Carlisle Patriot, 13 Aug 1825 - Cumberland Summer Assizes (21)

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

Saturday 13 Aug 1825   (p. 4, col. 1-6)

 

CUMBERLAND SPRING [sic] ASSIZES.

  

[continued]

 

Doe dem. HACKET v. MARTIN.—An action of ejectment to recover the possession of certain premises in the parish of Distington. The question turned upon a will which had been made contrary to instructions—Verdict for the Plaintiff.—Report next week.

 

BENSON, clerk, v. STAMPER.—An action by a landlord (the Rev. J. BENSON against his farmer, for breach of verbal agreement, not to remove straw on quitting the estate. A prior written agreement on the same point, in the hand-writing of Mr. BENSON (entered in a memorandum book and since duly stamped) vitiated the verbal contract, and the plaintiff was nonsuited.—Report next week.

 

GRAHAM, clerk, v. GRAHAM.—A trial of upwards of four hours about the property of an oak tree value 50s. There was a large mass of conflicting testimony. The locus in quo was in the manor of Wetheral.—Verdict for the defendant, the person who had cut and carried away the tree.—The Jury retired and remained in consultation upwards of an hour.—Report next week.

 

STALKER v. RICHARDSON.—To recover £5, 1s. price of a cow purchased at a public sale, but payment refused on the plea that the cow was not actually STAMPER's, but his father-in-law's, who owed RICHARDSON money. A great many witnesses were examined, and the testimony on each side was so strong, that the judge acknowledged himself unable to say where the truth lay. The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff.—Report in our next.

 

LEWTHWAITE v. SIMPSON.—A dispute as to a right of turbary on Thwaite common, parish of Millom. The witnesses for the plaintiff were examined, and Mr. SCARLETT was addressing the jury, contending that the other side had made out a complete case for him, when the parties stopped short and agreed to refer the question, and also a counter cause, TOWERS v. LEWTHWAITE, depending on the same facts.—Mr. Sergeant CROSS conducted the plaintiff's case.

 

JENKINSON v. TOWERSON.—An action arising out of a dispute about an occupation road over the defendant's field, situate at Todholes, in the western part of this county. The parties had at first agreed upon a mutual accommodation; but a bad feeling afterwards sprung up between them, the defendant ploughed up the path, and the plaintiff made himself one over the same line through his corn. The plaintiff disclaimed any other wish than an assertion of his right of way. Verdict for plaintiff, damages £4: Costs 40s.—We shall report this trial at greater length next week.

 

FORSTER v. MITCHELL.—An action to recover the value of some hides, alleged to have been contracted for by defendant, who is a tanner at Maryport, and sent from Wigton by FORSTER, who is a butcher there. The contract could not be proved. Plaintiff nonsuited.

 

TODD v. TODD and others.—To recover damages for a trespass, alleged to have been committed on the slaughter-house of the plaintiff, at Wigton, by the defendants, who took away therefrom a cow which he contended he had bought of chief the defendant on credit, but for which he had not paid. Proof failed as to the purchase on credit, delivery, or the property of the slaughter-house, which turned out to be a common public-house stable.—The Jury gave a verdict for the defendant, and the Judge said "very proper." We shall return to this cause next Saturday.

 

WINDER v. FEARON, exor. and another.—An action upon a covenant, to recover damages for the non-repair of a high-road which the defendant's father had bound himself to in an exchange of property with the plaintiff many years before, the defendant being his father's executor. His defence was, that he had not administered; but the contrary was proved. Verdict for the plaintiff, damages £10.