[list-cumbria] Carlisle Patriot, 01 May 1824 - County Sessions (5)

[Petra Mitchinson]

Saturday 01 May 1824   (p. 2, col. 5 - p. 3, col. 5)

 

COUNTY SESSIONS. 

 

[continued] 

 

BASTARDY. 

 

An appeal against an order of affiliation went off very mortifyingly for the appellant. His recognizance, though drawn from CHETWYND
by his attorney, was objected to by Mr. COURTENAY, and found defective, inasmuch as it did not bind the appellant to pay costs as
well as answer the issue. Mr. AGLIONBY argued in favour of its validity. If the party had not appeared here at all, would not his
recognizance have been forfeited? To be sure, costs were not, eo nomine, mentioned in it; but they were implied. He was surety to do
whatever the act (18th Eliz.) orders; and Mr. A. thought his client was liable under it to costs. Mr. COURTENAY shortly replied. The
act was imperative: it said that no appeal should be heard unless the party bind himself to do so and so, "and to pay the costs."
The Bench immediately decided that the error was fatal; that there was no appeal.-The case is certainly a very hard one,
particularly as the appellant, we understand, is a married man, and had an almost unquestionable case. 

 

HUDDLESTON AND OTHERS v. COOKE, ESQ. 

 

This was an appeal against the diversion of a road leading from the village of Cammerton, by Maryport, to Flimby, by two magistrates
on view. 

 

Proof was put in of the service of a great variety of notices of appeal. 

 

Mr. COURTENAY, on the behalf of Cammerton, submitted that the Court had no jurisdiction. The road was set out by Commissioners,
whose act was final. He cited cases in support of his argument, chiefly relying on the King and the Dean Forest Commissioners, and
King and the Magistrates of Cumberland. 

 

On the other hand, Mr. AGLIONBY cited the cases of the King and the West Riding of York, and the King against TOWNSEND, to shew that
there was a jurisdiction in the case. When the general act was referred to by the local act, then, he contended, the former had the
precedency; but if the words used were brought into the local act, or if it differed from the general act, then the local act
superseded the general one. The road over the common, he maintained, was an old one. He relied upon the 28th section of the local
act. 

 

Mr. COURTENAY said his learned friend had not at all altered the question. The 18th section of the local act referred to the general
act, which, he argued, rendered the previous decision of the commissioners who set out the road in question, on the inclosure of the
common over which it passed, final and conclusive. 

 

The Court overruled Mr. COURTENAY's objection. 

 

Mr. AGLIONBY said he had now to make an objection-an objection to the notices on the ground of informality; and on this point, after
some further argument, the matter went off altogether. 

 

 

[to be continued] 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.cumbriafhs.com/pipermail/list-cumbria/attachments/20240930/4dd25e6e/attachment.htm>