[list-cumbria] Carlisle Patriot, 18 Oct 1823 - Cumberland Sessions (2)

[Petra Mitchinson]

Saturday 18 Oct 1823   (p. 3, col. 2-4)

 

CUMBERLAND SESSIONS. 

 

[continued] 

 

ROAD TO WIGTON. 

 

Mr. AGLIONBY, addressing the Bench, said he had an application to make on the subject of the road in the parish of St. Mary. He had
on a former occasion applied for time; and he now applied for further indulgence under very peculiar circumstances. The ground
through which the road runs was once a waste or common; and the act of inclosure left it in doubt whether the repairs ought to be
made by the ancient tenements, or the owners of the new allotments. Under this presentment the overseers of Cummersdale quarter had
pleaded guilty at the last Sessions- 

 

Clerk of the Peace.-They have not pleaded yet. They promised to plead, but did not do it. 

 

Mr. AGLIONBY.-Yes, you are right, I now understand; there was some difficulty, I believe, which prevented them. My motion now arises
out of other circumstances. There were two opinions of legal men taken, and they stating that the ancient tenants were liable,
notices were accordingly issued to fifty persons; but while they were at work, the opinion of another very eminent counsel was
taken, and he said the owners of the new tenements were liable, so the others at once stopped work, and wished to have the matter
brought before the Sessions; and what is wanted now is the interference of the Court- 

 

Mr. BROWNE (the Magistrate who made the presentment)-I have looked at the road, and find it all well repaired, excepting two pieces;
I think it will be better to indict the persons who are liable for these. 

 

Mr. FORSTER.-The persons offending by neglect ought to have been indicted at first, and not the parish. 

 

Mr. BROWNE.-One of the two pieces is at Newby Cross, and another near Carlisle. 

 

Mr. AGLIONBY.-The best course will perhaps be to allow time to plead; and then a special plea may be put on the indictment that such
and such persons are liable. 

 

The Bench objected to this. 

 

Mr. WYBERGH.-The parish at large are liable at common law, and they are obliged to shew on whom the onus lies. 

 

Mr. AGLIONBY.-If the parish were to plead, more expense would be incurred without result, for they would prove unliability. The best
way would be to indict some of the owners of the old tenements. 

 

Mr. A. then formally moved for time till next Sessions, the surveyor undertaking to prefer a bill against all persons not having
made the requisite repairs. 

 

Time granted on these conditions. 

 

THE KING v. JOHN BLACKSTOCK & OTHERS. 

 

Mr. COURTENAY said this was an indictment against the defendants, overseers and churchwardens of the township of Wigton, for
disobedience of the order of this court to pay the overseers of Haltwhistle a certain sum of money which had been ordered on account
of a child, residing at that place with its mother, but born in Wigton. They paid the allotted weekly sum for a certain period, but
subsequently refused to continue it. 

 

Mr. AGLIONBY said the most speedy mode of deciding the case would be for him to address the court. This was an order of sessions of
2s. per week. The child was illegitimate and born in Wigton, the mother aftewards [sic] going to reside at Haltwhistle. As the child
could not be removed to its own settlement on account of being under the age of nurture, the parish were liable till that period had
intervened. But if he should shew that the order itself was illegal, the parish could not be prosecuted for a breach of it. At the
time the order was made, the township of Wigton had not a select vestry; and he quoted s. 5 of 59 G. 3, to shew that the indictment
was invalid. The sum of money already paid by the township made up more than 2s. a week for seven years, an age, Mr. A. contended,
at which a child may be removed from its mother, being then past the period of nurture.-We say, continued he, that as soon as the
child was seven, Haltwhistle ought to have applied to the magistrates for a removal. 

 

Mr. COURTENAY said the question in this shape was a matter of law, and the Bench would have to decide it. He submitted that the age
of nurture extended to nine years. Sir R. PEEL's act contained an indirect sanction of this assumption, for it enacts that children
shall not be bound out till they are nine years old. 

 

Mr. AGLIONBY-That act entirely applies to binding out children. The question here is, not whether they may bind out, but whether,
instead of paying money, they have not a right to remove. 

 

The child was seven years old in May, 1821, consequently at this time nine years and five months. 

 

Mr. AGLIONBY moved that there was not sufficient law to go to the jury. 

 

The Bench decided that the indictment was invalid, and the defendants were therefore acquitted. 

 

 

[to be continued] 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.cumbriafhs.com/pipermail/list-cumbria/attachments/20240206/14f291fc/attachment.htm>