Petty Sessions: Wednesday: Before J. Divell, Esq. (Chairman), C. J. Wade, Esq., W. J. Watts, Esq., and Admiral Wise: Mr. Baker renewed is application for wine and spirit licences for Mr. Pinsent who was desirous of opening a house on Queen Street, near the Commercial Hotel, Newton: Mr. Creed strongly opposed on behalf of Mr. Magor, the proprietor of the above hotel. The Bench, however, declined to reverse their former decision. The license of the Plymouth Inn, Queen Street, was transferred from Mr. Pinsent to Mr. Sanders. Mr. Baker next applied on behalf of Mr. Carrol, of Dawlish, with a view of inducing the Bench to grant him a similar license to that he held previous to the last meeting, when he applied for a wine license, which was refused. The application, which was opposed by Mr. Floud, was refused, as was also that of Mr. Pudner, of Teignmouth. Mr. Partridge, assistant overseer for Kingsteington, for whom Mr. Whiteway appeared, applied for an order on Mr. Pinsent of Kingsteington, to pay £6 6s 3.5d; his quota of £170, the full value of a rate which was based upon the poor-rate. Mr. Partridge proved the making of the rate and applied to Mr. Pinsent for his quota, who refused to pay it, and added he intended to contest the rate to the utmost. Witness was subjected to a severe cross-examination by Mr. Baker, who appeared for the defendants, in the course of which he stated that this was not the first sewer rate he had made. Mr. Pinsent had also on a previous occasion paid a rate that was subsequently proved to be invalid, not before, however, he had been summoned. Others were also summoned, but they did not pay as the magistrates decided the rate was invalid. Mr. Pinsent, by paying this rate, had consequently paid more than his quota. The £170 was required to pay costs that had been incurred in procuring the Acts of Parliament, but he could not say that it was law costs that had been incurred in defending the action brought by Mr. Pinsent. Mr. Baker objected to the validity of the services and contended that it was incumbent on Mr. Whiteway to show that the sewer authority had issued their precept, but which he submitted had not been done. Mr. Whiteway pointed out that all that was required by law had been done. If Mr. Pinsent had any cause to complain he had remedy by appealing. A long argument ensured between the legal advocates and the Bench, and it was eventually decided that the case should stand adjourned for two months in order to afford Mr. Pinsent an opportunity to recover the sum he had paid in respect of the illegal rate, and in case of his doing so, the Bench remarked they would have no difficulty in making an order in the present instance.
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
GRO1036 Devonport: Thomas Pinsent: 1782 – 1872