LANCASTER SUMMER ASSISES – August 1838
CIVIL COURT TUESDAY.
(BEFORE MR. JUSTICE WILLIAMS.)
RODGETT V. CALROW AND ANOTHER.
Mr. J. ADDISON opened the pleadings in this cause, which was an action for trespass. Mr. WIGHTMAN stated the case. Mr Rodgett, the plaintiff, was a manufacturer at Darwen Bank, and a man of property and high respectability. Mr. Calrow, the principal defendant, had also carried on business as a manufacturer, and was also a gentleman of the highest respectability. The right these gentlemen now desired to try was the ownership of a spot of land called , which extended down to the river Darwen, and was the boundary of the plaintiff’s estate and also adjoined the property of the defendant. The learned counsel then proceeded to describe the locality of the disputed land, and contended from the peculiarity of the situation that it must naturally be considered the property of his client. It was in 1836 the plaintiff became the purchaser of the land (which before belonged to the late Mr. Pedder), and it was to be remarked that Mr. Calrow attended that sale and was himself a bidder for the disputed ground, the same being described in the articles of sale as the Browy Pasture Wood, with half the adjoining river. The learned counsel, in conclusion, anticipated any observation that might be made on the small value of the property in dispute, by remarking that the question was not one of value, but where a man should stop in the just defence of his rights. Here the plaintiff insisted that his estate was continuous down to the river, and to make good that claim he came before the jury.
Mr. ALEXANDER, on behalf of the defendant, proposed a reference.
Mr. WIGHTMAN, after consulting awhile, declined the offer, and called his first witness.
Richard Tootle-Is a laborer; knowns Mr. Calrow. Was employed by him to cut some fence in the wood. It was about 5 yards from the water side I cut. There was a fence on the west corner at Mosney Field. It was new made. That was one we putted down. Robert Sanderson helped me. cut down the fence, entered the wood, and cut down briars and brambles all the way to the east side; we cleared all down to the water, six yards wide. We did not cut any young trees. We cut the brush wood.
Cross-examined by Mr. ALEXANDER.–Mr. Calrow directed us what to do. He did not tell us why. He said, in as a manner, it belonged to him, and they must be cut down. The fences were all new. He told me it would not be necessary to go to the extent of his boundary, but it would be sufficient if I went part of the way. We came out again on Mr. Calrow’s land on the east. The land on the opposite side is his also.
Re-examined by Mr. WIGHTMAN -That on the cast is pasture, about three-fourth of an acre. It has been Mr. Calrow’s since he bought the other. I am now in Mr. Calrow’s service. Mr. Whittaker ordered the rails to be put down. The land was claimed by Mr. Calrow.
By the COURT There were small ashes, oaks, and other kinds of wood, which grew in the plantation. There was no gate from Whittaker’s land. The hedges were quite round it.
John Whittaker examined by Mr WIGHTMAN-Is 59 years of age. Knows the Darwen Bank Estate. Has known it for the last 49 years. Witness is well acquainted with the Mosney Field and Browy Pasture Wood. Can recollect a fence which went down to the water edge 45 years ago. In the Mosney Field there were some print works. It was the same property which Mr. Calrow now has. On the failure of the Mosney Works, the estate was sold and passed into two hands. The Darwen Bank Estate was purchased by Mr. Hughes, Mr. Timothy Pollard was the next occupier. He was succeeded by Mr. Pedder, and it was afterwards sold to Mr. Rodgett, the present plaintiff. There was formerly a fence between the Browy Pasture Wood, and the rails extended down to the river into the Mosney Field Estate. There has always been a fence, except when broken down by the fishermen, near to the edge of the river, when they came for the purpose of fishing. There was no fence put up at the top till about 25 years ago. Recollects the fence being put up by Mr. Charnley, who was a tenant. The reason for his doing so was that a cow had fallen down the scarr, and broke her neck. There never was a fence before this period. The distance is about 30 feet from the water, where the bank was very steep. During the 49 years some portion of the bank had been washed into the river. During Mr. Pollard’s occupation, it was named Pollard’s Wood. He was the owner, and occupied it himself. The fence was first a railing, and was afterwards a quickset or line hedge. There was always a fence, as long as he can remember, down to the river, except when broken or troden down by fishermen. There was no fence between the river and the wood.
Cross-exd. by Mr. ALEXANDER-Witness’s brother claimed a part of the land a year ago, put it a lineable fence with the edge of the river. Mr. Calrow pulled it down there was an attorney present. His brother was not satisfied, and in all probability will put it up again.
The learned counsel directed witness to trace with a pencil on the plan, where the fence ran on the eastern side and from thence to the western side coming down to the river, which was accordingly done.
The fence which witness has drawn ended close to the river, there was no other fence that divided the property till the field was ploughed. As long as witness can recollect there was a fence on the western side of the property down to the river side. Remembers the old tunnel that went between the bottom of the wood on the south side of the river. There was a weir to the eastward of the tunnel: the tunnel was covered and ran parallel with the river to the bottom of the wood, it ran through the large field (the Mosney Field) down to the mill, which was pulled down but whether by Mr. Ashton or not, witness does not remember, recollects the two Mr. Ashton’s, thinks it must have been Mr. William who pulled the mill down. The woods stood in the Mosney field. About two years ago Mr. Rodgett became the owner. Mr. Rodgett put up no fence except what Mr. Calrow had pulled down. Will swear there has always been a fence on each side of the wood, continuing down to the river. The fences were broken down 36 years ago, but as soon as the cattle began to be troublesome they were made up again.
Re-examined by Mr. WIGHTMAN-The river is so much run into the wood that the tunnel is gone away, it was built of bricks, and when the flood came and washed it away, a number of persons came and took away the bricks. The plan now produced is correct (plaintiff’s plan.) The Mosney field was pasture land, and the cattle were grazing in it continually. The tunnel was just above the old weir.
At this stage of the proceedings Mr. Justice WILLIAMS suggested a reference. The learned judge said if the disputed property was of the least value, it would be worth while contending, but he was sorry it was only ill-blood and temper. The value was positively nothing.
Mr. ALEXANDER said such a course as his lordship recommended was highly desirable, and on the part of his client he was ready to listen to anything in reason.
A consultation of about 20 minutes duration ensued between the learned counsel and attornies on both sides, but in the end they were unable to come to any satisfactory arrangement, and the case proceeded. By the COURT. The river is fordable.
Joseph Pomfret examined by Mr. ADDISON. Is 64 years of age, and knows the farm which now belongs to Mr. Calrow, and has known it since he was 13 years old; knows the Browy Pasture Wood; there has always been a fence between Mosney Field, and the wood which comes close down to the water; the owner of the Darwen Estate made the fence when it wanted repairing: there was also a rail fence at the east end down to the water; never remembers it without a fence; there was a close at the top on the south east, which was occupied by the Darwen owners, which was open to the wood at that time.
Cross-examined by Mr. ALEXANDER. The fence separated the two properties. Will not swear the river separated them. There was no fence across the river east and west. Cant say whether there was a fence at top of the wood. Witness’ father never occupied the quarter acre on the other side of the river. John Whittaker occupied the Kittling Barn Farm. Will swear that Whittaker occupied it. Recollects the old gate; the remains are yet there and are plain to be seen. His father’s cattle used to frequent Mosny Field. The cattle went to the bottom of the gate to the field, and crossed the river lower down, and never went where the gate was. In going to the upper field, they went through a gate. They never went across the scarr. Has known the Darwen cattle driven up. There was no passage near the river side. When the cattle came below the fence, witness drove them back from the bottom of the scarr to keep them from going into the field. Has often driven them back.
Re-examined by Mr. WIGHTMAN. Drove them back because they were coming over. The river was shallow. Had no business on the Darwen Bank Farm.
Henry Boardman, examined by Mr. WIGHTMAN. IS 60 years of age. Worked at the Mosney Print Works 50 years ago. They occupied the land which now belongs to Mr. Calrow and Mr. Rodgett. Witness came from Kittling Barn to Mosney Field, the same year that the failure took place. Was tenant to Mr. Ashton, and occupied a cottage and garden. Is well acquainted with Browy Wood. There is a scarr there, and the bank is rough and steep. There was a fence as long as he knew any thing about it, and it was there when the print works were going on. There were rails by the Browy Wood down to the water-side. There was also a fence on the east side, which was sometimes broken down by people coming poaching. The river is rocky opposite the scarr. Has gone through the Browy Wood to the Mosney Field without leave, but afterwards obtained it.
Cross-examined by Mr. ALEXANDER. Worked at Kittling barn when he asked leave. Told Mr. Cookson the way he went, and got permission, provided he did not break down the fence. Mr. Mason succeeded Cookson. Did not ask leave of Mason, and was going the same road as he had been when he was stopped. Knows the quarter acre. The cattle used to come over the river, and the farmer at Kiltling Barn drove them back. There was no fence between the wood and Kitling Barn Farm. No division between his and Whittaker’s land. It was an open field. About 20 years ago first saw a hedge.
Robert Charnley, exd. by Mr. ADDISON. The evidence of this witness went to shew that his father, who was a farmer under Mr. Pedder, had ocaupied the Browy Pasture Wood, and that there was nothing to prevent the cattle going into the wood. Witness likewise proved there was a fence in Mosny Field going down to the water. Made a fence about five years ago, on account of a cow tumbling down the scarr. The fence is made at the top of the scarr.
Cross-examined by Mr. ALEXANDER-Before the cow was killed, there was no fence, nor any appearance of one. Might have walked from the upper field into the wood. His father had been 13 years there before the accident.
James Walmsley, examined. Is 49 years of age. Became a tenant of the Browy Wood in 1812, and held it for nine years. His testimony was similar to the last witness. He frequently recollected the cattle coming over the land above the brow, when they were driven back. The cattle belonged to Mr. Pomfret.
James Mason, examined by Mr. ADDISON. Is 43 years of age. His father occupied the Osbaldeston farm of Mr. Calrow for 10 years. His father had Mosney field. There was at that time a hedge between the field and the wood, but it was always in a bad state, and people trespassed. Claimed no property in Browy Pasture Wood. It was good for nothing.
Cross-examined by Mr. ALEXANDER His father kept 16 cows. The Darwen Field is sometimes called the Eyes. Claimed the quarter acre. The fence between Mosney Field and the wood was always a bad one. There was a gap. No cow could have got through. The gap was five yards from the river. Does not remember whether there was a fence at the top of the wood, and between it and the field.
Re-examined by Mr. WIGHTMAN.-Had no business at the top of the wood. The Darwen people generally made up the gaps. There was always a fence down to the water’s edge.
Thomas Bellowa, examined by Mr. WIGHTMAN-Is 73 years of age, and about 29 years ago worked with Mr. Pedder. Gave evidence of the existence of the hedge, which extended to an old black thorn, overhanging the water, and proved that there was a fence on the other side.
Thomas Snape examined by Mr. Addison. Is a joiner 37 years of age, lived at Walton-le-dale, 27 years ago. Remembers Mr. Miller, agent to Mr. Pedder, who gave directions that if they saw any wood coming down the river, they were to take it, and give Mr. Pedder credit for it. Trees slipped and came down at various times; remembers seeing John Walker in the Wood. Gave evidence against him for tres passing in the Browy Pasture Wood, on which occasion he was convicted and had to pay 20s.
John Charnley examined by Mr. WIGHTMAN In 1838. witness occupied the Browy Pasture. Had the care of the wood 14 or 15 years. There was always a fence down to the river, extending to an old thorn overhanging the river. There was no fence at the top of the wood, but one was made five years ago.
Cross-examined by Mr. ALEXANDER Has been before a justice two years ago. Some ducks were found on his premises. Was sent to the House of Correction for the month.
Never saw a fence at the scarr before he made it. Never saw the marks of an old fence.
John Cornwall examined by Mr. ADDISON-Proved he made a fence between Monsey Field and the Browy Wood, which was frequently broken down by people coming a fishing. Has know the place since he was seventeen years of age, and the fence came down close to the river.
Cross-examined by Mr. ALEXANDER-The fence was 70 vards long, and ran between the bottom and the corner, up io Whittaker’s land, which was near the Kittling Barn Beck. No fence, about 40 years since.
Mr. Edward Rodgett, by Mr. ADDISON-Is the son of the plaintif, and was present when his father bought the estate. The defendant, Mr. Calrow, was present, and bid for the property. In the bill of sale it is described as the Browy Wood, and half the river adjoining. [Particulars of sale put in as evidence.] It was in July, 1836, when the sale took place. The estate was sold for £9000.
Cross-examined by Mr Alexander–Since the sale, Mr Calrow objected to the way the estate was described; it might be two months after the purchase money was paid; Mr Calrow complained that the conditions were not properly described. The conveyance to Mr Rodgett was here put in. Mr. WIGHTMAN said he proposed to show that the owners of the
Darwen estate had six perches of the river. This was the plaintiff’s case.
Mr ALEXANDER addressed the jury on behalf of the defendant. The learned gentleman said, that considering the respectability of the parties, the one a gentleman of considerable influence and wealth, and a magistrate of the county, and the plaintiff also moving in a respectable sphere of society, he could not help thinking that it would have been much better on the plaintif’s part, if he had allowed it to go to another tribunal, as suggested by his lordship, where s rights would have been as fully protected, when a more searching and protracted enquiry could have been gone into, where the most minute investigation could have been entered upon; he must say that he deeply regretted that the plaintiff had not availed himself of the opportunity, and the learned advocate, did think that where there was an evident reluctance shewn to enter more fully and deeply into the matter, such conduct did not shew that good feeling which ought to pervade the breast of all who wished to act a kind and neighbourly part, and he would repeat that he could not help thinking that the plaintiff ought not to have thrown any obstacle into the way of an amicable arrangement, when the most searching inquiry could have been entered upon. It had however pleased Mr. Rodgett to reject this offer, and he was exceedingly sorry that he should have to trouble the jury to go into a mass of evidence, which would give a flat contradiction to the whole of the plaintiff’s case, as he should be compelled to engage their attention for a considerable time. The jury would have the greatest difficulty to decide between the perplexing evidence which would be offered on both sides, in which in all cases of this description, was generally of a contradictory nature. Indeed. the law of trespass could frequently obtain no other, and in this case he was sorry to say they would have to find their way through a cloud of contradictions, but he was sure they would bestow upon it that careful attention which it demanded. The learned gentleman then went into the particulars of the sale, and dwelt on the origin of dispute between the parties, and went into a long account of the different hands the estates had passed into since 1789, after they were sold by the Darwen Bank company, and went into the nature of the evidence which he proposed to call. He complained also that his learned friends on the other side had greatly magnified the trespass, but had the singular bad fortune to be contradicted by their own witnesses, and concluded by analizing the evidence which had been offered by the plaintiff, and commented at considerable length on the testimony of each witness.
Mr. Charles Buck. Is the attorney for the defendant, and produced the deed of conveyance to Mr. Ashton, bearing date 1789. Mr. Ashton purchased three lots, the Mosney Works, the house, and lands, and residence of Mr. Ainslie, being one of partners, and the adjoining farm. The whole was intersected by the river Darwen. Lot 30 was the Darwen Bank Estate. There is no description of river at all.
Cross-examined by Mr. WIGHTMAN- Mr. Forrest is the solicitor who acted for Mr. Pedder at the time of sale.
Mr. John Forrest examined by Mr. ALEXANDER-Was solicitor to the late Mr. Pedder’s will, acted in discharge of his trust, and gave instructions to survey and map the estate. They were general instructions. His attention was not particularly called to the boundaries. Recollects the condition of sale. Saw Mr Calrow on the subject of boundaries, before the sale took place, and had some conversation relative to the mistatement, and complained that the boundaries were incorrectly described. Referred to the map book of the late Mr. Pedder, to shew what the boundaries really were. They were Mr. Pedder’s plans. The present plaintiff became the purchaser.
Mr. Wightman objected to this course of examination pursued by his learned friend.
The Court did not see anything objectionable. Witness had no objection to produce the plan if the Court
thought proper. It was upon the plan issued that Mr. Calrow complained the boundaries had been mis-described. Mr. Calrow afterwards attended the sale. Does not remember reminding him of the mistake in the boundary. There was no attempt to make any arrangement, but communicated with Mr. Pilkington, the solicitor to Mr. Rodgett. This was
before the completion of the purchase. Cross-examined by Mr. WIGHTMAN-Made the communication to Mr. Pilkington, not to the plaintiff.
Mr. Philip Park-Is a land-surveyor, and was assistant to Mr. Miller, who was agent to Mr. Pedder. Had seen Mr. Pedder’s map-book. The map-book shews that the quarter acre field was excluded in Mr. Pedder’s plan. Has made a survey of the land in question. Made the survey last week. John Walker shewed me the traces of an old fence.
By the COURT-It was apparently an old fence made of bushes, principally hazels. Thomas Charnley, examined by Mr. BAINES-Is 73 years
of age. Has lived in Walton-le-Dale all his life. Lived for 33 years at the Osbaldeston Farm. Remembers the old tunnel and weir. The floods came and washed away the bricks. Remembers it before the failure of the Mosny Company. There was no fence at either end, but there was one across, and can speak for the last 60 years. There was the fence across as far back as he can recollect. Flitted out of the house, but not out of the parish. Pomfret’s cattle was in the habit of sheltering under the scarr many an hour. Recollects Squire Ashton becoming the purchaser. There was a sufficient fence to keep the cattle out, and prevent them from trespassing. It was above the two oak-trees. The scarr was broader at that time, than it is now. The Darwen had washed it away. Has fenced and mended the fence across. Remembers some people buying some wood of Mr. Pedder. Was applied to, to assist to bring the wood, and tumble it over the scar. Remembers the two oak trees standing between the scarr and bottom of the wood. The trees were standing last Sunday. Is certain there was no fence besides the fence across.
Cross-examined by Mr. WIGHTMAN Pomfret gave them leave to take the trees across the scarr; repaired the fence above the oak trees. Will swear there never was a fence between Mosney field and Browy Wood, till one was made above 38 years ago. Never recollects seeing a black thorn close to the river. A great number of people used to walk across. Mr. Calrow sent for witness to shew it to Mr. Rodgett 7 or 8 weeks ago.
Re-examined by Mr ALEXANDER-The fence was pulled down about three months afterwards. It was down when witness went a fishing.
By the COURT-There was a fence made before in Mosney’s time. It was formerly a place where water ran. There was no mound or bank, but it was quite level.
Richard Pomfret examined by Mr. BAINES. Is 42 years of age, and lived with his father at Osbaldeston house for 20 years, first under Mr. Ashton, and then under old Mr Calrow, the farm extended to both sides of the Darwen. It was his business to attend the cattle and have known them cross the water above the old weir and would get into the land. They used to go under the scarr into the Mosney-field. There was a fence across the scarr above the two oak trees. When he found the cattle below the fence, drove them back. Has complained about the fence being in bad order.
Cross-examined by Mr. WIGHTMAN. Remembers Henry Snape getting some stones at the bottom of the scarr. He was a tenant. Never remembers a hedge across the scarr. Can speak to 22 years. Will swear there was no railings down to the water. They might be as far distant as 20 yards. There was always an open road for the cattle.
Edward Pomfret was the next witness called by Mr. ALEXANDER, who corroborated the testimony of the preceding witness in every particular. Joseph Whamsley’s evidence went to the same effect.
James Calderbank examined by Mr. ALEXANDER. Witness proved that he remembers Mr. Pedder giving the people leave to plant potatoes for two years on the condition of clearing the land of weed. This was 32 years ago and it was adjoining the big field between the two woods used to go through the quarter acre field and through the scarr. Obtained permission of Mr. Pomfret. There was no fence on either side, he could have driven a cart across, there was nothing to prevent anything going through, nor was there the least appearance of a fence. The bed of the river is washed a little deeper, and it has encroached a little on the scarr.
Robert Mason gave a corroboration of the above. George Parkinson, aged 60, was called by Mr. ALEXANDER and proved the same. There was no new feature in his testimony.
John Blackwell, examined Lived about 200 yards from the scar, and was frequently in the habit of going from the quarter acre field down to the Mosney field. There was no fence, but a clear road.
John Walker, examined by Mr. ALEXANDER-Has lived at Cambridge all his life. Recollects a fence running along above the two oak trees, Mr. Pedder’s tenants and the fence. The centre part of the scar had given way and was very loose, and exceedingly steep. There was no division between the quarter acre field and the scar. Belonged at that time to Mr. Ashton and old Mr. Calrow. The cattle belonging to the tenants have come over in Mr. Calrow’s time and trespassed. About 12 years ago was taken before the magistrates
and fined 20s for getting pea sticks from the wood. Joseph Calderbank, and Richard Calderbank were next called and proved there was no fence at any time between the wood and Mosney Field.
Thos. Bickerstaff examined by Mr. BAINES-Had lived under old Mr. Calrow for 10 years, was farming man and left about 8 years since, there was no fence coming down to the river on either side. Remembers a tree being cut down, it was taken into Mr. Calrow’s yard. Fetched an alder tree away which had been cut down above the oak tree, they were sent into Mr. Calrow’s yard, and sold among the rest of the wood
Cross-examined by Mr. WIGHTMAN-The tree was very smooth and of triffing value, not exceeding a few shillings.
Mr. ALEXANDER said that was his case.
Mr ALEXANDER applied to his lordship to have Mr. Pedder’s plan produced for the inspection of the jury.
Mr. WIGHTMAN TOOK an objection.
The Learned JUDGE was of opinion that it was a matter entirely for Mr. Forrest’s decision, if Mr. Forrest did not object to produce, it certainly might be received.
A long argument ensued between the learned counsel, and the plan was eventually put in. This was the old plan excluding the disputed ground, the quarter acre field. Other plans produced both by plaintiff and defendants solicitors were also handed to the jury.
Mr WIGHTMAN, on behalf of the plaintiff made a long and elaborate reply to Mr Alexander’s arguments. The learned counsel observed he did not know what impression his learned friend’s defence might have made on the minds of the jury, or what result they might arrive at, but he did think Mr. Rodgett had a right to complain of the manner in which his learned friend had conducted the defence. He was treated in a very unfair manner, and his friend had endeavoured to mislead and perplex his witnesses. He granted it must have been exceedingly convenient for Mr. Calrow to have the way along the scar, and he had already encroached out of the boundary, and a little farther encroachment would he doubted not be highly desirable to that gentleman. But he would wish the jury to look to the simple facts of the case. In 1836 the estate was put up for auction, and Mr. Calrow knowing as he says, the conditions were not properly and correctly described, does not say a word about it, but suffers Mr. Rodgett to purchase it. If he had possessed any true feeling on the subject, he would have immediately said, why your place is not worth one farthing, you are purchasing property which they have not the power to sell. But instead of doing so, he suffers the plaintiff to buy an estate on a false plan, and then turns round on the purchaser and says this is my property you have been buying, and I shall not suffer you to enjoy it.
The learned gentleman then proceeded to comment on the circumstance of his learned friend not putting in Mr. Calrow’s conveyance, and the great dexterity which his learned friend evinced, and the ingenuity displayed in his remark that as the other side had refrained from producing the conveyances he should follow the same plan. Why, no, his learned friend very well knew that it would by no means be convenient for Mr. Calrow to have produced the conveyance of the Scarr and Darwen Estates, as purchased by Mr. Calrow’s father in 1812, in which the boundaries were accurately described. Such a document would have been worth all his witnesses put together. Why, it would have spoken volumes. Mr. Justice WILLIAMS complimented the learned Counsel on both sides, for the legal ability they had displayed, and for the very moderate time they had occupied in addressing the court and jury. His lordship then in a very luminous charge, which took a very considerable time in delivery, proceeded to say that parties had an undoubted right to try their right to their own possessions, and they had instances in which the most triffling pieces of land had even set brothers by the cars; for his own part, he only wished that the land in dispute, had really been worth while contending about, he really could have wished it had been of the value of some fifty or a hundred thousand pounds, instead of so many shillings or pence. His Lordship said he was exceedingly glad that some of the jury had taken a view of the estate, and were familiar with the neighbourhood, for he must say, in the whole course of his experience, he never before heard in a British court of justice such flagrant, barefaced, and shameful contradiction, so exceedingly direct and positive on both sides. He was willing to put the most charitable construction upon such conflicting testimony, but it was really lamentable or painful to behold such palpable misstatements made about a bit of stuff, not even worthy of the name of ground, whose only worth was that instead of feeding cattle, it was celebrated for breaking their necks. The learned judge then entered into a comprehensive view of the evidence as presented on both sides, and commented on the circumstance of Mr. Calrow having suffered the plaintiff to purchase without a remonstrance. It would have only been natural for the defendant Why, what do you mean by selling this land, it is already mine, for by my father’s conveyance, I have not only this, but something beyond it.” This would have been a natural observation arising from having a personal interest in the laud, but the only question the jury would have to decide upon, and to which he should direct their attention was is the river Darwen the real boundary of the estate, or has the plaintiff a right to the fence already described?
Then he would repeat he was exceedingly glad that the the Jury had seen this stumpy place, for for in i the whole of his professional life, he had never witnessed such astonishing contradiction. The Learned Judge said he could only compare it to something like a debate whether there were any pillars in this court or not. He would again say he never did witness such a shocking perversion of the truth. His lordship need not tell the Jury, nor would he pay such a poor compliment to their understandings, that because there were ten witnesses on the one one side, side, and thirteen on the other, each giving the most direct and flat contradiction to the other, that they would give credit to the statement of the majority. They must be, on whatever decision they might arrive at, entirely governed by facts. It was very true, there were not many acts of ownership, that they could not expect from such a barren waste as this bone of contention presented, for in point of fact, it was literally valueless. The Jury retired, absolutely loaded with plans, maps, bills of sale, conveyances, and other documents. After they had been out for a short time, the learned counsel on both sides said that they would not trouble his lordship to remain, it being agreed that Mr. Forrest should receive the verdict.
The Court rose at seven o’clock, and the trial lasted ten hours.
There were a number of elegantly dressed ladies on the bench, who seemed highly amused with the manner in which some of the witnesses gave their testimony. The Court was crowded throughout the day.
In the course of the evening the Jury delivered a verdict in favour of the plaintiff at the Judges’ Lodgings.
LANCASTER SUMMER ASSISES
Date: Saturday, Aug. 11, 1838
Publication: Lancaster Gazetter
Gale Primary Sources, British Library Newspapers:
https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/R3209089196/BNCN?u=lancs&sid=bookmark-BNCN&pg=2&xid=482de99b
–