[list-cumbria] Carlisle Patriot, 04 Sep 1824 - Westmorland Assizes (9)

[petra.mitchinson at doctors.org.uk]

Saturday 04 Sep 1824   (p. 4, col. 1-6)
 
(WESTMORLAND ASSIZES: CONTINUED.) 
 
[continued] 
 
HUDDLESTON v. PEARSON. 
 
This was an action to recover compensation for injury arising out of a
distraint for rent. Mr. POLLOCK opened the case, and Mr. SCARLETT addressed
the Jury. The parties, he said, were landlord and tenant, and resided on the
borders of this county, near Ulverstone. Mr. PEARSON had distrained, but,
without proceeding to a sale, an agreement was made that HUDDLESTON should
thrash out his barley and deliver it to a neighbouring maltster, allowing
PEARSON to receive the money. Fifteen or sixteen bushels of barley were so
delivered, and the plaintiff was proceeding, in the terms of agreement,
"with all convenient dispatch" to thrash and deliver the remainder, when
PEARSON came with two men, violently entered the barn, and there thrashed
out the remainder of the barley in so slovenly a manner, that great loss was
thereby sustained. The plaintiff therefore sought to recover, first for the
forcible entry into the barn; and, secondly, for the injury sustained in the
waste of his barley; and this compensation he was sure the Jury would give
when the facts of the case were laid before them, for it was extremely
necessary to shew landlords that, however unfortunate and lowly a tenant may
be, he still has legal rights, and that the law cannot be infringed with
impunity. 
 
Geo HODGSON sworn.-I went to the plaintiff in the beginning of the year, on
a Monday, at Mr. PEARSON's request, to thrash some barley, in company with
Henry CAPSTICKS. When we got there, we saw HUDDLESTON himself coming out of
his stable. I went into the house to smoke a pipe, because he and PEARSON
got at fiery words. When I returned, they were in the barn. Mr. PEARSON said
we must thrash the barley; James HUDDLESTON said we should not: but at Mr.
PEARSON's request we did thrash it. We were three or four days about it; and
the grain was sent to Mr. MARTINDALE, maltster, at Winston. I saw Mr.
PEARSON's brother take some away. We dressed the barley by candle-light. 
 
Cross-examined by Mr. BROUGHAM, who (with Mr. ARMSTRONG,) appeared for the
defendant.-We had some assistance from HUDDLESTON's family, who sent in from
time to time to see how things were going on. They lent us a lanthorn; and
plaintiff's son also came and helped to measure. Mr. PEARSON was anxious to
have the work well done. I had been employed by Mr. HUDDLESTON himself to
thrash a part of the barley. 
 
Re-examined.-HUDDLESTON was not there when we went for the lanthorn; he had
gone to Preston fair. I don't know that HUDDLESTON gave PEARSON leave to
thrash the barley. 
 
Thomas HUDDLESTON, a youth, son of the plaintiff, examined.-My father rents
a farm of Mr. PEARSON at Crosthwaite in this county. Father went to Preston
on the 5th of January. I was going down to the stable to get his horse; and
seeing Mr. PEARSON and two men coming, I acquainted him with it, and he came
out. Mr. PEARSON went into the barn, and father and myself followed. Father
asked what he was going to do? Mr. PEARSON said he intended to thrash.
Father said he should not. PEARSON said he would and called his men into the
barn. My father then went to Preston fair; his last words to PEARSON were,
that he should not thrash; and he was absent till the 9th, four days. The
men remained at work till the 8th. PEARSON came every day, and shook the
straw at the barn door. They thrashed all that was in the barn, and did the
work very badly; a deal of heads were left among the straw, and the barley
was wasted over the farm yard. We thrashed some of the straw over again, and
got out a bushel and half. We never yet learned what quantity PEARSON took
away. Being pinched for fodder we were obliged to give the cattle some of
the straw before it was re-thrashed. 
 
Cross-examined by Mr. BROUGHAM.-How much grain did you find in every bushel
of straw? I can't say.-Half a bushel? Yes.-Nearer a bushel than half a
bushel, I should think? Yes.-Perhaps more than a bushel? Not more.-I did not
give the bushel and half got out of the straw to PEARSON. I do not know that
a year and a half's rent was due. Fifteen bushels and a peck had been sent
to MARTINDALE before Mr. PEARSON came and thrashed. No time was set to
thrash it in; father was to do it as soon as he could. 
 
Re-examined.-The corn was not PEARSON's, but father's. It was to be
PEARSON's after it was delivered to the maltster. 
 
James SIMPSON.-I live near HUDDLESTON. PEARSON and he came to my house last
November to settle the expenses of the distraint. Mr. PEARSON said he would
sell, if the expenses were not paid. I settled them for HUDDLESTON. PEARSON
said that James was to thrash him out his barley, and deliver it to
MARTINDALE or some other maltster residing near, PEARSON to take the money
for it-to be done as soon as convenient, but no time mentioned. After that,
another distress was put in. I believe one year's rent was due when I paid
the expences. 
 
Cross-examined.-Mr. PEARSON afterwards told me that he had the barley. 
 
Re-examined.-But HUDDLESTON, by the agreement, was to have thrashed it, for
which no time was fixed. The bargain took place very soon after Martinmas. 
 
Edward GELDRED said he saw the barley on the 10th, the day after HUDDLESTON
returned from Preston; it was very badly thrashed; many heads were
untouched. Had it been his, he should have thought he had sustained a loss
of four or five pounds. 
 
Cross-examined by Mr. BROUGHAM.-I cannot take upon myself to say how much
barley there might have been by the straw; I can form no estimate.-And yet
you pretend to say that there were four or five pounds loss! Were there five
bushels or fifty? I can't tell. 
 
Mr. BROUGHAM.-Then, Sir, I shall leave your evidence to the Jury. 
 
Young HUDDLESTON recalled by Mr. Justice BAYLEY.-Father and me had been
thrashing the barley before Mr. PEARSON's men came: nobody else: we had
delivered fifteen bushels and a peck. I think we had been thrashing within
the last fortnight. I held the sacks one night, while PEARSON's men
measured; I don't know how many bushels they sent away. 
 
Mr. BROUGHAM now addressed the Jury for the defendant. He questioned whether
Judge or Jury ever saw a case as this in a Court of Justice, attempted to be
propped up by such evidence, which could not be relied on, and proved
nothing if it could. It was quite impossible to depend on one word of what
GELDRED had said; for he took upon himself to swear that four or five pounds
loss had been sustained by the plaintiff, when he could not tell how much
Barley was there, whether five bushels or fifty! It was said that some ears
appeared among the straw. This, as the Jury knew, was always the case, all
barley must be so thrashed. PEARSON did no more than he had a right to do.
HUDDLESTON owed him upwards of a year's rent at the time. He indulged him
most liberally; and it was only when he found that the contract was evaded
that he himself went to complete it; and after all he never got a quarter of
what was due to him. The evidence that permission was refused to thrash,
rested solely on the boy, the son who came to get his father's case through;
and Mr. BROUGHAM was sure the Jury would reject the whole of the testimony.
Instead of being ill-used, HUDDLESTON had received from Mr. PEARSON the
greatest kindness; and that kindness had been repaid by the greatest
ingratitude. 
 
Mr. Justice BAYLEY summed up.-The defendant claimed damages for the use of
the barn, and because the corn had been thrashed improperly. The Jury should
consider what bargain had been made. If they should think the plaintiff had
not thrashed out the grain in due time (having taken from Martinmas to
January), the defendant would not be liable to damages for entering to do it
himself. In respect to the thrashing, if they were of opinion that the work
had been negligently done, then they should give the plaintiff a verdict,
and such damages as seemed to them right. But if they thought that due
diligence had not been observed in the thrashing [sic], and that the work
had been performed with propriety, then the defendant was not liable in
either case.-Verdict for the Defendant, without hesitation. 
 
BURROUGH v. HEELIS.  S. J. 
 
The real parties in this action are the Corporation of Appleby and the Earl
of Thanet-the question, to whom belongs a piece of common land sold by that
Corporation to Mr. BURROUGH.-On calling over the special jury list, only
seven appeared, and as neither party would consent to pray a tales (neither
being properly prepared it is said) the cause went off, and will most likely
be heard at the Spring Assizes. 
 
Two tithe causes between the Vicar of Appleby and the Earl of Thanet were
settled just as they were about to be called on. 
 
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.cumbriafhs.com/pipermail/list-cumbria/attachments/20250323/ef6a2d09/attachment-0001.htm>