Sarl and Sons

[mikesarl]

Hello, this is my first post and I am looking for any information on my 4 x great grandfather John Sarl of Sarl and Sons, Cornhill. I have I know they were at 17-18 Cornhill and at another premises at The Poultry which I understand was near to Cornhill, I also seen a watchface of his with either 4-5 or 45 Cornhill but cannot fine a timeline on this address.
Any information on Sarl and Sons would be most welcome. I will Thank you for your time.
Michael Sarl

[dognose]

Hi Mike,

Welcome to the Forum.


Sarl & Sons - London - 1861

See: https://www.925-1000.com/forum/viewtopi ... arl#p52468

Trev.

[mikesarl]

Many thanks for the information, I did read the article concerning the accident at 17-18 Cornhill so sad, I I would love to find out more about their premises at 45 Cornhill and The Poultry, I also found an Old Bailey transcript where they had various items stolen by someone employed as a night watchman.
Regards
Mike

Hi Mike,

Welcome to the Forum.


Sarl & Sons - London - 1861

See: viewtopic.php?f=38&t=8565&p=52468&hilit=sarl#p52468

Trev.

[dognose]

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS - 1856







Source: English Reports in Law and Equity - Vol. XXXVII - 1857

Trev.

[dognose]

The Bankruptcy Act, 1869

In the London Bankruptcy Court

In the Matter of Abraham Sarl, of No. 45, Cornhill, in the city of London, Silversmith and Jeweller, a Bankrupt

Before Mr. Registrar Spring-Rice

Upon reading a report of the Trustee of the property of the bankrupt, dated the 12th day of February, 1876, reporting that so much of the property of the bankrupt as can be realized without needlessly protracting the bankruptcy has been realized for the benefit of his creditors, and has not yielded sufficient to pay the expenses of the bankruptcy, and that the whole of the assets have been accounted for to the Court, and upon reading the report of the Official Assignee, dated the 22nd day of March, 1876, and upon hearing Messrs. Michael Abrahams and Roffey, the Solicitors for the Trustee, the Court being satisfied that so much of the property of the bankrupt as could be realized without needlessly protracting the bankruptcy had been realized for the benefit of his creditors, and had not yielded sufficient to pay the expenses of the bankruptcy, and that the whole of the assets had been accounted for to the Court, doth order and declare that the bankruptcy of the said Abraham Sarl has closed.

Given under the Seal of the Court this 23rd day of March. 1876.

Source: The London Gazette - 31st March 1876

Trev.

[mikesarl]

Many thanks for the information, Abraham Sarl was my 3rd great uncle, son of John Sarl of Sarl and Sons.
Is there anyway of printing these documents from the forum please, I would love to have copies of them if possible.
Regards
Mike

The Bankruptcy Act, 1869

In the London Bankruptcy Court

In the Matter of Abraham Sarl, of No. 45, Cornhill, in the city of London, Silversmith and Jeweller, a Bankrupt

Before Mr. Registrar Spring-Rice

Upon reading a report of the Trustee of the property of the bankrupt, dated the 12th day of February, 1876, reporting that so much of the property of the bankrupt as can be realized without needlessly protracting the bankruptcy has been realized for the benefit of his creditors, and has not yielded sufficient to pay the expenses of the bankruptcy, and that the whole of the assets have been accounted for to the Court, and upon reading the report of the Official Assignee, dated the 22nd day of March, 1876, and upon hearing Messrs. Michael Abrahams and Roffey, the Solicitors for the Trustee, the Court being satisfied that so much of the property of the bankrupt as could be realized without needlessly protracting the bankruptcy had been realized for the benefit of his creditors, and had not yielded sufficient to pay the expenses of the bankruptcy, and that the whole of the assets had been accounted for to the Court, doth order and declare that the bankruptcy of the said Abraham Sarl has closed.

Given under the Seal of the Court this 23rd day of March. 1876.

Source: The London Gazette - 31st March 1876

Trev.

[dognose]

Is this what you want?:



Trev.

[mikesarl]

Hi and thanks for your reply, I would just like to be able to. Print out the documents you have posted on this forum but I'm unsure if and how to do this, these are the first documents I have seen relating to 45 Cornhill, the only other time I have seen this address is on a chronometer pocket watch face that was made by John Sarl and Sons tjat I just managed to buy on eBay, until now Abraham had never featured in the family business and there is also another watchmaker named Edward Sarl that I am yet to link in with the family tree.
Regards
Mike

Is this what you want?:



Trev.

[dognose]

Hi Mike,

Just do a screen print and capture the image. Using the 'Paint' programme, crop the image, name it, and then save in a file on your computer.

Trev.

[dognose]

Perhaps the end of the Sarl connection at 17 and 18, Cornhill?

This one is a little difficult to read:





Block C consists of the handsome edifices erected within the last seven years, from designs by John Barnett, Esq., architect, for Messrs. John Sarl and Sons, silversmiths, and situated 17 and 18, Cornhill, directly opposite the Bank of England, and, alike for elegance of building as well as situation, perhaps the most desirable in the City. With a very trifling outlay, these, in accordance with the plans and designs originally made, will be converted in about three weeks into Offices, and two-thirds of the building has already been let, the ground-floor and mezanine floor being rented by the Crédit Mobilier and Crédit Foncier Companies. These premises are Leasehold for 60 years, at a ground-rent of £600 per annum.

Source: The Times - 18th March 1864

Trev.

[mikesarl]

Thank you so much for this information, it is invaluable to me in tracking down a timeline of the family business, seems like the last document referred to the year prior to John Sarl death in 1865, he is I will attempt your. Instructions for printing off the documents when I can get to my laptop as using my phone at the moment, thank you so much for your help with these documents you will never understand how much I appreciate the information.
Best Regards
Mike

Perhaps the end of the Sarl connection at 17 and 18, Cornhill?

This one is a little difficult to read:





Block C consists of the handsome edifices erected within the last seven years, from designs by John Barnett, Esq., architect, for Messrs. John Sarl and Sons, silversmiths, and situated 17 and 18, Cornhill, directly opposite the Bank of England, and, alike for elegance of building as well as situation, perhaps the most desirable in the City. With a very trifling outlay, these, in accordance with the plans and designs originally made, will be converted in about three weeks into Offices, and two-thirds of the building has already been let, the ground-floor and mezanine floor being rented by the Crédit Mobilier and Crédit Foncier Companies. These premises are Leasehold for 60 years, at a ground-rent of £600 per annum.

Source: The Times - 18th March 1864

Trev.

[dognose]

Another one that is difficult to read. The transcription will not be 100% accurate and will need cross-checking.







THE ARBITRATION CASE OF MYERS v. SARL - THE AWARD

In this famous case, which has been under arbitration for nearly two years, the award of the learned referee has been made, but the case is not yet settled, and cannot be settled until November next, when the opinion of the Court of Queen's Bench upon certain reserved points will be asked for and given. This case was originally called on for trial on the 10th day of July, 1858, before Lord Campbell and a special jury at the sittings after term of the Court of Queen's Bench, at Guildhall, and, on the suggestion of the learned Chief Justice, was referred. The gentleman appointed to conduct the arbitration was Thomas Norton, Esq., barrister-at-law, of the Inner-temple. The plaintiff, as most of our readers will remember, is Mr. George Myers, builder, York-road, Lambeth, and the defendants are Messrs. Sarl Sons, gold and silver smiths, Cornhill. The action was brought to recover the balance of an account for taking down the old premises of the defendants in Cornhill, and building new ones. The account of the plaintiff consisted of contract and extra work, and also of certain sums which he had paid to various tradesmen on behalf of the defendants. The defendants denied that they were liable to the plaintiff to the amount alleged, the plaintiff's charge being, in their opinion, excessive, and who was alleged to have done work as alterations for which orders in writing had not been given, as was required and provided for by the contract between the parties. It was also alleged that the plaintiff had not completed the work within the proper time, and had thereby incurred penalties which ought to be deducted in his account. The amount of the contract was £8,697; amount of extras in the building, £1,347 17s. 11d.; fittings, £1,004 17s. 11d.;_day work £533 8s. 5d.; making the total amount of extras £2,886 4s 3d. The plaintiff had been paid by the defendants the sum of £7,800, leaving a balance of £3,783, for the recovery of which the action was brought.

Counsel for the plaintiff, Mr. Tom Chitty, barrister-at-law (instructed by Messrs. Amory, Travers, and Smith, solicitors, Throgmorton-street), counsel for the defendants, Mr. Beasley (instructed by Mr. Biggenden, solicitor, Walbrook).

Our readers are aware that we have reported in the BUILDING NEWS, at great length, and from time to time, for two years, the proceedings connected with this arbitration case. The award has now been made, and the following is a copy of it:-

To all to whom these presents shall come, I, Thomas Norton, Esq., of No. 3, Tanfield-court, Inner Temple, Barrister-at-Law, send greeting: Whereas at the sittings of Nisi Prius, held at the Guildhall, on Saturday, the tenth day of July, in the twenty-second year of the reign of our Sovereign Lady Victoria, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland Queen, Defender of the faith, and in the year of our Lord one thousand eight, hundred, and fifty-eight, before the Right Honorable John Lord Campbell, Lord Chief Justice of our Lady the Queen, assigned to hold pleas before the Queen herself, a certain cause came on to be tried, in which George Myers was the plaintiff, and John Sarl, William Sarl, Abraham Sarl, and Joseph Sarl, were the defendants; and thereupon, by a certain order of Nisi Prius then made, it was ordered by the Court, by and with the consent of all parties, their counsel and attorneys, that the jury should find a verdict for the plaintiff, for the claim in the declaration and costs forty shillings, subject to the award or certificate, order, arbitrament, final end, and determination of me, the said Thomas Norton, who was thereby empowered to direct that a verdict should be entered for the plaintiff or the defendants, or a nonsuit entered as I should think proper, and to whom the said cause and all matters in difference between the said parties were thereby referred, so as I, the said arbitrator, did make and publish my award or certificate in writing of and concerning the matters thereby referred ready to be delivered to the said parties, or either of them, or if they or either of them should be dead before the making of the said award or certificate to their respective personal representatives requiring the same on or before the fourth day of Michaelmas Term next ensuing the date of the same order, with liberty to me, the said arbitrator, under my hand in writing, to enlarge the time for making my said award or certificate. And it was thereby also ordered that I, the said arbitrator, should have the power to state a special case for the opinion of the Court of Queen's Bench. And it was thereby likewise ordered, by and with the like consent, that the costs of the cause should abide the event and determination of the said award or certificate; and that the costs of the reference and award or certificate should be in the discretion of me, the said arbitrator. And it was thereby likewise ordered that I, the said arbitrator, might find generally for the plaintiff or for the defendants, and need not find upon any specific issues unless required to do so, the costs of any specific issues (if found) to abide the event. And whereas the time for making my said award was duly enlarged until the first day of Michaelmas Term, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty, Now know ye that I, the said arbitrator, having taken upon myself the burthen of the said reference, and having examined the said parties and their respective witnesses on oath, and having hear and duly considered the several proofs, allegations, documents, and vouchers produced before me, by and on their behalf respectively, do hereby make and publish this my award in writing of and concerning the premises in manner following, that is to say: As to the said cause, I do find, award, adjudge, and determine that the plaintiff was and is entitled to recover therein from the defendants the sum of two thousand five hundred and sixty pounds eleven shillings and two pence after giving credit to the defendants for the amount of certain fines incurred by the plaintiff by reason of his not having completed the works hereinafter mentioned within the time stipulated by the contract, hereinafter referred to subject to the opinion of Her Majesty's Court of Queen's Bench, on the following case.

The Plaintiff was a builder, and by a deed bearing date the eighteenth day of October, one thousand eight hundred and fifty-six, and executed by him and the defendants, he contracted and agreed with the defendants to erect and build for them a house and premises for the sum of eight thousand six hundred and ninety-seven pounds upon the terms and subject to the stipulations and conditions contained in the said deed. ... A copy of the deed is hereunto annexed marked A, and the same, may be referred to and considered as part of this case. The house and premises were built by the Plaintiff and certain extra works and fittings were done and provided by him in and about the same, and the action was brought to recover the sum of three thousand seven hundred and eighty-three pounds, four shillings, and threepence, being the balance claimed to be due on the contract, and the value of such extra works and fittings, after giving credit to the defendants for all sums paid, by them on account. By the contract it was provided that no alterations or additions should be admitted unless directed by the architect of the defendants, in writing, under his hand, and a weekly account of the work done thereunder should be delivered to the said architect, or the clerk of the works, on every Monday next ensuing the performance of such work, and the delivery of such account should be a condition precedent to the right of the Plaintiff to recover payment for any such addition or alteration. On the hearing of the case before me it was contended on half of the defendants that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover for some of the extra work done by him, on the ground that the same was not directed to be done by the said architect by any writing under his hand pursuant to the clause in the contract above set out, and also on the that no sufficient weekly accounts of such work, were delivered by the plaintiff within the meaning of that clause. With respect to the latter objection, in evidence before me that certain accounts of the extra work were delivered by the plaintiff as and for weekly accounts within the meaning of the contract, and it was contended on his behalf that the term “weekly accounts,” as used in the contract, was a term of art well known in the building, trade, and to all builders, and architects, and that parole testimony was admissible to prove its meaning. The admissibility of such evidence was objected to on the part of the defendants, I, however, held that the words used were a term of art, and that such evidence was admissible, and accordingly received the same, and was satisfied thereby that the weekly, accounts delivered by the of such extra work were sufficient weekly accounts within the meaning of he contract, and accordingly have included the value of such extra work in the amount, above awarded to the plaintiff. With respect to the objection, that the Plaintiff was not entitled to recover for part of the extra work, on the ground that he same was not directed to be done by the said architect by any writing under his hand pursuant to the contract, I find and determine that, as regards the greater part of such extra work, the same was directed to be done by the said architect, by sufficient orders or directions in writing under his hand, but as regards a small part thereof, amounting to the sum of one hundred and five pounds, eighteen shillings and fivepence, the only evidence of any such orders or directions in writing produced before me were certain sketches indicating the manner in which such extra work was to be done, but not specifying the materials to be used, or containing absolute order or direction for the execution of such work. These sketches were a prepared in, the office of the said architect of the defendants by his clerks, and under his directions, and were by his order furnished to the plaintiff, but were not signed by the said architect or his clerks. These sketches are hereunto annexed, and are respectively marked B. As regards these sketches I have held and adjudged that they are not sufficient orders or directions in writing within the meaning of the contract, and have accordingly disallowed to the plaintiff the value of the work done under the same. The questions for the opinion of the Court are: First, Was I right in admitting parole testimony to show the meaning of the term “weekly accounts” as used in the contract? If the Court should be of opinion, that such evidence was inadmissible, then the amount by me awarded to the plaintiff is to be reduced by the sum of One thousand and seventy-eight pounds seven shillings and eight-pence, as I find and determine that, independently of such parole testimony there was not sufficient evidence before me of the delivery of weekly accounts pursuant to the contract, so as to entitle the plaintiff to recover the value of such extra work. Secondly, If the Court should be of opinion that the said sketches were sufficient, written orders or directions for the execution of the works therein indicated, and that I ought to have allowed to the plaintiff the value of such works, then the amount awarded to the plaintiff is to be increased by the said sum of One hundred and five pounds # shillings and five pence. And I award, order, and direct that the verdict shall be entered for the plaintiff for such sum as the Court shall direct, and that the defendants shall and do pay such sum to the plaintiff. And I do further find and declare that no matters in difference were brought before me by either of the said parties except those in the said cause. And I do further find, award, order, and direct that the defendants shall and do pay to the plaintiff his the plaintiff's costs (to be taxed) of the said reference, and that the defendants shall and do bear and #. their own costs of the said reference, and that each of the said parties shall and do bear and pay a moiety of the costs of this my award. And lastly, I do certify that this was a fit and proper cause to be tried by a special jury. In witness whereof I the said arbitrator have hereunto set my hand this sixth day of June, One thousand eight hundred and sixty.

THOMAS NORTON

It will be seen from the above that the amount claimed by Mr. Myers was about £3,800, and that the amount awarded by the arbitrator to the plaintiff is £2,560, subject to a case in the Court of Queen's Bench, which will come on for hearing in the early part of the ensuing Michaelmas term. The case to be brought before the superior court will involve questions relative to the admissibility of parole evidence as to certain customs respecting “written orders” in the building trade, and as to whether sketches are to be held equal to a written order. If the parole evidence respecting certain customs of the building trade (which had been admitted by the arbitrator) ought not, in the opinion of the Court of Queen’s Bench, to have been admitted, the amount of the award will have to be diminished by £1,078 7s. 8d. And if certain sketches, which were rejected by the arbitrator, should be considered by the £ court as equal to a “written order,” then the amount of the award will be increased by £105 18s. 5d. The cost of the award is £564 9s., of which each party to the suit pays a moiety, in accordance with the orders of the arbitrator. The defendants will, of course, have to pay the taxed costs, but it is said in some quarters that that bill will not exceed, if it should amount to, £1,000, although the total amount of costs incurred by each party to the case is estimated roughly at £3,000. There are some heavy items which cannot be recovered by either of the disputants, such as the short-hand writers' accounts, amounting on each side to upwards of £500, and the law stationers' account for making copies of the short-hand writers’ notes (for use of counsel, &c.), amounting on each side to probably about £3757s. We have heard that Sir Fitzroy Kelly is retained to argue the case in the Court of Queen's Bench on behalf of the Messrs. Sarl.

Many people have expressed astonishment at the length of time which has been occupied by this arbitration case, which has lasted not quite two years; but their surprise will probably be diminished when we tell them that we are acquainted with an arbitration case—respecting the building of a wall-which, has been in existence for about eight years, and of which, as soon as the award is made, we shall furnish our readers with full particulars.

Source: The Building News - 6th July 1860

Trev.

[dognose]

Another address?:



SARL J & SONS 46-47 Cornhill

Source: Williams's Manufacturers' Directory, for London and Principal Market Towns in England - 1864

I suppose there is always the possibility of a misprint, although that seems unlikely with two numbers given. There is also the possibility of street re-numbering.

Trev.

[mikesarl]

I have just bought a chronometer face made by John Sarl and Sons that has the address 45 Cornhill printed on it, they did seem to get around a bit

Another address?:



SARL J & SONS 46-47 Cornhill

Source: Williams's Manufacturers' Directory, for London and Principal Market Towns in England - 1864

I suppose there is always the possibility of a misprint, although that seems unlikely with two numbers given. There is also the possibility of street re-numbering.

Trev.

[dognose]

Sarl & Sons - London - 1847

Trev.

[dognose]

Sarl & Sons - London - 1848

Trev.

[dognose]

Sarl and Sons - London - 1862

Trev.

[dognose]

Sarl & Sons - London - 1852

Trev.

[dognose]

Sarl & Sons - London - 1846

Trev.

[dognose]

Sarl & Sons - London - 1851

'ARGENTINE PLATE'

Trev.