Saturday 28 Aug 1819 (p. 2, col. 5-6) CAUSE LIST. Plaintiffs' Attorney. Plaintiffs. Defendants. Defendants' Attorney. 1. BLOW......................BLOW...............BRISCO..........case. In person.To recover the sum of £36 6s., due on a promissory note given by Defendant to Plaintiff. No defence. Verdict for the Plaintiff (including interest) £37. 2. PERRY.....................PERRY...............CORKHILL.......case. In person.The Plaintiff is a Solicitor residing at Whitehaven, and the Defendant is of the same profession living at Ramsgate, in the county of Kent. The action was brought to recover the sum of £9 : 2 : 6 for professional business done for the Defendant by Mr. PERRY, at the instance of a third party residing in Cornwall, and of whom Mr. CORKHILL had received the amount. No defence. Verdict for the Plaintiff, £9 : 2 : 6. 3. PERRY....................Doe...................HUNTER .........eject.Referred. Verdict for the Plaintiff by consent, damages 1s. 4. LOWRY..................DOUGLAS..........CHARLTON.......case. LAW.The Plaintiff is a grocer and spirit seller at Newcastleton, and the Defendant a small farmer living on the English border, a few miles from that town. The action was brought to recover £89 16s., the amount of goods sold and delivered, part of which was a bill that had been accepted by the defendant, but not honoured when it became due. A stupid witness was put into the box to prove the delivery of the goods, but he knew nothing, and the Plaintiff's counsel were obliged to confine themselves to the bill. The defence set up was, that the Defendant was not liable, the bill having been given for an illegal considerationfor smuggled whiskey. This was clearly proved, and the Plaintiff was Nonsuited. 5. LOWRY..................RICHARDSON.....RICHARDSON...case. MOUNSEY & SISSON.The parties in this case, Robert RICHARDSON and Joseph RICHARDSON, are brothers, and live at Dalston, near Carlisle. The action was brought to recover £113 : 17 : 2, the balance of a running account of many years' standing. Mr. RAINE, for the Defendant, made a strenuous attempt to get up a set-off to more than the amount of the demand, during which the learned gentleman now and then threw a few sparks of wit and humour over a very dull dry subject. This, attempt, however, totally failed, the jury giving a verdict for the Plaintiff to the amount claimed. 6. ATKINSON.............BIRKITT..............IRTON.............tres. HODGSON.Verdict for the Plaintiff, damages £5. (See Report.) 7. MOUNSEY & SISSON .....KER............BENSON.........debt. NICHOLSON & THOMPSON.An action to recover upon a bond of 30 years' standing, for £610, the subscribing witnesses to which were dead. The necessary proofs were made, and the jury, under direction of the judge, gave a verdict for the Plaintiff, damages 1s., costs 40s. 8. P. HODGSON........Doe.....................JACKSON.......eject. WALKER.An ejectment brought to recover possession of certain property in the parish of Millomthe detail, as far as it went, perfectly uninteresting.Nonsuit. 9. P. HODGSON........DALE...................GILBANKS......issue. FALCON.An action for the recovery of certain Tithes. A nominal verdict for the Plaintiff, damages 1s., without costs, was taken, the business to be settled by another method. 10. LIGHTFOOT..........Doe.....................BEEBY............eject. HOLME.Ver. for the Pl., damages 1s. 11. LIGHTFOOT..........LAWSON.............SIM..................tres. PEARSON.Verdict for the Plaintiff, damages £20. (See Report.) 12. GRAHAM & ARMSTRONG...RICHARDSON...HUGGINSON...rep. ROBINSON.(See Report.) 13. PEARSON.............MOORE...............NIXON............case. PRESTON.The Plaintiff, Jos. MOORE, as the administrator of his father, Joseph MOORE, sought to recover £6 11s. due to the old man when he died, from the Defendant, for work done jointly with NIXON, in repairing Armathwaite Bridge. The amount demanded was the result of an arbitration. An attempt was made by the Defendant to do away with this arbitration on the ground that one of the arbitrators had not consented; and also to prove that five pounds of the demand had been paid. It was the opinion of Mr. Justice BAYLEY, that this endeavour had completely failed. The jury were of the same mind. Verdict for the Plaintiff, £6 11s. 14. PEARSON.............SMITH...........LOWRY & others...case. LOWRY.The Plaintiff is a butcher at Caldbeck, and the Defendents [sic] were known (some short time ago) as the Caldbeck Mining Company. It appeared that the Defendants had empowered the Plaintiff to supply their workmen with butchers' meat, to the amount of upwards of £30, which they had in return deducted from the men's wages. The existence of the Company was proved by the payment of £11 on its account as part of the demand; and evidence was given to prove that several of the Company had made individual admissions of the debt.Verdict for the Plaintiff £16, about the amount of the balance due. 15. WILSON...............GODBURN..........TAYLOR...........case.The Plaintiff is a grocer at Brampton, and he sought to recover the sum of £67 for shop goods, had by the Defendant in the course of three years, who is a labouring man, in possession of a small property, on the strength of which the credit was granted. No defence. Verdict for the Plaintiff for the amount claimed. 16. STEEL and Son......LAWSON, Esq......PEAT...............case. HODGSON & NANSON.An action to assert an unobstructed right of fishery in the Derwent. Nonsuit. (Report next week.) 17. SAUL....................ATKINSON..........SCHOLLICK......case. EWART.To ascertain a right of road at Harraby, leading to a field called Raper's or Roper's Close, claimed and long enjoyed by Mr. S. ATKINSON, of Carlisle, and disputed by the defendant. A jury was impannelled who had taken a view of the spot, but before Mr. SCARLETT had fully stated the case, the parties consulted together in consequence of an intimation in the shape of an objection, and agreed to refer the matter to Mr. RAINCOCK, the barrister. A nominal verdict for the Plaintiff was taken, damages 1s., costs 40s. 18. SAUL .....FEATHERSTONHAUGH, S.J. ...GIBSON......debt. GRAVE.Withdrawn. 19. STUDHOLME.........ROE...................BARNES..........eject. RUDD.To recover a small property at Westnewton in this county, the details of which possess not a particle of interest. Verdict for Plaintiff, damages 1s., subject to a suit. 20. STUDHOLME.........DRAPE...............HAYTON..........case. LIGHTFOOT.A horse cause. A copious report in our next. Verdict for the Plaintiff, damages £26. 21. BLOW...................ROUTLEDGE.......BOWMAN.......case. GRAHAM & ARMSTRONG. (See Report.) 22. In Person.......P. HODGSON, S. J. ....BARWISE & others....case. SAUL.This is the well-known cause relative to the amount of the Steward's fees, in Abbey Holme. Thomas BLAMIRE, Esq., W. CALVERT, Esq., and C. S. FEATHERSTONHAUGH, Esq. being the only special jurors who made their appearance, a tales was prayed, and the following gentlemen from the long pannel were worn [sic]:Jos. BOUSTEAD, Joseph HARTLEY, John STAMPER, Robert PIKETOFT, Henry CADDY, John ROOK, John WHITESIDE, James ROBINSON, and William SMITH. As soon, however, as the oath was administered, a juror was withdrawn, each party, we are told, paying their own costs, and the question set at rest. 23. HOLME................WANNOP............WILKINSON....case. EWART.To recover the sum of £3, 19s. for ale and spirits drank at Plaintiff's house, the White Lion, in English-street. As by 24 G. 2. c. 40, entitled an act for the prevention of dram-drinking, no action for spirits can be sustained when the quantity sold is less than two gallons, that part of the charge was withdrawn, and a verdict obtained for the amount of the ale: damages 40s. A child only 12 years of age, gave evidence on the part of the Defendant with such precision as astonished counsel, judge, and jury. It will be sufficient to say, that the jury paid no attention to it. 24. GRAHAM & ARMSTRONG...MURRAY...MILBURN...case. LAW.For the recovery of £5, due to the Plaintiff, an innkeeper in St. Cuthbert's Lane, for board, drink, and lodging, supplied to the defendant, his father, brother, sister, and servant, during eight days. Undefended. Verdict for the Plaintiff £5, costs 40s. 25. HUTTON...............BAMBER.............BAXTER...........case. MOUNSEY & SISSON.A feigned issue for the purpose of ascertaining whether Mrs. BAMBER is entitled to a share of Ainstable Common, now under inclosure, by right of the whole or only part of her estate in that quarter. Ver. for Pl. (Report next week.) 26. GRAHAM & ARMSTRONG...ANDERSON...BORROWSCALL...case. RUDD.For recovery of £24, half the amount of a promissory note, in which the plaintiff had joined on account of the defendant. Verdict for that sum. Costs 40s. 27. P. HODGSON........KITCHEN..............WILDE.............tres. WALKER. (Report in a future paper.) 28. BLOW..................HESKETT...............SHAW............case. BRIGGS & HALL.Verdict for the Plaintiff by consent for £108 : 2 : 2. 29. GRAHAM & ARMSTRONG...ARMSTRONG...SMILLIE...case. PRESTON.Juror withdrawn. 30. SAUL....................VANE, Bart., S. J. .....ROOKE.......tres. FISHER & Son.An action brought to decide whether the defendant, who lives at Abbey, in the manor of Embleton, had or had not a right to dig stone and gravel on Ling Fell, in the manor of Wythop, for the repair of his property in the manor of Embleton. A prescriptive right was proved, obtained in the time of the present lord of the manor. Verdict for the defendant. 31. JACKSON..............WALKER..............TICKLE case. . An action to assert a right of road across the defendant's grounds, which he had thought proper to obstruct. The right was proved. Verdict for Plaintiff, damages 40s. costs 40s. 32. GRAHAM & ARMSTRONG..... LAMONBY.....MOFFIT....tres. HODGSON & NANSON.Verdict for the Plaintiff, damages 40s., costs 40s. (Report in a future paper.) 33. STEEL & Son..........MARSHALL..........MARSHALL.....case. ADAMSON & Son. 34. SAUL.............SCARROW, the yr. .....M'ANNALLY.....case. PEARSON.A Horse cause. Verdict for the plaintiffdamages £62. (Report next week.) 35. CARRICK...............HALLIBURTON.....GLASSON.......case. SAUL.Ver. for Pl. (Report in our next.) 36. RUDD...................Doe.....................COWX...........eject. LIGHTFOOT.Withdrawn. 37. NICHOLSON & THOMPSON.....Doe.....ROBSON.....eject. HUDSON.Undefended. Ver. for the Plf. 38. LIGHTFOOT..........SIM.....................TORDIFF.........case. SAUL.To recover the sum of £22 10s. for the interest of a mortgage of £500, alleged to have been twice paid by the Plaintiff. Nonsuit. 39. Jos. THOMPSON.....MILLER..............SALKELD........case. B. THOMPSON. (Report next week.) 40. MORRISON.....HODGSON and another.....ASHBOURNE.....case. SIM.The plaintiffs, brewers at Wigton and Allonby, had supplied the defendant, who keeps a public house at Gilcrux, with ale to the amount of £58 6s.; he paid on account, at different times, £44 4s. It was proved that he had acknowledged the balance to be due. Verdict £14 2s. Costs 40s. 41. MORRISON.........TAYLOR.............WILLIAMSON.....debt. In person.To recover upon a deed, the sum of £50, and £3 10s. for interest. Verdict for those sums. 42. WILSON............RICHARDSON.....BELL and others.....tres. JAMES.Relative to a disputed right of road over a property not worth £20. Soon after the opening of the case, the parties agreed to refer it to Mr. COURTENAY. 43. WILSON...............BELL.....................ELLIOT............case. LOWRY.Verdict for the Plaintiff, damages £100, costs 40s., subject to a reference. 44. LIGHTFOOT..........ALDERSEY.............REAY..............case. HOLMES.Withdrawn. 45. WELD...................WATSON.............HUTTON.........case. HUTTON.An action to recover rent from the Defendant who had given verbal notice to quit certain premises at Penrith. A legal notice was proved. Plaintiff Nonsuited.