Lee and Borland: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
of Lincoln | of Melville Street, Lincoln | ||
1859 Fire at Lee | 1859. Fire at [[Lee and Borland]], crank manufacturers, Melville street.<ref>Lincolnshire Chronicle - Friday 19 August 1859</ref> | ||
1860 Court case: [[Joseph Lee (of Lincoln)|Joseph Lee]] v. [[Adam Borland]]. Lee was described as an engineer, 'and Borland a draper and now an engineer also.' The claim by Lee was for £42 16s 1d, 'the details being somewhat multitudinous and complicated', and followed a falling out between Lee and Borland and the ending of the partnership. The division of assets was acromonious, but, in short, Borland carried on the business of crank-making using the patented machine. There was brief discussion about an alleged infringement of a patent of [[Lord Brothers]] of Todmorden, which Borland had evidently claimed had reduced the value of Lee's patent after Borland had bought it for £250. Lee denied any infringement or devaluation, but stated that he had afterwards 'come to terms with them about an improvement I effected in mine; but that was to satisfy Messrs. [[Ruston, Proctor and Co]], and to prevent the possibility of litigation.'<ref>Stamford Mercury, 11 May 1860</ref>. It was reported shortly afterwards that Messrs Lord were to remove the plant to Todmorden, and to work the invention 'by means of a co-partnery'. 'The invention or plan of bending and making the crank is described as exceedingly valuable, the operation of bending being accomplished by the machine almost instantaneously; whereas by the old method done by hand the process was tediously long and, of course, far more expensive.'<ref>Stamford Mercury - Friday 18 May 1860</ref> | 1860 Court case: [[Joseph Lee (of Lincoln)|Joseph Lee]] v. [[Adam Borland]]. Lee was described as an engineer, 'and Borland a draper and now an engineer also.' The claim by Lee was for £42 16s 1d, 'the details being somewhat multitudinous and complicated', and followed a falling out between Lee and Borland and the ending of the partnership. The division of assets was acromonious, but, in short, Borland carried on the business of crank-making using the patented machine. There was brief discussion about an alleged infringement of a patent of [[Lord Brothers]] of Todmorden, which Borland had evidently claimed had reduced the value of Lee's patent after Borland had bought it for £250. Lee denied any infringement or devaluation, but stated that he had afterwards 'come to terms with them about an improvement I effected in mine; but that was to satisfy Messrs. [[Ruston, Proctor and Co]], and to prevent the possibility of litigation.'<ref>Stamford Mercury, 11 May 1860</ref>. It was reported shortly afterwards that Messrs Lord were to remove the plant to Todmorden, and to work the invention 'by means of a co-partnery'. 'The invention or plan of bending and making the crank is described as exceedingly valuable, the operation of bending being accomplished by the machine almost instantaneously; whereas by the old method done by hand the process was tediously long and, of course, far more expensive.'<ref>Stamford Mercury - Friday 18 May 1860</ref> | ||
Revision as of 13:12, 21 June 2017
of Melville Street, Lincoln
1859. Fire at Lee and Borland, crank manufacturers, Melville street.[1]
1860 Court case: Joseph Lee v. Adam Borland. Lee was described as an engineer, 'and Borland a draper and now an engineer also.' The claim by Lee was for £42 16s 1d, 'the details being somewhat multitudinous and complicated', and followed a falling out between Lee and Borland and the ending of the partnership. The division of assets was acromonious, but, in short, Borland carried on the business of crank-making using the patented machine. There was brief discussion about an alleged infringement of a patent of Lord Brothers of Todmorden, which Borland had evidently claimed had reduced the value of Lee's patent after Borland had bought it for £250. Lee denied any infringement or devaluation, but stated that he had afterwards 'come to terms with them about an improvement I effected in mine; but that was to satisfy Messrs. Ruston, Proctor and Co, and to prevent the possibility of litigation.'[2]. It was reported shortly afterwards that Messrs Lord were to remove the plant to Todmorden, and to work the invention 'by means of a co-partnery'. 'The invention or plan of bending and making the crank is described as exceedingly valuable, the operation of bending being accomplished by the machine almost instantaneously; whereas by the old method done by hand the process was tediously long and, of course, far more expensive.'[3]