[list-cumbria] Carlisle Patriot, 06 Mar 1824 - Cumberland Spring Assizes (10)

Sun Jul 7 07:40:11 UTC 2024

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

CUMBERLAND SPRING ASSIZES. 

NISI PRIUS. 

[continued] 

THE KING v. INHABITANTS OF CUMBERLAND. 

This was a presentment by Matthew ATKINSON, Esq. against the Inhabitants of Cumberland, for the non-repair of Brougham-Bridge, and
to which two surveyors of the County had appeared and pleaded, that the Bridge was out of repair, but that it had not been built in
such a manner as to be entitled under the act ( 43. G. 3. c. 59) to be considered and received as a County Bridge. 

Mr. ALDERSON in addressing the jury, on the part of the presentment, said the singular form of the issue saved him much trouble; for
the parties pleading in behalf of the County admitted the non-repair; they only denied the liability. The act stated that when a
Bridge was substantially built, whether by individuals, or bodies corporate, and had met with the sanction of a County Surveyor,
that henceforward the County was bound to receive and repair it. Now he would shew that Brougham Bridge had been well built in 1810;
and when he passed over it a day or two ago, he saw nothing affecting its stability; and he dared to say that his Lordship saw the
same-- 

Mr. Justice HOLROYD.-I came over it in the dark. 

Mr. ALDERSON.-I am sorry for that; it bore, however, his Lordship's horses and carriage, and the great weight of law which no doubt
passed over at the same time. (A laugh at the bar.) The County of Cumberland is divided into five wards-Allerdale above and
Allerdale below Derwent, Cumberland, Eskdale, and Leath wards-for which there are two surveyors, one for the Allerdale wards; and
another for the other three. Sanction was given to this bridge at the time of its erection by one BORROWSCALE, who was then surveyor
for the wards first mentioned; and Wm. SANDERSON, the other surveyor, had also declared its sufficiency at the time, by signing an
examination taken by Mr. BLEAYMIRE, the solicitor for this prosecution; but he had also put in a plea, in conjunction with the late
Mr. Wm. NIXON, that the bridge was not such as to be received as a County Bridge;-consequently, his declaration would now be put in
against his plea. 

Joseph BORROWSCALE examined.-I live at Cockermouth, and am a stone-mason. In 1813-14, I was bridge-master for two wards of the
county of Cumberland, Allerdale above and below Derwent. I was occasionally called in to act as bridge-master in the other wards. In
1812-13, Wm. SANDERSON was bridge-master for Eskdale and Cumberland wards. In 1813, I was applied to to make a plan and
specification for building Brougham Bridge, the act having been then obtained. I drew out the conditions on which the contract was
made, and occasionally superintended and inspected the manner of its erection, being there at one time near a month. During the
progress of the work, I expressed dissatisfaction, and made them alter it. I disapproved of the first pier, and said it ought to be
taken down; I was also dissatisfied with the first arch that was turned. Mr. SANDERSON, the other bridge-master, came to see the
arch with which I found fault: there was also a third man called in, Mr. Ben. PROCTOR, a man of experience. In consequence of my
objection, the whole of the arch was taken down. I signed the report now put in, at that time; and Mr. SANDERSON signed it likewise.
When the bridge was finished, I am of opinion that it was done in a substantial and workmanlike manner: it was finished to my
satisfaction. During the progress of the work, Mr. SANDERSON came two or three different times to look at it, and he also viewed it
along with me when it was completed, and expressed himself particularly satisfied with it. 

Cross-examined by Mr. COURTENAY.-At the time mentioned, I was sent into Mr. SANDERSON's wards by the magistrates to look at a
particular bridge-I built it. I never inspected more than two bridges in SANDERSON's ward-Blackburn-bridge and Sebergham-bridge. I
did this by order of sessions. For one of them, SANDERSON himself was the contractor. I myself put some part of the other bridge
(Blackburn) together, but I did not contract for it-those who did so, were not much accustomed to the work, and I built the arch.
These are the only two cases in which I have interfered in SANDERSON's wards. Brougham-bridge was built by the trustees, under the
act of parliament; the contract was let in public, to persons named GOLDING. Before it was let I made a specification and plan, and
was paid by the late Mr. JAMESON, on the part of the trustees. I never laid the plan or specification before the magistrate at the
sessions. I believe SANDERSON was called in when the first abutment was raised. I was appointed to superintend the trustees; I don't
know that SANDERSON was appointed to superintend me; but he was sent for when the arch was taken down. There were some disputes
between the contractors and trustees, and then it was that SANDERSON was called in to give his opinion-I don't know that he was
called in professionally at any other time. The bridge divides the counties-and I superintended the Westmorland side as well as the
Cumberland, though I am not a bridge-master for the county of Westmorland. The magistrates of Cumberland did not direct me to
superintend the building. I have ceased to be a bridge-master about six years-I was dismissed by the magistrates. I have not seen
the bridge for two years; it was then in good repair. 

Re-examined.-The pier altered was at the Cumberland end-I believe Mr. SANDERSON was not sent for to see that. I was bridge-master
about 15 years. 

Mr. BLEAYMIRE, solicitor, of Penrith.-I was solicitor for the trustees for passing the act of parliament. The body of the report now
shewn me is in the late Mr. JAMESON's hand-writing, and he was one of the overlookers of the work for the trustees, he being one of
them. The answers to the queries are in my writing; the signatures are those of Wm. SANDERSON, Jas. BORROWSCALE, and Benj.
PROCTOR-Wm. SANDERSON being now the bridge-surveyor-the paper signed at the time the bridge was going on. I am now solicitor for the
prosecution. Among other witnesses, I examined Mr. SANDERSON two or three times, and on the last occasion, took it down in
writing-this was before the County put in the plea, and I intended to make him a witness. I drew out the examination, read it over
to him, and he signed it. 

Cross-examined by Mr. COURTENAY.-SANDERSON is bridge-master for the ward, and an inhabitant of the county. 

Mr. COURTENAY submitted whether Mr. SANDERSON could not be examined in preference to the report being put in-as he was anxious to be
examined. 

Some argument followed on this point; but his Lordship said that it could not be. What SANDERSON himself had stated in regard to
this case, was evidence against him. 

The report was put in, signed by Mr. SANDERSON. He stated that he was sent for when complaint was made about the abutment, which was
altered; also in respect to the arch; and again in reference to a dispute on the Westmorland side. Finally, he saw it when finished,
and thought it substantially executed. He did not recollect how he was paid. 

Another document put in, dated 8th July, 1803, containing answers to the queries before alluded to: it related to the manner of
performing the work by the contractors, and in consequence of these answers the alterations were made. 

Mr. BLEAYMIRE cross-examined by Mr. COURTENAY.-I do not pretend that Mr. SANDERSON's answers are in his precise words-but drawn up
in the third person, as we always draw up such things. 

Mr. COURTENAY addressed the Jury for the defendants. The only question was, whether this bridge could be considered, under the act,
a county bridge. He contended that the act had not been complied with: for it provided that no bridge should be considered a county
bridge, unless built in a substantial manner, and superintended by a county surveyor, of course regularly appointed to that duty by
the magistrates. It could not be said BORROWSCALE was competent to decide, for he was out of his district; he had not been sent
thither by the magistrates, who had received no notice, seen no specification or plan, and were, in fact, altogether ignorant of the
matter. SANDERSON should have been the man called in, and no other. He had been there, it was true; but as a private individual, at
the request of the trustees, to settle a private dispute with the persons with whom they had contracted; and not as county surveyor,
on behalf of the public or the magistrates. Mr. COURTENAY analized [sic] the evidence to shew that his position was supported, and
concluded by again submitting that the bridge did not come under the statute. 

Mr. Justice HOLROYD.-The Act says the bridge shall be built "under the direction or to the satisfaction" of a surveyor of the
county. 

Mr. COURTENAY.-I submit that it is not sufficient to call upon a surveyor after the bridge is built.-1. I submit there is a doubt as
to substantiality. 2. That BORROWSCALE was not bridge-master for the wards in which he pretends to have acted. And, in fine, that
the spirit of the Act of Parliament has not been complied with. 

Mr. Justice HOLROYD.-I will take a note of your objection. 

Mr. COURTENAY.-BORROWSCALE was neither sent nor employed for the purpose. The magistrates should have had plans, specifications, and
notices, that they might have sent a person in whom they had confidence. 

Mr. Justice HOLROYD.-The act says a public bridge shall be commodious and substantial. If it be so, even if the County disapprove of
it, the parties building can compel the county surveyor to attend; and if he can conscientiously say that the work is done in a
commodious and substantial manner, he is bound to declare it, and the County is obliged to receive the bridge. 

Mr. COURTENAY.-I stand here on the part of the County, who wish to see whether the trustees are liable or not-we wish to do only
that which is right. I request your Lordship to take a note, that hereafter we may go go [sic] further if we think proper. The point
is a new one, and of some consequence. 

The Jury, under the Learned Judge's direction, found the Defendants Guilty-which, for the present, renders the County liable to
repair. 

[to be continued] 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.cumbriafhs.com/pipermail/list-cumbria/attachments/20240707/7d469b81/attachment-0001.htm>