Carlisle Patriot, 11 Mar 1826 - Cumberland Lent Assizes (20)

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

Saturday 11 Mar 1826   (p. 2, col. 6 - p. 3, col. 6; and p. 4, col. 1-3)

 

CUMBERLAND LENT ASSIZES, 1926.

 

[continued]

 

FELONY.

 

JOHN NICHOLSON was charged with stealing from Messrs. R. W. & R. PORTER, ironfounders, in Carlisle, several pieces of iron, their property.

 

Mr. COURTENAY, in his address to the Jury, merely detailed the facts stated in the evidence.

 

John WARDROP sworn.—I am in the employ of Messrs. W. R. & R. PORTER, ironfounders in this city. The prisoner was apprehended on the 14th of January last, in consequence of our missing some swedges. NICHOLSON had been in Messrs. PORTERs' employ eight or nine years, having served his apprenticeship there; and was in their employ when the swedges were missing. I was present at the search of the prisoner's house, and found one of our tools (a gate-heel set) below his bed. We also found five swedges, four of which I knew to be our's; the whole might be worth about 8s. or 10s. BARNES, the constable, got them; they were found on the 14th of January.

 

By the Prisoner.—The tools have no mark on them: they were my workmanship.

 

By the Judge.—We missed swedges in September last. They were not made for sale: they are tools made of iron and steel. I believe other ironfounders use the same kind of tools.

 

John BARNES, constable, sworn.—I searched the prisoner's premises, and found the tools now produced. I found them under the bed; but the prisoner was not present at the time. When I apprehended the prisoner, he said he bought them of a person named IRVING.

 

WARDROP was recalled to examine the tools produced by BARNES.—He said two of them were made by himself, and the others were under his charge. He knew two of them well, as they were his own hand labour; and he had often occasion to see the others, and to examine them when they wanted repair.

 

By the Court.—I am certain that the room in which the tools were found was occupied by the prisoner, who said, in the police-office, that he bought some tools of a person named IRVING.

 

Thomas IRVING examined the tools, and said he never sold any of them to the prisoner. He did sell him some tools, but none of those produced by BARNES.

 

Prisoner.—I bought 50 tools of the witness, for which I paid him £5, and the tools now produced were amongst them.

 

The Constable said he found a number of other tools under the prisoner's bed; but he could not name them.

 

IRVING's examination continued.—I sold the prisoner different tools: such as a screw-press, hammers, &c.; but I sold him no tools but what I myself made when in business; and I am sure I did not make the tools before me. I received £5 for what I sold him.

 

The prisoner then called three or four respectable people to speak in behalf of his character. They had mostly known him since a boy, and all spoke very favourably of him as a steady, honest, and industrious young man.

 

NICHOLSON then put in a well-written defence, and wished it to be read to the Court. It stated that the prisoner had been in the employ of Messrs. PORTER since he was nine years of age, and had faithfully served them during that period. It further stated that he had given them notice of his intention to quit their employment, preparatory to his commencing business for himself; but this, it was stated, would have been in opposition to the interests of his late employers, and hence the vindictive prosecution which had now been instituted against him. Admitting the tools were found on his premises, was it likely that he would have forfeited an honest character by keeping them after he knew they were not his own? No; he would not survive the loss of character a single day. It was not probable that he would have forfeited so fair a character which he had maintained so long for tools that were not worth more than a few shillings. What would the Jury think when they were told that he had been 14 years with Messrs. PORTER, and that his father had been 22 years with them. He wished to impress upon the minds of the Jury, that men employed in his occupation were frequently in the habit of carrying their tools home; and that when he came to remove his tools, if he had found any belonging to Messrs. PORTER he would have returned them, and they would not have been impannelled for the purpose of trying a case so trifling and vexatious. The defence then went on to comment with considerable severity on the conduct of the prosecutors towards the prisoner, and hoped that the Jury would do justice to his character; and that, by their verdict that day, they would convince Messrs. PORTER that they had not any influence in that Court, whatever they might possess in Courts of an inferior description.

 

His Lordship summed up. He told the Jury that it appeared in evidence the property was first missed in September, so that the prisoner had sufficient time to return it: it was not like losing property to-day and finding it to-morrow. When any property was found suspiciously in any person's possession, and that person could not shew how he came by it, then the law inferred that he had got it clandestinely. It might be true, that up to the time of his apprehension the prisoner possessed a good character, and had also the confidence of his employers, as it was not very probable that any person would keep a servant in his employ after he had found his character to be bad, or after he had become an object of his suspicion. The prisoner, in his defence, had admitted that the tools might have been found in his house; and it was for the Jury to say whether they thought the prisoner intended to return those tools, or whether he intended to keep them and appropriate them to his own use, knowing that he had gotten them improperly. The prisoner himself alleged that he had bought the tools produced of IRVING; but IRVING on his oath declares he did not.

 

Prisoner.—My Lord, I got some swedges among the tools I bought of IRVING, which he admitted.

 

Judge.—I was not aware of that; let IRVING be recalled.

 

IRVING came forward and stated that he did sell the prisoner some swedges; but none of them were among those produced.

 

His Lordship then observed to the Jury that WARDROP had sworn to some of the swedges being his own workmanship; therefore they would take all the circumstances of the case into their consideration, and also the character which had been given to the prisoner by those persons whom he had called in his behalf.

 

The Jury, in a few minutes, returned a verdict of Not Guilty.

 

 

[to be continued]