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]