Carlisle Patriot, 04 Mar 1826 - Cumberland Lent Assizes (1)

[petra.mi...@doctors.org.uk]

Saturday 04 Mar 1826   (p. 2, col. 4 - p. 3, col. 5)

 

CUMBERLAND LENT ASSIZES, 1826.

 

Sir John HULLOCK, one of the Barons of his Majesty's Court of Exchequer, arrived in Carlisle from Appleby, on Wednesday afternoon, at one o'clock, in a private manner. Between two and three, his Lordship proceeded to the Court-House, and opened the Commission; he afterwards attended divine service at the Cathedral, accompanied by H. SENHOUSE, Esq. High-Sheriff, the Under-Sheriff, &c., when an impressive discourse was delivered by the Rev. H. SENHOUSE, Rector of Sawley, Derbyshire. Text: 13th chap. Romans, 1st verse: "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers; for there is no power but of God: the powers that be, are ordained by God."

 

About five o'clock, a large party, including the gentlemen in the commission of the peace, and those summoned to serve upon the grand inquest, sat down to a splendid dinner, given by the High Sheriff, in the Bush Inn assembly-room.

 

His Lordship opened the Court on Thursday morning at half-past nine precisely.

 

The routine business having been gone through, the following Gentlemen were sworn as grand jurors:

 

J. D. B. DYKES, Esq. foreman; F. F. VANE, Esq., Henry HOWARD, Esq., Wilfrid LAWSON, Esq., W. P. JOHNSON, Esq., P. H. HOWARD, Esq., S. SENHOUSE, Esq., Skeffiington [sic] LUTWIDGE, Esq., Thos. IRWIN, Esq., Ralph COOKE, Esq., Thomas PARKER, Esq., J. R. C. GRAHAM, Esq., Ch. PARKER, Esq., Henry SENHOUSE, Esq., R. FAWCETT, Esq., G. S. MOUNSEY, Esq., Thos. BLAMIRE, Esq., H. T. THOMPSON, Esq., Joseph FORSTER, Esq., John HODGSON, Esq., Rd. LOWRY, Esq., John DIXON, Esq., John FORSTER, jun. Esq.

 

His Lordship charged the Grand Inquest to the following effect:—He was sorry to observe several cases in the calendar of considerable magnitude and enormity. The first on the list was a charge of wilful murder. Probably they would find it their duty, under the circumstances, to return a bill for the murder, in order, that, by proper investigation in Court, it might be ascertained whether the prisoner himself fired the pistol, so as to cause the death of the deceased, or whether that instrument went off in a scuffle which, it appeared, took place at the time the alleged crime was committed. There were two charges in the calendar against individuals for uttering forged instruments, knowing them to be so: the one, a note purporting to be that of a Bank in Scotland; the other, a bill of exchange. In such offences, the only way, in general, of getting at the "knowledge" of the prisoner, is to pay attention to the circumstances which preceded and followed the prisoner's apprehension. If a man were found with forged notes in his possession, endeavouring to procure change at a time when he was not in want of it, the natural inference is, that his object was the uttering of those notes with a view to defraud. In looking at the present cases, it would be for the Jury to say whether they thought the prisoners fairly chargeable with guilty knowledge or not; and they would act accordingly. There was nothing else which called for particular remark; but should any difficulty arise, his Lordship would be most happy to render assistance.

 

The Grand Jury then retired, and his Lordship proceeded with civil causes. Great strictness was observed as to excuses for the non-attendance of common jurors.

 

Counsel present:—Mr. COURTENAY, Mr. ALDERSON, Mr. PATTESON, Mr. AGLIONBY, Sir G. LEWIN, Mr. DUNDAS, Mr. ARMSTRONG, Mr. SOWERBY, Mr. BLACKBURNE, Mr. MARSHALL, Mr. CLARKSON, Mr. ELLIS, Mr. MAYNE.

 

CHARGE OF MURDER.

 

JOHN MAHON, aged 40, a private in the 3rd Dragoons, was put to the bar, charged with the Wilful Murder of Wm. BELL, of Carlisle, grocer. He was also arraigned on the verdict of the Coroner's Jury, charging the same offence.

 

The prisoner pleaded not guilty with much firmness of manner. The trial excited a strong interest, and the court was crowded to excess.

 

The following gentlemen were sworn on the jury, after a considerable number of challenges had been made on the part of the prisoner:—John GRAHAM of Hayton; Thos. GILLBANKS of Culgaith; Joseph HOLMES of Line-Cottage; George HOWE of Great Corby; John HUTTON of Penrith; Richard BROWN of Hayton; M. BROWN of Wreay-Hall; Henry DOBSON, of Brampton; John HODGSON of Newton-Bank; Hugh DIXON of Barron-Wood; Joseph I'ANSON of Penrith; and John HENDERSON.

 

Messrs. COURTENAY and ARMSTRONG conducted the prosecution; Mr. ALDERSON appeared for the defence.

 

Mr. COURTENAY addressed the Jury.—It was his duty, and a painful one he considered it, to state the circumstances of this melancholy case in support of the charge preferred against the prisoner at the bar. He was a soldier; and, as they had heard, had been indicted for the wilful murder of William BELL, a grocer in this town, who lodged at the Crown and Anchor public-house, at which GRAHAM was quartered. He (Mr. C.) was told that the deceased was a man of excellent character, of singularly good temper; and that he and the soldier were on friendly terms. On the 29th of September, the day on which the crime was committed, Carlisle was uncommonly full of strangers on account of the races, the expected ascension of a balloon, and a great wrestling match; and so crowded was the public-house in question, that several persons were put in Mr. BELL's bedroom. He retired as early as ten on the night of the 28th; but, from the great heat of the room, he could not rest; he therefore got up again about one o'clock, with the intention of sitting up the remainder of the night. He found MAHON below in a state of intoxication, and rather quarrelsome, and persuaded him to go to bed. The prisoner went accordingly; he, however, soon came down again with a sword in his hand, and brandished it about. Mr. BELL once more interfered, shook hands with the prisoner, and with the assistance of several other persons, wrested the sword from him, in order to prevent mischief. Infuriated at this, MAHON hastily went up stairs, exclaiming "By heavens! I will go and fetch your master." By "master," it would appear, he meant a pistol; for in a short time he returned with a pistol in his hand, and with it, in a struggle which ensued, BELL was mortally wounded. Mr. COURTENAY would not say that the prisoner actually fired it off. But he would shew that he made use of threats when he fetched it; that he loaded it; came down with it in his hand; and that, in the struggle which followed an attempt on the part of Mr. BELL to take the weapon from him, he turned the muzzle towards the deceased. And, Gentlemen, the Learned Counsel continued, if ever man died in the true spirit of a Christian, Mr. BELL did, for he said when lying on the ground, after receiving the fatal wound, "I am a dead man, all through my own goodness; but do not hurt the soldier." And I think it my duty, Gentlemen, to state this fact for the sake of the soldier, and as due to the memory of the deceased. But I am sorry that it was not met by the prisoner in a corresponding spirit, even after the catastrophe, for he said, "I was fighting for my honour, and I would do it again were it to Lord Wellington." This, I think I may say, Gentlemen, goes far towards taking away from the prisoner's offence the character of accidental. The points of law arising out of this case, remain with his Lordship; I may state to you, however, that although to constitute the crime of murder, there must have been malice aforethought, yet it is not necessary that there should be malice aforethought against the individual who unfortunately fell on this occasion; it will be sufficient if malice aforethought shall be established against any one. The prisoner was drunk, certainly, but he had sense enough to know what he was about—he had sense enough to fetch a sword from off the wall of his room; to go for his pistol, and to charge it, for the charging, a most material fact, would be distinctly proved. The main part of your duty will be to ascertain if the crime was the result of accident or design; and I am sure that you will not only give the case your best consideration, but also dismiss from your minds all that you have heard or read on the subject.

 

 

[to be continued]