Rothbury

‘ATTEMPTED LAND GRAB ON ROTHBURY COMMON’

by

In the Parish of Rothbury, owners of burgages (houses) and crofts, had for many decades, if not for several centuries, the right to graze their livestock on Rothbury Common. However, a certain landowner tried to change this in the early part of the 19th Century by attempting to enclose part of the Common for his own use.

As you can imagine, this did not go down well with the local populace and resulted in one local man, William Bolam (owner of a house, land and innkeeper of the Star Inn, all in the Parish of Rothbury) taking a civil court action against the land grabber, Adam Atkinson of nearby Lorbottle House.

Amongst the archives of Alnwick solicitors, Dickson Archer and Thorp, are bundles of papers representing the evidence gathered for the legal battle. Included in the bundles is a transcript of the court case.

The case was heard in the Nisi Prius Court (a hearing of civil cases before a judge and jury), part of the Northumberland Summer Assizes held in Newcastle upon Tyne and heard before Mr Justice Bailey on Thursday, the 16th August 1827. Representing William Bolam (the plaintiff) were barristers Brougham and Weightman and for Adam Atkinson (the defendant) were barristers Williams; Parke and Cresswell.

Mr Weightman (the junior barrister for the plaintiff) opened the proceedings by stating that ‘the plaintiff was in possession of a house and land in the Parish of Rothbury which gave him the Right of Common on the waste called Rothbury Common for his cattle, couchant and levant, namely horses, cows and sheep’. He went on to declare that ‘the defendant had put eight hundred sheep upon the said Common and had built a certain line of wall to the great injury of the Common and further prejudice of the said plaintiff’s right’.

The plaintiff’s senior barrister, Mr Brougham, then addressed the court with further detail of the circumstances – ‘Mr William Bolam, being in possession of a house, garden and a croft of land at Rothbury, had a right to graze his cattle on the Common there and had brought this action against Adam Atkinson Esq. of Lorbottle because not being content to enjoy his Right of Common like others possessed of a burgage tenement, he had thought it expedient to enjoy his portion by enclosing it and accordingly built a wall across part of the Common’. He went on to state ‘by this mode of proceeding, Mr Atkinson had added a large tract of land to his own estate, which was adjoining, without the formality of buying in the usual way’.

Mr Brougham went on to state that over a number of years, Mr Atkinson had annexed a considerable tract of land called Threap Ground, which was considered as ‘debateable ground, it may belong to Lorbottle Common or it may belong to Rothbury Common, at present we will say nothing about that but the land below the Threap Ground was never disputed, it has always been known to be Rothbury Common’. Continuing, Mr Brougham stated that Mr Atkinson then decided to annex the better land below Threap Ground, first ‘he took in 42 acres more. He then went to the Bank Head Shank and there having only 402 acres, thought he would go a little to the southward and take 420 acres more …… he gave directions for the building of this wall which was to enclose his part from the rest’. At this point, Mr Brougham informed the court that Mr Atkinson’s actions reminded him of the early settlers of North America that ‘when they want a piece of ground, they just sit themselves down on the corner of a neighbour’s estate and exercise this sort of possession for twenty years’ adding that ‘everybody knows that twenty years possession gives a right of property’. Mr Brougham carried on for several more minutes with various points of common law rights concluding with ‘…. to stop them before they get their enclosure completed. We do not seek to recover damages but to beg the question of right’.

His colleague, Mr Weightman then took over by calling a number of witnesses to be examined by giving historical evidence as to the use of the Common including the land that had been taken by Mr Atkinson. All of the witnesses for the plaintiff stated that the land in question had always been part of Rothbury Common and that those that qualified had always grazed their livestock on it.

Mr Weightman called Edward Smith, a local surveyor who stated that he had earlier been employed by Mr Atkinson to make a plan of Lorbottle Estate. Mr Smith stated that Mr Atkinson had told him ‘….. to get a person who knew the boundaries to point them out to him’.

This plan, was produced to the court and accepted by Mr Smith as the one that he had drawn up with the assistance of a Mr Balmer (now deceased). Mr Smith pointed out that the green line on the plan was drawn by Mr Balmer’s direction and excluded the Threap Ground. Continuing under oath, Mr Smith said that when he showed Mr Atkinson how far he had gone, Mr Atkinson was dissatisfied. At this, Mr Brougham said ‘Aye, aye, he was not pleased at that, he had not enough you know’. Mr Smith further stated he had to redraw the plan with guidance from Mr Atkinson himself and then with the assistance of a shepherd employed by Mr Atkinson.

After the plan was redrawn to the satisfaction of Mr Atkinson, orders were given to a Walter Johnson, a local builder, for the wall to be built.

Several more witnesses for the plaintiff were called, all giving more or less the same evidence about the historical use of the Common by those who had the ‘Right of Common’.

Finally, Mr Brougham stood up and announced ‘That’s my case, my Lord’.

The judge, Mr Justice Bailey, commented that the building of such a wall, even though it was open at each end, was an obstruction to cattle grazing on common land on the north side of the wall.

Mr Williams, the defendant’s senior barrister, immediately responded by saying that in his and his client’s opinion there was no evidence to suggest that any cattle ever grazed on the north side.

Mr Justice Bailey responded by saying that where there was a Right of Common (i.e. access to graze animals on all of the common acreage), then that right must be upheld.

Mr Williams then addressed the jury: ‘The charge as presented before them and laid was that the plaintiff was entitled to a Right of Common over a place where a wall had been erected having a house and premises which are capable of maintaining in the winter the cattle for which he claimed the right in the summer and he had to submit to them that the plaintiff had not made out to their satisfaction either that he had the right in question or that that right extended over the Common to the wall in question’. He went to question the evidence given by several of the plaintiff’s witnesses and then followed that by saying ‘There was no evidence of any Right of Common where this wall was built. The wall was erected in the presence of Mr Clint, the head umpire between the Duke of Northumberland and Mr Atkinson. If then the Duke was satisfied, it was pretty evident that everything to the north of the wall belonged to Mr Atkinson.’ He then submitted to the court ‘That the building of the wall, with the sanction and under the inspection of the Agent for the Duke, showed that the Lorbottle estate extended to the wall.’ He ended his address by saying that there was no evidence of the plaintiff (Mr Bolam) having premises which gave him the Right of Common that he claimed and that the wall was the correct and proper boundary over which the plaintiff had no right to pass and that his client (Mr Atkinson) was entitled to a verdict in his favour.

Mr Justice Bailey then summed up the evidence saying that ‘The points for the consideration of the jury would be, had the plaintiff the right to which he claimed on that Common.’ He went to say to the jury that ‘The circumstance of the Duke being satisfied respecting the boundary line was no ground that the commoners should concede a right which they previously held.’ Carrying on, he said that for the Duke to be satisfied it would be on evidence and that evidence should be produced to the court. As no such evidence was produced it was for the jury to decide that if the plaintiff had Right of Common and if the answer was yes, then they have to decide if the wall was preventing access for the plaintiff’s cattle and that the fact that the wall was open at each end does not vary the case, if there was a Right of Common then the wall was a clear obstruction of that right.

The jury then retired and after a short consultation returned with the verdict – ‘We find for the plaintiff in respect of horse grass. Damages of one shilling and we think the wall should be taken down.’

The Tyne Mercury; Northumberland and Durham and Cumberland Gazette published on the 21st August 1827 reported on the case and ended with the following:

‘The important and interesting case of Bolam v. Atkinson having been decided in favour of the plaintiff, a numerous assemblage of people, inhabitants of Rothbury and the neighbourhood, proceeded on Friday afternoon with an elegantly decorated chair to meet Mr E Wilson and the plaintiff. The former, on account of his assiduous and preserving exertions in promoting the favourable issue of the case, was placed in the chair, and carried in triumph to the house of the plaintiff (the Star Inn), amidst the shouts and acclamations of hundreds.’

 

Postscript

William Bolam died in October 1829 and was buried in All Saints churchyard, Rothbury on the 18th October. His Will described him as an Innkeeper of the Star Inn, Rothbury.

 

This blog was produced by a project volunteer, we would like to thank them for their time and research. 

 

 

 

Housebreaking in the Parish of Rothbury

by

Housebreaking in the Parish of Rothbury

The Northumberland Michaelmas Quarter Sessions were held on Thursday, 17th October 1889, at the Moot Hall, Newcastle upon Tyne. Presiding over the court was Sir Matthew W Ridley who was supported by seven magistrates and the Under Sheriff for Northumberland. After the grand jury were sworn in, the chairman of the bench (Sir Matthew W Ridley) addressed the jury saying that the calendar only consisted of nineteen cases and, with the exception of two cases of alleged indecent assault, the rest were ‘ordinary alleged offences of larceny’.’

Thomas Smith did not have to wait very long before he was brought from the cells and placed at the bar in front of the bench. He was charged with two counts of housebreaking in the Rothbury area of Northumberland. The court clerk stood to state that Thomas was a bookmaker, aged twenty three years of age, and believed to be from Newcastle.

The Charges

The charges in the two cases against Thomas Smith were read out to the court.

Firstly, ‘For that the said Thomas Smith on the twenty eighth day of August now last past at the Parish of Rothbury in the said County feloniously did break and enter the dwelling house of George Robinson there situate and therein feloniously did steal one five shilling piece, one shilling, one sixpence, one half rupee, one twenty five cent piece in silver and two half pennies in copper of the monies, goods and chattels of George Robinson’.

The brief for the prosecution. REF: NRO 11343/B/DAT

Secondly, ‘For that the said Thomas Smith on the twenty eighth day of August now last past at the Parish of Rothbury in the said County feloniously did break and enter the dwelling house of John Starrs there situate and therein feloniously did steal one silver Geneva watch of the goods and chattels of the said John Starrs’.

Thomas was asked if he was guilty or not guilty to which he replied ‘I am not guilty of stealing but I am guilty of having them in my possession’.

The first charge related to Thomas breaking into the house of George Robinson, a farmer who lived with his spinster sister Mary at Sandilands in the Parish of Rothbury. The second charge was breaking into the house of John Starrs, a general labourer, who lived at nearby North Chirnells with his wife Mary.

The Proof in the first case

Thomas’s trial commenced with the prosecution calling Mary Robinson who, under oath, stated ‘My brother was out and I left between 1.30 and 2 o’clock in the afternoon. I got back between 9 & 10 o’clock the same night. When I left the house in the afternoon I locked it up. When I returned the door was not locked. The drawers downstairs were turned up. The boxes and bed upstairs were also turned up. Everything was right when I left in the afternoon’.

George Robinson was then called and under oath confirmed that he had left the house at about eight o’clock that morning and returned with his sister between nine and ten o’clock that night. He went on to say that the door into the house was unlocked and that on entering they found drawers downstairs had been forced open and emptied and on going upstairs found that boxes had been broken into with their contents lying on the floor. In addition to all of this one of the beds had been ‘turned up’. Continuing, he was able to confirm and describe items that were missing – ‘I missed a five shilling piece, a half rupee, a 25 cent piece, a sixpence worn with a hole in it, some old halfpennies one of which was dished on the edge and was of the reign of George III. I also missed a shilling that that had a lion in it and a number of three penny pieces. I identify clearly the five shilling piece produced by a nick in the edge. I also identify the sixpence produced by the hole on it by it being so worn and 2 Gs on the man’s neck on it as being mine. I further identify the George III halfpenny produced by being dished in the edge as being mine. The lion shilling produced, the half rupee produced and the 25 cent piece produced, and the old halfpenny produced are like what I had. I had several 3 penny pieces and in the money produced there are several 3 penny pieces but I can not identify them. The money was in a box in a drawer downstairs altogether. The lock of the box in the drawer had been wrenched open’.

Further statements were given by Police Constables Metcalf and Aitchison, Police Sergeants Bowmaker and Ewart, and Police Superintendent Dobson. But, as these overlapped with the second case, the contents of their statements will be explored together.

The Proof in the second case

Mary Starr was called by the prosecution and under oath she stated that her husband had left the house at about nine-thirty that morning and she at a quarter-to-two in the afternoon. She confirmed that she had fastened the windows and shutters and had locked the door as she left. Mary continued – ‘I returned a little before 9 o’clock in the evening. When I put the key in I could not unlock the door but when I turned the key the other way I locked the door. There was a false sneck on the door which still prevented the door opening. I forced the door open. I noticed nothing particular downstairs but when I went upstairs I found the doors open and when I left in the morning I had closed them. On going into my bedroom I noticed the bed had been turned up. I then looked round to see if my watch was hanging over the mantel piece but I found it was gone. The watch was hanging there in the morning when I left. I identify the watch produced as my property. Half of the small pointer is off. In the other rooms upstairs the locks of 2 boxes had been forced open and the contents had been ransacked. A cupboard upstairs had also been ransacked’.

For whatever reason Mary’s husband, John Starr, was not called by the prosecution.

Common Proof in both cases

Police Constable William Metcalf was called and under oath he stated that on the twenty eighth of August last, he had been on plain clothes duty with Constable Peter Aitchison for the annual Rothbury flower show. He went on to say – ‘In the forenoon about 11.30 when the train arrived, we saw the prisoner Smith and Williams and other 2 men go through Rothbury towards Thropton, shortly afterwards they returned into the town and from information having been received of a shop in Rothbury having been broken into, we visited the Station Hotel [now known as the Coquetvale Hotel] and saw prisoner Smith with Williams and another man in the bar’. Continuing, Constable Metcalf said that he approached the three men and told them that he wished to speak to them outside.

An aerial view of Cragside, near Rothbury, and its surrounding area. This picture was taken in 1910 and, from the high angle, it shows the Coquet Valley in Coquetdale. This photograph is part of a larger collection taken by local commercial photographer John Worsnop. 
NRO 01449/541

Once outside of the hotel, they were met by Police Sergeants Ralph Ewart and James Bowmaker. Sergeant Ewart apprehended Smith on suspicion of breaking into a shop at Rothbury. Williams and the other man were apprehended by Sergeant Bowmaker and Constable Aitchison. The group then started to make their way to the police station.

Constable Aitchison under oath stated ‘I saw Sergt. Ewart take hold of the prisoner Smith. I and Sergt. Bowmaker took hold of the other men. We came towards the police station, Sergt. Ewart was first with Smith. When on the bridge, the prisoner Smith made his escape from Sergt. Ewart and ran along the river side. I followed. The prisoner jumped into the water’. Constable Aitchison continued under oath to state that as he followed Smith into the river, he saw Smith throw a purse; a crowbar and a watch into the water and as he reached Smith ‘he attempted to stab me with a knife which he afterwards threw into the water’. Aitchison stated that Sergeant Ewart and Constable Metcalf came to his assistance and that he witnessed Sergeant Ewart recover the said items from the river.

Constable Metcalf, under oath stated ‘When Smith was in the water I saw him throw several articles into the water. Before P C Aitchison got a hold of him in the water, Smith drew a knife and attempted to stab P C Aitchison. Aitchison then got hold of the prisoner’. Metcalf went on to state that ‘I searched the prisoner and found in his possession a five shilling piece, a 25 cent piece, one half rupee, a lion shilling, one sixpenny piece which are now produced. I also found 16 three penny pieces, 5 pennies and 6 halfpennies and 2 farthings which are also produced. I handed them all to Supt. Dobson at the Rothbury police station’. Smith was escorted to the police station where a further search of Smith by Sergeant Ewart found a leather bag containing ten skeleton keys and another shilling in Smith’s boot.

The prosecution then called Sergeant Ralph Ewart who, under oath, confirmed his part of the apprehension of Smith and of the other men and subsequent events as told by Constables Aitchison and Metcalf.

Sergeant James Bowmaker was called on the twenty ninth of August, the following day, and under oath said that Superintendent Dobson gave him the skeleton keys and crowbar to see if they matched evidence at the crime scenes. Bowmaker stated that one of the skeleton keys operated the door lock at John Starrs and that ‘an indentation on the front side of one of the boxes exactly corresponded with the turned end of the crowbar’.

The final witness for the prosecution, Police Superintendent Thomas Dobson, was called and under oath. He confirmed that all of the recovered stolen items had remained in his possession since receiving them at Rothbury Police Station on the 28th August. He also confirmed that on the same day, he had been given the crowbar and bag containing the skeleton keys. Both had remained in his custody except when, on the 29th August, he had given them to Sergeant Bowmaker for comparison to evidence at the crime scene at John Starr’s house.

The prisoner was then asked if he wished to say anything in his defence and he reiterated that he did not break into the houses but that he had been in the company of a man who did.

The jury were then instructed by the chairman of the bench to retire from the courtroom and to return when they had decided on their verdict.

The Verdict and Sentence

When the jury returned, their verdict was announced. Smith had been found guilty on both charges of housebreaking.

The chairman of the bench responded by saying that the man the prisoner spoke of was a professional burglar and bad company. He went on to say that there was no evidence that the prisoner had been convicted before and that he hoped that Smith would not appear in front of the bench again. He then pronounced sentence, Thomas was to serve six months imprisonment on each charge with the sentences to run concurrently.

Thomas was then led back to the cells below the courtroom and later that day he was returned to the Newcastle Gaol situated in Carliol Square where he served his sentence.

Searches of various records have been made to try and find out what happened to Thomas after his release from prison but it was found that there were a number of Thomas Smiths in the region all of whom were of a similar age thus making it impossible to pinpoint ‘our’ Thomas.

 

We would like to give a special thanks to the volunteer whom tirelessly researched and produced this blog piece.