1845 – John Young from Newton on Ayr, in collaboration with Robert Boyle produced a machine called the ‘Ayrshire Double Acting Patent Tile Machine’. This was adapted from an earlier machine patented by the Marquis of Tweeddale. The device was capable of producing 20,000 drain tiles per day. – Unknown source. 08/10/1845 – Dumfries and…
Hugh Martin, Engineer and Millwright, maker of Brick and Tile Machinery, Kirkton Street, Carluke
This is possibly the same Hugh Martin or his son – ‘Accident to Colliery Engineer On Wednesday afternoon, Mr Hugh Martin, colliery engineer, Carluke, while engaged at the erection of a new coal-washing plant at Messrs Barr and Thornton’s Fauldhouse Colliery, met with a serious accident. Mr Martin fell from a height of 30 feet, and, coming in contact with a waggon, he sustained severe injuries to the head. He was removed to his house in Carluke in an unconscious condition.’ Midlothian Advertiser 28 May 1915
Below – 1869 – Hugh Martin, Engineer & Mill wright, brick, tile and sawmill machinery, Carluke.
Below – 1882 – Hugh Martin, Engineer & Mill wright, brick, tile and sawmill machinery, Carluke.
18/07/1885 – Glasgow Herald – Mary Ann Bryan or Martin V John William Burns. In this section John Wm Burns of Kilmahew and Cumbernauld sought to hold the widow and executrix of the late Hugh Martin snr, ironmaster, Coatbridge, liable to £200 as the full years rent said to be due under a lease held by her husband of certain fireclay seams on the pursuers lands. For the defender it was maintained that on a right interpretation of the lease the deceased’s tenancy of the fireclay field ceased on his death and that no liability for rent after that event attached to the defender.
The Lord Ordinary Trayner, in deciding the case said the original lessees were Mr Wm Logan and Mr Hugh Martin, SNR, and the death of the latter had left Mr Logan the sole tenant under the lease. In ordinary circumstances the liability for the rent would follow the right the privileges conferred but in this case the pursuer maintained that the defender was liable for the rent sued for, and the whole rent due under the lease in respect of its special terms, one clause providing that the lessees bound themselves and their respective heirs and successors conjunctly and severally to pay to Mr Burns teh sum of £200 yearly under the lease. His Lordship accordingly pronounced decree for the sum sued for with expenses.
The defender appealed to the Second Division, and their Lordships today, Lord Rutherford – Clark dissenting, reversed the decision of the Lord Ordinary and found expenses due to the defender on the ground that the clause did not bind the executors of the predeceasing tenant.