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]