[List-Cumbria] Carlisle Journal, 31 Aug 1811 - Cumberland Assizes (4)

[Petra Mitchinson]

Saturday 31 Aug 1811   (p. 4, col. 3-5)

 

Law Intelligence. 

---------- 

CUMBERLAND ASSIZES. 

----- 

[continued] 

 

CIVIL SIDE. 

 

YEOMAN v. BEWLEY. 

 

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, J. YEOMAN, of Wood, Bothel, near Cockermouth, against William BEWLEY, the defendant, to
recover damages for the injury done to his daughter, who had been seduced, by the promise of marriage from the defendant, and had
since born a child to him. It appeared on the part of the evidence for the plaintiff, that the defendant had been received into his
house as a boarder, in May, 1809; and that, in July, in the same year, he had succeeded in the seduction of his daughter, by
promising her marriage, and stating that he was possessed of property to the amount of seventeen or eighteenn [sic] hundred pounds,
and had also a share in two shops; the age of the young woman at this time was only sixteen, and that of the defendant twenty-eight.


 

On the part of the defendant it was urged, that sufficient care had not been taken by the parents and the young woman to prevent
this connection; that the child had been filiated, and an allowance of twenty-three shillings had been granted for the month of
confinement, and three shillings and sixpence per week for the maintenance of the child; and that the property of the defendant was
only one thousand pounds, which was deposited in the hands of a trustee, he only receiving the interest. 

 

The learned Judge, in summing up the evidence, said, that the parents and guardians of young people were under the necessity of
leaving them alone; that the superior age of the defendant should have taught him to have acted with more propriety; that the
allowance granted for the maintenance of the child was only for the security of the parish, which was of no benefit to the suffering
plaintiff and his unfortunate daughter; and that it was necessary for the jury to make some allowance for damages to the
plaintiff.—The jury, after consulting, returned a verdict for the plaintiff, £60.

 

STALKER v. SKELTON. 

 

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, to recover damages for £100 from the defendant, for a bill of exchange to that amount,
which the plaintiff had indorsed and taken up for the defendant. 

 

The plaintiff is a broker, residing at Maryport; the defendant is a merchant at the same place. On the part of the evidence it
appeared that the defendant had some time ago attempted to borrow £100 from Mr. GELLESPIE, of Maryport, agent for the Workington
bank, and had met with a refusal. Soon after meeting with Mr. G. he told him, that if he (Mr. G.) would draw a bill of £100 for him,
the defendant would indorse it, and that he, the plaintiff, would ensure it when it became due. To this proposal Mr. G. consented.
The bill was drawn on STALKER and Co. in London, and indorsed by the plaintiff. When returned for payment, the defendant stated,
that he was nothing indebted to the plaintiff, and would not cash it. The money on the bill was therefore advanced by the plaintiff.
Miss STALKER, the daughter of the plaintiff, deposed, that she met with the defendant in the market-place of Maryport, and asked him
when he intended to come and pay her father the £100; that her mother was very uneasy respecting it; that the defendant said he
would come up to-morrow and pay it. It was also further stated, that the plaintiff was a broker, and was employed as agent for the
defendant; and, in the purchasing of a certain quantity of wood at Skinburness, received from the defendant one guinea per day and
his expences. 

 

A very great number of witnesses were called on the part of the defendant, to prove that the plaintiff and defendant were in
partnership; consequently, as their affairs were unsettled, no legal claim could be established of debts from one to the other. This
case appeared remarkably embarrassed and obscure. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff of £100. 

 

BIRBECK v. WALKER, BENSON, AND HARRIS. 

 

The plaintiff in this case resides at Cockermouth, and is the proprietor of an estate near that place. The defendants are the
occupiers of certain coal-works nearly adjoining the plaintiff's ground. Some time ago the defendants, in working their coal-pits,
made encroachments in Mr. BIRBECK's ground, by excavating from it a quantity of coals. When this circumstance came to the knowledge
of the plaintiff, he agreed that two persons should survey the coals dug out and determine the quantity, and likewise fix the price
per ton that he should receive. This survey not being satisfactory to the parties, a dispute arose respecting the quantity of coals
dug from the plaintiff's ground and also respecting the price of each ton. 

 

The defendants contended that no more than 668 tons were raised from the plaintiff's ground, for which they had paid him 42l.; but
the plaintiff urged his claim to the price of 2500 tons at 1s. 3d. per ton, which was the usual price paid in similar cases.—This
action was brought to recover the difference between the two statements. Verdict for the plaintiff, 96l. 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.cumbriafhs.com/mailman/private/list-cumbria/attachments/20200312/4e619886/attachment.htm>