[list-cumbria] Carlisle Patriot, 28 Aug 1824 - Cumberland Summer Assizes (2)

Wed Feb 5 13:43:33 UTC 2025

Saturday 28 Aug 1824   (p. 2, col. 3 – p. 4, col. 5)

CUMBERLAND SUMMER ASSIZES, 1824. 

[continued] 

NISI-PRIUS: MR. BARON HULLOCK. 

HESLOP v. OLIVER & UX. 

In this case, the plaintiff, who is a draper in Carlisle, sought to recover
a debt of £28 10s. due for goods supplied to the defendant's wife, who is a
minor.—Mr. ALDERSON opened the pleadings. 

Mr. WILLIAMS addressed the jury. He said the plaintiff, Mr. HESLOP, was a
respectable tradesman in in this city: the female defendant was equally
respectable; her maiden name was MESSENGER. Her father formerly lived at
Parkhead, and possessed an estate there; after his death, the widow, with
her three daughters, went to live at Scotby, near this city; one of whom
afterwards married a Mr. HOLME, at that time a solicitor in Carlisle, with
whom the fair defendant went to reside; and during her residence there, the
plaintiff furnished her with goods from his shop: she was at that time under
age. The account was from the month of August, 1820, to March, 1822; and so
moderate was the defendant, that her bill did not amount to more than £18 a
year for every species of dress that could adorn a female. The stockings
charged in the bill were of a common description; and, perhaps, the
defendant's foot and ancle graced the stockings more than the stockings
ornamented them. There were also some items for flannel, but not much had
been worn. Mr. HESLOP's was the only shop the defendant frequented. The
goods were set down in her name; and a woman named CARRUTHERS, a dressmaker,
frequently got the goods at the shop, but they were always set down to
defendant's account. Mrs. OLIVER got several articles, it appeared, prior to
her departure to a boarding-school at Leeds, where she intended to finish
her education, and, on her return, to import more of the graces of Leeds
into the populous and (the learned counsel hoped) not less graceful town of
Carlisle. The The [sic] fair defendant, however, had acknowledged the debt,
and wished to pay it; but Mr. OLIVER, her husband, was a sprig of the law,
and therefore disputed the demand. The learned counsel said he would call a
witness to prove the justice of his claim. 

Joseph HESLOP called.—Witness stated that he was brother to the plaintiff,
and stood in his shop. He knew Jane MESSENGER; she had purchased many
articles from his brother; her bill commenced in Aug. 1820, and she desired
the goods to be put down to her account. Mrs. CARRUTHERS, a dressmaker, had
got goods for the defendant; and the goods which witness remembered might
amount to £20. 

Cross-examined by Mr. SCARLETT.—Witness said he was related to the late Mr.
HOLME, who married the eldest sister; they were first cousins. Jane went to
school at Carlisle, and stopped at Mr. HOLME's; but witness cannot say who
put her to school at Leeds, whilst she was there Mr. HOLME died, and was in
debt. The bill was commenced when Miss MESSENGER was at school in Carlisle;
and Mr. HOLME desired all to be entered in the defendant's name; but
previews to that, Mr. H. had the bill, which was £5 19s. No money was ever
demanded of the plaintiff till Mr. HOLME died. Mr. H., witness believed,
died insolvent; but does not know that his debts amounted to £800. 

Re-examined by Mr. WILLIAMS.—Mr. HOLME desired the goods to be put down in
his name, and he paid for Miss MESSENGER a bill amounting to £5 19s., and
another bill of his own to the amount of £3; but, at that time, desired us
for the future to set down Miss MESSENGER's goods to her own account.
Witness's brother knew defendant's situation in life; the articles were all
low-priced, and, he thought, necessary. Some of the calicoes were as low as
7d. per yard, &c.; and 12 yards of brown lustre for a gown, at 2s. 9d. per
yard, which came to £1 13s.; this was the highest item. 

By Mr. Baron HULLOCK.—What goods were got for Miss MESSENGER, Mr. HOLME said
were to be put down to her own account; he assigned no reason, but paid the
previous bill. Mr. H. paid £15 8s. in January, 1822; but he owed witness's
brother a bill of his own amounting to £11 5s. at this time. 

Mrs. Mary HOLME, widow of the late Mr. Joseph HOLME, called.—She stated that
she was sister to Jane OLIVER, who came to live with them a short time after
their marriage. Knew her sister was entitled to £50 per annum; and also that
she got goods from Mr. HESLOP's shop: she saw them after they came from Mrs.
CARRUTHERS, dressmaker. A bill was sent in after witness's sister came home,
amounting to £28 10s. Witness pad some money on her own account to Mr.
HESLOP, and her sister told her to tell him she would also pay him as soon
as she could. Witness told her sister she was going to Mr. HESLOP's: she had
her bill about half a year or more before that time. Her sister was married
to Mr. OLIVER about Christmas last. 

Cross-examined by Mr. SCARLETT.—Witness was of age in September last: her
sister Jane (Mrs. OLIVER) is three years younger; she would be 18 on the 2nd
of April. Witness was married at 17: her husband (Mr. HOLME) got letters of
guardianship for her sister Jane, and took care of her, and put her to
school, and paid for it: she stopped with them during the holidays. Previous
to that time her grandfather had been her guardian. Mr. HOLME (witness's
husband) cut some timber off the estate, and received some money. Mr. HILL
and Mr. HESLOP were both drapers, and both cousins to witness's husband, and
he wished the custom to be divided between them. Mr. HOLME kept Jane's
accounts, and took her to Leeds school at Christmas, 1822; shortly after
that he died. The account was kept separate, that Mr. HOLME might know how
to charge it. Mr. H. stood the contest for the office of coroner, but was
unfortunate, and involved himself: he left witness nothing but her own
estate. He paid her sister's school bills in Carlisle. (Several bills were
handed in.) These bills were received; but witness could not say if they
were paid. Witness paid the second and third bill for the education at Leeds
herself. 

By Mr. WILLIAMS.—Witness paid the bills partly from her own money and partly
from her sister's. Her husband said Mr. HILL and Mr. HESLOP were both his
cousins, and she was to get goods at HILL's, and her sister Jane at
HESLOP's. This was when witness's husband was made guardian, in 1820. Mr.
HESLOP was intimate with Mr. HILL, and with witness and her husband. When
witness's father died, there was money as well as personal property; and her
brother administered.—Mrs. OLIVER is now under age. 

Mr. SCARLETT addressed the jury for the defence. The learned gentleman
admitted the goods were necessary; but the defendant was a young girl, and
not fit to be a creditor on her own account. The estate, worth about £150 a
year, belongs to three sisters. Mr. HOLME cut the timber, received the rent,
and got all; and it was his duty, as guardian, to have provided for the
defendant in this case, and to have paid all for [sic]. He desired the
custom to be divided, and requested Mr. HESLOP to keep a separate account,
for the purpose of satisfying Miss MESSENGER that he had done her justice. A
tradesman may supply a minor with goods; but if the minor has a father or
guardian, he supplies the goods on his credit. Mr. HESLOP here evidently
gave credit to Mr. HOLME; but HOLME had died an insolvent, and paid nobody;
he therefore tries what he can get from the young lady. OLIVER is himself a
minor, and it would be hard for him to pay, though he took her "for better,
for worse." The jury saw the defendant's situation, and he looked for their
verdict with confidence. 

His Lordship summed up the evidence with great attention; and in conclusion
observed, that it would have been improper to have given credit to so young
a person as the defendant, unless some arrangement with her friends had been
made. The jury would consider whether Mr. HOLME gave notice to Mr. HESLOP to
keep his account separate, for the purpose of better arrangement; if so, the
defendant was entitled to a verdict; but if the account was to be kept
separate from any alteration in the credit, the verdict ought to be for the
plaintiff.—The jury turned round in the box for a short time, and then
returned a verdict for the Defendant. 

[to be continued] 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.cumbriafhs.com/pipermail/list-cumbria/attachments/20250205/f5a8279e/attachment-0001.htm>