Summer Assizes.
The Times, 1824-09-16T00:00:00

'Jlfore Air. Rarmo HlrITT.- * - - -a-tIon ot Slaniler. It appeared from" thle stattenent ma-kle bV Sir. SCAM IU.T, which Wvit afterwards 4ubstinti.itedI by inthe witnes the tcall,,sl, that thle Plftirtiff and defendant are both) re- ti'elant nther a o: ofo. W a ,th former being an ironnmonire,, and t't lttr afinrdealer, or, as it was termed by one of the witnesses, ain teceler, hi that ulace. Some time ago the defendant quiarrelledi waith the plaintiff, and gava hini a vood beating. The conisequence wvi5, thaat thelplaintiol'brought anl actioniagainstlhim, which was sub- sequently compromised, on paymrnwt of a couiple of guineas andl the cost-s OF suing out a writ. Butt though the action of the plaintifF was h,rfnghit to a termination, it was not so withi the mialignity of' thie de- fendant. On1 Lhe 2i0Lll of May last he got out ofl thie Liverpool coachi at (Ie I'1a9le and' Child r.oblic.hou$e in Wigan, andl oni goitig in.to the bar, sawv the plaintiff enjoying himself with thie exteiscinain, thie l~ailifl, the b1atksmith, and the glazier, o'tepae He miime- dhiately assailedt thie plaintiff withi a v-olley of' abusle, which lie also diirected againist a -talliotn which the plaintiff kept. After isen'ting Ihim with keepingz a hiorse whichi was only a wasterel, ordi got nothing, but galoways, the defendant saiAIt the plaiutirt', on -d scoundrel, thiou arta d-'l rogue, tho%w art a d-.d vagabond , thoti art a dd thlief-to robbed mle thle other dlay of 4 or 51. Th'Iy f'ather, old Jatnes Trhomrpson, was an hone~t man ; anti, soi ist thY brother Janies (VIri in I'PO blit thou art a d-d rogue; andi if there is a seott.in gseli Wrn, Johin Thompson is his namte." ftwasdeposed thlat lrJUThiomipson hield his peace dluring the whole tim-e that this torrent. of abuse was poutrcd ouit. against himi, anti thtat the excellent con)pany In which he wvas regaling hlimiself aittempted, buit in vain, to slop itsViolence. Thie defendant, who was perf'ectly suber, at least inilie opinion-of the landladv, who hadl only mixed One glasst of spiritit for him, at the' tiame lie thus emptict the vials of Ihis wrath Ion the nlaintiff's heaid, camec to tier house thie next Morning, anti ex- pre.,sedI his sorrow for what he hadc said the eventing before iin her bar, Its he was afraid that it wvouldI involve him in very serious and ex- pensive consequences, It appearetd, however, front Mr. Scarlett's itatemnen t,thatt the ,plaintiff wouldI have foregone all proceedings against the defendant, if he w,'ult ihave made an apologyr for wvhat he had alreadyv said, anid wouldl -have found any person to) enter into seclinity for the defendant's future peaceable behaviour towvards hiin. The dlpfendiant wnuld have miade an apo0logy, but as he. could find nobody to gruarantee his quxiet caodu t in future towards the plaintiff; the plaintiff was obliged to brinig him inito that couirt to have himi tan;zht a lesson, which wouldI ilrevent hiini fromi indulging here-after his talent for vitupera- ti0t). The learned counisel left it to thie r to deride the amnouRt Otia-ie which woulit be sufficient to'effetthatdlesirablepurpose. Jir. BROUC-teAst lamented thefreqiuncri of this kcind of action in the owunty of Lancaster, andl stated that if it were c.ncoiscaed, the )Iext aisizes would hetwicetas long as the oresent, which wLrealreadv 'riltnningintoa tlird wveek. it must be evident toeveryperson, except the landlady of the Eagle andI Chlild, who perhaps didi not thiink any m1anl drunk' until he was no longer able to see, roll, stand, or go, that the t- ndent was in a state of~ intoxication whsen he uAsed the words .l _th' declaration. Besides,.it was clear tiat the defendantdid niot tatend to i!nptite a feionv to thie plaintitl'bY thiemy ; all that lie meant t say ws, that lie hiad extracted '1. ot of isi pocket by cons- inVntr.gan ationat lw aginsthim,If tlteyslioul be of'that oPi- nion, anid lie contendted that as; mien of common ses they Must be so, theti his lnrdshiip ,e'uld tell them- that this action was ihot miain- tainhle andtha ther vrdic mut h for the defiendant. At anyv Tat, i thy soul duk tat he vors were actionable, theY- would suetha th jutic oftuecas wold e satisfied by the payvment of The earnd J:ougsumed u tie evidence to the jury, who r~atnetlaverict iertileplaitiffDanagezs 51. W55ITC5EAD V. FISIIERa ANO OT5SERS. SI1r. AL.EXAV.rDR openied the plcathiings. This was an sedion brougrht by theiplainti ff against the definidant-s for a-tre.spxis, which thry ha comottted incoming ttponte plaintiff's premises, and seiin Cetan atile thren pacd,his property. The defendants had pead d thegeneal isue, tid lsoiin'e special pleas., 'which substntialy rsolvd thmseles i Toto ;'first, that the goods seizd beotigd totheplaitiffwhohadf'raudnlilently and clandes- tiney rmove thni foina fam o a r. Cooke, to whiom hie was tenan,t vi distress ; and secody that they belonged to the plainif' ate, eo was also a teaan to Mr. Cooke, and who re- movdtem)t the xamne intentions as those attributed to his son. The plaintiff' in his replication deniied thlese pleas ; and thereaipofi issue was joined. til. POT, LOCK'stated the case to the 'iury. liis client, Mr. Ed- entiitlt Wh'litehead. was the son ot a Mr. Johin Whitehead, who had f r somne years been the tenant of a gentleman of thec nanie of Cooke. The deedtitants wrere ai slierifl'i officer, of' the namne of Fisher, lils assistant., andI two coistables of the township, in which the alleged trespass wa-s commnitted. Sonic time age, SIr. Jolit Whitehicad, hriving falleni .into p:'cuniarv difficulties, wished to transfer his farm tihii son., Mr. E-im;Tuti,l \Vhlitehiead, hut was hCrevented fromn docing hi' b Mi'. Cok, whio wvoultl not eot)I ent to the tranafer. Mvr. John WhVltitehad, findling himself instlvent, sold the stock o1 his fartii by s'ublic avuction ini May, 1820, w!hen his son, Si1r. Edmiunti 1Whlite. lme.uh., pts;-Chmrd -,ie ur.inrilat part of it, buit aillowed it to reniain on the i'arnm, of hiis ftithe for this benetit of his Mother and the younger br_nches of his f:amily: at the samne timie he ativancedl money for the ott. er pa rpoe., off the 'fatm, his fither beiing no longer able to provitle for themn. At the commenceintint of -he present y rar, his father's ler,se determiothI, and,, a; it wa's not renewedl,he remioved his property fro"m his riitter's ealt,is hie hail a perfect righit to do. This was at th.: ct,d uf February,ora, tile begitining of.llarch. The property had nrt be,n broixzht n inny hours toI tile pdace ivhere it was intendhed to re:Osuiin,whtcn' lCmefnat,sgc, IrCok,boeinotepe mit es. and t'on:ib!'v seized it aosprpoprt ' which had been fraudtdlently n,leclandesstinely renioveil fr.mr -)Ir. Cooke's farmT to avoid a distress al- Cer the rent was due,. I n the first instance the plaintiff res,isted thu! tfficern, and regained possession of his property; but on the next (las thec detendtu:ts r-uim with a strong hiand, matte a freshi seizure of the pre)pertv, carzied it to Ma1nchiester5 and tlierc, sold it. Tuie junvy would saee tr,io iie statioiCent he had nmade to them, that the Lace where the treApass was committed was thie plaintifl's dwelliing tie. tsC, and thatt tile property ss'izeilwn ltis propcity. Now, in the nine special picas which-the defenihants hadl pitadet), they, had mnade 1%tIr.Cor.kc, agatinst wthom lie miale no conmplaint. as lite considered him to be misled by' his agents, to say first of all to Sl1r.Edmlund 'W-hitehead, " Youi are mya) tenant, nomi. hatve TeMOVedl your property ta av'id paymieilt of my rent." an,d afterwartds to tur ron and say to) Ir. Johni Whlitehtead, " You, too. are niv' tenant-the goods remotved are vo,ir goods, antl not your snn's,and thevwererernoved to defeat Iniv caini of rent upon you." These pleas were contradictory to each other ; but it' the defendant2 made either of them good, they wouldi be t'ntitled to a verdict. He was~, hmovever, prepaeaad to say Ott the pLrt of EtliiundI Whitchead io .4r.Cooke, "You are not etititleid to c' aim any of thep;rivilegce ofa landlord over hinm,aui vou wouldI rot per- n'it hiTm to becamec vour iennnt.' Indleed, there was Iutdecisive proof ttuat Mr. Cooke! dii nct cons,ider Edmund Whitehiead as lils tenant, froini the procez7dings of hiis attorney, whio hail arrested John White. biad for 'ent tine to hint, and hiad had himi- coninied for it up to thie tine3 Of these a3si7zes. In the affidavit which it %was necessary, to draw upy fAr that pu.rpose, it Wasi5tatd that John Whitehead was indebted to Mr. Cooke op's the 25th of Mirch last in the suim of 1301., for a te. ne'nent which lie hell under him in the town of Ashton-undcr-Linc. Now, if Johin Whitelicad were Mfr. Cooke's tenant, lie had ito right to pzrnceed at all against the goals of' EIrmuntt Whitehead, miuchi le.ss to seize the hot-ly of the on e, at the same timie that he. proceedled agairnst tite eoodsofrheothier. 'I'lie otiirreal question,ttierefore, whichI they wouldI have to dleridle upon, this occasion would be tills-were the goods seized by thedeeats the property of Edlmund, or off John Whtiteheamd lie would prove to thecm that the goods were fairly boughti by the tplaintiff' a'hi fathier ; that thec plaintiff, had n. ver been the tenant of Mr. Coolkie ; and that undler s'uchl ciecum. stances the dcfentdants hail tiot the slighitest shadow of righit on which to) srlzs them. X?'lhen lie had done that, they would see that hid client was entitled to thevir verdlict ; and being entitleil to it,it would then become thlem to consitler whtat damages he ought to recover for the wron;r lie had sustainedi by the illlegai conduct of' the dlefendants. Be shioulti ask no mnore of themi than the amount of the gootIs seized, and to that a'nouint he thought the plaintiff fairly entitled. The learned counsel then called the following witniesses to prove his case:- JOseph Taylor, a siheriff's officer, swore that he recollected an exe- esition issuing in A pril, 1820, against the goods of.John Whitehead. Mr. Sergeant Ciross wished to know whethier that was thegproper rnio,e tif provinz an execution. The execution ouglht to be producetd, r.nd it wrould thien s ecak for itself. Mr. POLLOCK t;iugiht that th'ere was no occation to produce the execution, but lie wouId not pres the point at that moment. The witness conitinued.-Tpfierre was a sale of John Whitchead's gorids both at the itin and at the farmi, six days after thie execution I adi issued. He sold tihe goodsi belongit,g to the iinn; they sold for 2`41l. 19'. Edmwuntd Whitehead was thec principal pourchaser ; other Iidi%.idiuals bought Other articles wvhicit the witneiss specifleti ; lie I-inaself bought a formi, which he afterivards sold to the plaintiff. Gross-examiRed by Mr. Sergeant Cntoss.-WVhat did you do at thfis .icle. aitt how da you recollect it ?-WVhy they put me into a good hirt,i on it. ,A good birth, what do y-ou mean P-Why I lhad to pour out the gin to the boldest bitdders. (A laugh.) So you gave mrat enceurstgenient to Etdmund WVhiteheAd to bid, I suppose ?-Yes", pretty well ; I gave hiim a grea t deal of gin, but lie woulg not drink it; 'he gave it away among his friends. Yoeu sPiritedI Yourself up, r have no doubt, to mnake a bid or two YCesrstlh ?-YeS, I did bsiy a little, I moust own it. ,now, were you not one of the boldest biclders ?-Yes, I bid away, -ilI took MY gloss9 fairly in my turn. 4," Yes, I have no tloiibt that you dlid tlie'e, as you have been doing t5o-day, bidding away at the g'laas prertv boldly. (A laugh.) Joesephs Grimsaltew proved thiat he ha let the house into whichi the defendants hiad broken to Ednilund WVhitehead in the middle of last February, for a yearly rent of 181. lie recollected Edmund W~hite. head bringing goodis t-o that houise on the 1st day of 5Marchi, Or thiere. about.s, about 10 or Il o'clockcin the morning. In the course of thzat clay he recollected seeinig Fisher in the plaintiff's house. Fisher asked him on that day for sia osadacl. ins adh a nor got them: l osadacl.Wtes adh a Anoiher weitness proved the coupmistsion Of the trespass by Fisher and his mynniidons on the 1st Of March. Wina. Prescott.-! was eitnployedon the I,t of March in brin - ing good-s to Grimsahaw's cottage from BrickhallfOarrn. I brought themri between 10 and II o'clock in the forenoon. I was in the cot- taze when Fishier first broke into it. I saw Fisher in it oni the 2d of' Illarch.1 Shipley and Lanctaster were there with him. The), broke the doors of the house open, and went in. They flImng the goods outt of the chamber-windows Into the carts. (Jross-exam5inedl.-They did not fling me out of thc wintlows after the goods. Six carts were engaged In removingi the goods from John 'Whitehead's farm to Grimshaw's cottage. They had only three miles to go. Our carts arrived at Brickhall farrn at six o'clock in the mornine, which was an hour before day-light. lVe slid not be- gin to load' immediately. We waited for the other carts. The plaintitf and his farnily went to Grimshaw's cottage the very same dav that thefie carts did.e John Murphy a sheriff's officer, was called to Prove that he went to Brickhall-fanin by Fisher's orders. The goods that were seizeth were taketn to 3ianchester sad( sold. He also proved the presence of the defendants on the premises.. lt was then admitted that 021. was the amount of the troods sold under this distrese, and that the expense of the sale was 271. SIr. Radley, the plaintiff's attormey, described to the jury the business whichtheplaintifffollowed. Plaintiffwasapurchaserof goods on commission. Witness ktiew of Robert lVhitehead's advancing the plaintiff200i. in 1820, about the time of John Whitehead's saitle. He also knew that Robert Whitehead had promised to advance him 3001. more. He thought that the plaintiff was at that time in a si- tuation to make that purchase, as he had previously paid tdebts of his father to a larger amount. Plaintiff had at several times disclosed his circumstances to the witness. At that time witness was almost certain tlhat theplaintiffwasnotinsolvent. He vra a single man, in receipt of a good income. ItIr. POLLOCK said that that wegs his case, MlIr. Baron Htrr.tocx.-What property have vou'shown to be taken, MIr. Pollock, beloniging to the plaintiff ? You l-ave provefl that he was the principal nurchaser at his father's salen :1820 ; but you have onlv proved that a few very insignificant article8 thlen pur- chased were 8eized by the preseat detentlants. Alr. Por.LOci undvrsteod that it was admittled tiat tho goaas scized iioiunte;d in v aluc to 9T1. Mr. i_rgeant Cuoss said, that tloutri h hadt admitted tha, the goods seized w erc soldl for 921., he had not admitted that theyvwere the ,roods purchased by the plaintifHat his father's sale. Mr. Porl..ocv stated, that he labmured un.Ier some difficultY up- on this point, in consequence of the death of the auctionCer wlio had conducted that sale. le wouldl, however, recall the witness Taiylor, anld entleavour to airiend his case by that nman's evidence. .loseph Tavler was then recilled, and examined by Mr. TINDAL, who asked Iim whelther bie recollected several ariCles which hie read from the auctionecer's list. Sotiie oe thietii he did, and asnie of thetm he (lid not recollect. He tiso idetntified some of the articles in that list as the articles whicl the plaintiff hai bouight, and which hadt been seized by the present defendants. Being a4ked w.hetlier he re- collected a sota, lie said he did, as lie hiad laid on it tmany an hour whilst he was nursing the gin-bo tle. To a question whether lie re- collected the seale ot' anv glasses, he replied, - No; I 1adt to attend too much to the glass whichi I had in ry band, end to the gin-bottle which I was diirectecl to cherisi." lie took an inventory of the things sold in 1820 ; what ha l become of it ke didl not know; lie tad hat iale it to the auctioneer, wlho was since dead. The goods in that iiventory Avere worthl 1001. ilMr. Baron HULLOCX._I thiink YOvi have not yet succeedgd in .h,wing your right to the propertv in question, Mr. Pollock; -ad you ouaht to do that in a case of suchi stispicion as tic present, rwhese six ciLrte were brought to remove it to anothier place at six o'clock in the morning, an hour before dav-lirht commenced. Atr. TINDA.L replied, thaLt his clieit saxs in the possission of the property, and had a right to remove it, if it was hils own, at any hour, however carly, that lie thou*ht fit. I r. Barnn HIULLOCX wouo(l not stop tlte cause, tlhough lie was stronglv inclined to think that tno case had been nmade out for-tihe plaintiff, as to his rielht to the-property seizel. MIr. Sergeant CROSS then addrcscsd the jury. andl ridiculed the idlea that these goods had ever been traisferrelI by apublicsale, from .John NVhitehead, the father, to Edimund \Vrthitceiead, rhe sti. His learnedi friends bad first pretended to prove th.at tlis sale had taken place by virtue of a writ of execuition. He lrad knocked that prc- tence on the hea-4. by requiring thenm to pro(lure tlh Wrt of eteci- tion i,self; adli he wtas sure th;e jury wouLI rec6ll ct th4 consterna. tion w hichi that demand of lils hail causeil among his 1harned fri-nds. They liad then pretendled to say, thiat this property haid been trans- ferrcil to thesonat a public sale ; Iutif tliattwereso,whyhabtlley not callcd sonic of thenumerousindividaals who must have beenpresent at it, to prove it ? Theyiad called noh,ody to prove it, but thedrunken bottle-holder, who had told them all lie knew uponithe subject; bitt, unfortunately, that all anosunteid to a Terv little. It was clear, then, that this transfer was a rAere juggle and fraud-that it- bad never really taken place-and thatitwx.s only set ip todefeat the justclainmsof flihclndlord. If. then, the good s belonge(i so oli \Vhitehead,nild were fraudulently and clandestinely removed fro-n his farm to tiefeat a distress, the lanitlord and his agents tlial a right to fu:low them and1 seize them wherever they found them , and if they had that righlt, the inry must find a verdict for the defendants. Afr. Baron Hu Li.acK told the jury, that the onlv question which they liad at that moment to decidle, was this-had Ed:mund \liiite- lieitd been proved to have a right of property in the goods which were removed ti Grioishiaw's cottage, and wihich were seized on the Ist of Mlarch last ? WVith regarl to the rihl:t of the defeiidants to distrain, or to the rent that wvas in arrear, no evidence had been given; for if the goods were really Elhiunl nd liitehead's, the de- fendants had no right to seize them, and afterwards to take and sell th--m at Manchester. Ifthiey tfiougo t that tie right of Ediiiutln Whitehead to the property had been sufficiently proved, they troultl find a verdict fir the plaintiff, with damages to the amornt of the goods seized; but if they thought that his right to the property was not mnade out, then they would returts a verdict for the tIefrndantis. Mr. PoiLLcOC, withe all defcr3nce to the Court,sugge.tetd that the qulestion did not hbige oti the goods being thc plainitifr's property, but on their being in his poscession. Mr. Baron IIUT.t.ocac thougeht that there was even a defietency of evidence to show tlhiAt the goods werc in the platintiff's possession. Mlr. PaLe,ocx referred to the evidence of Grinistsiaw- Mr. Baron Ifuerroci looked at the evidence inq1uestion, and told Nr. Pollock that he might hasve a right upsn that toa farttting's da-niiges f,sr the breaking into the house. Mlr. Sergeant Cnoss remarketh, that if the other sidt- did not assert that there was no rent in arrear, the def.ndants had a ri.rlit to follo.v the goodsl wherever they were founid. Now the plaintiff hiad never till then denied that there was rentin arrear. Thejury,withoutliesitaition,returned averdict, finding :orthe plain. tiffas to the breaking into the hnuse; but for the icefendallts on the general issue as to the goods, andl also on the othier issiei, svhicls as- serted that the goonls were clanudestinely antd fraudulenltsv removed troin the farin of John Whlittheadi. to avoid. a distress. SUMATrR vSSIZES. IAINCASTRR AbOflnAV- 9rlT TilOupSo\. V. MTrpv,,,o'-