Stone detail on 426 Metcalfe Avenue.
Stone detail on 426 Metcalfe Avenue.
August Boeckh – Charles Boeckh and Sons (1897). Manufacturers of Boeckh’s Standard Brushes.
J. Lang – The Lang Manufacturing Company (1897). The company was the largest manufacturer of biscuits in Eastern Canada.
F. C. Silcock – Manager Bovril Company (1897).
Bovril was initially manufactured in Montreal from 1879-1884 (I find that amazing!) until a fire destroyed their operations.
In 1884 the company relocated to London, England.
“In 1870, in the Franco-Prussian War, Napoleon III ordered one million cans of beef to feed his troops. The task of providing all this beef went to a Scotsman living in Canada named John Lawson Johnston.
Large quantities of beef were available across the British Dominions and South America, but its transport and storage were problematic. Therefore, Johnston created a product known as ‘Johnston’s Fluid Beef’, later called Bovril, to meet the needs of Napoleon III.
By 1888, over 3,000 British public houses, grocers and chemists were selling Bovril. In 1889, the Bovril Company was formed.”
John Stewart – Heggle & Stewart (1897) – masonry company.
Charles E. Scarff, Druggist (1897).
George H. Archibald, Secretary, Steam Ship Union (1897).
Lane off Melville Avenue, currently used for parking.
Dogs living behind the clay tennis courts at Westmount Park.
What follows is an interesting interpretation from http://www.city-data.com/forum/dogs/1538470-beware-dog.html concerning putting these signs on one’s property:
“On the more serious side of posting a “beware of dog” sign on your property, you may want to think twice before doing it.
Most people who see one of these signs, and those that put them up, think it will be a deterrent to unwanted elements entering one’s private property.
This may be so, but from what I have read regarding cases brought before the courts, and witnessed as a juror, in dog biting cases, having these signs posted on your property has just the opposite effect from what it was intended.
When a case comes before the court, usually the defendant (the dog owner) tells the court “we had the property posted, warning anyone that enters,the dog is in the yard, and to beware “.
So the judge would ask, “beware of what”?
Defendant answers, “Beware the dog may attack if you enter the property”.
In this case before the court, a service tech (the plaintiff,a meter reader) entered the property, and the dog bit him.
So the judge addresses the defendant, and ask,” By having a sign stating “beware of dog”, you are telling every one you have a dog that in all probability would attack, or bite an intruder?”
Defendant replies, “Yes, the possibility is there”.
Judge replies,”You are in fact, by posting that sign, telling everyone you are harboring a vicious dog that will attack with probable cause.”
“You are making it aware that you posses an animal that will attack, and possibly bite.”
“By doing that, you have to be aware of the consequences of your dog attacking someone, and that is why situations like this end up in court.”
Defendant argues, “The sign is there to ward off intrusion on to private property.”.
This defense never works.
The way the court looks at it is, posting a “beware of dog” sign is an admission by the dog owner that their dog is prone to attack an intruder, even if the dog has, or would never do that.
You are in essence, telling the public your dog is dangerous.
You would do well to think twice before putting one up on your property.
In these cases, the plaintiff almost always secures a judgement against the dog owner.
Three new park benches. For those of us that visit the park – this is a “big deal”. Thank you City of Westmount!