Carlisle Patriot, 16 Jul 1825 - Cumberland County Sessions (4)

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

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

 

COUNTY SESSIONS.

 

[continued]

 

DIVERSION OF A FOOTPATH.

 

Mr. AGLIONBY rose and said he had now to address the Bench in support of an order of two Magistrates for the diversion of a certain footpath in the parish of Brampton, which was fully set out on the plans which he had the honour to put in; and he hoped that other Magistrates on the Bench were acquainted with the locality besides the gentlemen who made the order, for if so they must be aware that the road sought to be stopped up was not only not useful to the public, but was, in fact, a great nuisance. Before the order was signed, application was made to the inhabitants, and almost every one coincided in its propriety; the signatures of a hundred were obtained, who all agreed that the path was quite unnecessary. The two appellants were only nominally so; they were the mere instruments of some persons in London who paid all the expences, and had some motive for opposing the general wish of the inhabitants.

 

John FORSTER called.—He made the plan of the road and adjacent country now put in. The new road (leading from the Back-Street, Brampton to the Longtown road) is six yards shorter than the one stopped up. He had known the spot 26 years; it was a place of nuisance, and of no real service to the public.

 

Mr. A. ROBINSON had lived 20 years near the road stopped up. It was unnecessary. There were three stiles in it, and it was not decent to go along it.

 

The witness was cross-examined by Mr. ARMSTRONG, for the appellants, as to his expectations of a piece of land if successful, but he denied that he expected any.

 

John FAWKES, stone-cutter, occupies premises the door and windows of which open into the road in question, and he saw but very few people use it, for there are several better ones leading to the same point. The road was a back bye-road, often used for depredations and such like. He had often seen a little cloak-work in it. (A laugh.)

 

Mr. COURTENAY (who also appeared for the appellants) asked what he meant by cloak-work?

 

Witness.—Why gentlemen and ladies smuggle [sic] a bit there sometimes.

 

Mr. COURTENAY.—Then it is a love-walk?

 

Witness.—I don't know about love; I don't think love has much to do with such a place. (A laugh.)

 

Mr. AGLIONBY.—That lover's walk is not strewn with roses?

 

Witness.—With roses of a sort—such as you and I don't like.

 

This witness was also pressed about having been promised a piece of land, and, under mistake, he admitted that he was to have a gift of the kind; but he soon discovered his error and corrected it. He said he did not understand "such mystical talk;" it was all "mystical" to him.

 

Mr. MOSES, draper, Market-place, Brampton, had known the road 50 years, and deemed it useless; no one could go along it with propriety.

 

Mr. JAMES, solicitor, spoke to the same effect. The road, he said, was a disgrace to the spot. It ought to be stopped up; public opinion was against it.

 

Joseph HETHERINGTON had lived in the Back-street 30 years, and he now never used the road. But at one time it was a path in an open field.

 

Mr. Wm. RICHARDSON, of Cumcatch, a mile from Brampton in the direction of the path, considered it totally unnecessary.

 

Mr. John MILES had lived at Brampton more than 60 years. He knew the appellants, MARTIN, and BELL of the Wheat Sheaf. Witness had a garden at the head of it, but went to that another way. He did not think the road necessary, because, as it is, it is a nuisance.

 

Cross-examined:—It was a very useful road at one time when it was open to the field, before Mr. EWART erected a second hedge, and made it very narrow. Before this it was pleasant, and much used by people who went that way instead of going round by the lonning.

 

Wm. FORSTER, now of Carlisle, knew the road, and thought it a nuisance in its present state.

 

Cross-examined.—When I was a boy, the road was pleasant; now that it is in a bad state, it is a disagreeable path.

 

This was the respondents' case.

 

Mr. COURTENAY addressed the Bench; but having few materials, and those very dull ones, he laboured like a heavy ship in a hollow swell. He began by directing the attention of the Bench to the powers given them by the act, and construed those powers as favourable as possible to his own case. The witnesses on the other side, one and all, confounded the present state of the road with the utility of it. Why it was in proof that the road was at one time pleasant and useful; he should like to know what change had taken place at Brampton to take that character from it, except nuisances which were spoken of, but which formed no part of the question, for if they were improper they should be removed. He admitted that the appellants only appeared in Court for their landlords, who appealed in protection of their property; and he would call witnesses to shew that the road was of most material service.

 

James FORRESTER had been employed to measure the road, and he said he found it nearer than the one intended by ten yards and a foot. By Mr. HODGSON's house, it was 35 yards nearer; from ARMSTRONG's stables, 83 yards nearer; and 50 yards nearer from Wm. BELL's gate. He considered the road highly useful to the neighbourhood, leading as it did to Walton and several villages. Some parts of the road intended in lieu were only seven feet wide, and if a person met a cart there, he could not get safely by: besides, it was in quite as good a state as any of the other roads.

 

Cross-examined by Mr. AGLIONBY.—I swear that for my own pleasure and amusement I have gone up this footpath nine times within the last three months, for the other road is worse.

 

Wm. HEWITT.—I am a cooper and have had a shop at the top of this road for 14 or 15 years past; I frequently see people use it, and I consider it very convenient and necessary for persons who live in the neighbourhood.

 

Cross-examined.—The road is dirty, but Dobson's Lane is worse, and the road now left open is a very bad one.

 

Wm. ARMSTRONG, a carrier at Brampton 40 years, in the neighbourhood of the road, considered it useful, and thought it ought to be put in its original state before the second hedge was set up.

 

John HODGSON had lived near the path 10 years, and if stopped up he should consider that much injury had been done to his property.

 

Thomas GOODFELLOW, a bacon-dealer residing at Abbey Lanercost, but having a warehouse in the Back-street, Brampton, often passed through the road when he walked to his warehouse, and he deemed it necessary to the neighbourhood.

 

Cross-examined.—He could venture to swear that he had gone through it ten times in a year. One road was as bad as the other, and if you meet a cart in the one intended to be used instead of it, you are in danger.

 

Abraham GRAHAM, a young man of 21, was called to prove that he assisted FORRESTER in his measurement of the place, and he spoke in corroboration.

 

Mr. AGLIONBY replied.—So strong a case in support of the order, and so weak a one in opposition to it, he declared he had never seen. He also referred to the act, and contended that the Magistrates, in making their order, were not bound to consider the ancient state of the path, but were authorised to act "on view," and consequently to look to its present condition alone. It was clear, by all the evidence, that it was a nuisance, and the Bench would confer a blessing upon the neighbourhood, and upon the public in general, by ordering it to be stopped up.

 

The order for stopping up was confirmed by the casting vote of the chairman.

 

 

[to be continued]