Volume Six - Pre-Victorian to the Present Day - Select Aspects - The Penarth Harbour, Dock & Railway Co. dispute with Messrs. Smith, Knight & Co. . .

1875 - (March) - Penarth Harbour, Dock, and Railway - At the meeting a dividend of 4 per cent. was declared, but it was stated by the chairman that the working expenses had exceeded the receipts by 5,000l. The directors were authorised to convert 207,000l debenture bonds into debenture stock. The litigation with Messrs Smith, Knight, and Co. has ceased there being no assets, and further proceedings would only result in a greater loss. - The Economist [1223] [499] 6th March 1875.

1875 (September) - Meetings of Public Companies - Penarth Harbour Dock and Railway - "The half yearly meeting of proprietors of this company was held on Tuesday, at the Royal Hotel, Cardiff. Mr. W. S. Cartwright, the chairman of the directors, presiding. There were also present the Hon. G. H. W. Windsor Clive, M.P., Messrs. H. J. Evans, L. Davies, G. W. G. Thomas, - Cartwright, jun., C. Thompson, J. J. Holst, J. S. Batchelor, W. P. Stephenson, W. B. Watkins, & c.

The Chairman, in moving the adoption of the report and statement of accounts, referred to the arbitration between the Penarth Railway Company and the assignees of the estate of Messrs. Smith, Knight and Co., the contractors of the dock and railway. He said that although the arbitration had been settled it had not been settled in a way that was right to his mind, though probably the settlement was as satisfactory as they could have expected under the circumstances in which the Company were placed.

They were most unfortunate in giving out their works to parties who were not strong enough to carry them out, so the directors were obliged, as the shareholders were aware, to take the works out of the contractor's hands and complete the undertaking themselves, at an expense far exceeding that for which the contracts were let to Messrs. Smith, Knight and Co. As the shareholders were also aware, after the works were completed, Messrs Smith & Knight brought an action against the Penarth Railway Company to recover a sum considerably in excess of £100,000 for the alleged damage caused to them by the work being taken out of their hands. The Penarth Company also commenced an action against Messrs. Smith, Knight and Co. for a similar sum for non-fulfilment of contract, and the extra cost of the works over the contract price.

These two actions eventually formed the subject of arbitration - an arbitration of a most protracted and costly character - protracted from many causes. In the first place, Messrs Smith and Knight became bankrupts, and there followed the question, after this step was taken, would the assignees of Messrs Smith, Knight and Co. take the position of bankrupts in the case?