Pinsent v Howe: The plaintiff, a brewer at Newton Bushel, sued the defendant, an innkeeper at Torquay, for the recovery of £17 10s, for goods supplied. Mr. Francis appeared for the plaintiff. The defendant did not appear, but the plaintiff proved his case by tendering the evidence of Mr. Holmes, his clerk, who stated that he saw the defendant on Sunday, and that he admitted the debt. The defendant made a similar admission to Mr. Stuart, one of the bailiffs of the court, who served him with the summons. His Honour, after due consideration, delivered judgment; remarking that the law had pointed out the proper persons to whom admissions were to be made: They were, the clerk of the court, his clerk, or assistants. The law had made that provision, because it assumed that persons in their position would take care that no mistake should occur. The admission to Mr. Holmes seemed to be a voluntary statement from the man, but it was open to all sorts of mistakes, and was not such an admission as the law had contemplated and provided for. He would, however, in this case give judgment for the 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
GRO0518 Devonport: John Ball Pinsent: 1819 – 1901