[List-Cumbria] Carlisle Patriot, 07 Sep 1816 - Cumberland Assizes (30)

[Petra Mitchinson]

Saturday 07 Sep 1816   (p. 3, col. 4 – p. 4, col. 6)

 

Cumberland Assizes. 

========== 

MANAGEMENT OF A FARM.—SPECIAL JURY. 

 

[continued] 

 

Here ended the evidence for the defendant, and Mr. SCARLETT rose again to reply.—He said he thought he might say of his Learned
Friend's case, what had been so often said of a mountain, which was once taken in great labour, and lo! it brought forth a mouse. 

 

Mr. RAINE.—I will match my mouse against your rats! (much laughter.) 

 

Mr. SCARLETT resumed.—If ever any one had a right to a verdict on any occasion, Miss WALKER had on this, for the grossest
mismanagement had been most clearly proved.—Mr. S. said he would take the opinion of the jury relative to the repairs if his
Lordship would admit the point. Mr. Justice BAYLEY said he had no objection. Mr. SCARLETT strongly contended that there was no
instance to be adduced to prove that ever so large a proportion had been dedicated to white crops as that employed by Mr. HARRIS,
and he as strongly insisted that a farmer, by good management, has no right to take off the hay from an estate, nor the corn in the
straw, unless he were near some great town where he could exchange his straw for manure. He submitted that he was clearly entitled
to a verdict on account of the straw, hay, &c. which Mr. HARRIS took away, and also for the over-ploughing, for it had been clearly
proved by several witnesses that the farm had been impoverished and worn out. He meant to cast no reflection on Mr. HARRIS as a
farmer; in that respect he had nothing to say against him; on the contrary, he was too good a farmer for Miss WALKER, as he knew
better than many others how to drain the farm he was about to quit for his own interests. No man could or would have taken the farm
who had not large capital; for it was necessary that he should at first lay out a large sum in order to gain a future profit. Thus,
then, the competition was destroyed, and the estate necessarily let for much less money. The jury would decide also on the point how
much Miss WALKER had lost in the letting, and they would give their damages accordingly. The repairs of the fences were trifling;
they had only been estimated at two guineas, and that he would not press. 

 

Mr. Justice BAYLEY summed up the evidence. He said there were four subjects of complaint against Mr. HARRIS, for all which the
plaintiff claimed damages, namely—1. Deterioration of the buildings on the premises for want of repairs.—2. More land under the
plough at one time than was consistent with custom or good farming.—3. Corn and hay having been carried off the farm; and 4. Not
sufficient quantity of cattle having been kept on the farm.—His Lordship thought it advisable that the Jury should specify what
damages they would give under each of those heads, or whether they would give any. They would recollect there was no express bargain
made how he should manage it, when Mr. HARRIS entered on the farm, as he was to cultivate according to the custom of the country. If
there was no general rule, he was bound to cultivate it according to the principles of good farming, and if the Jury were of opinion
that those principles had been violated, they would consider in what degree, and give their damages accordingly.—His Lordship
thought that it was material for the Jury to recollect that Mr. HARRIS in the beginning of his term carried an extra quantity of
lime on the farm, and if the defendant gave it a superior heart in consequence of this, he had a right to draw from it in return, or
in the words of the witnesses, to plough it hard.—The allegation relative to the want of cattle on the estate his Lordship thought
was weakly supported; and he directed the Jury to dismiss all consideration of the state of the fences, because if Mr. SISSON was
satisfied with the compensation that had been given, Miss WALKER could not complain of injustice.—If the slates were off in
consequence of high winds, &c. his Lordship said it would not be a tenant's, but the Landlord's duty to replace them; but if the wet
had penetrated into the house and the barn, merely from the slipping of a slate or two in the first instance, and subsequent
neglect, then Mr. HARRIS ought to pay for the damage. A tenant is not bound to inhabit a house on a farm, but he is bound to take
care that the house does not sink into ruin for want of attention.—His Lordship thought that the clean state of the land should also
receive the consideration of the Jury in regard to the necessity for fallows; if the clean state of the land obviated that
necessity, then Mr. HARRIS ought to have the benefit of it. The time of entry on the farm was likewise material; if a farmer entered
on a farm in the middle of the year, and found neither straw nor manure on it, his Lordship knew no law which could compel him to
leave either when he quitted that farm.—His Lordship concluded with recapitulation:—The repairs rested entirely on the evidence of
LADYMAN. Relative to the want of cattle, he thought there was no evidence to bear on the subject except in the summer of 1814. As to
the corn and hay, the jury would consider if a greater proportion had been carried off than was right, taking into estimation all
the circumstances. If Mr. HARRIS had cattle, and those cattle could not consume the whole of his straw and hay, in his Lordship's
opinion, Mr. HARRIS was undoubtedly at liberty to take the remainder away with him. The tillage entirely depended upon what was the
course of good husbandry, and the Jury ought not to forget the lime. If there had been no more ploughed than was the custom of the
country, the Jury were bound to lean to the defendant.—His Lordship himself had a difficulty in forming his opinion, because he did
not know which of the witnesses is the best farmer; the Jury could decide more readily, and more correctly, because they understood
the subject. 

 

The Jury retired about half an hour, and returned with the following verdict. 

 

Damages: 

                    1. For the repairs ........................... £1  10  0 

                    2. For want of Cattle ...................... 0    0  0 

                    3. Corn carried away ...................... 5    0  0 

                    4. Extra ploughing ........................ 25    0  0 

 

The indictment was about the size of a table cloth, and Mr. RAINE commented on it with his usual facetiousness. The trial excited
great interest, and is undoubtedly of much importance to agriculturists. 

 

 

[to be continued] 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.cumbriafhs.com/mailman/private/list-cumbria/attachments/20221111/fa0ce137/attachment.htm>