[list-cumbria] Carlisle Patriot, 06 Mar 1824 - Cumberland Spring Assizes (7)

[Petra Mitchinson]

Saturday 06 Mar 1824   (p. 2, col. 4 – p. 3, col. 5)

 

CUMBERLAND SPRING ASSIZES. 

 

NISI PRIUS. 

  

INSALL v. DANIEL BRETHERTON. 

 

[continued] 

 

Mr. ALDERSON then addressed the Jury at considerable length. The Jury must by this time see what was the defence to this
action—namely, that the defendant had nothing to do with the liability; that he was merely an agent, the known and acknowledged
agent, of his father, Mr. Peter BRETHERTON; and that he purchased the horses for him, to whom Mr. INSALL at the very time owed a sum
of money in amount considerably above their value. He commented on the alleged improbabilities of the case as established for the
plaintiff, and particularly the evidence of HARRISON, who, however, adverse and unwilling witness as he was, had proved that Daniel
BRETHERTON went up and down the country—according to his inference, doing nothing—but really transacting business for his father.
HARRISON came there well prepared; the Jury had seen how he conducted himself in the box. He has transactions with Mr. Bartholomew
BRETHERTON; with any body but Mr. Peter BRETHERTON, and why?—because he had been told that it was material to deny that fact. At
first he had nothing to do with him at all; but when he saw a paper which he (Mr. ALDERSON) held in his hand, and guessed its
contents, then he drew in a little, for he knew that he had made out his account in the name of Peter BRETHERTON & Co. It was most
clear, even upon the evidence for the plaintiff, that Mr. D. BRETHERTON is only the book-keeper of his father, and not one of the
company of the BRETHERTONs. The Jury, he was sure, would come to this conclusion. Could any thing be more probable than that the
father sent the son to purchase the horses that had run in the coach, after INSALL had withdrawn from it? The plaintiff's object in
arresting the defendant was evidently to insult the BRETHERTONs, at a time, too, when he owed them money. He knew that there was no
danger of being paid—he knew that the balance of account was against him; but he was aware at the same time that he could not
proceed unless he fixed upon the son as his sole debtor on his own responsibility. If the recovery of the money had been his only
object, he might have resorted to the ordinary process. Daniel's admission to Mr. FAIRBAIRN, that the debt was due, when explained,
amounted to no more than this—that the horses were bought for his father, to whom the plaintiff was indebted, and not for himself.
And as to the payment to the sheriff's officer, that, also, was readily explained. When arrested, he applied for bail to Mr.
FAIRBAIRN, who sent for a friend, who most likely did not appear; and the law allowed the payment of the debt and costs to the
amount of £10, instead of putting in bail. This merely to satisfy the sheriff, and had no reference to the justice of the claim, for
if that point were not established, the money must be returned. The receipt given by Daniel to HARRISON in Peter's office, meant
nothing more than that he sold as he bought them in his capacity of agent. Then there was the acknowledgment; but it imported the
same thing. The other acknowledgment of £5 in the same paper stated, in INSALL's own writing, that the money was borrowed for
Peter's account, on the 7th April, 1823. All this was so clear, that were he to sit down and not say another word, he should be sure
of a verdict. But he would not stop here. Besides the evidence, the conclusive evidence, which he intended to adduce, he held in his
hand a counterpart of the paper above alluded to, bearing the same date, April 7, 1823, in which INSALL debits "P. B.," meaning
Peter BRETHERTON, with £22 8s. 6d. for the horses, actually giving credit for the sovereign advanced, and the guinea and a half that
were have to been returned. This paper, without question, was drawn up at the same time, and it most satisfactorily proved the true
nature of the transaction.—Mr. ALDERSON proceeded to call his witnesses. 

 

Mr. Peter BRETHERTON, sworn.—He was bail for his son at Liverpool in reference to the case, and could not give evidence. 

 

Joseph BUTT examined.—Mr. Peter BRETHERTON is one of the coach proprietors of Liverpool. He employed me as book-keeper in the office
of the Robert Burns coach at Carlisle. In March 1823, he remembered that INSALL's horses were disposed of; he being an innkeeper at
the time, and had shortly before horsed the Robert Burns. In a conversation, Mr. INSALL told witness that he had sold the horses
previously employed in the coach to Mr. Daniel BRETHERTON, for his father Mr. Peter BRETHERTON. INSALL also said he looked upon
Daniel as agent to his father. At that time (in March) he likewise heard Mr. INSALL say that he had money in hand belonging to Mr.
BRETHERTON. After INSALL parted with the horses, they were worked in the coach—witness bought the corn to feed them; Mr. HARRISON,
the former witness, also bought some; but witness paid for the whole of it. Mr. INSALL's signature is to the paper now shewn. (That
by Mr. ALDERSON.) 

 

Cross-examined by Mr. BLACKBURNE.—Part of the writing on this paper is Mr. Daniel BRETHERTON's—of the bottom part I cannot say—(two
lines below the signature). Daniel, at this time, lived with his father at Parr, near Prescott. I left Carlisle in April last. Mr.
INSALL told me, and I always understood it, that he was one of the proprietors of the Robert Burns. I was once an innkeeper at
Huntingdon—I gave up the inn because I could not keep it any longer: this was 12 years ago. Since then I lived in Cambridge a year
and a half. There was no hunting after me when I left the inn.—Will you swear that? You heard what I said. Will you swear that?—No,
I will not exactly swear that. I did not this morning say to Mr. John FAIRBAIRN that Mr. Daniel BRETHERTON said he bought the horses
for himself; I said something about his having bought them as the agent of his father. 

 

Re-examined.—Mr. John FAIRBAIRN is the brother of Mr. FAIRBAIRN, the witness, who has a coach, the Defiance, in opposition to the
Robert Burns, Mr. BRETHERTON's coach—it has been a very hot opposition. 

 

Paper put in, alluded to by Mr. ALDERSON, in which Mr. INSALL acknowledged receiving of Mr. Peter BRETHERTON £5, for money paid to
Mr. MARK for injury received. 

 

His Lordship said he could receive only part of the contents of this paper as evidence—not the lines under the signature, for they
might have been added by another, as the witness could not speak to the hand-writing. 

 

 

[to be continued] 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.cumbriafhs.com/pipermail/list-cumbria/attachments/20240704/da6ba8d9/attachment.htm>