The Times 1821 - 1830 Carlisle Summer Assizes August 28, 1829

Carlisle Summer Assizes August 28, 1829

THE TIMES, Friday, August 28, 1829 SUMMER ASSIZES. CARLISLE, AUGUST 25 CIVIL SIDE (Before MR. Justice LITTLEDALE) CORRY V. THOMPSON AND OTHERS. MR. WILLIAMS (with whom was MR. PATTERSON) stated the case to the jury.  The action was brought to recover the value of a quantity of hay, of which the defendants had forcibly dispossessed the plaintiff. It had happened that in the month of April last, a person of the name of BELL, a grocer at Brampton, in that county, had had a small demand against JAMES ANDERSON, one of the defendants.  To recover that demand, BELL had instituted an action in the county court, and had got a verdict and issued execution.  The execution had been intrusted to the plaintiff, who was a sheriff's officer, and he had gone to make the levy upon the premises of the defendant ANDERSON. ANDERSON lived at a place called Cold-fells, and there he had a byre for cows, and a stack of hay.  The hay had been taken from two fields, in one of which the defendant THOMPSON claimed a property, but it was notorious that ANDERSON had always been regarded as the owner of the hay, he always using it for his cows, and treating it in all respects as his own. Upon that stack of hay the plaintiff had seized, and had been in the act of carrying it away in carts provided for the purpose, when a peson of the name of IRWIN had come up, and claiming the stack as his own property, had discharged the plaintiff from seizing. The plaintiff had disregarded that discharge, and had proceeded with the levy when another claimant to a property in the stack had arisen in the defendant THOMPSON.  It had been explained to THOMPSON that only a minute before, IRWIN had claimed it as his own, and then THOMPSON had changed his ground, and said that it was IRWIN'S, but that IRWIN held it for him.  The plaintiff feeling confident that the property was ANDERSON's, had proceeded in removing the hay, when THOMPSON had put in a threat that he should soon be forced to discontinue, and sure enough upon some signal of THOMPSON's, the Cold-fell had been made to resemble the glen which SIR WALTER SCOTT had described in one of his poems;  for men had suddenly shot forth on all sides to the number of about 100, and had effectually prevented the bailiff from proceeding in his work, and almost frightened him out of his senses.  The hay had been taken back, and it was to recover its value that the present action had been brought. The proceedings in the county court, the judgment and execution against ANDERSON, were regularly proved. JOHN LEE stated, that on the 27th of April last he had accompanied the plaintiff to Cold-fells.  Plaintiff was a sheriff's officer, and had a precept from the county court, commanding him to levy upon the goods of ANDERSON.  They went to ANDERSON's stack, and plaintiff seized it.  They then proceeded to put the hay into three carts, which they had brought with them, and whilst doing so a man of the name of IRWIN came out, and said the stack was his.  Plaintiff said, "Why, IRWIN said just now that the stack was his.  THOMPSON answered, "Yes, it is;  but it is his for me."  THOMPSON then desired a boy, who was near, to go and tell the kilnmen and the railway-men that they were wanted.  Immediately afterwards a great number of men came and drove plaintiff and witness away. Other evidence was given to show that ANDERSON had always taken hay for his cows from the stack in question, and had been regarded as the owner. MR. ALDERSON (with whom was MR. RAMSHAY) addressed the jury for the defendant.  There would be two questions for their consideration.  In the first place, he (MR. ALDERSON) should show that the plaintiff, upon being first accosted by IRWIN, had voluntarily withdrawn from the possession, and had said that he would have no more to do with the stack.  That being the case, it would be for his lordship to say whether the possession being out of the plaintiff, he was entitled to bring this action.  The other question would be, whether the stack in question was the property of ANDERSON.  He (MR. ALDERSON) should call witnesses to show that it was, in fact, the property of THOMPSON;  and if the jury believed that to be the case, then the defendants would be entitled to a verdict. Evidence was then offered to support the statement of defendant's counsel, but the defence failed, and a verdict was given for the plaintiff....................Damages 12 l. CROWN COURT (Before Mr. Justice BAYLEY) THOMAS MOUNSEY was indicted for feloniously embezzling 1 l. 9s., the property of JOHN MACHELL. MR. ARMSTRONG stated the case, and called the following witnesses: -- WILLIAM CLARKE stated, that the prosecutor MR. MACHELL, was a farmer residing at Low-plains, near Penrith.  Witness lived in the family in the double capacity of tutor to the children and bookkeeper.  Prisoner was employed by prosecutor as his head man, and great confidence was reposed in him. It was the duty of prisoner to take the corn to market and sell it, and after receiving the money to account for it to witness.  Prisoner took some oats to Penrith market on the 5th of May in the present year, which were to be sold for 27s a quarter.  On that day prisoner accounted for the oats, and informed witness that he had sold 20 quarters more of potato oats for 29 l., which he was to deliver on the next market-day. On the next market-day, prisoner took 20 quarters of oats, as witness supposed, to Penrith market, and on his return accounted with witness for 29 l., the price of the oats, but did not pay the money, as that was to be paid to MR. MACHELL.  Witness here produced a book in which he kept his accounts, and it appeared on inspection that an entry of 20 quarters had been made on the day in question. Cross-examined by MR. RAWLINSON. - The entry was antedated a day.  There was a memorandum, in order to show that the date set down was the day of Penrith market.  It would not be easy for prisoner to take any oats out of the granary without the knowledge of the men employed in the granary to fill sacks.  Prisoner had been some time in the service of MR. MACHELL.  He had a very good character when he first went into MR. MACHELL's employment.  Witness had had no reason to doubt prisoner's honesty in the transactions which had passed between them. Re-examined: - MR. MACHELL was a surveyor as well as farmer, and was a great deal from home.  He was a good deal from home.  The man employed in the granary had been discharged since the apprehension of the prisoner, for his supposed misconduct in relation to this transaction. MR. MACHELL, the prosecutor, stated that he was a surveyor and farmer.  He farmed 750 acres of land.  The prisoner had been his servant, and had received a good salary.  Witness gave direction for the prisoner to have 20 quarters of oats on the day in question, and prisoner paid witness 29 l. as the price of those oats.  Witness had a good many servants, and had reposed great trust in the prisoner. MR. CLARKE stated that he was a miller, residing near Penrith.  In the beginning of May last, witness saw the prisoner at Penrith market, and bargained with him for 20 quarters of oats, to be delivered on the 5th of May.  The price was to be 29 l.  On the 5th of May witness again saw the prisoner at Penrith market.  Prisoner then told him that he had made a mistake, and had brought 21 instead of 20 quarters.  Witness said he did not care about one quarter more or less, and accordingly took the whole, and paid the prisoner 30 l. 9s. The prisoner made an ineffectual defence, and was found GUILTY. CROWN COURT (Before Mr. Justice BAYLEY) JOHN ALLEN and ISAAC RAE were indicted for feloniously assaulting PATRICK FAGGY on the King's highway, and robbing him of 1 l. 10s., a watch, and a pocket handerkerchief. The prosecutor stated, that on the 30th of June last, he was at a public-house in Wigton, and there for the first time met the prisoner at the bar.  The prisoner asked him to drink, and he complied.  After drinking together for some time, he went out of the house, and as he was going along a place called Water-lane, he was overtaken by the prisoner ALLEN. ALLEN put up his fist to prosecutor's face, and prosecutor struck him, but at the same time he received a severe blow which immediately knocked him down.  Prosecutor was for a short time insensible, and upon coming to himself, he found that he had been deprived of his watch, a handkerchief which he had worn about his neck, and about 30s.  Prosecutor identified ALLEN, but he could not swear that the prisoner RAE was present. A witness of the name of JORDAN proved that the day after the prosecutor had been robbed, ALLEN came to witness's house, and told him that he and another person had committed a robbery the night before, and got a silver watch, some notes, and a silk handerchif.  JORDAN went to the cellar where ALLEN said he had concealed the articles, and found the watch and other articles lying there. JORDAN took them and gave them to a person of the name of HODGES, by whom they were given to the magistrate.  It was stated that JORDAN had become uneasy in his mind after the occurrence, but could not for some days persuade himself to make a disclosure. A witness who had gone to HODGES to demand the watch, stated the HODGES had at first refused to give it up, saying that it had been put into his hands by JORDAN, and that to JORDAN only he would restore it. The prosecutor identified the watch when produced in court. The Jury found ALLEN guilty and acquitted RAE. RICHARD HODGES and ROBERT JORDAN were then indicted for receiving the property mentioned in the last case, knowing it to be stolen. MR. ARCHBOLD stated the case, and called nearly the same witnesses as in the last case, and also offered in evidence the examinations of the two prisoners when taken before the magistrate. Mr. Justice BAYLEY expressed his disapprobation of this prosecution, as it was proved that the prisoners had voluntarily given up the property, and had, as far as they could, facilitated the apprehension of the persons supposed to have stolen it. The Jury found both prisoners NOT GUILTY.

 

< Prev		Next >