Trewman’s Exeter Flying Post or Plymouth and Cornish Advertiser – Page 3

Trewman’s Exeter Flying Post or Plymouth and Cornish Advertiser: Thursday January 27th, 1859: issue 4842

County Court: January 22^nd, before M. Fortescue, Esq., Judge: Skinner v Pinsent: Mr. Michelmore, solicitor, of Totness appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. Francis for defendant, who is a brewer carrying on a large business at Newton. This was a jury case.

Mr. Mitchelmore stated the case at great length. The action was brought by his client, a farmer, residing in the parish of Staverton, to recover the sum of £34 17s 6d, for ninety bags of barley, sold to the defendant’s agent, of which £32 12s 6d had been paid into court.

The facts were these: Plaintiff having barley to sell met Avery, who is the agent of defendant, and offered him a sample of the barley. Avery asked how much he had to sell and was told some ninety to one hundred bags. Avery took the sample to Mr. Pinsent, and afterwards returned to his own house, the Turks Head, Newton, where plaintiff was stopping, It was arranged that Avery should have the barley at 7s 9d per bag – ninety bags; which a few days afterwards were sent to the Totnes railway station and dispatched to Newton.

Two days after this a letter was sent by Mr. Pinsent to Mr. Skinner, Littlehempston, where the plaintiff had resided previously with his brother. It stated that there was a truck load of barley at the railway station, but it was so very inferior in quality to the sample that he refused to take it and recommended Mr. Skinner to send for it as speedily as possible.

On the Wednesday following the plaintiff’s brother met Avery in the street at Newton and asked him the meaning of the letter. Avery said, “It’s all right about your brother’s barley; it was a mistake, our man took a sample from Mr. Bowden’s barley at the station instead of your brother’s’ ‘. After this, the barley was taken from the station and stored away in the defendant’s malt house.

Plaintiff and his brother went to Mr. Pinsent when the latter said the barley was not so well conditioned as he expected; to which Mr. Skinner replied, “It is very good, and your man, Avery, said so”.

After some further conversation they all went to the malt house and Skinner was directed to a sack to compare its contents with the sample. He put his hand into the sack and took some barley and after looking at it said it was not his barley. Mr. Pinsent directed him to the next, but this he said was his own barley, as he knew it because of the manner in which the knot was tied.

A handful was taken out and put in a scoop; and the plaintiff took a sample out from his pocket and put it by the side to compare it. Mr. Pinsent was satisfied that there was no difference. Nothing at that time was said about “screening”.

Defendant said, “If you come up to my office at three o’clock, I will pay you”. Accordingly, Mr. Skinner went there with the full expectation of being paid. On going in the defendant said, “What does your barley come to?” “£34 17s 6d” replied Mr. Skinner. After some conversation Mr. Pinsent said, “Your barley is not according to sample; there it is in the malt house, and you can take it away”.

On the 25^th November plaintiff received a letter from Mr. Holmes, the clerk, stated that if he came to Newton on Wednesday week, “In a good temper” there was no doubt but what his claim would be satisfactorily settled. A few days afterwards Mr. Skinner sent a friend to Mr. Pinsent to ask for the money: the defendant at the time refused to pay the amount but offered to pay £25 on account. On the 15^th December, plaintiff again saw Avery and asked him to go for the money. Avery said, “The money’s all right: you have had a letter”. He then went up himself and was again refused payment.

Edwin Skinner, a farmer, living in the parish of Staverton, was then examined. Having given an account of the sale of the barley to the defendant and with reference to the interview at the malt house he said that Mr. Pinsent insisted that the bulk was not according to the sample. Witness then took out some barley from his pocket, a portion of his old sample, and put it on the shovel with the rest. Defendant said he did not see any difference; one was a little lighter than the other; he was told that was caused the barley being carried in his pocket and showed by rubbing some barley in his hand that they became brighter by the process; and would swear that what he had in his pocket was the same he had previously shown to Avery.

Defendant, after asking where he intended dining, told him to call the office at 3 o’clock and be paid. Nothing was said to witness about taking back the screenings more than to ask Avery how much he would take out with the screen. Went back to Avery and told him what had occurred, and that Mr. Pinsent said the barley was not like the sample. Avery replied, “What does he know about it? I did not give him the sample at all, for I put it into my pocket and lost all but a few corns”.

Witness said he was to ask how much he would take out with the screen, to which he replied, “not the half of fourteen or fifteen bushels”. Witness then returned to the office, defendant and Mr. Holmes were there; the former of whom took down his chequebook and asked what Avery said. Told him Avery said it was according to the sample.

Mr. Pinsent denied it, and said the barley was very small and he should not pay for it. Defendant said he had the first sample in the office: witness asked to see it; and on its being shown to him declared it was not his, and then told him what Avery had said about losing the sample. Witness then went back and induced Avery to go and ask for the money; but he came back saying his master was in a devil of a temper and would not listen to anything.

Avery said then in the room, in the presence of a witness, his brother, and a Mr. Tripe, that the barley was good, and no one needed to complain of it. Soon after this, I received a letter from Mr. Holmes, stating that if I came in a fortnight, and in a good temper, the account would be settled. In a week the witness sent Mr. Manning, a miller but no settlement. On the 15^th of December, the witness called on Avery, and afterwards saw the defendant.

Witness said to him, “Well, what are you going to do about the barley?” he said, “I shall not pay for it”. And then he sent for Avery, and after having a short conversation with him, the defendant turned around to witness and said he should not pay for the barley unless he took the screenings back. Witness said he wouldn’t, and Pinsent said he might go to the devil.

The witness would not swear that there were not more small corns in the bulk than in the sample. Mr. Theophilus Tripe, a farmer, living in Torbryan, stated that he recollected being at the Turk’s Head when plaintiff, his brother and Manning were there talking about some barley and examined the samples shown by Skinner.

Heard Skinner say he had been to Mr. Pinsent but could get no money. Avery then told him to go home and come again in a week or two and then his master would be in a better temper. Also heard plaintiff’s brother ask Avery if the bulk was not as good as the sample given him by Mr. Skinner as he had only a few corns left in his pocket he did not show Mr. Pinsent the sample at all.

Mr. Richard Manning, farmer of Staverton, said he was at the Turk’s head on the 10^th of November. Heard Avery offered 7s 6d per bag for Skinner’s barley; saw the sample considered it a fair price for the barley. On the 20^th, called on Mr. Pinsent for the money; he said he should not pay it as it was not according to sample, and because, when Skinner was there last, he threw out something nasty to him.

Defendant asked him to look at the barley, but the witness declined to do so. Mr. Pinsent asked the witness if he would take some money on account, but he refused, the market price at the time was from 7s 6d to 8s 6d, according to quality. The difference of 7s 9d was made because Skinner had some distance to take the barley to the station.

Heard nothing about screening, but that was according to agreement. James Skinner, brother to plaintiff, residing in Littlehempstone, received the letter produced, stating that barley was at the station and that Mr. Pinsent refused to take it. Afterwards he heard it was a mistake and that it was Bowden’s barley.

The witness corroborated what had been stated by the other witnesses, of what occurred at the Turk’s Head.

Mr. Francis, for the defence, argued that there was no question as to the sale, but the question was this – was the barley according to sample, and it would be for the jury to say whether a difference should not be made in the price by reason of a difference in quality. Mr. Pinsent was content to pay the value of the barley and had offered to refer the dispute to one or two competent men to decide: men who should be selected by Skinner himself. He was sure the jury would think that nothing could be fairer than that.

It was of importance that Mr. Pinsent should have grain of a large size, to the miller size was of no consequence, but to the maltster, it was a matter of serious consideration, for in the process of malting small corn was entirely valueless. Having gone over the evidence, he called Thomas Avery, who stated that on the 10^th November, Skinner showed him a sample of barley.

Witness was very much taken up with it and showed first to Mr. Holmes and then to Mr. Pinsent: Offered Skinner 7s 6d and if he could do better in the market to do so. Saw him again in the evening when said he had not sold the barley. Bought off his ninety bags at 7s 9d, received that same day the sample of barley from Mr. Cury, these he put on a shelf but Skinner’s he put in his pocket.

Saw plaintiff’s brother some time after, when he said “Haloo, how did you send on that letter about the barley?” Told him it was a mistake, and in reply to his question, said he did not see much difference between the sample and the bulk of his brother’s barley, but at that time the witness had only opened the bag, and that he thought pretty good. To make all right he had looked at six or seven sacks and found them all to vary very much, and all very indifferent. The sacks were in the malting house now, in the same state as when they were brought in. Saw Skinner before he went to Mr. Pinsent and told him if the bulk was as good as the sample, Mr. Pinsent would pay him.

Went that same day to Mr. Pinsent at Skinner’s request did not recollect James Skinner’s asking him whether the bulk of his brother’s barley was as good as the sample. The barley in bulk witness would not have bought had he known its quality.

Before it could be used for malt, it would have to go through the screen and then it would be very indifferent. In cross-examination by Mr. Michelmore, the witness said, would not give 5s a bag for what was in the store.

Mr. Pinsent told Skinner if he could get any person to go into the dispute he would abide by the decision, told Mr. Skinner there was more small corn in the bulk than in the sample, but never said “No person can complain of it”.

After the examination of this witness, the jury retired to compare the sample with the barley in store at Mr. Pinsent’s. The jury, after a brief absence, returned to the court, and after a consultation of a few minutes, brought in a verdict for the plaintiff, full amount claimed.

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 Devonport

Trewman’s Exeter Flying Post or Plymouth and Cornish Advertiser: Thursday September 2nd, 1858: issue 4821

Newton Abbot: Meeting of Commissioners of Income and Assessed Taxes: On Wednesday last a meeting of the above body was held at Beazley’s Globe Hotel, W. Creek, Esq. in the chair, for the purpose of nominating Messrs. Roberts and G. Stevens as assessor and surveyor, they, having been unanimously nominated at a parish meeting a fortnight previously. These gentlemen were elected. An adjourned meeting of the same body met subsequently at the Seven Stars Inn, for the purpose of appointing a clerk in the room of Mr. Header, who is disabled through illness. The meeting was largely attended, the following commissioners being present: J.H. Whiteway, Esq. (Fishwick) in the chair, John Pinsent (Greenhill) (sic), Rev. Palk, Bastard Esq. (Totness), John Creed, Esq. (Abbotskerswell) W. Creed, Esq. (ditto), J. Sparke Amery, Esq., (Ashburton), James Woodley, Esq. (ditto), John Divett, Esq. (Bovey Tracey), John Caunter, Esq. (Ashburton), William Flamank, Esq., (Fairfield), W.J. Watts, Esq. (Ambrook) etc. After a long discussion, the Rev. Mr. Palk proposed that Mr. Geo. Caunter, of Ashburton, be appointed the assistant clerk of commissioners, which was seconded by Mr. John Pinsent. Mr. W. Creed moved as an amendment “That no additional clerk be appointed until the end of the year, viz. the 10^th of April next, and that the business be conducted as heretofore up to the time of Mr. Header”. This amendment was seconded by Mr. John Creed but was lost; the original motion was carried. The remuneration Mr. Caunter was to receive for his services was to be decided as the end of the year by a committee composed of the following gentlemen: Rev. Palk, John H. Whiteway, Esq., and John Pinsent, Esq.

Referenced

GRO0518 Devonport: John Ball Pinsent: 1819 – 1901

Trewman’s Exeter Flying Post or Plymouth and Cornish Advertiser: Thursday July 29th, 1858: issue 4816

Selecting Goods for a Landlady and its Consequences: Pinsent v Cocks: Mr. Collier and Mr. Karslake were counsel for plaintiffs; attorneys Messrs. Little and Billing, and Mr. M. Smith and Mr. Coleridge were counsel for the defendant; attorneys Messrs. Beer and Rundle: Mr. Collier stated the case: The plaintiffs were the Messrs. Pinsent, extensive drapers, etc. of Devonport, who brought this action against Capt. Cocks, a retired captain of the marines, living at Plymouth, a gentleman of fortune, to recover £111 4s for articles of furniture supplied. The circumstances of the case were plain and simple. Captain Cocks was an old customer of the plaintiffs, and on the 1^st of September 1856, he called upon them and said something of the following effect: “I want to speak to you about some furniture”. The communication was a little mysterious, for he said, “A person will call tomorrow, who will select some goods; it is all right; she is furnishing for me”. He did not mention the sex of the person at first, but afterwards he did say “A lady will call”. Of course, the plaintiffs did not wish to enquire who the lady was; they had known Captain Cocks for many years, and they said, “Very well, Sire, the goods shall be supplied”. Captain Cocks went further, for he looked at some floor cloths and said “Yes, that pattern will do for me, and the lady will call tomorrow or the next day, she will select the articles, because she is furnishing for me”. On the following day, the lady called, selected some articles, and ordered them to be sent to No. 7 Osborne Place, Plymouth. They were accordingly sent to the place where the lady resided and where Captain Cocks also resided; and the gallant gentleman daily walked over the carpets and floor cloths which he now refused to pay for. The bill was sent to Captain Cocks at Christmas, and in January he called upon Messrs. Pinsent and said, “This not for me, but for Miss Hibbert”. They said “Really, we do not know Miss Hibbert”. “Oh!” Said Captain Cocks, “Send the bill to me with her name; it will be alright, you shall be paid”. The Messrs. Pinsent wishing to oblige Captain Cocks altered the heading and sent in the bill to Miss Hibbert. She, however, had not, nor never would pay it. He (the learned counsel) understood that the defence set up by Capt. Cocks was that he would not pay because they had trusted Miss Hibbert; but he could only say that if the gallant Captain succeeded, he would be entitled to a good deal of credit for having found “A new way to pay old debts” (laughter). A person would have nothing to do but to go to a tradesman, order goods, have his name struck out, and Mr. or Mrs. Brown’s name substituted, and then there would be an end of the debt! Such a mode as this would be very convenient for half pay captains to double their incomes; because they would get what they paid for and what they didn’t (laughter), it was a short double shuffle between the captain and the lady – neither of whom would pay. Mr. M. Smith for the defence, said the goods were supplied to Miss Hibbert, who had taken a lodging house, that Captain Cocks lodged with the lady, and that he merely selected a floor cloth for his own use. In reference to Mr. Collier’s observations about doubling the income of half pay Captains, the learned counsel said his friend ought, he thought, to have spoken with more respect of a class of men who formed a considerable part of his constituency (laughter) but whether they voted for him or not was another matter. He contended that if the plaintiffs believed that defendant was liable, they would never have altered the bill. Captain Cocks, the defendant stated that he was a half pay captain of marines. In September 1856, he was lodging with Mrs. Collins at Osborne Place. Hiss Hibbert and her mother, Mrs. Westaway took a house in the same place, and the witness arranged with Miss Hibbert to lodge with her and her mother, as he had lodged with them several times before. Witness had been a customer of the Messrs. Pinsent for some time. Miss Hibbert requested the witness to call upon the plaintiffs and see some floor cloths for the hall. He did so and selected one, which he said was for Miss Hibbert. He never gave orders for any of the other articles or said that he was furnishing, or that the goods were for him. Witness’s daughter lived with him. Mr. Joseph Nicholson, Manager of the Messrs. Pinsent’s business at Devonport stated that Capt. Cocks had been a customer of his employers for many years. In September 1856, Capt. Cocks called and said to witness “I want to speak to you about a person who is coming to select some goods, they are for me; she is furnishing for me”. Witness said that was quite sufficient, and called a young man to attend to him, who showed him some articles. A female subsequently came to the shop. Cross examined: He believed the house occupied by Miss Hibbert was a lodging house. Thomas Pinsent Horton, a buyer, in the employ of the Messrs. Pinsent stated that he was in company with the last witness when he talked with Captain Cocks. Mr. Mitchell, a shopman in the employ of Messrs. Pinsent, said he was in the shop on the day in question. He was called by Mr. Nicholson to attend to Captain Cocks who said he wished to see some floor cloth. Witness said, “We do not keep them in the store”, but showed him the pattern book. He looked through it and fixed upon one. The captain then said “A lady will be here to see some carpets, tell her that is the canvas I have fixed on. Be sure and remember the one” Witness said he should, as they were numbered; after the witness saw a lady about some carpets. He had never seen her before. She selected some Brussels carpets. Mr. Pearse, also a shopman in the plaintiff’s employ, remembered two ladies coming to the shop after Captain Cocks had seen Mr. Nicholson. One of them said she wanted to look at some counterpanes and blankets and she selected a lot of goods – carpeting, mattresses, damask, trimmings for bed furniture etc. Witness asked where she was to send them and she said 7 Osborn Place, on the next morning for Capt. Cock’s inspection. Witness went with the goods on the following morning and asked for Capt. Cocks. The servant said he was not in and told him to take them into the drawing room. A lady, whom he had seen the day before, selected the articles, consisting of counterpanes, damask, carpeting for bedrooms and trimming for bed furniture. Witness did not know her name, nor did she tell him. A fortnight ago witness saw a paper with “Lodgings” on it in the window of the house. Mr. R.S. Pinsent, one of the plaintiffs, stated that in January 1857, Captain Cocks called upon him and said, “You have charged me with the furnishing goods, and you ought not to have done so; you should have charged then to Miss Hibbert”. Witness replied that he knew nothing about Miss Hibbert; that they had trusted Capt. Cocks with the goods and should look to him for payment. Witness also added that the goods were supplied, believing them to be for him, and they should not have gone out excepting on his (Capt. Cocks’) responsibility. The captain then said “You must apply to Miss Hibbert for payment; she will pay you. It will be alright”. Cross examined: Witness thought he said the things were for Miss Hibbert; he could not recollect exactly but to the best of his recollection he did say so. He would swear that he did not say they were for him; he said, “You must send the goods to Mrs.Westaway” or “they are not for myself, you must send them to No 9 Lockyer Street”. Witness said he was going to lodge with Miss Hibbert. Miss Caroline Hibbert stated that she ordered the goods at Messrs. Pinsent’s and said they were for her; but she could not pay ready money for them and should require credit. She requested Captain Cocks to select a floorcloth, as she thought he had better taste in the selection of such articles than she had. She had not been in the position to pay for them as yet. A bill of sale had been given to Captain Cocks by the witness, which was done in consequence of a creditor pressing for money. Captain Cocks had lent her £100 to purchase articles of furniture. Mr. Smith summed up and Mr. Collier replied: His Lordship said the question for the jury to determine was purely one of credit in respect of the evidence of the witnesses on either side. The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for the amount claimed.

Referenced

GRO0741 Devonport: Richard Steele Pinsent: 1820 – 1864

Trewman’s Exeter Flying Post or Plymouth and Cornish Advertiser: Thursday November 6th, 1856: issue 4726

South Devon and Newton Abbot Agricultural Societies: The first meeting of these associations, in union, was held at Newton Abbot, on Friday last … [includes description of merged societies, the dinner, competitions and prize winners]. At the dinner, among those present were T. Pinsent (and others).

Referenced

GRO1036 Devonport: Thomas Pinsent: 1782 – 1872

Trewman’s Exeter Flying Post or Plymouth and Cornish Advertiser: Thursday July 17th, 1856: issue 4710

Newton Abbot: At the weekly board of Guardians, late Wednesday, W. Creed, Esq. in the chair… (includes house business and) – The Tender Committee recommended that Messrs Pinsent’s tender for the supply of coals to the house be accepted. The recommendation was adopted.

Referenced

GRO0518 Devonport: John Ball Pinsent: 1819 – 1901

Trewman’s Exeter Flying Post or Plymouth and Cornish Advertiser: Thursday May 29th, 1856: issue 4703: Classified Ads

To Tanners, Borough of Ashburton: To be let with immediate possession, by private contract, for such term as may be agreed on, all the capital tan yard, with good dwelling house, drying loft, bark barn, sheds and premises called the Old Mill. The tan yard contains 1 water pit, 5 lime and 83 tan pits, under cover; and drying lofts, in which 800 hides may be dried; improved bark mill; and lifting pumps, driven by a never-failing stream of water; extensive bark barn, with every other convenience for carrying on a large business. The house consists of two parlours, two kitchens, and eight bedrooms, washhouse, dairy, cellar and all convenient out houses; attached are stables and linhays for a cow or two. For viewing apply on the premises, and for all further particulars to Mr. Pinsent, Ware, Kingsteignton.

Referenced

GRO0508 Hennock: John Pinsent: 1799 – 1858

Trewman’s Exeter Flying Post or Plymouth and Cornish Advertiser: Thursday May 1st, 1856: issue 4699

Exeter Guildhall – Wednesday: before the Mayor and H. Hooper and R. Bastard, Esqrs. Elizabeth Pinsent was brought up on a warrant from Bovey Tracey, on a charge of obtaining goods by false pretenses from Mr. Bickell, shoemaker, of this city. The prisoner having just been confined and still labouring under great anxiety of mind, Mr. Bickell applied to the Bench, on those grounds, to be allowed to withdraw the warrant: The Bench acceded to the request.

Referenced

GRO0227 Bristol: Elizabeth Loveys: 1817 -1884

Trewman’s Exeter Flying Post or Plymouth and Cornish Advertiser: Thursday March 6th, 1856: issue 4961

Thomas Ware (25, R.,) was charged with stealing and John Pinsent (22, IMP) with feloniously receiving six pecks of chaff and bran, the property of Mr. Allen Searall, jun. Ware was Mr. Searall’s waggoner, and on the 16^th of January stopping at the Union Inn, Bovey Tracey, with his team, he was seen to give Pinsent half a bagful of the chaff and bran with which he had been supplied by his master to feed his horses. Guilty: ten weeks imprisonment each.

Referenced

GRO0511 Bristol: John Pinsent: 1823 – 1902

Trewman’s Exeter Flying Post or Plymouth and Cornish Advertiser: Thursday February 7th, 1856: issue 4687

Newton Abbot: Petty Sessions: Thomas Ware and Samuel (sic) Pinsent, for stealing a bag of chaff at Chudleigh, were committed for trial.

Referenced

GRO0775 Bovey Tracey: Samuel Pinsent: 1839 – 1912

Trewman’s Exeter Flying Post or Plymouth and Cornish Advertiser: Thursday November 8th, 1855: issue 4673

South Devon Agricultural Society: The annual exhibition of the South Devon Agricultural Society was held on Friday last in the immediate vicinity of the town of Ashburton … (etc). [a review of the event, dinner and distribution of prizes]: Premiums for Servitude: (includes) To the woman who has lived the longest as household servant with one master or mistress, not as an agriculturist. First prize £1, Jane Stapleton, thirty-four years with Mr. Thomas Pinsent, Green hill, Kingsteington.

Referenced

GRO1036 Devonport: Thomas Pinsent: 1782 – 1872