Carlisle Patriot, 16 Jul 1825 - Cumberland County Sessions (2)

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

Saturday 16 Jul 1825   (p. 2, col. 5-6 and p. 3, col. 1-5)

 

COUNTY SESSIONS.

 

[continued]

 

BELLA! HORRIDA BELLA!

 

Mr. COURTENAY moved the Court to estreat the recognizances of a Mr. POLLEN, under the following circumstances. In consequence of a quarrel which took  place in May last, arising out of the shooting of a hare, Mr. POLLEN had so insulted Mr. YATES, his neighbour, on the 13th of June, that the latter felt himself obliged to apply to a magistrate and have him bound over to keep the peace towards all his Majesty's subjects, and especially towards the said Mr. YATES. This was effected on the morning the 16th. In the evening of the same day, POLLEN fell in with Mr. YATES near his own residence, and struck him on the leg with his foot; on which Mr. YATES hit POLLEN with a stick; but the latter being the strongest man, Mr. YATES was knocked down and much injured; and when a spectator separated them, POLLEN took up a large stone in each hand, with which he threatened to murder Mr. YATES. This was an outline of the facts of the case, and Mr. C. thought that when he had proved it, the Court would at once see that it was one which demanded the proceeding which he prayed.

 

John WALKER proved the service of a notice of this application to Mr. POLLEN and his bondsman, Mr.  SHERWIN.

 

Mr. John Miller YATES was next called, and deposed as follows:—POLLEN and I are neighbours, residing near Whitehaven. Up to May last, we had been on very intimate terms, when a misunderstanding arose. On the 13th of June, I saw him at a public-house in Galemire. He made use of blackguard language; and not only abused me, but called my wife b—— and w——. He called me a d—— b——, said he would give me a severe beating, and for that purpose would wait outside to meet with me when I came out. When I went home, however, I saw nothing of him. I applied to a magistrate, and on the 16th of June he was bound over by John LITTLEDALE, Esq. On the same evening, I again saw POLLEN at Galemire. He came up where I was standing talking with a Mrs. NICHOLSON and struck me with his foot, nearly knocked a stick out of my hand, and also struck my foot. I then struck him with the stick. He gave me a blow with his right hand. I struck him with the stick a second time; a scuffle ensued, he knocked me down; a person interfered; and then POLLEN snatched two large stones from off the ground, and swore he would murder me. Mr. SHERWIN was bound over with Mr. POLLEN—the sums £10 each.

 

Cross-examined by Mr. ARMSTRONG—Before I obtained the recognizances, although he threatened, he never did beat me. When he struck my stick, I was standing about 50 yards from his house, and he had his child, about 12 or 13 months old, in his left arm. I will swear that I did not put the stick across the road to prevent his passage. I was myself afterwards brought before the magistrates for this affair, on a warrant obtained by POLLEN, and also bound over to keep the peace. I then said nothing about his kicking my stick, but admitted that I struck him with it. I did not strike him as hard as I could.

 

By Mr. COURTENAY—It was on the 18th that I was bound over on account of this affair.

 

Isaac ROBINSON called.

 

Mr. ARMSTRONG interposed, He said he wished to save time. This witness was brought up to prove what took place previous to the meeting on the 13th; but this was unnecessary, for it had nothing to do with the question.

 

Mr. COURTENAY argued that he had a right to shew the spirit by which POLLEN was actuated.

 

The Chairman thought it irregular, and the witness was ordered down.

 

Isaac WALKER called—On the evening of the 16th of June last, I saw Mr. YATES standing before Mrs. NICHOLSON's window, at the road side, talking to her. POLLEN was about ten yards off, advancing towards his own house in the direction where the other was standing. On coming up, he struck Mr. YATES's stick, which that gentleman held before him, resting his hand on. Mr. YATES immediately struck him with his stick. Then Mr. POLLEN threw down his child and struck Mr. YATES, who gave another blow with his stick, and POLLEN fetched him down. I went up and asked Mr. YATES if he intended to murder the man.

 

Mr. ARMSTRONG—Mark that! "I went up and asked Mr. YATES if he intended to murder the man."

 

Witness continued.—I laid hold of the stick, and would not permit them to continue the struggle. POLLEN then stripped and challenged Mr. YATES out to fight him. I was going to carry YATES home, when POLLEN took up a stone in each hand, and swore he would murder him. I carried YATES home, and he there said if he had had his gun he would have shot POLLEN.

 

Mr. ARMSTRONG.—I think this is the most scandalous application ever made to a Court of Justice.

 

Mrs. Margaret NICHOLSON, a very respectable elderly lady, deposed that Mr. YATES was talking to her outside her window, when Mr. POLLEN came up, and attempted to strike the stick away with his foot. Not a word was uttered. Mr. YATES immediately hit POLLEN with his stick; and a projection in the building prevented Mrs. NICHOLSON from seeing any part of the subsequent struggle.

 

Mr. ARMSTRONG.—I consider this the most insolent application ever made. YATES knows that I cannot call POLLEN, so he comes here to tell his own story, hoping, though himself to blame, to induce the Court to listen to his representations. He has no pretence to attention. He shewed the most savage disposition, the worst possible blood—he had even the cowardice to assault his opponent with a stick when he had a young child in his arms: no language can be too severe for such conduct. He has called two witnesses to confirm his story, but they have not confirmed him. His own witness asked him if he meant to murder POLLEN,—and then his declaration that if he had had his gun he would have shot him! Yet he comes here to ask the Court to estreat POLLEN's recognizances—to estreat the recognizances of a man whom he has so grossly injured! For this injury he will have to answer on another occasion; this, he knows very well, and hence his present application. I could call Mr. PERRY, the attorney, were it needful, to state what passed before the Magistrates on the 18th, but I shall not do it; it is not necessary, for I am quite sure that the Bench will reject the application.

 

The Court decided against the estreat. The Chairman observed that he thought the parties had now better go home and live in peace—a recommendation with which neither of the belligerents seems disposed to comply with.

 

 

[to be continued]