Action Against a Dartmouth Corn Merchant: At the Churston County Court, yesterday, before Mr. S. S. Underhay, Deputy Judge, the Great Western Railway Company sued Mr. W. Ash Hawke, corn and manure merchant, of Dartmouth for £14 15s for the carriage of goods. This was a jury case. The Hon. Alfred Littleton, barrister of the Oxford Circuit, instructed Mr. R. R. Nelson of London, and Messrs. Whiteford and Bennett, appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. H. Square, Solicitor of Dartmouth, for the defendant. The Hon. Mr. Littleton, in mentioning the plaintiff’s case, said when they conveyed goods for parties whom they recognised “as men of substance”, they sometimes deviated from the ordinary course by giving credit. The plaintiffs had done so in this instance. An arrangement of this kind had existed between the plaintiffs and the defendant from January 1877, till the end of March 1882. There was then due £l4 15s and it was in respect of that claim the present action was brought. He then called Mr. Geo. Rowe, foreman the Goods Department, Kingswear, who proved by the company’s books the debt due for the delivery of goods from time to time. For the defence a counterclaim for £39 8s was made, arising from loss through damage occasioned to goods in their transit etc. The defendant was examined at considerable length in respect of these alleged damages. The first loss he sustained he said was in December 1880, when he purchased a large quantity of barley from a Mr. Petherbridge of Dittisham. It was delivered in barges at Kingswear perfectly safe, but when re-transmitted over the plaintiff’s line to Mr. Pinsent, brewer, of Newton, to whom he had sold it; it was found to be wet, and consequently Mr. Pinsent refused take it. He had to store it at Newton, and he considered he sustained a loss of £3. The barley got wet in the transit over the plaintiff’s line. He also considered he sustained a similar loss through some barley meal which was allowed to get wet in transit over the Great Western Railway from Staverton to Newton. Another loss of £1 occurred when he had some brown acid sent him from Plymouth. He had the liquid sent in a truck with some bags of manure, and one of the carboys broke and the acid it contained did considerable damage to the bags. — The Hon. Mr. Littleton reminded his Honour that the defendant had no right to convey the acid in the same truck as contained his manure, and, therefore, under no circumstances could he have the slightest pretension to a claim. — The defendant was proceeding to show other losses he had sustained in the transit of goods when his Honour inquired of his solicitor if was prepared to show wilful damage on the part of the company. — Mr. Square said it could prove damage arose through the defective state of the tarpaulin. — His Honour: That will not prove wilful damage or misconduct. — The Hon. Mr. Littleton said, according to Mr. Square’s own showing, the worst he could prove against his clients would be neglect, which, of course, as the defendant had the goods conveyed at his own risk, availed nothing. — His Honour (to Mr. Square): I don’t see how you can support your counterclaim under any circumstances. — The defendant said he had received a letter from Mr. Paddon, station master at Kingswear, offered to make an abatement of £1 odd, in respect the carriage of the acid, the charge of which he (the defendant) had said was excessive, — The Hon. Mr. Littleton said that would not compromise the company. — His Honour said it would be useless to go on with the case any further. He therefore directed the jury to return a verdict for the plaintiffs for the amount claimed, and to disallow the defendant’s counterclaim — The jury returned a verdict accordingly, and Honour allowed the plaintiffs’ costs.
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