The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-08-15 00:00:00

OTHERS

In this case Sir T. Wilde, the Hon. Stuart Wortley,
Mr. Roebuck, and Mr. Cowling appeared for the plaintiff,
and Mr. Knowles for the defendants.

Mr. KNOWLES applied to have the case postponed, but
it was decided to proceed with it. . . .

Sir. T. WILDE• then stated the case. He had the ho-
nour on that occasion to attend on the part of the plaintiff.
The action was brought for a trespass committed by the
defendants, in having entered certain premises in the oc-
cupation of the plaintiff, and there seized a horse. To
this charge the defendant had put in two answers. The
first denied the trespass ; the second alleged, that if he
did seize the mare, it was in his own stable. According
to the ordinary course of legal proceedings, the party who
laid claim to any species of property was bound to prove
it. The defendants in the present case were bound to
prove their title. It was the duty of the defendants on
the present occasion to make out the plea that the stable
belonged to one of the defendants, Thomas Bird. It
seemed, however, that he did not intend to appear and
make out his case. He would not, however, allow him
to get off in that way. He had been imposing on the good
nature of the people in that part of the country, and bor-
rowed money at all hands, on the pretence that he had
some good claim to the Brougham-hall estates. He would,
by the evidence which he should adduce, show conclusively
that Lord Brougham was the legal possessor of the
Brougham-hall estates, and that the defendants had no
claim to them whatever. Lord Brougham had thought it
necessary that that should be done, because it was pain-
ful to him to hear individuals were going up and down the
country pretending that they had a title to his property.
When a man had been in possession of a property for a
long period, the law presumed his title to be good. The
law presumed that no man would retain wrongful posses-
sion of his neighbour's property. The defendant Thomas
Bird was desirous of compelling Lord Brougham to prove
his title. But a man ought to have some ground or ap-
pearance of claim or title before he interfered with the
propert) of another, or canting on him to prove his
title. It was a most unreasonable and wanton thing
that a man should be so put to prove his title ; and
it was a particularly unjust thing to make a man prove
his title to property which had been for a long time
in his own possession. In the present case the title
was perfectly clear. He was in a condition to show that
from the very earliest period of English history, the
Burghams, Browhams, or Broughams were in possession
of this property. He would prove to them that Bird ex-
ecuted a conveyance of the property in question in favour
of an ancestor of Lord Brougham in the year 1727; and,
if necessary, give evidence to the time of Henry 11., that
the estate belonged originally to the Brougham family.
James Bird acquired some interest in the estate prior to
1726, whether as mortgagee, or in what other way, did
not clearly appear. In 1726 James Bird, an attorney,
was the owner of Brougham-hall, and of the demesnes
and lands therewith connected. That person left two
grand-daughters. These two sold the interest of the Birds
to Lord Brougham's ancestor—his great great uncle, for
£3OOO, and so brought back the estate that formerly be-
longed to the family. The defendant Thomas Bird had
of late been begging and borrowing all over the country,
affecting to have some claim or other to the property in
question. He was, however, able to show no sort of
relationship, nor title to the property. On the day in
question, however, he came on Mr. Robinson's farm, and
Adam Bird and John Irving, the auctioneer, obtruded
themselves at the desire of Thomas Bird, and distrained
on a mare. He left a notice of distress in the plaintiff's
possession, stating that the mare was in the custody of
the law, and would be sold if not replevied in a certain
number of days. The defendants afterwards went and
took possession of Brougham-hall. That was done pre-
meditatedly, and with the intention of compelling his
lordship to take proceedings, and, no doubt, in the expec-
tation that he would submit to some gross extortion.
The plaintiff, Mr. Robinson, was prepared to sustain his
lordship's title. The defendants, however, should have
raised that question in the proper way, as a man cannot
try a title by coming and seizing for rent. He hoped that
after hearing the evidence in support of what he had
stated, they would give him a verdict, and to visit the
defendants with the punishment which their conduct so
well deserved.

Thomas Robinson, examined by the Hon. Mr. WORT-
LEY.—I am the son of the plaintiff in this case, and live
with him at Witherigg. On the 21st day of March last
I remember Adam Bird, one of the defendants in this
case, and Mr. Irving, another of the defendants, coming
to my father's house. Irving is an auctioneer at Penrith.
Adam Bird was a stranger to me. He was once at our
house before ; I think in September last. I spoke to him
when he came to our house in March last. I said,
" You've come again, have you ?" He said, " Yes, I've
come to schedule." He said he wished to have some
young cattle to the value of £lO. He said it was for rent.
I said he should move nothing so long as I could help it.
My father shortly afterwards came home; perhaps about
an hour or two afterwards. Irving and Adam Bird re-
mained in the house during that time, and were some-
times in and sometimes out of the house. After my
father came back, he and they had some conversation to-
gether. I heard my father say to them they should have
nothing. Adam Bird afterwards said they should have
the gray mare. Irving was standing at the time looking
on. I saw him write something before he left the house.
He did not say what he was writing. It was on paper.
It was something like the paper now shown to me that he
wrote. The paper was afterwards left by him. Bird then
went to the stable, and Irving came with him. Bird then
went and touched the mare several times with his hand,
saying he had " ticked" her. He gave me the paper now
shown to me, and said if the mare was not replevied in
five days, he would come and sell her. Irving scrat-
ched out the words " young cattle, £10," in the sche-
dule now shown to me, and inserted the words
" Gray mare, £10." Bird had been at my father's
house in September, 1842, and then left the paper now
shown to me. On that occasion I said to him that I
would not be likely to pay the rent to any person but the
one who had formerly been in the habit of receiving it.
Lord Brougham was my father's landlord.
George Taylor proved the notices not to pay the rent,
and the notice of distress given to the plaintiff, to be in
Thomas Bird's handwriting.
Mr. Thomas Dobson Bleaymire, solicitor, Penrith, ex-
amined by Serjeant WlLDE.—lrving came to my office in
Penrith on the subject of the distress. I called on him
on the Saturday after the distress was made, to inquire
when the sale was to take place. He told me that Adam
Bird had left Penrith, and gone to Ashton-under-Lyne;
and before any proceedings could be taken, it was neces-
sary that he should go to London to search for the papers
wanted. Irving told me that the distress was made by
Adam Bird for his father, Thomas Bird, and that they
(the Birds) had been there before, and given notice to the
plaintiff to pay no rent to any person but Thomas Bird.
He told me that when Adam Bird went away be left word
with him, that if Lord Brougham commenced an action,
he was to apply to Messrs. Atkinson and Harrison, soli-
citors, of Penrith. I told him (Irving) that he would get
into a scrape ; but he answered that he had an indemnity
from Adam Bird. I then inquired how it was that he
happened to 131 engaged in the business? He answered
that Sisson, the sheriff's officer, had been engaged in it ;
but when he had got the length of Clittqn, be stopped,
and said he would go no further till he had been advised
by some respectable attorney. Bird stated that he had
been advised by couusel to make the distress with the
view of compelling Lord Brougham to try the question.
I saw Thomas Bird afier he had got possession of
Brougham-hall, which was in May last, and had some
conversation with him. He complained that we had not
proceeded in the action which had been commenced in the
name of Robinson, the tenant of Witherigg. I told him
that we had proceeded, and that the declaration had been
delivered in London on the previous Monday. This
circumstance took place on Monday or Tuesday. He
complained that the action had not been brought in the
name of Lord Brougham in place of Robinson. He also
said that he had taken possession of Brougham-hall, under
the impression that Lord Brougham would not proceed
in the action. I inquired of Adam Bird who had made
the distress on the part of his father, and he said that he
had. He and I had a great deal of conversation about
the distress. I told Adam and Thomas Bird, and the
other fire, who took poneesion of Brougham-hall, that I