Carlisle Patriot, 20 Aug 1825 - Cumberland Summer Assizes (26)

[petra.mi...@doctors.org.uk]

Saturday 20 Aug 1825   (p. 3, col. 1-3)

 

CUMBERLAND SUMMER ASSIZES.

  

NISI PRIUS: MR. BARON HULLOCK.

  

JENKINSON v. TOWERSON.

 

[continued]

 

Mr. BROUGHAM addressed the Jury with much animation. He said the witnesses on the other side, as well as his learned friend, had indulged in the most extravagant exaggerations, as to the damage at the quarry, the cost of the necessary repairs, &c. Six guineas! a guinea a yard! nearly two shillings an inch for hedging! Who ever heard of so preposterous an estimate? Ten shillings were an ample sum. Then the loss of the fence. The cattle that grazed on the stones in TOWERSON's quarry would inevitably get over the high perpendicular ridge of rock which separated the two properties, in order to graze on the superior pasture of Mr. JENKINSON's quarry! But his learned friend had not told his Lordship and the Jury how they were to get there—it must be by a rope, a ladder, or a balloon, for certainly they never could manage the matter in any other way. In regard to the path across the Wellclose, he would show that it was ploughed up in consequence of an agreement betwixt the parties in 1824; but an unfortunate quarrel having taken place between the plaintiff's son, who had appeared in the box that day, and a female domestic of Mr. TOWERSON's, for which the young gentleman was had up before a magistrate and compelled to pay smart, Mr. JENKINSON broke through the agreement to go round by the hedge, made an irruption through the grain, and this leading to further unpleasant proceedings, he came into court from mere anger.

 

Ann GRINDALL, the domestic alluded to by Mr. BROUGHAM, called:—I live servant with Mr. TOWERSON, having previously lived with Mr. JENKINSON. At that time the parties were good friends. In the beginning of February last year there was an agreement between the plaintiff and defendant that they should cross their respective fields, into each other's grounds (each occupying alternate closes) by the hedges, instead of by the old roads.—She went on to say, that the parties met at her master's house, and that after the agreement was concluded, she heard them mention the terms of it to each other in the kitchen. A quarrel took place between her and young JENKINSON, and on the very day that the warrant was served, they went with a horse and cart through the corn, which was in ear, no less than sixteen times, for she counted the number.

 

By Mr. SCARLETT.—The warrant was served in June. In the beginning? Yes. (Defendant's counsel having said "July" in an undertone, the witness corrected herself.) It was on the 6th of July. I am sure that the agreement was not broken off till after the warrant was served. Mr. STEEL, the magistrate, and master, and JENKINSON, made the agreement, and I heard master and plaintiff talk over the particulars in the kitchen. Mr. STEEL is not here.

 

John PALMER.—I recollect Arlecdon fair, on the 2nd of June, 1824. I saw Mr. JENKINSON on the road, and he said that Mr. TOWERSON and he had agreed their differences about the road. He invited me to take a cup of tea with him: I went, he then told the agreement over again. (Witness described the plan of future occupation to the same effect as GRINDALL.)

 

By Mr. SCARLETT.—I am a labourer, and was working on the road-side when invited to tea.

 

Isaac THOMPSON said the old road was not ploughed this year.

 

David FORSYTH.—The earth that fell down was still lying as it fell, with the trees on it. He went to offer any reasonable compensation, and JENKINSON said he wanted nothing else.

 

Mr. BROUGHAM.—That's my case.

 

Mr. SCARLETT, in order to contradict the woman GRINDALL, called

 

Jonathan WESTERN, who deposed:—I am clerk to Mr. HOBSON, attorney, Whitehaven. I went with young JENKINSON to serve a notice on Mr. TOWERSON on the 20th May, 1824.

 

A copy of the notice was put in and read. It required TOWERSON not to enter Mr. JENKINSON's close, called Priestcroft, except for the purpose of passing along the footpath in order to occupy his own close. The same as to another close. And the notice concluded, that if the defendant persisted in trespassing after that date, (May 20th 1824) he would be proceeded against, according to law, as a malicious and wilful trespasser. Notice was likewise given the defendant to level all obstructions in Wellclose, &c.

 

Mr. BROUGHAM made a few observations on this evidence. The witness had been called, and the notice put in, to contradict GRINDALL, but they did nothing of the kind; for these referred to one period, and GRINDALL to another, a second and verbal agreement having taken place, as was evident by the testimony of PALMER.

 

Mr. SCARLETT replied in considerable length for the plaintiff. His learned friend, he said, was himself a great deal too cunning not to see the effect of the last evidence; but he had hopes that the Jury were not cunning enough to perceive it, and in order to prevent it, he threw dust in their eyes by attempting to conjure up a second agreement, when in fact no such agreement was ever thought of except by himself. The whole evidence referred but to one, and GRINDALL was clearly a perjured witness. Without that most important contradiction he should not have despaired of convincing the Jury of the falsehood stated by that woman. But what did they think now? An agreement, as he had shewn, had taken place in February. On the 21st of May, in consequence of certain circumstances, notice had been sent that the agreement was at an end. Yet they call the young woman to swear the cause of the rupture was not the vexatious conduct of the defendant, but the quarrel between the son and the female which occurred on the 6th of July. Mr. BROUGHAM had assumed that the road had been ploughed pursuant to a second agreement, which it was clear could not have taken place after such a notice as had been read. GRINDALL was therefore surely perjured; and when a man brought a perjured witness into court, could they believe any other part of his case? It was pretended that the agreement had been made by Mr. STEELE. If such had been done, would they not have called that gentleman to prove it? Certainly they would: and neglecting to do so, they admitted, as it were, the falsehood of the pretence. The story of the labourer was equally absurd and incredible. Was it probable that Mr. JENKINSON on the 2d of June would stop in the road, detail to him the particulars of an agreement, invite him home to tea, and then relate the matter over again! The whole story was so perfectly nonsensical that no one could credit it for a moment. He claimed a verdict with the most perfect confidence, and such temperate damages as would put the road to rights and repair the hedge.

 

Mr. Baron HULLOCK summed up the evidence: he thought it fully proved that the ploughing-up of the road was not in consequence of any agreement between the parties.

 

Verdict for the plaintiff—damages, £4: 40s. for the road, and 40s. for the hedge.

 

Sir W. BRISCO, Bart. v. Mr. John STUDHOLME.—In reporting this cause, last week, we observed that the property of the hedge was clearly proved to be Sir Wastel's. In strictness, we ought rather to have said, the several witnesses who were called for the plaintiff said nothing decisive on that subject, proving only a sort of promise to pay for the tree on the part of the defendant; and as there was a nonsuit on the statute of limitations, he did not go into the very strong case which he can produce, we understand, as to the fence.

 

Among the causes withdrawn from the list, was that of "WYNDOWE and Others v. the Bishop of Carlisle"; the question the right of presentation to Allonby Chapel.—The others entered and not tried were, "SOWERBY, Esq. v. ROBSON, admx," "Same v. Same," "WILSON v. MASSINGER and Another," "HOLLIDAY v. MESSENGER the younger," and "BEEBY v. BEEBY."

 

(CONTINUED IN PAGE FOURTH.)