Click here to return to the main site entry page
Click here to return to the previous page
The Rushden Echo, 27th October 1899, transcribed by Jim Hollis
The Rushden Steam Laundry
Ownership Discussed at the County Court

At Wellingborough County Court on Monday before His Honour, Judge Snagge, William Packwood, carter, Rushden, sued the Underwriting Bureau, of 112, Victoria-street, London, for £12 16s 4d for work done.

Mr. Simpson was for plaintiff and Mr. Duke for the defendants.

Mr. Duke said this case was affected by an action now in the High Court, and he asked that this should be adjourned until that had been disposed of.

Mr. Simpson: I oppose that.

His Honour: What is the claim for?

Mr. Simpson: Carting water for the Rushden Steam Laundry, which was the property until last March of a limited company, and is now the property of the Underwriters’ Bureau, Limited.

His Honour: I must hear something of the case before I know whether I am likely to clash with the High Court.

Mr. Simpson said the business belonged to Mr. Oakley, the manager of the bureau, who

Denied Liability

but who, through his manageress of the laundry incurred this liability.

Plaintiff was then called, and said that for some time he carted the water required at the laundry, having done so upon the directions of Miss Gibbard, the manageress.

Mr. Simpson: I shall show that she was the agent of the defendants.

Mr. Duke: To whom did you debit the water?

Plaintiff: To Miss Gibbard, as manageress of the laundry.

Miss Gibbard was then called, and said that she had acted as manageress of the Rushden Steam Laundry since two years last January. In March of this year she received a communication from Mr. Oakley, managing director of the Underwriters’ Bureau, informing her that

He Had Taken Over the Business

and requesting her to continue as manageress.

Mr. Simpson: Did he not send the first week’s wages?

Miss Gibbard: Yes, by postal telegram.

The Judge: Who was your principal before that?

Miss Gibbard: Mr. Newman, secretary of the Rushden Steam Laundry Company.

In reply to further questions by Mr. Simpson, witness said that Mr. Oakley wrote and told her that he was opening an account at the Union Bank, and that she was to pay any moneys she received into that account. On the 20th September she was instructed to close the laundry on the following Saturday.

The Judge: Who is going to pay Packwood?

Mr. Duke: I submit that this cannot be settled until the ownership of the laundry is settled. The persons who will have to pay Packwood are the Rushden Steam Laundry Company, for no person can carry on business in the name of a Limited company.

Mr. Simpson: Oakley has not only been

Giving Orders to Rushden Tradesmen

but has moved the machinery and sold it. Then he had an account at the Union Bank, and has drawn out the money; he has been bossing the whole show, in fact.

The Judge: Will defendant pay the money into the court?

Mr. Duke: If they do I ask you to say that it shall not be withdrawn until after the action between the Steam Laundry Company and the Underwriters’ Bureau has been disposed of.

The Judge: Packwood must be paid by somebody.

Mr. Simpson: The Underwriters’ Bureau has had the takings.

The Judge: I will leave it like this – if the money is paid into court within fourteen days it shall remain there until further application is made before me.


Return to Index of Court Cases


Click here to return to the main index of features
Click here to return to the Fire, Police & Crime index
Click here to e-mail us