Children of Theophilus Sylvanus and Elizabeth Pollard

Mr. Robert William Pollard, C.E., of Brighton, assistant to the defendants, gave evidence from the books of the number of loads hauled in December, January, February, and March, bearing out the figures mentioned in Mr. Gwynne James's speech [ . . . ]

A report was then read from Mr. Robert Pollard, C.E., of Brighton, reporting upon the question of the independent drainage of Southwick, and submitting a scheme which he was of opinion would meet the requirements of the case. The proposal was that the sewage should be conveyed to Southwick Wharf, where it would be discharged into air-tight lighters, which would be towed out to sea and emptied daily. He estimated the cost, except the purchase of the wharf, at £4,800.

Robert William Pollard, surveyor, put in plans of the road, and photographs were also produced by both parties. Replying to Mr. Boxall, witness said the heap of flints was 20ft. from the bridge, and projected 5ft. 6in. from the line of the archway. The width of the road left was 19ft. 6in.

The Quadrant Hotel.—Robert William Pollard, 11, Prince Albert Street, Brighton, architect, claimed from Tom Bovey, Sir Richard Steele Hotel, Haverstock Hill, London, licensed victualler, £82 19s 8d, for architect's work in connection with the re-building of the Quadrant Hotel, Brighton. There was a counter-claim for £170 for alleged drunkenness and inefficiency. [ . . . ] In May last year defendant acquired the Quadrant Hotel, Queen's Road, and had the premises practically re-built. Plaintiff was entrusted with the work of preparing plans and specifications. Plaintiff charged for preparing plans and preliminary work to go before the Building Committee of the Town Council, preparing tracings, interviews with solicitor, and attending before the Licensing Justices, and preparing plans for the work at 5 per cent. on the estimate (£1,639), a third being deducted on account of plaintiff being relieved of the supervision of the work. [ . . . ] His Honour, in summing up, said defendant had failed to prove the alleged intemperance, and he did not see the slightest grounds for making imputations of this kind. He rejected that part of defendant's case. He did not think plaintiff was remarkably diligent in getting out the plans, but he did not think that for a great portion of the time he could impute delay to plaintiff upon which he could give damages. As to the inefficiency he did not think it had been established at all. He did not see any ground whatever for sustaining the counter-claim, and he might add that the fact of it not being put forward until very near the time of action was one that made him look upon it with suspicion. He, therefore dismissed the counter claim with costs. As to the claim, he was not satisfied that there was a special contract, and defendant had failed to prove this. He allowed ten guineas for measuring the old building and attending before the Committee, and £40 for the rest of the claim, £50 10s altogether, with ordinary costs of counsel.