Dear Sir

I do not know Messrs Reppingham & Rose but will have enquiries made as to them but I very much doubt their respectability – they live in a bad neighbourhood & where most of the people are low Jews & of bad repute – with respect to your liability I am clearly of opinion that unless you have committed yourself either by writing a letter or giving an order in the presence of a third person you cannot be made to pay for the model for which the action is threatened

A court of law would certainly require proof of an authority to do the work either given or implied – an implied authority may be a doubful [sic] affair – such as a Person being in the habit of calling upon another on business & giving orders – even tho’ no actual proof of the order for the specific article in dispute.

With respect to an authority being given to a party to make a certain Article at his (the maker’s) risk I am inclined to think that unless you could prove by witnesses that such was the order, it would be incumbent on you to prove that when the model was sent home you gave immediate notice that it was not according to order & that it should be taken back – failing to do so a jury might be disposed to consider you had adopted it & give a verdict for the Plt ^<1> – more especially as Juries are always willing to favor Plaintiffs & it must be for a Jury to decide –

As there was not any price agreed on the onus would be on the Plaintiff to show that he has charged no more than a reasonable compensation for work & material – still if you defend the action & he received anything above 40^s the costs would go with the verdict –unless you paid a sum of money into Court & then if the Party should not get a verdict for more than the sum paid in from that time he would have to pay costs from that time

I will endeavour to see the Attornies & get any information I can get from them but I fear they will not give any – if you are quite certain there is not any letter which can be an authority to the [illegible] I would not pay –

I will inform the Attornies that you have placed the matter in my hands & recommend you not to correspond with them

I am Dear sir Yours truly
W^m Cha^s King

Serjeants Inn Fleet S^t
12 Dec. 1842

WHF Talbot Esq

P.S.

Since writing the letter herewith I went to Messrs Reppingham & Rose & one of them has been here & brought a writ against you to which I have undertaken to appear – the demand is 56.£ 2.8 – to be paid in 4 days or further costs –

I complained to them of the extreme harshness of their proceedings but their reply is that it is not their fault – you have put the man at utter defiance and that they had no alternative – they state that Henley ^<2> says you were well satisfied with the Machine when it was brought & they now ask you to allow some scientific Man to see the Machine & give his opinion thereon – but this looks rather like a trick to enable them to set up Evidence in support of their Case as at present they they may have some difficulty on that point & it may drive them to [illegible] into terms –

My advice would be to offer a sum in full of all demands & get rid of the party – it would not be worth your while to risk an action and more particularly as you can turn the Machine to some account –

I should say therefore offer him 40£ in full or any other sum you think fit & specify what articles you require to have given up –

[envelope:]
W. H Fox Talbot Esq
Lacock Abbey
Chippenham

---

Notes:

1. That is, plaintiff.

2. William Thomas Henley (1814–1882), instrument maker.