Bound v. Heap
Case brought by John Bound of Salford a builder. In August 1803 Bound and John Leaf of Pendleton esquire set up an association to erect houses on land in Pendleton. It was agreed that there should be two meetings of the association per year at the house of Mr William Lutnner (may not be spelt correctly) at the Dog Tavern Deansgate in Manchester. John Bound was appointed agent of the three clubs and associations and was told to appoint workmen and go ahead with the houses to be built in Leaf Square, Leaf Place and Frederick Street (near Oxford Road). William Heap, the defendant, was appointed to work on the properties as a stone mason. Heap is claimed to have fixed upon a house that he wished to have, but also to have billed Bound for his work in full and has commenced an action against him to get the money in the Court of his Majesty of the Exchequer Pleas at Westminster. Heap is accused of making fraudulent claims and Bound lists a number of Manchester surveyors and craftsman whom he got to check Heap's claims for the building work (Richard Tolls of Queen Street Salford surveyor; Isaac Biswick; William Wright and Thomas Wright of Hulme Place in Salford Building Measurers; Thomas Jackson of Swan Street Manchester stone mason; Robert Guy of Portland Street Manchester stone mason). The complaint is answered by Heap who argues that the housing association were run for the benefit of Leaf and Bound to the detriment of the other subscribers. He bought land from Bound and his father Thomas Bound, but this was sold to him for more than it was worth. He claims that Bound already owed him a large sum of money from previous work on the Adelphi in Salford before he started these projects, and that the house he was to take was in part payment for these debts. Bound, he claims, made him sign an agreement claiming that he would pay him afterwards. Bound then did not give him the money, and he believes that his calls for arbitration are an attempt to further stall the payment of the debt owed for Heap's work on the houses for the three associations. Also listed as being members of the housing association: Nathaniel Milne; James Cooke; George Webster; William Tate Othey; William Sumner; Joseph Hemmings; Edward Fodem; James Askers; William Sarjeant; James Mann; George Peel.
The case is particularly interesting from the point of view of family relationships because William Heap's father (who is not named) is held to have played an important role in attempting to arbitrate in the case [see transcription below]. According to the defence, John Bound's father also played an important role by introducing Bound to Heap [see transcription segment below].
Transcription
... And the said defendants father called on your orator and said that he wished the dispute between your oratoir and his son meaning the said defendant was settled and for that purpose the said defendants seaid father desired your oratior to meet him at his house on Tuesday then folliwing being the 12th of the said month of April which your orator agreed to do and a meeting accordingly took place when in the course of conversation your orator proposed a reference of the aforesaid matters and to find security for the fulfilment of the award to be made in pursuance of such reference but the said defendant objected thereto and said he durst not arbitrate and that he would rather make a sacrifice himself and he then proposed to deduct £200 form his bill or demand on your orator and the said defendant then expressed himself to the like effect and your orator therein said that he could not accept of the said proposal of the said defendant but that he would agree to refer the aforesaid matters to arbitration and to convince the said defendant that your orator wanted nothing improper your orator agreed that the said defendant should nominate his own father as one of the referees of that the whole dispute should be left to the arbitration of Mr Thomas Jackson or Mr Dauntrey Hulme either alone or jointly with the said defendant's father as the said defendant thought proper but the said defendant said that he durst not arbitrate or used words to that effect and the said defendants father offered to your orator that three hundred pounds should be deducted from his son the said defendant's bill and that your orator and the said defendant should bear their own costs of the said action to which your orator answered he had no wish that the said defendant should lose so large a sum if he were entitled to it and that your orator asked to have the matter fairly investigated and that what was due to the said defendant should be apid and thereupon the seadi defendant replied as my father has made that proposition I will agree to it meaning that three hundred pounds should be deducted from his demands and that your orator and each party pay their own costs of the said action but your orator not consenting ? for the reasons aforesaid it was at last settled that your orator and the said defendant should to in the morning and as the said Mr Dauntry Hulme whether if he were in the said defendants situation he would refere the said matters to arbitration but instead of so doing the said defendant sent his clerk in the morning to say that he should not refer and if your orator had any proposals to make he might send them by the said clerk to which your roator replied he should say no more than what he said in the conversation between your orator and the said defendant ans his father...
The Answer of William Heap
[In Feb 1805 the defendant came to Manchester where he was employed for six months by the Rochdale Canal Co]
... this defendant not then being acquainted with the ? of the said complainant) Thomas Bound the father of the said complainant came to this defendant and siad that as this defendant was a young man and a good workman and most likely wished for an introduction to business in the town of Manchester he could introduce this defendant to a job of work which would make this defendants fortune if this defendant would purchase a plot of land belonging to the said Thomas Bound and the said complainant situate in Oxford Road in Manchester or to such purport or effect and thes defendant in consequence of the representations of the said Thomas Bound appointed to meet the said complainant the following day and on such meeting the said complainant represented that a very great advantage should be derived by this defendant from the job in which the said complainant should employ this defendant and the said defendant at this meeting promised this defendant that he should be regularly paid for the work this defendant should do for the said complainant... and the defendant was induced by the representations of the said complainant and the said Thomas Bound to agree to purchase from them a piece of land situate in Oxford Road aforesaid...
|