George KEAY

From The Wellington Journal, 20 June 1863

COUNTY COURT

Before W. Spooner, Esq, judge

KEAY V ASTIN

This case occupied the attention of the court for some time. The court-room was crowded, the public appearing to take a great interest in the case. The plaintiff, Mr George Keay, of Ollerton, near Hodnet, claimed the sum of £1 10s, being a balance of an account due to him from the defendant, Mr William Astin, farmer, of Child's Ercall. Mr Taylor, of Wellington, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Grimley, of Market Drayton, for defendant.

George Keay said: Defendant told me that he had a plough of Howard's make that wanted repairing. I said I would rather not repair it. He afterwards sent the plough to my shop, and left word that it was to be made a good job of. I have received more than £3 10s for altering Howard's ploughs. I have been paid £4. I took in my bill. He said nothing about the charge being exorbitant. 

Cross examined by Mr Grimley (Mr Grimley put in the bill): That is the bill. I did not tell Mr Astin that the cost of altering the plough would not be much. I told him he had better send it back to Howard. I deny that I said it would only cost a trifle.

In answer to his Honour, plaintiff said the plough was too weak for the land, it had been made too light.

Witness continued: Defendant said it would not do his work. I made two new beams to the plough and repaired it. Defendant said I was to make a good job of it. 

Mr Grimley: Were there any beams in it before?

Witness: It would be a queer plough if hadn't any. (Laughter.)

Cross examination continued: I do not know how long the plough had been bought.

In answer to his Honour: I turned it out a good working plough. 

Witness continued: I did not say anything about the cost. The old iron is considered equivalent to taking it to pieces. He and his men have said that the plough works very well.

Mr Samuel Corbett said: I am an implement maker at Wellington. I employ about 30 men and boys. I have taken 19 prices for implements. I have patented several implements. I have made several a hundred ploughs at my establishment. I have always refused to alter any of Howard's, knowing it to be a difficult job. They are first-class single plough makers, but not at all good double plough makers. It is a difficult job to make a good double plough. Mr Keay has pointed out to me the work he has done on the plough. I should have charged £4 5s for it. If Mr Keay had done it for £3 10s he has done it at a loss. I have not seen many good double ploughs of Howard's make; they are celebrated for their single ploughs. 

Cross examined by Mr Grimley: It could not be altered for less money. If that work had been done at my establishment I should have charged £4 5s. 

In answer to Mr Taylor witness said: As to scraps or old iron we never allow anything for them. We sell that for a little profit. (Laughter.)

George Keay deposed: I am son of plaintiff. Defendant sent the plough to our shop; it was to be made a good job of.

Cross examined by Mr Grimley: I am quite sure he sent word that we were to make a good job of it. 

For the defence Mr Grimley called William Astin, the defendant, who said: I bought the plough of Howard's agent. I have ? ploughs of his make, both single and double,in our country. It ploughed its work well,but it was wanted to plough wider; it didn't plough track enough for the horses. I asked Keay to alter it. I asked him about the cost, and he said it wouldn't cost much. I said, “If it will, I'll send it back.” I pointed out to the alteration I required. There was no reason for the other alteration. I offered to pay Keay the £14 15s 6d, his bill, when he brought it, out of a £20 note, but he had not change. At that time I thought that £3 10s was for altering a machine.

By Mr Taylor: I thought it was for the machine.

By Mr Grimley: I told him as soon as I found it out. I was looking over the bill, and couldn't make out what the £3 10s was for.  This is the fourth plough I've had of Howard – as good a plough as ever worked in land.

Mr Gower deposed: I have seen the plough. I could have made the alterations required for 10s. I am an implement maker in this town; I have had experience in altering ploughs.

Cross examined by Mr Taylor: Plaintiff has pointed out to me the work done; I do not think he could make the alterations he did for less money, but I do think that there was no need for that amount of alteration.

Mr Henry Bruckshaw deposed: I am an implement maker residing here. I think that the alterations required for making the plough good might have been done for less than £1. I and my father have been plough makers for about 20 years. For the work done the charge is not unreasonable, but the alterations were not required. 

Mr Astin's farm servant proved taking the plough to Mr Keay's shop. He said: George Keay took the foot of the plough off himself. He was at home when I took the plough. 

The plaintiff was recalled, and he said he was not at home when the plough was brought to his shop.

His Honour had no doubt that the charge made by the plaintiff for the work done was a fair charge, but too much work was done.

Judgement for the defendant, witnesses allowed.