The West of England Sack Company and Their Customers: Of the nineteen defended cases to be heard at the Newton County Court, on Friday, before Mr. Fortescue, Esq., no less than sixteen were claims made on their customers by the West of England Sack Company. The first action, tried before a jury, was brought by the Company against Messrs. Pinsent and Company, brewers, of Newton, to recover £30 5s 8d for the hire of sacks alleged to have been lent to the defendants, and also for the value of sacks stated to have been retained by the defendants since November 1873. Mr. Reed, of Bridgwater, appeared for the plaintiffs and Mr. Baker for the defendants. It seems that, in 1873, Messrs. Pinsent had extensive transactions with the plaintiffs, and that in December of that year a supposed settlement of accounts was made between the parties. It was subsequently found that several persons dealing with Messrs. Pinsent had borrowed sacks of the Sack Company in defendants’ name and was in regard to these sacks that the claim was made. All liability for the sacks thus borrowed was repudiated by Messrs. Pinsent, notwithstanding that the usual notice was given them by the Company in some instances that, unless they repudiated their liability within three days, they would be held liable for the sacks. The defence raised by Mr. Baker was that, as the defendants were not the contracting parties for the sacks in dispute, they bad been wrongfully charged for them, whilst all the sacks hired by Messrs. Pinsent were returned directly they were emptied. In the course of his remarks, Mr. Baker pointed out that the amount claimed for the hire of a certain number of the sacks was nearly three times much as their value, and, considering this was so profitable a business he said it was a wonder there were not sack companies in every village. These sack companies carried on their business in manner which required that they should adopt some better system by which these endless disputes should be avoided, for the large number of disputed claims brought into Court showed that there was something faulty in the method which the companies carried on their business, and that they should prove strictly every case they brought into Court. It might be said that sack companies and tallymen kept County Courts going. (Laughter.) Mr. Reed, in his reply, said Mr. Baker might also have added lawyers amongst those who kept the County Courts going. (Laughter.) With regard to the large amount of profit on the sack company’s business, he maintained that the defendants agreed to the terms of their contract, and therefore had no reason to complain on that account. His Honour, in summing up, after hearing a great deal evidence, expressed his regret that the case was not taken before an accountant, who, after quietly going through the details, could have arrived at a mathematically correct conclusion in the matter instead of recourse being had to the haphazard course of having so complicated a case tried before a jury, with the assistance only of judge who was obliged rapidly to take notes of the accounts and explain them to the best of his power. The disputes that had arisen between the solicitors on either side clearly showed how impossible it was, in a case of such intricacy, to try it satisfactorily before a jury. He was very sorry, but the only way in which they could arrive at anything like a just conclusion was by going through a number of accounts which would take an accountant two or three hours. The members of the jury, looking anything but pleased – they had already been sitting over six hours – retired for consultation, and after an absence of half-an-hour they returned the verdict for the defendants, his honour allowing the costs. It appeared that the Sack Company had originally entered 50 cases, all of which, except 16, were settled. During the absence of the jury, a conversation ensued between his Honour and the solicitors engaged as to the desirability of having the remaining 15 defended cases referred, his Honour intimating that, it then being nearly six o’clock, he could not take another jury case that evening, and, as there were other cases to be heard on the second day the sitting, it would not be fair to others that the whole of the two days should be taken up by the Sack Company. Several gentlemen, including the Registrar (Mr. Pidsley), Mr. T. Andrew (Exeter), Mr. Dawe (Plymouth), and Mr J. Alsop (Newton), were mentioned as arbitrators, but the parties could not agree, and the only decision arrived at was that the other jury case, in which the Sack Company were the plaintiff, should be adjourned until the January Court, to see if some arrangement could not be affected in the meantime. The other cases were also ordered to stand over to the same Court. A great deal of feeling was exhibited, and the Sack Company’s solicitor himself questioned the wisdom of bringing 15 cases into court at one time.
[see also Exeter and Plymouth Gazette: Friday 15th December 1876]
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