Benjamin Finch

1856: 'COURT OF QUEEN’S BENCH —Saturday. (Before the Lord Chief Justice and common jury).
Benjamin Finch v. William Pare.

'This was an action to recover salary and percentage claimed by plaintiff for his services as mechanical manager and superintendent of the Irish Engineering Company, at the Seville Iron Works, Dublin, over and above credits. The defendant lodged a sum of £62 10s. 8d. In court, claimed a credit of £30, not admitted, and also claimed credit for set-off of £8 17s. 5d., which was also disputed. It appeared that the plaintiff, Mr. Benjamin Finch, commenced engagement with the Irish Engineering Company the month of January, 1850, and up to March, 1851, had superintended sixty or seventy workmen employed on the construction the Chepstow-bridge. The work was carried to completion under plaintiff's superintendence; for his services to the date last-mentioned he claimed a salary of £2 per week. In March, 1851, the mechanical manager of the company resigned, and his duties were then undertaken and performed by the plaintiff thenceforward. His salary had been at the rate of three guineas per week. Plaintiff's claim for the ensuing year, to March 1852, during which period he had the exclusive management and superintendence of the mechanical works of the company, was not increased him, being the rate of two pounds per week. From March, 1852, he claimed, to June, 1853, a salary of three guineas per week, and one branch of the case was, to determine whether his services from January, 1850, to 30th June, 1853, entitled him to the rate of remuneration claimed. From the 30th June, 1853, to the termination of plaintiff’s engagement on the 8th of February, 1856, it was admitted that by agreement his salary should be at the rate of £40 per annum, and that he should also have a per centage of one per cent, on the amount of goods sold or invoiced in the books over £10,000 per annum. The question on this was, whether the goods so sold or invoiced, plus £10,000 per annum, exceeded £11,300, the amount admitted by defendant. The only other matters in controversy were the defendant's right to credit for £30, and £8 17s. 5d. as claimed by him. With respect to these credits claimed by defendant it appeared that the item of £30 represented a payment of that amount made by plaintiff's brother to Mr. Edward Finch (who had been one of the partners of the company), on account of the expenses of a patent taken out by plaintiff for a mechanical invention connected with steam boilers, and of which invention it was stated that the company had had the advantage of plaintiff using it in the works, at Seville-place. It was stated that plaintiff had authorised defendant, at the suggestion of the latter, to place that sum of £30 to the debit of plaintiffs account, provided his brother, who had made the advance, obtained credit for the same amount in his account with the company. It was alleged on behalf of the plaintiff that his brother had never got credit for that sum, and that therefore his liability to his brother for it subsisted, and defendant could not have credit for it. The other credit of £8 17s. 5d., claimed by him as a set-off against plaintiffs demand, was for cleaning and polishing up a small steam-engine, to be exhibited at the exhibition of 1853. This engine had been constructed by the plaintiff, who was solicited by the defendant’s son to permit it to be exhibited at the Dublin Exhibition. Plaintiff assented, and it was put in order for that purpose at defendant's works, where plaintiff was employed by one of the fitters at the works, and the set off was for the fitter’s service at the rate of 7s. per day. On the part of the plaintiff it was contended that no part of the expense ought to be paid by him, as he had merely permitted the engine to be exhibited as the best article to represent the Seville Iron Works - that his name, as mechanical manager of those works, appeared on it ; but that, to all intents and purposes, it was exhibited for the company. The plaintiff's case was ably stated by Mr. Exham, in the absence of his senior counsel.

'The plaintiff, his brother, and other witnesses, were examined in support of his case. Mr. James Kennedy, of Liverpool, was also examined, and stated that had been one of the firm of Bury, Curtis and Kennedy (a well known, extensive and eminent firm) that plaintiff had served his apprenticeship to that firm, where he had every opportunity of learning his business in all its branches as a mechanical engineer, was considered a remarkably clever and intelligent young man, and quite competent to discharge the duties which devolved upon him at the Seville Iron Works; witness also gave other evidence to the rates of salary usually given to persons employed as plaintiff had been, and stated that the rates claimed by plaintiff were very low. The defendant, his book-keeper, and cost clerk, were examined for the defence, and the jury were addressed at length by counsel on both sides. The Lord Chief Justice charged the jury, and directed their attention clearly and minutely to the matters to be determined by them, and the evidence adduced on both sides; and after stating that scarcely any case had ever come before him, supported by such respectable witnesses as had been examined in this case, concluded by expressing his opinion, that on public grounds it was of great importance to remunerate adequately, persons who, like the plaintiff, had performed their duties with ability.

'THE JUNIOR BAR.
The Chief Justice took occasion to observe, when Mr. Exham was expressing his regret that two senior counsel were absent, that he was always pleased at finding the members of the junior bar afforded the opportunity of displaying their abilities, and he could say with the utmost sincerity, from what occurred during the after sittings, that the ability, learning, and judgment displayed by the junior members of the bar reflected great credit on them.

'The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for £128, finding for him on all the issues.

'Counsel for plaintiff—Messrs. Macdonogh, Q.C.; Lynch, Q.C.; and Exham. Agents—Messrs. Murdock Green a«d Co. Counsel for defendant—Messrs. Robinson, Q.C.; Armstrong, Q.C., and Malley. Agent—Mr. James Malley.'

See Also

Loading...