James Scutt 1797-ca 1869

£[Tue 18 Aug 1857, Sussex Advertiser, SURREY SUMMER ASSIZES. (Before the Lord Chief Baron and a Special Jury). IMPORTANT CASE BEARING UPON THE SUBJECTS OF HERIOTS. Mason v. Halsey and another. This was a special jury case. The plaintiff is an extensive farmer, living at Sutton, near Guildford, and the defendant (Mr Halsey), is the Lord of the Manor of Pirbright. Mr. Bovill, Q.C., Mr. Peterdorff, and Mr. Morsley, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. E. James, Q.C., and Mr. Hawkins, for the defendant. The case, as will be seen, is an important one with reference to "heriots." Mr. Bovill said the present action had been brought by the plaintiff for illegally taking his two best horses for heriots due to the Lord of the Manor. A gentleman, named Chasmore, now deceased, formerly held two farms in the Manor of Pirbright. He had no relations, but the plaintiff, his brother, and sister. He was nearly 70 years of age, and he found the farms pressed upon him, and in 1856 he wished to leave them, but to keep on his house, keep his pony and chaise, and the run of his poultry, and wished the plaintiff and his brother to take to them. Mr. Richard Mason however, had enough to attend to of his own, but suggested to his uncle that he could manage them with the assistance of his brother, Mr. Edward Mason, and this went on until after Michaelmas. At last farmer, named Greenfield, took the farm, but the agreement went off in consequence of the deceased wishing to retain the house. At Christmas the deceased again sent for Mr. Richard Mason, the plaintiff, and told him he was determined he should take the farm, and wished valuation to be made but he (Mr.Mason) did not send for Mr. Woodhatch for that purpose, and who was to have valued for Mr. Greenfield. The valuation was accordingly made; the deceased partly going over the farm, but when completed Mr. Rd. Mason said he would not take it as he should have to pay for the valuation. The old gentleman said he did not want it, but a fair sum for rent, and £100 a year was agreed upon to be the proper sum by Mr. Woodhatch, and which rent had been paid up. From that time the valuation was so made,the farm was given up to the nephew, who paid for the labour, &c, on the farm. Every one knew of the change, but the name of Mr. Chasmore remained on the carts. It was said on the other side that this was a colourable pretence to cheat the Lord of the Manor of the horses which had been so taken by the bailiff. They were worth £35 each. The amount of property so valued amounted to £700. The plaintiff was then examined, and stated that he was a farmer, living at Sutton, and his brother lived at Pirbright. The deceased had no relatives but brother and sister. He (deceased) had two farms, and he was anxious to leave them, and wished that he and his brother should have them. He did not wish to have one, as he had his own to attend to. An agreement was made with Mr. Greenfield to take it, but it went off. He (witness) obtained a tenant for it named Snugs on the 21st of December. He was sent for by the deceased, and he found his brother there. He said they should take the farms. He said his brother and the men could carry them on. He, however, told him to send to Mr. Woodhatch to make the valuation, but he did not do so, and on the following Tuesday he was again sent for. The valuation was then made; the deceased reserving the use of the house, the pony, &c, as long as he lived, and the rent agreed upon was £100 a year. It was then agreed that the deceased was to pay the men on the following Saturday, and himself and brother afterwards. The deceased said he did not want the valuation, but only the rent, £50 half yearly. He then called in one of his servants and told him that he had given up the farm, but that he should keep him on, and that any spare time which he might have, he was to devote to himself and his brother, and attend to their cattle. He also told the other servants they must look to him (witness) in future. He found the money to pay the men. He had sold barley, hay, and pigs, and kept the money. He had told the collector to put him on the rates, and he had paid them ever since. Cross-examined by Mr. James, Mr. Greenfield had nothing to do with the transfer. His brother managed the farm principally. He had not heard at that time that the farm had been left by will. The deceased spoke several times to him about it, but he told him to do what he liked about it. The deceased was under the doctor's hands, and he had had a fit. He lived in the house till he died. The name remained on the carts. He never took money out of the deceased's drawer to pay the rates. The deceased had a housekeeper and a man servant, named Scutt. The farm was about 85 acres. The horses were shod by the same blacksmith, but he never enquired in whose name. Stevens, one of the defendants, was the collector of the poor rates. He did not know whether the farm was freehold or copyhold. Mr. Edward Mason, brother the last witness, was next examined, and corroborated the statement of the valuation of the farms the rent being £100 year, and pitying the servants. His brother had sold some hay during his uncle's lifetime, and had taken the money. Stevens took the horses on their road home to the farm. He paid some poor rates to Collins, the Ash collector, the day after Christmas Day. By Mr. Hawkins: Knew Mr. Turner, a carpenter, had no recollection of meeting Mr. Terry, a farmer, at his house; he did not know whether it was copyhold property, but had heard there was a heriot. His Lordship said, if a man had a valuable horse he was of opinion he might sell it immediately before death to prevent a heriot. Examination continued - He did not remember saying he would get the horses away as soon as the old man died, and he'd be d---d if the Lord of the Manor should ever have them. By Mr. Bovill, Mr. Terry was a farmer; he had been with his uncle for four or five years, and farmed one farm for him. Mr. William Woodhatch, valuer, of Chobham was next examined and said, that six weeks before the valuation at Mason's it was agreed that Mr. Greenfield should have the farm. Mr. Snuggs was also desirous of taking it. The deceased said he was anxious to give up the farms to his nephews; the valuation was £700 11s 10 1/2d, and the rent of £100 was fixed him. The deceased knew as well what he was about as he did. By Mr. James, The deceased could write, but did not sign anything. Nothing was said about a heriot. It was not usual to make valuations in December, but he had done so on other occasions. Mr. Greenfield was next called, and proved that he agreed to take the farm in question of the deceased, but the matter went off. By Mr. James: His father had a farm on the same Manor, and he took it of him in the same way. He bought the stock at different sales. His Lordship here observed that there had been great talk about heriots. A race horse had on one occasion been taken worth £700. James Scutt, who lived five years with the deceased, was next examined and said, that he was told of the change, but that the deceased would still employ him, and that he was to devote his leisure time to the plaintiff. Other persons who were in the employ of the deceased were called to prove the change and of being paid after the valuation by the plaintiff. Mr. James Homer, of Pirbright, miller, recollected the valuation being made. He purchased 15 sacks of barley on the 24th of January in the present year, and paid Mr. Richard Mason for it. The barley was at one of the deceased's farms. Cross-examined Mr. James: He would swear he never recommended persons to make over their farms. Mr. James submitted that there was no evidence as to the changing of the cattle. His Lordship, in summing up, said he was of opinion there was nothing to prevent a man cheating a turnpike by going three miles round to evade it. A man could give away his property if he liked. There had been a case where an advowson had been sold for the benefit of a family, and as the Incumbent was so near his death at the time it was said to be so near simony that he ought not to have done so. The Court of Error decided he might if he considered it of value, and a person was not bound to keep an animal for a heriot. The question for them to decide was whether the valuation was a sham one? Mr. James said he would not, after what his Lordship had said, keep up the case. He had witness to call, and could not alter the facts. He had no objection to verdict for 40s. Mr. Bovill said then the case must go to the Jury; they had still got the horses, and had had them for ten weeks. He would consent to take 10s. a week for each horse. Mr. James said they had had a holiday, and were in excellent condition. (Laughter.) Mr. Bovill said he would be content, if the horses were given up, with nominal damages. The Learned Judge said the horses were to be given up, and that if they were not in proper order, then a sum would be mentioned as damages either himself or the master.] [J S 71yr.]