Carlisle Patriot, 11 Mar 1826 - Cumberland Lent Assizes (26)

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

Saturday 11 Mar 1826   (p. 2, col. 6 - p. 3, col. 6; and p. 4, col. 1-3)

 

CUMBERLAND LENT ASSIZES, 1926.

 

NISI PRIUS.

 

[continued]

 

DOE D. WESTRAY v. SISSON.

 

An action of ejectment brought to recover the posession [sic] of a certain portion of copyhold land, situate in the manor of Little Broughton, the parish of Bridekirk in this county, now in the possession of the defendant, Mrs. SISSON. The trial was a long one, and not at all interesting to the public generally. After a great deal of evidence had been adduced, documentary and oral, the plaintiff succeeded in shewing, pretty clearly, that part of the property, which fell to Mrs. SISSON on the death of a Mr. KENDALL, is copyhold, and that young WESTRAY, a minor, is the heir to that property, the annual value about six guineas: but there was no evidence to define the boundary between the copyhold and the freehold, the boundary marks having been destroyed long since. At length it was agreed to refer the whole question to Mr. COLTMAN, the barrister, to inquire. If there be any copyhold land, he is to set it out, and the plaintiff gets a verdict. If there is none in existence, then the decision is to be in favour of the defendant. Meanwhile a nominal verdict for the plaintiff was taken: damages 1s. costs 40s. We have notes of the whole case, and shall perhaps report the trial in next week's paper, if not prevented by an overflow of more important matter.

 

WALKER v. KIRKBRIDE.

 

This was an action to recover the sum of £7 15s. 8d. for work done by the plaintiff, a saddler in Carlisle, on the order of the defendant, the owner of one of the carriages or gigs running between Carlisle and Whitehaven. Besides the performance of the work, a promise of pay was proved. No defence. Verdict for the plaintiff, £7 15s. 8d. Costs 40s.—(This cause, we understand, was brought on without notice of trial having been given: the plaintiff's attorney's London agent will therefore have to pay the expenses.)

 

FLEMING & ANOTHER v. DODD, EXOR.

 

The Plaintiffs, the stewards of a Friendly Society, sought to recover of DODD, as the executor of his father, £10, on a promissory note, made chargeable, it was contended, upon property now in the hands of the defendant, who had administered. Mr. COURTENAY felt a difficulty at the outset; he therefore, instead of addressing the Jury, stated to his Lordship what he could prove.—The Judge: Then you have no case. Gentlemen of the Jury, return a verdict for the Defendant. Verdict accordingly.

 

DOE D. NICHOLSON v. BIGLANDS & O.

 

An action of ejectment to recover possession of a house and appurtenances at Maryport—not of the slightest interest. Verdict for the Plaintiff.

 

BROWN v. BOWMAN & ANOTHER.

 

To recover £260 on a promissory note and interest, swelling the sum to £284 7s. 2d. Verdict for Plff.

 

HARRISON v. BARBER.

 

To recover £104 6s. 4d. on a promissory note. No defence. Verdict for Plaintiff.

 

THE KING v. BOWMAN.

 

This was an indictment for a nuisance arising out of the alleged improper state of a water bay near Botcherby mill.—On the application of Counsel, the trial was put off on account of the illness of Mr. ROTHWELL, one of the surveyors, and an indispensable witness. Mr. ROTHWELL lately met with an accident in Lancashire; and it was represented that he was even too ill to give instructions.

 

FRIZELL AND ANR. v. LAMBERT.

 

This was an action brought on a bond by the plaintiffs, as administrators of their brother William's effects; and on the cause being called in its turn, on Thursday morning, Mr. AGLIONBY stated to the Judge, that before his leaving town, he had signed a plea of puis darrien continuance, which was to have been filed at the assizes, but which had not yet been given to him. He had no doubt he should very shortly have instructions, if the Judge would allow the cause to stand over. On the cause being called on, Mr. AGLIONBY had received his plea, which the Judge admitted, on condition of the defendant's paying the costs that had been incurred from the Thursday morning till the Saturday evening, and admitting the execution of the bond.

 

GRAHAM, BART. v. IRVING.

 

To settle a boundary dispute between Sir J. R. G. GRAHAM, and Sir Wastel BRISCO. Withdrawn.