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.