Carlisle Patriot, 04 Mar 1826 - Cumberland Lent Assizes (7)

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

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

 

CUMBERLAND LENT ASSIZES, 1826.

 

[continued]

 

NISI PRIUS BAR.

 

WILSON v. MESSENGER & JACKSON.

 

Mr. AGLIONBY, in opening the pleadings, stated that this was an action to recover compensation in damages for an assault committed on the plaintiff by the defendants.

 

Mr. ALDERSON addressed the jury. The plaintiff, he said, complained of a very gross assault committed upon his person by MESSENGER and JACKSON, in the streets of Wigton, on the night of the 17th July, 1824. WILSON was a labouring man, and at that period lives as servant with Mr. Patrick REDMOND, in the neighbourhood of Wigton. On the night in question, he was on his way towards home, in company with one or two other persons, was met by the defendants, and treated, as he should show, in the most brutal manner; so much so as to cause him great suffering, and compelled to remain off work for more than a week.

 

Stephen WINTHROP called.—I was with Thos. WILSON on the 17th July last, on a Saturday night. WILSON, myself, and my father, were going along Wigton streets, about eleven o'clock. Near the Lion and Lamb inn, we met Mr. MESSENGER, James JACKSON, and Joseph HODGSON. They were arm-in-arm, and not very tipsy. JACKSON and MESSENGER clasped WILSON round, threw him down, and HODGSON went on one side. MESSENGER punched and struck him while he was on the ground: he hit him in the small ribs and in the face, by which his eye was swelled up and his face cut, from which blood flowed. WILSON then got up and went to Ritson's lane-end, about ten yards off, and was followed thither by JACKSON, who again knocked him down. He again got up, and went beside the Half-moon, where Mr. MESSENGER once more struck at him. WILSON was rather tipsy; his clothes were dirty. JACKSON and MESSENGER then went away: Mr. HODGSON did not do any thing. WILSON remained in my father's shop till day-light.

 

Cross-examined by Mr. COURTENAY.—I am a weaver, my father is a shoemaker: WILSON is a labouring man. Mr. MESSENGER is a shopkeeper in Wigton; Mr. JACKSON is a schoolmaster, I think; Mr. HODGSON is an attorney. WILSON's home was at Paddy REDMOND's, in Spittal, in whose service he was at that time. Mr. LIGHTFOOT examined me in this case: it is a good bit since I saw WILSON; but I don't know that he has fled the country.

 

Thomas ISMAY, shoemaker, Wigton, saw WILSON after the assault: he was rather intoxicated; his face was marked either by a scratch or blood: Did not take notice of his clothes. JACKSON and MESSENGER were in the street.

 

By Mr. COURTENAY.—Old WINTHROP was present: he squared, and "showed fight."

 

WINTHROP, senior, was next called. He was quite sober, he said, on the night in question. He described the assault, with the addition that JACKSON and MESSENGER trailed WILSON up the lane by the legs. JACKSON struck with violence, and witness took him off the plaintiff. WILSON sat in the shop in an arm chair, because he durst not go home. He was sorely bruised; had a black eye; and his clothes were riven.

 

Cross-examined by Mr. COURTENAY.—I went with WILSON to speak to Mr. WILLIS, to see what that gentleman said about it, and he advised a little delay. WILSON then sent to them to learn if they would settle it. He next applied to Mr. LIGHTFOOT. It is not true that I squared and offered to fight: I took MESSENGER off WILSON, and he picked me down. We went to the public-house to see the papers.

 

By Mr. ALDERSON.—Mr. HODGSON came up to me, and said if he had known who WILSON was, he should have been sorry to see him so ill-used. The defendants are "a gay bit richer folks than the plaintiff."

 

Mr. RICHARDSON, currier, lives near the place where the assault was committed, and in the night heard a noise as if a person were in distress.

 

Patrick REDMOND.—I am a farmer in the neighbourhood of Wigton. WILSON was in my employment in July 1824, as a servant, living in my house. He could not come to his work for more than a week; at the end of that time, he came, and he had a black eye, though I did not see him for some days after he resumed his work.

 

By Mr. COURTENAY.—He went to Wigton of his own accord, about one o'clock. |He is a sober man.

 

This was Mr. ALDERSON's case. And the learned gentleman stated to his Lordship, that the declaration was filed in Michaelmas term, 1824, and the cause was in issue last assizes.

 

Mr. COURTENAY addressed the jury for the defendants in a warm speech.—Look at the parties—at the time elapsed, nearly two years, a most suspicious delay. He commented on the facts, as proved, endeavoured to explain them away, and asserted that the plaintiff's object was gain, not justice. It was not probable that respectable men, like the defendants, would fall upon a day-labourer, and knock him down, without provocation, as had been alleged. The hour was a strange one for a labouring man to be out of his house, but perfectly natural for Mr. MESSENGER and his friends; observe, too, that all this happened at that gentleman's own door. Mr. ALDERSON had said that WILSON was going quietly on his way home to his master's house. There was no truth in that. Neither was it in evidence, as stated, that he had remained a week away from his employment on account of his bruises. He (Mr. C.) did not mean to trouble the jury with any witnesses. Mr. HODGSON, who had been spoken of, went away before the affair ended, and therefore it was unnecessary to call that gentleman. The account given to me, said Mr. COURTENAY, by my clients is, that—

 

Mr. ALDERSON.—If my learned friend states any facts I shall reply upon them: I give him that notice.

 

Mr. COURTENAY.—Well, then, he would put it hypothetically that WILSON and his companions first committed a breach of the peace, and the defendant therefore clasped WILSON round the waist to remove him. Upon this ground only could it be supposed that these respectable persons would have meddled with a labourer. He confidently expected a verdict. But if they should decide otherwise, he submitted that the smallest coin in the realm would be ample damages.

 

The Judge said there must be a verdict for the plaintiff, unless the jury disbelieved the evidence of the two WINTHROPs altogether: the only question left was the damages, and these the jury would regulate by the facts proved. It might be reasonably inferred, his Lordship thought, that all these persons were a little tipsy. If WILSON's face had been so severely injured, as had been stated, the fact ought to have been proved by some one who saw him the day after. Why Mr. HODGSON was not called, was left to the jury's own construction.

 

Verdict for the plaintiff: damages 1s. costs 1s. The decision excited a little wonder.

 

Mr. ALDERSON applied to his Lordship to certify for costs; but the learned judge declined for the present.

 

 

[to be continued]