Petty Sessions Print E-mail
PETTY SESSIONS.

TOWN HALL - SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 24.

(Before the Mayor (DR. ELLIOT),  G. RELPH, Esq., and W. STORDY, Esq.)

UNSOUND MEAT.

FREDERICK POTTS, butcher appeared to answer a complaint, preferred against him by MR. SABBAGE, for having in his slaughter house a beast which was unfit for human food.  JOHN HARRISON, of Upperby, said the beast in question was his, and had picked her calf, and had been ill in consequence.  He came down to Carlisle to see WILLIAM ROBINSON with a view of selling her to him for the dogs, but did not find him.  He saw a butcher to whom he offered to sell her for the price of the hide and tallow.  The butcher asked him if she had had any medicine, and he informed him that she had.  The butcher then told him he thought he could find a customer for him, and took him to a man, but he refused to buy her.  On Saturday, as he was coming down from Upperby, he met MEIKLEY and BLAYLOCK, who asked him if they could go up and see the beast.  He gave them leave and they went.  They afterwards came to him in the market along with POTTS and bought the beast for £3.  They killed her at Upperby, and brought the carcass to Carlisle.  He would have given £20 for such a cow if she had been all right.

By MR. RELPH-----I could not say whether she is unfit for human food or not.  I would not have much hesitation in eating her myself.

By MR. STORDY-----But if I had considered her fit for human food, I certainly would not have sold her for £3.

MR. SABBAGE said the cow had been attended by MR. CARLISLE, veterinary surgeon, who had put a seton in her side, and ordered her drinks of prussic acid three times a day.

In answer to the bench, MR. SABBAGE said he had no further evidence of the unsoundness of the animal, and he would not undertake to swear himself that she was unfit for human food.

MR. CARLISLE had told him that he would not eat the meat himself.  He had told him to appear to-day, but he refused to come.

HARRISON said that although MR. CARLISLE had ordered the prussic acid, the cow had never got it.

MR. SABBAGE said MR. CARLISLE was not aware of that when he saw him.

The MAYOR-----But MR. CARLISLE is not in the habit of ordering doses of prussic acid for a beast that ails nothing.

MR. RELPH thought they should dismiss the case, as there was no evidence of unsoundness.

The MAYOR thought the fact of her being sold for £3 was sufficient evidence.

In answer to the bench, POTTS said the beast was not his, it had only been killed in his slaughter house.

After a consultation....................................................

The MAYOR said the bench had decided that there was not sufficient evidence to convict in this case;  but they recommended that MR. SABBAGE should represent to the the Local Board of Health that these cases always broke down for want of sufficient evidence.

MR. JACKSON said the last time he had a conversation with any of the members of the board, they seemed to think that the evidence of MR. SABBAGE was sufficient.

The MAYOR thought it required the evidence of a medical man.  It was a very serious matter for the public.He believed they would never be right until they had the slaughter houses in one common place on the French plan.

The case was then dismissed.


WILLIAM FURNACE  was charged with being a deserter from the 40th Regiment of Foot.  He pleaded guilty, and was committed to gaol to await orders from the war office.

*****************************************************************
PETTY SESSIONS

TOWN HALL, SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 24

(Before W. N. HODGSON, Esq.,  the REV. W. REES,  and  JOSEPH ADDISON, Esq.)

ASSAULT........RICHARD WRIGHT, of Longtown, was charged with an assault on WILLIAM BLAYLOCK.  The parties had been sparring in a public house for a noggin of rum.  Complainant lost and paid.  Afterwards defendant gave him a blow in earnest.  The bench thought there must have been some provocation, and ordered the parties to pay the costs (15s.) between them, and advised them to avoid public house brawls for the future.

ILLEGAL FISHING.......JOHN POTTS was charged with fishing in the river Gelt, on the 9th of November.  Defendant admitted that he had been fishing with the rod, but he did not think there was any harm in it.  EDWARD ATKINSON said he found the prisoner fishing with salmon roe in the Gelt.  He had got about twenty trouts, all of which were full of spawn.  The water was on MR. WANNOP's property.  MR. HOWE read a letter from MR. WANNOP stating that he had never given the prisoner leave to fish, and that he wished his water protected.  This was the prisoner's third offence. 
        MR. W. N. HODGSON said the act was very imperative.  It provided that if any person should attempt by any means to kill any fish whatsoever, he should be subject to a fine of £5 for the first offence,  £10 for the second offence, and £20 for the third offence.

        MR. HOWE said the information was not laid as a second offence.

        DEFENDANT said he had never used a net since he was up before, but he never heard of any fault being found for fishing with the rod about Brampton.

FINED £5.

___________________________________________________________________

ROBERT MARK, of Todhills was fined 5s. for having company in his house on Sunday last at an illegal hour.

JOHN RAMSAY was fined 2s. 6d. for being at such a distance from his horse and cart that he could not have control over them.
        At the conclusion of the case, a butcher named GRAHAM stepped into the witness box, and preferred a charge against the prisoner for allowing his horse to trespass in his field.

THE BENCH said an information must be laid in the regular way.
____________________________________________________________________

PETTY SESSIONS, WEDNESDAY,  NOVEMBER 28

(Before the REV. W. REES,  DR. BARNES,  and  GEORGE COWEN, Esq.)

FIGHTING......Two lads, named HAYES and BELL, were charged with fighting at Dalston, and were bound over to keep the peace for six months.

COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGE BY SEWERS.....The case of DAVID SWAN v. the CARLISLE LOCAL BOARD OF HEALTH was again brought on to-day.  MR. OSTELL appeared for the complainant, and MR. HOWE for the defendants.
        MR. OSTELL called two witnesses, JOSEPH FAIRLIE and JONAH DONALDSON, to prove that in making the sewer down London Road, the earth was thrown against complainant's shop, and completely blocked it up for nine days, during which period it remained closed.
        In cross-examination they admitted that complainant might have got into his shop if he had been anxious to do so, but not without much inconvenience.
        MR. HOWE called THOMAS WHITE, one of the contractors, who said .... The sewer along London Road was about 15 feet from SWAN's shop;  but it was nearer his shop than the other side.  They began to mark out the line of the sewer on the morning of Monday the 29th;  and as soon as SWAN saw them doing that, he put up the shutters.
        At night they had only got down to the depth of two feet.  The first gravel is thrown out as far as possible, so that of course it would fall on the flags.  On Tuesday the men had to be taken off to repair the sewer at South George Street, and it was not till the following Monday that the sewer in front of SWAN's shop was finished.
        During the whole of that time access could easily be got to his shop;  there was a good trodden foot-path over the gravel.  Even on Monday the 4th of June, the worst day, when all the soil was thrown out, SWAN had his shop open at night.

CROSS-EXAMINED.....Would not swear that the sewer was finished on that day;   but his shop was open on the following morning.

By MR. REES.....SWAN never made any complaint, but as soon as his (witness's) partner, MR. TRAVIS, saw what SWAN was after, he ordered the ganger to do whatever he asked, because he saw that he was just wanting to have damages.

GEORGE RAPE, who lives opposite complainant, said his shop might have been opened and a bridge put across the sewer if SWAN had been anxious.  Of course he would have had to put up with a little inconvenience like anybody else.

MR. HOWE submitted that no case had been made out.  The claim was principally for loss of work to complainant, his wife, and a workman.  Now it had been shown that there was nothing to prevent them following their daily avocations.  As to the loss of custom to the shop, it was a question whehter there was not a sufficient road to the shop to allow any one to have access to it.

THE BENCH consulted for a few minutes........................................

MR. REES then said the bench had come to the opinion that there had been an unnecessary delay in carrying on the works before SWAN's shop, and that he must have been a loser thereby;  and they thought, on consideration, that the award ought to be £3  6s.  8d., and the usual costs.

MR. HOWE....May I ask the bench if they have decided this case on the ground that there had been negligence on the part of the contractors.

MR. REES....Not at all;  we only mention that there has been negligence.  If it had not been delayed so long, there would not have been that amount of damage;  we have taken it at so much per day for as many days as the shop was shut up.

The award and cost amount to £4  5s.  6d.

````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
 
< Prev   Next >