28th March 1817: Heathcoat & Boden awarded £10,000 compensation for their 'Loughborough Job' losses

It was reported in the Leciester Chronicle of Friday 28th March 1817 that during the recent Leicester Assizes, the owners of the lace factory at Loughborough that had been attacked by Luddites - Messrs Heathcoat & Boden - had brought a case against the local authority for compensation and had won an enormous sum:

At our assizes during the present week, Messrs. Heathcote and Boden obtained a verdict for ten thousand pounds, subject to the award of a Referee, from the Hundred of West Goscote, for injury done to their premises on the 20th June last, by the Luddites. A meeting of the inhabitants of the Hundred is called, to take the business into consideration.

29th July 1815: Simon Orgill's compensation case comes before Leciester Assizes

On Saturday 29th July 1815, Leicester Assizes heard the case of Simon Orgill, a manufacturer from Castle Donington, whose Mill had been attacked by Luddites the previous year. He had brought a compensation claim against the relevant local authority. The Nottingham Review of 4th August 1815 carried a report of the case:

LEICESTER ASSIZES, July 29.

Orgill v. Smith and Draper.

At these Assizes came on the trial of an action brought to recover a compensation in damages, to the amount of £512, by the Plaintiff, Mr Simon Orgill, resident at Castle Donington, in the County of Leicester, from the Defendants, Smith and Draper, as two of the inhabitants of the hundred of Westgoscote, in that county, for the injury done to the lace machines of the Plaintiff, by a number of persons called Luddites, on the night of Easter Sunday, 1814.

Mr. J Balguy opened the pleadings.

Mr. Serjeant Vaughan, leading Counsel for the Plaintiff, in an energetic and energetic speech to the Jury, went through the whole of the facts, and in very strong terms reprobated the frame-breaking system which had so long disgraced the town and neighbourhood of Nottingham. The learned Counsel then called evidence to prove, as in the first instance, the observance of the formal requisites of the statues, then the particulars of the demolition of the Plaintiff’s property, and afterwards the amount of the damages; these were established to the satisfaction of the Learned Judge, leaving some very respectable witnesses un-examined, and the case, on the part of the Plaintiff, closed.

Mr. Clarke, in addressing the Jury on the part of the Defendants, wished to impress upon their minds that the machinery in question did not come within the meaning of the Act; and he also called evidence in mitigation of damages. The first witness called on part of the defence was Thomas Wagstaff, whose evidence was confined to the value of the frames; the next was Benjamin Clarke, a resident of Nottingham, but who had formerly been in the employ of Mr. Orgill for eleven years; when cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Copley, he was obliged to disclose the cause of his leaving the Plaintiff’s service, his having been apprehended on suspicion of breaking the machines, &c. and he evinced great reluctance to answer such questions as were put to him, but the Court directed them to be answered, as being relative to the cause in question. The next evidence called on the part of the Defendants, was William Tunnicliff, a resident of Castle Donington, and also formerly in the employ of Mr. Orgill. This witness was called to state his opinion of the amount of the damage done to the machines. He underwent a severe cross-examination by the Plaintiff’s Counsel, as to the cause of his leaving Mr. Orgill’s service, his signing a paper addressed to Mr. Orgill, demanding an advance of wages, &c. and his further cross-examination was prevented by his suddenly fainting away. This closed the case on the part of the Defendants.

Serjeant Vaughan then, in a speech fraught with his usual eloquence, addressed the Jury on the part of the Plaintiff, and animadverted most keenly on the nature of the evidence produced on the part of the Defendants. He took occasion to observe, that had his Learned friend, Mr. Clarke, chosen to have posted up a notice on the nearest toll bar to the town of Nottingham, he might have been supplied with shoals of evidence equal to such as had been called in on the part of the Defendants.

His Lordship, in summing up the evidence, expressed the Jury, in very strong terms, his decided opinion that the case on the part of the Plaintiff had been fully established in point of law, and that the Plaintiff had a clear right to recover from the hundred the amount of his damages.

The Jury retired a few minutes, and returned a verdict for the Plaintiff—Damages 400l.

However, the case did not conclude here: the judgment was appealed by the local authority, and would re-appear at the Court of Kings Bench later in the year.

11th August 1813: West Riding manufacturers are compensated at York Summer Assizes

On Wednesday 11th August, the York Summer Assizes heard a number of cases for compensation brought by manufacturers affected by Luddism. As the Leeds Mercury later clarified, the compensation took into account the destruction of machinery only if the building had been attacked. The compensation awarded was as follows (£, shilling & pence):

Vickerman - £127.3.6
Dyson - £53.14.0
Hinchliffe - £98.13.4
Hirst - £96.4.4
Garner - £14.9.6
Balderstone - £15.3.8
Hepworth - £6.16.6
Pitchforth - £3.0.0
Foster - £291.4.6
Roberts - £0.5.0

Baron Wood heard the cases. Three cases were nonsuited because the plaintiffs allowed the Luddites entry - Callow, Swallow & S Swallow. Another case was successfully defended by the Sheriff of the Hundred - that of Sykes.

17th June 1813: James Alan Park cautions the Home Office about cases brought by West Riding Manufacturers

Linc. Inn Fields, June 17th
1813

My dear Sir,

I mentioned to you & the Lord Sidmouth, that I had presented certain cases from being brought on at the last Assizes at York, from a desire not to have the witnesses, who had given evidence, particularly the accomplices upon the Special Commission, again submitted unnecessarily to public inspection. I communicated this to Mr Baron Thomson, who highly approved of my motives. I had another inducement for my conduct, which I considered as highly connected with the public interest, namely, that in the discussion of these civil rights, it would appear, by the decision of the Judge, what cases fell within the riot act, & what did not: & how far rioters might go in the execution of their plans, without incurring the guilt of felony

It did It did not appear to me to be wise to have this too generally known, especially in the County of York. I therefore thought, that it was by no means an unwise proceeding to inform Government of these proceedings causes, before I permitted them to be tried, & as the sum sought to be recovered in all these cases is not large, humbly to suggest to his Majesty’s Secretary of State, whether it would not be wise to pay these monies, rather than have the matters discussed. Every one of the Sufferers has really been injured by the Riots, & all of them are well entitled to the merciful consideration of Government: although perhaps the same reasons, which operated upon my mind not to persevere in the prosecutions, might in strictness prevent them from recovering against the Governments Hundred. No harm can arise, because the precedent can never be drawn into any thing like a determination on the part of Government to relieve in similar cases.

The whole sum sought by all the Complainants is under £530—& if the remaining £170—making up £700. is Scattered amongst all of them to pay the Costs of the Defts which must be done, if the plaintiffs do not proceed, I think every one would be satisfied—& all the dangers I apprehend the discussion would be avoided. Or perhaps the Hundred would agree to let the causes drop without requiring Costs. However, if that is to be attempted it should be so, before Government are known to interfere. At all events, if His Majesty’s Secretary of State do not think proper to adopt my suggestion, I really think the parties ought to be put in status quo, as if I had not interposed: for the plaintiffs, who withdrew their records, on my suggestion, will have to pay Costs to the Dfts for having done so. I beg Lord Sidmouth’s earliest convenient attention to this business, as the Assizes are again approaching, & I remain, with much regard, Dear Sir,

Very faithfully Your’s
J A Park.

20th April 1813: Cases of machine-breaking & compensation at the Chester Lent Assizes

The Chester Lent Assizes of 1813 saw some residual matters from the outbreaks of Luddism of 12 months previously come before it.

Two men from Newton, near Hyde, were before the Court for breaking machinery: John Cooper, a 23 year-old collier was charged with destroying a blowing machine belonging to Messrs Sidebottom at Mottram-in-Longdendale, and John Smith Rigby a 22 year-old hatter, the latter charged with breaking the only shearing-frames outside of West Yorkshire at Tintwistle 12 months earlier. Their prospects were not good, not least because 3 of the manufacturers targetted in the attacks had urged the Home Secretary to bring the matters to court. However, they were acquitted & discharged by proclamation, although they both had to enter into a recognizance for £40 to appear before the court if called upon.

In addition, the Manufacturers affected by the disturbances successfully brought cases for compensation against the relevant local authorities, and the outcome was as follows (the defendants names are the Constables for the relevant parishes in the hundred of Macclesfield):

Sidebottom v Garside - £220. 9s.
Turner v Cartwright - £27. 10s.
Rhodes v Garside - £80.
Thornley v Garside - £50.
Sidebotham v Garside - £45.
Wood v Garside - £58.
Wood v Vaux - £80. 8s. 8d.
S. Malkin v Vaux - £31. 8s. 5½d.
W. Malkin v Vaux - £7. 16s. 2½d.
Mason v Cartwright - £31. 16s.
Allen v Cartwright - £5. 12s. 6d.
Jacob v Cartwright - £1030.
Clegg v Cartwright - £29.
Goodier v Cartwright - £437
Holland v Vaux - £21. 15s. 1d.
Radcliffe v Cartwright - £70.
Hindley v Cartwright - £56. 6d.
Rowland v Cartwright - £5
Orme v Vaux - £21. 5s. 1d.

17th March 1813: Cases at the York Lent Assizes

The York Lent Assizes for 1813 concluded with sentencing on Wednesday 17th March, but by then, several cases connected with the Luddites had been before the Court.

Two teenagers from Huddersfield - Joseph Sykes, a 15 year-old cropper and John Thornton, a 14 year-old wool-sorter, had been accused of breaking into the house of Abraham Horsfall (most likely William Horsfall's father) in Huddersfield and stealing spirits and other articles. They were found Not Guilty.

Various manufacturers whose premises were attacked by Luddites had brought compensation claims against the local authority. The Leeds Intelligencer covered what happened:

Thirteen different actions were brought by manufacturers and others, against the Hundred or Wapentake of Agbrigg and Morley, to recover compensation for damages done to their machinery and buildings by the Luddites. The business was to have come on, on Tuesday, when Mr. Parke, counsel for the Plaintiffs, stated his objections to the court, against their proceeding. Five of the actions were ordered to stand over till the next assizes; and the records on the remaining eight were withdrawn, under the expectation that Government will make the requisite compensation to the sufferers.

Finally, a case left over from the York Special Commission was also heard. Again, the Leeds Intelligencer had the details:

James Starkie, who was held to bail, to appear at the present Assizes, on a charge of conspiring to affect the demolition of Rawfolds Mill, did not appear when called on. One of his bail said that Starkie had acted under the advice of his attorney.

Mr Parke said, the Defendant had been ill-advised; it was his duty to have appeared personally in Court to answer to this indictment, as it was impossible that he could know what course might have been adopted respecting him. But it was not his intention to insist upon his appearance. If the Defendant had been tried it late Special Assize, I should have thought it my duty, in the then state of the County, to have laid evidence before his Lordship and you on the subject; but, in consequence of the present happy and tranquil state of the County, the result of those severe but necessary examples which were made on a late occasion, I have determined to lay no evidence before you, and to consent to the acquittal of the Prisoner. And I hope this will be considered as a further proof that Government wish to do nothing oppressive to any of his Majesty's subjects, and that their only anxiety has been to restore tranquillity and good order.

The Jury of course acquitted the Prisoner.