Petty Session: Before J. Divett, Esq. (chairman), W. J. Watts, Esq, C. J. Wade, Esq. and Admiral Wise. Jury Lists: — The overseers of the various parishes in the division returned to-day lists of all the persons liable to serve on juries in the division. There were very few objections: Transfer of Licences: The Licence of the Plymouth Inn in this town was transferred from John Ball Pinsent to Wm. Saunders, who for nearly two years had managed it for Mr. Pinsent: Renewal of Application for Licences: Mr. Baker, on the part of Mr. John Ball Pinsent, renewed his application for an ale house license for premises in Queen Street for the sale of wines, spirits, beer etc. And produced a memorial signed by numerous influential residents in the locality in favour of the application. Mr. Creed, on the part of Mr. Magor, contended that Mr. Baker had no locus standi in renewing the application and that the Bench had no power to reopen the question having already decided it. … … … … (also) … … … Kingsteignton Sewage Rate: Mr. Whiteway the part of Mr. Partridge, assistant-overseer of the parish of Kingsteignton, applied for an order on Mr. Pinsent of Kingsteignton, to pay £6 6s 3d, the amount of his quota of £170, the full value of the rate which based on the poor-rate, and is in proportion one fourth in lands and three fourths in houses. Mr. Partridge proved the rate and applying to Mr. Pinsent for his amount of the quota. The answer he got was, “I intend to contest the rate the utmost,” and added he would not pay unless obliged to so. Mr. Baker appeared for Mr. Pinsent and cross-examined the applicant, who said this was not the first sewer rate he had made. Mr. Pinsent had paid a previous rate that was proved to have been invalid. Mr. Pinsent was summoned for the payment of that rate, and he paid it; others were summoned but did not pay, and the magistrates decided that the rate was not valid. If Mr. Pinsent paid this rate, he would pay an additional rate to some others. The £170 was required pay costs that had been incurred in procuring the Acts of Parliament. He could not say that it was law costs incurred in defending the action brought by Mr. Pinsent. Mr. Baker objected to the validity of the notices and contended that it was incumbent on Mr. Whiteway to show that the sewer authority had issued their precepts which had not been done. Mr. Whiteway, however, contended that all that was required had been done, and submitted that the present was not the proper course to adopt; if Mr. Pinsent had any cause of complaint, it was for him to appeal. A long argument ensued between the legal gentlemen and the Bench, and it was eventually decided to allow the case to stand over for two months to give Mr. Pinsent an opportunity to recover, if possible, the amount he formerly paid for a rate, and in case he did, the Bench would have no difficulty making an order in this case. The case was consequently adjourned to December 14th.
Transcribed in whole or part from scanned originals: Presented with or without modified text and punctuation. For absolute accuracy refer to the original newspapers. Source: The British Newspaper Archive.
Referenced
GRO0518 Devonport: John Ball Pinsent: 1819 – 1901
GRO1036 Devonport: Thomas Pinsent: 1782 – 1872