[list-cumbria] Carlisle Patriot, 06 Mar 1824 - Cumberland Spring Assizes (8)

[Petra Mitchinson]

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

 

CUMBERLAND SPRING ASSIZES. 

 

NISI PRIUS. 

  

INSALL v. DANIEL BRETHERTON. 

 

[continued] 

 

Wm. HAINES sworn.—I have been guard of the Robert Burns coach since the 1st of May—in March, I was guard of and partner in the
Independent coach, and was frequently at that time in the plaintiff's bar—frequently there when the book-keeper was there. In
consequence of what I heard, I asked WEEKS the bookkeeper of the Independent coach in plaintiff's presence, who was the master of
the Robert Burns—we had been talking about the horses which had been sold—INSALL answered, Oh no! Mr. Peter BRETHERTON is the master
of the Robert Burns; and Daniel BRETHERTON is only transacting business for him—that he had bought the horses, not for himself, but
for his father. 

 

Cross-examined.—Mr. P. BRETHERTON is still the proprietor of the Robert Burns: Daniel is frequently in the office at Liverpool, and
goes about the country transacting business for the company. 

 

Jeremiah SCOTT, a coach-guard, sworn.—In March last I heard Mr. INSALL say in his bar, that Daniel BRETHERTON had bought the horses
for his father. 

 

Cross-examined.—I am engaged at Liverpool with CHAMBERS and Co., on the Aurora, with which Peter BRETHERTON has nothing to do. I was
employed by Mr. ROBINSON of Moffat, as guard of the Robert Burns; he did not dismiss me—he never found fault with me to my
knowledge—I left the Robert Burns of my own accord—I left it while at Glasgow. 

 

John Forster M'VITIE.—I am hostler at the King's Arms, which was lately kept by Mr. INSALL. I remember when the horses were sold—Mr.
INSALL told me in the stable, that he had sold his horses to Mr. BRETHERTON; and better than that, said he, I have got the money.
Did not say where he got it. 

 

Joseph BUTT recalled.—Mr. INSALL told me himself that he owed money to Mr. BRETHERTON in March last—he did not mention the amount. 

 

John PRITT.—I know Daniel and Peter BRETHERTON perfectly well—I am a coach-proprietor in company with Mr. Peter BRETHERTON—Daniel
has nothing to do with it, but as agent, in which capacity I have always found him.—Mr. ALDERSON: That's my case. 

 

Mr. BLACKBURNE addressed the jury for the plaintiff. What his learned friend had wanted in the weight and respectability of his
witnesses, he had made up in number; but his host had failed him, and only served to ensure the victory for the other side.—The
learned gentleman animadverted on the defendant's evidence in a loud strain of indignation; he pointed out what he asserted to be
its improbability and falsehood, contending that his case was untouched; and looked with unabated confidence to a verdict. The case
for the plaintiff was one of the most conclusive he had ever seen; and the answer to it was weak, weak, weak—the witnesses
coach-guards and book-keepers, all in Peter BRETHERTON's employment, who had caught up scraps of conversations in ale-house bars and
stable-yards—conversations, let the jury recollect, in which a slight expression made a great difference—such as Daniel for Peter,
or Peter for Daniel. He had no doubt whatever of the decision of the jury. 

 

The Judge recalled Mr. FAIRBAIRN:— 

 

You said you sent for another gentleman, before the money was paid to the Sheriff's officer, to become bail with you, did he
come?—Yes, he came, but the money was paid, in consequence of my remonstrance, instead of bail being put in. 

 

Mr. ALDERSON.—The new course which the case is taking is very distressing. I was not prepared for this. I passed it over, because
all that I had to do was to meet the case of the other side. I ought to give evidence as to this payment, in order to explain it. 

 

Mr. Justice HOLROYD.—Evidence in this respect was given, and I only wish to clear it up. You assumed in your speech that the money
was paid because the bail did not attend. 

 

Mr. FAIRBAIRN further examined by his Lordship at the request of Mr. ALDERSON.—It was upon my remonstrance—my statement that I
thought the case a clear one, that the money was paid. I declined being bail, because I saw the case was a clear one. 

 

Mr. Justice HOLROYD summed up. The action was laid that the horses were purchased by the defendant on his own account; the answer
put in is, that he bought them as an agent for his father: of course, the question for the jury to decide was, for whom did he
purchase?—if for himself, then the verdict must be for the plaintiff. A man might be a known agent, and yet if he concludes bargains
in which his principal is not mentioned, he is responsible for them in a legal sense. A great deal of the evidence that the purchase
had been made for the father, was evidence of alleged conversations, and that was frequently a very unsatisfactory species of
testimony, and not to be firmly relied on. The jury would remark, that the defendant, in expressing his determination to resist,
said nothing about his not being the debtor, nor that he had purchased on account of his father. According to Mr. FAIRBAIRN, he
appeared to have paid the money on account of its being a just debt. There was, however, this observation to be made on that point.
Till a late very proper Act of Parliament was passed, no arrested person could get out of custody unless he got bail; but now, on
payment of the debt, and £10 which the Legislature considered sufficient to cover the costs attending the suing out of the writ, he
was liberated. The second paper put in, contained an acknowledgment of money paid for MARK, expressly "on account of Peter
BRETHERTON & Co." But the subsequent part of it, signed "D. BRETHERTON," was couched in different terms— "I acknowledge," that is,
"I, Daniel BRETHERTON, acknowledge owing T. INSALL £22 8s. 6d. for three horses," &c. Here he seems first to act for his father, and
secondly for himself; the acknowledgments being separate from each other—certainly extremely strong evidence that he had purchased
them for himself. It might have been true, according to the evidence of the conversations, that Peter BRETHERTON was master of the
coach, and yet Daniel BRETHERTON buy the horses for himself, or, which amounted to the same thing, without stating that they were
for his father. The evidence of M'VITIE, that plaintiff said 'And more than that, I have got the money,' could mean nothing, and was
worth nothing, because both sides admitted that the money had not been paid. The inference to be drawn from the payment of the
demand to the Sheriff's officer instead of putting in bail, was certainly much weakened by the fact subsequently stated by Mr.
FAIRBAIRN, that he refused to be surety. In the course of the trial it had been suggested that the plaintiff arrested Daniel because
he wanted to avoid paying a balance due from him to Peter; but on that head there was no proof. In conclusion, his Lordship thought
that the jury would experience no difficulty in deciding the matter; for besides what he had pointed out, there was the strong fact
that Daniel had again given a receipt to HARRISON, in regard to the horses, without making any mention of Peter, though the
transaction took place at Liverpool in Peter's office. 

 

The jury conferred with each other for about five minutes, and returned a verdict for the Plaintiff, Damages £22 8s. 6d.; Costs 40s.


 

 

[to be continued] 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.cumbriafhs.com/pipermail/list-cumbria/attachments/20240705/dd450595/attachment.htm>