Exeter County Court (Before Mr. Fortescue, Judge): A Complicated Sack Case: West of England Sack Company v. Hodson: The claim in this action, tried before a jury, was for £27 9s 2s, being for the hire and value of certain sacks supplied to the defendant by plaintiffs. The case came down from the Queen’s Bench. Mr. Cook of Bridgwater, appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Baker of Newton Abbot, for the defendant. The plaintiff carried on business at Langport, and in October 1872 and in October 1873, they supplied the defendant, who is a farmer at Paignton with 110 sacks in question and said that none of the sacks had been returned. On Mr. Baker inquiring about 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. A book of receipts was produced, and the witness being shown 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. The witness The was subjected to cross examination – on the various items in the books, but the evidence assumed so complicated a character that his Honour suggested that a professional accountant should be employed to go into the matter.— Mr. Killip 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. Cook said he had offered to refer the case, but as his friend had refused to accept his terms that the costs should follow the event. — Mr. Baker raid he could not consent to allow the costs to follow the decision because the case, having been taken into a superior court, in the event of a 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 to have been taken into a superior court. —The cross-examination was proceeded with, and when the “suspense” book was called for Mr. Killip produced the book in use at the current time and not the one in use when the transactions took place. In re-examination he explained that the 10 sacks for which the first receipt on the books appeared were for an account of 13 which had been wrongly entered to the credit side, and afterwards rectified on the debit side. — ln addressing the jury for the defendant, Mr. Baker said this case presented most of the features of Sack Companies’ cases. Although the Company had a perfect right to bring what actions they liked, yet he 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 sack- so that they could be traced in the same manner as a bank note but they declined to do that. Mr. Baker also commented upon the fact that the books which he most particularly wanted were not produced. —Mr. Hobson, the defendant, was then called, and deposed to hiring sacks from the agent of the Company at Newton, and Mr. Hawke, miller, of Dartmouth, and that he returned them filled with corn – 50 to Mr. Pinsent at Newton and the remainder to Mr. Hawke’s brother, who was agent to the Sack 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, 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. Sbipton said that was very satisfactory. Mr. H. A. Hawke. accountant, said he was agent for plaintiff in 1873, and was also in the employ of his brother, a 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 I of returns of 10 and 22 sacks respectively, which appeared in plaintiff’s books produced, were correct. Mr. J. B. Pinsent, maltster. Newton Abbot, agent of the Company, deposed that the 50 sacks defendant hired by the Company were returned to him, 47 full of barley and three empty, and were forwarded to the Company by his man, the witness being present when they were sent 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 50 sacks in question were forwarded by him to the plaintiff’s deputy in Newton Abbot. To the best of his belief, they were taken in by a small boy. ln addressing the jury Mr. Cook 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 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 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 8d., in addition to £2 paid into Court. …
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