[list-cumbria] Carlisle Patriot, 13 Mar 1824 - Cumberland Spring Assizes (40)

[Petra Mitchinson]

Saturday 13 Mar 1824   (p. 1, col. 5 - p. 4, col. 5, and p. 1, col. 4)

 

CUMBERLAND SPRING ASSIZES. 

 

NISI PRIUS. 

  

WAITE v. HARRISON. 

 

[continued] 

 

Mr. COURTENAY, in rising for the defendant, began by observing that the Jury had heard in the course of the plaintiff's case, that
Mr. John LIGHTFOOT was attorney on that side of the question, and that alone was sufficient to induce them to look upon it with
suspicion. He had often admired the courage of his learned friend Mr. ALDERSON, but on this occasion he had exceeded himself, and
displayed an unaccountable bardihood; for with his knowledge of his attorney, he wondered that his friend could screw up his courage
so far as to characterize the conduct of Mr. HARRISON as he had done on such authority. He (Mr. C.) would venture to say that a more
unconscientious, inequitable, and unrighteous action had never come into court. Instead of cruelty and oppression, Mr. HARRISON had
shewn forbearance and liberality in a high degree. He had lost by the defendant; he had given him up part of his debt; he only
wanted him to quit his premises; and when, after all this kindness, and repeated promises made and broken, he found it necessary to
assert his own right, and recover possession of his own property, the ejectment had been accomplished with as little violence as
possible. And with respect to the hens and chickens, which had been instanced as a proof of vindictive feeling, they were merely
gathered up and put into a pot in order to secure and not destroy them. They were put there in the presence of the plaintiff's
family; his wife was by and saw it; and if she let them remain so as to be smothered, whose was the fault but her own? Look at the
transaction of the note. Why so much anxiety of the two brothers to get hold of it, if there had not been something wrong in it-why
had two such humble men gone off 30 or 40 miles in a post chaise? In order to show that not even a shadow of unkindness could be
imputed to Mr. HARRISON, he (Mr. C.) might mention that when, after assigning over his stock and crop, there being still a
deficiency, the plaintiff had tendered a bed, the defendant chose to put up with the loss rather than take from him a single article
of his furniture. That the whole had been given up by the plaintiff, there could be no doubt. The mill was the main point; the key
of it was the symbol of the surrender; for what use would the mill be to a tenant without the house to live in? 

 

Geo. THOMPSON.-At the time of this transaction, I was husbandman in the employment of Mr. HARRISON; and on the 20th of August last,
I accompanied that gentleman to the premises in question; the plaintiff, WAITE, met us at Mr. HARRISON's house at Hards. Thence we
went to the mill, James WAITE demanded the note of Mr. HARRISON, and Mr. H. said he would not deliver it up until he got possession;
and Jacob WAITE, his brother, said to him, "Oh, Mr. HARRISON will be a man of his word." James WAITE then delivered the key to Mr.
HARRISON, who said, "I suppose, James, this takes possession of the whole." James said, yes-Mr. HARRISON observed, "You are witness,
George," and I said "Yes." We went and took the valuation of the stock and crop, which Mr. HARRISON was to have. I don't know what
rent was due; but the stock and crop did not amount to the sum which Mr. H. wanted, and James WAITE offered a bed; this however, Mr.
HARRISON declined taking. We (the two WAITEs, Mr. HARRISON, and witness) then went to Mr. HARRISON's house, where the note was given
up and put into the fire. Nothing was said, that I heard, as to when the furniture was to be taken out. 

 

Thomas MAXFIELD, husbandry servant to Mr. HARRISON at the time mentioned. About the middle of August, he was sent to tell WAITE that
he must quit the house by the middle of the week; but WAITE said he could not get out by the middle of the week, but would get out
by the latter end of it. This was about the middle of August or beginning of September. 

 

His Lordship asked what day of the week the trespass was committed on, and was answered on a Tuesday. 

 

MAXFIELD recalled.-The message was communicated perhaps ten days or a fortnight before. 

 

Mr. ALDERSON.-My learned friend has expressed his astonishment at my boldness; but if you feel any surprise at that quality in me,
how much more must you feel when you hear him talk in so loud a strain of unconscientiousness and unrighteousness, and ends with
such proof as he has put in. And why so much anger with Mr. LIGHTFOOT? What does it mean? Why nothing, gentlemen, but what is always
heard when Mr. LIGHTFOOT is on one side, and my learned friend on the other. And wherefore all this insinuation against Mr.
LIGHTFOOT? On what is it founded, I ask; where is the proof: for if none is offered I say that such language is unwarrantable and
not to be borne. Mr. ALDERSON went on to comment on the evidence, and contended that his case was made out, when 

 

Mr. Justice HOLROYD intimated that the law was against him. The sole question was, whether the tenantcy from year to year had been
surrendered or not? His Lordship held that it had. It appeared to him that the plaintiff was not a tenant at the date of the alleged
trespass.-His Lordship directed a Nonsuit. 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.cumbriafhs.com/pipermail/list-cumbria/attachments/20240817/46677ba9/attachment.htm>