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]