Carlisle Patriot, 16 Jul 1825 - Cumberland County Sessions (3)

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

Saturday 16 Jul 1825   (p. 2, col. 5-6 and p. 3, col. 1-5)

 

COUNTY SESSIONS.

 

[continued]

 

WHITEHAVEN and PAPCASTLE.

 

Ann GARNETT and her three children were removed to Papcastle. The pauper's husband, Mr. AGLIONBY stated, was an orphan belonging to the parish of Lamrig, Westmorland, and was bound apprentice to a molecatcher, of great celebrity at Papcastle, who had many apprentices. Evidence was called to show certain proceedings on the part of the pauper, by which he gained a settlement in Bolton, but it failed. Order confirmed unanimously.

 

MILLOM and KIRKBY-IRELETH.

 

Mr. AGLIONBY said the real appellants in this case were the township to whom the pauper, Geo. WILSON, had been delivered. The question at issue, was whether WILSON had gained a settlement in the township alluded to. It appeared, Mr. A. said, that he was bound apprentice in the appellant township in May and served till August, more than forty days, which were enough to gain him a settlement.

 

Mr. AGLIONBY then put ii in the indenture, and called George POSTLETHWAITE to prove the hand-writing of a deceased female who was an attesting witness; but he never saw her write, and only inferred that the signature to the instrument was her's by some writing in her bible which he had heard was written by her.

 

Mr. COURTENAY objected to this—it was against every principle and rule of evidence—it was ignotum per ignotius.

 

The learned gentlemen laboured the question with great ingenuity, and did all they could to bury it in words.—The Court decided against receiving secondary evidence.

 

Mr. AGLIONBY then applied for a case.

 

Mr. COURTENAY resisted. The rule uniformly laid down by the Court above, was, that Magistrates should never grant a case in a matter on which they had themselves no doubt.

 

Case unanimously refused.

 

CROSBY and WORKINGTON.

 

Mr. AGLIONBY, for Workington, said this was an appeal by Crosby, under a particular statute, against a sum of money ordered to be paid by the magistrates under peculiar circumstances. On the 30th March last, John BELL, Hannah his wife, and their three children, were ordered to be removed from Workington to Crosby, but on the same day the Magistrates made an order of suspension on account of excessive illness, and under that order the family remained in Workington eleven weeks, incurring a charge of £28 15s. 4d. which sum the same magistrates subsequently indorsed upon the back of the order, and when the paupers were taken to Crosby, that sum was demanded, three pounds were paid, and a promise was made to settle the remainder in a few days. But since, instead of the money, the Overseer of Workington had received a notice from Crosby of this appeal—not against the order of settlement, but "in so far as the said order directs the sum of £28 15s. 4d. to be paid." Mr. A. went on to quote the acts giving authority to the magistrates (35 and 39 G. 3.) and declared that every shilling of it was honestly incurred. The poor man had met with an accident in a coal mine, and his bones protruded through his skin; all the rest of the family had the typhus fever, so that they could not be removed, and there was great difficulty in getting any one to attend upon them.

 

Mr. John GUY, overseer of the poor of Workington, proved the facts as to the order, &c. and their non-removal for the space of eleven weeks on account of illness. John BELL (he said) was burnt at the coal-pits, and all his family had the fever; they were at their house on the farm. I had great difficulty in getting any one to attend them. The man was in bed, lying on his back, and could not be lifted, for his backbone and elbow-joints could be seen, and there was imminent danger of mortification: he lay in that state nine weeks before he could walk. One child died at the breast, and was buried by Workington, who charged nothing for that. All the items of the bill were reasonable.—He took the paupers to Crosby (upon Eden), where he saw one KILPATRICK or FITZPATRICK, the overseer, who seemed to know nothing about the business, but he gave witness £3, and a note came from Mr. CLEMENTSON, who appeared to have the management, that he would come over on the Tuesday following and settle. The family could not have been kept so long for the amount charged, had it not been for the charity of several ladies and gentlemen of Workington. Mr. LITT was the medical man who attended them.

 

Cross-examined by Mr. COURTENAY for the appellants:—He copied the items of the bill now given in from the parish-books, but he never tendered a copy of it to Crosby, because they said they objected in toto on a point of law; but on the 17th of June he told them they might come and see the different entries. There was a considerable sum for wine; and eleven pounds for medical attendance. Two of the children died. The first conversation he had with the Crosby people on the subject was when the removal was effected—he did not previously let them know any thing of the matter.

 

By Mr. AGLIONBY.—The wine spoken of, was given by the surgeon's order, who declared that the man would die without it. They never demanded the particulars of the account; but on the 17th of June I told them they might be had.

 

Jonathan BOWMAN, assistant to Mr. LITT, corroborated Mr. GUY's statements as to the illness, the wine, &c. It was quite impossible to remove with safety till the removal did take place.

 

Mr. COURTENAY addressed the Bench at considerable length for the appellants. The only thing he objected to in the manner in which his learned friend had conducted his case, was that he had put it to the Court as a matter of feeling. He (Mr. C.) felt as much for the poor man and his family as any one could do; but they did not come there to try a matter of feeling, but a matter of right. He would suppose that GUY had paid all that he said he had, and that made no difference in the question. What he objected to was this, that for the long period of eleven weeks they did not let Crosby know what they were doing,—that they expended three pounds a week upon one family of three persons (for two had died) without apprising the parties who had to repay them any thing about the matter. It might have been just to have suspended the order, but they should have said, "Come and see, judge for yourselves." This was what Crosby wanted. People were in general generous enough when dipping their hands into others' pockets. They wanted to check this dangerous principle. The act did not specify time; it said "a reasonable time," but eleven weeks were not a reasonable time. If Crosby had had notice they might have chosen their own apothecary, and perhaps have got one for half the sum charged. At any rate, continued Mr. COURTENAY, we might have watched over the expenditure and thus satisfied ourselves that all was right. As a precedent, you ought not to allow these things to be done behind our backs. If you decide that the suspension was right, you ought to disallow a part of the charge to punish the defect of notice. Then again, the parish is not sufficiently specified. There is more than one Crosby in Cumberland. (Not a parish, Mr. AGLIONBY observed.) It is a bad example to run up a bill in this manner. The law says that a reasonable notice should have been given, and the reason of the thing was to have sent an intimation as soon as the order had been obtained.

 

The Bench confirmed the order for payment.

 

Mr. AGLIONBY.—I wish the parish of Crosby would learn a little more justice.

 

Mr. COURTENAY.—I wish you would learn a little more propriety than to make such remarks.

 

Mr. AGLIONBY afterwards moved for costs; but the Court instantly intimated that it did not by any means consider it a case of that kind.

 

 

[to be continued]