Bunce of Hammersmith: Beware of Sir Francis Blake, Bart. Tiresome clients are nothing new

Bunce were successors to Henry Webb and Webb & Bunce, Windsor chair makers of Hammersmith at the end of the eighteenth century, about whom Robert Parrott in the 2008 Regional Furniture Society Journal reveals much history. The section about Henry Webb begins on p. 127.

I found the following account of a dispute between the succeeding firm of Bunce of Hammersmith and Sir Francis Blake. It is taken from the Kentish Weekly Post or Canterbury Journal of 31 May 1825.

"COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, May 28 BUNCE V. BLAKE, BART.  

Mr. Sergeant Vaughan stated that this was an action for work and labour done for the defendant, Sir Francis Blake, Bart, who resided near Staines. The plaintiff was rustic chair manufacturer at Hammersmith, and sought to recover a large amount, being between £400. and £500. The defendant had paid £84 into Court, but that would not of course satisfy the plaintiff's demand. In 1823, the defendant wanted drawings of rustic buildings and other rustic curiosities, a more capricious minded man never existed, for he was never satisfied next day with what gave him delight on the preceding ; but if he would erect buildings, pull them down, and build them up again, he ought to pay for the inconstancy of his taste, or vagaries of his fancy. From June, 1823, till the following December, six or eight of the plaintiff’s men were employed on a rustic building large enough to contain 40 persons. This building was attached to the large premises, and no sooner was it constructed, than the defendant changed his mind, and had the roof taken off, and put on again in a different manner. One part of the building was intended for the ladies, and was therefore made rather dark. — (Laughter.) — Another part overlooked the part contiguous to it, and was therefore remodelled. As the building went on, the defendant expressed his satisfaction from time to time at what was done, but the next day undid the object of his former admiration, and ordered the whole to be rebuilt. A more outre taste could not be exhibited, or a more whimsical building presented to the view.

It was impossible for him or any man to say what labour had been expended on such capricious variety of building. He was told that in another building of similar description, on which a spire had been erected, the defendant ordered the spire to be reversed, and had the base placed where the top should be. The jury had a representation of the grotesque architecture before them for their edification. A man might, if he pleased, stand on his head instead of his feet ; but if he indulged his whim by reversing the natural order of spires, he should pay the expence of having it done.— Then, in the manner of payment, the defendant was as whimsical in that as in other matters. What did they think of a bill for £5 payable three months after date, from Sir Francis Blake, Baronet ? And yet it was in bills of this kind that he occasionally paid sums on account to the plaintiff. 

Thomas Pither, the first witness called, was foreman to the plaintiff. In 1823, Sir Francis Blake called at their shop and ordered a rustic fence to be made. He also gave directions for building a rustic dog-house.— (Laughter.) — It was a fancy article, lined inside with straw ; the dog was measured for it. Continued Laughter. He had also four rustic sofas. 

The Lord Chief Justice. — ln plain English, I suppose you call them garden Chairs ?

Witness;— Yes ; there were six rustic flower stands, and other rustic articles, all charged £26. The rustic fence was charged £28 and was painted three times in oil colours. 

Mr. Serjeant Pell said, that he intended in (sic) dispute the charges for all these articles. He had a great number of witnesses to dispute the price of every item. 

The Lord Chief Justice — Was ever such rustic cause as this tried in any court in the world ? Why, instead of trying one cause, we shall be trying one hundred ; if the price of every rustic chair and stool is to be disputed, it will be an action on each. Disputed items ought to have been settled before the cause came into court; the time of the Court and the public cannot be wasted on such a cause as this : the better course will be to submit it to arbitration. 

After some consideration between the parties, the case was referred to the arbitration of Mr. Barnewall. 

This case finished the Middlesex sittings, and the Court rose."

My sympathies lie with the plaintiff.

© Julian Parker 2020