[List-Cumbria] Carlisle Patriot, 07 Sep 1816 - Cumberland Assizes (34)

[Petra Mitchinson]

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

 

Cumberland Assizes. 

========== 

STEWARD'S FEES IN THE ABBEY HOLM. 

SPECIAL JURY. 

 

[continued] 

 

Samuel RIGG sworn.—Has attended on the Juries in Holm Cultram many years; he means the Court Leet. The copyhold business is done at
the same time. He has seen both surrenders and admittances made, and the first fee he saw paid was 8s.: but he afterwards learned
that 2s. were added for a reserve. The fees which he had seen paid in many other instances amounted to no more than 6s. 

 

BROUGH was recalled and questioned by the Judge.—Did not use to have more than 6d. from Mr. BRISCO for making proclamation; a
proclamation is made on every admittance. It was at Mr. HODGSON's instance that his fee was advanced to 1s. 

 

Joseph SAUL made affirmation.—Has attended the Manor Courts of Holm Cultram. Witness never contributed a farthing towards defending
the present case, nor does he know that he shall; was a witness in the former causes. Witness knows that 6s. were the only fees on
admittance in Courts of Copyhold, but if there was a reservation 2s. in addition. Mr. BRISCO was steward before witness attended the
Courts, the first time of which was 25 years ago. The fees were not altered till Mr. HODGSON came. 

 

Mr. Joseph Monkhouse HEAD made affirmation.—Is distributor of stamps for Carlisle. Applications are frequently made to him for a
stamp which he has not by him; but he applies immediately to the head distributor when that occurs, and it is sent from London in
about ten days or a fortnight. When it comes, neither carriage or postage is charged, but simply the value of the stamp and
parchment; it is invariably the case that the price of the parchment is marked on it, and no more can be legally charged. Government
pays all the expenses of postage and carriage. Never heard of three months delay in the procuration of any stamp. There is a
sub-distributor at Wigton, about five miles only from the Abbey Holm. The head distributor lives at Naworth Castle. 

 

Mr. SAUL recalled.—Mr. BRISCO lived about six miles from Wigton when he acted as steward. 

 

Mr. RAINE again addressed the Jury in behalf of the plaintiff. Now that he had heard the evidence set up for the defence, he rose in
the most perfect and absolute confidence that he should have the verdict of the Jury, provided he could make his case appear as
clear to them as it was to himself. But before he went any further he would offer a few observations on what had fallen from his
Learned Friend Mr. SCARLETT. He knew that no man could employ the argumentum ad invidiam better than his Learned Friend, and he, Mr.
R., had been careful to collect the flowers of speech that formed Mr. S.'s nosegay, which he would read to the Jury. He differed
much, very much, from the assertions of his Learned Friend, and in opposition to him he contended that no blame whatever attached to
Mr. HODGSON for bringing the present action, whatever Mr. SCARLETT might have been pleased to say to the contrary. If Mr. S. had
wished to convince the Jury of the justness of his cause, he should have done it by proof, and not by hard words. If Mr. HODGSON
thought that he could maintain his action he had a right to bring it, but he fought in an unequal war, for he had to contend against
a formidable combination of lusty tenants. An individual who fights against this host is charged by his Learned Friend with
extortion, but very pretty extortion it was when Mr. HODGSON was actually out of pocket by the £8 which BARWISE had paid. Mr.
SCARLETT had said that Mr. HODGSON had broken faith with the tenants. It was well that Mr. SCARLETT's hard words broke no bones, for
if hard words did break bones, Mr. HODGSON would not, by this time, have a sound bone in his skin; he would have been ground to
atoms! It had not been proved by the defendant's witnesses that the custom of paying only 6s. was immemorial, therefore the question
at issue must necessarily turn on the quantum meruit—must be estimated according to the actual trouble taken; and in estimating the
quantum meruit the Jury should be careful to see that a man of Mr. HODGSON's abilities and station in life was properly rewarded.
The jet of the evidence produced for the defence was, that Mr. BRISCO had been in the habit of receiving 6s. only on each surrender
or admission. But Mr. RAINE contended this was nothing to the present question. What Mr. BRISCO chose to charge could be no rule for
Mr. HODGSON, who was entitled, like every other man, to a fair compensation for the trouble taken. Mr. HODGSON, as steward, brought
superior abilities into the service of the tenants. If he was not competent to the task he might make entries which would endanger
the titles of the tenants themselves, and therefore it was their interest to have such a man as Mr. HODGSON if they paid him a
little more than a person in whose knowledge they could have no confidence. Mr. R. assured himself that he should have a verdict for
his client. 

 

Mr. Justice BAYLEY summed up the evidence. He said, in the present case there were two questions for the decision of the Jury.
First, whether or not the plaintiff, as steward, was entitled to charge more than 8s. for each surrender and admission, including
what was called the reservation; and the Second was, whether he may be permitted to charge with the parchment any thing more than
its intrinsic value. The former was the most important, for it must be the object of both Mr. HODGSON and the Tenants to settle the
matter finally. If there was no old custom, then the steward was entitled to charge according to what he deserves. It was but
reasonable that a man in Mr. HODGSON's situation in life should be paid better than one whose knowledge was not equal to his, and
whose education had not been so expensive. In forming the estimation, the Jury should be careful to take into account the trouble
the plaintiff is at. The tenant, on his own request, puts the plaintiff to the trouble of what he does, and though the rolls are the
common property of the Lord and tenants, the Lord is by no means bound to make what alterations the tenants may think proper at his
own expense. In the present instance BARWISE carried a certain surrender, ready drawn up, for entry, in which for want of due
knowledge, there was an error; and had not Mr. HODGSON been possessed of legal knowledge sufficient to have detected that error, the
document, if entered on the rolls, might have endangered the property. It was certainly the duty of the plaintiff to have entered
into proper explanation with the tenants when applied to. If he had told them of the expense of procuring the stamps and parchment,
they would have been enabled to judge of the propriety of following the course he recommended. But if he said nothing on that
subject, he was bound to proceed in the cheapest possible manner. His Lordship did not see any reason that what was the usage in Mr.
BRISCO's time, should be so now. The considerable difference in the value of money, and the expenses in the mode of living might
have been different, and should have consideration. If money falls in value, then all wages must increase. If Mr. BRISCO was
contented with what he received, it did not follow that Mr. HODGSON should. The main questions were, as he had before observed—Did
the plaintiff do more than he ought in the manner of procuring the stamp? He certainly should have told them of the expense.—And
next, what is the quantum meruit? What does the plaintiff deserve as a reasonable compensation for his trouble. What others have had
is no rule. The trouble taken was this:—The tenants present to the steward a surrender; he must look at that surrender, and also
search the Court rolls. If he finds that all is right he must enter the surrender on the Court rolls and make out another copy for
the tenant against next Court day. If the plaintiff had not been a man of the law, it might be a question how far he could do the
necessary duties. If the Jury thought the money hitherto paid a sufficient sum for those duties, they would give a verdict for the
defendants; if on the other hand, they would give a verdict for the plaintiff, saying what remuneration he was entitled to. 

 

The Jury retired about half an hour, and brought in a verdict for the Defendants. 

 

 

[to be continued] 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.cumbriafhs.com/mailman/private/list-cumbria/attachments/20221115/4939cb73/attachment.htm>