Carlisle Patriot, 20 Aug 1825 - Cumberland Summer Assizes (28)

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

Saturday 20 Aug 1825   (p. 4, col. 1-5)

 

CUMBERLAND SUMMER ASSIZES

 

[continued]

 

TODD v. TODD AND OTHERS.

 

Mr. ARMSTRONG said this was an action brought by Wm. TODD of Wigton, against John TODD of Gale, John TODD of Wigton, Wm. BARNES, and Thomas HEWSON, to recover compensation in damages for breaking open a slaughter-house at Wigton, and forcibly taking therefrom, a cow, which John TODD of Gale, had sold to the said William TODD of Wigton.

 

Mr. SCARLETT.—Gentlemen of the Jury: If I can steer you clear of confusion amongst all these TODDs, I hope at last to arrive safely at a verdict for the plaintiff. John TODD of Gale, sold to William TODD, butcher, of Wigton, a cow, on credit; which cow he put into a slaughter-house rented by the butcher, who paid for it in offal, as was the custom, and kept the key, &c. But after having thus delivered the animal, on the condition of being paid for it at some future time, (and which payment would assuredly have been made had he waited till the following week,) Mr. TODD of Gale, influenced by sinister representations, comes with Mr. TODD of Wigton, and others, on the following evening, when they break open the slaughter-house and take the animal away, thereby preventing the plaintiff from having any beef at the next market-day (the following Tuesday); and also greatly injuring him in reputation by the circulation of a belief that he intended some dishonest action, or at least was incapable of paying for the animal.

 

John GARNER called.—On the evening of Saturday the 30th of April, I met TODD, of Gale, on the road with the cow, and he said he was driving her to Wigton, as his wife had sold her to Wm. TODD the butcher.

 

Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant CROSS, for the defendants.—I dont know that any thing passed about not trusting him.

 

William WOOD.—I saw John TODD of Gale drive the cow into Wigton, on Saturday evening the 30th April, and I sent William TODD to him at the slaughter-house door. On Sunday evening about nine, I saw John TODD again, and asked him if he had settled. He replied that something had struck him last night, and that he had determined upon having his cow or the money before he went away. The price, he said, was £13 15s. five shillings to be given back. He said he was waiting till Mr. John TODD of Wigton, the spirit-merchant, returned home, and just at that moment Mr. TODD happened to pass, and I went my way.

 

Sarah BICKET.—In April last, I lived servant with Mr. BLAYLOCK, innkeeper, at Wigton. Mr. TODD of Gale put the cow up in one of the buildings. I went for the butcher, Wm. TODD, who had the key, and he came.

 

Thomas BLAYLOCK, landlord of the public-house spoken of, said William TODD of Wigton had his slaughter-house for the entrails and manure, instead of paying money. When Wm. TODD had his beasts in it, most likely he would keep the key. On the Sunday evening, the defendants came and inquired about the beast, and asked for the key, which could not be found. They said they would break open the door. I cautioned them; but they did break open the door. They consisted of John TODD of Gale, John TODD of Wigton, Wm. BARNES a bailiff, and Thomas HEWSON.

 

Cross-examined by Mr. WILLIAMS:—I consider the slaughter-house as mine, though the butchers do at times keep the key.

 

Walter SIBSON, of Wigton, saw the door broken open, but heard BLAYLOCK first discharge them from doing so—and so did William TODD the butcher.

 

By Mr. Sergeant CROSS.—They demanded either the money or the cow.—This was the plaintiff's case.

 

Mr. Sergeant CROSS addressed the Jury.—They would see, before the end of the trial, he observed, that this was the most impudent cause ever brought into a court of justice. His learned friend had told them that the cow was sold to TODD, "to be paid for at some future time." And, truly, he was to have been paid "at some future time," for the real object of TODD, in conjunction with a butcher named STRONG, was to have got the cow for their mutual advantage, without paying for it at all. Did the jury, who were most of them farmers, sell their cows to strangers, "to be paid at some future sime [sic]?" He was sure that they did no such thing; and was it likely that TODD of Gale would act differently from all other sensible men? —The Learned Sergeant went on to contend that, even upon the evidence of the plaintiff's own witnesses, it was quite clear that the stable, falsely called a slaughter-house, was not the property of TODD, but belonged to BLAYLOCK. In order to prevent three of the defendants from giving evidence that must instantly have put the plaintiff out of court, the action had been ingeniously commenced against the whole; but this would not avail him, as he had witnesses to show that it was never intended to let TODD have the cow without the money; that they negociated on the subject throughout the Sunday; that both plaintiff and STRONG acknowledged that they could not raise the money, and promised to pay the money on Tuesday; but that this was refused, Mr. TODD the butcher meanwhile carrying off the stable key from where it usually hung in BLAYLOCK's kitchen.

 

Mr. Sergeant CROSS then called Ann GARDINER, Joshua TODD, John HUTTON, and Thomas EARL, to prove his statement; and to show that when William TODD applied for the cow at Gale, he went thither, in TODD's absence, with an open letter written by STRONG, who was known to him, and that in consequence the cow was taken to Wigton. He established a case, that it was never intended to give credit, and that both TODD and STRONG were either unable to pay the money on the Sunday, or declined doing so for other reasons.

 

Mr. SCARLETT, in reply, said his learned friend had a brief full of witnesses, thrust in, as was often the case at Carlisle, to prove nothing! but many of whom he had too much good sense to call. And those he had produced, had not advanced his case a straw; it was where he, Mr. S. had left it; and although he did not pretend to say that his case was one for great damages, yet his client had sustained much inconvenience and anxiety, and some loss, and must have a verdict.

 

Mr. Baron HULLOCK said he could not but regret that such an action as this was ever brought. It appeared to him that the stable was never in William TODD's possession in a way so as to enable him to sustain this action.

 

The Jury, without hesitation, found a verdict for the Defendants. Mr. Baron HULLOCK.—"Very proper."

 

 

[to be continued]