Saturday 18 Oct 1845 (p. 2, col. 7) CUMBERLAND QUARTER SESSIONS. [continued] APPEALS. WHITEHAVEN GAS COMPANY Appel. WHITEHAVEN OVERSEERS Respon. Appeal entered and respited, rate having been made since last sessions. ----- BOWNESS Remov. KIRKANDREWS-ON-ESK Appel. Order of removal ordered to be quashed by consent, not upon the merits. ----- JAMES DOBSON Appel. CASTLECARROCK Respondent. Appeal entered and respited till next session, rate made 11th June last. ----- PARTON Remov. MORESBY Appel. This case was the first which occupied the attention of the court. Mr. GREIG, for the respondent, and Mr. RAMSHAY for the appellants. This was an appeal against the removal of Julia MILLIGAN from Parton to Moresby. The settlement attempted to be proved by the removants was a derivative settlement acquired by John MILLIGAN, the pauper's husband, from Edward MILLIGAN, who came to settle at Brisco Bank farm, the property of Lord Lonsdale, in 1803, and which property was of the annual value of £10, and therefore sufficient under the statute of Charles. The question of importance was, when John, the son, was emancipated—before or after he was able to acquire a derivative settlement from his father settling on the farm. On the part of the Appellants it was contended that the residence attempted to be set up was not satisfactorily proven and that even if it were, the emancipation of the son was doubtful. The evidence on both sides, which led to long arguments on technical objections, occupied the court six hours! The order for removal was eventually confirmed. No costs allowed. ----- GILCRUX Remov., ELLENBOROUGH Appel. Mr. GREIG appeared for the appellants; Mr. RAMSHAY for the removants. This was an appeal against an order for the removal of Ann RAY, widow, and her four children, from Gilcrux to Ellenborough and Unerigg. The removants set up two settlements gained in appellant's parish—first, a settlement derived by William RAY, the pauper's late husband, from his father, Hugh RAY, the son of James RAY, who, it was shown, from the year 1785 to 1797, farmed several fields and a dwelling house and stable of Mr. SENHOUSE, Mr. CURWEN, and Mr. BROWN, at a total rent of £10 a year, and thereby acquired a settlement which descended to the pauper's late husband, William RAY. The removants set up, secondly, a birth settlement of William RAY, in the parish of Ellenborough and Unerigg; it was proved in evidence. These two settlements were both denied by the appellants, in their grounds of appeal, and they set up a subsequently acquired settlement, alleged to have been acquired by William RAY, the pauper's husband, in the parish of Gilcrux, by farming, renting, and occupying three several tenements in the parish of Gilcrux, from Mrs. DYKES and one William PATTINSON. The appellants, however, failed in proving this latter settlement, and therefore the court confirmed the order, adjudging the settlement to be in the township of Ellenborough and Unerigg.