[List-Cumbria] Carlisle Patriot, 14 Sep 1816 - Cumberland Assizes (40)

[Petra Mitchinson]

Saturday 14 Sep 1816   (p. 4, col. 4-6)

 

CUMBERLAND ASSIZES. 

 

[continued] 

 

PATTINSON v. TAYLOR.—This was an action brought to recover from the defendant the value of a horse, the leg of which had been
broken, by worrying it over a gap with dogs, when found trespassing in his field. Several witnesses proved the facts, and also that
the defendant had expressed a willingness to arbitrate the matter, but was prevented by his wife, who threw herself into a violent
passion. saying, "that her husband should not pay a farthing, if it cost him one hundred pounds, and £50 to that would not ruin
them." According to one of the witnesses, this woman, on other occasions, behaved rather "blackguardish" on the subject. The horse
was valued by one person at £7, and by another at £13.—Verdict for the defendant, damages £7, and 40s. costs. 

 

Geo. IRVING, v. Anthony ADAMSON.—The plaintiff brought this action to recover the sum of £25 : 13 : 8, being the balance of an
account for repairing a Thrashing Machine, which the plaintiff had performed for the defendant. It appeared, the plaintiff before he
commenced the job, made a kind of offer to complete it for £10, but he afterwards brought in a bill of £30 : 0 : 2, which Mr.
ADAMSON refused to pay, in consequence of what he considered the former contract for £10. After some dispute, the defendant tendered
a certain sum as a final settlement, which IRVING, it appeared by the evidence, accepted, though he only placed that sum to account;
and subsequently, "because Mr. ADAMSON had vexed him," brought the present action. The Judge was of opinion that a final settlement
had taken place, and the Jury gave a verdict for the defendant. 

 

BENSON v. FISHER and Others.—A dispute between the three townships of Cockermouth, Embleton and Setmurthy, relative to which
township a certain piece of common land belonged. On opening the case Mr. SCARLETT, for the plaintiff, made a strenuous attempt to
settle the matter either by a fair division of the property and the expenses, by reference to Mr. Counsellor COURTNEY, or by any
other arbitrators that should be chosen. The parties in court on the opposite side did not like to take the responsibility on
themselves of settling the affair in the absence of their colleagues, and the trial proceeded. After an investigation of several
hours the jury gave a verdict for the Defendants. 

 

The King v. The Inhabitants of Muncaster. This indictment occupied the Court a considerable time, but furnishes nothing worthy of
detail. The inhabitants of the parish of Muncaster were indicted for obstructions in a road over a marsh leading from Ravenglass to
Warburthwaite, over which in time of spring tides, the salt water flows. Several old persons on each side were examined to prove on
the one hand that the road had been free for a great number of years; and on the other that legal obstructions have existed for a
like period of time, and that, in fact, it was not a public road. Mr. Justice BAYLEY, in addressing the Jury, observed, that no
doubt could exist as to the road in question being a public one, and was of opinion that the parish ought to be found guilty in
having obstructed it from the want of repairs and other causes.—Guilty. 

 

THOMPSON v. BROWN and Others.—This action was brought against the defendant and others, they having trespassed upon fields and
hedges, alledging that the path is a high road. This disputed road is situate like the one in the preceding case, between Ravenglass
and Warburthwaite. A great variety of evidence pro and con was adduced, and after a very long trial the Jury pronounced a verdict
for the plaintiff. 

 

EADIE v. M'FARLON.—This was an action for the recovery of £46 : 13 : 3, which it was alleged the defendant owed to the plaintiff.
The parties had been in partnership as dyers, which, it would appear, they brought to a close without a proper dissolution. Evidence
was given that the defendant had promised to pay plaintiff the sum in dispute, when he retired from the business, but it was not
clear. The judge in summing up observed that one partner cannot withdraw his capital till all partnership accounts be fully
examined, and a final act be agreed upon by both, or some new bargain take place by consent of both. His Lordship left it to the
jury to discriminate between the evidence, and after a short consultation they gave a verdict for the defendant. 

 

DYKES, v. Sir H. FLETCHER.—The question at issue in this case was, whether the plaintiff and defendant both are entitled to tithes
of grain arising from allotments of Common, in the Township of Crookedake; if only one is entitled, to whom does the right belong?
After a great number of documents had been read, and witnesses examined, the Jury decided the claim in favour of the defendant. 

 

CLARKE, v. CLEMENTS.—This action was brought to recover the value of some cabbage plants eaten by the defendant's cows, in
consequence of their having broken into the plaintiff's garden, the defective fence belonging to the defendant. The parties reside
at Dissington. The fact of the cows having broken in, and that notice had been given to CLEMENTS to keep up his fences, were proved,
as well as the value of the plants. Verdict for the plaintiff, damages £3 : 13 : 0. Costs 40s. 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.cumbriafhs.com/mailman/private/list-cumbria/attachments/20221201/6bf063e1/attachment.htm>