Tag: 1852

Newton Abbot: At the Newton Abbot County Court, held last week, the following cases which excited much interest in the trade were tried by W.M. Praed, Esq.: Matthews and others v Pinsent and Burgoyne: This was a claim for the value of fifty bushels of malt. Mr. Stogon, of Exeter, conducted the case for the plaintiffs, Messrs. Matthews, and Opie, hop and spirit merchants, and Mr. Taverner, of Exeter. Mr. Francis, of Newton, appeared for the defendants, Mr. Pinsent, brewer of Newton, and Mr. Burgoyne, his traveller. Mr. Duke, innkeeper of Chudleigh, on the 21^st of December, 1850, made an assignment of his property and effects to the plaintiffs, as trustees under his estate for the benefit of his creditors; and the same day after the effects were taken possession of, Mr. Burgoyne obtained from Duke fifty bushels of malt, which he took away from the premises, and sold for Mr. Pinsent, who was a creditor. Application was made for the return of the malt, which was refused, and then the action was brought. These facts having been deposed to Mr. Francis for the defendants, remarked that by the deed given, the plaintiffs had obtained a preference over all other creditors, and submitted that as Restall who was in possession of the property, gave up possession to Burgoyne, there was a defence to the action. His Honour said, it was not because a person who had been put in possession of effects improperly gave up property, that such a proceeding was to be taken as an answer to a claim such as that made in this case, it might be regretted that in some cases of this kind there would be a scramble amongst the creditors, but this could not justify a creditor, after an assignment had been made, in getting possession of and taking away goods, although such goods had been supplied by himself. He could only trust this as an undefended action, and his judgement was for the plaintiff: Damages £15; Costs £7 5s 5d. 

---

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

Newton Abbot: County Court: before W.M. Pread, Esq. 

Frost v Pinsent: The plaintiff is a farrier, and the defendant a brewer, residing at Newton Abbot. The action was brought to obtain payment of £6 0s 6d, for attending cattle. It appeared from the evidence of the plaintiff, that in May 1847, the defendant’s servant Gale came to him with a request that he would come to Greenhill, the farm of Mr. Pinsent, and drench a calf; and on the following day he did so in the presence of Gale. He subsequently repeated the dose in the presence of a servant girl, and left word that he should be sent for if the calf did not get well. Hearing nothing more on the subject, he concluded it had recovered. In the beginning of the year, 1848, Mr. Pinsent called at plaintiff’s house, and requested him to go to Greenhill and examine some sheep, which he did and found the whole flock more or less infected. He wished the plaintiff to take them in hand at once and requested him to get the necessary ingredients for a mixture, which plaintiff did at Greenhill and struck the sheep with it, about 30 at that time, and some afterwards, which occupied about 40 days. A man named Tapp was employed by Mr. Frost for seven days and received from him 15s for his work, which was allowed by Frost in an account owing to him from Tapp. William Parnoll proved being present while Mr. Frost drenched the calves in 1847. A man named Gill, now in the employ of Mr. Pinsent gave evidence to the effect that Mr. Frost attended the sheep, but could not say how often, or how many times. The sheep were all sold to a butcher in September and were diseased at the time. Defendant could swear it was in September but could not say why he remembered it was in that month. Plaintiff came about once a week to see the sheep and was more “regular” once a week than twice a week. When Frost prepared the ingredients, he might have been there two hours a day; but never more than an hour when he struck the sheep. There was no sheep in the flock “diseased from the top of the nose to the sole of the foot” nor did he ever cure any of the sheep. Heard the plaintiff to say to the master, if he would pay for ingredients, he (plaintiff) would undertake to cure the sheep without any further expense. The ingredients prepared would last about a month, before another lot would be required. Mr. Francis for the defence said his friend Mr. Carter had summoned Mr. and Mrs. Pinsent but was so satisfied with the evidence already adduced that he had not called them. He (Mr. Francis) would, however, do so, and he thought he should be enabled to prove that a grosser attempt at imposition never came before the court. The facts of the case were simply thus, that Mr. Pinsent happened to drop the fact in conversation that his sheep were bad, when Frost offered to cure the sheep if Mr. Pinsent would pay for the ingredients. Mr. Pinsent was at that time in want of a hind, and perfectly understood that Mr. Frost offered to cure them with an idea of ingratiating himself into the good graces of Mr. Pinsent, and of obtaining the situation, which he afterwards applied for, but was not accepted. The whole number of sheep was not above 7 or 8; and Frost, being a man not addicted to going to Church, amused himself by going to view the sheep on Sunday morning, and about once a week else. Mr. Francis having adduced other statements in order to show that the case was a trumped up one, and for the sake of imposition, called Mr. and Mrs. Pinsent, from whose evidence it appeared that Frost was not known as a practising farrier. He came for the purpose of striking the sheep, and while there something was said about the calf, and on his offering to give it a drench, Mr. Pinsent agreed to it, but he was never sent for to do it. There was never any order from Mr. Pinsent for the subsequent items on the bill, of 9 drenches for three calves. He first met the complainant, who commenced the conversation by saying you have got the disease in your sheep, which Mr. Pinsent replied in the affirmative, remarking he feared his man did not understand sheep. Frost then offered to cure them for him, if he would pay for the ingredients, which Mr. Pinsent, after thanking him, agreed to, being much surprised at his liberality. His Honour to Mr. Pinsent: And with that surprise you said to him – Well! Now I must pay you for it. Mr. Pinsent: No, I did not say any such thing: His Honour: Well, it appears very odd you should have allowed him to go on so long a time if you did not mean to pay him. Mr. Francis: But he did not cure the sheep. His Honour: Nor does a physician his patients, but he is paid for his attendance. The cross-examination of Mr. Pinsent was then continued, from which it appears that when Frost handed in the account of £1 18s 0d, Mr. Pinsent replied that there was an account between Frost and his son, and if the former would take it to the latter, he (the son) would settle with him. Frost assented, saying, “very well”. And did so, he (Mr. Pinsent) believed at the time that was the whole of the amount. This was in the fall of 1849, and not until the spring of this year did Mr. Pinsent hear that Frost had any further claim on him and was perfectly astonished on receiving the account for the amount now claimed. Never saw Frost on the estate in 1847, but left everything at that time to my hind, with authority for him to engage any assistance. On enquiry since, having received Frost’s bill, witness enquired if the calves had been drenched, and found they had, but not by his order. In cross examination by Mr. Carter, Mr. Pinsent stated that he never saw Frost on his estate in 1847, He left everything to his hind, who might have engaged him, as he found the drench had been used. On receiving the bill of £1 8s 9d, he (Mr. Pinsent) concluded that all was included. His Honour: surely Mr. Pinsent, you are farmer enough to know that the ingredients prepared for sheep would not do for internal application to a calf? A butcher, whose very name savoured the plague, called Murrain, proved that “he went to bought” the sheep and “striked em”: This evidence being adduced to show that Frost did not cure them. On hearing the case, His Honour reserved his decision to Monday: Monday: Frost v Pinsent: His Honour gave judgement in this case, remarking that this was an action to recover the sum of £6 0s 6d, the remainder of a larger sum of £7 14s 10d for services rendered as a farrier, £1 8s 4d, the bill for ingredients, having been paid by allowing it in account, “owing from the plaintiff to defendant’s son”, which method His Honour said he could altogether approve of; as to the drenches which the plaintiff states that he administered, His Honour considered that it was sufficiently proved by the defendant’s acknowledgement that drenches were administered, and that as the time his hind had his authority to procure any assistance he might require. It was too much the practice of farriers, as well as other tradesmen, to take orders from servants without attempting to find out whether or not they were given by the master’s direction; but in the present case there was no doubt about the matter. The great contest in the action was the items for attending the sheep, which it appeared to place in 1848, from which time, until 1851, no demand was ever made on the defendant, and as there was a motive apparent which might have rendered the plaintiff gratuitously to offer his services, naming the fact that Mr. Pinsent was in want of hind, and the plaintiff’s anxiety to show his ability in order to gain the situation. This, as well as a letter and other circumstances to which His Honour had given consideration, induced him to give judgment for the plaintiff for £1 7s 6d, the items for drenches only. His Honour commented strongly on the practice so frequently adopted of settling debt and costs out of court after judgment had been given, as according to the appearance of the books it reflected no credit on the court, making it appear useless. 

---

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