[List-Cumbria] Carlisle Journal, 07 Sep 1811 - Cumberland Assizes (5)

[Petra Mitchinson]

Saturday 07 Sep 1811   (p. 4, col. 4-5)

 

Law Intelligence. 

---------- 

CUMBERLAND ASSIZES.-CIVIL SIDE. 

----- 

THOMAS BARNES v. JOSEPH BARNES. 

 

This was an action for defamation. The parties reside at Oulton; and the defendant having missed one of his sheep which had strayed
into the premises of the plaintiff, had several times accused him of having stolen it. As a set-off to this, it appeared that the
plaintiff had charged Joseph BARNES with unlawfully clipping other people's sheep; which, however, he denied-as, he said, he never
clipped any sheep except waifs-he being keeper of a manor. 

 

This was very justly reprobated as a very trivial action: but, as the Judge said, some damages, however small, must be awarded, the
Jury without hesitation brought in a verdict of one penny damages. 

 

BROUGH v. HODGSON. 

 

This was another action of but little consequence. In 1809, Michael BROUGH rented from Mr. HODGSON, at Blennerhasset, a garden, byre
[cow-house], stable, and cottage, and as he kept a horse and two cows, he produced (or, as the witnesses stated, bred) a quantity of
ashes and dung. Subsequent to 1809, the Plaintiff removed to Crookdake. The manure remained on the common ground for a considerable
time, until the ashes, amounting to about six cart loads, were removed by the Defendant, and put upon his own ground. The dung was
taken possession of by the incoming tenent [sic] of the premises which BROUGH had left. The action was therefore brought to recover
the value,-the Plaintiff contending, that as no manure had ever been produced on the premises which he held previously to his
occupancy, it of right belonged to him. 

 

On the part of Mr. HODGSON, it was contended, not that he had a right to the ashes, ab initio, but that the Plaintiff had abandoned
them having suffered them to remain from February, 1809, to June of that year. 

 

Verdict for the Plaintiff-9s. 9d. 

 

YEATES v. LAMONBY. 

 

This was an action of trespass and assault, brought by Mr. Christopher YEATES, of Newtown, near Carlisle, to recover damages from
Mrs. Dinah LAMONBY, of the same place. 

 

Mr. TOPPING, counsel for the Plaintiff, stated the nature of the assault. The Plaintiff rents from the Defendant a house and garden
; which latter is defended by a wall of about three feet height. On the 26th of March last, Mr. YEATES was walking in his garden.
Mrs. LAMONBY climbed over the wall, followed by a favourite pointer bitch. Going up to the Plaintiff, she gave him a most violent
shake, on which he ran off. She then pulled off the garden gate, and even had the audacity to attempt by a ladder, to scale the
house by getting in at a window.-This formed the subject of the action. 

 

Jacob ARMSTRONG, of Newtown, saw the Defendant attempt to get over the wall, and was discharged by the Plaintiff. Notwithstanding,
she leaped over and was followed by a pointer bitch. He saw her running after Plaintiff; and afterwards observed her to take off the
gate in a furious manner, and throw it into the road. Has seen her climb the wall at different times, and attempt to throw up the
parlour window.-On being asked by the counsel whether or no Mr. YEATES had scattered some money upon the wall, in derision, as
payment of the rent, he said he did observe money upon the wall. 

 

Questioned by Mr. PARK-Of what profession of religion are you? 

 

A. I was formerly a Quaker. 

 

Q. And are you not of that religion now? 

 

A. No. 

 

Q. Then by what act did you renounce those principles you formerly professed, which recognize an oath to be contrary to that
religious profession? 

 

A. We may have different opinions at different times. I now look upon an oath and an affirmation to be of the same import. 

 

(The learned counsel for the Plaintiff here took an exception, that the witness had formerly been a Quaker, and not having undergone
any due form whereby he indentfied [sic] himself with any other religious persuasion, he consequently was still to be considered a
Quaker, and, as such, having taken an oath, contrary to the religious opinions of that respectable body of men, his evidence ought
to be thought unworthy of credit.-This was, however, overruled by the Judge; who appeared to think it was upon the witness's peril
that he told a falsity-whether it was an oath or affirmation, the same punishment attached to the breach of it, and that the
evidence of the witness ought to be taken.) 

 

Q. Do you know the nature of an oath? 

 

A. I hope I do. I trust the spirit of God will guide me in what I act. 

 

Q. Doth the spirit move thee now friend? 

 

A. I would advise you, not to speak lightly of serious things. It is no jesting with the Almighty; and though his just punishment be
averted to-day, we know not but that it may fall to-morrow.-The spirit of God pierceth the marrow of the soul; and whatever our
evidence in earthly Court may be thought of, there is a tribunal above, where the secrets of men are searched. There we must all
appear, and there, Mr. PARK, both you and I shall appear in our own proper colours. The spirit of truth, Sir, guides us to all
truth; and the searcher of all hearts will at the day of judgment decide: then he will separate the wheat from the chaff; and I
hope, Mr. PARK, the Lord in his mercy will gather you into his garner! 

 

Mr. PARK did not altogether relish the sermon, as he called it; and after few trivial questions, the witness stepped from the box. 

 

Elizabeth SCHOLLICK was accidentally passing at the time of the transaction in question; said she heard the Defendant call Mr.
YEATES a rogue, and jumped over the wall, and the dog after her. The animal Mr. YEATES struck with a garden rake and said he would
kill it. The Defendant took up the instrument with which he had felled the dog, and followed the Plaintiff into his house. She then
struck the Plaintiff with the rake, at the same time using many opprobious words.-She saw some silver lying on the wall.-[The latter
part of the evidence is material, as it seems that Mrs. LAMONBY had gone to the wall, in order to demand payment of the rent of the
premises which was due to her; and which Plaintiff having promised, had scattered the contents of his purse upon the top of the
wall.] 

 

The Judge was clearly of opinion, that the trespass and assault had been proved; but the case did not appear to require serious
damages. 

 

The Plaintiff agreed to accept of a verdict for 8s. 6d. 

 

 

[to be continued] 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.cumbriafhs.com/mailman/private/list-cumbria/attachments/20200316/cb429789/attachment.htm>