Carlisle Patriot, 04 Mar 1826 - Cumberland Lent Assizes (11)
petra.mi...@doctors.org.uk
Saturday 04 Mar 1826 (p. 2, col. 4 - p. 3, col. 5)
CUMBERLAND LENT ASSIZES, 1826.
NISI PRIUS BAR.
FORSTER v. BARNES.
[continued]
Mr. ALDERSON.—My learned friend has taken great pains to point out what I did not intend to prove; permit me now, gentlemen of the jury, to tell you what I really do mean to prove. It is, that the wages have been paid. I shall show that, instead of living with my client for two years, as stated, she has been to Manchester, and lived there for a year; and you will be surprised, perhaps, when I tell you that she has herself admitted that nothing whatever is due to her. Her object on the present occasion is pretty readily seen through. She asserts that a promise of marriage has been made to her by Mr. BARNES; and she brings this action under the idea that, as that gentleman has lately married, he would consent to pay the demand rather than submit to the "showing up" in Court which it is clear my learned friend has been instructed to make. They now prefer a claim of twelve guineas, they had attempted to prove no more than six; and he would show that so late as November last, the plaintiff's solicitor, Mr. PEARSON, demanded only that amount. He would shew, also, that when before the Magistrates, at the time the order of removal was made, no more than 30s. were owing to her on the part of the defendant; that was for the maintenance of the child, and that sum was put on the back of the order, and paid accordingly. He should also prove that she had said the wages now claimed had been paid.
George PALMER, constable, was present on the 22nd of October, before Doctors HEYSHAM and LOWRY, when an order was made on the defendant. No demand was made, except for the maintenance of the child. The Magistrates named 2s. 3d. per week; the child had been previously affiliated, and all charges paid by Capt. BARNES.—After the order had been made (the witness continued), I saw Mary FORSTER on the stair-head, outside the Magistrates' room. She asked me if ARMSTRONG, the constable, had said anything about as to what had taken place between him and the Captain. I said no. She muttered and grumbled to herself. I inquired if the Captain did not settle every thing before she left his service? She replied, "O yes, he paid me my wages, but no thanks to him for that." I asked her if they had parted good friends? She said, "middling;" that "he had made her promises which he had not performed;" that "he had promised to marry her."
Cross-examined by Mr. AGLIONBY.—I was not present at all that passed before the Magistrates. The reason why I asked her any questions was, because she was "mumbling and grumbling." She was not satisfied with 2s. 3d., having before had 3s. per week.
The order was put in: 2s. 3d. a week was the sum allowed by the Magistrates; indorsed on the back, 36s. due for 12 weeks maintenance ending that day.
Dr. LOWRY, one of the Magistrates who made the order, remembered the circumstances. They allowed the 36s. on the back, for 12 weeks' maintenance, because Mr. BARNES appeared willing to pay that sum. He had no recollection of any thing having been said about wages. Assuming that such a complaint were made, they would have entertained no doubt as to jurisdiction.
By Mr. AGLIONBY.—She merely came before us as the mother of the child, and not in the character of a servant.
A note was put in, from Mr. PEARSON, plaintiff's attorney, dated Nov. 2, 1825, demanding only six guineas as wages due at that period.
Mr. AGLIONBY replied to the whole case, and commented on it at considerable length. Only one witness spoke of wages, and that so vaguely that it would go for nothing. But it was triumphantly said that Mr. PEARSON made a demand of six guineas, and from that circumstance it was inferred that nothing at all was due. He did make that demand: perhaps the poor girl was doubtful of the nature of some of the payments connected with the child-birth, and therefore did not like to press for more; and he, Mr. A. would be willing to take a verdict for that amount. As to "shewing up" the defendant, that, in fact, had been done by his own counsel, who had ventured into court, and put in the order of affiliation—what could be more complete "shewing-up" than this? There was no real proof that the wages had been paid. Was it likely that a young woman, under the peculiar circumstances under which FORSTER laboured, would stand forth and demand wages before the magistrates? Dr. LOWRY remembered nothing of the kind. Every thing, then, depended on the evidence of PALMER. Let the jury look at his conduct in the box, and to his improbable tale, and say if they believed him. Let them recollect also, that when he was asking her questions, a single word would have led to a misconception. No doubt, as the woman must have said, every thing was "settled" as to the past maintenance of the child, but that was the only settling that had ever taken place.
Mr. Baron HULLOCK summed up the evidence in favour of the defendant. The child was born in Feb. 1824, and the order was not made till Oct. 1825, and in all that interval no claim appeared to have been put in for wages; that, however, was not conclusive. But if the Jury should be of opinion that wages were due, it seemed to him, after the production of Mr. PEARSON's letter, that they could not give a verdict for more than six guineas. If they believed PALMER, however, there was an end of the case. The questions put by him, were not, after all, so very unnatural, as constables are generally endued with more curiosity in such matters than ordinary people. He knew no reason why this person's testimony should be set aside.
The Jury consulted about ten minutes, without retiring from the box, and then, to the surprise of many persons, returned a verdict for the Plaintiff: damages 6 guineas: costs 40s.