Saturday 18 Jan 1823 (p. 3, col. 5) WESTMORLAND SESSIONS.
The quarter Sessions for the East and West Wards of this County were holden in the Court-Houses, Appleby, on Monday, before a numerous Bench of Magistrates: Sir P. MUSGRAVE, Bart., in the Chair. Though no counsel attended, says our correspondent, there was no dearth of elocution or sound legal argument. The principal business consisted of appeal causes.
Township of Appleby, removants; Township of Stainmoor, appellants. Mr. HALL for the former, Mr. JACKSON for the latter.—The question turned upon whether Sarah SCHOLLICK, widow, the pauper, was really the tenant of Bleathgill farm, Stainmoor, in 1816. Several witnesses. besides the pauper, were examined to prove the affirmative of the proposition, others the negative. The pauper deposed that, when her husband died, they lived at Brampton, where they had a farm; and after his death, she carried it on with the assistance of W. HOBSON, her son-in-law. In 1816, she took the farm of Bleathgill, on Stainmoor; HOBSON there also managed for her; and in December of the same year, she assigned all her property over to him.—James HOBSON, brother to W. HOBSON, was hired by the latter in the summer of 1816, to make hay at Bleathgill for the pauper.
Sarah was his 'maister' while he was there, and paid him his wages. Cross-examined, he said he recollected the pauper assigning over the property to his brother; notwithstanding which, she attempted to sell it, but was prevented by the assignee, who sold it himself, '
and then the stuff was his.' W. HOBSON emigrated to America, and died there.—Henry SAYER, who resides on Stainmoor, was sent for by the pauper when she lived at Bleathgill, who told him she had assigned her property over to her son-in-law, and he witnessed the deed. Cross-examined, he said he heard this was done to defraud the creditors; nothing was said as to who was to be tenant of the farm; he always looked upon HOBSON in that light.—Peggy WILSON lived servant with the pauper in 1816, at Bleathgill, by whom she was hired and paid.—William SHAW let the farm to the pauper for £160 per annum. But a short time afterwards HOBSON came to him, saying that SCHOLLICK thought the farm too high, and would not have it; but that he, however, would take it himself; and did take it for £135 the first year, and £140 the second. Witness always received the rent of HOBSON, and considered him the tenant. Cross-examined, he said he never acknowledged the pauper as his tenant; never said in a public-house, that she was his good old tenant, and he wished she had been so yet; this he would swear. Charles BAINBRIDGE was present when HOBSON took the farm of the last witness.—John BAILEY recollected HOBSON telling him he had taken the farm, and asked him what kind of stock he would advise him to put upon it.—John MORLAND, overseer of the poor in 1816, said HOBSON was rated; and witness never heard that the pauper had any concern with the farm.—Joseph DOVER sworn. He remembered SHAW's saying in a public-house, that the pauper was his tenant; he clapped her on the back familiarly at the same time, and said: "Thou's rare auld lass; thou was a good farmer, and does not owe me a farthing;
what wilt ta hev a glass on?" This part of the evidence was given so much after nature, that it carried conviction along with it. The witness, who is an honest son of Vulcan, extended his 'ample palm' over the shoulders of a professional gentleman beneath the bar, and practically illustrated the action of SHAW when he made the assertion. Loud laughter broke forth in every part of the Court.—John PERCIVAL, the publican, corroborated DOVER's testimony. Order of removal confirmed.
Township of Shap, removants; Township of Dillacre, appellants.—Mr. HARRISON, solicitor, for the former, Mr. MOSER, for the latter.—The pauper, who is a young woman in a state of pregnancy, not having obtained a settlement by service, or any other means on her own part, was removed to Dillacre, the supposed settlement of her father; but that township now appealed against the order of removal, upon the ground that the father had gained a settlement in the parish of Shap.—George SHAW, the father, stated that he had been servant with Mr. RICHARDSON, of Dillacre, five years, at £7 a year. But on being questioned by Mr. MOSER, he said he had subsequently lived 13 years with John HENDERSON, Esq., of Shap; that his wages were 14 guineas a year, his master to find and keep him three cows, 16 sheep, and 15 geese; he has had 18 sheep during summer. He also had a house for the residence of himself and family; about an acre and a rood of land, for the purpose of growing corn and potatoes; all which privileges he had enjoyed 13 years. His master took agistment cattle, and witness's cows grazed with them; he was allowed pasturage and dry food for his stock throughout the year. His master charged 30s. each for pasturing the agistment cattle; witness therefore valued the keep of his own stock as follows:—Three cows, three weeks' pasturage, previous to taking agistment cattle, at 1s. 6d. each per week, 13s. 6d.; ditto, as agistment cattle, 30s. each, £4 10s.; ditto, five weeks' fog, 1s. 6d. each per week, £1 2s. 6d.; 16 sheep, during the year, 2s. each, £1 12s.; 15 geese, at 6d. each, 7s. 6d.; 1A 1R of land, per annum, 15s.; total, £9 0s. 6d.—Mr. FARRER, land-surveyor, estimated the value of SHAW's privileges as follows:—An acre and rood of land, £1 11s. 3d.; 16 sheep, 1s. in summer, 1s. 6d. in winter, without hay, £2; four cows, £6 6s.; 15 geese he considered equal to a cattle-gait and a half, £2 5s.—total, £12 2s. 3d. Mr. James WHITEHEAD, acquainted with the circumstances of the case, agreed with the valuation of Mr. FARRER.—Mr. S. CLARKE thought 30s. per head for the agistment cattle a proper price, but disagreed with the last two witnesses in respect to the sheep and geese, for the former of which he considered 2s. per head a year an extravagant price; in regard to the latter, he would rather keep ten geese than one cow.—Considerable legal argument took place between the two advocates in the cause. Mr. HARRISON stood upon weak ground, but made the most of it. Of course, Shap was declared the pauper's place of settlement.
Township of Stainmoor, removants; Hillbeck, appellants. Order for the removal of a pauper confirmed.
Reproduced with kind permission of British Newspaper Archives
