Carlisle Patriot, 13 Aug 1825 - Cumberland Summer Assizes (10)

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

Saturday 13 Aug 1825   (p. 2, col. 3 - p. 3, col. 5)

 

CUMBERLAND SUMMER ASSIZES.

 

NISI PRIUS: MR. JUSTICE BAYLEY.

 

CORRY v. BLAYLOCK & ANOTHER.

  

[continued]

 

John WISE sworn.—I am a slater. I covered the small place in by order of Sarah CORRY, on the 15th of April 1817. The roof was fixed by spars put from Sarah CORRY's wall to the standing wall. I have gone past it since it was pulled down. It would perhaps take £4 or £5 to rebuild it.

 

Cross-examined.—When I covered it in, there were no marks of a flue on BLAYLOCK's wall. I was in the defendant's house about twelve month's ago, when the small place was pulled down, there was like a door-place from it to BLAYLOCK's house. I saw it then, but not before.

 

James LAWRENCE sworn.—I am a stone-mason. I was employed by Mrs. CORRY to break a door-place from her house into the small place, which was to be occupied as a pantry. There were some chests and a small cask in it. They had been put there through a breach into it from Mr. BLAYLOCK's shop. I suppose the goods were Mr. BLAYLOCK's; but I was not there when they were removed. Mrs. CORRY desired me to put up the wall before the breach into BLAYLOCK's shop; but he pushed it down as fast as I put it up. I again attempted to put it up; but he again pushed it down. I was inside the small house till the broken slates came in upon me. BLAYLOCK was upon the slates, and HALL was pulling down the wall; they pulled down the whole of it. To build it again might perhaps cost £4.

 

Cross-examined.—I was inside the small building; and there was a door-way from BLAYLOCK's shop. When I came out, I saw HALL driving at the wall with a hammer. I don't know how long the door place into BLAYLOCK's shop had been open—that I cannot tell you.

 

John WISE recalled.—When I put up the roof, BLAYLOCK's house was inhabited by N. ROUTLEDGE.

 

Wm. MILBURN sworn.—I know the premises; the stair-case enters from under the arch-way, it is inside of the house; but next the wall of the arch-way. The stair case narrows the shop. We had some conversation about it. I asked him how he liked his new shop, and he said very well; the greatest inconvenience was the stair-case. I told him it was a pity that he could not prevail upon Mrs. CORRY to let him put up a stair-case in the place in dispute. He said he had broke a hole into it lately, and put in a chest, but he believed Mrs. CORRY did not know of it. This was about twelve months ago, about one month before the place was pulled down. He had been only a short time then in occupation of the shop.—Cross-examined.—There had been no opening made into the place, except from BLAYLOCK's shop, as far as I know.

 

Judge.—There are two facts here, 1st. Mr. ATKINSON builds the wall for Mrs. CORRY; 2dly. he wants to use it himself; but then she wont let him. If the Jury give £4 damages, will defendant build it up again? This case, his Lordship observed, was very clear. Mr. ATKINSON, 21 years ago, for the purpose of procuring some accommodation for himself, builds up the wall. Mrs. CORRY, at his request, and at her own expence, covers it in, breaks a door, and uses it. If the property had not been the plaintiff's, would the defendant have thought of asking her leave to build a stair-case? Under his Lordship's directions, the Jury found for the Plaintiff, damages £4; costs, 40s.

 

DOE D. BAINBRIDGE v. STAINTON, ASSGEE.

 

Mr. WIGHTMAN and Mr. COLTMAN appeared for the plaintiff in this cause, and Mr. PATTESON for the defendant. It was a case of ejectment. The action was brought for the purpose of obtaining £200, under the following circumstances:—It appeared that BAINBRIDGE is now dead; but that, during his life time, his wife had got a legacy of £500 left her by an uncle, out of which certain premises were purchased in the parish of St. Bees. BAINBRIDGE commenced the business of Plumber and Glazier; but was unfortunate, and failed. Out of the legacy, £200 was advanced by Mr. THOMPSON the executor, for the purchase of the premises, which were conveyed to the wife; and the husband commenced business with the remaining £300. Mr. COLTMAN contended that the widow had a right, under a deed of conveyance, to succeed to the property. If the legacy was left to the wife after the husband had become a bankrupt, a court of equity would not take it for the husband's debts; but he contended that the husband, in this case, did not become bankrupt till after the execution of the deed of conveyance, when STAINTON was appointed as assignee. The property was purchased in 1815. The most particular question in this case was the time when the husband became unfortunate.—Mr. PATTESON thought the point was, who paid the money, and at what time it was paid. A variety of documentary evidence was introduced, and a legal argument commenced, which was carried to a most tedious length, whether a court of law or a court of equity ought to hear the case. His Lordship was of opinion that where the wife was the medium through which the property came, the case did not come within the meaning of the statute. He thought there was no question for the jury, as the matter rested entirely on a point of law whether the property belonged to the plaintiff, or the assignee. His Lordship directed the jury, for the present, to give their verdict for the plaintiff, damages 1s. Verdict accordingly.

 

BRISCO, BART. v. STUDHOLME.

 

Mr. BLACKBURN stated this case to the Jury, at considerable length. It was an action of trover, to recover a tree, or the value of it, which was £10. The only questions which could arise were two. Whose tree this was? and whether taken within six years? He would soon settle the first question; and had no doubt he could soon dispose of the latter, which would be necessary if the other party pleaded the statute.—A number of witnesses were examined, who proved beyond doubt that the mound or hedge in Alder Meadow, on which the tree grew was the property of Sir Wastel BRISCO. An attempt was made to shew that the action was brought out of malice, against the defendant, who was one of the judges of the Carlisle Cattle show; as if the other party was a little piqued at a favourite bull not getting the prize, for which the defendant was blamed. There was no proof, however, that the tree had been removed within the last six years; and Mr. TINDAL, the defendant's counsel, pleading the limitation of the statute, the Plaintiff was nonsuited.

 

 

[to be continued]