Carlisle Patriot, 11 Mar 1826 - Westmorland Spring Assizes (2)

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

Saturday 11 Mar 1826   (p. 4, col. 3-6)

 

WEST MORLAND SPRING ASSIZES, 1826.

(In continuation.)

 

JOHN HERD was put to the bar, charged with stealing one wether sheep, value 20 shillings, the property of Edmund ATKINSON, of Hensingham.

 

Mr. ARMSTRONG stated the case to the Jury.

 

Edmund ATKINSON.—I am a farmer, and reside at Hensingham; on the 23rd Nov. last my sheep were all right, but on the 24th one was missing.

 

Richard ATKINSON, son to the last witness, called. On the 24th Nov. we missed one of our sheep; and a piece of sheep-skin and a quantity of blood, covered over with leaves, were found in the field out of which it had been stolen. I perceived the prints of the feet of persons; one those of a man, the other of a woman. I traced them over two fields to a place near Catbarrow, and to the wall of a garden. In the print of the man's foot were the marks of six broad nails, and of two in the other. Next morning, I followed a similar print to a place called the Hawes, where the prisoner worked. The constable and I compared the prisoner's shoes with the print, and they fitted: we traced them to the garden behind the prisoner's house, where we found a bag.—Cross-examined: I saw the sheep on the 23rd November. I first perceived the wether to be missing.

 

John CARRADICE.—I was employed to apprehend the prisoner on the 25th of November last. I went to his house, but he was not there: his wife was at home. I searched the place, and found the principal part of a sheep, cut up, but not in such a manner as a butcher would do it. It was soft and full of blood. The rind in many places had been pulled off with the skin. The carcass was found in three different places: the principal part in a dark closet, in a large pot, some was in another pot in the kitchen, and a third portion in a basket in the bed-room. The day after I apprehended the prisoner, I took his shoes, and, with the prosecutor's son, went and compared them with the prints—they exactly fitted. I found the bag in the garden. I traced the prints to within two or three yards of the house. The woman told me she was prisoner's wife.

 

Mr. AGLIONBY objected to this. What the woman said in the absence of the prisoner was no evidence.

 

Cross-examined by Mr. AGLIONBY.—The prisoner denied the theft, and di not object to my having his shoes. The marks on the 26th were very distinct; but in some places had been washed in by the rain.

 

By the Court.—I apprehended the prisoner in Kendal: he was brought to my house.

 

Mr. AGLIONBY here asked his Lordship if there was any thing to go the Jury [sic]? Had the mutton been properly identified? or had the prisoner been proved to occupy the house in which it was found? He had not been seen there, and what the woman said about being his wife was no evidence;—besides which, the skin had never been found.—"I was conned, my Lord, said Mr. A., for the prosecution, in a case much stronger than this, which was tried before Mr. Justice HOLROYD"——

 

Judge.—"I do think, Mr. AGLIONBY, that there is evidence to go to the Jury.—Prisoner, have you anything to say in your defence?"

 

Prisoner.—I know nothing at all about it.

 

James WOOF was called in behalf of the prisoner's character.—I am a farmer; the prisoner lived three years together with my father, and two years since at different periods; and he lived with my brother this winter. I have known him 10 years, and we always considered him an honest and industrious man.

 

His Lordship then summed up with great care and ability; and observed, that it was a case of the utmost consequence to the prisoner, as it was a capital felony and affected his life; it therefore behoved the Jury to give it their most careful attention. When any doubts arose in a case of this kind; then the good character of a prisoner was of great consideration. But where the testimony of witnesses was direct and indisputable, whatever may have been the former good fame of the prisoner, it was not in such case the duty of a Jury to take into their consideration his character. His Lordship did not say that this was one of the direct kind; it was for the Jury to decide.—The Jury, in a short time, returned a verdict of Not Guilty.

 

MORELAND v. WOODBURN, &c.

 

An action for the recovery of a balance of account £137 3s. 3¼d. due from the defendants, Isaac WOODBURN and Isaac TURNER, as lessees of the Underfield and Beathwaite turnpike-gates on the Ulverston and Carnforth road to the Trustees, who appeared in Court by their clerk, Mr. MORLAND, because by the Act they had authority to sue or be sued by or through him. The agreement entered into by the defendants when the gates were let was produced, but there only appearing five signatures of trustees, Mr. AGLIONBY objected to it as not being legal, the Act requiring seven or more be present at every letting of toll-gates, and asserted that this error must prove fatal to the plaintiff, and that he could not sustain his action; but the Learned Counsel was stopped by his Lordship, who stated that he would take a note of the objection in order that it might be argued elsewhere, as he himself would not then decide upon the point in question. There was also some discrepancy in the dates of notice, and Mr. AGLIONBY again asserted that the plaintiff must be non-suited, but his Lordship thought otherwise.—Proof of the letting, &c. was put in; and after some further opposition on the part of Mr. AGLIONBY, a verdict was entered for the Plaintiff, subject to a motion in the Court above.

 

FORD NORTH, ESQ. v. EDMUNDS.

 

This was an action to recover the sum of £20 14s. 2d. as auction duty, from the defendant, attorney at Ambleside, and one of the vendors of a property of which the plaintiff was purchaser, lately belonging to Mr. CHAPMAN, innkeeper, at that place, a bankrupt. The auction duty had been paid to the auctioneer on the faith of the defendant, that a good and sufficient title would be given to the purchaser; this had not and perhaps could not be done, and consequently the plaintiff sought to recover what he considered was justly his due.

 

Mr. COURTENAY stated the nature of the case, and called two witnesses to fix the action upon the defendant; but he failed, and his Lordship directed a nonsuit. He strongly recommended a private settlement. Mr. ALDERSON said there was little hope of this, as the other side wished to go to Chancery for £710, the purchase-money; he admitted they might get there, but did not know how they could get out again.

 

 

[to be continued]