Tag: October 1869

County Court: Friday: Before Mr. Serjeant Petersdorff, Judge: Whiteway v. Watts, Bearne, Blake & Co.: This was an action for £20 damages, alleged to have been occasioned through the defendant’s having undermined certain lands belonging to the plaintiff: Mr. Creed appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. R. Templer for the defendants. Mr. Creed in stating the case, said Mr. Whiteway, the plaintiff was a gentleman residing at Fishwick, in the parish of Kingsteignton, and the defendants were clay merchants, carrying on business at Newton Abbot and Kingsteignton. The plaintiff was owner in fee of a piece of land called Guinea Park, which adjoined the eastern side of a garden plot. The garden plot, he remarked, was very small, and the hedge which separated the two properties, he contended, belonged to his client. He did not believe there was any ditch on either side of this fence. Had there been a ditch he believed the law would have given a presumption of ownership viz. that the hedge was the property of the person on the side where the ditch was not. In the present instance, however, the ownership of hedge would have to be decided by the acts that had been committed on it and he thought the evidence he should be able to produce, there could be no doubt whatever that his client was the owner. The defendants had sunk in this garden plot a shaft, for the purpose of raising clay, a course that was rather unusual, as sinking of pits was generally the practice. They had sunk this shaft some distance, and afterwards had branched off in another direction to that of the level. The consequences were that the surface of the defendants’ side of the hedge had sunk considerably, as well as the plaintiff’s hedge extending over a length of 42 feet, and also the plaintiff’s land, on the other side of the hedge, some places as much as three or four feet. Furthermore, a portion of the giving way of his client’s land was marked by a chasm, at least six inches in width, about 15 ft. from the hedge; nor could they tell at present how much more giving way might take place. Mr. Templer here inquired of his learned friend if he was going to ask for prospective damages. Mr. Creed said he merely asked for permanent damages, as it was quite evident the field was permanently injured. He was aware the right to the ownership of the hedge would depend, as he had stated before, in a great measure as to the acts that had been done in regard to it. He should, however, be able to call not only the plaintiff but a tenant who occupied the land previous to Mr. Whiteway and purchased the land of Mr. Pinsent, and they would conclusively prove what he had stated and further, that the tenant had made several parts of the hedge. Indeed, Mr. Whiteway had always been under the impression that was his property. He had also given orders to the tenant of the garden not to cut the hedge. He should also call another witness who would prove that he had repaired the hedge in compliance with Mr. Whiteway’s instructions. After had proved this, he thought his client’s right to the hedge could not be questioned, or at all events it would be very difficult to disprove it. It was true that during the 18- or 19-years Mr. Whiteway had been the owner of this property he had not been so diligent in keeping this fence as he should be, and consequently on one or two occasions the tenant of the garden had cropped off the surplus growth, a very natural act. … 

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

GROxxxx xxxxx

Mutual Life Assurance: Scottish Provident Institution: Edinburgh: 6, St. Andrew Square: (London, 18, King William Street, E.C.): In this Society alone members can assure with right to share in whole profits at moderate premiums. In other offices they may assure at rates as low, but without any prospect of additions, or they may obtain the right to profits, but only by payment of excessive rates … …  Agents: Exeter, Robert T. Campion, Solicitor; Devonport, Thomas P. Horton (Pinsent and Co.) 31 Market Street. 

[see also Exeter and Plymouth Gazette: Friday 15^th October 1869 & Western Times: Friday 17^th September 1869]

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

GROxxxx xxxxx

Petty Sessions: Wednesday: Before J. Divell, Esq. (Chairman), C. J. Wade, Esq., W. J. Watts, Esq., and Admiral Wise: Mr. Baker renewed is application for wine and spirit licences for Mr. Pinsent who was desirous of opening a house on Queen Street, near the Commercial Hotel, Newton: Mr. Creed strongly opposed on behalf of Mr. Magor, the proprietor of the above hotel. The Bench, however, declined to reverse their former decision. The license of the Plymouth Inn, Queen Street, was transferred from Mr. Pinsent to Mr. Sanders. Mr. Baker next applied on behalf of Mr. Carrol, of Dawlish, with a view of inducing the Bench to grant him a similar license to that he held previous to the last meeting, when he applied for a wine license, which was refused. The application, which was opposed by Mr. Floud, was refused, as was also that of Mr. Pudner, of Teignmouth. Mr. Partridge, assistant overseer for Kingsteington, for whom Mr. Whiteway appeared, applied for an order on Mr. Pinsent of Kingsteington, to pay £6 6s 3.5d; his quota of £170, the full value of a rate which was based upon the poor-rate. Mr. Partridge proved the making of the rate and applied to Mr. Pinsent for his quota, who refused to pay it, and added he intended to contest the rate to the utmost. Witness was subjected to a severe cross-examination by Mr. Baker, who appeared for the defendants, in the course of which he stated that this was not the first sewer rate he had made. Mr. Pinsent had also on a previous occasion paid a rate that was subsequently proved to be invalid, not before, however, he had been summoned. Others were also summoned, but they did not pay as the magistrates decided the rate was invalid. Mr. Pinsent, by paying this rate, had consequently paid more than his quota. The £170 was required to pay costs that had been incurred in procuring the Acts of Parliament, but he could not say that it was law costs that had been incurred in defending the action brought by Mr. Pinsent. Mr. Baker objected to the validity of the services and contended that it was incumbent on Mr. Whiteway to show that the sewer authority had issued their precept, but which he submitted had not been done. Mr. Whiteway pointed out that all that was required by law had been done. If Mr. Pinsent had any cause to complain he had remedy by appealing. A long argument ensured between the legal advocates and the Bench, and it was eventually decided that the case should stand adjourned for two months in order to afford Mr. Pinsent an opportunity to recover the sum he had paid in respect of the illegal rate, and in case of his doing so, the Bench remarked they would have no difficulty in making an order in the present instance. 

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

GRO1036 Devonport: Thomas Pinsent: 1782 – 1872