Newton County Court: Sittings of the Court were held at the Town Hall on Saturday and Monday, before Judge W. M. Praed, Esq., there were thirty cases entered for hearing each day but many of these were settled out of Court. Frost v Pinsent: Claim for £6 6s 6d. for services as a farrier, in attending calves and sheep. Mr. Carter conducted the plaintiff’s case; Mr. Francis appeared for the defendant. William Frost examined: He lives at Broadclist, and is a farm bailiff; in 1847, he resided at Kingsteignton and was innkeeper and tended cattle; The Judge: – what do you mean by tending cattle? Mr. Frost: He tended them with medicine if they were ill. The Judge: Then you acted as a farrier? Examination continued: He was requested by a servant of the defendant to go to Greenhill, and drench a calf for him, in May 1847. He went to the farm and asked to see the calf, when one of the defendant’s men took him to a shed and he gave the calf a drench, and on the same evening gave it a second drench; he did not see the defendant the first time he went and the second time he saw a servant maid, who said her master was not at home: he told the maid if the calf was not better, to send the hind for him again. He was not sent for, after that, about this calf; and he concluded that the calf was cured by the medicine he gave it. He then attended some sheep by the request of the defendant personally, who asked him if he did not tend sheep for the scab, and on his saying he did, he told him to come to his farm. He went the next day, and after he had examined the sheep, he saw Mr. Pinsent. The sheep were in a house on the premises, he told the defendant that the sheep were, all of them more or less, diseased, and he wished him to take them in hand, and try to cure them. There were about thirty sheep at that time there, he told the defendant he would take the sheep in hand and asked him to buy the ingredients; the defendant said he should buy the ingredients, and he might prepare them in their kitchen. Plaintiff brought the ingredients in a day or two after and went to the farmhouse and prepared them in the kitchen. He used the mixture about the sheep until he had used it all, the he prepared another pot, after purchasing the ingredients; after he had done this in the kitchen, one of the servants said he could not prepare any more there, because it caused such a disagreeable smell in the house; he afterwards prepared three or four pots in his own house; he was attending the sheep several months, when the ingredients came to £1 8s 4d. He gave the bill to Mr. Pinsent. The first day he struck the sheep was the 6th of April. It would take him sometimes two hours for about one sheep, for some were diseased from top of the nose to the sole of the foot. He was frequently striking half a dozen of the worst of the sheep, each time he went it occupied him nearly the whole day; he was sometimes assisted at first by the defendant’s man; he then employed a man for seven days and a half and paid him 18s. There were two rams among the sheep which were cured and sold to the defendant, two other sheep were sold to the defendant while he was about them, he saw Mr. Pinsent several times and had conversation with him about the sheep and the disease. He told Mr. Pinsent the saw the sheep twice a week, and Mr. Pinsent said he ought to see them oftener, and after that he did see them oftener; there were more sheep deceased then, and the weather being wet, they required more attendance; he allowed a man named Tapp 15s for assisting him; he was generally there the whole day, but sometimes half days; he charged the defendant the same for his attendance as he did other farmers, and which he had been paid without any objection. When he was about the sheep in September 1848, he drenched three calves, one of them being in a very dangerous state, by the order from Mrs. Pinsent, he attended three calves several times and told Mr. Pinsent he thought one of them would die, and it did die. He gave Mr. Pinsent the bill for the ingredients, as they cost him £1 18s, and Mr. Pinsent would not pay before he had settled an account with his son; when the mixture was done, he ceased his attendance on the sheep, but they were not cured. He told the defendant that the sheep were not cured when he asked for money to buy more ingredients. On the 28th of May last, he came to a settlement with the defendant’s son, paying him £14 4s 8d, when defendant’s son allowed £1 8s 4d which he said he was to pay for his father; Plaintiff said he has an account with his father, and would rather settle with him for the whole; defendant’s son said unless he choose to settle it, he should order Mr. Francis to proceed against him. He then settled with the defendant’s son, deducting £1 8s 4d on the father’s account. He called on the defendant the next day and asked him for the balance of his account. He had sent him the full account about a week or fortnight before. Mr. Pinsent walked off, saying he shouldn’t pay him, and he might get it how he could. Cross-examined: He had practised as a farrier for many years. He learnt it by experience; he could not charge like a veterinary surgeon and should have been satisfied with his charge of half a crown a day; he never offered to cure the sheep, if the defendant would pay for the stuff. He had offered Mr. Pinsent to become his bailiff before he attended the sheep and calves; he took the dead calf to a dealer and got 2d for it – (a laugh). He had said in his examination in chief that, after Mr. Pinsent complained, he saw the sheep oftener than before, but he could not tell how it was that the charges on his account were nearly the same throughout, showing that he had seen the sheep once in five days only and sometimes one day had elapsed between visits. Mr. Francis, for the defendant, said he should show that he did not employ the plaintiff, who volunteered to cure the sheep and calves. If Mr. Frost would pay for the stuff; that the defendant had paid this demand; that the plaintiff had not cured the sheep but left them in a very bad state without any notice. He dwelt on the fact that the statements of the plaintiff in his evidence on oath, as to the time of his attending the sheep, had been entirely contradicted by his own statement of accounts, and that consequently his evidence could not be depended upon. He had utterly failed in maintaining his claim, and then called the defendant and other witnesses whose testimony went to rebut that given by the plaintiff. His Honor observed that the case was one requiring much consideration, and therefore he postponed his decision until Monday morning, when he gave judgment at considerable length, the substance of which was, that it appeared from the evidence that the plaintiff had voluntarily offered to cure the sheep if the defendant would pay for the ingredients, so that his claim for several days and half days attendance, as charged, had not been sustained. The judgement therefore was for the plaintiff for £1 7s 6d only, for drenching the calves with costs £1 8s 4d.
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