Carlisle Patriot, 20 Aug 1825 - Cumberland Summer Assizes (32)

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

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

 

CUMBERLAND SUMMER ASSIZES

 

[continued]

 

STEPHENSON, ESQ. v. HOLLIDAY.

 

This cause was expected to come on for trial at the last assizes for the purpose of trying whether Mr. STEPHENSON, the plaintiff, who is the Lord of the Manor of Holme Cultram, in this county, is entitled to wreck cast upon the shore of Silloth Bay which he alleges to be within his manor. The defendant is the tenant of Hylton JOLLIFFE, Esq. who had appointed him bailiff for the manor of Silloth, under which authority he had seized the wreck in question, expecting his landlord to defend the action. Mr. JOLLIFFE, however, upon the action being commenced by Mr. STEPHENSON, abandoned his tenant, who, in consequence, suffered judgment to go by default. A writ of inquiry was accordingly issued for assessing the damages at the asiszes [sic], and a Jury was assembled by the Sheriff at the Nisi Prius Court on Tuesday evening the 9th inst. before R. B. ARMSTRONG, Esq. as assessor.

 

Mr. TINDAL appeared on behalf of the plaintiff, Mr. STEPHENSON, and opened his case by stating the object of the action, and the plaintiff's claim as Lord of the Manor of Holme Cultram. The wreck claimed were the mast and rigging of a vessel which was cast on shore in Silloth Bay on the 2d day of January last. George GRAVES, a person appointed by Mr. STEPHENSON to secure the wreck cast upon his manor, immediately went to look after it and when in the act of leading his carts away with it was interrupted by the defendant, who came down with a body of Mr. JOLLIFFE's tenants and prevented GRAVES from taking the principal part of the wreck away. Mr. TINDAL then explained the nature of the plaintiff's right, as Lord, to the wreck, stating that he did not mean to contend that it was absolute, but that if claimed within a certain time by the owner, the latter was entitled to restitution upon payment of a reasoable salvage. He contended, however, that it lay upon the defendant to show that the lawful owner had claimed and received back the wreck; but if he did prove that fact, then the plaintiff's claim would be reduced to the amount of salvage of which he had been deprived by the unlawful act of the defendant. On the part of Mr. STEPHENSON, Mr. TINDAL said he did not seek any vindictive damages, as he understood that it was a hard case upon the defendant from his having acted under the direction of, and with the expectation of being indemnified by, his landlord, Mr. JOLLIFFE, whose dereliction of the tenant he (Mr. T.) could only account for by his being convinced that he had no title to the wreck which he had claimed.

 

George GRAVES was the first witness called.—He proved the taking of the wreck as described by Mr. TINDAL. He valued it at between £30 and £40. HOLLIDAY and Mr. JOLLIFFE's tenants prevented him carrying it away, except a small part, which he (GRAVES) succeeded in securing.

 

Cross-examined by Mr. COURTENAY.—Had heard that the wreck was claimed by the owner. Did not restore the part he had secured. The owner allowed him to keep it; it was part of a mast. Never agreed to become the farmer of the wreck under Mr. JOLLIFFE. He agreed to take the fishery on the shore of Mr. JOLLIFFE's estate, and also the wreck if Mr. JOLLIFFE would indemnify and support his claim. This Mr. JOLLIFFE had not consented to do.

 

Edward KIRBY was called to prove the same facts, but the defendant's counsel did not insist upon further evidence being produced.

 

Mr. COURTENAY, for the defendant, complimented Mr. TINDAL for the fair and candid manner in which he had opened the case on the part of Mr. STEPHENSON, and stated the peculiar hardship of the defendant's case, as he had acted under a written appointment of Mr. JOLLIFFE, who, after the claim of the wreck by Mr. STEPHENSON, had prevented the defendant from restoring it, and undertaken to resist any action that might be brought by Mr. STEPHENSON. Mr. JOLLIFFE, however, finding that he had no right to the wreck, had abandoned his tenant, and left him to defend the action as he could. He therefore had no other alternative but to throw himself upon the mercy of the Jury. Mr. C. then admitted that Mr. TINDAL had stated the law correctly respecting the Lord's right to the wreck, and he (Mr. C.) should prove that the wreck had been claimed by and delivered up to the real owner, upon which the defendant had received the sum of 5s. for salvage. This sum would therefore be the measure of the plaintiff's damages. Mr. C. then called

 

HOLLIDAY, defendant's son.—He proved that the wreck was delivered up; it was claimed by the owner. His father received something for salvage; does not know what he received. Witness carted this wreck to Workington where it was delivered up to the owner. He received 6s. for the carriage.

 

No further evidence was called for the defendant, and Mr. TINDAL shortly replied, observing that he did not intend strictly to insist upon the evidence he might have legally required from defendant of the amount received for salvage, and had no doubt they would award a fair and reasonable compensation.

 

Mr. ARMSTRONG, the assessor, in summing up the evidence to the Jury, stated that though it was admitted to be a hard case upon the defendant, he had no cause to complain of the plaintiff, but of his own landlord, Mr. JOLLIFFE, who had set up a claim and afterwards deserted him. The plaintiff's claim, Mr. A. said, was reduced to that of salvage, as the restitution of the wreck was admitted. It therefore would be their duty to estimate what the owner of the wreck should have paid to the plaintiff as Lord of the Manor for saving the wreck.—Damages 6s. Costs 40s.