Exeter County Court: Monday: Before Mr. Fortescue, Esq., Judge: A complicated Sack Case: West England Sack Company v. Hodson: The claim in this action, tried before a jury, for £27 9s 2d, being for the hire and value of certain sacks supplied to the defendant plaintiffs. The case came down from the Queen’s Bench. Mr. Cooke, of Bridgewater, appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. Baker, Newton Abbot, for the defendant. The plaintiffs carry on business at Langport in Somersetshire, and in October, 1872, and in 1073, they supplied defendant, who is a farmer at Paignton with 110 sacks, on the terms that one halfpenny per seven days was to be paid for the hire of each sack, and that if the sacks were not returned, 2s were to be paid for the value each sack. Mr. Killop, the manager of the sack company produced three delivery notes of the 110 sacks in question and said that none of the sacks had been returned. By Mr. Baker: You asked Mr. Cooke, in my presence this morning, to produce the books of the Company before the case came on. Mr. Cooke did not refuse to produce them. Mr. Baker, “What?”: Witness: That in answer to further questions, witness said the books were produced when asked for, and that he pointed them out to Mr. Baker. Mr. Baker: Do you mean that pointed out to me the books tied up in sacks in the courtyard, and said, ”There they are.” Witness: Yes: His Honour informed the witness that he would only injure the case by answering the questions in that manner. Mr. Cooke said that, as his name had been mentioned, he must explain to His Honour that what occurred was this: His friend, Mr. Baker, asked him to produce the books, and as a principle was involved, he informed him that the books were in Court, and would be produced when the case came on. The two sacks of books were then brought into Court, and the delivery book from the agency at Dartmouth, from whence the defendant received the sacks, was produced. On Mr. Baker enquiring for the stock-book of receipts, the witness said he did not know where it was. Search had been made for it, but it could not be found. Another book of receipts was produced, and the witness being shown in that book a receipt for ten sacks from the defendant, and the duplicate receipt produced by the defendant, said he could not account for the fact of the defendant not being credited with these ten sacks. Mr. Killop was further subjected to cross-examination on the various items in the books, and the evidence assumed such a complicated character, that His Honour suggested that a professional accountant should be employed to go into the matter. Mr. Killop said he would undertake that if the matter was referred to Mr. Andrew (High Bailiff), that gentleman would dispose of it in a quarter-of-an-hour. Mr. Cooke said he had offered to refer the case, but his friend had refused to accept his terms; that the costs should follow the event. Mr. Baker said he could not consent to allow the costs to follow the decision, because the case having been taken into superior Court, in the event of certain finding by the jury, he should have to ask His Honour that no costs be allowed, on the ground that the case ought not have been taken into a superior Court. The cross-examination was proceeded with, and when the “suspense” book was called for, Mr. Killop produced the book in use at the present time, and not the one in use when these transactions took place, as wished for. Also Mr. Killop had to admit that there was a second credit to the defendant of 22 sacks, but the name was spelled Hudson, instead of Hodson, he could not say it was the same man. Mr. Killop, in re-examination, explained that the 10 sacks for which the first receipt on the books appeared were for account of 13, which had been wrongly entered to the credit side, and afterwards rectified on the debit side. In addressing the jury for the defendant, Mr. Baker said that this case presented most of the features of Sack Companies’ cases. Those cases were enormously increasing, and there was hardly a Court within His Honour’s jurisdiction at which there were not some of them. Although, of course, the Company had a perfect right to bring what actions they liked, yet ventured to say that the great number of actions they brought showed that there must be something radically wrong in the management of the Company’s affairs. It had been suggested that the Company should number their sacks, so that they could be traced in the same manner as a banknote, but they declined to do that. Mr. Baker also commented upon the fact that the books which he most particularly wanted were not produced, and upon the manner in which the action had been taken into the Court of Queen’s Bench he held that defendant might be punished by having heavier costs to bear, the Company employed as agents persons in the employ of corn merchants, who sent out the sacks to farmers, and probably many of them were lost after being returned to the agents. The defendant was called and deposed to hiring the sacks in question from the agent of the Company at Newton, and Mr. Hawke, miller, of Dartmouth, and that he returned the sacks hired, filled with corn — 50 to Mr. Pinsent at Newton, and the remainder to Mr. Hawke’s brother, who was agent to the Company at Dartmouth. Mr. Hawke was present when the sacks were returned and made a memorandum in pencil at the back of his book of that fact. In September 1875, the witness had an interview with Mr. Shipton, another agent of the Company, and in his presence Mr. Pinsent’s clerk said the sacks had been returned, whereupon Mr. Shipton said that was very satisfactory: Mr. H. A. Hawke, accountant, Dartmouth, said he was agent for plaintiff in 1873, and was also in the employ of his brother, corn and coal merchant. He kept his books and took orders for sacks at his brother’s premises. On one occasion he saw the defendant at his brother’s mill, and being told by him that the sacks he had hired from the Company were returned he entered a pencil memorandum in the back of this book but declined to give a receipt till he had counted the sacks. The entries of returns of 10 and 22 sacks respectively, which appeared in plaintiff’s books produced, were correct. Mr. J. B. Pinsent, malster, Newton Abbot, agent of the Company, deposed that the 50 sacks the defendant hired of the Company were returned to him, 47 full barley and 3 empty, and were forwarded to the Company by his man, witness being present when they were off. There was a dispute between the witness and the Sack Company afterwards, and when their clerk came down to see him, he placed all the books and papers in his office at their disposal. Thomas Avery, foreman maltster to Mr. Pinsent, proved that the sacks in question were forwarded by him to the plaintiff’s depot in Newton Abbot. To the best of his belief, they were taken in by a small boy. In addressing the jury on the whole case, Mr. Cooke contended that the letters produced proved conclusively that Mr. Pinsent had had the credit himself of the 50 sacks which he had sent back to the Company from the defendant, and that defendant must look to Mr. Pinsent for the amount the Company claimed from him. As to the 60 sacks alleged to have been returned to Mr. Hawke, he contended that the proof tendered was insufficient. In summing up, the learned Judge said he did not know what the jury thought, but he should have been very grateful if the two gentlemen concerned, instead of bringing all these complicated accounts before them, had had them arranged in such a form as to be easily understood. There could be no doubt the sacks had been returned to the Company, but the question was to whose credit had they been placed. The jury retired, and after an absence of nearly an hour, returned a verdict for plaintiffs for £19 6s. 8, in addition to £2 paid into Court.
[see similar Western Times: Tuesday 10th April 1877 & Western Times: Friday 13th April 1877]
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