Carlisle Patriot, 16 Jul 1825 - Cumberland County Sessions (7)

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

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

 

COUNTY SESSIONS.

 

FORCIBLE ENTRY.

 

[continued]

 

Mr. COURTENAY addressed the Jury at great length, in a tone of real or affected solemnity and indignation. In the course of his long experience in Courts of Justice, he declared that he had never seen so scandalous and unconscientious a cause. He was well aware that no assertion or opinion of an advocate, without accompanying proofs, could bring the minds of the jury to the same conclusion that he, with a knowledge of all the circumstances, had already come. But he would confidently call upon them not to believe all that persons, under the influence of passion and interest, could bring themselves to swear for the attainment of their object. Instead of giving such credence, it would be more wise, more safe, and more just to judge of the evidence by its consistency and credibility. The Defendants, they should bear in mind, could not appear here and tell their story. But there was a place where they had told it, and the result was the refusal of a warrant for a forcible entry: the jury, therefore, should carefully treasure up this fact, and properly apply it in their decision of the case. Altogether, it was a trumped-up affair. He spoke under the correction of the Chairman when he said, that if the Defendants had violated the law—and he contended that they had not—still, if the jury believed that the prosecutor was improperly in the house, they would be perfectly justified in putting an end to the indictment by a verdict of not guilty. The real case was, a nephew trying a right against an aunt. To come at the probabilities of the thing, only look to the fact of the prosecutor serving as a common sailor on board a coal-ship, and then inquire if it were likely that he had ever been owner of several vessels, or had purchased the premises in question. He was sure the jury could not swallow so monstrous an assertion. Instead of making such a purchase, they found him living in a single room. He repeated, in point of law, if they did not believe this improbable story of the purchase, they would be justified in acquitting the defendants. (No, from Mr. AGLIONBY.) It was not a prosecution, as they had been told, by statute, but at common-law, and the Chairman would tell them that, at common-law, if a man legally dispossest of property were to persist in holding it, he might be ejected by force, if fair means would not do. Lord KENYON had laid this down as the law of the land: he did, indeed, express a doubt at the time, but he gave that doubt the go-by, and came to the conclusion just stated. And had not the jury remarked an incidental fact which accounted for all this squabbling, and the present proceeding? Had they not seen the actuating motive in the charge made by Mrs. BIGLANDS about the will? The truth was, that STEEL was needy; that his aunt took him in from charitable motives; that this quarrel arose about the will, mutual recriminations and assaults followed, the magistrates granted warrants for the latter, the affair was made up, but they refused any meddling with what is called the forcible entry. But did any one ever hear of forcible entry against the possessor of the property, as BIGLANDS unquestionably was, while STEEL was merely a lodger? In short, the defendants, he submitted, were entitled to acquittal, on two grounds. First, on the law of the case. Secondly, if they believed that the whole story was trumped up. He felt confident that the jury would dismiss this most unconscientious case as it deserved to be dismissed.

 

The Chairman did not recommend Mr. COURTENAY's law, in summing up. He left that point untouched; but expressed an unequivocal opinion that the prosecutor's case had been clearly made out. He thought Mrs. STEEL the witness of truth; she had given her evidence in a manner which did her credit; and NICHOLSON, also a respectable witness, completely corroborated her. If the Jury concurred with him in opinion, they could have very little difficulty in finding the defendants guilty.

 

The Jury consulted about a minute, and found all the defendants Guilty.

 

Mr. AGLIONBY—This being a prosecution at common law, the Court cannot order restitution; but we are still out of possession.

 

Mr. COURTENAY—If this is a side-wind put in in aggravation of punishment, I trust it will not produce its intended effect. They must resort to legal means.

 

The prosecutor did not pray for judgment; and the parties were bound over to good behaviour for twelve months, and to appear if called upon.

 

DOMESTIC ROBBERY.

 

Jane TAYLOR, 17, pleaded guilty to two indictments, charging her with stealing a gold brooch, and a portrait, the property of Mr. G. RELPH and Mary RELPH, her master and his daughter. Sentence: Twelve months' imprisonment and hard labour.

 

POCKET PICKING.

 

William SMITH, aged 24, pleaded guilty to a charge of picking Mr. THOMPSON's pocket, at Penrith, on the 27th of April. Mr. ARMSTRONG stated that the prosecutor was standing in Penrith fair, and feeling some one's hand at his breast, his attention was awakened, and the prisoner instantly turned from him and ran clear off, though pursued. Mr. THOMPSON found that he had lost his pocket-book containing seven guineas. The prisoner was thus detected. He ran breathless into a saddler's shop, and asked the price of a bridle; but seeming to recollect himself, he said "O, I am afraid my horses will run away, I'll leave this pocket-book till I return," and suddenly retreated. This book was the property lost by Mr. THOMPSON.—Sentence: Twelve months' imprisonment and hard labour in Carlisle gaol.

 

HOUSE ROBBERY.

 

Thomas TINDAL, 17, also pleaded guilty to a charge of stealing from the dwelling of Mr. John MANN of Sandenhouse, Holme Cultram, nine bank notes, knife, handkerchief, &c. on Sunday the 26th May. Mr. MANN and his family had gone to church, and locked up the house. While absent, the prisoner, who lived as servant with a neighbouring farmer, entered the dwelling (it did not appear how) and committed the theft.—In passing sentence of twelve months' imprisonment and hard labour, the Chairman said he lamented to see so respectable a looking youth come up to receive punishment for so heinous an offence. The Court had thought it necessary to be severe in order that others might be deterred from similar practices.

 

 

[to be continued]