Carlisle Patriot, 16 Jul 1825 - Cumberland County Sessions (5)

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

Saturday 16 Jul 1825   (p. 2, col. 5-6 and p. 3, col. 1-5)

 

COUNTY SESSIONS.

 

[continued]

 

THE KING v. INHABITANTS OF DALSTON.

 

This was an indictment against the inhabitants of the parish of Dalston for the non-repair of a foot-bridge, leading from Dalston village to Buckhowbank, and known as Dalston-bridge. The cause excited considerable local interest; and we have therefore prepared a very full report of it (at least three columns of small type), but find it impossible to insert it this week both on account of want of room and want of time: it shall appear next Saturday.

 

Mr. COURTENAY conducted the prosecution with great zeal and ability; and Mr. AGLIONBY as zealously and ably opposed it, attempting to throw the burthen from the whole parish to the Dalston division; but he had not a leg to stand on—he did not even call a single witness—and the defendants were found Guilty; that is to say, liable to repair the Bridge, which for nearly twelve months has been impassable.

 

In the course of the inquiry, a great deal came out elucidatory of the affairs of the parish. The Chairman expressed a decided opinion that the parish was liable; and the jury were equally decided, for they returned their verdict after less than a minute's consultation.

 

THE KING v. INHAB. OF EAGLESFIELD.

 

Mr. AGLIONBY, addressing the same Jury, said he had now changed sides, and had pretty confident hopes of better success, though he did not complain of the last decision. He expected now to obtain their verdict, and he would make them amends by not detaining them a tenth part of the time that he felt it his duty to do in the last case. This was an indictment against the inhabitants of Eaglesfield for neglecting to repair 160 yards of public-highway, leading from the village of Deanscales to the town of Workington, running through the property of Mr. HETHERINGTON. The same case had repeatedly been before the Court. The first time at Cockermouth, about two years ago, where the prosecutor was turned round on account of having erected hedges on each side of the road, and could not legally proceed until they were removed. Having completed this operation, a fresh bill was preferred and found, but not expecting the question to come on at the Penrith Sessions (on account of an understanding to that effect), Mr. HETHERINGTON did not attend there, and in his absence, and by bad faith, a verdict of not guilty was obtained. Then a third bill was sent before the grand jury and returned true; trial had been postponed till now, and he hoped at last to get into the merits of the case; but what they were, as to the other side, he knew not: he could not divine the ground of defence, for he should clearly show the liability of the township. He understood, indeed, that the inhabitants, against their better judgment, had been induced to come into Court by a Village Lawyer, named DALTON, who had got up the case, having perhaps read a page or two in an old edition of Burn's Justice, and brought himself and some of his neighbours into a belief that he knew all about it. Mr. AGLIONBY went on to state that all the other parts of the road were repaired ratione tenuræ, but the fact was different with these uninclosed 160 yards, which the township had always repaired from time immemorial, &c. A great many witnesses were called in support of the indictment, who made out a good case. Mr. COURTENAY, for the township, addressed the Jury, and called evidence to rebut what the other side had asserted, but witness after witness broke down; they knew nothing; "no" was the universal answer to every material question, and much merriment was the consequence. At length the Chairman interposed, and said it was useless to proceed: Mr. COURTENAY assented, and the Jury instantly returned a verdict of Not Guilty. [Correction in the following week's paper: The verdict was Guilty.]

 

Mr. AGLIONBY then applied for costs under the statute which allowed expenses in cases of frivolous action; and he would assert that this was one of the most intolerably vexatious cases ever forced upon a Court. He would not say that the blame rested upon the township at large, but he should not err if he fixed it upon the shoulders of Village Lawyer DALTON and the few who supported him. After being put to so many charges by going to so many sessions, he thought his learned friends on the other side (Messrs. COURTENAY and ARMSTRONG) would hardly get up and gravely resist his application.

 

Mr. COURTENAY—I do get up, and most seriously oppose my friend's motion; for certainly where a party comes, as in this case, to make a demand against the common law, it is not too much to ask to have that demand proved upon oath. I readily gave up the case, at the hint of the Chairman, and this is the return made for it—a pretence that the case is frivolous and vexatious.

 

Mr. ARMSTRONG followed. Only one witness, he observed, spoke to the repair by the township; and even supposing that the township, in their inquiries, had come to the knowledge of that solitary fact, would this have warranted them in submitting without investigation? Certainly not.

 

Mr. AGLIONBY—If the parties had not shut their ears wilfully, they might have learnt that the proprietors of the inclosed lands repaired their roads ratione tenuræ.

 

The Chairman said he considered this a case entitled to costs. The Bench coincided; and the expenses were allowed unanimously.

 

 

[to be continued]