Grace's Guide

British Industrial History

Grace's Guide is the leading source of historical information on industry and manufacturing in Britain. This web publication contains 147,937 pages of information and 233,602 images on early companies, their products and the people who designed and built them.

Difference between revisions of "Thomas Joy"

From Graces Guide

Jump to: navigation, search
Line 23: Line 23:
[[Category: Machine Tools]]
[[Category: Machine Tools]]
[[Category: Machine Tools - Greater Manchester]]
[[Category: Town - Manchester]]
[[Category: Town - Manchester]]

Latest revision as of 18:37, 26 January 2021

of Manchester

1837 Thomas Joy, lathe and tool maker and machine maker, Back Lloyd Street.

1841 Thomas Joy, lathe and tool maker and machine maker, 14 Back Lloyd Street; house 44 Booth Street, Deansgate [1]

1853 Thomas Joy, lathe and tool maker and machine maker, 44 Great Bridgewater Street; house 16 Nicholas Street[2]

............... 1847 The following is the report of a trial, concerning a claim against Thomas Joy. Although relatively trivial, the report may be of some historical interest.

Joy v. Crossley.—
Mr. Monk was for the plaintiff; Mr. Cobbett for the defendant. In this case the plaintiff was Thomas Joy, and the defendant William Crossley. The declaration was on debt for goods sold aud delivered, for work and labour done and performed, and there was also an account stated. The defendant pleaded that, except as to £7 5s. 2d., he was not indebted, and a tender of £7 5s. 2d., had been paid into court. The tender was admitted by the defendant, who took the money out of court, and on the other plea issue was joined. Both the plaintiff and defendant are machinists in Manchester ; the plaintiff being likewise tool and planing-machine maker. The account consisted of three items, the first two being for planing a great many inches.— Mr. Cobbett, for the defendant, intimated that there was no objection made to the first two items. The third item was a charge made for repairing a planing-machine with a cross-slide, amounting to £20. It appeared that a planing-machine an instrument used by machinists, and the plaintiff having one which was out of repair, he sent to the plaintiff's, and asked him what would be the expenses of putting it in repair with new gearing. He was told that it would cost from £12 to £15. The defendant expressed himself satisfied to pay that amount, and had the machine taken to the shop of the plaintiff to be repaired. There was connected with the machine what was is called a cross-slide, which was of importance to the proper action of tho machine. The cross - slide is hidden from observation so long as it is in a condition to work. But when the plaintiff's workmen proceeded to take the machine to pieces, in order to repair it, it was discovered that the cross-slide was in so bad a state to require re-making. Amongst other things there were required for that purpose some new nuts and screws, which cost a great deal of money. The plaintiff, before he proceeded to incur any expense in the repair of the cross slide, sent notice to the defendant, giving him information of the condition in which tbe cross slide was, and wishing to know whether he would go to the expense of having it properly repaired. The defendant, in reply, stated that the cross-slide must be re-made, and properly fitted up. The machine was accordingly put in a proper state of repair, and £20 charged for so doing.— In support of the plaintiff's case the following witnesses were called: John Hammond, who repaired the machine; Thomas Baldwin, engineer, at Bury, but formerly foreman to the defendant, from whom he took instructions to the plaintiff to repair the machine; William Borthwick, who assisted in repairing the machine; George Teale, who finished the repairing of the machine ; James Whittaker, a master machinist, who said he would not like to do the same quantity of work as was spent on the machine by the plaintiff for £20; £12 would not pay the workmen's wages. This was case for the plaintiff.— Mr. Cobbett then addressed the jury for the defendant, contending that by an agreement between them the machine was to be repaired for a sum not exceeding £12. The following witnesses were examined in support of the defendant's case:— Wm. Crossley, son of the defendant; Philip Tanner, publican and dealer in old machinery ; David Rivett, machine manager ; and William Wilson, bolt maker. The first witness stated that the contract was for £12 ; and the others stated that sum would be fair price for the repair of the gearing, but their attention was not called particularly to the state of the cross slide.— Samuel Parker, who worked with the machine, stated that he did not know anything was wrong with the slide, if anything only wanted polishing.— Mr. Monk replied.—The Learned Recorder having summed up, the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, damages £8.'[3]

Was the defendant William Crossley?

See Also


Sources of Information

  1. Pigot & Slater's Directory of Manchester & Salford, 1841
  2. Whellan & Co's Directory of Manchester & Salford, 1853
  3. Manchester Courier and Lancashire General Advertiser - Wednesday 13 October 1847