The County Assizes: Nisi Prius: Tuesday: On the opening of the Court at ten o’clock, the hearing of the unfinished case of Pinsent v Stockman was resumed: Mr. Cole, in opening the defence, said there had been some extraordinary muddle about this barley. If they looked at the history, there appears to be no doubt that Mugford in November 1874, sold Pinsent 98 bags of barley. Then they came to the first curious fact about this case. They found that although the barley did not suit for malting it was not sold again until February 1875. People did not usually keep barley bought for malting in their possession for four months. — His Lordship: Is that so very unusual? — Mr. Cole thought it was. People were not usually so flush of money as to buy barley so long before they wanted to use it. The barley did not suit Mr. Pinsent and he told them he gave Mugford orders to sell it for him. Then Mugford appeared on the scene and told them he sold the barley to Mr. Stockman. As far as Mr. Stockman was concerned, nothing was heard of this barley for nearly five years. That was another very extraordinary fact – Although there were dealings between the parties in the interim, and Pinsent had said that Mugford told him he had sold the barley to Stockman, nothing was said about it in all that time. How was it that no demand had been made for payment either by Pinsent of Mugford or by Mugford of Stockman? There was no entry of the transaction in Pinsent’s books of any account against Stockman, there was an entry at the bottom of an account with Mugford, “We shall be glad to have the barley account settled” It was a most extraordinary and curious case altogether, and every circumstance in it appeared to be odd. His case was that Stockman never had but one transaction with Mugford for barley, and that was in June 1873. The amount was £16 15s, and it was clearly set out in the counterfoil of Stockman’s cheque book. He submitted that it was Mugford who was seeking to excuse himself from the payment of his barley. It is really Mugford’s case and it is for him to prove that he sold the barley to Stockman. Mugford went to Mr. Pinsent and told them he sold the barley to Stockman, and they sent a bill in November 1874, for 49 quarters barley at 44s. Stockman said they were putting it upon him, but it could not have been him, because at the time his mill was-burnt down. After that another account was made out, under date February, for £64 odd. Then they had heard in support of this claim witnesses who declared that after interval of four years, without any previous talk about the matter, they perfectly remembered delivering the barley to Mr. Stockman. He did not wish to impute motives to anyone, but it certainly did seem to him that Mr. Pinsent had brought this on himself by the way in which he kept his books. Stockman, the defendant, said he had had some few transactions with the plaintiff directly without the intervention of Mug ford. He never had but one transaction with the plaintiff through Mugford. That was in July 1873 — 20 sacks of barley, £16 15s. It was the barley sold by Mugford to Pinsent, and it would not malt. That was how he afterwards came to buy the barley of Mugford. The counterfoil in the chequebook produced showed that he paid Mugford for this barley. It was delivered in West of England Company’s sacks, and the book produced showed that he returned those sacks. The Lord Chief Justices —There is no necessity to dwell on this part of the case. The transaction is clear enough. Witness, continuing, said he never bought this second lot of barley. He had other transactions with Pinsent direct. In June 1574, he purchased screenings to the amount of £53. He had no entry in his hooks as to this barley now in dispute. One of these books, called an “inwards book,” contained counterfoils of the delivery notes given to everyone bringing grain to the mill. These counterfoils were examined consecutively, and they showed no entry of 75 sacks of barley. His Lordship — There are at least a dozen blank counterfoils on which no entry is made. How do you account for that? Witness said he could only suppose that it was through taking up two leaves at once: Examination continued — Mugford came to see him on one occasion about this barley. Witness said he knew nothing about it, and Mugford added, “I’m —– if I do.” He had never seen the entry in Mugford’s note-book, cross-examined — It was all lies about his having this barley, for he never had it. Mr. Henry Stockman said he had kept the books for his father since 1874. There was no entry at all in any of the books showing the receipt of the barley in 1875. John Hill, a servant in the employ of the defendant for 30 years, said in February 1875, the witness never went to Mr. Pinsent to fetch 76 sacks of barley. Never fetched any sacks of barley in 1875. They had two wagons – one would hold 12 sacks and the other 18. It was not true, as said on the previous day, that he took away 25 sacks in two journeys. Cross-examined — He knew Harvey, but never went to the stores and-asked him if Mugford had any barley there, as his governor had sent him for it. This was the case for the defendant. Mr. Cole, in putting his case to the jury, submitted that there had been some mistake, and it was for them to say which side. The defendant showed by his books that everything delivered was entered; and was-it suggested that this entry was left out purposely at this time for the purposes of fraud? The gentleman who sought to relieve himself was Mr. Mugford, who was charged with the barley, and it was for him to make out his case. He called attention to the fact that when Mugford found the entry, as he said, in his pocketbook, he said nothing of it to the defendant, he should have done. He must say that was suspicious, and he felt bound to make that observation. He also called attention to the fact that there were two accounts in respect of this very barley, and said that Mr. Stockman, believing that he had not received the barley, felt bound to defend the action. Mr. Collins said that all the gentlemen concerned in the case were respectable, but to say that it was suspicious when Mugford found the entry in his book, not to say anything about it, what was that but implying that he had been wicked enough to forge this entry. Mr. Mugford’s explanation was that the moment he heard of this dispute he searched his memorandum books, and in one of which a few weeks ago he found an entry of the sale of the barley to Stockman. Could they believe that he was wicked enough to forget this entry? The reason that the claim was not made before was simple. Pinsent and Mugford had a running account, and one thought the money had been paid to the other. The evidence of Harvey and the other men in the plaintiff’s employ showed that the barley was delivered to the defendant’s man, who said at the time that he had been sent for Mr. Mugford’s barley, which his governor had bought. The conversation also pointed to the conclusion that the barley had been delivered. His Lordship: in summing up, said this was a painful case from the conflict of evidence, for dealing with respectable parties, there must be perjury on the one side, or forgery and perjury on the other. His Lordship then went carefully through the whole evidence, pointing out the contradictions that appeared all through, and put it to the jury to say which side was entitled to a verdict. The Jury consulted for some time, and the foreman then said they were unable to agree — there were 11 to 1. They were then locked up, and after being absent for about half an-hour returned into Court with a verdict for plaintiff.
[see also Western Times: Saturday 26th July 1879]
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