Carlisle Patriot, 13 Aug 1825 - Cumberland Summer Assizes (12)

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

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

 

CUMBERLAND SUMMER ASSIZES.

 

NISI PRIUS: MR. BARON HULLOCK.

  

[continued]

 

HALLIDAY v. ATKINSON & ANOTHER.

 

Mr. PATTESON opened. Mr. SCARLETT shortly said that this was an action brought by the father of the real plaintiff, who was a minor, to recover the amount of a promissory note for £100, and interest, made by the late Mr. M'KNIGHT, an innkeeper of Whitehaven, the defendants being the executors. The defence to be set up, he understood, was incapacity of mind on the day on which the note was signed, while it would appear that they derived their authority to defend the action from a will drawn and executed when he was in the same or worse state!

 

Wm. BLAND proved that he witnessed the note.

 

It was put in, dated 19th July, 1821:—"Six months after date I promise to pay to Isaac HALLIDAY, son of Mr. HALLIDAY, of Calderbridge, the sum of one hundred pounds sterling, value received." Signed by M'KNIGHT.

 

Cross-examined by Mr. BROUGHAM for the defendant:—I was a friend of the deceased. I have not been active in getting evidence in this case—I have not spoken to any one on the subject. (Further questioned). I can't swear that I have not spoken to more than one person on the subject. Young HALLIDAY is now only 14 years old.

 

By Mr. SCARLETT.—M'KNIGHT was an innkeeper and spirit-merchant, in Lowther-street, Whitehaven, and had lived a long time in Mr. HALLIDAY's family. The defendant, SHARP, lives at Sellafield; Mr. ATKINSON is an attorney residing at Whitehaven.

 

Mr. SCARLETT.—That's my case.

 

Mr. BROUGHAM.—Then I may say that it is no case. By law, no one can recover on a promissory note without consideration. How could a child of nine years old (for that was his age in 1821) give value? There must have been some fraud. It is the child's note, that is admitted, but the child had no mechandise. My friend, aware of this difficulty, lugs in that the innkeeper had lived in HALLIDAY's family, in the hope that this would lead to an inference.—I think I may ask my Lord if I need go any further?

 

Mr. Baron HULLOCK.—Finish your case, and I'll tell the jury in two minutes what I think.

 

Mr. BROUGHAM.—Oh, but I'm in doubt, for I have a case behind.

 

Mr. Baron HULLOCK.—At present you have a case neither behind nor before—there is no case at all, one way or other. If you leave it here, I shall tell the jury that it is an undefended cause.

 

Mr. BROUGHAM.—Then I go on. M'KNIGHT, I shall show, was always drunk, from morning till night, and knew not what he did. This was especially the case on the day on which the note is dated, as I shall prove. He was so far gone, that he had an idea an evil spirit haunted him—came and looked over his shoulder, and was ready to take him away. There was a spirit, to be sure, but that spirit was rum. (A laugh.) Instead of the spirit taking him, he took the spirit! (Laughter.) On one occasion he got drunk and fell off a sofa. They asked him, 'What's the matter, John?' He answered, 'Look there, the evil spirit, the evil spirit!—and he maintained that it was the evil spirit that pushed him off, and not the rum. (Laughter.) I can't call the evil spirit as evidence of these facts; but I will show you that the man was totally incompetent to grant that note on or about the 19th July.

 

Mr. Thomas MITCHELL, surgeon, Whitehaven, examined—On the 16th July, 1821, I was called in to Mr. M'KNIGHT, and attended him till the 26th of August, when he died late at night. I saw him thrice a day, and sometimes more. On Thursday the 19th July, I saw him at eight in the morning, at half-past eleven, and at seven in the evening. At eight, I found him labouring under the disease that we call delirium tremens. He continued in that state till the evening of the 22d. On the third visit of the 19th, I found him in such a state that he could not answer my questions; I believe he had had liquor, for at half past eleven he was drunk. At neither time was he capable of transacting any business, labouring, as he did, under defect of mind.

 

By Mr. SCARLETT.—Mr. ATKINSON, the defendant, is an attorney: I can't say that the handwriting of the body of the note is his, nor of any of his office. On the morning of M'KNIGHT's death, I witnessed a codicil of his will; but I refused to do so till Mr. ATKINSON brought two more medical men to convince me that I might safely do it. Mr. ATKINSON drew both the will and the codicil.

 

Susan BATEMAN examined by Mr. BROUGHAM.—On the 10th July, 1821, I was sent for to Whitehaven, to attend upon Mr. M'KNIGHT. On the Wednesday week after I got there, he was in bed, and I sat down by him. He said something was come to take him away, and that he would get up, as he was frightened.—You saw nothing but John M'KNIGHT, and not the old spirit? Nothing.—He tried to get out of bed, but could not; and though I said all I could to pacify him, he said that "the thing" was come for him. He drank a great deal of rum. We did not give him so much as to make him very tipsy; we kept it from him as well as we could, but he got at it. I remember BLAND and HALLIDAY being there on the 19th; and after they had left, he lay on a sofa in the parlour, and fell on the floor. I asked him how he came on the floor, and he said "the thing" he spoke of yesterday had pushed him off and wanted to take him away.

 

By Mr. SCARLETT.—Mrs. M'KNIGHT is my aunt. We allowed him to take liquor because we could not keep it from him: he would drink it at all times, night and day: we gave it to him even in bed.

 

The witness here fainted from the combined effects of the heat of the court, and the warmth of the cross-examination. She was borne out in a senseless state, and returned no more.

 

Ann BATEMAN, another niece of Mrs. M'KNIGHT, also spoke to the operation of the dual-spirit, "rum" and the "thing."

 

Cross-examined by Mr. SCARLETT.—By his will he has left the interest of his property to my aunt for life, and it afterwards goes to his nephews and nieces, but none to me. I did not see BLAND and HALLIDAY there so early as eight. We only attempted to persuade him when we thought he had too much liquor, but he would not be denied. He was not weak nor trembling—he used to frighten me. I now live with my aunt, the widow.

 

By Mr. BROUGHAM.—No man lived in the house but himself.

 

Mr. BROUGHAM.—My Lord, they admit that we have given them notice to prove the consideration.

 

Mr. SCARLETT recalled BLAND, who stated that the note was signed about nine in the morning, and then Mr. M'KNIGHT was quite sensible.

 

By the Judge.—I was there by accident, having gone in to ask how he did. HALLIDAY came in, and M'KNIGHT said, "William, have you got that piece of paper?" He said he had—and I was asked to sign as a witness. I believe the handwriting of the body of the note to be that of Mr. ATKINSON, for I have seen him write. I never heard that Mr. ATKINSON was HALLIDAY's attorney. M'KNIGHT was generally sober.

 

Mr. BROUGHAM—I am really sorry for my countryman, BLAND, here, who says M'KNIGHT was a sober man, when Mr. MITCHELL tells you, gentlemen of the jury, that he was subject to to [sic] the delirium tremens, a peculiar species of mental alienation arising out of habitual and frequent intoxication.—Mr. BROUGHAM was severe on BLAND in reference to his contradiction on the subject of seeking out witnesses, and contended that his oath could not be safely relied on.

 

Mr. SCARLETT replied finally. He very ably analyzed the evidence, and answered all the points urged by Mr. BROUGHAM—Mr. MITCHELL found the patient on the 16th very ill; he grew better till the 26th, when he died: so that the doctor cured him till he killed him! (A laugh.) The very circumstance of their giving him the liquor when he insisted upon it, shewed that they considered him a rational man, for had he been otherwise, his demand would have been the very reason why they would have withheld it.—He commented on the singular conduct of Mr. MITCHELL, in suffering himself to do that on the opinion of others which his own opinion and observation taught him to be wrong. They had heard a good deal about "the thing." That, at any rate, was not a mark of insanity, for one of the most acute men of the day, Mr. COBBETT, was constantly declaiming about "the Thing," and also says "the Thing" will take us all away.

 

Mr. BROUGHAM—No no, he says "the Thing" will be all taken away; quite another "thing."

 

Mr. SCARLETT concluded by observing on the will; and he should like to know when M'KNIGHT gave instructions about the codicil.

 

Mr. Baron HULLOCK, in summing up, said it did not follow that, because the promissory note was a few years old, there was no consideration for it. But if the jury should be of opinion that M'KNIGHT laboured under a mental delusion at the time of signing it, they would see, of course, that what he did was not his act and deed.—After a short consultation, the jury returnd [sic] a verdict for the plaintiff, £118 15s. including interest.