss the summons. He asked his Worship to consider whether there had been a clear case of demand and refusal made out, and then if he should think those facts clearly established, whether Mr. Reynolds, as a ratepayer, had a right to make such a demand. He observed that his client had been summoned for refusing to allow Mr. Reynolds to make extracts and copies of the rates, whereas the evidence only went to show that Mr. Reynolds applied for an inspection, and the summons therefore might be dismissed upon those grounds.
Mr. Reynolds contended that under Jervis's Act evidence might be taken in enforcing the summons.
Mr. Dayman remarked that as there was a penalty he must be very particular.
Mr. Bickley again contended that the words “and otherwise” in the 161st section of the Local Management Act only had reference to the power of appeal and excusing from poverty, and did not include the whole of the provisions made in respect of the poor rate. Again, under the 17th of George the II., cap. 32, the overseers, when a rate was allowed, were bound to make a copy of it, and that copy was the only record belonging to the parish, and which a ratepayer could demand to inspect. Then if it was contended that the clause of the Local Management Act incorporated the provisions of the Acts relating to the Poor Laws, a clause had never been repealed where an overseer could demand sixpence for an inspection of the rates, although a ratepayer might take an extract gratis.
Mr. Reynolds asked the magistrate to give him a case.
Mr. Dayman had great difficulty in doing that, because there was a doubt as to what the words “and otherwise” meant, and also upon the offence not being according to the summons.
After some further discussion between the parties engaged, the summons was dismissed.
[BNA: Link.]
Claude comments: A substantial and revealing document. It shows the full complexity of Battersea parish politics in early 1861 — Reynolds acting as solicitor for the rate collector Jones in the first section, then appearing at the open Vestry to argue the legality of the notice, while Corsellis (who will later prosecute him) argues the other side. The Vestry-Clerk Mr. Chadwin's agonised apology for his "mistake" over the meeting notice — met with barely concealed scepticism from Mr. Graham — is a small drama in itself. Reynolds is consistently on the procedural attack throughout, challenging the legality of everything while manoeuvring to keep his clients' positions intact.BATTERSEA. THE BOARD OF CHURCHWARDENS AND OVERSEERS AND THEIR COLLECTOR.
On Thursday, at the Wandsworth Police-court, before Mr. Dayman, the adjourned summons against Mr. C. F. Jones, one of the collectors of the local rates of this parish, taken out by the Overseers to compel him to deliver up certain books alleged to be in his possession, came on again for hearing. It will be remembered that this has been before the Court on two previous occasions, and each time it was adjourned for the Overseers and Collector to meet together to see if any arrangement could be made, and the books upon each side examined. On Thursday last seventy-eight books were given up to the Overseers, but Mr. Jones refused to give up the pocket assessment and collection books, alleging that these were necessary to protect himself and his sureties, urging at the same time that an opportunity had not been afforded him to compare these books with the rate books. The magistrate, when called upon by Mr. Bickley, who attended for the Overseers, to make an order for these books, then refused to do so, but adjourned the case for the books to be compared with the rate book, in order that the Overseers might have a correct list of all persons in arrears. Since the last summons the old Overseers have gone out of office, and fresh ones, with one exception, have been appointed to fill the office.
When the summons was called on, Mr. Hillier, one of the overseers, asked that the summons against Mr. C. F. Jones should be again adjourned for a week, in order that a proposition, which was made by Mr. T. A. F. Reynolds, the solicitor for Mr. Jones, might be considered by the new Board of Overseers.
Mr. T. A. F. Reynolds observed that since the last adjournment the old Overseers had gone out of office, and he wished it to be distinctly understood that whatever propositions might be acceded to, it was not to affect in any way the claim of Mr. Jones for poundage upon uncollected rates. If the new Overseers continued in the proceedings they must commence de novo.
Mr. Hillier said the Overseers only wanted to get certain information, which only Mr. Jones could give, and if he was not willing to give it, the Overseers could not force him.
Mr. Reynolds observed that it could not be expected that his client, after having been dismissed, could always be running after the Overseers to make up their accounts.
Mr. Hillier stated that the Overseers were willing to take the list as presented to the magistrates upon the previous Thursday and make up the accounts from them, without prejudicing in any way any other claim Mr. Jones might have upon them.
Mr. Reynolds agreed to that proposition, and Mr. Dayman adjourned the further hearing till Saturday, stating that if this course was agreed to by all parties neither need then attend, and the summons would fall through.
OPEN VESTRY MEETING. — ELECTION OF CHURCHWARDENS.
On Easter Tuesday, at twelve o'clock at noon, a meeting of the inhabitants of this parish was held at the School-room, Green-lane, convened according to a notice, signed “John Allen, churchwarden, Stephen Neate, sidesman,” “to proceed according to annual custom to the election of churchwardens, sidesmen, auditors, vestry-clerk, organists, and beadles for the ensuing year.” The meeting was very numerously attended, and the proceedings, as is usual in Battersea, were marked with those evidences of party spirit so common in the transaction of parochial business. The chair was occupied by the Rev. J. S. Jenkinson, vicar of the parish.
The Chairman, in opening the proceedings, said that that was the second meeting he had attended for the professed purpose of electing churchwardens. They all knew that he referred to the meeting of the elected Vestry. He was not called upon to decide which was the proper authority to elect, as that was entirely a question of law. He had attended both meetings to show that he intended acting entirely independent and without reference to either party. He hoped that if there was not harmony in their proceedings they would at any rate conduct the proceedings as quietly as possible.
The notice convening the meeting having been read, Mr. Alder took objection to the notice as not being legal; it was only signed by one churchwarden.
Mr. A. A. Corsellis said the notice was perfectly legal as far as being signed by one churchwarden, but it was illegal as it had not appeared upon the church doors three clear days after a Sunday.
Mr. T. A. F. Reynolds argued to the contrary. The notice had been up three clear days, namely, Saturday, Sunday, and Monday, and that was quite sufficient. It was merely a question of law, and if he and his friends were wrong, it was the more reason why the other side should oppose them.
The Chairman said the question was entirely one of law, and therefore he was not competent to decide. The proceedings had better go on under protest from those who contended that the notice was illegal. He then nominated Mr. G. H. Simmonds as his warden for the year ensuing, his last warden, who had served him so faithfully, having objected to stand again.
Mr. Alder proposed Mr. James Walton, of Lavender-hill, as the parish warden for the ensuing year.
Mr. Hewer seconded the nomination.
Mr. Dowden proposed Mr. John Allen, the retiring churchwarden, which was seconded by Mr. Smith.
Mr. Allen said that before they proceeded to election it would be expected that he should give an account of his stewardship. He stated that he had encountered many difficulties since he had been in office, notwithstanding which he had faithfully and earnestly served the parish. He referred to the church rate which had been granted last year upon the faith that a portion of it was to go towards paying for the repairs of St. George's, and he complained that Mr. Knight had been ill-advised in not granting the money that these repairs had cost. With regard to the present election, the office of churchwarden was no bed of roses, but if elected he would serve the parish to the best of his ability. Mr. Walton was in every sense a gentleman, and one whose means were more than his, but he was not so well used to the parish, and he questioned if he could be of so much use to the ratepayers as himself.
The names were about to be put to a show of hands, when it was suggested it would be better that a division should take place at once. This course was adopted, and, after some confusion, the numbers were declared to be for Mr. Walton, 44, and Mr. J. Allen, 30.
Mr. Dowden then demanded a poll on behalf of Mr. Allen.
The question was then raised when the polling should take place, the Chairman saying he would fix the days which best suited the convenience of the ratepayers.
Mr. A. A. Corsellis urged that the poll should properly take place in Easter week.
Mr. T. A. F. Reynolds argued to the contrary. He contended that the next week would be the most suitable time to the inhabitants.
The Chairman saw there was a doubt, and in order to be within the law he fixed the following Friday and Saturday as the polling days. The poll to be opened from nine in the morning till seven in the evening the first day, and from nine till four the second.
The remainder of the business was deferred till the close of the poll, and the proceedings so far terminated with a vote of thanks to the Chairman.
MEETING OF THE ELECTED VESTRY. — EXTRAORDINARY PROCEEDINGS.
The Elected Vestry of this parish met at the Lammas Hall, King-street, at half-past nine o'clock in the forenoon of Easter Tuesday, convened, according to circular sent them, for the election of churchwardens and sidesmen, and the usual Easter Tuesday business. The vestrymen in attendance were the Rev. J. S. Jenkinson (in the chair), Messrs. Alder, Juer, Walton, Poupart, Hewer, Knight, Jones, Seldon, Burney, Allen, Webster, Broad, Purdy, Hart, Graham and Sellar.
The Vestry-Clerk (Mr. G. Chadwin) having read the notice convening the meeting, said that he regretted to state that in the original notice of the Vestry placed on the door of the Lammas Hall, he had made a mistake stating the time of meeting to be “seven o'clock in the evening” instead of “half-past nine o'clock in the morning.” As soon, however, as he discovered his mistake, which was on the previous day (Monday) at twelve o'clock, he corrected his error and put up a proper notice. Mr. Allen remarked that an opinion had been taken, and that was to the effect that the present meeting was illegal. The Chairman asked whether he should take nominations at the meeting, but in the course of the proceedings, he trusted there would be no angry feelings shown. Mr. Hart urged that this mistake did not at all interfere with the legality of the meeting. He hoped the Vestry would at once proceed to the election. Mr. Allen observed that if the Chairman would turn to Prideaux's parish officer, he would see that the present meeting was illegal. Mr. Jones asked whether all the vestrymen themselves had received a correct notice. The Vestry-Clerk replied in the affirmative. He sincerely regretted what had occurred. Mr. Juer said that if this was not a legal meeting, all what they did would fall to the ground, and it would be putting weapons in the hands of their opponents. The Vestry were not bound to elect on Easter Tuesday and another meeting might be called. Mr. Graham asked who was the cause of this blunder. The Vestry-Clerk said that it rested solely with himself. Mr. Juer: It seems a strange thing to do. Mr. Walton said that taking all things into consideration it was necessary that they should do everything in a perfectly legal manner, and if he was to be appointed churchwarden of the parish he could not help feeling that there ought to be no mistake about the legality of the appointment, because he wished it to be understood that he was not accepting the appointment for his own pleasure or benefit, but for the benefit of the ratepayers. It was, therefore, desirable that another meeting should be called, so that if he was to be elected, and he felt sure he would be, he should be elected legally, and he then intended to do all he could to promote a better feeling and spirit throughout the parish (hear). Mr. Graham observed that Mr. Chadwin had been a long time in the parish and was an old servant, and the fifteen years he had known him he (Mr. Graham) had always respected him, but taking all things into consideration, he could not think that Mr. Chadwin could unintentionally have made such a blunder. He would add nothing more. Mr. Sellar considered this error a most grave question, especially if they looked back to what had taken place in Battersea, and, as prevention was better than cure, he suggested that in order to prevent any litigation and be on the safe side, another meeting should be held for the election of Churchwarden. Mr. Alder differed from the previous speaker. Easter Tuesday had been from time immemorial the day upon which Churchwardens and the other parish officers had been elected. He, therefore, suggested that they should at once proceed to the election, elect Mr. Walton, and then go down to the open Vestry, and if Mr. Walton was not elected there, poll the parish for him, and he was sure of the result. He also reminded the Vestry that it was still a question whether the elected or open Vestry was the proper authority to elect a Churchwarden. After some further desultory conversation, a resolution was carried that the Vestry should proceed to business. Mr. Allen here left the room, remarking that he had cautioned the Vestry that their proceedings would be illegal, and they would have to put up with the consequences of what they did. Mr. Walton said that he felt that if the Vestry elected him at that meeting they would be placing him in a difficulty, because if he was to fight the question, it would be as well to have everything open and regular. He hoped the Vestry would have a fresh meeting. A requisition was then signed by the proper number of Vestrymen instructing the Clerk to call a meeting of the Vestry for the election of Churchwardens, for half-past nine o'clock on Saturday (this) morning. Mr. Jones asked what was to ensure the Vestry against another similar mistake being made. The Vestry-Clerk said he would take care that should not occur. Mr. Poupart could not let the present opportunity pass without expressing his opinion of the lamentable consequences caused by a few disaffected spirits in the parish. They had been pushed about before in a similar manner, but he hoped the time had now come when there would be an end of all these things. Mr. Alder then rose and moved that Mr. James Walton be appointed Churchwarden for the year ensuing. He hoped they would not be cowed down or show the white feather; let them elect Mr. Walton now, and again on the following Saturday (hear). He was so tired of what had taken place that in order that the parish should not be beaten, if Mr. Walton would not stand, he would almost be inclined to stand himself. Mr. Hewer seconded. Mr. Webster thought all should unite in returning Mr. Walton, but let them take care to do it legally. He hoped, therefore, the Vestry would not make the appointment till Saturday. Let them attend the public meeting that day and support him then, and although he (Mr. Webster) could not be present, he should be most happy to vote for him if the parish was polled. Mr. Jones contended that the open meeting called that day was illegal; Mr. Knight, the vicar's warden, had refused to sign the notice, and the person who had was what he called a spurious churchwarden. Mr. Alder hoped the Vestry would at once elect. It did not matter if Mr. Walton was elected three times, but he advised them not to lose the chance of electing on Easter Tuesday. Mr. Poupart agreed with Mr. Alder. This election would have nothing to do with what they would do on Saturday, and if the question was raised, the election would have taken place on Easter Tuesday. Mr. Walton could see no objection to that course, and the motion was then put and carried unanimously. The Chairman said that in order also to be perfectly legal, and also to show that he was mixed up with no party, he should nominate his warden at the present meeting, also at the open Vestry, and again when the special meeting was called. He then nominated Mr. G. H. Simmonds as his warden for the year ensuing. He took also that opportunity of thanking Mr. Knight, his warden for the past year, and had that gentleman been willing to stand again, he should have much pleasure in nominating him.
The Vestry-Clerk here rose and said that he never felt more painful feelings than he did at that moment. There had been some prejudice, however, against him since party strife and bickerings had been prevalent throughout the parish, but he assured the meeting in a most solemn manner that this error was entirely unintentional. When he looked at the notice and saw the mistake he could scarcely believe his eyes. Whatever he had done that had given offence to some parties, he had always only followed the instructions of the persons who were in office. Mr. Graham said that after what had occurred in reference to Mr. Chadwin and some persons in the parish, more especially respecting the rate books, which Mr. Chadwin said were taken out of his office without his consent, he (Mr. Graham) was justified in saying that Mr. Chadwin had lent himself to that party which had been injuriously affecting the interests of the ratepayers. However, he (Mr. Graham) had merely stated what he thought, but he was now willing to accept Mr. Chadwin's apology, and he hoped they would still continue good friends. The Chairman thought that after the solemn assertion of Mr. Chadwin, they might believe the mistake, although a very grave one, to have been purely unintentional.
The proceedings then terminated.
[BNA: Link.]
Another glimpse of Reynolds in routine practice — here acting as a debt recovery agent for a grass merchant, and then called as a witness to confirm the correspondence in which the debtor admitted owing the money. A small case, but it shows Reynolds still functioning as a working solicitor in September 1861, eight months before the ballot-box incident.NOBLE v. NEAL.
Mr. A. Haynes, of Wandsworth, for the plaintiff, in stating the case, said that the present action was brought to recover £2 15s., for three acres and a half of grass, sold by the plaintiff to the defendant. The money not being paid, Mr. Noble instructed Mr. T. A. F. Reynolds, an attorney, to apply for the money, and received a reply from Mr. Neal admitting the debt. Mr. Reynolds was then called as a witness, and deposed to the statements made by Mr. Haynes. His Honour gave judgment for the full amount, allowing costs.
[BNA: Link.]
A delightful find — Reynolds as a yachtsman, elected to the Ranelagh Yacht Club on the Thames at Battersea in March 1862, just two months before the ballot-box incident of May 1862. Also notable is the simultaneous election of a Joseph William Reynolds of Pimlico — possibly a relative. The club met at the Swan Tavern in Bridge-road, which was also a regular venue for Battersea parish meetings, so Reynolds would have been thoroughly at home. The Vice-Commodore's lengthy speech about the club's potential to rival the Royal Thames Yacht Club has a faintly Reynolds-ish quality of grandiose ambition.RANELAGH YACHT CLUB.
The March meeting of the above club was held on Wednesday, March 12, at the Swan Tavern, Battersea; Mr. Ingram Pick in the chair. The minutes of the previous meeting having been read and confirmed, the following gentlemen were elected members — Messrs. William Brigg, 1, Victoria-grove, West Brompton; Henry Chawier, West Hove, Brighton, cutter yacht Fox, 35 tons; G. Valentine Davies, 9, Cambridge-terrace, King's-road, Chelsea; John Henry Fiebler, Nelson Lodge, Trafalgar-square; Thomas Heifor, Burn Grove-place, Sheffield; Joseph William Reynolds, 11, Gloucester-street, Pimlico; T. A. F. Reynolds, Bridge-road West, Battersea; William Roberts, Lansdowne Lodge, Church-road, Brixton; George Baxter Smith, 1, Walpole-street, Chelsea; William Gray, Markham-square, Chelsea.
Mr. Keen said: Gentlemen, you will find by the circular that it is proposed Mr. Ingram Pick, our Commodore, shall be elected Vice (much applause). If I had intended to make a speech, which would really be unnecessary, that demonstration of your feeling pretty fully convinces me that I need not occupy your time by any further remarks. Mr. Hampton seconded, and Mr. Pick was elected by acclamation. Mr. Pick said: I am much obliged for the manner in which Mr. Keen has proposed me, and to Mr. Hampton for seconding me, and am deeply indebted to you all for the kind and cordial manner in which you have received my name. I cannot find words commensurate with the honour you have done me, or the gratification that I feel, but I thank you with the power of sincerity. I hope to do so. I hope that you have not, in the abundance of your kindness, overrated my abilities, but have duly considered the responsibilities of the office you have bestowed upon me, and my capabilities for the due discharge of it. Connected as our Commodore is with many other things which worthily claim his time and attention, he must necessarily be much away from us, and therefore more weight of business may be expected to fall upon the Vice-Commodore, who must necessarily have to bear heavy responsibilities. I cannot arrogate to myself that I am competent to discharge these duties with efficiency, but this I can unhesitatingly assure you, that so long as I am blessed with health and strength I will be of as much service to the club as I can. I am sustained in the hope of being useful by the remembrance of the support given me on all occasions since I have been the Rear-Commodore by my brother officers and all the other members of the club, to whom I owe and now tender my warmest acknowledgments; and with a continuance of such aid, the club supporting its officers and the officers the club, I fondly look forward to much better things for the Ranelagh Yacht Club. I have commenced this year under very favourable auspices, and but a year, or even a few months, may show a very marked and decided advancement in our position, and that advancement can be attained by the members and officers mutually supporting each other, and applying their minds and energies to the object in view. I can see no reason why this club should not rise to be second to the Royal Thames Yacht Club, avowedly the greatest institution of its kind in existence, and I repeat that it only wants members and officers to support one another and to exercise their combined influence to produce such a result. Not only in a sporting or yachting sense is it desirable that this club should advance, not only for the improvement in building of yachts and the pursuit of science in sailing them, but as a nursery for seamen, as an important branch of the naval service of our country, for the yachts of gentlemen in the United Kingdom may fairly be computed to employ ten or twelve thousand able bodied men, the majority of whom are members of the naval reserve corps, and would be ready to join in the more active defence of their country should there ever unhappily be an occasion for their aid. Yachting clubs confer the greatest benefits in every respect, and while valuable prizes are offered for competition, gentlemen and builders endeavour to surpass each other in producing fast vessels, and an impetus is given in every way to the promotion of science and maritime pursuits; let us then all support and increase the prosperity of the Ranelagh Yacht Club. The Vice-Commodore then moved an alteration in the wording of the law restricting matches to above bridge. Mr. Hampton seconded the motion, pointing out that the impediments occasioned by the multiplication of bridges and the increased number of houses rendered sailing above bridge anything but a proceeding by which the excellence of craft could be tested, and the alteration was then carried.
Mr. Keen then moved, seconded by Mr. Lenthall, an alteration in another rule, giving increased powers to the members generally in the election of committees, which was carried. Mr. Keen then moved that the annual subscription be one guinea, to commence in January, 1863. He said that in mooting the alteration from half-a-guinea to a guinea, he had met with so few rebuffs that he was encouraged to proceed. He found but three or four objected out of the many he had spoken to, while many, he heard, pooh-poohed the notion of joining the club because the subscription was only half-a-guinea; and he thought if the club took the high ground it would be a great advantage to it. Mr. Britain seconded the motion, which was carried. Some other alterations were made in the laws and sailing regulations.
[BNA: Link.]
TROTT v. BODDY.
The plaintiff is an ironmonger, in business at Battersea, and the defendant, a carpenter, residing in the Orchard, Wandsworth. Mr. T. A. F. Reynolds was for the plaintiff, and Mr. Michael for the defendant. The plaintiff's attorney said that the action was brought to recover £7 15s. 6d. under these circumstances:—In September last year, Mr. Da Silva, a gentleman residing at Wandsworth, requiring a conservatory to be erected to his establishment, issued a specification, invited tenders for carrying out the work, and the plaintiff sent in a tender to execute it for £76 15s., but as some portion of the work required to be done by a carpenter an arrangement was made with the defendant to do all the carpentering necessary for £11. Subsequently an agreement was drawn up, signed by both parties, in which Mr. Trott was to execute his portion of the work for £65 15s., and Mr. Boddy all the carpentering for £11. His client not being, he regretted to say, a well educated man, thought he was really the person responsible to Mr. Da Silva, and that the defendant was merely his agent to do the necessary carpentering. Holding that opinion he continually advanced defendant money during the job amounting in all to £7, thinking that he would be able to deduct it when he received the whole amount from Mr. Da Silva, and the remainder of the claim was for goods supplied. The defendant, however, went behind his client's back and received the £11 from Mr. Da Silva, and hence the present action. The defendant had pleaded a set-off of £7 8s. 6d. for extra work at the job, which, according to his instructions, was entirely untrue.
The plaintiff having deposed to the facts named by his attorney, Mr. Michael said that his defence was that his client was induced to enter into the agreement upon the understanding that the carpentering work could be done in four weeks, but in consequence of the delay in completing the ironwork the carpentering occupied seven weeks. His Honour said that if that was the set-off, it was really no set-off at all, but the delay could only be made the subject of damages at a special action, and then it was very vague against whom was the right of action, whether the plaintiff or Mr. Da Silva. It was quite clear that the plaintiff had paid the defendant money upon the understanding that he was to receive the whole of the money from Mr. Da Silva, and he, therefore, had the right to recover the amount so paid to the defendant in error. Judgment was for £7 9s. 6d., allowing costs.
[BNA: Link.]