Carlisle Patriot, 13 Aug 1825 - Cumberland Summer Assizes (2)

1 view

Skip to first unread message

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

unread,

Oct 14, 2025, 1:24:00 PMOct 14

to CUL Google Group, Cumbria Mailing List (CFHS)

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

CUMBERLAND SUMMER ASSIZES.

[continued]

CROWN BAR: MR. JUSTICE BAYLEY.

THE KING v. M. & W. BOADLE.

Mr. COURTENAY, (with whom was Mr. ALDERSON), stated that this was an indictment against the defendants, Matthew BOADLE and William BOADLE, for the non-repair of a bridge near Egremont, commonly called Sanderson's Bridge. The defendants, it appeared, were considered liable on account of their holding certain closes, the peculiar tenure of which had rendered the persons holding them liable to repair the bridge from time immemorial. Various other persons, who had possessed these lands, had repaired the bridge, one end of which is in the parish of Egremont, and the other in the parish of St. John.—Messrs. ARMSTRONG and PATTESON, for the defendants, called John PATRICKSON, who is in the ninetieth year of his age. This witness remembers a wooden bridge which formerly stood about 100 yards from the present stone bridge. After the stone bridge was built, the wooden bridge was neglected, and went to decay. A person of the name of PEARSON had formerly held these lands; and, considering himself liable, had frequently repaired the wooden bridge; but Mr. NICHOLSON, solicitor, Cockermouth, put in a copy of a legal contract between the inhabitants and PEARSON for building the stone bridge. His Lordship here interfered. He said that as PEARSON had built the stone bridge, and the county had adopted it, he thought the county prima facie liable. A man might be obliged to repair a foot-bridge; but if he built a carriage bridge, and the county adopted it, the county was certainly liable to the repairs. What had become, his Lordship asked, of the immemorial usage? The jury, under the direction of the judge, found the defendants not guilty.

JOHN WILSON, aged 40, was first placed at the bar, charged with having stolen and taken from Carleton, in the parish of Penrith, two wether sheep, the property of Isaac TOPPING, of Skirwith.

The Prisoner, a stout country-looking man, pleaded Guilty.

Judge.—Prisoner, I would advise you to plead not guilty; it will not make any difference in the punishment.

Prisoner.—But I am guilty, my Lord.

His Lordship again intreated the prisoner to retract.

Prisoner.—No, my Lord, I am guilty, and it is of no use adding more sin upon my head. I repeat I am guilty; and I hope your Lordship will have mercy upon me: I have five small children, and my wife is now pregnant.

Isaac TOPPING the prosecutor, sworn, stated to the Court, that he had 102 sheep in a field, two of which were stolen. He said he resided at a distance of about two miles from where the sheep were taken, but did not know any thing of the prisoner, or where he lived.

The Governor of the gaol informed his Lordship that the prisoner had been in custody before, about three years ago.

Wm. HULLOCK sworn.—I apprehended the prisoner, but I never saw him before. I found him in a lodging-house at Alston, twenty miles from where the sheep were stolen.

James WHITE sworn.—I live at Alston, and have seen the prisoner; he lodges there. I do not know his name, nor whether he has a wife and family.

John RICHARDSON sworn.—I know WILSON, but that is not his name: they call him MORRAN or Mc.MORRAN: he lives at Lammockstone, upon the Scotch Border, about six or eight miles from Carlisle. The prisoner has a wife and family; but I can't say how he maintains them; for he did not always reside with them. He was in Dumfries gaol for some months; but I can't say whether he returned to his family when he was liberated from prison. I heard he was confined in Carlisle gaol some months ago.

His Lordship told the prisoner it was very easy to take away property of this kind, in consequence of its exposure; but he had found it was not quite such an easy matter to escape from justice. How short a time had he enjoyed the fruits of his dishonesty! He stole the property on the Friday, sold it on the Saturday; but where was he on the Monday? He was in custody. This ought to convince men of the danger and uncertainty of such conduct. The Judge recorded judgment of Death against the prisoner in the most solemn manner, but held out hopes of mercy.