RETIREMENT OF THE FORUM. The Society is developing a new website, and with regret will not include this Forum. An offline copy will be archived, but if you have personal contributions or correspondence that you wish to retain, please make a personal copy before the end of November.  The Forum will be frozen to new postings very shortly

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
oops. yesterday was a bad day.

I assume that is meant to be 25th November 2023 rather than 2024?
Details to be announced
Meetings, Events and Information / Summer Conference - 1st June 2024
« Last post by Forum Administrator on November 17, 2023, 06:46:26 PM »
Details to be announced
DNA Testing - Debbie Kennet
For people who are planning to join the meeting, it would be helpful to Debbie if they could indicate briefly their level of experience with DNA testing: if they are still thinking about it, whether they have done a test or not, and how much they already know/understand about interpreting your results. Send by email c/o [email protected]
You can ask for Zoom joining details to the same email address.
From the Carlisle Patriot / Saturday 16 Aug 1823 - Westmorland Assizes
« Last post by Petra Mitchinson on November 17, 2023, 12:56:48 PM »
 Saturday 16 Aug 1823   (p. 3, col. 1-6)

The Judges arrived at Appleby on Saturday evening last, and opened the Commission. Their Lordships attended divine service on Sunday: the Assize sermon was preached by the Rev. J. MILNER, vicar of Appleby, from Proverbs 28th chap. verse i. "The wicked flee when no man pursueth; but the righteous are bold as a lion." The subject was most appropriate, and the Rev. Gentleman delivered the discourse with impressive effect. On Monday morning, their Lordships took their seats upon the bench a little after nine; Mr. Justice HOLROYD in the Crown Court, Mr. Justice BAYLEY at Nisi Prius.
                                      GRAND JURY.
Lord LOWTHER, Foreman.          W. W. ATKINSON, Esq.
The Hon. H. C. LOWTHER.          T. WYBERGH, Esq.
W. W. C. WILSON, Esq.                James BROUGHAM, Esq.
C. WILSON, Esq.                           R. TINKLAR, Esq.
John HILL, Esq.                              E. HASELL, Esq.
M. ATKINSON, Esq.                     John HAMMOND, Esq.
T. H. MAUDE, Esq.                        N. DENT, Esq.
John GIBSON, Esq.                        Ralph FISHER, Esq.
Roger CARUS, Esq.                       Ford NORTH, Esq.
Arthur SHEPHERD, Esq.               E. W. HASELL, Esq.
In his charge to the Grand Jury, Mr. Justice HOLROYD said, that although the cases that would come before them were more than a usual number for this county, yet he did not think they were of such a nature as to occupy much of their time. His Lordship was well aware that those gentlemen he had the honour to address would see the necessity of preventing crime as much as possible: it was therefore requisite that persons under confinement should be put to some useful employment, in order that they might not be liable to those habits of idleness which they would otherwise learn. One case would probably come before them, framed upon an act passed in the reign of his late Majesty, which made it a capital crime for any of his Majesty's subjects to cut or maim another, having premeditated the act. Should it appear that the deed was committed in the act of self-defence?in such case the bill could not be found; but if the deed were malicious and premeditated, it then was a capital crime, and came within the meaning of the act. There was another case, wherein a man and his wife, together with another person, were charged with endeavouring to facilitate the escape of a man who had been convicted of a felony, and now under imprisonment. By an act passed in the reign of George II. this crime is punished by seven years transportation. If it should appear that the wife acted in the presence of, or in command of, her husband,?in that case, the bill would not stand against her. His Lordship did not see any thing requiring further remark; and he requested the gentlemen to proceed to the discharge of their important duties.

[to be continued]

Reproduced with kind permission of British Newspaper Archives

Mr. ARMSTRONG stated the pleadings, and Mr. Serjeant CROSS addressed the Jury on the part of Mr. ROBINSON, the plaintiff, who, he said, brought this action to recover from the defendant, IRVING, the sum of ?50 for mismanagement of the farm rented by defendant at Pardshaw, in the parish of Dean, in this county, containing about 165 Acres, at the annual rent of ?205. This farm was taken for a lease of seven years from Candlemas 1822, to be managed according to the conditions agreed upon. Not more than one third of the arable land was to be under the plough at one time, and it appeared that the defendant had ploughed in the present year above 10 acres more of the arable land than he ought to have done, which subjected him to the penalty of ?50, being at the rate of ?5 per acre. The defendant had not kept up a proper stock on the farm; he had a public sale of his cattle, horses, and crop, in the month of May, and had lately only on the premises a few head of cattle and a horse or two. Mr. Serjeant CROSS called Mr. BRAGG, the plaintiff's attorney, who produced the agreement betwixt plaintiff and defendant.
Jonathan STANWIX examined.?I am a landsurveyor and surveyed the farm in question about a fortnight ago; there are about 165 acres in the whole. Examined what was considered tillage land and what was meadow, a little more than 129 acres was tillage land; 55 acres were found in tillage. One-third of the tillage land ought to be 43A. 1R. 0P.; found 11A. 2R. 13P. more in tillage than the agreement. The white crops were chiefly oats. None of the white crops were laid down with seeds. Found one cow, a horse or two, and two or three head of young cattle in the same field with the horses; there was also another cow in the Cow-close. The farm, in my opinion, is not managed in a proper manner; the stock which was sold off the premises in May last, viz. three milch cows, ten heifers, three working horses, two young horses, one bull, and a poney for the farmer, was not, in my estimation, sufficient. The working horses might be sufficient to work the farm. Did not find any summer fallow. Found a small crop of potatoes, about three acres; there was no other green crop on the farm. The crops were more than could be consumed by the stock.
Cross-examined by Mr. BROUGHAM.?Was never at the farm before he went there a fortnight ago. Measured the farm himself: he had a former plan of the farm with him; if he had not had this old plan he could not have measured the farm in one day. Thinks that thirty head of cattle would be a sufficient stock. Farms himself 21 acres of land at Cockernouth, for which he pays ?70 per annum.
John RAVEN lived upon the estate of Mr. ROBINSON three years; had not seen it lately; it is six years since he left it. Believes the plan made by Mr. STANWIX is a correct one. There are, perhaps. 130 acres of arable land.?Cross-examined. There is also a field containing about 27 acres, part of which he managed, but he did not manage it long as it would not pay the expense.
John HELLOM.?Lives at Pardshaw; lived nine years upon the farm, and is well acquainted with it. Has seen the plan of Mr. STANWIX; those fields represented in green are the meadows. The defendant applied to witness to shew him the fields and fences in particular. Has observed the present crops; there are about 13 acres that have had two white crops in succession; does not recollect whether any of these 13 acres were summer fallowed, or had any seeds. Was at the sale in May last; does not know how many milch cows there were; it was a sale of milch cows, young beasts, and horses. Saw a part of the stock sold; there were two working horses left after the sale. Has seen the crops now on the farm, they consist chiefly of oats; there is no fallow.
Wm. COWAN lives at Pardshaw, and knows the land occupied by the defendant; has seen some of it lately, it is chiefly cropped in oats. Knows about 13 acres that were cropped last year. There is no fallow on the farm, nor any field in seeds, and only a small field in potatoes. Was present at the sale; it was a public one; there were cows, horses, heifers, and a bull sold. There was neither hay nor straw sold, only a few potatoes. There were but two horses and a couple of sheep left at the farm after the sale.
Mr. BROUGHAM, on the part of the defendant, said he should be able to prove by his witnesses, that instead of 129 acres only being arable land, there were above 147 acres, and if that were the case the defendant had not ploughed up more land than he was authorised by the agreement to plough.
William DICKINSON lives near Pardshaw; is a land-surveyor, and a farmer of upwards of 500 acres. Went to survey the plaintiff's farm with Mr. John ROBINSON and John HELLOM; surveyed it with a chain and theodolet. The farm consists altogether of 163A. 1R. 3P.; made the arable land amount to 147A. 2R.; 50A. 1R. 30P. are now ploughed of the arable. Considers the 27 acres of the Low Moor field as arable land, though at the present time part of the Low Moor field, he thinks, would not pay for management. Thinks the land in a fair state of culture.?On his cross-examination by Mr. Serjeant CROSS, he adhered to his opinion that it would not pay at present to cultivate the Low Moor close, but it was capable of cultivation, except about two acres of bog.
John ROBINSON farms and lives at Pardshaw. Surveyed the plaintiff's farm with last witness, and agrees entirely with Mr. DICKINSON in his survey and admeasurement. Considers the Low-Moor close arable land. The farm is in a fair state of cultivation.?Cross-examined. Knows the Low-Moor close; thinks it capable of improvement, and if he farmed it, would plough it immediately. Does not think there are too many oats or too much hay on the land. Was at the sale on the 27th of May last; does not recollect whether there were any cows or horses sold, nor any straw or hay; believes there were some cattle and other articles disposed of.
Wm. ASKEW lives servant with defendant. Seven acres were broken up out of lea into oats; about 10 acres which were in oats are now in wheat; the defendant has 50 acres in tillage now, and had a sufficient stock before the sale for the farm, even more than it would carry. All the vestures were destroyed upon the premises.
Serjeant CROSS replied, and after Mr. Justice HOLROYD summed up the evidence, the Jury retired, for a short time, and then returned with a verdict for the plaintiff?Damages ?10, costs 40s.
Reproduced with kind permission of British Newspaper Archives
As announced in July, we are regretfully retiring the Forum. This will probably take place some time in December.
As a reminder, we recommend that you make local archive copies of any personal material that you would like to retain.
The Forum will be closed to new contributions on November 30.
We thank you all for your participation over the years.
From the Carlisle Patriot / Saturday 16 Aug 1823 - Cumberland Summer Assizes
« Last post by Petra Mitchinson on November 15, 2023, 11:31:05 AM »
 Saturday 16 Aug 1823   (p. 2, col. 6 ? p. 3, col. 1)
(At the request of a correspondent, we report this trial rather more fully than in our last.)

Mr. TINDAL opened the pleadings, and Mr. BROUGHAM detailed various facts to the Jury which came out in the evidence.
Francis GOLIGHTLY sworn.?I live at Greysouthen. Mr. BELL, the defendant, had a farm there; and I saw the plaintiff's horses and people ploughing, harrowing, and sowing, in a field called the Landhills, on it, at the latter end of March, 1822. Both parties were on the ground. BELL pointed out the hedges to Mr. FLETCHER as they went along, saying that they (the repair of them) belonged to another person.
Mr. John STEEL, solicitor, Cockermouth, examined. I was employed by Mr. BIRBECK to go to Messrs. Richd. and William BELL, two brothers, to endeavour to purchase an estate of theirs at Greysouthen, on the 26th of April, 1822. The treaty ultimately went off; but before that took place, Mr. FLETCHER was present at a meeting acting for Mr. BIRBECK.* It was remarked by one of the parties, that almost all the estate had been sown; and Mr. FLETCHER proposed that he should finish it, and be let into possession; but I do not recollect either assent or refusal. On Saturday the 10th of May, another meeting of both the BELLs and Mr. FLETCHER took place; the parties then differed, and there was an end of the contract which had been signed at the first meeting; but the agreement was not destroyed?I gave it to Thomas BELL. Mr. FLETCHER afterwards said if the agreement were given up, he expected to be paid for what he had done. Mr. Thomas BELL was not present at that time; Mr. Richard seemed pleased that the bargain had fallen to the ground, and he said, certainly Mr. FLETCHER should be paid. In consequence of what the latter subsequently said to me, I applied to the BELLs to know why they did not pay him: the first reason I heard given was, that Mr. FLETCHER had not himself demanded it, nor given in a bill. On telling Mr. FLETCHER this, he gave me a bill, which I handed to Mr. Richard BELL, who said he would consider of the matter. Subsequently, I spoke to Mr. Thomas Bell on the subject, and his answer was, that Mr. HARRISON (ultimately the purchaser of the property at a better price than had been agreed for on behalf of Mr. BIRBECK) had reaped the benefit.
Cross-examined by Mr. SCARLETT (who led for the defendant)?By agreement, Mr. BIRBECK was not to have possession till he had given security for payment of the money. I considered myself as acting for both parties at the negociation, and Mr. FLETCHER as Mr. BIRBECK's immediate representative.
Bath STAGG sworn.?In April 1822, I was employed by Mr. FLETCHER as an husbandman, and I recollect his beginning to work the land at Greysouthen on the 29th of April. I plowed and sowed seven or eight acres?sowed 12 bushels of oats, and 12 bushels of barley.
Mr. SCARLETT?If you are entitled to any thing, I will not dispute the amount.
Mr. BROUGHAM?Unless your Lordship thinks we have not fixed both Thomas and Richard BELL, that is my case.
Mr. SCARLETT?Then by all means go on, for you have not fixed either of them.
Mr. Justice HOLROYD?Go on if you think you can strengthen yourself.
Mr. SCARLETT?There is no case?neither of them is fixed. The promise given by one, they being joint owners, cannot bind the other, and the action is against both. Besides, Richard's promise was without consideration. Mr. STEEL has proved that he was not to let into possession till security were given.
Mr. BROUGHAM?Oh, dear, no; FLETCHER was not agent to BIRBECK. They knew distinctly that we had entered, because our first witness proved that one of the joint owners was there shewing the hedges; and on Mr. STEEL's speaking to them separately, neither denies knowledge of the other's acts.
Mr. Justice HOLROYD?What consideration is there?
Mr. BROUGHAM—The consideration is entering and sowing, and giving up possession with our seed in the ground.
Mr. Justice HOLROYD?I do not see any promise.
Mr. BROUGHAM?Then, my Lord, we will call another witness.?
Henry DALTON sworn.?On the 26th April and 10th May, I was present with Mr. FLETCHER and Messrs. BELL. It was expressly understood by all the parties that no possession was to be obtained till Mr. BIRBECK paid a deposit of ?200, and gave a promissory note, payable at a month, for ?5,300. At a late part of the 26th, when only Mr. Richard BELL was in the room, I mentioned that Mr. FLETCHER had a desire to sow some of the land before the 10th of May (the time fixed for taking possession) and that I hoped they would not have any objection, as I thought it was quite right. Richard BELL said he had no objection at all. On the 10th of May, after we had all met, and Mr. STEEL was ready with the necessary papers, the agreement was off, and BIRBECK went away. Then I said, 'Mr. FLETCHER and Mr. STEEL, will either of you complete the contract?' They both replied they would not, for they did not consider themselves under any obligation to do so, as Mr. BIRBECK could not confirm it. Some words then followed, not of an agreeable nature; but all except BIRBECK at last sat down to dinner, as one had been previously ordered; and after the repast, (Mr. Thomas BELL having retired) Mr. FLETCHER asked, "Who's to pay me for what I have done?" Instead of answering directly, Mr. R. BELL began by asking FLETCHER if he would give up the property, and Mr. F. rejoined "We have given it up." Then Mr. BELL (who had by this time drank rather too freely) desired Mr. FLETCHER to desist from asking such questions; and elevating his hand over his head, he said, "I'LL PAY THEE!" (A laugh.)
Mr. SCARLETT?So then Mr. Richard BELL was much in liquor, and Thomas had gone away in ill humour?
Witness?Yes, just so.
Mr. SCARLETT?Oh, very well.?There is no alteration for the better, I think, my Lord?
Mr. Justice HOLROYD?I still do not see any consideration.??Plaintiff Nonsuited.
* Mr. FLETCHER intended to have entered as tenant upon the farm in question, had the bargain with Mr. BIRBECK been completed.

[to be continued]

Reproduced with kind permission of British Newspaper Archives
This event will be held as usual at Seascale
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10