Saturday 04 Sep 1819 (p. 1, col. 5-6 and p. 4, col. 1-6) CARLISLE ASSIZES, 1819. BEFORE MR. JUSTICE BAYLEY. [continued] TRESPASS. Sir Frederick VANE, Bart. v. ROOKE.—Mr. RAINE (with whom were Messrs. LAMB and TINDAL) stated the case to the jury. The real question at issue was, whether the defendant, George ROOKE, as owner and occupier of the Abbey in the manor of Embleton, of which Lord Egremont was the Lord, had a prescriptive right to dig gravel and stones on Ling-fell, a part of a waste in the manor of Wythop, of which Sir Frederick VANE was the Lord. The waste of Embleton had joined the waste of Wythop, and it was extremely probable that the two wastes had been occupied in common: but the waste of Embleton had been lately inclosed, and in 1813, upon full trial, the boundary was fixed between the manor of Embleton and the manor of Wythop. Upon occasion of that trial, Mr. ROOKE affirmed, for he was a Quaker, that he had obtained leave from Lord Egremont to dig stones out of the Ling-fell, and paid 2s. 6d. in consideration of it. This solemn affirmation was decisive against the prescriptive right now claimed. James BRAGGE proved the trespass in Aug. 1817. David RICHARDSON proved Sir Frederick VANE to be Lord of the manor of Wythop, and the Ling-fell to be part of that manor. He never heard of a right in the owners of the Abbey to dig stones or gravel in the manor of Wythop. Elizabeth HODGSON discharged Bell ARMSTRONG in 1815, from taking gravel from Ling-fell without the permission of Sir Frederick VANE. Joseph VICKARS proved, that the defendant had affirmed that he and his father had obtained leave from Lord Egremont to dig stones from the Ling-fell for building a barn 40 years ago, and had paid 2s. 6d. in consideration. He never heard of a right in the Abbey to dig stones or gravel. Wm. STODDARD heard Mr. ROOKE say that they had paid 2s. 6d. for getting stones. It was a new addition to an old barn. He never heard of a right in the Abbey to dig stones there. Robert STOREY remembered the building of the new addition, and had been told by the defendant's father that he had asked leave, and was to pay 2s. 6d. He never heard of a right without leave. Mr. SCARLETT (with whom was Mr. LITTLEDALE) addressed the jury for the defendant. They had heard an extraordinary negative proof. It was singular to twist the leave asked of Lord Egremont into evidence of the right of Sir Frederick VANE. The evidence to be given for the defendant was, however, consistent with the asking of leave. The claim was not to dig stones or gravel for making new houses or new ways, but for repairing houses, roads, walls, drains, &c. Joseph WAITE, aged 84, lived all his life at Embleton, and saw Wm. THOMSON, farmer of the Abbey, taking gravel from Ling-fell, and mending roads and pavements by it. This was 55 years ago. Cross-examined by Mr. RAINE.—Lord Egremont had Ling-fell then. James IRVINE, aged 72, got the stones for ROOKE to build a barn about 30 years ago. Jos. BIRKITT, about 70, a waller, knew some of the stones in all the houses and walls about the Abbey to have been taken from the quarry at Ling-fell, from their appearance. He was at the building of the new barn in 1781. John SHEARMAN, aged 62, saw ROOKE's servants working in the quarry at Ling-fell, 51 years ago, when the Abbey-house was undergoing repairs, and he saw carts with stones between the house and the quarry. He knew a wall of ROOKE's to have been re-built with stones from this quarry. Daniel WAITE, knew of gravel brought to the yard at the Abbey; he believed from Ling-fell. He saw the stones got from Ling-fell for rebuilding the wall on the Abbey-farm. John WAITE, aged 58, knew gravel to have been brought from Wythop to the Abbey-farm. William KELL saw several cart-loads of gravel carried from Ling-fell to Abbey-farm. John ROTHEREY saw stones got for a wall on Abbey-farm from Ling-fell 26 years ago. Cross-examined.—He gave a subpœna to one of the witnesses; he asked questions of witnesses. James SIMPSON, got gravel from Ling-fell for the Abbey-farm. Bell ARMSTRONG also got gravel to repair a path. The woman, HODGSON, blackguarded him: he went to another place in consequence of being discharged by her. Mr. RAINE contended, that if all that was alleged were true, it signified nothing, since it was in no way connected with the knowledge of Sir Frederick VANE, or his bailiff. Casual acts of enjoyment signified nothing as contrasted with one solid interruption. Verdict for the defendant, upon the prescriptive right. The pleadings had been so constructed that the claim was confined to Ling-fell. Some argument consequently arose whether evidence could be given by the defendant, of stones or gravel taken generally from the manor of Wythop. Mr. SCARLETT contended, that since proving a prescription was only proving an ancient grant, and since in proving a grant, evidence of a more extended right was admissible in order to prove the more limited claim, the same evidence ought to be admitted here. Mr. Justice Bayley said, that it had been ruled, and the rule had been uniformly acted upon, that evidence of the exercise of the claim in other parts of the manor was no evidence of the right to the particular part in the pleadings. If the pleadings had claimed the right generally, evidence might be given respecting any part of the manor. Mr. LITTLEDALE disclaimed any part in drawing up the pleadings. The following, we understand, is the substance of the verdict:—"Verdict for defendant, with liberty for the plaintiff to enter a verdict for 1s. damages upon the second new assignment, if the Court should think right." [to be continued]

Saturday 04 Sep 1819 (p. 1, col. 5-6 and p. 4, col. 1-6) CARLISLE ASSIZES, 1819. BEFORE MR. JUSTICE BAYLEY. [continued] DEBT. MILLER v. SALKELD.—Mr. Aldersey MILLER, of Workington, plaintiff; and Mrs. SALKELD, widow, of that town, defendant—or, more properly speaking, the goods and chattels of Mr. Henry SALKELD, deceased. Mr. SCARLETT, for the plaintiff, said that Mr. MILLER brought this action to recover a balance of £123 : 18 : 8, out of which he was willing to allow £23 2s., the result of an error. The late Mr. SALKELD kept the Green Dragon, Workington, an excellent inn, now managed by his widow—he was also an extensive farmer—carried on a tan-yard—and was engaged in various lucrative concerns. A few years before he died, he agreed to sell all the wheat he then had (just after harvest) to the plaintiff at 30s. per Carlisle bushel (3 Winchester). This, Mr. SALKELD considered a good bargain at that time. However, corn rose, and Mr. S. being vexed at what he had done, sold part of his crop to others. As soon as Mr. MILLER heard of this, he remonstrated with Mr. S. and told him, if the bargain were not adhered to, he should bring an action. In consequence, an agreement was made, and Mr. SALKELD was to deliver corn to make up the quantity, in future years, at 30s. the bushel, which was done: various other transactions took place, and when Mr. SALKELD died, there was a considerable balance in favour of the plaintiff, &c. The defendant pleaded the statute of limitation—that there were no assets but what were administered. The contrary of this would be made appear, for he should prove that Mr. SALKELD died in affluence—worth at least £7000. Mr. Wm. WALLACE heard the late Mr. SALKELD say that he had made such a bargain with Mr. MILLER, as described by Mr. SCARLETT. Mr. Jos. THOMPSON, attorney, of Workington, knew the late Mr. SALKELD very well. He here put in a bill for £100 odd shillings, signed Henry SALKELD, (Mrs. SALKELD's son who manages her affairs) promising to pay the balance, &c. Mr. THOMPSON called upon Mrs. SALKELD to request payment of the account now put in. Mrs. S. said she had a cargo of bark to pay for, and begged for a little time—he called several times, and afterwards brought this action. Cross-examined by Mr. WILLIAMS.—He called again as desired, and Henry SALKELD then mentioned the bargain about the wheat, and he objected to the price of it, in the presence of his mother. Three calls were made in a very short time, as Mr. MILLER was very pressing—the third time young SALKELD proposed a reference. Resumed.—At the second interview Mrs. SALKELD promised to pay, if Mr. MILLER would wait three weeks or a month. He told her that he could not allow her any longer time; he was ordered to send for a writ that very night. Witness estimated the assets upon the farm at £3000. The household furniture, &c. at the Green Dragon might be safely put down as worth £300, and more. Joseph NICHOLSON thought the stock in the tan-yard, when Mr. SALKELD died, worth £2,500. Mr. MILLER and Mr. SALKELD were intimate friends. Mr. WILLIAMS, for the defendant, addressed the jury with great animation. Though it appeared that Mr. SALKELD and Mr. MILLER were good friends when Mr. S. was alive, Mr. MILLER had now no friendship left for his widow; he had harrassed her for this demand no less than three times in 24 hours, and threatened the extremity of the law—this was Mr. MILLER's kindness for his deceased friend's widow. The jury would easily see that the plaintiff's conduct had been premature and harsh—he was anxious to snap a verdict. He had brought the action for the whole sum, but Mr. MILLER, it seemed by the error, could be peremptory without being right. It appeared from the account that the deceased had supplied the plaintiff with corn in years subsequent to the bargain; and it could not for a moment be supposed that, when corn was much higher, he would agree to let Mr. M. have it for 10s. a Winchester bushel. If the additional price were added, (which is the mistake complained of) the plaintiff would be in defendant's debt. Documents were put in to prove special debts to the amount of £5,100. Thomas SALKELD, cousin to the deceased, was in his employment 23 years—he died 10th March, 1817, leaving behind less personal property than the amount of his debts. Witness took a valuation of the stock, crop, &c. of the farm in writing, and it did not exceed £1200. Knows that the widow has paid debts of her late husband amounting to upwards of £2000—saw about £1000 paid. Cross-examined.—He did not lend money to the widow to carry on the farm. The furniture of the inn was not sold. Thos. PENNINGTON, is a flour-dealer at Workington. On the 3rd November, 1812, wheat was 38s. per Carlisle bushel; on the 7th Dec. 42s.; the 3rd Feb. 1813, 42s. 10d. (These are the periods in which the wheat was supplied which is charged at 30s. at the instance of Mr. MILLER, but the price, one witness deposed, was left blank in the account book.) Henry SALKELD sworn. Is the son of the late Mr. SALKELD, who died without a will, leaving debts upwards of £10,000. Witness is 19 years of age. He made a valuation of his father's property after he died, and it amounted to no more than £7000, according to his estimation. Has been employed in paying the debts of his father, to the amount of £2600. Here the witness enumerated various particulars, but nothing like the amount of the total sum mentioned. Cross-examined.—The account demanded by Mr. MILLER was made out by witness with the knowledge of his mother, who at the time expressed her satisfaction that the matter was so far adjusted, and insisted that Mr. MILLER should not pay for some glasses of spirits and water, which that gentleman and witness had drank while employed in arranging the account. Resumed.—He did not at first object to the price of the wheat, because Mr. MILLER said the bargain had been made. He afterwards saw reason to dispute this—he had offered to refer the business to any impartial person. Mr. SCARLETT insisted, that the attempt to prove Mr. SALKELD's insolvency at the time of his decease had completely failed. Mrs. SALKELD carried on the inn, the tan-yard, and held shares in ships, the same possessed by her husband. Did this look any thing like insolvency ? If she were not in a flourishing condition, would the creditors run the risk of leaving their property in her hands? No. Instead of insolvency, there was affluence. The Judge, in summing up, pointed out the bearing of the case. There were two questions—whether what was owing were Mr. SALKELD's debts, and whether there were assets or not? There was also the minor consideration about the price of the wheat. If the jury were of opinion that 30s. per bushel was not sufficient, the amount, if satisfied on the other points, must be reduced by the amount of the additional price. If they were also satisfied on this head, the verdict must then be for £93. The Jury, after a short deliberation, gave a verdict for the plaintiff, damages £92. [to be continued]

Yes, I had to laugh when I transcribed it. Still not as good as the court reports by the Workington Star though! They were absolutely hilarious... -----Original Message----- From: eng-westmorland-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:eng-westmorland-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Barb Ontario Canada via Sent: 18 March 2016 13:45 To: Petra Mitchinson <petra.mitchinson@doctors.org.uk>; eng-westmorland@rootsweb.com Subject: [ENG-WESTMORLAND] Carlisle Patriot, 04 Sep 1819 - Cumberland Assizes (16) I love the humour in these recent postings of the Assizes !! >>>>>-----Original Message----- From: Petra Mitchinson via Sent: Friday, March 18, 2016 8:22 AM To: Cumberland Mailing List ; Westmorland List Subject: [ENG-WESTMORLAND] Carlisle Patriot,04 Sep 1819 - Cumberland Assizes (16)<<<<<<<<

Saturday 04 Sep 1819 (p. 1, col. 5-6 and p. 4, col. 1-6) CARLISLE ASSIZES, 1819. BEFORE MR. JUSTICE BAYLEY. [continued] RIGHT OF WAY. KITCHEN v. WILDE.-Mr. TINDAL opened the pleadings. Philip KITCHEN, clerk, is the plaintiff, and John and Thomas WILDE, the defendants, against whom this action was brought, they having cut down a certain gate-post belonging to Mr. KITCHEN. The defendants first plead not guilty, and, in another plea, they say, that seised of a certain fold they have a right of way through this entrance to use it, and also in right of another close. The plaintiff asserts that they possess no such right, and that if they do, they have done more than was necessary to assert it. Mr. RAINE addressed the Jury. This is an action brought by the Rev. Philip KITCHEN against the defendants for a trespass committed upon a part of his premises in the assertion of a right of way: the questions to be tried were, 1, whether the defendants had such right or not, and, 2, whether, supposing they prove that to be the case, they have not done unnecessary damage. Mr. KITCHEN was born in Millom, and for some years officiated in Liverpool, and no one is more respected either in that town, or in the place of his nativity. A few years ago, he succeeded his brother. The only entrance to Mr. KITCHEN's house is by the gateway in question, where Mr. K. wishing to beautify his residence, erected an handsome gate, one of the posts of which stood in his own freehold, and is the post which the defendants had thought proper to cut down. We admit, said Mr. RAINE, that they have a right of passage this way to a field called Mire-close, but not to another close, for which they claim, called Benridding-fold. That there was no road this way to the latter, will be proved by the strongest possible fact, of a wall having been pulled down by persons who occupied it, for the purpose of leading corn away. In asserting the claimed right, Mr. WILDE was not satisfied with throwing the gate off its hinges, or digging up the post, but he must cut it down forsooth! It should be stated, however, that the real defendant in this action, is a Mr. JACKSON, who has purchased the property-and the spirit by which this gentleman is actuated will appear by a letter which I shall presently read to you. After the trespass had been committed, the plaintiff's attorney wrote to the defendant, informing him that unless reparation were made for the damage, Mr. KITCHEN had given instructions to bring an action against him. This letter was handed over to Mr. JACKSON, and thus that gentleman thought proper to express himself of a respectable clergyman:-"You are employed by a malicious, vindictive, and litigious scoundrel, and his action is founded upon the same principles as himself!" Founded on the same principles as himself! gentlemen, sarcastically added Mr. RAINE. Is this fit language for one man to hold towards another? Thos. MARTIN, a joiner, knows Mr. KITCHEN's house at Dundraw, parish of Millom, very well; he also knows John and Thomas WILDE, whom he saw cut down the gate-post with an axe. They both came together, and John said to Thomas, "Get forward and down with it!" Thomas then took off his coat and waistcoat, fell to work, and cut the post down. Robert ATKINSON has known Underhill and Benridding 40 years. Mr. KITCHEN came to live there about seven years ago. About five or six years ago, in making alterations, that gentlemen took a great piece off his garden ground, and converted it into field quite up to the road. Cross-examined. He never saw a gate at this place before Mr. KITCHEN put one up, but has seen rails there. There is a watering place within the gate, but witness never saw any other cattle at it than Mr. KITCHEN's, except what were driven off. There were hemp dubs here, which were said to belong to the whole township, but he never saw them used. Wm. TROUGHTON, aged 48, when taking corn from Benridding had to break a gap in the fence, in order to lead it through the way now claimed-and witness never recollects a gap being there before. Mr. KITCHEN and witness's father were always on good terms, and they were permitted to go by the green (the road in question). Never knew a gate leading from Benridding to the green. Cross-examined. His father occupied the closes from 1770, till within a few years. He always had a right of way to Mire-close.-(This witness was affected even to tears while giving his evidence. He was asked if any thing disagreeable had been said to him, or if he was unwell? He replied neither. It was supposed that the recollection of "better days" and of his father's death about which he was interrogated, were the source of his grief.) Resumed. He was always told to make up the gap when they made it to the Mire, and the Benridding gap they walled up. John TROUGHTON, brother to the last witness, lived near the spot 37 years, up to three years ago. Witness's father (who died nine years ago this spring) once had a pig trespassing upon the green, and Mrs. KITCHEN set a dog upon it, which tore out a lump from the hind quarter. Mr. RAINE.-Ah, a new way of cutting a pork chop! At this time the pigs exposed for sale in the fair, just outside the court, were setting up their pipes most lustily, to the no small annoyance of wigs and gowns-no very pleasing accompaniment to brief-reading.- Mr. RAINE.-Pretty music! Mr. Justice BAYLEY.-They seem now to have hold of the hind quarter. Mr. Sergeant HULLOCK.-Yes, my Lord,-they are a little impatient,-they expect to be called to give evidence. Mr. SCARLETT.-I wish we had the dog here, to touch their hind quarters. Mrs. Elizabeth KIRBY, sister to Mr. KITCHEN, was born at Underhill, where that gentleman lives; resided there 33 years, and is still in the neighbourhood. Has known rails up between the fold and the road ever since she can remember-they were put up to keep cattle out. Miss Elizabeth MARTIN is niece to the plaintiff. Mr. Justice BAYLEY.-How old are you? Miss MARTIN.-Twenty-seven, Sir. Mr. RAINE.-My Lord, you are a bolder man than I am-I dared not to venture upon that question! Miss MARTIN was a constant visitor at her uncle's many years, before the gate was erected, and there were always rails up-she recollects it well-she used to stoop under them. Mr. SCARLETT addressed the Jury for the defendants. He understood that some of them had seen the place in question, and they would be the better able to apply the evidence. He was surprised that Mr. KITCHEN had taken so much pains to show that he had removed his garden wall to widen the road. Mr. KITCHEN seemed conscious, judging from the pains taken, that the soil whereon the post stood, does not belong to himself. His own witnesses cannot prove that he actually put it down in his own freehold. Mr. Justice BAYLEY said that he was surprised that the liberum tenementum of Lord Lonsdale was not pleaded. Mr. LITTLEDALE submitted that this was not essential. He had consented to alter his pleas at the instance of the other party. He first had met the question in every variety of way-in no less than 14 pleas (laughter)-and he must appeal to the candour of Mr. TINDAL.- Mr. RAINE.-Oh, we can have no appeals to candour. Mr. SCARLETT.-This talk about pleadings must be very entertaining to you, Gentlemen of the Jury. What my learned friend Mr. LITTLEDALE means by pleadings, in every variety of way, is to put all the nonsense possible upon parchment, and then leave the judge to find out the meaning of it if he can! Mr. SCARLETT continued.-There was abundant proof of the right of way. The late Mr. KITCHEN erected a peat-house upon the green, which all the tenants in the township insisted upon his removing, and he did so. If he had the exclusive possession, why pull the peat-house down? There was a stream of water on the spot, and he would show that the cattle of the village watered there. He would further show that in times past, when hemp was cultivated, that the hemp dubs were the common property of all. Mr. Justice BAYLEY.-Even if the soil and freehold are Lord Lonsdale's, you have no right to cut down the post. Mr. SCARLETT.-On that point, my Lord, I feel a difficulty. It would have been quite sufficient to have taken it up and laid it down. Mr. Justice BAYLEY.-The result will be, that there must be a verdict against you, with 1s. damages. Mr. SCARLETT.-I feel I cannot make a justification of cutting down the post. But I cannot abandon the other pleas. Mr. Justice BAYLEY.-Then you must show that the right of way commenced in Mr. KITCHEN's time. Mr. LITTLEDALE.-In giving evidence of a right of way, you always plead prescriptive grant. Mr. Justice BAYLEY.-Clearly not. Where I see that there is a prescriptive right only, should I be warranted in telling the jury that there was a grant besides? Mr. SCARLETT.-The verdict here, my Lord, must be upon a new assignment. If I were at liberty to advise my client, I would not recommend him to acknowledge Mr. KITCHEN's right in the soil. Mr. LITTLEDALE.-If I had not been prevailed upon to alter my pleas, I should have met the question in all shapes-(With great warmth) I will never in future alter my old plan to please any one. Mr. TINDAL denied that there had been any violation of faith in the arrangement of the pleas. It was finally agreed, that a verdict for the plaintiff should be taken upon the general issue, damages 40s., the jury discharged from giving any decision upon the special pleas and new assignment. [to be continued]

Saturday 04 Sep 1819 (p. 1, col. 5-6 and p. 4, col. 1-6) CARLISLE ASSIZES, 1819. BEFORE MR. JUSTICE BAYLEY. [continued] RIGHT UPON AINSTABLE COMMON. BAMBER v. BAXTER.—This was a feigned issue for the purpose of trying whether Mrs. BAMBER was entitled to a share of Ainstable Common, now in progress of inclosure, in right of that part of her estate called Nunnery, as well as that known by the appellation of Crosshouses. It appeared that the Commissioners, when making their award, had considered Mrs. BAMBER's property as two distinct estates, Crosshouses and the Nunnery, and that she could alone claim by virtue of the latter. Hence, said Mr. SCARLETT, they have made a great mistake—not in what they have granted, but in what they have denied. The common is the soil and freehold of the Earl of Carlisle. But the plaintiff insists that she has a right upon all commons and waste lands in the parish of Ainstable, though the use she has made of that right has been confined to getting turf and cutting brackens. The right was derived originally from William Rufus, * who founded at Ermathwaite, in the parish of Ainstapleth or Ainstable, a nunnery of black nuns of the order of St. Benedict, and for the support of the black sisterhood, (who were to pray for the salvation of his Majesty's soul, and of the souls of his ancestors) he made various grants of surrounding lands. He should exhibit a grant made in the 20th year of Edward IV. repeating the grant of William: thence originated the right claimed this day; for though at the dissolution of monasteries, the possessions appertaining to them passed to the king, the same property, as would be proved, had subsequently re-issued from the crown.—The real question lay in a narrow compass—what was one estate, had been erroneously considered as two. Various documents were here put in. Mr. Richard ADDISON produced an office copy, from the Tower of London, of the grant of Edward IV., which rehearsed the letters patent of William Rufus, Duke of Normandy, and King of England, giving certain lands to Black Nuns, in honour of Christ and the blessed Virgin, and for the salvation of souls. The grant made use of the term carragate, which Mr. ADDISON thought was 100 acres, and Mr. Sergeant HULLOCK said was only 30. The grant gave a right to the common of Ainstapleth. Mr. HUTTON, Solicitor of Penrith, sworn. The grant which he held in his hand, he obtained from among the muniments of Mrs. BAMBER. It was a grant, under the great seal, 6th Edward VI., to William GRÆME, of "the house and site of our late priory of Ermathwaite, in the county of Cumberland, and of all houses, edifices, gardens, &c. belonging to the said nunnery, to be possessed as fully and freely as by the late prioress or any of her predecessors." Mr. HUTTON.—The manor of Ermathwaite is the same place as what is called the Nunnery—now the property of Mrs. BAMBER. The next document was a deed, dated 28th October, 1698, between Charles Earl of Carlisle on the one part, and John AGLIONBY on the other part, for the regulation and settling of the manor of Ermathwaite, commonly called Nunnery, and a grant of all waste grounds, 187 acres, in Ruckcroft pasture, (part of Ainstable Common.) Evidence was then gone into at great length. Thomas MORLAND, aged 78, deposed that the sheep belonging to the Nunnery went upon Croglin fell, from whence they were brought upon Dairy Farm and clipped, and then turned out upon Ruckcroft Green, the first place as you come upon the common, and forming part of it. John IRON, aged 59.—Has known Ruckcroft ever since he was a boy; it is part of Ainstable Common. Remembers when the farm house and buildings were erected upon Cross Close, and now called Crosshouses. Isaac FLEMING rented the Dairy Farm, part of the Nunnery estate, where he has seen the sheep, and from whence they were turned upon Croglin fell.—Crowdyknow was always let with the Dairy Farm. Josiah FLEMING, of Carlisle, aged 49, remembers his father, Isaac FLEMING, who lived upon the Dairy Farm, turning his sheep upon Coombs Pike, part of Ainstable Common, 50, 60, 70, or 100 at a time, without interruption—they were clipped at the Dairy Farm. His father failing rather in his rent, Mr. AGLIONBY exchanged land, built Crosshouses, and transferred him thither.—Crowdyknow was part of the Dairy Farm. William GRAHAM, of Carlisle, lived at Nunnery many years. Two idle horses were turned out upon the Common every summer, and were never kept upon Crosshouse Farm; always at Nunnery. John HETHERINGTON knew the late Mr. BAMBER. He bought sheep when holding the Nunnery in his own hand, of one GRAHAM, about 16 years ago, which he kept from Martinmas to Lady-Day. Witness has seen these sheep upon the Nunnery ground, and upon the Common; they had a rake (a gap) upon it. William TATE, aged above 60, has known Nunnery estate since 1781 or 1782. On one side, the Dairy Farm comes up to the pleasure grounds, and on the other goes to the Eden. Remembers, in 1786, when nobody lived on Nunnery estate—it was then under care of Mr. YATES, who had a steward under him, and witness was under that steward. Witness took the Nunnery farm for a term of four years; it then consisted of about 100 acres.—Crowdyknow did not at that time belong to the Dairy Farm. Several other witnesses gave evidence to the same effect, and also deposed that turf and brackens were frequently cut upon the Common and brought to the Nunnery and there used. Mr. Sergeant HULLOCK addressed the Jury for the defendant in a long and able speech. If the evidence adduced could give a right of common, he thought any thing would entail that privilege. As to the original grants, which were so much relied upon, his Lordship and the Jury would recollect, that in the reign of Henry the VIII., all monastic property became vested in the Crown, and therefore all rights and privileges belonging to it must have been extinguished. Mr. Justice BAILEY.—They would be extinguished, provided the soil of the common belonged to the crown. Mr. SCARLETT.—The Act of Parliament (Act of Inclosure) states the right of soil to belong to the Earl of Carlisle at this time, who, I suppose, had a grant from the Crown. Mr. Justice BAYLEY summed up the evidence strongly in favour of the plaintiff, whose right he evidently considered fully established. There were three counts, and a claim of right of common was made—first, collectively for the Nunnery estate, and then for particular parts of it. The strongest evidence of a right, is the exercise. It was natural to expect that the persons who had a right upon the common would have been on the watch, and would have resisted encroachments, if they had thought any made. But it may sometimes happen that a perfect right is not exercised, because the holder of the estate may not have stock fit to turn upon a common.—But what may be encroachment at first, will become right if exercised 20 years. The Jury, without hesitation, found a Verdict for the Plaintiff on all the issues, Damages, 1s. Cost, 40s. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * "Nunnery, the beautiful and romantic seat of R. BAMBER, Esq. is situated about two miles to the southeast of Armathwaite Castle. The mansion is a plain neat structure, fronted with red stone, it was erected on the scite of an ancient religious house, established by Wm. Rufus for Benedictine nuns. In the reign of Edward the Sixth it was granted to W. GRAHAM, a branch of the GRAHAMs, of Netherby, from one of whose descendants it was purchased in the year 1690, by Sir John LOWTHER, Bart. who some time after exchanged it for the manor and castle of Drumburgh, with John AGLIONBY, Esq. whose successor, Henry AGLIONBY, erected the present mansion; but the chief improvements in the grounds were made by the late Christopher AGLIONBY, the last heir male, and his sister, the present Mrs. BAMBER.—Topography of Cumberland. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [to be continued]

Oh yes ! the Workington Star. Good to have a laugh. In today's newspaper reporting of criminal cases, one doesn't always see the quoted conversations in court as much. Barb.

I love the humour in these recent postings of the Assizes !! >>>>>-----Original Message----- From: Petra Mitchinson via Sent: Friday, March 18, 2016 8:22 AM To: Cumberland Mailing List ; Westmorland List Subject: [ENG-WESTMORLAND] Carlisle Patriot,04 Sep 1819 - Cumberland Assizes (16)<<<<<<<<

Saturday 04 Sep 1819 (p. 1, col. 5-6 and p. 4, col. 1-6) CARLISLE ASSIZES, 1819. BEFORE MR. JUSTICE BAYLEY. [continued] DEBT. HALLIBURTON v. GLASSON.—An action for the recovery of £7 : 1 : 11, for shop goods, sold by Mrs. SMITH, late of Brampton, linen-draper, plaintiff's testatrix, to Margaret GIBSON, now Mrs. GLASSON, her husband, Robert GLASSON, being liable. The marriage was admitted. Mrs. Jane JAMES, niece of Mrs. SMITH, was shopwoman with her in 1815—she died 19th April, 1817. Margaret GIBSON came to the shop, had various goods, and afterwards called and paid part, leaving the remainder as the debt of her sister Nancy. There subsequently proved to be no such person. Mr. WILLIAMS for the defendant, said the money had been paid. The person who sold the goods died in 1817, and the action was brought two years afterwards. Why was all this hesitation and delay? If the demand were just, why not enforce payment before? The fact was, Mr. HALLIBURTON did not know whether the money was due or not. George GIBSON sworn. Is the brother of Margaret GLASSON. He accidentally met with her at Brampton Martinmas fair, Nov. 14, 1816; he then lived with John DAVIDSON, of Hall Park. His sister, not being a scholar, gave him some notes in the street to tell her what they were. She had a five pound note, a two-guinea note, and a one pound note. They went to Mrs. Smith's shop, and witness saw his sister give the notes to that lady, who was behind the counter with another woman, and there were some customers present. His sister said she was now come to pay off the balance of the account, and laid down the money. Mrs. SMITH observed, "You have got the better of me now." His sister replied, not much, she thought there would only be a penny. She then requested 2s. to buy a fairing, but Mrs. SMITH said she could not afford it now, but would, another time, make her a recompense. His sister remarked that she had paid three pounds the Monday before, and would have paid it all if her sister had come home. Mrs. SMITH said she had paid the three pounds, and that she was not very far out of the way in paying the balance now. Mrs. SMITH handed the notes to a woman behind the counter for her to look at them. Cross-examined.—The witness admitted that he had been to Mrs. HALLIBURTON and told her that she need not fear being paid what his sister owed, but he did not then know that this demand was the same as what he saw paid. Will swear that he never told Ann ARMSTRONG that he would this day bring forward persons to swear the money was paid. He once saw her in Brampton market, and she abused him very sure about some eggs. Ann ARMSTRONG will have lived servant with Mrs. HALLIBURTON 15 years next Martinmas. Saw the last witness come to Mrs. HALLIBURTON, and Mrs. H. said "Ann, come and here what he says." She then went behind the door where GIBSON could not see her. Mrs. HALLIBURTON said, "George, have you ever acquainted your sister with the bill?" He replied that he had not; but he was going over to Laversdale, and he wished to know what the amount was. The mistress then gave it to him, observing, "Rather than breed any disturbance between her (GIBSON's sister) and her cousin, she would take ten or 20s. at a time. Witness saw GIBSON about a fortnight after in the Market-house, and he asked if she wanted any thing of him to day? Some words arose, he abused her very surely, and said he would get a person to swear that the money was paid. Cross-examined.—She kept her temper very pinch'dly, but only said he was a bad man, and a main-sworn rascal if he would swear that. Mr. WILLIAMS addressed the jury at considerable length. He contended that there was not any doubt of the money having been paid, for no man could come into that box, as GIBSON had done, and tell a consistent story, from beginning to end, and fabricate it at the same time. As to what he had said to the servant girl, when under the lash of her pliant tongue, what did it mean? why simply this—that he would swear that the money was paid, and not that he would get other persons to swear. This interpretation was proved to be right by the reply of the woman, who understood him to mean this herself: "If you swear that, you are a main-sworn rascal"—you will swear falsely. Mr. Justice BAILEY summed up, and expressed himself as much perplexed with this case as any he had ever met with. GIBSON's story must be all false or all true: he had told the truth, or was guilty of the most wicked and corrupt perjury. This difficulty, his Lordship confessed, was increased by an examination of the account books which he had before him—for the face of them, there was a charge of three pounds odd, which the chief witness on the part of the plaintiff had stated to have been paid: this was most extraordinary. It was clear that Mr. HALLIBURTON himself knew nothing of the matter. The jury would have a difficult and delicate duty to discharge: to them belonged the task of discriminating between the witnesses. The jury laid their heads together some time, and not being able to agree, wished to retire. As they were going out of the box, his Lordship called them back, and observed "Gentlemen,—there is one thing which you should not lose sight of: Mrs. SMITH herself, the person who received the money, does not say it is not paid; she being dead, there can be no appeal to her. This fact is of some importance." The jury then retired, taking the account books with them, and in a short time returned with a verdict for the plaintiff, damages £7 : 1 : 11, the sum demanded, thus discrediting all that GIBSON had sworn to. [to be continued]

Saturday 04 Sep 1819 (p. 1, col. 5-6 and p. 4, col. 1-6) CARLISLE ASSIZES, 1819. BEFORE MR. JUSTICE BAYLEY. [continued] RIGHT OF FISHERY IN THE RIVER DERWENT. LAWSON v. PEAT.—In this cause, Wilfrid LAWSON, Esq. was plaintiff, and Mr. John PEAT, the defendant. The declaration set forth that the plaintiff is possessed of a certain fishery in the Derwent, which had been much injured by obstructions raised lower down the river by Mr. PEAT. Mr. Sergeant HULLOCK addressed the jury in a very able speech of great length. Mr. LAWSON, he said, is the possessor of considerable estates in the county of Cumberland, which formerly belonged to Sir Wilfrid LAWSON; through a part of this property ran the Derwent. The defendant, Mr. PEAT, is the lessee of a fishery lower down the river, under the present Earl of Lonsdale. No question would arise as to the right of Mr. LAWSON to a fishery; that was acknowledged on all hands, and had never been disputed; it belonged to him by virtue of the manors of Isell, Blindcrake, and Redmain, extending the length of nearly three miles on one side of the Derwent, and on the other side, about a mile. Neither, on his part, did the learned Serjeant mean to contend that the defendant, or the Earl of Lonsdale, had no right to a fishery; this was also admitted;—but the question at issue was, Whether such obstructions have not been thrown in the way of the plaintiff's right by the defendant as to injure its value, and consequently to render them illegal. In 1725, the fishery now held by Mr. PEAT, belonged to Mr. Henry CURWEN. At that time there were stells or bars, merely composed of pieces of wood set upright, and placed upon a weir. About 1741, or 42, it occurred to Mr. GREEN, the then holder, to remove this wood-work to a weir near Seaton mill: the origin of the existing stells were then put up; and these caused a much greater obstruction than the earlier erections. He was apprehensive that he should be told by his Lordship, that the lapse of time will prevent any removal, and this, he was afraid, was law. Be it so. The question then resolves itself into this: whether the stells have not been altered within the last 20 years, so as to cause an increased obstacle? On this point the law stands thus. If A is possessed of a fishery higher up a river than one belonging to B, the lowest occupier has no right to adopt such measures as will prevent the passage of fish into the upper fishery. But if B does erect such obstructions, and A suffers him to go on, in the enjoyment of them undisputed, the law will presume that some agreement or grant has taken place. Twenty years, however, must elapse before this encroachment can become a legal right: yet, in some cases, time alone is not sufficient. Suppose A be a minor, absent, or ignorant of what B has done; the law then will not make any such presumption. The learned Sergeant should submit to his Lordship, that the acts complained of to-day, were done while the owner was a minor, and if he proved this, no prescriptive right could have been obtained on the part of the defendant. The late Sir Wilfrid LAWSON died in 1806, and a minority of six years ensued. The late Mr. LAWSON, the plaintiff's predecessor in the possession of the property, died in 1812—and the present Mr. LAWSON did not come of age till 1816—so that there was no one to see that injurious encroachments were made— Mr. Justice BAYLEY.—The trustees might have seen to this, and were fully competent. Mr. Sergeant HULLOCK continued. He spoke in reference to the alterations and additions. He should have no difficulty in shewing that the stell hecks (the bars) had been altered within the last 20 years. These prevented fish of ordinary size from passing up the river. The fish, thus kept back, went into the coops, and when there, could only get out again by the assistance of Mr. PEAT himself! About 40 years ago, the stells were placed nearly upright, and were 2½ inches asunder; this space, the learned Sergeant understood, was sufficient to admit the passage of a fish of 5 or 6 pounds weight. In 1794, it occurred to Mr. PEAT, that if the stell hecks were placed nearly in an horizontal position down the stream, the obstruction to the passage of fish would be increased. Accordingly, he made a trial in a part of the erection, and in a few years the remaining portion underwent a like change, and the space between the bars was reduced to 1½ inches. He should be able to show that even last summer Mr. PEAT reduced the space at the bottom, from 1½ inches to 1¼ inches, leaving the part above as before. If, then, he proved that any alteration had been made within the last 20 years, he should be entitled to a verdict; for no man can legally alter his property in such a way as to prejudice the right of another. He should clearly show that Mr. PEAT had raised greater obstacles to fishing in Mr. LAWSON's part of the river than existed 20 years ago. At one time, they had salmon there as well as trout; but now scarcely a fish is seen or heard of higher up the stream than Mr. PEAT's coops and bars, in the regular fishing season. The period of salmon fishing differs in different rivers. By the existing law no salmon can be caught in the Derwent from the 10th of October, to the 10th of February. In that interval obstruction is removed to permit the fish to pass up the stream for the purpose of spawning. Time was, when the whole was taken away; but now, only two or three of the stell and coop hecks are removed, and through these alone, even in the breeding season, can the fish pass up and down the river. Mr. John NORMAN sworn. Has been a steward in the LAWSON family 19 years. Mr. LAWSON is Lord of the Manor of Isell, beginning at Ouse-bridge, and extending about three miles, the Derwent passing through it, but not navigable. When he first went into the LAWSON family, Sir Wilfrid lived at Brayton Hall, and possessed this manor. He died June 14, 1806, and was succeeded by Mr. Thomas LAWSON, who died in 1812, whose successor is the plaintiff. Witness knows that fishing within the limits described has taken place frequently, he having been present on one occasion when the river was dragged; it was done by order of Sir Wilfrid, and ten men were employed, part of whom were on each side, both shores belonging to the baronet. Witness never knew or heard of any interruption. In the early part of witness's time, fishing was better than at present: large trout were caught, but he never remembered getting a gilse. The fish are now neither so large in size nor great in quantity as formerly. Cross-examined.—Never caught any other fish than trout. The river at the place in question is more than six yards wide, and 8 or 9 miles from the sea. The farms are let to different tenants. Some stakes were once put down in the river, but were drawn out by order of Sir Wilfrid. Resumed.—These stakes were near Ouse-bridge, and had been put down by Sir F. VANE, near Sir W.'s property. There never was a doubt to whom the river belonged. Mr. LAWSON is in possession of the woods bordering upon it, and the tenants do not fish. By the Foreman of the jury (Mr. DAND, of Wigton). Were the trout caught, the common trout of the river, or sea trout?—A. Common trout—I never saw any sea trout there. Dorothy HENDERSON, aged 64, lived at Isell when she was only 16, at which time Sir John MORDAUNT resided at Isell Hall. Has seen Thomas PEARSON, the bailiff, draw the river for Mr. CLENNELL, agent of the owner. One Richard WRIGHT fished at times for Brayton: has seen them catch little trouts—some one pound, some two, and some three—but not many big ones. Has seen salmon in the river when sitting upon Isell bridge, on a summer evening, after harvest—more than half a dozen at a time. Cross-examined.—Nobody was hindered from fishing that she knew of. Sir John's farmers used to fish—the fish were generally river trout—never saw any other. John WILSON, aged 77, remembers that WRIGHT was gamekeeper to Sir W. LAWSON, about 20 years ago—first knew him about that time. He also remembers LOWES, a gamekeeper, who preceded WRIGHT. Witness has helped LOWES to draw the river, who took the fish to Brayton; this was about 40 years ago—they began at Ouse-bridge, and continued down to Isell. They caught trout of all sizes, both sea and grey trout—and witness has taken small salmon, about six or seven pounds each. Has also assisted WRIGHT, who succeeded LOWES,—this, about 12 years ago—Sir Wilfrid has been present, and witness has borne him across the river upon his back. Caught grey and sea trout in WRIGHT's time—also small salmon and gilse from a quarter of a pound to 4 pounds weight, which were carried to Brayton. He did this when he first began, but the fish grew smaller and thinner: this, however, was not found out for a dozen years. He has not fished in the river these 12 years past. Cross-examined.—Witness is a Smith by trade. At the period spoken of, he worked for Sir Wilfrid, and was an experienced fisherman. Has fished the river all the way down to the mouth, and fishing is not now good in any part of it as it was 40 or 50 years ago—there are not so many trout as there used to be. Has known kipper salmon (salmon out of season) caught there, which is no uncommon thing in the Derwent—the killing of which renders fish scarce. Many-a-one has fished in the part of the river mentioned with nets, and in every other way, and witness never knew of interruption. Resumed.—He means that fishing has diminished from Ouse-bridge to Ribton Hall. By the Judge.—Has not seen gilse or sea trout in the river within the last 20 years, nor never knew WRIGHT catch any thing but river trout within that period. Thomas WYBERGH, Esq. sworn. Is father of the plaintiff, and has been acquainted with the property in question 35 years. The fish, when he first began fishing, was two-thirds more in quantity than at this time. Has been present many times when LOWE and WRIGHT have dragged the river with nets, and has fished in it with rod a hundred times. Has seen sea trout caught frequently, from 1½ to 3lb. each, and has known a gilse taken. In later times has seen what were called sea trout taken, about half a pound in weight, and believes they were so; in the course of last summer one of that size was caught—and this summer a salmon was caught, but it had been up the river the whole winter. Never knew of any objection to the LAWSON family's exercise of the right. Cross-examined.—Mr. WYBERGH said he now fishes as many hours at a time as he ever did—generally going out after breakfast and remaining till half past four. Of late years, the quantity of river trout, as well as other fish, has diminished, but more pike (which come out of Bassenthwaite lake) are now caught than formerly. By the Judge.—Cannot swear that he has seen either gilse or river trout within the last 20 years. He ought to state, that about six weeks ago, when drawing the river, a sea trout, and only one, was caught, about a pound weight. William SENHOUSE, sworn. He obtained a copy of the grant which he held in his hand from the Rolls Chapel. This document was read: it was a grant of the property in question by James I. in the seventh year of his reign, to Sir Wilfrid LAWSON, and Matilda his wife, and the heirs of their bodies, &c. Samuel FLETCHER, aged 53, has fished in that part of the Derwent in question with nets; he began about 25 years ago, and the fishing was then better than it is now. Has caught pike, sea and grey trout, and bass, from a ¼ of a pound to 3½lb. weight, but few of the latter. About 20 years ago, there were "a gay few" sea trout—but not in the part of the river now in question; he caught sea trout 20 years ago at Ouse-bridge. Mr. SCARLETT, defendant's counsel.—You have been caught yourself, I believe FLETCHER, eh?—Yes. William ROBINSON had fished with WRIGHT 23 years ago, and when he first began, caught pike and sea trout, but the fish diminished, and no sea trout were to be seen even in the latter part of Sir Wilfrid's time. Never saw a sea trout of six or seven pounds weight. He drew the river in August 1813, and there were no sea trout. Mr. Sergeant HULLOCK here observed, that he was not in a condition to carry this part of the case any farther. He would now call evidence in reference to the alterations. Mr. Justice BAYLEY.—I think the evidence is exceedingly strong to prove that the obstacles were complete, certainly a great number of years ago. Jonathan THORNTHWAITE was then sworn. Is a carpenter living at Workington. He recollects being employed in 1772 on the coops and stells at Workington. Andrew GREEN was at that time tenant of the fishery, and the stell hecks were upright. Witness does not recollect any alteration till 1794. (A model of the coops and bars was exhibited.) The upper part of the stell hecks above the higher coop was laid in a sloping direction in that year, but not quite flat; in other respects it remained as before. He knew that an alteration was afterwards made—the sole tree (the foundation of the hecks) was raised half a yard higher from the ground, the posts were put upright, and a new frame was made—but witness did not see this done. About three years afterwards, 1797, the other stell hecks were put in anew and laid nearly flat, to make one part like the other. In 1802, to the best of his remembrance, the hecks between the high coop and the island, were laid in the same direction as those above described. The coop hecks at that time were all horizontal, and continued till about 13 or 14 years ago. New wooden coop hecks were put in last year, horizontally, and were set closer together. When witness first knew the stell hecks they were 2½ inches apart—this was in Mr. Anthony PEAT's time, 6 years ago. About four years since, he received orders to lay the bars of the lower coop hecks only 2 inches asunder, which he did, and the other part was afterwards altered in the same manner. Last summer the bars were again reduced on each side to 1½ inches, and so they remained when witness last saw them. Witness once put a fish through an aperture of 2¼ inches, which weighed 10 pounds. The edges of the bars of the coop hecks are sharp, but those of the stell hecks are taken off. Mr. Sergeant HULLOCK.—I apprehend that what I have now shown has made no alteration in my case for the better. Mr. Justice BAYLEY.—The obstacles having been proved complete so long ago, what has since been proved makes no difference. The question asked by the foreman of the jury at the outset shewed me at once the point we had to try. The verdict must be against you, brother HULLOCK. What will you do? Mr. Sergeant HULLOCK.—My Lord, I shall choose the lesser of two evils, and submit a nonsuit. Plaintiff Nonsuited. [to be continued]

Saturday 04 Sep 1819 (p. 1, col. 5-6 and p. 4, col. 1-6) CARLISLE ASSIZES, 1819. BEFORE MR. JUSTICE BAYLEY. [continued] ANOTHER HORSE CAUSE. DRAPE v. HAYTON.—The plaintiff is a surgeon, residing at Blitterlees, in the Abbey Holme, and the defendant a farmer at Silly-Wreay, near Wigton. The action was brought to recover £26, the price of a mare, which HAYTON had sold to Mr. DRAPE at Rosley Hill fair, on the 14th of June last. Mr. RAINE stated that the defendant is in the habit of "making up" horses for sale, and had sold some remarkably well that came out of STAMPER's mare, got by the famous horse Pipator. But the mare which he had sold to Mr. DRAPE, though he said she was of this fine breed, was in reality got by ROUTLEDGE's horse, a common country stallion, out of STUDHOLME's mare, a breed fit for nothing but dung carts. For this distinguished animal, the plaintiff paid £26 at Rosley Hill fair; but he almost instantly found out her worthlessness, and returned her in two days. The defendant refused to take her back, beat her out of his yard with a pitch-fork, and afterwards tied her to a coal cart, going towards plaintiff's residence, from which she escaped, and got astray into a pinfold. The Bailiff, not liking the appearance of the mare, notwithstanding she was of such famous descent, unceremoniously turned her out: she then took refuge in the stable of a neighbouring inn, where she had remained on board-wages ever since. Mr. William WOOD, of the Globe inn, Cockermouth, John ROPER, Richard Wills GLAISTER, Thomas WILKINSON, William SKELTON, Thomas BARNES, (the last two are farriers) John TODD, ——— HARRISON, Robert RUSSELL, John SMITH, Thomas DAVIDSON, a farrier, severally gave evidence; some to the warranty of soundness, and others to prove the mare's lameness. It appeared clearly that the defendant warranted the mare to be right and sound; and on his being informed that she was lame, he said she was sound in every respect, or he would forfeit £500. John ROPER stated that when the mare was bought, the person who showed her, rode only a few yards, and made her jump about in such positions, that one could not tell whether she was lame or not. Much professional acumen was called forth. Thomas WILSON, is a veterinary surgeon, in Carlisle, and received his education in Mr. FIELD's hospital, in Oxford-street, London. Saw the mare both walk and trot (as lately as Friday last) at Red Dial—she is lame in the near fore-foot, of a complicated disease, namely, a contraction of the foot, and ossification of the cartilages of the coronet, and a derangement of the parts within the horny cavity. In his judgment, the disease did not appear to be recent; he thinks, from the non-elasticity of the cartilages, she must have laboured under it a long time—at least three months,—but he believes it to be a "process naturæ." Cross-examined by Mr. LITTLEDALE, Mr. WILSON said this affection of the foot is a radical unsoundness, producing a permanent lameness. The mare appears not to have been much abused, which makes him believe the disorder to be a "process naturæ." This was the plaintiff's case. Mr. LITTLEDALE addressed the jury in behalf of the defendant. The question for them to decide would be, not whether the action of the mare was good or bad, as he would admit that she had rather an aukward gait, but whether she was sound or unsound at the time of sale? The defendant had offered her to Mr. WOOD, whom he well knew a good judge of horses, and, no doubt, would have warranted her sound if sold to him, therefore he must be acquitted, in the minds of the jury, whatever else they might think, of selling her knowing her to be unsound. He could prove, that the mother, the grand-mother, and even the great-grandmother, had the same kind of gait; and if all the family had this gait, how could it be called unsoundness? William GRAHAM, a blacksmith, of Wigton, has been accustomed to horses for 20 years. He saw the mare the day she was bought—she certainly did not move her feet as she ought to have done, but, in his judgment, she was not lame. Thomas WALKER, farrier, of Penrith, had been in the habit of buying horses for Mr. HARRIS, the government contractor, who supplied three parts of the British army. He saw the mare on Feb. 20th, when he declined buying her on account of the price, but did not consider her lame. He saw her again on Sunday last, and even then did not think her lame; he admitted, however, that she had the worst action he ever saw—he could see no ossification. George KILBURN, horse-dealer of Bishop Auckland, said the mare moved her fore feet low and slow, but was not lame—he does not understand a contracted foot. Mr. LITTLEDALE.—Do you not know when a horse has one? Yes, I can see when a horse has a foot. Mr. LITTLEDALE.—Astonishing! Robert M'ILNAY, farrier of Carlisle, said that he had been bred to the business, and had followed it 40 years, as had his father before him. He saw the mare at Red Dial, where she walked and trotted. She had bad action, but cannot say she was lame—she had two capital feet. If any person says there is a contraction there, he deems that person no judge of a horse's foot. He saw no ossification, and considers the mare particularly sound. Is in the habit of buying many horses for proprietors of coaches and dealers, and thinks himself an excellent judge. Mr. RAINE.—A very pretty eulogium on yourself, certainly! Can you tell me what an ossification is? Witness.—We consider it an inflammation in the foot. Mr. RAINE.—Is an ossification preceded by a fever? Witness.—An ossification brings on a fever. Mr. RAINE.—What, then an ossification is a fever, is it? Witness.—We have known it to be that. Mr. RAINE.—Oh, very good,—now you may go down, Mr. Ossification. * John HEWITSON, formerly a blacksmith, but now an innkeeper in Caldewgate, went to see the mare at Red Dial on Sunday last, in company with the last witness. Knows what a contracted foot is a little—this mare's is not one—and, in his judgment, she is sound. Mr. RAINE.—What! you went on Sunday did you? Yes. Mr. RAINE. And you went with Ossification. Are not HAYTON's witnesses at your house?—Some of them are. Thomas DAVIDSON, a farmer at Stoneraise, and Geo. CAPSTICK, a cattle-dealer, said that the action of the mare is bad, but, in their opinion, she is sound. William FERGUSON was lately a servant with the defendant. He knew the mare ever since she was a foal: she was employed in husbandry, and did her work well, but was a bad walker, as was her mother before her; both had the same action and gait. Joseph IRVING, John BELL, Christopher ARMSTRONG, servants in succession with the defendant, deposed to the same effect as the last witness. Edward BELL, a horse-breaker, shewed the mare at the fair, and thinks she was sound. There are not many horses in the country that can beat her at trotting, but she is the worst walker ever mounted. He offered to buy her himself as a sound mare. Seven other witnesses gave testimony to the same purport: all spoke of the mare's bad gait, but believed her to be sound. Mr. RAINE went through the evidence, and amused the court very highly with his comments upon ossification. The judge summed up with his usual perspicuity, and the jury almost immediately returned a verdict for the plaintiff, £26; Costs, 40s. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * "Who shall decide when doctors disagree?" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [to be continued]

Saturday 04 Sep 1819 (p. 1, col. 5-6 and p. 4, col. 1-6) CARLISLE ASSIZES, 1819. BEFORE MR. JUSTICE BAYLEY. HORSE CAUSE. SCARROW v. M'ANNALLY.—The plaintiff in this cause, is Mr. Thomas SCARROW, the younger, wine and spirit merchant, of Carlisle, and the defendant, a regular dealer in horses, residing near Antrim, in Ireland. The action was brought to recover the value of a horse which the defendant had sold to plaintiff under warranty, but which turned out to be lame. The plaintiff denied both the warranty and the lameness. Mr. Sergeant HULLOCK, in his address to the Jury, merely detailed the substance of the following evidence. Mr. Isaac BOWES, of Carlisle, was present with the plaintiff and defendant on the 15th August, 1818, at the Lion and Lamb. Plaintiff said to M'ANNALLY that he had bought a horse of him, and wished to return it. In the course of conversation which ensued, the defendant said he had a horse then in the stable which would suit the plaintiff well. They all went into the stable to look at the animal, a saddle was put on, the plaintiff mounted, rode him down the horse-market, and up the Swifts lane, in order to try him. Witness and defendant followed, and, overtaking plaintiff, M'ANNALLY asked how he liked the horse. Mr. SCARROW replied, "Extremely well, provided he is sound and right." The defendant said he would warrant him as "sound and good a horse as any in England." They then returned to the Lion and Lamb, and finally bargained for £62, considering the returned horse as £43 in part payment; the defendant saying it would be £19 to boot. The plaintiff said he would not give a farthing for the horse if not warranted, and the defendant repeated his warranty. In January last, witness was again present with plaintiff and defendant. Mr. SCARROW said the horse was not according contract—was unsound—and he wished to return him and have his money back, which defendant refused compliance with, declaring that he never warranted the animal. Mr. SCARROW then said he would bring an action for the recovery of the value: M'ANNALLY replied that it was a swap and the money could not be returned. Cross-examined, witness said the plaintiff tried the horse at leaping, and was much pleased with him. Thomas WILSON, farrier, of Carlisle, sworn. He was applied to by plaintiff, on Monday the 17th August, 1818 (two days after the purchase had been made) to examine the horse bought of M'ANNALLY. He rode him a short way out of town: he found him lame when he first got upon his back, but it subsided after a little exercise. Witness believes the lameness to be occasioned by a contraction of the the [sic] foot, and thinks it not of recent date. Has seen the horse several times since, he is still lame, and witness believes him to be unsound. Cross-examined by Mr. RAINE.—Is it not improper to ride a lame horse a hunting severely?—I cannot say that it is quite proper, but it only makes him a little more lame and stiff the next day.—Witness recollects seeing the off-knee of the horse damaged in November—the skin was not actually divided, but the hair was gone. Joseph HENRY, butcher, of Carlisle, accompanied the plaintiff in greyhound coursing upon Broadfield, about a month after he had bought the horse. They rode together four miles out of Carlisle. Witness observed the horse to be lame, and the plaintiff had great difficulty in keeping him up. They put their horses into a stable during the day, and only rode them on their return home at night—they never went faster than a walk. Witness knows the defendant well; has frequently seen him, and wished him to settle this business. Defendant declined doing so, and said he did not know what Messrs. SCARROW meant; certainly they wanted him to find them in horses. Witness replied, "you warranted the horse." M'ANNALLY denied this, saying he never used such an expression as warranted—he merely said the horse was sound. Cross-examined, Mr. HENRY said that the defendant always stops at the Lion and Lamb, when in Carlisle, and, no doubt, may be heard of there generally, as he is a very respectable man. Witness thinks the defendant stayed in Carlisle some days after the sale—as late as Monday or Tuesday. Re-examined.—Sometime after the greyhound coursing above-mentioned, Mr. SCARROW asked witness to enquire after M'ANNALLY, which he did at the Lion and Lamb. The Landlord told him that he did not know when the defendant would be over from Ireland. Joseph SAUL, of Allonby, was present at the Lion and Lamb in the latter end of December, or the beginning of January last, when plaintiff told defendant the horse was not sound according to contract, and that he wished to return him. The defendant first said that he should have returned him sooner, and afterwards refused to take him back, because it was an exchange with plaintiff. Mr. RAINE here submitted to his Lordship that the plaintiff should be nonsuited, as, according to the amended declaration upon the record, the transaction is called an exchange, whereas this witness had just proved that the plaintiff himself had denied it was so. Mr. Justice BAYLEY dissented—the plaintiff might be ignorant of the phraseology of the law, and such ignorance, assuredly, could not be thought sufficient grounds for a nonsuit. James SCOTT, innkeeper, of Carlisle, tried the horse on the Brampton road in August, and had great difficulty in keeping him upon his legs. He rode altogether about four miles, and never caused him to leap. John BARNES, keeps the Lion and Lamb, in Carlisle. The defendant puts up at his house; was there on the 27th of August last, and remained there two or three days after the 27th. The defendant lives near Antrim, in Ireland; Mr. SCARROW made frequent inquiries after him. Cross-examined.—Witness has kept a public house seven years, and knew the defendant several years before that—it is not difficult to get information respecting him. Witness recollects hearing M'ANNALLY say he had made an exchange. During the time he remained in Carlisle, after the bargain, which was about a fortnight, he saw him and Mr. SCARROW drinking in the kitchen together more than once. He never heard the plaintiff say in the defendant's presence, that the horse was unsound. The first time that he heard Mr. SCARROW express a wish to return the horse, was on the 11th of November. A servant of Mr. SCARROW's proved that the horse was incapable of doing work. James ROBINSON is a horse dealer, residing in Stanwix, near Carlisle. He frequently goes into Ireland to purchase horses. On the 25th July, 1818, was at Boyle fair, where he saw the horse in question exposed for sale by a person who lives about 20 miles from Boyle, but does not recollect his name. Witness, struck with the figure of the horse, had him tried, and would have given £50 for him in Ireland, if he had not been lame. In the course of the day, he was in company with the defendant, who told witness he had bought the horse. ROBINSON said, "you had better let him be, he is lame." M'ANNALLY replied, "You know nothing about it." In the evening, witness sent a man with his horses in a string to Belfast; the defendant sent his at the same time in charge of his nephew and a servant. About a quarter of an hour afterwards, the nephew came back with the horse, saying he was very lame, and desired his uncle to return him to the man he had bought him of. The defendant got witness to go with him through the fair to look for the man, but he could not be found: and then sent his nephew with the horse to the person's residence, with instructions to return the horse and get back the purchase money, namely, thirty-five pounds. They again met with the nephew at Belfast, who still had the horse, the person who had sold him refusing to take him back. The horse was then brought to England, exposed for sale at Newcastle, without being disposed of; and the defendant subsequently told witness that the horse was sold, and said that he (witness) need not be speaking about him. Mr. RAINE.—You, being a horse-dealer, knew how to take that hint, I suppose? Witness.—Yes. I took the hint. Witness afterwards saw the defendant at Newton-Airds, in Ireland, since the commencement of this action, and advised him to settle the business. Defendant asserted that he never warranted the horse. Mr. RAINE entered into one of his quizzical cross-examinations, but made no essential impression upon Mr. ROBINSON's evidence. Thomas SCARROW, (father of the defendant) was riding the horse to Scotby, between a walk and a trot, when he fell, and damaged his knee, as before mentioned. Mr. RAINE made an unsuccessful attempt to establish a partnership in the purchase between the plaintiff and his brother John. This was the plaintiff's case. Mr. RAINE addressed the Jury for the defendant. In justice to his client, he thought it necessary to say, that he was a respectable man, of most extensive dealings in cattle, &c., and would not knowingly lend himself to a fraud. Mr. SCARROW, it had been proved, had got Mr. WILSON, a most skilful farrier, to examine the horse, and notwithstanding he pronounced him lame, had thought proper to put him to a trial, which he had no right to do. The animal had been considerably injured by being hard pushed at Drumburgh Hunt. This he could clearly prove by the evidence of Mr. NIXON, who was present, and, though a forward rider, had very little the lead of Mr. SCARROW. Besides, why had not the plaintiff returned the horse to the defendant, who remained in Carlisle quite long enough? Mr. RAINE referred to case, "FIELDING v. STARKIE," and said he should have the concurrence of his Lordship when he stated the law to be, that the plaintiff was bound to return the horse as soon as found him lame, or he could not recover. [His Lordship shook his head.] Mr. RAINE observed that the movement of his Lordship's head was an ill omen to his case; he, however, felt assured that the Jury, if they chose to give damages, would make a deduction for the lasting blemish which the horse had received at the hands of the plaintiff. Mr. Justice BAYLEY being of opinion that the plaintiff was entitled to a verdict, the defendant's counsel did not call any witnesses. His Lordship, in summing up, expressed himself to the same effect, but the amount of damages, he observed, rested with the Jury. One reason why the defendant should not be spared, was his bringing the horse to England and selling him, after he knew of his unsoundness. In law as well as common sense, a general declaration of soundness was decidedly warranty, and a purchaser was not bound always to return a horse, for he might keep the animal if he chose, and bring an action to recover the difference between the price given and the real value. The Jury, after a very short consultation, gave a verdict for the plaintiff, damages £62. *** We understand that the result of this trial has given very great dissatisfaction to the defendant, by reason of his counsel having omitted to examine any of his witnesses. The defendant is allowed to be a very respectable man, and he says, that if the merits of his case, and the detail of facts connected with his cause, had been developed to the Court, he had good grounds to conclude that the verdict would have been in his favour. Whatever may be the ultimate issue of the question between the parties, the defendant informs us that he intends to move for a new trial next term. [to be continued]

Saturday 04 Sep 1819 (p. 2, col. 5-6) T. HUNTINGTON, BEGS leave to inform the Inhabitants of CARLISLE, that he has just engaged, FROM LONDON, an excellent Workman for the Purpose of FITTING UP SHOPS, INNS, and DWELLING HOUSES, with CHANDELIERS, PIPES, and BRANCHES, for GAS; and from his intimate connection with most of the first Houses in the Kingdom, has no doubt of being able to serve his friends upon such terms as will meet their entire approbation. N. B. An elegant Assortment of JEWELLERY from London will remain at his Ware-Rooms in the Market-Place, for inspection during the Race Week. Carlisle, Sept. 2, 1819. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TO CARPENTERS & JOINERS. TO BE LET, the FINISHING of the GRAND JURY ROOM at the COURTS, CARLISLE. The Specification may be seen, and Particulars had, at the CLERK OF THE PEACE'S OFFICE, where Tenders will be received until the 1st. of OCTOBER next.---Carlisle, Sept. 2, 1819. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TO MASONS. TO be LET, the BUILDING of a NEW STONE BRIDGE over the CALDEW, at CARLISLE. Particulars may be known on Application at the CLERK OF THE PEACE'S Office, in Fisher-Street, where Plans and Specifications are left for Inspection; and TENDERS will be received there till the 19th of OCTOBER. Carlisle, 20th August, 1819. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOWN & COUNTRY HOUSES TO LET. TO be LET, and Entered on at CANDLEMAS next,- 1. A Capital COUNTRY RESIDENCE, called ROCKLIFF HALL, pleasantly situated on the Banks of the River Eden, about Five Miles from Carlisle. There is a large Garden adjoining the House, and Stables, Coach-house, and other convenient Out-Offices, attached to it, and the Tenant may have any quantity of Land, not exceeding 25 Acres, surrounding the House, if required. 2. Also, TO BE LET, and Entered on at Martinmas or Candlemas next, THREE capital new-built DWELLING-HOUSES, situate in FISHER-STREET, Carlisle. Apply to Mr. MOUNSEY, the Owner, at Castletown, or at the Office of Messrs. MOUNSEY & SISSON, Solicitors, in Carlisle. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORPORATION LANDS, &c. TO BE LET, in Public, at the GUILD-HALL of the City of CARLISLE, on TUESDAY the 21st Day of SEPTEMBER, 1819, at Six o'Clock in the Evening;- LOT I. The MANURE (in Lots) arising from the Streets within the Liberties of the City, as well without as within the Walls. LOT II. STONEY HOLME and HOLE MEADOW, situate in the Parishes of St. Mary and Stanwix, now in the Occupation of JOSEPH HENRY, and containing 56A. 1R. 22P. (more or less.) LOT III. ETTERBY WATH and WET ACRE, situate in Willow Holme, and now occupied by WM. HIND. LOT IV. BARWISE NOOK and HEAD OF HOLME, situate near Willow Holme aforesaid, and now in the Tenure of JOHN ROUSON [or ROBSON?]. LOT V. THE BITTS, now occupied by Mrs. CARRUTHERS. LOT VI. THE FULLING MILL, situate at DAMSIDE, (English Gate) now in the occupation of JOHN HARRINGTON. For Particulars apply to Mr. ALLISON, the Chamberlain, or at the TOWN CLERK'S Office, Fisher-street, Carlisle. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DESIRABLE PREMISES FOR SALE. TO BE SOLD, BY PRIVATE CONTRACT, ALL those PREMISES, situate at ALLONBY, the Property of JOSEPH HUDDART, Esq.; consisting of a commodious Dwelling-House and Out-Offices, together with an excellent Three Stalled Stable, Hay Loft, Coach House, and Laundry, and a Piece of Garden or Building Ground, thereto adjoining. The Dwelling House commands an extensive view of the Solway Frith and opposite Mountains in Scotland, and the whole may be rendered a very eligible Residence for a Family wishing to pass the summer months at that celebrated Watering Place. Further Particulars may be known on applying to Dr. LOMAS, at Allonby. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TO BE SOLD, in PUBLIC SALE, (by Order of the Assignees of the Estate and Effects of Mr. JOHN ATKINSON, of Dalston, in the Parish of Dalston, in the County of Cumberland, Cotton Spinner,) at the WHITE SWAN INN, in DALSTON, on TUESDAY the 5th Day of OCTOBER next,- ALL that very valuable COPYHOLD CLOSE or INCLOSURE of LAND, situated at or near DALSTON aforesaid, and late in the Occupation of the said Mr. ATKINSON. This Property consists of about Three Acres of excellent Arable Land, is well watered and fenced, and from its contiguity to the Village of Dalston is a very desirable purchase. The Conditions will be made known at the time and place of Sale, and for further Particulars apply to Mr. PEARSON, Solicitor to the Assignees. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ESTATE AT WEGGLE HILL FOR SALE. TO BE SOLD, by PUBLIC AUCTION, at the Bush Inn, BRAMPTON, in the County of Cumberland, on Wednesday the 20th Day of October, 1819, at Six o'Clock in the Evening, together or in Two Lots,- ALL those Compact and truly desirable ESTATES, situate at WEGGLE HILL and ASH TREE, about Two Miles from the Market Town of Brampton; consisting of Two Sets of Farm Buildings, and about Ninety Acres of Arable Land of very excellent Quality, now in the Occupation of Mr. TINNISWOOD, the Owner, who will send a Person to shew the Premises. These Estates are in the immediate Neighbourhood of Lime and Coal, and have an unlimited Right of Common upon the valuable Wastes within the Manor of Talkin. Particulars may be known on application to Mr. TINNISWOOD, or at the Office of Mr. NORMAN, Solicitor, Carlisle. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL HEWSON & JOHN BARNES' FURTHER AND FINAL DIVIDEND. THE COMMISSIONERS in a COMMISSION of BANKRUPT, bearing Date the 8th Day of November, 1810, awarded and issued forth against DANIEL HEWSON, of WIGTON, in the County of Cumberland, and JOHN BARNES, then or late of LITTLE BAMPTON, in the said County, Manufacturers, Dealers, Chapmen, and Partners, intend to meet on the 15th Day of September next, at Eleven of the Clock in the Forenoon, at the LION & LAMB INN, in the City of CARLISLE, in order to make a FURTHER and FINAL DIVIDEND of the Estate and Effects of the said Bankrupts; when and where the Creditors who have not already proved their Debts, are to come prepared to prove the same, or they will be excluded the Benefit of the said Dividend: and all Claims not then proved will be disallowed. GLAISTER, Solicitor. Wigton, August 28, 1819.

Hello Listers, Does anyone know anything about John Sowerby and his son, Colonel Thomas Sowerby of Dalston Hall or how he earned his fortune in London? Deborah Hodgkinson Victoria, BC > On Mar 14, 2016, at 2:55 PM, Petra Mitchinson via <eng-westmorland@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > Saturday 14 Aug 1819 (p. 1, col. 5-6 and p. 2, col. 3-4) > > FARM TO LET. > > TO BE LET, by PROPOSAL, for the Term of NINE YEARS, and Entered upon at CANDLEMAS 1820, > > A MESSUAGE and TENEMENT, situate at GREAT ORTON, in the Parish of ORTON, in the County of Cumberland, consisting of suitable > Farm-Buildings, and 57 Acres 1 Rood of Arable, Meadow, and Pasture Land, well Watered and Fenced. > > Further Particulars may be known by Applying to JOHN STORDY, of Great Orton aforesaid, the Owner, by whom Proposals will be received > until the 9th Day of September next, and the Tenant declared the following week. > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > A VERY DESIRABLE AND MOST VALUABLE > BURGAGE PROPERTY IN ANNAN > FOR SALE. > > TO BE SOLD, by PUBLIC ROUP, within the COURT HOUSE of ANNAN, upon FRIDAY the 3rd Day of SEPTEMBER next, 1819, betwixt 12 and 1 > o'Clock Afternoon: > > THAT Elegant and Extensive TENEMENT, situated on the South Side of the HIGH STREET of that BURGH, near the Bridge, and presently > occupied as an ACADEMY, with the whole Offices, Yard, Two large Gardens, and Pertinents thereto belonging. > > These Buildings were originally constructed for an Inn, at an expence of nearly Ł3000 Sterling, and for several years were occupied > as such. They consist of Twenty Fire Rooms, with Kitchen, Back Kitchen, Scullery, and Pump House, Three large Bed Closets or Store > Rooms, Four excellent Cellar Rooms below; Stabling for Thirty-two Horses, having Hay-lofts over; Coach-house, Hog-yard, Swine Hulls, > Cow House, &c. The whole, including the Stable-yard and the Two lareg [sic] Gardens, occupying about Two English Acres of Ground, > having upwards of 300 Feet in Front, in the most public and very best situation of any in the Burgh. > > No Property in Annan is better adapted for carrying on business, in any line: and as by the improvements presently going on in the > Road betwixt the Cities of Carlisle and Glasgow, whereby Annan will only be a short stage from the former place, and the line of > Road to Lockerbie by Annan leveller and much easier travelled, especially in bad weather, than that by Ecclefechan, it is next to > certain that by far the greatest part, if not the whole transit from Carlisle to Lockerbie, and vice versa, as well as that to the > North of Ireland and West of Scotland, will go by Annan. The Premises are therefore thought to be very favourably situated for a > principal Inn. > > The Title Deeds are unexceptionably clear. > > Further Particulars may be learned by applying to the MAGISTRATES or TOWN CLERK. > > N. B. A considerable part of the Price may, if desired, continue in the Purchaser's hand, on the Security of the Premises. > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > GAME. > > IT is requested that all Qualified Persons will refrain from Hunting, Shooting, or Fishing, within the Manor of LITTLE DALSTON, in > the County of Cumberland, belonging to JOHN SOWERBY, Esquire, and in the Grounds, Woods, and Waters of the said JOHN SOWERBY, > Esquire, within the Parishes of ST. MARY and ST. CUTHBERT, Carlisle. > > All Poachers and Unqualified Persons found therein, will be prosecuted. > > N. B.—The Tenants on the several Farms have strict Orders to inform against Trespassers. > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > GAME, > WITHIN THE FOREST OF INGLEWOOD. > > WHEREAS, the GAME within the FOREST of INGLEWOOD, has of late Years been greatly injured by Unqualified Persons, Poachers, &c.: > > Notice is hereby given to all such Persons, > > That the strictest vigilance will in future be used to discover Offenders, and that all who are detected in such practices will be > punished with the utmost rigour of the Law. > > EDWARD HASELL, > Bow-Bearer of Inglewood Forest. > > Dalemain, Aug. 11, 1819. > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > TO BE LET, BY PROPOSALS, > FOR A TERM OF YEARS, AND ENTERED UPON AT CANDLEMAS FIRST, > > A FARM at WELTON, in the Parish of Sebergham, in the County of Cumberland; consisting of a good Dwelling-House with suitable > Out-buildings, and Two Orchards, and about Thirty-five Acres of good Arable, Meadow, and Grassing Land, well watered and fenced. > > For further Particulars apply to Mr. HENRY FRIZELL, the Owner and present Occupier, who will receive Proposals until WEDNESDAY the > 25th instant, when the Tenant will be declared upon the Premises. > > August 11, 1819. > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > HARRIS'S BANKRUPTCY. > > WHEREAS, a Commission of Bankrupt is awarded and issued forth against THOMAS HARRIS, of LIVERPOOL, in the County of Lancaster, > Master Mariner, Merchant, Dealer and Chapman, formerly of Maryport, in the County of Cumberland, Corn and Flour Dealer, and he being > declared a Bankrupt is hereby required to surrender himself to the Commissioners in the said Commission named, or the major part of > them, on the 9th, 11th, and 28th of AUGUST instant, at One o'Clock in the afternoon on each day, at the George Inn, in Dale Street, > in Liverpool, and make a full discovery and disclosure of his Estate and Effects; when and where the Creditors are to come prepared > to prove their Debts, and at the second sitting to chuse Assignees, and at the last sitting the said Bankrupt is required to finish > his examination, and the Creditors are to assent to or dissent from the allowance of his certificate.—All persons indebted to the > said Bankrupt, or that have any of his effects, are not to pay or deliver the same but to whom the Commissioners shall appoint, but > give notice to Messrs. PRITT and KEWLEY. Solicitors, Water-Street, Liverpool, or Messrs. BLACKSTOCK and BUNCE, Solicitors, King's > Bench Walks, Temple, London. > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > BLACK LYNE INCLOSURE. > > I, JOHN NORMAN, the Commissioner, named and appointed in and by an Act of Parliament passed in the 56th Year of the Reign of his > present Majesty, intituled "An Act for Inclosing Blacklyne Common, in the Parish of Bewcastle, in the County of Cumberland,"— > > DO HEREBY GIVE NOTICE, > > That in pursuance of the said Act, and of another Act passed in the 41st Year of the Reign of his present Majesty, intituled "An Act > for consolidating in one Act, certain Provisions usually inserted in Acts of Inclosure; and for facilitating the mode of proving the > several facts usually required in the passing of such Acts;" I, the said Commissioner, have set out and appointed the following > Roads through and over the Lands intended to be divided and inclosed under and by virtue of the said first mentioned Act, (that is > to say): > > OCCUPATION ROADS. > >> From a Gate in the ancient inclosed Ground of JANE LAMB, to an Allotment of Common sold to JAMES ROBERT GEORGE GRAHAM, Esq. > >> From the first mentioned Road, at the South West Corner of WILLIAM KYLE'S Allotment, across the Allotment of JAMES ROBERT GEORGE > GRAHAM, Esq., in a North East direction, for the Occupation of the several Peat Mosses situate in the last mentioned Allotment. > >> From the first mentioned Road, across the Allotment set out to the Heirs of WILLIAM ROUTLEDGE deceased, for the Occupation of a Peat > Moss therein, set out to ALLAN ROUTLEDGE. > >> From the first mentioned Road, across the North End of RICHARD ROUTLEDGE'S Allotment, for the use of WILLIAM KYLE and the future > Occupiers of his Estate, at High Onset, to carry Peats. > >> From the first mentioned Road, across the Allotment of GEORGE DODGSON, for the Occupation of a public Limestone Quarry, situate in > such Allotment. > > AND I FURTHER GIVE NOTICE, > > That a Map, whereon the said several Roads are laid down and described, is deposited with Messrs. MOUNSEY & SISSON, Solicitors, in > Carlisle, for the Inspection of all Persons interested; and that I intend to hold a Meeting at the House of ARCHIBALD GOODFELLOW, > Innkeeper, Bolton-Fell-End, in the County of Cumberland, on Monday the 6th Day of September, at 11 o'Clock in the Forenoon, when and > where any Person or Persons who shall think himself, herself, or themselves injured or aggrieved by the setting out of any of the > aforesaid Roads, is and are required to attend, in order to specify his, her, or their objections thereto respectively, otherwise > the said Roads will be confirmed by me at such meeting. > > Given under my Hand, this Seventh Day of August, 1819. JOHN NORMAN. > > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ENG-WESTMORLAND-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Saturday 28 Aug 1819 (p. 3, col. 5) MARRIAGES. At St. Mary's church, in this city, on Sunday last, Mr. Charles William Henry MASON, of Newby, to Miss Jane DIXON, of Stanwix. Tuesday week, at St. James's Whitehaven, Mr. George COCKBAIN, to Miss Sarah DALTON.-Friday week, Mr. John DELANEY, mariner, to Miss Mary THOMPSON. Saturday se'nnight, at Millom, Mr. Robert SEWETT [SEWART according to FamilySearch], to Miss Mary NEWBY, of Haveriggs, in Millom. At Grasmere, Mr. William NELSON to Miss Agnes HARRISON. At Appleby, on Wednesday last, the Rev. James STEWART, to Miss B. GREENWELL. At Kirkby Stephen, Mr. Thomas ROGERSON, butcher, to Miss Mary LOADMAN, both of that place. At Giggleswick, William ROBINSON, Esq., to Jane, eldest daughter of John PEART, Esq.; all of Settle. At Jedburgh, on the 19th inst. Mr. William RUTHERFORD, jun. writer there, to Martha, youngest daughter of the Rev. Dr. SOMERVILLE. DEATHS. On Tuesday, the 24th inst. aged 22, Eleanor, third daughter of Thos. IRWIN, Esq. of Justicetown; after a long and painful illness, which she bore with exemplary patience and truly christian resignation. In St. Andrew's Square, Edinburgh, on the 18th inst. after a few hours illness, Jane, daughter of Mr. JAMES, surgeon, of this City, aged 5 years. This week, Miss M. FARLEY, of Botchergate, aged 18. At Wetheral Shields, on Saturday last, Mrs. Mary SLATER, aged 72, universally regretted. Sunday the 15th inst. in Roper-street, Whitehaven, Mrs. E. HALL, a maiden lady, aged 77; sister of the late Rt. Rev. George HALL, D. D. Lord Bishop of Dromore.-Monday last, in Howgill-street, Capt. John WILSON, aged 71 years.-Saturday se'nnight, at Mount Pleasant, Mr. John POTTS, aged 74.-Friday week, at New Houses, Mr. Jonathan THOMPSON, of Hensingham, aged 80 years.-Thursday week, in Scotch-street, Mr. Robert BRIGGS, aged 61.-Thursday se'nnight, in Queen-street, Mr. Thomas HODGSON, aged 63. Tuesday week, at Ba*khouse, near Cockermouth, Mrs. DIXON, relict of the late Mr. John DIXON, aged 81. Thursday se'nnight, at Tallentire, Mrs. RITSON, wife of Mr. John RITSON, in the prime of life. Friday se'nnight, at Workington, Mary Ann, the wife of Mr. Richard WALKER, joiner, aged 29 years. At Stainton Mill, near Muncaster, Jane, the wife of Mr. John DOBSON, miller, in the 39th year of her age. Friday, the 13th instant, at Appleby, Mrs. YARKER, of that place, aged 72, highly respected. At Rydal, Mr. John BENSON, aged 77. On the 10th inst. in Dalton-square, Lancaster, aged 57, Mrs. PARKER, of the Wood, Windermere, relict of the late Timothy PARKER, Esq. of Hornby Hall, in the county of Lancaster. At Weymouth, on the 12th inst. sincerely lamented, Mrs. GLENDINING, wife of Thomas GLENDINING, Esq. of Burton Crescent, London. At Dumfries, on the 20th inst. aged 55 years, after a long and painful illness, Margaret, wife of Mr. John COURTAS, teacher. Lately, at St. Jago, in the island of Cuba, Mr. John CARR, master of thy Albion, and son of Mr. James CARR, ship-builder, Harrington.

Saturday 28 Aug 1819 (p. 3, col. 5) The following are the sentences upon the prisoners tried at Northumberland Assizes:-Peter MacKENNY and John JACKSON alias Hugh MAICHIN, for uttering forged notes, purporting to be those of the British Linen Company; Wm. GREY for robbing Wm. HALL on the King's highway of a silver watch; John HOOK for stealing two wedder sheep; Ralph HUSH for stealing 30 wedder hogs, 10 ewes, and 13 lambs from Anthony COMPTON, Esq., 20 ewes and 20 lambs the property of George ARCHBOLD, two ewes the property of Wm. LINN, and one tupp from Thos. MATHERING; and James HUTTON for sacrilege in breaking into and robbing the parish church of Belford, severally received sentence of DEATH.-Richard SMITH for stealing a silver watch from the person of Thomas TAYLOR, to be imprisoned in the house of Correction at Tynemouth for the term of two calendar months.-John HALL, charged with stealing a large quantity of silver and bank notes, the property of a Friendly Society at Long Benton, and Mary MURRAY, charged with uttering two forged notes of the British Linen Company, were acquitted.-Prisoners tried at the Guildhall, Newcastle.-Frances PATTISON for uttering a forged note of the British Linen Company, guilty-DEATH.-Ann SMITH for stealing 10 yards of linen cloth, to be imprisoned 12 calendar months.-Against Margaret CROW, charged with uttering forged notes, no bill.--The Grand Jury of Newcastle, in pursuance of the recommendation in Mr. Justice BAYLEY's charge, have inspected the gaol of Newgate, in that town, and pronounced it unfit for the purposes of classification stated by the learned judge. The further consideration of the subject was deferred until the Spring assizes. The Northumberland grand jury deferred the survey of Morpeth gaol until the next sessions. A few days ago, Mrs. BELL, a widow woman in Annan, went into a meadow to milk her cow, when another cow, with horns, which was grazing in the same meadow, ran at her, threw her down, and was in the act goring her, when her own cow, which was at a distance, came running up, attacked the horned cow with great fury, and effectually succeeded not only in relieving, but, in all probability, saving the life of her mistress. On Saturday last, a fine boy of the name of FORSYTH, son of a shoemaker in Dumfries, was drowned while bathing in the river, opposite the Green Sands.

Saturday 28 Aug 1819 (p. 2, col. 5 – p. 3, col. 5) Cumberland Assizes, 1819. [continued] NISI PRIUS BAR. THE RIOTS AT ALLONBY IN 1817. LAWSON v. SIM.—The plaintiff, Mr. Pattinson LAWSON, is a corn and meal merchant residing at Bowness, and the defendant is a fish-curer at Allonby. It appeared in evidence, that in March 1817, Mr. LAWSON put a quantity of oatmeal in a yard belonging to Mr. SIM, at Allonby, preparatory to its being shipped for Liverpool. This place was assailed by a mob from Maryport, who carried off part of the meal, and threatened to return in greater force, assisted by the sailors. In consequence of this threat, Mr. SIM and his neighbours removed nine sacks of oatmeal into a byre, about thirty yards from the spot where they before stood, and thus they escaped the second attack which was still more violent than the first—and he afterwards, for greater safety, shifted them to his own parlour. Mr. LAWSON subsequently thought proper to summon Mr. SIM before the Magistrates at Maryport, and while there he promised to deliver up the meal; but on its being afterwards applied for, he refused to do so, unless Mr. LAWSON would first pay for the standing, the removal, and the damage done to the premises, which, it appeared by one of the witnesses, was estimated by the defendant at about £20. Mr. LAWSON declined paying this sum, but tendered £3, which Mr. SIM refused to take. Having got damp, the meal soon spoiled, and at last became so offensive, that it was thrown upon the dunghill. Mr. Justice BAYLEY, in addressing the jury, said this appeared to him a very clear case, and the plaintiff must have a verdict. The defendant had a right to claim a reasonable compensation for the standing of the meal, and for his trouble in saving it, but he had no claim in law upon Mr. LAWSON for damage done to the premises—that claim rested elsewhere. The meal having been spoilt in consequence of this illegal detention, nothing could be more clear than that the defendant was bound to make it good.—Verdict for the plaintiff, damages £20, the value of the meal and sacks. ASSAULT. BIRKETT v. IRTON.—Mr. SCARLETT said, the plaintiff in this case was a poor man, and the defendant the son of Edm. L. IRTON, Esq. of Irton-Hall, in this county. It seems, says Mr. SCARLETT, that the defendant thinks he has a right to shoot all dogs and cats within five miles of his residence—whelp or cur, just opening its eyes or grown up, all must be shot by night or by day—all must be shot by the defendant! He trusted, however, that he would this day be convinced that he was not quite correct in his notion of the law upon this point, and that a poor man and his dog were as much entitled to protection as the rich and powerful.—Anthony BIRKETT sworn. Is the son of the plaintiff who is a labouring man, and has about 50 acres of land in his hands, which he farms. In 1817, witness went with his father and three brothers to assist a neighbouring farmer as reapers. After the corn had been got in, they went to the supper given to celebrate that event, and all returned home together. Their road does not lie within a mile of Irton Hall. They had their favourite dog with them, and were all walking pretty near together. When they came at a certain place, a person sprung out of the hedge and seized witness by the shoulder and shook him, he, witness, having a bundle of sickles upon his arm. After a few words, Mr. IRTON left witness, leaped over the stile, and shot the dog within two yards of his brother's legs. No one had been meddling with game, but the dog had given tongue just before at a hedge-hog—it was a cur, and had not the look either of a pointer or a spaniel. Witness's father had sheep sometimes, in the management of which the dog was of great service, and all the family prized it highly. It never was used to go after game, and could be of no use for that purpose. After Mr. IRTON had shot the dog, he gave CHAMBERS, the gamekeeper, the gun, and told him to re-load it.—Thos. HILL deposed to the excellent manner in which the dog had been trained to manage sheep, and thought it worth at least 50s.—Mr. Justice BAYLEY, in summing up, said Mr. IRTON had not thought proper to defend this action, and he would have acted wisely to have prevented it, even though he had paid double the value of the animal, for there could be no doubt of his being wrong. It did not appear, however, that he was actuated by any wish to oppress a poor man: he would rather believe that he shot the dog under the impression that the party had been poaching—this was the only excuse that could be made for him—the parties were out late, and it might have been a mistake. But let this be as it might, he had violated the law, and the jury would decide what was the value of the animal which he had destroyed.—Verdict for the plaintiff, damages £5.

Saturday 28 Aug 1819 (p. 2, col. 5 – p. 3, col. 5) Cumberland Assizes, 1819. [continued] NISI PRIUS BAR. REPLEVIN. RICHARDSON v. HUGGINSON.—In this case, Joseph RICHARDSON, of Warwick, the plaintiff, sought to recover damages of the defendant, for a seizure of furniture, &c. The defendant justifies the act by pleading that he did it as bailiff of Mr. WARWICK, of Warwick Hall, of whom the plaintiff was tenant: but the plaintiff denies that he was Mr. WARWICK's tenant, &c. Mr. Sergeant HULLOCK addressed the jury for the defendant. Mr. RICHARDSON, said the learned Sergeant, lives at Warwick, near Carlisle, and is a man of literature—he also loves the law as well as learning, for though he had been engaged in a great deal of litigation with Mr. WARWICK, including a chancery suit, which he lost, he was not yet satisfied; and he again came into court to-day, where, the learned Sergeant could inform him, he was not likely to be more successful than in the Court of Chancery. Some years ago, Mrs. WARWICK engaged Mr. RICHARDSON, at the rate of £80 per annum, to teach her children, and wishing to have him situated near Warwick Hall, she provided him with a house to reside in. Mr. RICHARDSON discharged the duties of his office several years. Family quarrels unfortunately occurred, the family separated, Mr. WARWICK had made arrangements which dissolved any engagement that might be supposed to exist between him and Mr. RICHARDSON, and he came upon that gentleman for rent: this he refused to pay—he had appealed to the law—the law was against him—his property had been seized upon for the rent—and he came into court on the present occasion to seek damages for this seizure. Mr. ROBINSON, solicitor, Carlisle, sworn. Is attorney for Mr. WARWICK, and knows the house in which Mr. RICHARDSON resides—for which he paid six years' rent in 1818. In March last, Mr. RICHARDSON called at his office in company with HUGGINSON. The suit of chancery had been determined against him, and he said he wished to have an amicable settlement with Mr. WARWICK. Mr. ROBINSON observed, that might easily be done by paying the rent and the costs of the distress. RICHARDSON replied that he had no objection, if he could continue tenant at £9 a year; for he would much rather live in Mr. WARWICK's house, as it was fitted up, than go into one out of repair, which he had had empty 12 months. Mr. ROBINSON wrote to enquire if permission would be granted, and RICHARDSON afterwards called to learn the result—the request was refused, and Mr. ROBINSON told him he must quit. He heard nothing more of the business for some time, and then brought an ejectment. Mr. RICHARDSON begged that witness would indulge him with time in the discharge of the equity costs, and he would give security to pay on the 1st. of September next. When an agreement to this effect was made, the plaintiff observed, "You have acted fairly in this business, I have no fault to find with you—mind, now, you don't send a bailiff to distress me on midsummer day; give me till the Saturday following, and I'll call and settle with you." Mr. ROBINSON told him that he had no objection to do this, and there then would be £27 due for three years' rent, exclusive of the costs of the distress and ejectment. RICHARDSON assented to this, and that day week he signed the necessary document regarding the law business. RICHARDSON did not state that a bargain existed between him and Mr. WARWICK: he said he hoped when he had paid all this, that he and Mr. WARWICK should be friends, and that he should be continued tenant at £9 per annum—he thought it dear enough, but he would rather pay it than remove. William HENDERSON, clerk to Mr. ROBINSON, proved that RICHARDSON came as above stated—but spoke rather more pointedly as to RICHARDSON's admission, that he was a tenant at £9 per annum. Mr. RAINE addressed the Jury for the plaintiff, and felt confident of an issue favourable to his client. Before the Jury gave a verdict against him, they must be satisfied of two things: 1, that the bygone rent was £9 a year; and, 2, that the rent was payable on the 24th of June,—if they were not satisfied of this, the plaintiff was, by law, entitled to a verdict. Mr. RAINE, in his usual manner, commented on the evidence, and insisted that there was no proof to establish either of the points enumerated. Mr. Justice Bayley. The question to be tried is, whether there is a bargain between Mr. RICHARDSON and Mr. WARWICK. The law says, that if there be no bargain, the landlord cannot arrest, but must come to a ***y and ask for such a sum as they shall think proper to grant. If there is a bargain, the landlord is then at liberty either to distrain or bring his action, whichever he chooses.—The points upon which this action rested had been stated, and their proof depended upon the evidence of Mr. ROBINSON and his clerk. Evidence of conversation, however respectable, is liable to suspicion. If the plaintiff knew that he had made such a bargain, he must be the most indiscreet man alive to come into court on this occasion, for he must have done so with the certainty of having the costs to pay. Verdict for the Plaintiff—Damages £3 3s. [to be continued]

I would agree that 2 years is not in the prime of life! Unfortunately, although more burials are now making it onto FamilySearch, they are still very patchy. Petra -----Original Message----- From: eng-westmorland-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:eng-westmorland-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Stuart Phethean via Sent: 16 March 2016 15:58 To: Westmorland email list <eng-westmorland@rootsweb.com> Subject: Re: [ENG-WESTMORLAND] Carlisle Patriot, 14 Aug 1819 - BMD Wish I could find this record on Ancestry/Family Search! Its the location I'm interested in rather than the name, but the only SPEIGHT death that I can find which comes close to Aug 1819 is one Richard Speight b. abt 1817 bur. 29 Jul 1819 Kendal - hardly "prime of life" when aged two? There are quite a few SPEIGHTs in Selside at this time but I only have birth/marriage records. Regards, Stuart On 14/03/2016 23:34, "Westmorland email list" <eng-westmorland@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Saturday 14 Aug 1819 (p. 3, col. 4-5) > > DEATHS. > > > > On Tuesday last, at Potter-fell-side, near Kendal, Mr. SPEIGHT, in the prime > of life. >

Wish I could find this record on Ancestry/Family Search! Its the location I'm interested in rather than the name, but the only SPEIGHT death that I can find which comes close to Aug 1819 is one Richard Speight b. abt 1817 bur. 29 Jul 1819 Kendal - hardly "prime of life" when aged two? There are quite a few SPEIGHTs in Selside at this time but I only have birth/marriage records. Regards, Stuart On 14/03/2016 23:34, "Westmorland email list" <eng-westmorland@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Saturday 14 Aug 1819 (p. 3, col. 4-5) > > DEATHS. > > > > On Tuesday last, at Potter-fell-side, near Kendal, Mr. SPEIGHT, in the prime > of life. >

Saturday 28 Aug 1819 (p. 2, col. 5 – p. 3, col. 5) Cumberland Assizes, 1819. [continued] NISI PRIUS BAR. QUESTION OF GUARANTEE. ROUTLEDGE v. BOWMAN.—The parties in this cause, both reside in Carlisle—the former is a currier and leather cutter, the latter a retired tradesman living upon his means. The object of the action was the recovery of the sum of £100, the amount of goods delivered to Robert MULLEN, the defendant's nephew, a clog and patten maker in Carlisle, Mr. BOWMAN having promised to be answerable for that amount. The defendant pleaded non-liability. Mr. RAINE addressed the Jury in a pointed manner for the Plaintiff and called several witnesses. John LATTIMER, was employed by Mr. ROUTLEDGE in 1816. Robert MULLEN frequently had goods, but being irregular in his payments, Mr. ROUTLEDGE was shy of him, and at last declined supplying him any longer. Mr. BOWMAN then called to know the reason why Mr. ROUTLEDGE "doubted MULLEN"? and on another occassion [sic], he passed his word in presence of LATTIMER, for £100 but no further. On the faith of this, goods were furnished to the amount of £102 odd shillings, when MULLEN failed, and the defendant, on being applied to for the money, refused payment. Mr. GILKERSON, innkeeper; Mr. Peter WILSON, butcher; one of Mr. ROUTLEDGE's workmen; and J. DAVIDSON, at that time a clerk with Mr. BLOW, proved that the defendant had made frequent admissions of his verbal promise to be answerable to the amount of £100. To one of them he said, he should not mind paying had his nephew failed fairly but as he had acted dishonestly, he would not pay unless the law compelled him. This was the substance of the evidence for the plaintiff. Mr. SCARLETT for the defendant began by putting in the shop-book, containing a running account from the commencement of Robert MULLEN's concerns with the plaintiff down to the time of his failure, which one of the witnesses, a journeyman in the employment of the plaintiff, had admitted to be in the hand writing of Mr. ROUTLEDGE himself, and of his book keeper, LATTIMER. I believe, said Mr. SCARLETT, that this action is founded in error or design to deceive his Lordship and the jury. It appears by the book which I have just put in, that MULLEN paid regularly enough up to June 1816, the period when BOWMAN is said to have passed his word, therefore there could be no pretence for demanding a guarantee. I will also prove that MULLEN left off dealing with the plaintiff for a considerable time, and that he went and solicited his business again. He afterwards went to MULLEN, when he was likely to fail, demanded leather, and finally offered to make composition with him of seven shillings in the pound. Moreover, when MULLEN was about to be discharged by the insolvent act, the plaintiff opposed his liberation. I shall show all this, and, gentlemen, I feel assured, it will entitle me to your verdict. Robert MULLEN was then sworn. As goods were had, they were entered into the book produced, either by the plaintiff or his people—the payments were entered into it also. He left off dealing in December 1813, and Mr. ROUTLEDGE came and asked him to renew his custom. In February 1817, he went to prison; but before this, in 1816, LATTIMER came to him and asked for money, * and Mr. ROUTLEDGE himself afterwards came and required money, which witness said he was unable to pay at that time. When he was in prison, plaintiff came there to him, and asked what composition he intended to make—would he not give seven shillings in the pound? Witness replied he could not do any thing of the kind. He remained in gaol till the midsummer sessions following, and then obtained his discharge, which was opposed by CHANCE, GRAY and Co., nail-makers, of Birmingham, and Mr. ROUTLEDGE's name was also called upon in court. He was, however, discharged. On his cross-examination, he said that his uncle never told him that he had passed his word for goods. Francis GALLIFER was an apprentice with MULLEN when he failed. The plaintiff called upon him at Mr. DALTON's shop at Midsummer 1817, and examined him to ascertain what had become of the goods which MULLEN had obtained. Witness told him that they were all used, except a few clog soles. Plaintiff then ordered him to attend the Court to see if he were wanted, when MULLEN was about to be discharged. ROUTLEDGE said he would keep MULLEN prisoner for five years. Witness did attend—ROUTLEDGE's name was called upon in Court, and witness ran to fetch him: he afterwards gave witness 1s. 6d. for his trouble. Mr. RAINE contended that no answer had been given to the plaintiff's case—there was no pretence for saying that the discharge had been opposed by Mr. ROUTLEDGE. The jet of the evidence hung upon MULLEN—and would the jury believe him, an interested person, and one of whom the jury had heard his own uncle's opinion, in opposition to so respectable and unconcerned a witness as LATTIMER, who was not now even employed by the plaintiff? No, he was sure they would do no such thing. Mr. Justice BAYLEY said, the question for the consideration of the jury was—whether BOWMAN had in reality pledged himself to pay to the amount of £100. If a tradesman supplies goods on the word of another, and makes him debtor who receives them, the person who passes his word is not liable unless there be a written article of guarantee—and, therefore, if MULLEN was liable, of a certainty BOWMAN was not. From the experience he had had in courts, he felt how difficult it was for witnesses to recollect the precise terms of conversations held at some time prior, without the aid of a memorandum made immediately afterwards. What was said in regard to BOWMAN's promises and admissions, were all recollections of this sort. But for his part, he pinned his faith principally upon the book—that was a guide which could not well mislead. The account had been going on sometime before the stated promise was given, and yet there was not the slightest alteration in the book—MULLEN was still charged. It should also be noticed, that the first payment made after the promise, was by MULLEN, which not only covered the old account, but part of what was now claimed. These were strong facts—but the province of decision was the jury's—they must discriminate between the evidence. The Jury retired, and, being late in the evening, the Judge and Counsel left the Associate to take the verdict, which, in a short time, was given for the plaintiff—damages £100. It was hailed with loud clapping. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * LATTIMER in his evidence deposed, that he merely asked MULLEN to come and speak with his master. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [to be continued]