a history
Deaths: May 24th, at Ware, Kingsteignton, Ann, widow of Mr. John Pinsent, in her 56th year.
[see also Exeter and Plymouth Gazette: Friday 1st June 1866]
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.
GRO0056 Hennock: Ann Brock: 1811 – 1866
GRO0508 Hennock: John Pinsent: 1799 – 1858
The Ottery Volunteers: The High Sheriff’s Dinner: Yesterday: Yesterday afternoon Sir John Kennaway, High Sheriff of the County, entertained to dinner the members of the 25th Devon Rifles. The hon. Bart’s son, J. H. Kennaway, Esq., is captain of the crack corps. Who took the opportunity of giving him a hearty welcome on his return from abroad … (description and attendance list – includes) … Pinsent Matthews, Esq., (Rydon, Talaton) …
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.
GROxxxx xxxxx
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.
GRO0677 Hennock: Mary Speare Pinsent: 1794 – 1882
Devon Lent Assize: Malicious Prosecution: GREENHILL v. PEARCE: this was an action for malicious prosecution, Mr. Coleridge, Q.C. and Mr. Lopes were counsel for the plaintiff, instructed by Mr. E. W. Hooper. And Mr. Sergeant Kinglake was counsel for the defendant (attorney, Mr. Floud), the pleadings being opened by Mr. Lopes. Mr. Coleridge stated the case. It appeared the plaintiff, Mr. Alfred Greenhill, was a gentleman of independent means, living in the parsonage house at Honiton Clist and the defendant, Mr. Francis Drake Pearce was a farmer, also living at Honiton Clist. The defendant had caused the plaintiff to be summoned for committing a felony. The plaintiff appeared before the magistrates and the case was dismissed. The present action was brought to recover damages for this offence. The learned counsel said that according to his instructions this was a case of a provoked malicious prosecution, and one of the grossest it had ever been his lot to bring before a jury. The facts of the case were as follows: The defendant occupied a close called Cross Park, which was separated by a hedge from a field called Trapnell, in the occupation of the plaintiff. There was a gate between the two fields, and as it was broken, the plaintiff put two hurdles against it to fence it. One of those hurdles was an iron one belonging to the plaintiff, the other was a wooden one belonging to the defendant, and which was taken out of the defendant’s field. This was done on the 18th November. A day or two after, Mr. Greenhill, being in his field and seeing that some cattle had broken through a hedge into his field, he, with the assistance of defendant’s servants drove the cattle out, and to stop the gap which had been made the plaintiff removed the two hurdles from the gate and put them against the gap — one of those hurdles was the defendant’s. He met the defendant after and told him what he had done. Defendant made no remark there on and the matter passed. In October 1865, Mr. Greenhill had bought a house and nine acres of land from Miss Pinsent in Honiton Clist, and the house and land were occupied by the defendant. Miss Pinsent gave the defendant regular notice that he was to regard the plaintiff as his future landlord. The defendant appeared to have taken offence at the plaintiff having exercised his right as an Englishman to purchase the property. However, on the 30th December the plaintiff went to survey the estate, and gave the defendant notice that he was the landlord. On 5th January the plaintiff saw the defendant at Exeter, and the defendant paid him the rent for the land but said that he considered Miss Pinsent to be still landlady of the house. About this time a person named Rutter, the defendant’s nephew, was going about saying something derogatory of the character of Mr. Greenhill, and the plaintiff cautioned him not to say anything about him, and a writ was issued against him, but the learned counsel did not know whether the case was brought for trial or not. After this, the defendant asked a policeman to apprehend the plaintiff for stealing the hurdle referred to above. The officer discreetly declined. The defendant, not to be baulked, obtained a summons for the plaintiff from the Woodbury magistrates. …There was a further point to the case. The plaintiff was repairing his house at Honiton Clist. The snow was on the ground, and his pony was in the field. A person there, thinking the pony was hungry, pulled out a couple of handfuls of hay from the defendant’s rick, and gave it to the pony. The hay was worth 2d, or say 6d, giving him a silver coin that was surely all the hay was worth, and, in fact the plaintiff did not know that the hay had been given to the pony at all. The defendant, however, went to Mr. Garrett, magistrate, laid an information against the plaintiff for stealing hay, and asked for a summons against the plaintiff. Mr. Garrett, after cautioning the defendant to be very careful what he was about, granted the summons. The two great cases — of the hurdle and the hay — came on for trial at the Woodbury Session. … … (continues) … … Cross-examined by Mr. Coleridge: At that time the defendant was cool: He had just threatened to kick the plaintiff out of his yard. A: Is that your way of showing affection? Witness did not reply. He did not deny that he had charged his brother with taking the hurdle about the 19th Nov. He said to the magistrates that it was about a week after, that he found that Mr. Greenhill had the hurdle. It might have been two or three days after hearing it, that he went to Mr. Greenhill about the hurdle. Did not know for certain that Miss Pinsent had sold her property to Mr. Greenhill until Mr. Greenhill came to him for rent. He had received a notice of it from Miss Pinsent. He did not know that it was on the 16th Nov. but it was some time before they called for the rent on Jan. 3rd. Mr. Greenhill threatened to lock up the gates, which he (witness) called putting in a distress. Mr. Greenhill had brought the witness the notice which was signed by Miss Pinsent, and he wrote to her to ask her if it was her real signature for he doubted it. He also warned her to be cautious as to whom she dealt with. He did not know who he thought had forged the name of Miss Pinsent also he could not tell against whom he was warning Miss Pinsent. He thought it might be against Mr. Greenhill, at last he said it was against Mr. Greenhill. … … (continues) … The Jury returned a verdict for the 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.
GRO0677 Hennock: Mary Speare Pinsent: 1794 – 1882
Ashburton: The Dinner: We state in our report elsewhere, that in consequence of the Market Hall being too small to contain the invited guests, parties dined at other houses. At the Rose and Crown, about 50 assembled under the presidency of Mr. Robert Osmond, and the toasts of the evening, including that of Mr. Jardine’s health were duly honoured. Of those who attended the Market Hall, we give an imperfect list, to which the following names are to be added: Messrs. Hamlyn Brothers, 2; Mr. Churchward, 2; Mr. Scott; Mr. Ball; Mr. Warren, 2 (Buckfastleigh); Messrs. Stooke, Mugford, Pinsent, Holmes, &c. (Newton); Messrs. P. Scott, E. Drake (Manaton); A. Pike, Mathews (Chudleigh); Messrs. Chester, Holman, Punchard (Totnes); Messrs. Hannaford, 5, Irish, 2, Slocombe (Widdicombe); Messrs. Mann, 2, Michelmore, Waymouth, Winsor, Hoare (Staverton); Messrs. Hannaford, Stooke, Sharp, Murch and Lee (Hennock).
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.
GROxxxx xxxxx