Carlisle Patriot, 16 Jul 1825 - Cumberland County Sessions (6)

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

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

 

COUNTY SESSIONS.

 

[continued]

 

FORCIBLE ENTRY.

 

Andrew PENN, John BANKS, Thomas PARROTT, and Betty BIGLANDS, appeared and pleaded not guilty to an indictment found against them at the Easter Sessions, for a forcible entry at Maryport, on the 10th of March last. PARROTT's wife was also included, but a paper was put in to show that she is dangerously ill at home of an inflammatory complaint. BANKS observed that she was "lying a dying."

 

Mr. AGLIONBY, for the prosecution, began his address to the Jury by an allusion to this woman's illness, and said her trial was therefore postponed till next Sessions should it be thought requisite to proceed against her. The charge was, forcible entry. He was not instructed to impute vicious intentions, or any very great violence, but as it was too common in this county for persons to use force in gaining possession of disputed property, it was necessary to show its illegality, and to repress the practice by the example of conviction and punishment. If such proceedings were permitted, there was no saying where they might end; for if one failed in effecting his purpose, he would call in the aid of a second, third, or as many more as he deemed necessary, till a whole town might be in arms. The law considered as "forcible entry" all cases where violent possesison [sic] of property was obtained—in legal terms, where a number of persons enter manu forte, with a strong hand. In England where the law was supreme, it was not at all necessary to resort to such means of asserting a right. Even if the defendants could prove their title to the property, it would not do away with their offence, for the law declared that "no one by force and violence should assert his title." Were no body in the house, the offence was precisely the same. He went on to state what he intended to prove. The indictment was not under the statute, but under the common law, so that the defendants were amenable for a breach of the peace.

 

Henry DOBIE, carrier, proved that he carried the household goods of Joseph STEEL from Workington to a house in the High-street of Maryport, where he saw Betty Biglands, and she helped to convey the furniture into one of the rooms.

 

Mr. COURTENAY appeared for the defendants. He cross-examined the witness, who said that he had heard that Betty BIGLANDS and STEEL were aunt and nephew. He did not know that STEEL was in distress and could not keep house any longer at Workington.

 

John SCOTT.—I am a sail-cloth weaver at Maryport, and occupy the back of the house spoken of. I helped in the goods, which were taken to a room upstairs. Betty BIGLANDS was present. STEEL and his family lived in the room a fortnight. On the night of the 10th of March, the front door was beaten in by at least 200 persons, some of whom even broke open my door, and searched my house, upstairs and down, for STEEL, whom they said they wanted, but he was not there. They then proceeded to STEEL's room, and in the course of the night they turned all his furniture into the street. STEEL and his wife came next day and could not get in again.

 

Cross-examined by Mr. COURTENAY.—I don't know that STEEL was in distress, or that Mrs. BIGLANDS had charged him with having taken her brother's will. As long as I have known the house, BIGLANDS has been in it.

 

Dinah STEEL examined—I am the wife of the prosecutor, Joseph STEEL. Before we went to Maryport, we had lived in Workington—we went thither in the latter end of February, and took with us our own furniture. We were to have a dwelling in a house that we had purchased from Betty BIGLANDS. My husband bought the whole of it. We had our goods in various parts of the house, but only occupied one room upstairs, furnished by ourselves, and we had the key of the door. SCOTT lived in a back part of the premises, having a separate staircase. When we went, no one offered resistance.—When did you first hear of any dispute about the purchase? Mr. COURTENAY objected to such leading questions as extremely irregular; they were such as would not be tolerated in any other Court in England. His learned friend first committed the irregularity by asking them, then he gave effect to it by repeating them to the Bench. He had heard of cramming turkies, but he never before heard of cramming juices and gorging witnesses in this way.

 

Mr. AGLIONBY.—I have so long stood here and heard my friend's improper remarks, such as "ludicrous," "absurd," "I protest," "no other court," and such like, that I am grown callous to them. I assert that I have a right to ask the question, and I shall repeat it unless the Chairman says to the contrary.

 

The Court suggested a modified form.

 

Mr. COURTENAY.—I only objected to my friend's leading. He ought to have asked—Was there a dispute? What about? He still objected to the modified form.

 

The Chairman saw no impropriety.

 

Mr. AGLIONBY (to Mr. COURTENAY,—I hope you will be more regular in future. (A laugh.)

 

The witness spoke of what she "understood" and "heard."

 

Mr. COURTENAY.—That's the way we go on here.

 

Mr. AGLIONBY.—I really must object to my learned friend's remarks, and request him to abstain from them, for they are exceedingly improper.

 

The examination was continued:—We lived a fortnight in the house, and then a dispute occurred about the property. BIGLANDS wanted the title deeds back, and we would not give them. She then raised a riot and put us out. I was in my own room at the time the mob entered, sitting with Henry NICHOLSON, a joiner and cabinet-maker of Workington, my husband having just gone out (about nine at night) for some writing paper. Andrew PENN broke open the door; the house was instantly filled: hundreds were about it, and there was plenty of noise. They got in at the outer door by beating in the pannels with hammers. PENN, PARROTT, and BANKS, came upstairs and pulled down the partition of our room. Betty BIGLANDS was there also. PENN ordered me out of the house, I asked him by whose authority he ordered me out. He said he had authority in his pocket, but that he would not read it to me. I said I would not go out till I was forced out; that I was not going to leave my trunks and chests unlocked and exposed; and I sat down, and declared that I would not go. They then pulled me down stairs, struck me, and forced me out. They extinguished the fire, and ordered the candles to be put out, but left one burning. Afterwards they thrust all the goods into the street; I saw them there next morning. We have not been on the premises since.

 

Cross-examined by Mr. COURTENAY.—My husband is a sailor, and now at sea. He had then been home a few weeks. He has been owner and master of several vessels, but is not a man of large property: he is now on board a collier vessel. There was a mortgage on the house, and he bought the equity of redemption; he told me so; Mr. SIM of Maryport drew the deeds. After the expulsion, I first applied to Mr. MATTHEWS, of Wigton, but as Maryport was out of his jurisdiction he refused to act. I next went to Mr. STANLEY, and thirdly to Mr. WATTS, who granted a warrant for the assault, but declined meddling with the forcible entry. Mrs. BIGLANDS made a charge against my husband of taking away her brother's will, but it was quite false. There was a mutual assault between me and her, and that I made up, before Mr. WATTS, but my husband being away at the time I refused to compromise the forcible entry.

 

Henry NICHOLSON corroborated Mrs. STEEL in so far as he was concerned. They forced him out first, and struck him. He was before Mr. WATTS when the assault recognizances were withdrawn, each paying her own costs, but Mrs. STEEL refused to have any thing to do in respect to the entry.

 

 

[to be continued]