Hindle, Norton and Co
Hindle, Norton & Co., Ironmonger Lane, Oldham
1887 'The Newcastle Exhibition, 1887: Messrs. Hindle, Norton, and Co., have on their stand a "Dougill" gas engine, which seems to work very well, although with a somewhat jerky action.' [1]
1887 Manchester Jubilee Exhibition: 'Messrs. Hindle, Norton, and Co., Oldham, show "The Dougill" improved patent gas engine, which is a horizontal engine working without compression and consuming from 30 to 36 feet of gas per indicated horse power. There is an explosion at every stroke of the piston, and the bearings of the crank shaft are placed very low, so that the connecting rod is very nearly in a line with the piston rod at the time of the explosion, an arrangement which prevents its acting obliquely, and thus gets the maximum effect produced on the crank shaft. Each engine is fitted with governor, which regulates the supply of gas, and thus gives uniformity of motion when the work is variable. Five engines are shown : one 5-horse power, one 1-horse power, two 2-man power, and one of ½-man power. It may be explained that the 1-horse power is equivalent to 8-man power, so that the 2-man power is ¼-horse power.' [2]
1888 'ACTION AGAINST A LEEDS AGENT.
At the Manchester Assizes yesterday the hearing of a case was concluded in which Messrs. Hindle, Norton and Co., of Oldham, were the plaintiffs, and Mr. Alfred Dougill, an agent, who has show-rooms in Great George-street, Leeds was the defendant. For the plaintiffs Mr. Addison, Q C M.P., and Mr. Eastwood, instructed by Mr. D. E. Griffiths, Oldham, appeared; and Mr. C. A. Russell, instructed by Mr. Blacklock, Leeds, represented the defendant. The action was brought to recover the sum of £63 for goods sold and delivered. Defendant had paid into court £6 ls. 6d., having admitted his liability to that extent. The case was heard before Mr. Justice Wills and a jury. It was stated on behalf of the plaintiffs that they were makers of gas-engines known as the "Dougill" gas-engine, and that the defendant was appointed their agent in Leeds, the terms being that he should have 15 per cent. on the net price upon cash transactions. Six engines were sent to him, two of which - a half-man engine and a half-horse engine - were the subject of the action. The price of the former was £12 and of the latter £45, the balance of the claim being made up of other items which were not important to the issue involved. The half-horse engine was sent in November, 1887, and the other engine in July, 1887. The smaller engine was sent back by the defendant in June of this year. He complained of it in April, and plaintiffs then gave him the option of sending it back, but he did not do so at the time. The half-horse engine was supplied by the defendant to a Mr. Pedley, of Leeds, an aerated water manufacturer, on the hire system. Mr. Pedley did not keep up with his payments, and then complained that the engine was not satisfactory, and eventually it was sent back. Plaintiffs would not receive either of the engines, and they were now lying at an Oldham railway station, at the defendant's risk. It was contended, on behalf of the defendant, that the engines were of faulty construction. They were non-compression engines, the piston of the half-horse engine jammed, it would not work continuously, and it did not prove by any means satisfactory to Mr. Pedley. Another defect was that there were no rings on the piston to prevent the jamming, such as were to be found in other makes of gas-engines. A number of witnesses were called on both sides as to whether the plaintiffs had, in the engines in dispute, fulfilled the conditions of their warranty. In the course of the hearing his Lordship expressed his regret that the case should have been brought into court. He could not conceive how it was possible that two sensible men, such as he supposed the solicitors in the case were, should have brought it into court, seeing that by a reference to arbitration it could have been settled for a ten-pound note. The jury found for the plaintiffs, and judgement was entered for £54 9s., including the amount paid into court, that being the sum due after the defendant's commission had been allowed for.' [3]
1891 Partnership between JAMES HINDLE, FRANCIS HINDLE, and JOHN EDWARD NORTON, carrying on business as engineers and machinists, at Ironmonger-lane, Oldham, County of Lancaster, under the style or firm of Hindle, Norton, and Co., has been DISSOLVED by mutual consent ...... [4]