Baird, J.W.

Details about Baird, J.w.

John William Baird was a timber merchant, trading in West Hartlepool from at least 1892. In 1911 he established a shipping company, trading until 1916.

Family History:
John William Baird was born on 4^th October 1847 at Port Clarence, Durham to parents John (chief boatman of the coastguard) and Mary (nee Faith) Baird. In 1861 John’s father had retired from the coastguard service and was innkeeper of the Alma Hotel, Stranton. John married Mary Weighill at Hartlepool in 1868, at this time John was a timber merchant. By the 1881 census the couple were living at 13 Victoria Road, Stranton with their six sons and two daughters. By 1901 the family were living at 19 South Road, West Hartlepool. John’s wife, Mary, died in 1909 at Hartlepool. In 1911 John was living living at ‘Parklands’, West Hartlepool with two of his sons and two daughters.

John died aged 86 at Hartlepool on 27th February 1924 leaving effects of £159,654.

At some point it appears that J.W. Baird took over the lease of the Alma Hotel as records show:
23 February 1920:
(1) John William Baird of West Hartlepool, timber merchant
(2) J. Nimmo & Son Ltd. of Castle Eden
Lease for 10 years by (1) to (2) of the Alma Hotel , Whitby Street, West Hartlepool, late in the occupation of J.W. Cameron & Co. Ltd.
Rent: £900 p.a.

Hartlepool Northern Daily Mail, Friday, December 9th, 1892:
HARTLEPOOL COUNTY COURT. To-day,—(Before His Honour Judge MEYNELL). CLAIM FOR GOODS SUPPLIED. Messrs J. W. Baird and Co., West Hartlepool, sued Mr W. H. Baker, firewood dealer, of Harrogate, for £4 7s for wood supplied. Defendant filed a counter-claim for £6 13s 7d (£4 17s 6d paid to the N.E.R. Co. for carriage and £1 16s Id overcharge.) Mr A. Geipel was for the plaintiffs, and Mr M. Harrison for the defendant.—His Honour said defendant should have refused to take the wood when the Railway Company refused to deliver it without the pre-payment of the amount for carriage, &c., as Mr Baird had promised to pay the cost of carriage. Judgment was given for plaintiff and the counter-claim disallowed.

Yorkshire Post and Leeds Intelligencer, Thursday, February 15th, 1900:
THE WEST HARTLEPOOL TIMBER DISPUTE. The case of Fawcett and Co., of West Hartlepool v. Baird & Co., of the same port, was resumed Tuesday in the Queen's Bench Division, before Mr. Justice Kennedy, sitting without a jury. Counsel for the defendants addressed his Lordship, and pointed out that the average rate of loading was a little more than 20 waggons per day, which on the evidence was a fair day’s work for the receiver. There was no obligation on the part of the receiver to do more. Mr. Robson, replying for the plaintiffs, said the defendants had entirely misconceived their obligation, which was to work as fast as the steamer could deliver. The defendants did not put a sufficient number of men on the job until the ship's hatches were blocked.
Mr. Justice Kennedy, in delivering judgment, said that he should hold that there had been delay, but it was not delay for which the defendants were responsible under the charter party. He therefore gave judgment for the defendants with costs.