[list-cumbria] Carlisle Patriot, 06 Mar 1824 - Cumberland Spring Assizes (9)

[Petra Mitchinson]

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

 

CUMBERLAND SPRING ASSIZES. 

 

NISI PRIUS. 

  

[continued] 

 

BURROW v. TIDEY. 

 

Mr. COURTENAY said the Plaintiff in this case of trespass, was a respectable gentleman living on his own land in Carlton manor,
parish of Drigg, in this county; the defendant a gamekeeper (a mere menial servant) for the manor of Irton. He did not appear there
to ask for great damages. His only object was to protect himself from the insults and "insolence of office" of the defendant; who
exercised his petty authority most vexatiously towards Mr. BURROW-followed him like a shadow, shouted to drive away birds when
shooting, and often firing across his path for the same purpose.-On a late occasion, the defendant fired at a partridge while
standing on his own manor, the bird fell upon Mr. BURROW's property, and he persisted in coming after it though warned of the
consequences if he did so. For the trespass arising out of this affair it was, that moderate damages were asked for, in order to
teach this man of no feelings that his insolence could be punished. 

 

Ashton BURROW, son of the plaintiff, called.-My father lives at Carlton-Hall, in the parish of Drigg. William TIDEY is gamekeeper of
Irton manor, which adjoins my father's lands. On the 24th of Dec. last, I was out with my father shooting, near to Irton manor, upon
my father's own land. I saw defendant, TIDEY, in an adjoining field, standing behind a hedge, and had two dogs and a gun with him.
TIDEY shot a partridge, which fell upon my father's land; and he asked if he might come and get it. Father replied, no, it was at
his peril to come in, and if he did, he would fine him. TIDEY said nothing, but came over the hedge into our land, with his dogs,
and ranged them up and down. One of the dogs found the bird and ate it. TIDEY then went back, saying to Mr. BURROW, "Take care of
yourself, my gentleman." There was no one with my father but myself. When my father refused to let him come over, he told him he
would bring an action against him if he did so. 

 

Cross-examined by Mr. ALDERSON.-I will swear that my father did not point his gun at the defendant, nor did he strike him. Father
did not go up to him; TIDEY came to him. As soon as father saw the dogs have the bird, both ran up to the dogs. Defendant left his
gun behind him when he came into our land; but my father had his gun in his hand when he ran up. I saw no struggle-they walked up
and down. They ran together to get to the bird. There was a struggle about the bird: and it was after this that defendant said,
"Take care of yourself, gentleman." TIDEY went to the sessions; and my father went there also. 

 

Re-examined.-There was no trial at the sessions. 

 

Mr. ALDERSON.-How much does my learned friend expect in this case? A farthing or a shilling? I shall be satisfied if he gets either;
but he cannot expect more, if so much. Where is there any proof of all the ravages and vexations that had been opened? No one can
find any. There is nothing about previous quarrels: If that had come out, we should then have seen who was quarrelsome, and who was
peaceable. The trespass, such as it is, is of course shewn. The defendant [sic] has land in the manor of Carlton. The defendant is
qualified for the manor of Irton. By law, a gamekeeper cannot sport out of his own manor-if he goes out of it, he may be fined as an
unqualified person. This explanation shews the real merits of the case, and points out what the plaintiff meant when he said he
would fine him:-though my learned friend endeavoured to extract something about action. The provocation is all on one side; and that
the jury will see; but I have a few words for his Lordship. 

 

Mr. ALDERSON then objected to the wording of the declaration. The first count laid the trespass, and then stated that the bird taken
away was the property of plaintiff. The second, the trespass merely; and the third, that defendant had taken away ten partridges,
Mr. BURROW's property. 

 

The objection was held valid by the Judge, who told the jury that the plaintiff must have a verdict for the trespass only. There was
no evidence that TIDEY had misconducted himself, and therefore that allegation must not be taken for granted. They might give
nominal damages, if they chose, not to carry costs. 

 

Verdict for the plaintiff, on the trespass, damages One Farthing. For the defendant upon the other points. 

 

The Judge said he certainly should not certify unless compelled by law. 

 

Mr. ALDERSON cited a case (3 East, 499) to show that the learned Judge had a discretion. 

 

 

[to be continued] 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.cumbriafhs.com/pipermail/list-cumbria/attachments/20240706/22c133bd/attachment.htm>