Carlisle Patriot, 13 Aug 1825 - Cumberland Summer Assizes (8)

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

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

 

CUMBERLAND SUMMER ASSIZES.

 

NISI PRIUS: MR. JUSTICE BAYLEY.

  

DONALD v. HODGSON AND ANOTHER.

 

[continued]

 

John SLEE.—I was employed when they were building the new gaol, in 1821, to keep people out! (Mr. TINDAL: to keep them in I suppose.) I have seen HILL leading stones at different times; I have known him go six times in a day, with two horses and carts. I heard HILL tell HODGSON that he had been discharged from getting any more stones from Mr. SOWERBY's ground. HODGSON told him to lead on; he would stand between him and all danger; and he led stones after that. The stones were carried into the gaol, broken there by the prisoners, put out again, and then led away. John WESTGARTH, of Botcherby, got stones for about 10 yards.

 

Cross-examined by Mr. ALDERSON.—I kept the gate at the gaol; but I had nothing to do with the stones. I saw William HILL bring stones: there are two persons of the name of HILL—William is the son, and John is the father. WESTGARTH came with a cart, and John HOLME put the stones into it. HOLME is employed among the stones. The stones which were got from the foundation of the old gaol were also broken up. TAYLOR brought a good many before HILL. I heard the conversation between HODGSON and HILL; I think it was in August.

 

John HOLME sworn.—I was employed at the gaol in the years 1823-24, and part of 25. I was employed by the defendant to put in the stones for the prisoners to break; and when broken, I measured them. HILL was in the habit of bringing stones to be broken: he began in June 1824, and continued till Whitsuntide 1825. Mr. HODGSON had employed TAYLOR to lead before HILL. Mr. JACKSON late gaoler paid the prisoners formerly; but latterly Mr. HODGSON paid them. HILL showed me a discharge he had got from Mr. DONALD: he said he would let Mr. HODGSON see it. Eighty cart loads have been broken in a week: the average might be from 20 to 40 cart loads. The principal part of the stones went on the military roads. Surveyors of the county roads sometimes purchased them. Mr. LOWRY, of Durnhill, also purchased some for Harraby quarter. COWEN, HEYSHAM and Co. bought a small quantity: they were not surveyors, but private persons. Some were sold to Mr. Charles GRAHAM, of Netherby, and some to the surveyors of Rickergate, Botchergate, and Wigton.

 

Cross-examined.—Mr. BATY is surveyor for Botchergate; and he got some stones in 1824 for the parish road between Botchergate and Warwick. There were a number of cobbles in the gaol besides those which HILL brought. TAYLOR brought a quantity before HILL began to lead; and a great number were got from the foundation of the old gaol. TAYLOR brought nearly 500 yards. I don't know exactly what quantity were got from the foundation of the old gaol.

 

It was HILL who brought nearly 500 yards; I thought that number belonged to TAYLOR. All the stones sold for the roads were broken. I can't say that any stones were sold to the Botchergate surveyor, after HILL began to lead. A large quantity of broken stones had accumulated before HILL began to lead: they were overspreading the street. Several persons applied whom Mr. HODGSON would not supply; he only sold when there was a superabundance.

 

His Lordship here observed, that if Mr. HODGSON had a sufficient quantity of stones, he was not at liberty to sell the stones and get a fresh supply. It appeared they had stones sufficient at the time without HILL leading any. If they had got more than they wanted, and sold them, they were not at liberty to supply themselves with fresh ones. The surveyor could use his discretion, but it was subject to the opinion of the court. There was it appeared 500 cart-loads to begin with.

 

Messrs. ALDERSON, PARK, and BLACKBURN were employed by the defendant; and after some argument respecting the selling of the stones and procuring fresh ones, his Lordship wished to have HOLME recalled.

 

HOLME's cross-examination continued by Mr. PARK. HILL continued to lead after he got the notice; but can't say where he got the stones.

 

Examination resumed by Mr. TINDAL.—I have said that HILL had got a discharge. There was a considerable quantity laid down upon a road behind the gaol, which is not a county road; I think it belongs to the corporation. It would require between 100 and 200 cart loads.

 

By the Judge.—I can't say if we sold any of the stones which TAYLOR brought before HILL came. Altogether there were got rather more than 1000 cubic yards. To the different surveyors, we might sell 200 yards, exclusive of what the city had. Mr. HODGSON was not anxious to obtain purchasers; for I have known him refuse applications for them. He said the roads would take all he had. We continued getting stones as long as the prisoners were confined in the old gaol: they were removed about Whitsuntide last.

 

Mr. LOWRY, of Durnhill, sworn.—I am surveyor for Harraby quarter. I purchased broken stones from HODGSON to the amount of £5 13s. 9d.

 

Cross-examined by Mr. BLACKBURN.—Mr. HODGSON got a considerable quantity of stones from me in 1824.

 

Joseph BATY sworn.—I purchased a considerable quantity of the broken stones.

 

His Lordship thought the case clear. He said there was no doubt but a surveyor was armed with considerable authority and great power; but still his demand was to be limited by necessity. In this instance, he had got stones for the purpose of selling. The jury, therefore, under his Lordship's direction, found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 1s., costs, 40s.

 

 

M'IVER v. HODGSON.

 

This was an action brought to recover the sum of £11 16s., a deposit paid by the plaintiff to the defendant on the purchase of an estate. The property was put up by auction, but was afterwards sold privately; and Mrs. HODGSON, defendant's wife, possessing a right of dower, would not consent to the sale. Mr. WILSON, attorney, of Whitehaven, proved the payment of the deposit. This action was undefended. Ver. for Pl. £11 16s.

 

NICHOLSON v. PARKER.

 

Mr. AGLIONBY stated this case to the Jury at great length. The action, he said, was brought for the purpose of recovering a certain sum of money paid on account of an attorney's bill. The facts were these. The plaintiff and defendant, and several others, had met together in the vestry room in the parish of Hesket, convened in the usual manner, in which vestry meetings were assembled. An action had arisen out of a dispute about the highways; Mr. DIXON, of Nordvue, had stopped up a road, and hence litigation commenced, which was carried to a considerable extent. The Court of King's Bench was subsequently applied to. Mr. Henry PEARSON was the attorney, and he had managed every thing well, and succeeded to their fullest wishes; no attorney in the world could have done it better, for the result was in every respect favourable to the township. The bill was quite reasonable; no objections had ever been made to it; and Mr. PEARSON had had the precaution to send a draught of it up to London, for the purpose of being examined before it was settled. Mr. NICHOLSON was then surveyor, and he defrayed the whole of the expense. The sum paid by NICHOLSON was about £290. Having paid this sum he applied to the others to defray their share; but the defendant had refused to contribute his portion, and some of the others had unfortunately followed his evil example. This single action was brought against a person who was able to pay, instead of bringing several actions; and as the learned gentleman hoped the result of it would be to compel Mr. PARKER to pay the plaintiff, he also hoped that the others who had not paid would take warning and do what is right.—Mr. PARK, who was counsel for the defendant, argued that signing a document did not make him liable. If the notice was put in as an agreement, binding the individuals who had signed it to expenses, he apprehended it should have been on a stamp.—The notice by which a meeting had been convened in the vestry room, was then put in; it was signed by the defendant and several others, inhabitants of the parish of Hesket. His Lordship was of opinion that this was not a vestry-meeting, but a meeting in a vestry-room; and as they had there resolved among themselves to defray the expenses attending the litigation they were about to commence, he thought the signing of resolutions to that effect did render the defendant liable. A verdict was taken for the plaintiff for £26, with leave to move the higher court, if thought proper.

 

 

[to be continued]