Maryport History (click here for home page)

1897 Crosby Chapel Trustees Court claim

Crosby Chapel Trustees Settlement At Cockemouth County Court August 3rd 1897

Crosby Chapel Trustees Court claim 1897

(Typed from newspaper cutting of 1897)

ACTION BY CROSBY CHAPEL TRUSTEES at Cockermouth County Court August 3rd 1897
A SATISFACTORY SETTLEMENT


This was a case in which
William Burns, Crosby, collier,
Jos Ravell, Allerby, platelayer,
Jas. Melville, Manchester, pumpman,
Geo. Ritson, Cockermouth, sinker, and
Wm. Donald, Dearham, engineer,
the trustees at the Primitive Methodist Chapel, Crosby, sued
Robert Askew, stationer, Aspatria, and
Wm. Askew, engineman, Crosby, for £8 7s 4d

for damages for injury done to the inner walls of the Primitive Methodist Chapel, Crosby, by damp alleged to have been caused by the illegal action of the defendants in injuring the outer wall of the chapel.

The plaintiffs also claimed damages against the defendants for trespassing on land belonging to the plaintiffs and for breaking open a door leading thereto. They further asked for an injunction to restrain the defendants from further trespassing on the land, and from breaking open the door.

Mr T. S. Little, barrister, instructed by Mr G. W. Turney, appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr C. Cavanagh, barrister, instructed by Mr E. N. Lightfoot, represented the defendants. The parties were in negotiation during the morning, and when the case was called Mr Little said he thought that if it was not called upon for a few minutes it might possibly facilitate matters. Subsequently, after much conferring with clients, Mr Cavanagh said he was happy to say that the parties had come to an arrangement.

The terms of arrangement were that the defendants acknowledged plaintiff’s title to the land between the chapel wall and the defendant’s wall, and the plaintiffs agreed that defendants shall have access at reasonable times to clear the drain and repair the gable end of the wall of their own property upon giving notice to the plaintiffs, the defendants to pay £5 for damages, no costs on either side,

Mr Cavanagh added that he thought be might say that the Court had been spared a very long hearing and perhaps a very difficult case, dealt with from any aspect. The property was very small value and in the circumstances be thought the litigants were to be heartily congratulated upon the result.

The case was accordingly struck out, as being settled upon terms.