The County Assizes: Nisi Prius: Thursday: On the opening of the Court at ten o’clock the hearing of the unfinished case of Pinsent v Stockman was resumed: Mr. Cole, in opening the defence, said there had been some extraordinary muddle about this barley. If they looked at the history of the case there appeared to be no doubt that Mugford in November 1874, sold Pinsent 98 bags of barley. Then they came to the first curious fact in the case. They found that although the barley did not suit for malting it was not sold again until February 1875. People did not usually keep barley brought for malting in their possession four months – His Lordship: Is that so very unusual.? Mr. Cole thought it was. People were not usually so flush of money as to buy barley so long before they wanted to use it. The barley did not suit Mr. Pinsent, and he told them he gave Mugford orders to sell it for him. They Mugford appeared on the scene and told them he sold the barley to Mr. Stockman. As far as Mr. Stockman was concerned, nothing was heard of this barley for nearly five years. That was another very extraordinary fact. Although there were dealings between the parties in the interim, and Pinsent has said that Mugford told him he had sold the barley to Stockman, northing was said about it in all that time. How was it that no demand had been made for payment either by Pinsent of Mugford or by Mugford of Stockman? There was no entry of the transaction in Pinsent’s books of any account against Stockman but there was an entry at the bottom of an account with Mugford, “We shall be glad to have the barley account settled.” It was a most extraordinary and curious case altogether, and every circumstance in it appeared to be odd. His case was that Stockman never had but one transaction with Mugford for barley, and that was in June 1873. The among was £16 15s, and it was clearly set out in the counterfoil in Stockman’s cheque book. He submitted that it was Mugford who was seeking to excuse himself from the payment of his barley. It was really Mugford’s case, and it was for him to prove that he sold the barley to Stockman. Mugford went to Mr. Pinsent and told them he sold the barley to Stockman, and they sent in a bill in November 1874, for 49 quarters of barley at 44s. Stockman said they were putting it upon him, but it could not have been him, because at the time his mill was burnt down. After that another account was made out, under date February, for £64 odd. Then they had heard n support of this claim witnesses who declared that after an interval of four years, without any previous talk about the matter, they perfectly remembered delivering the barley to Mr. stockman. He did not wish to impute motives to anyone, but it certainly did seem to him that Mr. Pinsent had brought this upon himself by the way in which he kept his books. … (continues at length) … verdict for the plaintiff …
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