THE WESTERN ENGINEERING CASE

A Swansea Financial Controversy of Considerable Magnitude

South Wales Daily Post

This major story was published in the South Wales Daily Post, July 1924

In the County Court yesterday, a matter of exceptional commercial gravity was heard, touching upon the dealings of the Western Engineering Company and the professional exertions of Mr. Harold Williams, solicitor. The action — modest in its outward sum yet vast in its modern equivalent — concerned a claim for £140 14s. 7d. (≈ £14,500 today) alleged to be due for legal services rendered in connection with both a London bank overdraft and the now‑familiar Masano property speculation. After lengthy argument, His Honour gave judgment for the plaintiff, assessing the recoverable amount at £84 13s. 4d. (≈ £8,720 today), with costs to be taxed.

THE QUESTION OF RETAINER

Counsel for the plaintiff, Mr. Clarke Williams, asserted that seven disputed items had been properly charged under the Solicitors’ Requirements Act of 1843, and that the defendants’ denial of retainer could not stand. For the defence, Mr. Walter Samuel, M.P., contended that certain work had not been performed, and that the statutory month’s notice of the bill had not been observed.

Mr. Samuel conceded some items, but challenged others — notably the £95 9s. 11d. relating to the bank overdraft, a sum equal to about £9,840 today, and £55 5s. for services rendered to partners Ernest Joseph and Abe Freedman, equivalent to £5,690 today. His Honour, however, intimated satisfaction with the plaintiff’s explanation and resolved to determine the retainer question himself.

THE BANK OVERDRAFT OF £14,600

The court next turned to the matter that cast the longest shadow over the proceedings — the National Bank overdraft, said to have been secured through the plaintiff’s intervention.

Mr. Clarke Williams declared the issue “serious,” to which Mr. Samuel replied, “Very serious.” The plaintiff maintained that his negotiations in London had directly resulted in the defendants obtaining an overdraft of £14,000 to £16,000 — sums which today would stand between £1.44 million and £1.65 million. Mr. Samuel corrected the figure to £14,600, equivalent to about £1.50 million today, and vowed to demonstrate that the plaintiff had “nothing whatever to do with the advance.”

His Honour ultimately ruled that only two items required trial:

• Whether a retainer existed in the Masson action, and

• Whether a retainer and services existed in respect of the overdraft.

PLAINTIFF’S ACCOUNT OF EVENTS

The plaintiff stated that Messrs. Joseph and Freedman had secured an option on premises in the Strand for heavy machinery, and had instructed him to issue a writ for specific performance. When Barclays Bank refused further advances, Mr. Joseph sought his assistance. The plaintiff obtained a list of securities and interviewed the manager of the National Bank at Swansea, later travelling to London to meet Mr. Cook, the bank’s secretary.

He described the partners as “well‑known commercial men of Swansea,” proprietors of a large engineering works at the docks. Though he was not present when the bank indicated readiness to provide funds, he insisted that his representations materially aided the negotiations.

His Honour observed that, unless contradicted by Mr. Joseph, he was satisfied that the plaintiff had indeed rendered services relating to the overdraft.

LONDON ACTIVITIES

The plaintiff acknowledged that Mr. Joseph had already opened discussions with the bank before his involvement, but maintained that he had acted upon “express instructions” when he travelled to London. He believed the bank already possessed a list of securities, but emphasised that his own representations strengthened the defendants’ position.

THE MASANO MATTER

Turning to the Masano property, the plaintiff stated that he had only learned that day that the premises had been acquired as a private speculation by Messrs. Joseph and Freedman, and not on behalf of the Engineering Company.

Mr. Samuel noted that his client had given him credit for £115, equivalent to £11,845 today, but additional sums brought the total to £134 15s. 6d., equal to £13,880 today, and he might need leave to amend. His Honour warned that if the defences were not proved, he would not assist the defendants by permitting amendments.

MR. JOSEPH’S STATEMENT

Mr. Ernest Joseph, managing partner, testified that he had transferred his account from Barclays to the National Bank, applied for £28,000 — a staggering £2.88 million in today’s money — and later sought £14,500, equivalent to £1.49 million. His Honour remarked upon the unusual nature of opening an account by borrowing £30,000, a sum which today would stand at over £3 million, and questioned the wisdom of such a practice.

Mr. Joseph stated that Mr. Williams had introduced him to Mr. Cook, and that the bank had ultimately granted the advance. His Honour suggested that the parties might do well to settle the matter privately.

MR. ABE FREEDMAN

Finally, Mr. Abe Freedman corroborated his partner’s evidence that the Masano property had been acquired as a private speculation, the partners having been engaged in purchasing properties for resale.

His Honour concluded that the Masano item had been properly delivered to the defendant firm, and thus the plaintiff’s bill stood.