Tag: Western Daily Mercury

East Stonehouse County Court: Tuesday: Before M. Fortescue, Esq., Judge: This was a special sitting for hearing the case of Brook v. Pinsent: Mr. G. Edmonds was for the plaintiff, and Mr. J. Beer for the defendant: the plaintiff was called, and, on being cross-examined by Mr. Beer, said the contract took place between himself and the defendant on the 28th of January. There was no arrangement for the goods to be delivered on a certain day. The defendant offered assistance on the Monday following after he asked him. Did not tell him (plaintiff) that he did not want assistance.  By Mr. Edmonds: the French ribbons referred to previously by Mr. Beer cost about 2s 4d a yard, and his charge was 17d. Mr. Horton’s reply to his request for a list of the shorts, etc. on the 21^st February, was, “We shall have a list”. Wrote the 11th for a list, but had never received one, but had been told several times that they had no list. Charles Edwards deposed being with the plaintiff when he asked Mr. Horton (the defendant’s managing man) for a list of discrepancies on the 2lst Feb., and said that Horton replied, “We have no list.” Cross-examined: The plaintiff then asked for the stock book, which was given to him without reluctance, and took it away. Plaintiff did not say, “You shall have it again when I have done with it” Did not recollect his saying that had not finished examining it, and therefore wanted it. Mr. Edmonds here asked for the receipt which the plaintiff had refused to sign. Mr. Beer said that had been destroyed, and they had no copy of it. Mr. Beer then addressed the Court, recapitulating the facts of the case. He said the real question was not that of the £18, but of a more serious import, as it affected both the parties. It was not a case between rival tradesmen, as the plaintiff was giving up business, and about to leave the neighbourhood. His Honour observed that he was not aware that this had been previously suggested. Mr. Beer was very happy to find there was not an impression of that kind. In a transaction of this kind there ought to be strictest honour and integrity. Under such circumstances, it would be impossible for a man to protect himself against very and severe gross fraud, unless the transaction was clothed, on the part of the vendor, with an honesty, which they complained was wanting in this case. The defendant had found that he would be a loser to a considerable extent, even if the plaintiff had agreed to the further reduction of 2 ½ per cent. The plaintiff had been allowed to have the stock-book most readily, and he immediately commenced the action, before any expressions of angry feelings had passed between them. Mr. Pinsent was man of too high standing and engaged in too large transactions to shrink from an inquiry into a case like this. His course would have been to have commenced a cross-action, but the summons was served upon him too late to allow him to do so. If the court was of opinion that the plaintiff had committed fraud, the court might say: “You have not satisfied the court, and, therefore, you are entitled non-suit.” Mr. Richard Steele Pinsent was called and examined. In the course of his evidence, he said the terms of the contract between himself, and the plaintiff were that he should have the stock at 25 percent off cost price. Plaintiff said had no doubt he should be able to let him have the stock by the following Monday. On Monday, he called upon the plaintiff, and found him engaged upon the stock. He then said he should be able to send it down the next day; and, in reply to the defendant’s offer, said he thought he should be able to do without it. On Tuesday, he (defendant) repeated this offer, and sent two assistants to help the plaintiff, and the stock was delivered on the next day. Defendant related some conversations he had had with plaintiff, with regard to the discrepancies which had been found, and then stated that on the hosiery being mentioned, he took him to a part of the establishment where the hosiery was. He (defendant) then covered up the trademark put upon one of the parcels by the plaintiff and showed him the private mark: and asked him to say, from that, what the price should be. Plaintiff answered, and it was then discovered that the plain figure was one shilling more than this. There was a pile of things on the counter, which they had discovered to be marked in a similar manner. Plaintiff said he had an engagement and could not stay but would be satisfied with the defendant’s taking down the errors. On the Tuesday evening following, the defendant told the plaintiff that they had found the over-charges to be so enormous, that he must claim 2 ½ per cent, in order to cover them. Plaintiff refused to allow this. Cross-examined by Mr. Edmonds: Did not know whether the figures in red on parcels were his assistant’s or Mr. Brooks’, but thought they were those of the latter: Could not swear whose they were, as he did not know. Received the goods from plaintiff the 5^th and 6^th February: Had discovered there were discrepancies in the prices the 7th. Found that the plain marks and the private marks did not agree. — Question (repeated several times): What measures did you take, having the stock book and knowing the trademarks, to ascertain the extent of the overcharges and shorts? Answer: It was only the Friday that I was made acquainted with the fact that there were discrepancies; I took no special measures with that object as errors were discovered they were noted. Kept the goods, although knowing of these over-charges. — Question: Did not you agree to give half the price of the stock in cash? Answer: That was not a positive agreement. — Q: Didn’t you agree to give half in cash and half in a bill? A: I believe that was the agreement. — Q: Then what made you want to pay him in three months’ bills; didn’t you want to get an advantage? A: We always try to do it in payments, of course; there is no harm in that, I believe. When he (defendant) wanted to deduct the £24, he had on a list of overcharges amounting more than £2. They found the errors to be so numerous that they gave up talking of them: Had no expectation with reference to being summoned by the defendant. Understood that the defendant had asked for a list, and had not been furnished with it, because they had none, not a tithe of the mistakes had been marked. The papers containing the trademarks had been lost, having been thrown away when the parcels were opened. Defendant: It is a pity you are not draper, Mr. Edmonds. Mr. Edmonds: l am glad I am not, it’s too sharp practice for me — (laughter.) Thomas Pinsent Horton, an assistant of the defendant’s deposed to finding discrepancies to the amount of 16s 1d and stated that there were some discrepancies in reference to some silk amounting to £1. Cross-examined: Would swear that he did not tell Brook the Saturday after the stock had been purchased that there was no occasion for him to hurry in preparing it, as they were taking stock home. Himself and two clerks were engaged in stock taking at that time. The witness mentioned a number of cases in which the plaintiff had charged 1s 2d where it should have been 3s 8d, and two in which overcharge of a penny had been made. In reference to one of the latter, he said that the expense of carriage of goods from a distance need not be gone to, adding “We can write for things, and get them as cheap as by going to buy them; when you can specify articles, they cannot cheat you” – (laughter). When the plaintiff asked him for a list of shorts, etc., he asked for a list to the amount of £24, and the witness said he had no list to that amount. He (witness) said “We have no list.” Would not swear that he said, “to that amount.” Another assistant of the defendant’s, named Jarman, prove discrepancies the amount £2 6s 11d. Three other witnesses were called by Mr. Beer, and Mr. Edmonds then called Ellen Ferrett, late an assistant of the plaintiff, who stated that when Mr. Horton saw the plaintiff on the Saturday after the defendant had purchased the stock he said the Plaintiff need not hurry, as Wednesday or Thursday would do as well, because they were extending their stock-books, and their stock would not be ready. Cross-examined by Mr. Beer: Mr. Horton went into the shop, though not very far, at the time in question. Rhoda Allen corroborated the testimony of the previous witness. Mr. Beer said he had no observations to make, and Mr. Edmonds then proceeded to address the court. He said he thought his Honour would agree with him as to the necessity of the case having had proper attention given it by the gentlemen who had conducted it on the other side with regard to the facts and figures. He had unnecessarily gone into matters which had never been referred to, and about which not one word had been said. He did not think that whoever read the case would think that the hard words which had been used on the previous occasion were for one side alone. He would not say anything about the conduct of Mr. Pinsent but would leave his acts to speak for themselves. He had examined him, and he had wanted to say that nothing had been said about the payments, and yet it seemed that he wanted take advantage of the plaintiff by giving him a three months’ bill. He found that the defendant had a list on the Friday and might have furnished the plaintiff with one. The case had been opened though the defendant had not found these discrepancies out until all the goods were sold, but the defendant admitted that he had found them out before the sale. The most curious part of the case was that it was admitted that the list of articles now mentioned was never out until after the summons had been served upon the defendant. They had been treated to all the subtle distinctions between fourths and eighths of a penny which Mr. Horton seemed to revel in. The latter puffed his business by saying that when they could specify certain articles then they could not be cheated; he thought that no gentleman who had these opinions of his business was likely to be deficient in the sharp practice of it. An item of 2s 4d, which had been said to have been charged instead of 2s 2d, was not to be found in the stock-book. After the adjournment which had taken place, he certainly never imagined that the case would have been presented in the miserable, slipshod, wretched manner in which it had been. It was a matter of figures which might have been put into sheet of note paper, and yet witness after witness had been called, and nothing like a clear figure account of what should be allowed had been put before the court. His Honour was expected to figure for himself. He must say that had never heard a case conducted in such a manner. Mr. Beer’s point had been that the stock should have been delivered the Monday, but the evidence of the females had been heard and that could not be doubted. He complained of Mr. Horton’s conduct in not furnishing the plaintiff with a list. This was a case which might have been settled by arbitration the last time by calling a sensible man, who could have made a clear statement, but they had had another day, and the case was worse than it was before. It was altogether a most inconceivable muddle. His Honour was asked for judgment because of fraud, but the defendant had found out the discrepancies on the Friday, and did not seem to have been concerned about them. Mr. Edmonds concluded saying that there was doubt that £18 was the correct sum, and that they claimed. His Honour, after making some observations, gave a judgment for £14 2s 6d. The court then rose, the case having occupied five hours. 

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

GRO0741 Devonport: Richard Steele Pinsent: 1820 – 1864

Brook v. Pinsent and Co.: Sir, – In the report of this case, which was heard on Monday, before M. Fortescue, Esq., the account that you give of the proceedings is very accurate; but I have to complain of the Western Morning News, which speaks of me as “the bankrupt” This is a grave and serious aspersion upon me, for I have never been either bankrupt or insolvent: I am Sir, yours truly, John Brook: Stoke, April 8^th 1862 

[see also Western Daily Mercury: Friday 11^th April 1862] 

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

GRO0741 Devonport: Richard Steele Pinsent: 1820 – 1864