- Comments (0) Change font
If columns/tables do not appear straight, change font
Friday May 17th 1833 I was sorry to learn this morning that the Tenant of Meldon Park Inn had been arrested, and that Mr Cookson finding nearly all his property gone had distained for the Half-years rent due at May-day last – there was not half enough to pay Mr Cookson, and he is now pennyless, with a debt to the Hospital ten pounds arrear, besides the rent which ought to be forthcoming to-day. Upon this case, and also upon that of Robinson of Needless hall arises a question upon which I am quite at issue with Mr Cookson, and upon which I feel it absolutely necessary to hold my ground. The Half years according to which the letting of this property is reckoned terminated on the 12th of May, and 22nd of November; but owing to some inadvertence in the agreement, Mr Cookson’s purchase was to be, and accordingly was completed on the 29th of September, so that of the rents due on the 22nd Novr, and now receivable, 54 days belonged to Mr Cookson; and it was arranged, I believe by the Solicitors, that on the Hospitals receiving the Rents, the sum due to Mr Cookson should be repaid to him. But Mr Cookson contends that under this arrangement he is at once entitled to his 54 days rent upon the whole rental, whether the same can be received by the Hospital or not. Now with respect to the Tenant of the Inn, whose half years rent is Sixty pounds, of which Mr Cookson’s proportion is £17.16.0½, it is clear he is more than £300 in arrears to the Hospital, and Mr Cookson’s claim upon that farm for the 54 days is £54.8.11, which I cannot think of paying – I should have sued Mr Robinson long since for his arrears but that owing to the sale of the property I have no remedy but at Common law, and it seemed most adviseable to wait the result of this Rent-day – he has paid me £87, and promises some more to-morrow, but I much fear we shall lose largely. Excepting these two cases I have to-day received everything due from Meldon and Needless hall. There is indeed £45 from Mr Wardle relative to the dispute between him and Lenox, but this Mr Bell is accountable for, he having undertaken to have the matter settled – tho’ from what I learn today Mr Bell is not likely to recover a farthing from Lenox. – I had several small accounts presented to me to-day for works done, some ever since 1830, at Meldon and Hartburngrainge, but which had never been estimated for or ordered by the Board – it was clear that the work was actually performed, and under the authority of the Bailiff, and I believe moreover that they were necessary works, but the irregularity is sadly perplexing. – I was obliged in justice to pay them, but I am thankful to believe that I have arrived at the close of the claims upon us. I mean that they are now all known to me, but there are yet some Thrashing Machines to settle for at the Haydon Bridge Rent-day. Mr Stephenson of Throckley claimed eight years compensation at £2 a year for damages done to him by the working of a stone-quarry; but in as much as the Quarry was only worked to furnish stones for buildings erected upon his own farm, until two years since, when it was let for £20 a year to parties who paid one years rent only, and since I have been in Northumberland I can get no tidings of them, it appeared to me that Mr Stephenson’s claim could go no further back than the letting, and I offered to allow him the two years compensation, which he refused, but at length proposed to leave it to the decision of Mr Grey, and much as I dislike leaving even this trifle unsettled, I had no alternative but to do so, or allow he money. When I visited Throckley, I requested Mr Stephenson if he could get any tidings of the people who took the Quarry to let me know, or if they came there to discharge them, and not allow any further working without authority from me, but up to this time, he has neither heard or seen aught of them. There are stones enough won to pay the rent due. There seems but little prospect at present of the Throckley Embankment being carried into effect, it is now opposed by Mr Bates and Mr Bewick, and unless Mr Clayton and the Duke of Northumberland contribute an additional sum in consideration of the Wears to be built for the protection of their property only, I see no chance of its being effected. – There is a Reigh or runner of water passing through the Haugh lands at Throckley, and also through a small portion of the Duke of Northumberland’s land, and by placing flood-gates near the river end, the danger of the lands being overflowed will be much prevented, the expense is estimated at from £15 to £20, and the Duke of Northumberland has offered to bear one half, and I consented on the part of the Hospital the other half.