Carlisle Patriot, 23 Oct 1824 - Cumberland Sessions (1)

1 view

Skip to first unread message

petra.mi...@doctors.org.uk

unread,

May 9, 2025, 7:55:21 PMMay 9

to CUL Google Group, Cumbria Mailing List (CFHS)

Saturday 23 Oct 1824 (p. 3, col. 1-4)

CUMBERLAND SESSIONS.

The Michaelmas General Quarter Sessions for the County of Cumberland commenced at Penrith on Tuesday morning last. Magistrates present, Francis Yates AGLIONBY, Esq. chairman; Sir J. GRAHAM, Bart. M. P., Sir F. F. VANE, Bart., Wm. JAMES, Esq. M. P., Rev. Walter FLETCHER, Robert HODGSON, Esq., Thomas SCOTT, Esq., William HEBSON, Esq., Rev. T. MATTHEWS, Rev. J. L. LEECH, P. H. HOWARD, Esq., C. S. FETHERSTONHAUGH, Esq., Rev. H. LOWTHER, Thomas WYBERGH, Esq., Wm. CALVERT, Esq., Rich. FERGUSON, Esq., John HARRISON, Esq., E. W. HASELL, Esq., M. ATKINSON, Esq., Rowland FAWCETT, Esq., Rev. Dr. SATTERTHWAITE, Joseph GILBANKS, Esq.

Foreman of the Grand Jury—Mr. LAIDMAN.

At these Sessions, the Rev. E. FAWCETT, vicar of Cockermouth, qualified as a Magistrate, and took his seat on the Bench.

Several bills for assaults were found true; and various others were thrown out.

A true bill was found against Jonathan GATE, of Carlisle, for an assault upon Jane THOMPSON.

An order of Petty Sessions for diverting a highway "leading from Rockliff Cross to a certain ford across the Eden, called the Peatwath," was confirmed and enrolled, there being no opposition.

On the motion of Mr. COURTENAY the Court called the attention of the Grand Jury to an act of Parliament, passed in 1771, entitled, "An act for discharging from tithe certain lands in the parish of Sebraham, or Sebergham, in the county of Cumberland, and for making compensation to the perpetual Curate of the said parish in lieu thereof," in order to prevent disputes between the Clergyman and his flock. By this act the Curate is allowed the value of 267 bushels of wheat, according to the prices, to be assessed from the regular returns (which would be laid before them) at the Michaelmas Sessions in each year. The Grand Jury promised to attend to the matter, and, we believe, did make the return.

The following were the only appeals heard:—

Buttermere and Borrowdale.—Mr. COURTENAY said that Mary TYSON and her child had been removed from Buttermere under peculiar circumstances. The pauper's father was removed from Buttermere to Borrowdale some years ago, which removal was appealed against, and the Court confirmed the order. Mary TYSON, his daughter, had not gained any settlement of her own. Her child was certainly born in Buttermere; but the question would be, whether, in the language of the law, the birth had not been brought about there by practice, in other words, by a trick. It was unnecessary for him to shew that a child at the breast must be removed with the mother, but lest there should be any doubt, he would adduce an authority.

Mr. MATTHEWS.—The removal of the mother removes the child, without the child being named.

Mr. COURTENAY continued.—The pauper was in service, and becoming with child, left her place, and went to her father's house in Borrowdale, having no settlement. One of the overseers induced her to go in search of the father of the child, when on the point of being brought to bed. She found him in Ennerdale, and obtained from him a promise to meet her and the officers at Buttermere, but he broke his word. She returned to her father, and afterwards went to Lorton, to the house of a man named FLETCHER, a horse doctor, where she became ill, and the horse-doctor, in order to save his own township, puts her upon a horse, and such was the inconvenience of this conveyance, that she could go no further than Buttermere—there she was delivered, and remained a month, at the end of which period she and her child were sent home to Borrowdale.—The Clerk of the Peace proved the removal of the father, as stated by Mr. COURTENAY.—The pauper was then examined, and gave evidence to the effect of Mr. COURTENAY's speech, with a few exceptions, which were material. The reason why she left her father to go to Lorton, was because she had not been used to living at home, and Mrs. FLETCHER was unwell. She remained there from Saturday till Friday, when she was taken ill. She told them she wished to go to Borrowdale, and Mr. FLETCHER offered to take her upon a horse. He did so; she fell off three miles from Buttermere, in consequence of being ill; FLETCHER ordered her to get on again; but she could proceed no further than Buttermere—there she was brought to bed. If she had not been on horseback she could not have got to Buttermere; but she was not aware that her time was so near. When a month had expired, they took her to Borrowdale, when THRELKELD, the chief overseer, said he could not receive her then, as she had not been removed legally; but he added, if he had not been absent at the time, she should not have been sent about as she had been.—Mr. ARMSTRONG, for Borrowdale, dissented only from the generality of the position laid down by his learned friend. He submitted that no case had been made out, the order must be confirmed as to the mother, but not as to the child. And as to the collusion, the practice, there was nothing of the kind—no pretence for saying such a thing. It would be an idle waste of time to reply to that assumption. The Bench unanimously confirmed the order as to the mother, but quashed it as to the child.

Hesket and Lowther.—This was an appeal against the removal of John BALMER and Mary his wife, from Hesket to Lowther. Mr. AGLIONBY, in support of the order, addressed the Bench at some length. Thirty five years ago, the pauper was hired for a year by the late Lord Lonsdale, and he served his Lordship a year and a month. After that, he worked in London at weekly wages as occasional coachman, and subsequently went to Bath, and was hired by Gen. ST. JOHN, by a weekly hiring. Afterwards the General hired him for a year at fifteen guineas: at eleven months' end, he was impressed and sent to sea, so that his settlement was certainly Lowther. Mr. AGLIONBY called the pauper, who gave very clear evidence to the effect stated. The most ticklish point was, that after leaving Lord Lonsdale, he was hired at so much per week, by Mr. CARR, a livery stable keeper, who supplied both horses and coachman; and BALMER was sent with a pair of horses to Lady LINDSAY's, and afterwards to General ST. JOHN's, remaining so long as he was wanted, and wearing their livery: when not so hired out, he was employed in CARR's yard at 10s. 6d. per week. To questions by various Magistrates, and from Mr. COURTENAY, who appeared for the appellants, he said he might have left CARR's service at any week's end, and did, in fact, leave it suddenly; but when he hired nothing was said as to weekly hiring.—Mr. COURTENAY insisted that the hiring to CARR was a general hiring. The nature of it must be decided by law, and not according to the pauper's idea of the thing. Was it likely that he could have left at a week's end, when Gen. ST. JOHN had gone to the expense of providing livery for him? Once admit this principle, and the court must say that masters in London, who engaged horses and drivers, were also to supply fifty-two suits in a year, for in London there are servants such coxcombs that they would not put upon their backs a second-hand set of clothes. And was it likely that a gentleman would run the risk of having fresh drivers every week? The thing was absurd, the hiring was a general one, a good one in law, and he submitted that the order must be quashed.—The Bench confirmed it by a considerable majority.

The King on the prosecution of Wm. HETHERINGTON, against the Inhabitants of Eaglesfield, for not repairing a highway. The prosecutor not appearing, the defendants were found not guilty. Mr. COURTENAY moved for the costs of the day—that is to say, the Court fees, they having brought no witnesses. He might call it extortion, he said, to put Eaglesfield to this expense, when the parties had been acquitted upon a similar indictment at the last Christmas Sessions.—The Court, it was understood, allowed £10 3s. The prosecutor's Attorney said a negociation which had taken place on the subject did not close until Saturday night, and then he gave notice that it was not intended to prosecute. Nothing more could have been done.