Carlisle Patriot, 22 Oct 1825 - Cumberland Sessions (2)

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

Saturday 22 Oct 1825   (p. 3, col. 2-3)

 

CUMBERLAND SESSIONS.

 

[continued]

 

The King. v. the Inhabitants of Upper Denton—an indictment for the non-repair of a highway, but the parish had been indicted for a considerable length of road which did not belong to it, and hence former proceedings and a delay of several months. Mr. AGLIONBY now moved for a quittance as to the part not within the boundary, and for permission to plead guilty to the remainder, 2630 yards, from Mainsgate to within 100 yards of Mumpshall-bridge. He said the whole rateable property in the parish was but £460.

 

The Surveyor was called, and he pleaded guilty. The indictment was preferred last Christmas, soon after which he set about the repair, and raised a rate the sessions before last, and another last sessions, expending £30. The rateable property of the parish was only £460; the rack-rent no more than £850 or £860. He could not say how long it would take to make the road sufficient—the work was still going on—persons were employed, and stones had been laid. All the parts indicted were better now than before: he thought the whole might be finished by Easter.

 

Mr. AGLIONBY hoped that the bench would abstain from levying the fine that they might think it necessary to impose.

 

Mr. JOHNSON said the whole of the money had been expended in widening the road, by an order of Magistrates made no less than three years ago. No materials had yet been laid on the part indicted.

 

The Bench decided that the fine should be suspended till Easter; and if the road is not properly made by that time, the sum of £200 to be levied.

 

Mr. AGLIONBY, the decision having been come to, acknowledged that the road in question was quite a nuisance, leading, as it did, to the most fashionable watering-place in the North of England (Gilsland): he might say in all England.

 

The learned Gentleman afterwards applied for an allowance of so much of the costs as applied to the part of the road for which a quittance had been taken. It was hard that his clients should pay for what did not belong to the parish. The public prosecutor was bound to acertain its limits; and the public, indeed, had suffered by his not doing so, for had the case been otherwise, the plea of guilty would have been put in, and the work completed long ago.

 

Chairman—Have the costs been increased by this circumstance?

 

Mr. AGLIONBY—Of course, otherwise my motion would be nugatory.

 

Chairman—Great indulgence has already been granted you—you may think yourselves well off.

 

(Subsequently, at the Crown Inn, the Magistrates made an order of Court, that in future cases of fine for non-repair of highways, the levy shall follow the imposition of it, as a matter of course.)

 

Several bills were found for nuisances and non-repair of highways: among others, one against the parish of St. Cuthbert, for not repairing the road leading from Water-street, Carlisle, to the turnpike leading to Blackhall, &c.—A true bill was also found against James ROBINSON, of Penrith, for an assault upon Bowman THOMPSON of the same place, but as the affair is of a peculiar character, it is not likely to come before the Court.

 

The Township of Workington, removants; the parish of Burgh-by-Sands, appellants.—Mr. COURTENAY appeared for Workington, and stated his case, which was one of pedigree. Joseph, son of Joseph BURNS, by Mary OSMOTHERLY, a woman who passed for his wife, was the infant pauper. The pedigree was clearly traced up to Patrick BURNS, an Irishman, who came to Burgh-by-Sands, 65 years ago, married there and had several children. The father of the pauper was the son of Patrick, the son of the old Patrick alluded to, who married a Jane GRAHAM.—Mr. AGLIONBY, on the other side, admitted that the pedigree had been made out to old Patrick; but as he could not give a settlement, he (Mr. A.) was prepared to go further on the side of the great grandmother, and would show that she was not born in Burgh-by-Sands, but at Jerriestown, in the parish of Kirklinton; and if he did this, the order must be quashed.—Robert GRAHAM, aged 70, deposed to this effect: My father, John GRAHAM, of Dykesfield, had a sister called Jane GRAHAM, and both were children of old John GRAHAM of Jerriestown. Aunt Jane married one Patrick BURNS, who called himself a Scotchman. Old John GRAHAM died at Blackhall Wood Park, in the parish of St. Cuthbert. Cross-examined, he said he did not of his own knowledge know that old John was of Jerriestown; it was said so; and he remembered his being buried at Arthuret.—Another witness produced a transcript of the register of Arthuret church: "Jane, daughter of John GRAHAM, was baptised 16th May, 1736."—Mr. COURTENAY contended that no case had been made out against him; nothing had been adduced but conjecture and hearsay. The register only shewed that a Jane GRAHAM had been baptised, but there was not the slightest identification of the party. My learned friend, said Mr. C., is bound to make out a settlement that I can go to, for we are an innocent parish. Now suppose we were to remove to Kirklinton upon this ground, and produce this evidence to establish my case, what would you say to me—what but that you could not proceed on conjecture? Yet, if you would not be satisfied in that case, how can this be satisfactory to me?—The Bench confirmed the Order by a majority of two.

 

Cockermouth, removants; Crosscannonby, appellants.—Mr. ARMSTRONG, for Cockermouth, said this was entirely a case of matter of fact. Mary BRISCO, the pauper, was born illegitimately in the parish of Blindcrake, and there she was bound as a parish apprentice to one BELL at Dovenby. From this person she ran away in about two years, and went to live with a Mr. SEALBY, in Crosscannonby: she told him whence she came, and he told her that he had afterwards spoken to BELL, and then he agreed to keep her on the same terms, finding her meat and clothes; but in little more than twelve months, she ran from SEALBY also, and went to Maryport, where she had a child; and after being taken to Dovenby, next before a magistrate, then to Dovenby again, and subsequently to Maryport, where she was received by John MANBY, the overseer, she took a house in Maryport, and received there 2s. a week for her child. The pauper spoke to these facts; but on her cross-examination by Mr. AGLIONBY, she answered every question so readily, that it was plain she knew little of the true meaning of what she said; yet Mr. A. made her prove rather too much—namely, that SEALBY took her as an apprentice, and not as a servant. Mr. AGLIONBY replied at a most injudicious length, and laboured his own case until he essentially weakened it. After calling a couple of witnesses to invalidate, in some degree, the pauper's testimony, Mr. ARMSTRONG rejoined upon the whole cause, contending that the continuation of the apprenticeship with SEALBY by consent of BELL was manifest, and the Court almost unanimously confirmed the order.

 

 

[to be continued]