July 1, 1911.] 



THE INDIA RUBBER WORLD 



349 



The India-Rubber Trade in Great Britain. 



By Our Regular Correspondent. 



THE qualilj of a large consignment of these goods was the 

 main issue in an action at the Manchester May assizes, a 

 good deal of technical evidence being tendered. Briefly 

 stated, the action was brought by Redfcrn's Rubber Works, sec- 

 ond, of Hyde near Mancliestcr, against George Blake, a London 

 rubber merchant, to recover a small 

 BLACK HEEL balance of account owing and also 



PADS. , ,,..,. , ^ 



damages for libel m respect of strong 



language used in writing about the quality of the heels, all of 

 those shipped abroad having been rejected. The case lasted 

 two full days, the judge's summing up taking more than an hour. 

 In the end, the special jury found for the plaintiff on the claim 

 and for the defendant on the libel, honors thus being easy and 

 costs divided. I shall not attempt in the space available to 

 follow the evidence, but a few remarks on certain points will be 

 of interest. As is not unusual in theses cases the experts called 

 to testify to the quality of the rubber differed in their con- 

 clusions. J. E. Baxter and J. W. O. Walker, for the plaintiff, saw 

 nothing wrong with the heels, considering their low price, though 

 each of them spoke as to the difliculties connected with making a 

 satisfactory black heel. For the defendant, Mr. Wild, manager of 

 the Wood-Milne Works; Mr. Porter, manager of the Harboro 

 Rubber Company, and Mr. Mallaby, of the HayclifTe Rubber 

 Company, condemned the heels as unmerchantable and testified 

 to having made quite satisfactory goods at the same price. A 

 good deal of evidence was given as to the natural life of such 

 cheap heels and both sides were in general agreement that no 

 more than six months' guarantee for keeping in stock could 

 be given and that a life of four to six weeks on the heel was 

 all that could be expected. When Mr. Porter was shown one of 

 his cheap heels in perfect condition, after four years in a stock 

 room and counsel suggested that it was a freak, he replied amid 

 laughter that it was a tribute to the general excellence of the 

 Harboro Company's manufacture, and he went on to explain 

 that though for commercial reasons they only gave a six months' 

 guarantee they certainly did not expect the heels to begin to 

 deteriorate at the end of that period. The analysts who gave 

 evidence in court were William Thomson, F. I. C, for the plain- 

 tiff, and H. L. Terry, F. I. C, for the defendant. 



Mr. Thomson, when questioned as to the quality, said he had 

 nothing to say on the point, while Mr. Terry in reply to a similar 

 query, said it consisted largely of reclaimed and crumb rubber of 

 low quality, as reported in his analysis, though in cross-examina- 

 tion he said that he had not attempted to give separate figures 

 for new and old rubber as this was impossible. 



With regard to the composition of the heels which the judge 

 said should be called "the formula" not "the mixing," a rather 

 interesting situation arose. When the plaintiff was on the wit- 

 ness stand his own counsel asked him to give the composition 

 of the heels; this he proceeded to do in full, and the interesting 

 details found their way into an evening paper. As the cross- 

 examining counsel wished for further details from a book not in 

 court, it was arranged that the book should be fetched by iriotor 

 car from the works. The luncheon interval then took place and 

 on resumption the plaintiff took up a different position and 

 appealed to the judge that the contents of the book, which had 

 now arrived, should not be given in open court, as being con- 

 cerned with trade secrets. The judge at once agreed to this, 

 saying he would not have permitted the former evidence if the 

 plaintiff had objected at the time, .^fter some discussion it was 

 agreed that the defendant's counsel might look at the book on 



REFORMING 

 LITIGATION. 



giving an undertaking that they would not make any use of its 

 contents, not that anybody in court thought that the two K. C.'s 

 concerned were at all likely to introduce furtlier competition 

 into the heel trade by way of augmenting their incomes. It was 

 rather unfortunate, the judge remarked, that neither party could 

 produce the orijinal samples on which the order was said to 

 have been placed, as it would have enabled the question of 

 quality to have been elucidated. With regard to the plaintiff's 

 contention that a rubber merchant such as the defendant should 

 be able to judge whether deliveries are up to sample or not. the 

 judge said that it was not obligatory on the defendant to recognize 

 any defects which were not at once perceptible to the senses. 

 There was no obligation on a purchaser to employ analysis or 

 probe for possible defects ; the law said that the manufacturer 

 was responsible for any defects not at once discernible. 



The remarks in The India Rubber World of May Isr, in Re- 

 claiming Litgation in Great Britain, are of more than passing in- 

 terest, as they embody what is, of 

 course, an authoritative statement from 

 The Simplex Rubber Company, second, 

 that they are not likely to be engaged in any litigation, for the 

 present at all events. The writer of the article uses the terms 

 "reclaiming" and "reforming" as if they were synonymous. Rightly 

 or wrongly, however, they have quite a distinct significance in 

 England. Rubber reclaiming has long been carried on by num- 

 erous firms in England, the article produced being sold in the 

 mass by the cwt. or ton to rubber manufacturers. On the other 

 hand, rubber reforming, or remaking, as it is also called, is 

 carried on by firms who take a customer's old rubber article, 

 grind it up, remould it, and sell it back to him. This, at least, is 

 the business which was carried on by Gare at his works at Hazel 

 Grove, solid cab tires and buffers being the goods chiefly con- 

 cerned. Since competition arose in the reforming inarket. the 

 business seems to have developed in the direction of general 

 mechanical rubber manufacturing, and only those who are in the 

 secrets of the different factories know whether the goods turned 

 out can strictly be called reformed or whether they are not, in 

 reality, identical with the ordinary rubber works product, consist- 

 ing largely of reclaimed rubber. As mentioned in the article, the 

 opposition to Gare's patent (now the property of the Simjilex 

 Company) was not successful, nor, I may add, was Gare's op- 

 position to the patent of Hyatt and Lenn. The original patents 

 of Karavodigne and Roux are now being worked by the Mill- 

 wall Rubber Company, second, at Harpenden, whose advertise- 

 ments have warned purchasers against goods which infringe 

 their patent. Among other "reformers" the Premier Company 

 is the most important in point of capitalization, work being car- 

 ried on under Unmisch's patent. The most recent flotation con- 

 nected with reforming is the Letchworth Rubber Company, sec- 

 ond, registered on May 19 with a capital of £4,000, tn acquire a 

 license to work the Gare process. 



CH.ARLES Bl.mr, late works manager of the Mersey Reclaim- 

 ing Company, second, of Stockport, is now engaged in develop- 

 ing a reclaiming process which he has 

 patented. He has had a good deal of 

 experience in this line, having been en- 

 gaged in it many years before going to the Mersey company. 

 Like others concerned in reclaiming, he would like to see Brit- 

 ish rubber manufacturers use a larger proportion of reclaimed 

 rubber with tlieir new rubber. T don't know how he arrives at 

 his figures, but he says that the British use about 3 per cent, of 



SHORT 

 MENTION. 



