index

History of 132 Gwydir Street

See History of Gwydir Street and Buildings in Gwydir Street.



George Lambert, tobacconist, lived in 132 Gwydir St in 1883 (see Kelly's Directory).


John Morley, shoemaker, lived here in 1904 (see Spalding's Directory).


Mrs. Vigar, general shop, lived here in 1913 (see Spalding's Directory).



From Capturing Cambridge:

HISTORY OF 132 GWYDIR STREET

1881: butcher’s shop
Pierson G King, head, 40, butcher, b Hunts
Elizabeth, wife, 21, b West Wratting

1884:
CIP 26.4.1884
: LAMBERT V. WALL. The plaintiff, George Lambert, a clerk in the employ of the Great Eastern Railway Company, sought to recover £3 12s. 6d., balance of rent due on account of a shop sold by him to the defendant, Wm Wall, a tobacconist and hairdresser, of Gwydir street. It appeared that at the beginning of the year the plaintiff was prepared to sell a small business as a tobacconist stationer, etc., which he carried on at 132, Gwydir street, Cambridge, and an advertisement to that effect was inserted in a local newspaper. Apparently in consequence of that advertisement the defendant called upon Lambert, and spoke to him upon the subject of the business offered for sale. The defendant asked how much the plaintiff wanted for the business, and remarked that he had been up to the house, seen the plaintiff’s wife, and made inquiries respecting the business. He also inquired as to the nature of the tenancy, which he was informed would terminate in March, and that the rent was £19 a year. There was a conversation about the takings, the plaintiff stating that he informed the defendant that the weekly average takings amounted to about 50s. during the previous two months, the plaintiff having conducted the business for ten months. At a subsequent interview a definite answer was given to the defendant’s inquiry as to the price of the business, fixing it at £25, which was to include the goodwill and the stationery and tobacco businesses, the stock, &c. The terms were accepted, and Wall ordered the card, intimating the sale to be taken out of the window. The plaintiff said he represented the profits as being 10s. or a little over weekly. The sum of £25 was made up of £10 for the goodwill, and £14 3s. for stock, which defendant agreed to give. He took possession of the business on the 16th, paid the money, and received a receipt. No complaint was made concerning the business until the 24th of March. Part of the arrangement was that the defendant, when he took the shop, was to pay his apportionment of rent and the plaintiff called upon him to receive that amount.—Mr. Ellison crossed-examined the plaintiff with a view to showing that there had been misrepresentations as to the value of the business at the time of the sale. He denied that he said he had been in the shop for 18 months, and that the takings amounted to £3 or £4 a week, and had amounted to £5. —The plaintiff and his wife were cross-examined as to whether the business had ever been offered to anyone else, but the Judge ruled that that question was immaterial.— The defence set up was that in making the sale the plaintiff had made improper representations as to the value of the business, both in the matter of the takings and the profits, and the defendant on being sworn said the takings were represented to be £3 or £4 a week and sometime £5; that the profits were about 12s or 14s. a week; the amount of the takings for tobacco being about 50s. a week. It had however, turned out that the takings only amounted to about £1 a week with profits of only 4s.—Witnesses were called to show that the goodwill had previously been regarded by the Plaintiff as worth less than the amount paid for it. Papers and accounts were produced by each party in support of their statement, and at the conclusion of the evidence the Judge, having looked at the papers, considered the plaintiff must succeed on the claim, as no defence was made out, and the defendant’s case as to misrepresentation had failed. Judgment was, therefore, given for the plaintiff on the claim and counter claim with costs. Mr. H. J. Whitehead conducted the plaintiff’s case, while Mr. Ellison appeared for the defendant. CASE ADJOURNED.

1891:
Thomas Reynolds, head, 38, labourer, b Cambridge
Annie, wife, 39, b Cambridge
William, son, 14, errand boy, b Cambridge
Elizabeth, daughter, 13, scholar, b Cambridge
Clara, daughter, 10, scholar, b Cambridge
Fred, son, 7, scholar, b Cambridge
Rose, daughter, 2, scholar, b Cambridge

1901:
John Morley, 64, bootmaker, b Pampisford
Alfred G, 31, bootmaker, b Grantchester
Susan Bevan, visitor, 59, nurse, b Cambridge

1911:
John Pearce, 66, wood sawyer, b Triplow
Caroline, 59, b Cambridge
Grace, 23, book sewer book binder, b Cambridge
Beatrice, 18, drapery assistant, b Cambridge
Victor, 15, boy grocery and wine merchants, b Cambridge

1913:
Mrs Vigar, general shop

CIP 14.2.1913
: Housebreaking in Gwydir Street: Edward Carter (19), a soldier, alias William Cherry, alia Edwin Unglass convicted of entering house of Mr Maskell, 132 Gwydir Street, and stealing a black cloth suit and 6s 6d in money. Prisoner pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 4 months hard labour.

1915:
CIP 9.4.1915
: Roll of Honour. Enlisted with Royal Engineers: M H Chandler, 132, Gwydir Street.

1916:
CDN 30.3.1916
: 70 Sorts of Sausages: Mr F Winton Smith pork butcher Mill-road applied for exemption whilst on Army contracts for two married men each aged 27, Elijah Smith of 14 Brandon-place, and Arthur Willis Tyrrell 132 Gwydir-street, butchers, preparing foodstuffs for Army contractors.

In the course of the hearing:

The Clerk: Does the breakfast sausage vary from the other sort? Of course. There are over 70 different sorts of sausages. I myself can make over 60 sorts. It requires an educated taste to make them. (Laughter) No exemption was granted in the case of Smith and exemption for three months on condition he continues on war work was allowed to Tyrrell.

1939:
Percy W Howard, b 1894, bus conductor
Clara M, b 1892
?
Cecil L, b 1926

1962:
Norman Lorimer


Main index - Buildings and houses in Gwydir Street.