Glasgow Glass Works ....

[littlealison]

- was it the same as Port Dundas Glassworks, or not ?

Sometimes I meet one name, sometimes the other, and I'm realising they could be the same.
I know that Glass and other works changed ownership and names quite frequently, so, I'm talking about the years between 1863 and 1871. Trying to work out where my gggrandad worked.

[LesleyB]

Hi Alison
I've not done any digging to establish dates of operation, but the site below suggests there were "many" glassworks in the Port Dundas and Glasgow area, so it may not be so easy to pinpoint exactly which one (sorry to complicate things!! ):
http://www.scotlandsglass400.co.uk/data/sites.html

Glasgow John Baird Glassworks 97-99 Milton Street (Port Dundas Road)
Glasgow Firhill and Dundas Port Glasgow Many glassworks were in these two areas of the city.
Glasgow Jamaica Street First bottle-works at south end of the road.

Best wishes
Lesley

[littlealison]

It's really difficult trying to find what was where when! Too many glassworks.
I know that the works I want to know about are long gone. I think these are still there? I have searched online for glassworks but although there is even a site which gives you 'The List', supposed to be all the glassworks there ever were in Scotland, the two I want to know about are not there, and the people running them - Borron, Stevenson, and my ancestor John Little - are not on it.
Interesting to know there is still a glassworks cone in Alloa, though. - thanks, Lesley.

[Currie]

Hello Alison,

Here’s something from The Belfast News-Letter, Monday, January 28, 1856.
THE GLASGOW GLASS WORKS.
BORRON, PRICE & CO.,
MANUFACTURE WINE, ALE, PORTER, SODA WATER BOTTLES, CARBOYS, and every variety of Glass Bottles for home use or exportation. Prices consistent with quality, lower than any in the trade. Works—Lancefield Street, Anderston, and at Port-Dundas.
Counting House, 12 Prince’s Square, Glasgow.

I think that should be 13 Prince’s Square of which William Geddes Borron was the owner, according to the 1874 “Scotland: Owners of lands and heritages” list.

The Glasgow Glass Works had two manufacturing works, Anderston and Port Dundas, and I suppose the Counting House would be the office in Glasgow.

In the Glasgow Herald in February, 1863, there’s a notice concerning supply of sand to the Works at Anderston and Port Dundas. In March 1866 there’s a list of donations to the Royal Infirmary, Borron & Co., Port Dundas Glass Works and Borron & Co., Anderston Glass works, are both listed.

These directories from 1877 and 1893 give the Borron & Co address as 92, Lancefield-street, Anderston. http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q ... a=N&tab=wp

Here’s Lancefield Street but it looks as though it may have been truncated since the 1860’s. http://maps.google.com/maps?t=h&hl=en&i ... 08422&z=17

All the best,
Alan

[littlealison]

That's a very similar ad to the one I've seen, probably in the Glasgow Herald. Are they advertising because there are rivals in Dublin? The address is consistently 13 Princes' Square in other places. I didn't know it was owned by WGB.
And it is still 'Borron & Co' in 1877. Interesting because WGB backed out of the partnership in 1872, and CBF Borron went to Newton-le-Willows in 1866 or so, so there must have been another Borron in here?

I'm gradually getting clearer about the different works in the 1860s. Borrons in Anderston and Port Dundas. Stevenson in Garngad Rd at Caledonian Bottle Works and 'Stevenson & Little' at Camlachie with the new Siemans furnace. Seems this idea didn't work out (GH 29 Nov.1862).

John Little at Port Dundas works (? the same Port Dundas works)as manager in 1861, in 1871 still in Glasgow as 'Glass Bottle Manufacturer employing 28' in the census - BUT several subscribers (= investors?) to the company of Stevenson & Little backed out in 1866 and their partnership broke up in 1870. John Little is in 1871 not living at the Glass Works. Puzzling.
I will add your extracts to my 'story board' which I am using to try and sort this out...I need a bigger board.

Different question - what did/does a 'relative decree artbital' mean?
Court case (25 June 1869) where John Little is involved and I don't know how. (Glasgow Herald)
Maybe this is in the wrong section. Let me know and I could put it somewhere else!
Thanks again for your input - Alison

[Currie]

Hello Alison,

The term "relative decree arbitral" only appears a few times in Google Books, one case of which you know about. http://www.google.com.au/webhp?complete ... 96d94df0f8

But here’s The Good Book with what could be an explanation.

Manual of the law of Scotland
By John Hill Burton, 1847
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=pYM ... 22&f=false

SECT. 2.—Decree Arbitral.

The decision of an arbiter cannot be enforced otherwise than through a decree of a court, unless the Submission have contained a clause of Registration for Execution. Although it is a rule of practice that Decrees Arbitral are challengeable only on the grounds of bribery, corruption, or falsehood; yet informalities are a too frequent ground for refusing effect to them, and the most usual defect producing this result is the inapplicability of the decree to the submission, in its either not exhausting the matters there set forth, or travelling out of them and deciding on other matters. Whatever may be the dispute which forms the ground of the submission, the decree must be limited to its subject-matter, and must not embrace other questions. If parts of the decree which are competent can be separated from those which arc not competent, it may be only partly reduced; but if the whole parts are essentially connected, the whole must be reduced. The arbiter must hear the pleadings of the parties, and it is fatal to a decree, that when it was pronounced, both or either of the parties had not been heard. It docs not appear to be a ground of reduction that the arbiter has rejected competent evidence if he has heard the parties; the method of satisfying himself as to the facts is among the questions which the parties have agreed to leave to the arbiter's judgment. It has been found that a party is not entitled to be re-heard; and on the whole the court is jealous of giving any effect to vague statements about insufficient or unequal hearings, or alleged mistakes regarding the real points at issue.

To make a valid decree, all the arbiters named in the submission must be alive and must agree, unless another arrangement be made, by the appointment of an oversman, or by a provision that the majority may decide. In the latter case a decree signed by the majority as assenting to it is valid.

An arbiter may award expenses in his decree without any express power to that effect being embodied in the submission.

It’s probably as simple as that,
All the best,
Alan

Or to put it more concisely: DECREE ARBITRAL, Scotch law. A decree made by arbitrators chosen by the parties; an award etc
http://www.law-dictionary.org/DECREE+AR ... Scotch+law

Alan

[littlealison]

I can't even spell it! I'd never make a lawyer....
I think I will have to go back and read the whole court thing again and see if it makes more sense taking this info into account.
I will, but - what I really want to know out of this is; what does it say about the relations between him and the Borrons?
Thanks again, you always come up with something! - Alison.

[littlealison]

Me again.
Having reread the first part of the Perreus court case (the bit I have a copy of!) it rather looks as if John Little is there as an independant and trusted person who knows about the ins and outs of the industry. Is this right? Because, then, does this mean he is not in partnership with CBF Borron at the time? 1869? In that case, it does throw a light on where things were at!

CBF Borron is already involved with the glass works in Newton-le-Willows (1866) and this case seems to have been three years getting to this point, - he will have had to come back to Glasgow for the case, then. Was this, then, where the two, John Little and CBF Borron, started to consider a partnership? John Little has just finished a venture which didn't work out.- BUT he has experiance of working with the new Siemans furnace and the tank system, which may not have been in use at Borron's (since this report shows that 3 years ago anyway they were still using the pot system!)
What better than to join forces?

Have I got the right end of the stick? - Alison.

[Currie]

Hello Alison,

I'm not a legal person but I think you're on the right track. John Little had been appointed as arbitrator and that appears to have been his only involvement in the case.

Alan

[littlealison]

Which would place their partnership after this date.
Where does that put my theorising? Assuming it's right so far

In the 1871 Census John Little is still in Glasgow as 'Glass Bottle Manufacturer employing 28'
At the time he has already broken up with Stevenson at the Camlachie works mentioned in the case in 1869, on 20 Aug 1870. - see Edinburgh Gazette 25 Aug 1870.
I suppose he could be working with Borron, but not surely as an employer. (And I have the impression that there are far more than 28 employed at their works.)
It does seem he hasn't gone to Newton yet. Another puzzle.

Things get a bit clearer, thanks for confirming what I was thinking. I'm in contact with Kirsty from the Newton-le-Willows site about this too, maybe I will hear from her. - Alison