Register
 
New operation method for non members of the society. Please note that non-members of the Society are now limited to no more than 10 posts. If you are a member and come across this restriction it is possible you have not upgraded your account to full member status. If you are not a member and would like to continue to post on the Forum then you may wish to consider joining, it is only £10 a year and as well as the Forum and additional facilities on the website you will get the newsletter four times a year.

Saturday 14 Sep 1816 - Cumberland Assizes
Read 83 times
* November 29, 2022, 03:46:44 PM
 Saturday 14 Sep 1816   (p. 4, col. 4-6)
 
CUMBERLAND ASSIZES.
[Concluded from our last paper.]

Charles STEWART v. HESLOP and Others.—The plaintiff, or rather his wife, is the keeper of a slop-shop in Rickergate, and the defendants are most respectable tradesman also of this city.—Some time ago, Charles STEWART absconded in consequence of being charged with a fraudulent transaction, and his wife, Mrs. STEWART, having at the time, been suspected of a participation, was apprehended under warrant of a Magistrate, and committed for a short time to Carlisle gaol, from whence she was liberated as soon as it was ascertained that she was innocent of the charge. During her confinement, the defendants, being creditors, applied to her for permission to remove the goods from her shop in order to indemnify themselves, to which she gave merely a verbal assent, and they commenced the removal of the property. But Mrs. STEWART having changed her mind, desired the creditors to desist, which they refused to do, and the present action was brought to recover damages.
 
John ARMSTRONG, the constable, sworn.—On the 13th March, 1815, when he was parish clerk of St. Cuthbert's, Mrs. STEWART was married to the plaintiff.—Witness was employed by the plaintiff's attorney to discharge Messrs. HEWIT, HESLOP, COCKBURN, and HEWSON and HART, from removing the goods which they were about to take from Mrs. STEWART's shop. He forced the door, when the defendants were taking an inventory, and they agreed to give witness a copy, part of which he took, but Mr. BLOW, the attorney, interfered, and took up the copy and tore it, ordering witness out of the shop; he left the shop, which was very full of goods.—Cross-Examined.—Witness received no orders from Mrs. STEWART, who was then in gaol, but was sent on the duty by Mr. ROBINSON, the attorney. Witness apprehended Mrs. STEWART.
 
William BELL sworn.—He knew Mrs. STEWART seven months before her marriage; her name then was BEVERIDGE. This name was upon the door previous to her marriage, which consummated, Charles STEWART was put up instead. Mrs. STEWART always managed the shop after marriage.
 
George GROVER examined.—Mrs. STEWART was in the shop when part of the goods was removed, and ordered the persons employed in it to desist. Witness worked with STEWART at Mr. FINLAY's, as a gardener.—This witness also proved the marriage.—Cross-Examined.—A Mr. M'DONALD offered to deposit the money which Mrs. STEWART was indebted to the defendants, provided they would let the goods remain in the shop, promising at the same time that each should have his demand.
 
Mr. WILLIAMS here addressed the jury in favour of the defendants, and severely reflected on the character and conduct of Charles STEWART. He said he should clearly prove that Mrs. STEWART gave Messrs. HEWSON and HESLOP authority to remove the goods in question for their security, to meet the demands which they had against her.
 
Thomas HEWIT, shopman to Mr. COWPER, sworn.—Mr. COWPER, for a considerable time, furnished BEVERIDGE with goods. Mrs. STEWART stood indebted to Mr. COWPER nearly £30. Witness heard Mrs. S. say that she had delivered the key to Mr. HESLOP, and Mr. HEWSON, for them to take a schedule of the goods in her shop, that each might receive payment, and Mr. COWPER was permitted to share, by STEWART's consent. Witness saw two Irishmen taking goods at the time the defendants were in the shop. Mrs. STEWART was in gaol at this time, and admitted to witness that she had authorised Messrs. HESLOP and HEWSON to take possession of the goods, that each of her creditors might be paid out of the produce of her stock. After most of the goods had been removed, Mrs. STEWART discharged them from further interference, yet more goods were removed after such discharge: no part of the goods has yet been sold.
 
The Judge directed that the goods in possession be sold for the equal benefit of the creditors, and the balance returned to the plaintiff; and that the defendants pay the costs. Mr. LOWRY was appointed to sell the goods.
 
Verdict for the plaintiff, damages, £500; costs 10s.



[to be continued]

 
 
Reproduced with kind permission of British Newspaper Archives
 

Logged


* November 30, 2022, 06:14:53 PM
#1
 
PHILLIPS v. CARRUTHERS.—The plaintiff in this case is John PHILLIPS, and Robert CARRUTHERS, defendant. The action was brought by plaintiff to recover the sum of £33, for a mare, a gelding, and money lent.
 
Margaret EDWARDS sworn.—She is an innkeeper at Kirklinton; remembers a mare being sold by John PHILLIPS to Robert CARRUTHERS for £19, and the mare was delivered, but she saw no money paid. The parties came to her house together. PHILLIPS rode away his own poney and led the mare; CARRUTHERS walked.
 
Wm. IRWIN, on the 5th August, saw John SCOTT pay 12 guineas to CARRUTHERS for John PHILLIPS.
 
John SCOTT sworn.—Knows that a horse was sold to CARRUTHERS by PHILLIPS, and witness paid CARRUTHERS 12 guineas which he, witness, owed PHILLIPS; and he mentioned that it was PHILLIPS's money, and that he confided it to CARRUTHERS for the purpose of relieving PHILLIPS from gaol at the request of CARRUTHERS himself, but not of PHILLIPS. The latter was released through the interference of CARRUTHERS.
 
Lesley MAXWELL sworn.—PHILIPS was arrested by his order for £26, which was paid by Robert CARRUTHERS.
 
Christ. LAMB examined.—PHILLIPS and CARRUTHERS are married to two sisters. Remembers being present at Longtown when the parties settled all accounts. He heard £26 mentioned and the mare; and 28s. due to CARRUTHERS, which the latter did not care about on account of relationship.
 
Cross-Examined by Mr. RAINE.—Witness was also at Hethersgill public-house; saw CARRUTHERS offer £10 to PHILLIPS, observing that he would rather pay twice that sum than have any trouble with him; this was about Candlemas.
 
Re-Examined on the other side.—PHILLIPS had served a writ on CARRUTHERS before this meeting at Hethersgill, but witness does not remember that the former settlement was then mentioned between the parties.
 
Mr. G. SAUL sworn.—Remembers that the debt and costs were satisfied for which PHILLIPS was arrested by MAXWELL.
 
Mr. RAINE, in addressing the Jury for the plaintiff, contended that the words used by one of the witnesses—"I question but CARRUTHERS did offer to pay £10 with costs of suit," in the Cumberland mode of expression, means, that he certainly did offer it.
 
Mr. Justice BAYLEY in summing up, admitted that the truth was difficult to be unravelled. He observed that CARRUTHERS' paying MAXWELL's debt is not a set-off, unless he was authorised so to do by PHILLIPS, of which no evidence had been produced—yet the witness LAMB seemed to imply in his evidence that a final settlement did take place, but of which there still appeared much doubt.—Verdict for the plaintiff £11, 4s.



[to be continued]

 
 
Reproduced with kind permission of British Newspaper Archives
 

Logged


* December 01, 2022, 12:04:23 PM
#2
 
PATTINSON v. TAYLOR.—This was an action brought to recover from the defendant the value of a horse, the leg of which had been broken, by worrying it over a gap with dogs, when found trespassing in his field. Several witnesses proved the facts, and also that the defendant had expressed a willingness to arbitrate the matter, but was prevented by his wife, who threw herself into a violent passion. saying, "that her husband should not pay a farthing, if it cost him one hundred pounds, and £50 to that would not ruin them." According to one of the witnesses, this woman, on other occasions, behaved rather "blackguardish" on the subject. The horse was valued by one person at £7, and by another at £13.—Verdict for the defendant, damages £7, and 40s. costs.
 
Geo. IRVING, v. Anthony ADAMSON.—The plaintiff brought this action to recover the sum of £25 : 13 : 8, being the balance of an account for repairing a Thrashing Machine, which the plaintiff had performed for the defendant. It appeared, the plaintiff before he commenced the job, made a kind of offer to complete it for £10, but he afterwards brought in a bill of £30 : 0 : 2, which Mr. ADAMSON refused to pay, in consequence of what he considered the former contract for £10. After some dispute, the defendant tendered a certain sum as a final settlement, which IRVING, it appeared by the evidence, accepted, though he only placed that sum to account; and subsequently, "because Mr. ADAMSON had vexed him," brought the present action. The Judge was of opinion that a final settlement had taken place, and the Jury gave a verdict for the defendant.
 
BENSON v. FISHER and Others.—A dispute between the three townships of Cockermouth, Embleton and Setmurthy, relative to which township a certain piece of common land belonged. On opening the case Mr. SCARLETT, for the plaintiff, made a strenuous attempt to settle the matter either by a fair division of the property and the expenses, by reference to Mr. Counsellor COURTNEY, or by any other arbitrators that should be chosen. The parties in court on the opposite side did not like to take the responsibility on themselves of settling the affair in the absence of their colleagues, and the trial proceeded. After an investigation of several hours the jury gave a verdict for the Defendants.
 
The King v. The Inhabitants of Muncaster. This indictment occupied the Court a considerable time, but furnishes nothing worthy of detail. The inhabitants of the parish of Muncaster were indicted for obstructions in a road over a marsh leading from Ravenglass to Warburthwaite, over which in time of spring tides, the salt water flows. Several old persons on each side were examined to prove on the one hand that the road had been free for a great number of years; and on the other that legal obstructions have existed for a like period of time, and that, in fact, it was not a public road. Mr. Justice BAYLEY, in addressing the Jury, observed, that no doubt could exist as to the road in question being a public one, and was of opinion that the parish ought to be found guilty in having obstructed it from the want of repairs and other causes.—Guilty.
 
THOMPSON v. BROWN and Others.—This action was brought against the defendant and others, they having trespassed upon fields and hedges, alledging that the path is a high road. This disputed road is situate like the one in the preceding case, between Ravenglass and Warburthwaite. A great variety of evidence pro and con was adduced, and after a very long trial the Jury pronounced a verdict for the plaintiff.
 
EADIE v. M'FARLON.—This was an action for the recovery of £46 : 13 : 3, which it was alleged the defendant owed to the plaintiff. The parties had been in partnership as dyers, which, it would appear, they brought to a close without a proper dissolution. Evidence was given that the defendant had promised to pay plaintiff the sum in dispute, when he retired from the business, but it was not clear. The judge in summing up observed that one partner cannot withdraw his capital till all partnership accounts be fully examined, and a final act be agreed upon by both, or some new bargain take place by consent of both. His Lordship left it to the jury to discriminate between the evidence, and after a short consultation they gave a verdict for the defendant.
 
DYKES, v. Sir H. FLETCHER.—The question at issue in this case was, whether the plaintiff and defendant both are entitled to tithes of grain arising from allotments of Common, in the Township of Crookedake; if only one is entitled, to whom does the right belong? After a great number of documents had been read, and witnesses examined, the Jury decided the claim in favour of the defendant.
 
CLARKE, v. CLEMENTS.—This action was brought to recover the value of some cabbage plants eaten by the defendant's cows, in consequence of their having broken into the plaintiff's garden, the defective fence belonging to the defendant. The parties reside at Dissington. The fact of the cows having broken in, and that notice had been given to CLEMENTS to keep up his fences, were proved, as well as the value of the plants. Verdict for the plaintiff, damages £3 : 13 : 0. Costs 40s.
 
 
Reproduced with kind permission of British Newspaper Archives
 

Logged