Malicious Prosecution at Honiton Clist: Greenhill v. Pearse: The Plaintiff in this case, Mr. Alfred Greenhill, a retired farmer of independent means, living in the- Parsonage, Honiton Clist, sued the defendant, Mr. Francis Drake Pearce, farmer, of the same parish, for damages for a malicious prosecution. It appeared that the plaintiff and defendant occupied adjoining fields, communicating by a gateway, where an’ iron hurdle’ and a wooden one—the former belonging to the plaintiff and the latter to the defendant—were put up in November to strengthen the gate. In the same month the plaintiff, seeing some cattle had broken into one of his neighbouring fields, drove them out, and got a man in the defendant’s employ to help him to plant the two hurdles in question against the gap by which the cattle were driven out. The plaintiff said that he mentioned the fact to the defendant soon after, but the defendant denied this. In the January following, the plaintiff, having become defendant’s landlord in respect to a small estate, which Miss Pinsent had sold to him, pressed the defendant for rent and they had a quarrel, in which plaintiff threatened to lock up the gates, and the defendant threatened to kick plaintiff out of the yard. It was not till after this that the defendant caused plaintiff to be summoned before the Woodbury Bench for stealing his wooden hurdle, value 1s. The plaintiff’s counsel imputed to the defendant that he was actuated by ill-feeling engendered by the quarrel about the rent, but the defendant denied this, alleging that he did not know that the plaintiff had taken the hurdle till he was informed of it in January. The defendant also summoned the plaintiff before the magistrates for stealing hay. The facts were that some joiners were repairing the plaintiff’s house in January. Snow was on the ground, and one of the men, seeing the plaintiff’s pony looking thin, went to a rick which he thought belonged to the plaintiff, and pulled out a food of hay, which he gave to the pony in the plaintiff’s shed. Defendant came soon after, and noticing that hay had been removed, he fetched the parish constable Stark, and traced the hay to the plaintiff’s shed. Hereupon he summoned the plaintiff for stealing hay. The great hurdle and hay cases came before the Woodbury bench. The first was dismissed, and the second was withdrawn, the defendant Pearce having to pay £3 10s costs. The plaintiff’s attorney’s bill amounted to £13 5s, which plaintiff paid on commission day, and this formed the staple of the damages he sued for. Defendant complained that the plaintiff’s attorney’s bill was monstrously heavy, but it was explained that the plaintiff’s attorney, Mr. H. W. Hooper, having to go to London at the time of the hearing, handed the cases over to Mr. Fryer, who was paid £5 5s for his attendance at Woodbury. There was, moreover, a charge of £1 1s for “shorthand writer’s notes.” These explanations did not diminish defendant’s dislike of the bill: The counsel for the plaintiff were Mr. Coleridge, Q.C., and Mr. Lopes (attorney, Mr. H. W. Hooper). The counsel for the defendant, was Mr. Sergt. Kinglake (attorney, Mr. Floud). The Jury found a verdict for plaintiff—Damages, £10.
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
GRO0677 Hennock: Mary Speare Pinsent: 1794 – 1882