[List-Cumbria] Carlisle Journal, 03 Sep 1814 - Cumberland Assizes (11)

[Petra Mitchinson]

Saturday 03 Sep 1814   (p. 4, col. 1-5)

 

CUMBERLAND ASSIZES. 

----- 

NISI PRIUS. 

  

[continued] 

 

LOMAS v. MATTHEWS. 

 

This was an issue joined to try the right of common on Aspatria wastes, now under inclosure. The tenements, for which the right in
question was claimed, lie in the Manor of Newton; and the common consists of 4300 acres. After the trial was begun, the case
appeared so very clear, that the Judge directed a verdict for the plaintiff, which was accordingly done. 

 

LOMAS v. HIND. 

 

This was a trial similar to the above, and attended with a similar result. 

 

DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE v. LITTLE. 

 

This was an action of trespass, charging the defendant with taking limestone from the Duke's royalties, and converting it to his own
use; he having a lime-kiln at a place called Lime-kiln Nook, in the manor of Castle Sowerby, where he burned a very large quantity
of lime, and sold it not only to tenants in Sowerby manor, but to others, contrary to the custom of the said manor. 

 

Isaac BEWLEY stated that he had known Lime-kiln Nook these 13 years;-had been employed by David LITTLE, the defendant, for the last
7 years in quarrying and burning limestone, part of which he sold to the tenants of the manor, and part was taken out of it.
Fourteen years ago he wrought for Joseph ROBSON, who then had the kilns, at which time the limestone was sold both in and out of the
manor. 

 

Joseph JEFFERSON, copyhold tenant under the plaintiff, in Castle Sowerby manor, had purchased his lime for these 25 years past from
one BELL and his successors, at the lime-kiln in question; he knew Wm. JACKS, who burned lime for his own use, but never heard that
he sold any. 

 

-- WRIGHT had lived 27 years in Castle Sowerby. The custom of the manor is that the tenants have a right to get lime on their
estates for their own use, but not to make merchandise of it. Robert BELL, now dead, lived at Lime-kiln Nook, who paid 5s. a year
for liberty to quarry lime: he was present when Mr. CHARLTON demanded rent from JACKSON for the limestone quarry, and there was some
dispute respecting the rent: he knew Mr. RELPH, whose lime-kilns were near the defendant's, but he never knew he sold lime. 

 

Wm. ROWLIN said he wrought for Robt. BELL for 4 years, about 27 years ago;-people got their coals from Warnel-fell colliery, the
Duke of Norfolk then held that colliery, also that of Hewar-hill, under the plaintiff. BELL told him he paid 5s. yearly for
quarrying limestone, and had liberty to take coal from the Duke's colliery, which he did; BELL sometimes got his 5s. back, and
something besides to drink, when he paid for his coal to the Duke's steward, and he was not to have his quarry unless he got his
coal there. 

 

A person of the name of SIMPSON gave similar testimony. 

 

The Duke of Norfolk's stewards proved that his Grace leased the royalties of Sowerby and Sebergham, and confirmed what related to
farming the lime-kilns.-The Duke of Devonshire's Stewards did the same. 

 

Joseph MARTINDALE proved the customary right of the tenants to quarry limestone; and that BELL had sold great quantities out of the
manor. 

 

Joseph MONKHOUSE stated to the same effect. He added, that, before BELL's time, he never knew any lime sold out of the manor. JACKS,
indeed, had done so, but his quarry and kilns were upon his own freehold. 

 

Robt. JACKSON, aged 72, who had lived on the manor of Sowerby for 15 years, gave his evidence substantially the same as the
preceding witnesses. 

 

John HEWAR stated in evidence, that LITTLE received notice from the Duke of Devonshire to desist from working the limestone quarry,
and informed the Duke of Norfolk's steward of the affair, who said he would acquaint his Grace and obtain an answer. He afterwards
told BELL that he could not guarantee him, as the kiln was upon the Duke of Portland's private estate, and he did not lease the
royalty of it.-(The property afterwards came to the Duke of Devonshire.) 

 

Richard BELL, aged 91, knew Lime-kiln Nook 70 years ago, at which time he got lime for John BELL's land at Mealguards, from RELPH:
he also obtained it from Robert BELL, and it was the common custom for the people to lead lime from the same place.-(This witness,
notwithstanding his advanced age, was exceedingly collected, and excited the admiration of the whole Court.)-Mealguards is under the
Duke of Devonshire, but is not parcel of the manor of Castle Sowerby. 

 

Mrs. Barbara BELL, daughter of Mr. George BELL who farmed the lime-kilns under Mr. JACKSON 20 years ago, stated that her father
burned and sold lime to a great amount,-never heard her father say he paid any acknowledgment, except the rent to Mr. JACKSON. 

 

George ROBSON farmed the kilns in question 30 years ago, and burned and sold 10,000 bushels yearly. He paid no acknowledgment to any
one except to Mr. JACKSON, whose charge for rent amounted to 20gs. per annum. 

 

Joseph DODD, aged 60 years, remembered Joseph STODDART farming Lime-kiln Nook 30 years since; whence he led 40 cart-loads of lime to
Wreay, distant seven miles, and which does not appertain to the manor of Sowerby. 

 

John LITTLE, a relative of the defendant, stated that about 13 years ago he was a partner with the latter in the lime concern, for
which they paid a rent to Mr. JACKSON, and did not know of defendant paying rent to any other person for the same. 

 

The counsel for the defendant, in animadverting upon the nature of this action, was convinced that it was that of the stewards, and
that the Duke of Devonshire knew nothing respecting it. It put him in mind of a story concerning the examination of a witness before
the House of Lords: on a question being put him, the legality of which was objected to,-after a consultation of two hours it was
agreed the question should be put; meanwhile, the nobleman who proposed it had forgotten its tendency, but said he would put another
that was equally interesting, which was-"How do you do?" "Very well, I thank you, Sir," was the reply; and all that had been said on
this subject bore a resemblance to it. 

 

The Judge directed the Jury to consider whether the defendant occupied this as his own freehold, or held it as leasehold under the
Noble plaintiff; in the latter case the defendant could not take any limestone or other manorial property without leave. 

 

After a few minutes consultation, a verdict was given for the plaintiff, with 1s. damages. 

 

 

[to be continued] 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.cumbriafhs.com/mailman/private/list-cumbria/attachments/20201024/f519b9c3/attachment.htm>