[List-Cumbria] Carlisle Journal, 31 Aug 1811 - Cumberland Assizes (3)

Wed Mar 11 10:43:25 UTC 2020

Saturday 31 Aug 1811   (p. 4, col. 3-5)

Law Intelligence. 

---------- 

CUMBERLAND ASSIZES.-CROWN SIDE. 

----- 

[continued] 

FELONIOUSLY STABBING. 

Stephen THOMPSON was indicted for feloniously stabbing in the wrist Corporal William THOMAS, of the Royal Marines. 

The prisoner is an apothecary in Carlisle, and is the landlord of the White Swan Inn, in English-street. Behind this house is a
yard, which adjoins also to the prisoner's shop, and in which he has a stable; the passage to which is an entry belonging to his
tenant, Henry NANSON.-By agreement the prisoner was not to have more liberty in this yard than was necessary for taking care of his
horse; and the tenant should be allowed to lock the gates about 9 o'clock of the night. 

>From the evidence of Mr. H. NANSON, the tenant, John LAYCOCK, and Wm. THOMAS, (the prosecutor) the prisoner was heard on the evening
of the 10th November, 1810, about 10 o'clock, making improper noise in NANSON's entry, so as to disturb the company in his house.
Whereupon NANSON went out, and insisted he should leave the premises, as he had no right there. THOMPSON accordingly went out the
back gate which leads into Blackfriars street; and NANSON sent THOMAS for the key in order to lock the gate. Upon the return of
THOMAS, the gate was burst open by the prisoner, who ran towards the prosecutor, with something glittering in his hand,-saying, at
the same time, "Damn thee, I'll mark thee." THOMAS immediately felt his hand cut, which he had instinctively raised to ward off the
blow, and by the shock was brought to the ground. On rising he found his hand cut, and bleeding profusely. This injury occasioned
him to be confined for some time Though previous to this transaction, the parties had some ill words; yet during the scuffle,
nothing of the kind had occurred.-Thought the blow had been aimed at his body. 

In defence, it was attempted to invalidate the indictment by endeavouring to prove, that the wound which was represented to be upon
the wrist, was, in fact, upon the hand.-Dr. Joshua IRELAND, who attended the prosecutor, affirmed, that the wound was a clean cut-in
no respect lacerated,-oblique, and in length about 2 inches, beginning at the upper part or root of the thumb, and ending on the
large bone of the wrist; and was of such depth as to have wounded the radial artery,-that the scar of the wound was not exactly in
the same direction as when the wound was received; but that this appearance had taken place during the treatment. He yet had not the
least doubt, that part of the scar remained upon the region of the wrist; and he was quite certain of the extent and nature of the
wound from ocular demonstration and probing. 

To prove the flaw in the indictment, Dr. HEYSHAM said, that the cicatrix was not on the wrist, but an inch and a half from it,
though at the root of the thumb. When cross-examined he said it might be upon the wrist, but, on further consideration, he said it
never could have been upon it. The wrist consisted of a number of small bones of which he did not know the names. That he could
judge as well of the nature, extent, and direction of a wound, ten months after it had healed, as the first person who had been in
the habit of daily examining it; for that it was possible the wound should be so much inflamed that the person attending it could
form no correct idea of it. He acknowledged, however, that unless the medical man who attended him was blind, he must form a correct
idea of it. 

Dr. GILPIN and Mr. WILSON swore to the same purport as the former evidence; only they thought, that the medical man who attended at
the time must have a better knowledge of the wound than could be formed at any subsequent period. 

Mr. SMITH, apothecary, swore nearly to the same purport-except that he was confident that a better opinion could be formed
respecting the nature of a wound after it had been healed up, than during the time of its healing. 

The prosecution being allowed to proceed,-Mrs. TEASDALE said, she was sitting by her fire-side when she distinctly heard the cry of
murder! murder! in a woman's voice; she went to the place from whence the cries proceeded, and found NANSON and prosecutor kicking
and abusing the prisoner; and that she found some pieces of glass bottles in the yard, upon which she supposed THOMAS had been
thrown down, and with which he had cut his hand.-(The [paragraph ends abruptly] 

The prisoner's housekeeper then produced the fragments in Court, and corroborated the evidence of the former witness. 

Messrs. STOREY, TURNBULL, and WILSON, proved to the same effect; and after a short consultation the prisoner was acquitted. 

EMBEZZLEMENT. 

Christopher HOLME was indicted for embezzling two Bills of Exchange of the value of 5000l. 

The points of evidence in this case rested upon this circumstance-whether the prisoner was to be considered a partner in the concern
or not. He had been principal clerk for 8 years, in the House of GRAHAM, RAMSHAY, MOUNSEY, and BECK, bankers, Carlisle, and always
had conducted himself with very great propriety. But in the year 1809 some peculiar circumstances took place which were the grounds
of his defence. In this year, (1809) Mr. BECK, one of the partners, being appointed one of the Deputy Receivers of the county, which
necessarily occupied a considerable portion of his time, and being of a nervous habit, engaged Mr. HOLME to transact the chief
business of the Bank; for which he was to receive one third of Mr. BECK's profit, in addition to his own salary. This was
communicated to the rest of the partners, and received their approbation. In consequence Mr. HOLME acted accordingly and considered
himself a partner in the concern. The Bills for which the prisoner was indicted were drawn subsequently to this agreement. The Bills
being dishonoured, were returned to the House, and occasioned the discovery. 

It was contended on the part of the prosecution, by Messrs. MOUNSEY and BECK, that they never understood, that the prisoner was a
partner, or that any meeting had taken place for that purpose. They allowed that there was an agreement between the prisoner and Mr.
BECK; by which the prisoner was allowed one third of his individual profits. But this was merely a private agreement between
themselves, without any reference to the other partners. HOLME had more than once allowed his share of the profits to lay over; but
this was entered in BECK's name, and was considered a private transaction between BECK and the prisoner:-never recollect having
mentioned HOLME in any other light than the one already explained. 

In favour of the prisoner, several persons were brought forward to prove, that Mr. BECK had often mentioned in company, that Mr.
HOLME was a partner,-particularly, Mr. WARWICK, who proved that he had been himself, and until some little time ago, partner in the
said firm, when he retired. He perfectly recollected meetings for the purpose of making HOLME a partner, and ever after understood
him to be such. He believed the rest of the partners considered him to have a share. 

The evidence was ably summed up by the Judge; and the Jury, after a short consultation, brought in a verdict of-Not guilty. 

John JARDINE and William BRYSON, charged with assisting John NICHOLSON and John LITTLE, two of the prisoners, confined in his
Majesty's goal [sic] at Carlisle, to escape therefrom, were tried and-Acquitted. 

John DOWLEY and William JACKSON, charged with stealing a bag, containing 3s. 11d. in copper, out of the house of Edward EDGER, of
Dockray Bank.--John DOWLEY was found guilty,-To be confined 12 calendar months; William JACKSON-Acquitted. 

[to be continued] 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.cumbriafhs.com/mailman/private/list-cumbria/attachments/20200311/2f78e9d1/attachment.htm>