GRO0518 – Page 33 – The Pinsent Family

Trewman’s Exeter Flying Post or Plymouth and Cornish Advertiser: Thursday October 21st, 1852: issue 4529: News.

Newton Abbot: A man named King, lately in the employ of Messrs. Pinsent and Co., of Newton, spirit merchants, has absconded, it is said to the “diggings”, taking with him £90 in gold and silver, which he had been entrusted to convey to another person.

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

Exeter and Plymouth Gazette: Saturday 16th October 1852

A man named King, lately in the employ of Messrs. Pinsent & Co., spirit merchants, has decamped with £30 in gold and silver, with which he had been entrusted to convey to another person.

Referenced

GRO0518 Devonport: John Ball Pinsent: 1819 – 1901

Exeter and Plymouth Gazette: Saturday 31st January 1852

Great Protestant Meeting at Newton Abbot: T. H. Cartwright, Esq., Magistrate for Devon, and Resident Magistrate in Wolborough: We, the undersigned, request you will call a public meeting of the inhabitants of Newton and its Neighbourhood, to Petition her Majesty and both Houses of Parliament against a continuance of the Maynooth Grant, and any further Concessions to Romanism! … List (includes) … J. B. Pinsent (and) John Pinsent, Kingsteighton … Dated 26^th Jan. 1852: In compliance with the foregoing requisition, so numerously and respectably signed, I hereby convene a public meeting of the protestant inhabitants of Newton and its Neighbourhood, on Tuesday 3^rd February next, at the Town Hall, at the hour of eleven in the forenoon, for the purposes therein specified. Henry Cartwright: Forde House, January 26^th 1852.

[see similar Exeter and Plymouth Gazette: Saturday 7^th February 1852]

Referenced

GRO0508 Hennock: John Pinsent: 1799 – 1858
GRO0518 Devonport: John Ball Pinsent: 1819 – 1901

Western Times: Saturday 31st January 1852

Newton Abbot: Petty Sessions: Tuesday (Before H. Chichester, Esq., Chairman); H. Cartwright, C.H. Munro, and J. Woodley, Esqrs. Magistrates … … Refused Transfer of License: Mr. Lugg, the late landlord of the Turk’s Head Inn, Newton, applied to have the license of that Inn transferred to Mr. Avery, the late landlord of the Rising Sun. Mr. Francis supported the application on behalf of Mr. Pinsent, the proprietor of the premises, and Mr. Flamank, the magistrate’s clerk, opposed on his own behalf. Mr. Flamank said that the house in question was opposite his own residence and that Avery had hitherto kept a house of disreputable character in the town and had been fined by the magistrates for doing so. Inspector Barker said that he had seen prostitutes at the Rising Sun, during the time Avery kept it, and there had been disturbances, to which the witnesses’ attention had been repeatedly called, but Avery himself had always assisted to restore order, and clear his house. Mr. Francis spoke at considerable length, in favour of the application, and produced a paper recommending Avery as a fit person to keep the house, signed by some of the guardians, overseers, and most respectable persons in the town …

Referenced

GRO0518 Devonport: John Ball Pinsent: 1819 – 1901

Trewman’s Exeter Flying Post or Plymouth and Cornish Advertiser: issue 4439: Thursday January 2nd, 1851: News

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.

Referenced

GRO0518 Devonport: John Ball Pinsent: 1819 – 1901

Trewman’s Exeter Flying Post or Plymouth and Cornish Advertiser: Thursday January 1st, 1852: issue 4488: News.

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.

Referenced

GRO0518 Devonport: John Ball Pinsent: 1819 – 1901
GRO1036 Devonport: Thomas Pinsent: 1782 – 1872

Exeter and Plymouth Gazette: Saturday 27th December 1851

Newton County Court: (before W. M. Praed, Esq., (the Judge)). Matthews and Others v Pinsent and Burgoyne: This was a claim for the value of fifty bushels of malt: Mr. Stogdon, of Exeter, conducted the case for the 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 21st of December 1850, made assignment of his property and effects, to the plaintiffs, as trustees under his estate, for the benefit his creditors; and the same day, Mr. Burgoyne obtained from Duke fifty bushels of malt, which 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. Mr. Merlin Fryer produced the deed of assignment, to the execution of which he was an attesting witness. He stated that Mr. Restail was left in possession of the effects, after the assignment was made, and that he had applied to Mr. Pinsent for the restoration of fifty bushels of malt, which had been refused. Cross-examined: The deed was signed about eight o’clock in the morning; Mr. Matthews and another were present; there was some objections on the part of Mrs. Duke to her husband executing the deed; the objection was raised on his first coming to the house, but was overcome in about a quarter of hour, when Duke sent for his son-in-law, Mr. Floud, to whom the deed was read over, and he told Duke that it was the most proper thing that he could do, upon which Duke signed the deed; being an old man, he was nervous when he signed, being frightened by his wife; Duke did not say he had not signed; he had heard that Duke had since said he did not sign the deed, but on his questioning him about it, he denied ever having said so. Duke called him the day before and explained to him the state of his affairs and stated what he wished to do. He spoke to Messrs. Matthews and Opie on the subject, and would only consent to act as trustees, on some hops and spirits recently sent to Duke, and not carried into his stock, being returned, which was done. He advised the assignment, to prevent the man from being made bankrupt; he had threatened to sue Mr. Restall for the value of the money. Robert Duke had kept the Exeter Inn, Chudleigh, for two years; he had done business with Mr. Pinsent and Mr. Matthews; he did not recollect having bought malt of Mr. Pinsent, but he knew the malt had been brought to his house; his son transacted the business; he consulted Mr. Fryer, of Exeter, and the malt, which was four brewings, was had three weeks or a month before: he did not know how much malt there was to a brewing, for he had not brewed himself, he was a coachman before he took, the inn: he did not know the cost of a brewing of malt, or how much was put make the beer: he should not think the cost would much above £5. He was in difficulties when he went Mr. Fryer; afterwards, when Mr. Fryer came to his house, signed a deed. Mr. Burgoyne came to his house and said should like to have the malt; he said he had nothing with it, but Restall had the key, and if he liked to let him have it, well and good; he saw Mr. Restall and Burgoyne talking, and then went and got the key, and put it into his hand, and Mr. Burgoyne took it out without saying anything; not a word passed; supposed the key was taken get the malt; a cart came into the yard, and they hauled the bags of malt out; this was the same day he signed the deed. Cross-examined: He signed the deed soon after Mr. Fryer came; he did not recollect having said he did not know what he had signed to; they said they had come to him to sign the deed, and he did it, and after that he went away and got his breakfast; Mr. Matthews said would not have anything to do with it until he had his hops and brandy out; he then went and hunted about the house, and found a bag, or a pocket of hops, which Mr. Matthews took possession of; he also found a jar of brandy, but he believed there was gin in it; he had some cider there belonging to Mr. Taverner, which was taken away after, the sale. Mr. Charles Matthews, one of the plaintiffs, was called, but as he had been in Court during the proceedings, and the witnesses on both sides having been excluded, Mr. Francis took an objection to Mr. Matthews being examined. Mr. Stogdon submitted that a plaintiff could not be kept out of the Court. His Honour said if he was to be called as a witness, he must leave the Court as the other witnesses did. After some discussion between the solicitors and his Honour as to this regulation, as it was not known as positive rule, Mr. Matthews was allowed to be examined, and he stated that he declined to hear a word of the deed read before he had got his hops and spirits out of Duke’s premises, the value of the hops was about £8 or £9; when Duke and his son-in-law saw that was determined, the hops and spirit were given up, and he had them removed and placed in possession of the Exeter carrier. The deed was afterwards signed, and Duke said he gave all to his creditors. Cross-examined: The spirit he got was not his brandy; it was brought to him such, and he sent it on to Exeter, but he found, on examination, that it was gin, sent by Mr. George Durant, and he sent it to him, telling him the circumstance. Mr. Restall, auctioneer, of Chudleigh, stated that after he was put in possession of Duke’s effects, Mr. Burgoyne came and told him had spoken to Duke, who bad agreed to give up the malt, and he wished to have tee key; he refused to give the key; about an hour afterwards, Mr. Burgoyne came again, and asked permission see the documents; he replied that had not got any; Burgoyne said he had no right there, his refusal to deliver malt would be of no avail if Mr. Duke agreed to give him the key; after some hesitation, he said he should not give the key to him (Burgoyne) but to Mr. Duke; Mr. Burgoyne said the malt had been recently bought there, and urged that as a reason why he ought to have the malt; he said that they should recollect he took no responsibility upon himself, and he gave up the key to Mr. Duke; he did not know what was done with the key, and what became of Mr. Burgoyne afterwards; he went up stairs; he did not see the cart come; he took the inventory, after he had given up the key, and did not find any malt on the premises; the key only belonged one room, and was not the key of the room; the cider spoken of was sold to Mr. Taverner, and paid for by him. William Shade, of Chudleigh, was employed by Thomas Flood, a son-in-law of Mr. Duke, to take down a load of something to Newton, to Mr. Pinsent’s, and he agreed for 4s. 6d., he was told by Burgoyne afterwards to take the goods to the Kings Arms, in Chudleigh, and he did so, Strawbridge the landlord, paying him. David Bailey, was employed by Mr. Restall, to go to the Exeter Inn, to remain there as assistant bailiff, to look after what was there; Mr. Burgoyne came to the Inn where he was and asked to see the documents, but he made no answer; some conversation took place between Mr. Burgoyne and Mr. Restall, and then Mr. Duke came and demanded the key of the long-room, saying if he did not get the key he should break open the door: Duke said if one had away things, did not see why others should not; the key was given by Mr. Restall, and Duke and Burgoyne went down towards the room where there was some racks. Mr. Strawbridge, landlord of the Kings Arms, said Shade brought some malt to him, which Mr. Burgoyne had sold him; it was fifty bushels, and had it in a quarter of an hour after he bought it; he knew Mr. Burgoyne to be Mr. Pinsent’s traveller, and had bought malt from him before; the malt cost 6s. a bushel; he had paid for the malt in his account with Mr. Pinsent; he did not know at the time where the malt was brought from. Mr. Francis, for the defendants, submitted that sufficient proof had not been given of the sale of the malt taken from Duke’s to Mr. Strawbridge, but his Honour thought the evidence was sufficient. Mr. Francis observed that Mr. Pinsent felt it to his duty not to submit to this claim, without bringing before this public court, to have his Honour’s judgment, that it might be known in what way these things were sometimes managed. He then remarked upon the plaintiffs’ having obtained preference over all other creditors, and submitted that as Restall had given possession, 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 among creditors, but this could not justify a creditor, after assignment had been made, getting possession of and taking away goods, although such goods had been supplied by himself. He could only treat this as an undefended action, and his judgment was for the plaintiffs: Damages £15, Costs, £7 5s. 5d.

Referenced

GRO0518 Devonport: John Ball Pinsent: 1819 – 1901

Western Times: Saturday 27th December 1851

COUNTY COURT: Saturday: (Before W. M. Praed, Esq., Judge.): Matthews and Opie and Tavener v Pinsent and Burgoyne. The plaintiff, wine, and spirit merchants, of Exeter, sued the defendants, the former a spirit merchant of Newton Bushel and the latter a traveller in his employ, for the sum of £15, under a deed of assignment executed to them by Robert Duke, innkeeper of Chudleigh. Mr. Stogdon appeared for the plaintiff, Mr. Francis for defendants. It appeared that Mr. Pinsent had supplied Duke with malt immediately before he made the assignment of his goods for the benefit of his creditors. Mr. Burgoyne arrived in Chudleigh the morning the assignment was made, and with the consent of Duke removed the malt after the assignment had been made and sold it to a landlord in the same town. Mr. MERLIN FRYER, solicitor, of Exeter, produced the deed of assignment made by Duke about 8 o’clock in the morning of the 21st of July. Messrs. Matthews and Tavener executed it the same day, and Mr. Opie on the Monday following — witness put Mr. Howard, auctioneer, in possession of the goods on the premises. Mrs. Duke raised an objection against her husband’s signing the deed, but after it had been read over in the presence of Flood (his son-in-law) and Matthews, he signed it. Witness had heard that Duke had said he did not know what he had signed, but on the witness questioning him he denied that he had ever made such a remark. Mr. Matthews hesitated to become a trustee under the deed, until after Duke consented to return to him a pocket of hops which he had previously supplied. After Duke had himself named the trustee, the witness called on Matthews who said: I sent Duke a pocket of hops only a few days ago, and he must have known how he stood. We are creditors to a large amount beyond the last order, and if Duke has not carried the hops into stock and will return them, we will become trustees.” The witness advised Duke to return the hops, and they were removed with a jar of spirits into an opposite house before the deed was executed. Matthews threatened to drive Duke into the Bankruptcy Court if he did not come to the terms proposed. Witness had demanded the sum sued for by Mr. Pinsent several times, once on the 8^thof Dec, but he refused to pay. Counsels’ opinion had been taken twice on this case. His Honor asked to see the deed — lengthy document — which was handed to him. Judge seemed rather astonished, and asked Mr. Fryer if he read and had explained it to Duke in a quarter of an hour. Mr. Fryer replied in the affirmative, and His Donor observed that Mr. Fryer capabilities surpassed his own in that respect. Mr. Stogdon offered to read it to his Honour in ten minutes, a favor which was significantly declined. Mr. DUKE was then examined. He said he had been in business for two years. About twelve months ago he got into difficulties and consulted Mr. Fryer. He had the malt in question of Mr. Pinsent, about a fortnight before he made the assignment for the benefit of his creditors. Did not know the quantity of malt he had, nor how much he took for a single brewing. Had previous to going into this business been employed as a coachman. Mr. Burgoyne called at his house about an hour after he had signed the deed and said he would like to have the malt back. Witness said he did not know anything about it, but that “Restall has the keys, if he likes to give it up to you, well and good”. Saw Restall talking to Burgoyne afterwards, and then Restall came to witness with the key, and the door was opened, and took away the malt, and placed it in a cart. Witness did not recollect that he had ever said he did not know what he had signed. His recollection was not very good but knew he did not tell Mr. Burgoyne so. The deed was read to the witness before he signed it by Mr. Fryer: Mr. Matthews took away his hops and brandy before the deed was signed. There was some cider on the premises, which Mr. Tavener bought at the sale. Mr. MATTHEWS, one of the plaintiffs, corroborated what was said, relative to the malt. The pocket of hops was supplied to him only 48 hours before he was asked to become trustee; he certainly refused to do so without the hops and brandy being restored. GEORGE RESTALL said he was employed to take possession about half past ten in the morning. He saw Mr. Burgoyne in the parlour with Mr. Duke, he came out and asked witness for the malt, saying that he had seen Mr. Duke, and he had agreed to give it up; witness refused to give up the key, he went away and came back again in about an hour, and asked to see the documents that gave witness power to hold possession; witness said he had none, and Mr. Burgoyne said “you have no right to keep possession if Mr. Duke likes to give me up the malt;” witness said he would give the key to no one but Mr. Duke, Witness ultimately gave the key to Mr. Duke, but did not see the malt removed. When the witness afterwards took an inventory of the goods on the premises there was no malt. Mr. Howard held the sale; a hogshead of cider was left after the sale, and it was sold to … The learned advocates each side, his Honour gave judgment for plaintiffs, with £7 6s 4d costs.

Referenced

GRO0518 Devonport: John Ball Pinsent: 1819 – 1901

Exeter and Plymouth Gazette: Saturday 11th October 1851

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 6^th 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 28^th 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.

Referenced

GRO0518 Devonport: John Ball Pinsent: 1819 – 1901
GRO1036 Devonport: Thomas Pinsent: 1782 – 1872

Western Times: Saturday 11th October 1851

County Court: Oct. 4^th: (Before William Praed, Esq., Judge): Frost v Pinsent: The plaintiff sued the defendant for the sum of £6 6s 6d, balance due for attending cattle in the year 1847. The attendance was charged at 2s 6d per day. Mr. Francis attended for the plaintiff and Mr. Carter for the defendant. The plaintiff alleged that he was an innkeeper and farrier at Kingsteington, in the year 1847, and the defendant was a gentleman farmer, residing at Greenhill, near the same place. In the early part of the year, about April, he was fetched by a servant of defendant’s, named Gray, to drench a calf at Greenhill. Plaintiff could not go that evening, but did so the following morning, and drenched the sick calf in the presence of two of the defendant’s men and continued to attend it. Defendant called at plaintiff’s house in the beginning of April 1848, and asked if he was in the habit of striking sheep for the scab; on plaintiff’s answering in the affirmative, defendant said he had some sheep which were suffering from scab very badly and ordered plaintiff to attend to them, plaintiff went either the next day or the day after and examined the sheep. At some length he stated the results of the examination, and his other transactions. There were 20 sheep diseased, and the witness was engaged to purchase, mix, and apply the ingredients necessary for their cure. The sheep being very severely affected, the scab required his constant attention, and after attending to them for some time, the plaintiff gave the defendants his bill. The latter observed that the plaintiff owed his son some money, and on that being paid, he would pay the bill. Plaintiff had no means of purchasing more ingredients and ceased his attendance on the sheep when he had used all the medicine. Plaintiff afterwards called on defendant’s son, a spirit merchant, of Newton, to whom he owed £14 4s 8d to settle the accounts. He was offered £1 8s 4d for his services to the defendant, which he at first demurred to take, but afterwards he accepted it under fear he alleged of legal proceedings. He afterwards called on the defendant for the alleged balance, which he refused to pay. Cross-Examined; He had never asked plaintiff for the amount due for attendance on the sheep until April in this year, when there was an action between defendant’s son and plaintiff’s mother. For the Defence: Mr. Pinsent was examined and stated that he had never engaged the plaintiff as a farrier. Plaintiff met him one day and said “I hear your sheep have got scab, Sir; “defendant said they had; plaintiff said he would cure them if defendant would pay for the ingredients; defendant accepted the offer and thanked him for his attention, wondering at his liberality – but this was explained some time after, by plaintiff offering to become his bailiff. While the plaintiff was attending to the sheep, a conversation occurred about a calf, which the defendant had given up as incurable; the plaintiff said he could cure it and was allowed to try. After attending it for some time the calf became worse, and the defendant made the plaintiff a present of it. Had heard nothing about the plaintiff attending to three calves, until he sent in his last bill, but then found he had charged for it. The calves were under the charge of the hind, and he had authority to employ a farrier, and might have employed the plaintiff without the defendant’s knowledge. Defendant did not tell the plaintiff, on his presenting a bill for the ingredients, that he would not pay him until he paid his son, but gave him back the bill, and said “You owe my son some money. Go and give him the bill, and he will give our credit for it.” Had no idea at that time that plaintiff was going to charge more – and had never known him as a farrier. It appeared that before the defendant told plaintiff to take the bill to his son and get credit for it, the son had sued and obtained judgment for £14 against plaintiff in this court. His Honour remarked that the defendant was acting very irregularly in sending the plaintiff to the son at such a time; it was far better that everyone should pay their own debts. Mr. Murrin, a butcher, of Newton, said he bought the sheep of Mr. Pinsent, after plaintiff had ceased to attend them, and they were then very bad, but he cured them with a shilling’s worth of ointment, and considered the amount £1 8s 4d sufficient for curing the sheep and calves. The sheep were not worth much; witness bought them cheap, he should not have bought them at all, but he was in the habit of purchasing all Mr. Pinsent’s sheep, and was obliged to keep the sheep a long time before they were sufficiently fat to kill. Mr. John Pinsent, spirit merchant of Newton Abbot, son of the defendant, said the bill of £1 8s 4d was brought to his office by plaintiff before April 1851, and he offered it as part payment of his account, and in answer to witness said that that sum was all defendant owned him. Witness had heard nothing about the sum now demanded, until he had commenced an action against plaintiff’s mother, when he received a letter, which was now produced, and contained the following remark “you have commenced an action against my mother, and I shall now proceed against your father for £7 15s, which he owes me.” Plaintiff paid the amount of his bill on the 28^th May; he came late in the evening, the witness refused to take the money, as the matter was in Mr. Francis’s hands. Plaintiff entreated him to do so, as he said he should lose a situation which he was then holding if he did not get back to Broadclist that evening. Witness at last consented to take the money, the plaintiff promising to pay Mr. Francis his expenses in a few days. Witness gave the plaintiff a receipt for the money. The receipt, an unstamped one, was now produced. The bill paid by the plaintiff was on a judgment standing against the mother in a superior court. The plaintiff owed witness £13 14s and judgement was obtained in this court for the amount. After that, the witness issued a judgment summons from the Exeter County Court, plaintiff having become a resident in that district. A note of hand for £50 given by plaintiff’s mother to him, he endorsed to witness, as a security for the money, that the proceedings may be stayed, in which note, the mother was afterwards sued, by Mr. Francis, on the part of witness. The bill due from plaintiff, and on which he had been sued, was now put in, and his Honour Remarked that witness has charged interest on the bill for four years, and also on the expenses of the court, which he said was very irregular and further that it was decidedly wrong for witness to have taken the money and given an unstamped receipt only, while the order of the court remained unsatisfied in the books. It was bringing the court into disrepute. William Holmes said he was clerk to the last witness and corroborated his statements: Mr. Carter, having replied on the whole case, His Honour reserved judgement until Monday. The case occupied nearly the whole day: Monday: His Honour gave judgment. He said this was an action for £6 6s 6d, the balance of £7 14s 10d which plaintiff claimed for services rendered as a farrier, £1 8s 4d having been paid. That amount was paid in a manner of which he could not altogether approve. The items were very distinct. – The one part was for drenches given to calves, and the second for attendance to sheep. The claim for drenches was clearly established by the defendant himself, who said in evidence that he had given authority to his hind to employ attendance for his cattle and had since found that the plaintiff had been so employed. His Honour was therefore of the opinion that the defendant was ill-judged in opposing that part of the account. At the same time, he could not help remarking that tradesmen and others too frequently took orders, and were employed by servants and agents, without considering whether their authority was sufficient. Indeed, he himself had occasion to complain of the facility with which orders were taken by tradesmen, from servants without making due enquiries. The great contest in this case had been for the demand for attending to a flock of sheep. The plaintiff said he was engaged by the defendant. He had first given in a bill for ingredients but had since given in a bill for attendance. The bill for ingredients was by no means a satisfactory one. There was a large amount charged for tobacco, and for the other part of the sum nothing specific was named. It was tobacco and other ingredients but that there was no need for further remark on for the bill had since been settled, and of course there was an end to it. The plaintiff seemed never to have made any demand for attending the sheep, from the time he attended them in 1848 to May 1851. Two years and a half elapsed before any intimation was given to the defendant that the plaintiff intended to make such demand. The answer made by the defendant was that it was a voluntary offer, and that was mainly confirmed by the time the plaintiff allowed to elapse before he made his demand, and his giving in a previous bill for the ingredients; besides that there was the angry letter written by the plaintiff to defendant’s son, relative to a suit instituted by him against plaintiff’s mother, and it seemed to express something like “If you go to law with my mother, I will go to law with your father.” There was some evidence given also of a motive that the plaintiff might have had, in voluntarily offering, to cure the sheep; he wished to become defendant’s bailiff and took perhaps the opportunity of showing his skill in treatment of cattle. His Honour, considering the whole of these circumstances, thought the plaintiff had failed to prove his case relative to the charge made for the cure of the sheep, and he therefore gave judgement for the plaintiff for £1 7s 6d only. He could not close the case without again commenting on the remark of the plaintiff that he should have asked for his money sooner but that the son of the defendant had a judgment against him in the County Court. A judgment was obtained in this court, and afterwards taken to the Exeter County Court. The money had since been paid, but an unsatisfied order had been allowed to stand on the books up to this time. And this went to show how the County Court might be made the means of much injustice and oppression. Besides that, it was shown that when the defendant’s son took the money he charged interest, not only on the account, but on the County Court charges also, and then gave the plaintiff no proof that there had been a settlement, save an unstamped agreement, which was not of the least value to him. That was most irregular. The County Court was often brought into disrepute by such means. He had no doubt, if the books of the court were looked over, a great many cases where an unsatisfied judgment had been allowed to remain after the money was paid, would be found. It was often used as a reproach in the County Court that so many unsatisfied orders remained on the books. A great many people adopt the plan of getting a judgment in the court and afterwards tampering with the parities making their own arrangements, getting the matter settled in their own way without giving any intimation to the court. This was unfair and might lead to injustice to the defendant. In reference to the unstamped agreement in this case, it was nonsense for Mr. John Pinsent to have said he had no stamp, and it was too late to get one. His proper course would have been to have said to the present plaintiff “I have no stamp, nor is it my place to get one, if you will get a stamp I will deduct the amount for it, “and in case of Frost having come, Mr. Pinsent might have given an acknowledgement and said “You bring a stamp in the morning, and I will sign it.” However, nothing was said about a stamp at all. The blame was not altogether to be laid to Mr. Pinsent; it was the place of Frost to have seen that he had a stamp receipt when he paid his money. Only Mr. Pinsent, from his position and extensive transactions, was expected to have best understood the matter. After these remarks he hoped persons obtaining judgment in this court would act more regularly.

[Exeter Flying Post: Thursday 9^th October 1851: see Exeter Flying Post Thursday January 1^st, 1852: (Frost v Pinsent)]

Referenced

GRO0518 Devonport: John Ball Pinsent: 1819 – 1901
GRO1036 Devonport: Thomas Pinsent: 1782 – 1872