County Court: Oct. 4th: (Before William Praed, Esq., Judge): Frost v Pinsent: The plaintiff sued the defendant for the sum of £6 6s 6d, balance due for attending cattle in the year 1847. The attendance was charged at 2s 6d per day. Mr. Francis attended for the plaintiff and Mr. Carter for the defendant. The plaintiff alleged that he was an innkeeper and farrier at Kingsteington, in the year 1847, and the defendant was a gentleman farmer, residing at Greenhill, near the same place. In the early part of the year, about April, he was fetched by a servant of defendant’s, named Gray, to drench a calf at Greenhill. Plaintiff could not go that evening, but did so the following morning, and drenched the sick calf in the presence of two of the defendant’s men and continued to attend it. Defendant called at plaintiff’s house in the beginning of April 1848, and asked if he was in the habit of striking sheep for the scab; on plaintiff’s answering in the affirmative, defendant said he had some sheep which were suffering from scab very badly and ordered plaintiff to attend to them, plaintiff went either the next day or the day after and examined the sheep. At some length he stated the results of the examination, and his other transactions. There were 20 sheep diseased, and the witness was engaged to purchase, mix, and apply the ingredients necessary for their cure. The sheep being very severely affected, the scab required his constant attention, and after attending to them for some time, the plaintiff gave the defendants his bill. The latter observed that the plaintiff owed his son some money, and on that being paid, he would pay the bill. Plaintiff had no means of purchasing more ingredients and ceased his attendance on the sheep when he had used all the medicine. Plaintiff afterwards called on defendant’s son, a spirit merchant, of Newton, to whom he owed £14 4s 8d to settle the accounts. He was offered £1 8s 4d for his services to the defendant, which he at first demurred to take, but afterwards he accepted it under fear he alleged of legal proceedings. He afterwards called on the defendant for the alleged balance, which he refused to pay. Cross-Examined; He had never asked plaintiff for the amount due for attendance on the sheep until April in this year, when there was an action between defendant’s son and plaintiff’s mother. For the Defence: Mr. Pinsent was examined and stated that he had never engaged the plaintiff as a farrier. Plaintiff met him one day and said “I hear your sheep have got scab, Sir; “defendant said they had; plaintiff said he would cure them if defendant would pay for the ingredients; defendant accepted the offer and thanked him for his attention, wondering at his liberality – but this was explained some time after, by plaintiff offering to become his bailiff. While the plaintiff was attending to the sheep, a conversation occurred about a calf, which the defendant had given up as incurable; the plaintiff said he could cure it and was allowed to try. After attending it for some time the calf became worse, and the defendant made the plaintiff a present of it. Had heard nothing about the plaintiff attending to three calves, until he sent in his last bill, but then found he had charged for it. The calves were under the charge of the hind, and he had authority to employ a farrier, and might have employed the plaintiff without the defendant’s knowledge. Defendant did not tell the plaintiff, on his presenting a bill for the ingredients, that he would not pay him until he paid his son, but gave him back the bill, and said “You owe my son some money. Go and give him the bill, and he will give our credit for it.” Had no idea at that time that plaintiff was going to charge more – and had never known him as a farrier. It appeared that before the defendant told plaintiff to take the bill to his son and get credit for it, the son had sued and obtained judgment for £14 against plaintiff in this court. His Honour remarked that the defendant was acting very irregularly in sending the plaintiff to the son at such a time; it was far better that everyone should pay their own debts. Mr. Murrin, a butcher, of Newton, said he bought the sheep of Mr. Pinsent, after plaintiff had ceased to attend them, and they were then very bad, but he cured them with a shilling’s worth of ointment, and considered the amount £1 8s 4d sufficient for curing the sheep and calves. The sheep were not worth much; witness bought them cheap, he should not have bought them at all, but he was in the habit of purchasing all Mr. Pinsent’s sheep, and was obliged to keep the sheep a long time before they were sufficiently fat to kill. Mr. John Pinsent, spirit merchant of Newton Abbot, son of the defendant, said the bill of £1 8s 4d was brought to his office by plaintiff before April 1851, and he offered it as part payment of his account, and in answer to witness said that that sum was all defendant owned him. Witness had heard nothing about the sum now demanded, until he had commenced an action against plaintiff’s mother, when he received a letter, which was now produced, and contained the following remark “you have commenced an action against my mother, and I shall now proceed against your father for £7 15s, which he owes me.” Plaintiff paid the amount of his bill on the 28th May; he came late in the evening, the witness refused to take the money, as the matter was in Mr. Francis’s hands. Plaintiff entreated him to do so, as he said he should lose a situation which he was then holding if he did not get back to Broadclist that evening. Witness at last consented to take the money, the plaintiff promising to pay Mr. Francis his expenses in a few days. Witness gave the plaintiff a receipt for the money. The receipt, an unstamped one, was now produced. The bill paid by the plaintiff was on a judgment standing against the mother in a superior court. The plaintiff owed witness £13 14s and judgement was obtained in this court for the amount. After that, the witness issued a judgment summons from the Exeter County Court, plaintiff having become a resident in that district. A note of hand for £50 given by plaintiff’s mother to him, he endorsed to witness, as a security for the money, that the proceedings may be stayed, in which note, the mother was afterwards sued, by Mr. Francis, on the part of witness. The bill due from plaintiff, and on which he had been sued, was now put in, and his Honour Remarked that witness has charged interest on the bill for four years, and also on the expenses of the court, which he said was very irregular and further that it was decidedly wrong for witness to have taken the money and given an unstamped receipt only, while the order of the court remained unsatisfied in the books. It was bringing the court into disrepute. William Holmes said he was clerk to the last witness and corroborated his statements: Mr. Carter, having replied on the whole case, His Honour reserved judgement until Monday. The case occupied nearly the whole day: Monday: His Honour gave judgment. He said this was an action for £6 6s 6d, the balance of £7 14s 10d which plaintiff claimed for services rendered as a farrier, £1 8s 4d having been paid. That amount was paid in a manner of which he could not altogether approve. The items were very distinct. – The one part was for drenches given to calves, and the second for attendance to sheep. The claim for drenches was clearly established by the defendant himself, who said in evidence that he had given authority to his hind to employ attendance for his cattle and had since found that the plaintiff had been so employed. His Honour was therefore of the opinion that the defendant was ill-judged in opposing that part of the account. At the same time, he could not help remarking that tradesmen and others too frequently took orders, and were employed by servants and agents, without considering whether their authority was sufficient. Indeed, he himself had occasion to complain of the facility with which orders were taken by tradesmen, from servants without making due enquiries. The great contest in this case had been for the demand for attending to a flock of sheep. The plaintiff said he was engaged by the defendant. He had first given in a bill for ingredients but had since given in a bill for attendance. The bill for ingredients was by no means a satisfactory one. There was a large amount charged for tobacco, and for the other part of the sum nothing specific was named. It was tobacco and other ingredients but that there was no need for further remark on for the bill had since been settled, and of course there was an end to it. The plaintiff seemed never to have made any demand for attending the sheep, from the time he attended them in 1848 to May 1851. Two years and a half elapsed before any intimation was given to the defendant that the plaintiff intended to make such demand. The answer made by the defendant was that it was a voluntary offer, and that was mainly confirmed by the time the plaintiff allowed to elapse before he made his demand, and his giving in a previous bill for the ingredients; besides that there was the angry letter written by the plaintiff to defendant’s son, relative to a suit instituted by him against plaintiff’s mother, and it seemed to express something like “If you go to law with my mother, I will go to law with your father.” There was some evidence given also of a motive that the plaintiff might have had, in voluntarily offering, to cure the sheep; he wished to become defendant’s bailiff and took perhaps the opportunity of showing his skill in treatment of cattle. His Honour, considering the whole of these circumstances, thought the plaintiff had failed to prove his case relative to the charge made for the cure of the sheep, and he therefore gave judgement for the plaintiff for £1 7s 6d only. He could not close the case without again commenting on the remark of the plaintiff that he should have asked for his money sooner but that the son of the defendant had a judgment against him in the County Court. A judgment was obtained in this court, and afterwards taken to the Exeter County Court. The money had since been paid, but an unsatisfied order had been allowed to stand on the books up to this time. And this went to show how the County Court might be made the means of much injustice and oppression. Besides that, it was shown that when the defendant’s son took the money he charged interest, not only on the account, but on the County Court charges also, and then gave the plaintiff no proof that there had been a settlement, save an unstamped agreement, which was not of the least value to him. That was most irregular. The County Court was often brought into disrepute by such means. He had no doubt, if the books of the court were looked over, a great many cases where an unsatisfied judgment had been allowed to remain after the money was paid, would be found. It was often used as a reproach in the County Court that so many unsatisfied orders remained on the books. A great many people adopt the plan of getting a judgment in the court and afterwards tampering with the parities making their own arrangements, getting the matter settled in their own way without giving any intimation to the court. This was unfair and might lead to injustice to the defendant. In reference to the unstamped agreement in this case, it was nonsense for Mr. John Pinsent to have said he had no stamp, and it was too late to get one. His proper course would have been to have said to the present plaintiff “I have no stamp, nor is it my place to get one, if you will get a stamp I will deduct the amount for it, “and in case of Frost having come, Mr. Pinsent might have given an acknowledgement and said “You bring a stamp in the morning, and I will sign it.” However, nothing was said about a stamp at all. The blame was not altogether to be laid to Mr. Pinsent; it was the place of Frost to have seen that he had a stamp receipt when he paid his money. Only Mr. Pinsent, from his position and extensive transactions, was expected to have best understood the matter. After these remarks he hoped persons obtaining judgment in this court would act more regularly.
[Exeter Flying Post: Thursday 9th October 1851: see Exeter Flying Post Thursday January 1st, 1852: (Frost v Pinsent)]
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
GRO1036 Devonport: Thomas Pinsent: 1782 – 1872