[list-cumbria] Carlisle Patriot, 06 Mar 1824 - Westmorland Spring Assizes (6)

Tue Jul 16 10:15:33 UTC 2024

Saturday 06 Mar 1824   (p. 4, col. 1-6)

WESTMORLAND SPRING ASSIZES. 

TUESDAY, MARCH 2. 

[continued] 

The JUDGE summed up at considerable length, and pointed out the connecting links of the evidence. The mere taking out the pane of
glass, with intent to rob, constituted a burglary, in point of law, whether any thing had been stolen or not. It was clear that a
burglary had been committed. This was proved by Mrs. GUY, independently of the evidence of the accomplice, who, the Jury would
observe, did not come before them exactly in the light of a man who makes a disclosure when he has not the means of concealment, but
went voluntarily and gave such information as led to the discovery of the goods, and the apprehension of the prisoners at the bar:
still, he stood in the situation of an accomplice to whom it would be dangerous to give credit unless his statements were in some
degree confirmed by other witnesses, or by circumstances not to be mistaken. One feature in favour of his credibility was, that he
appeared not alone against RAWSTHORN, with whom he was only slightly acquainted; he also implicated his friend and schoolfellow
RICHARDSON. That he was very strongly confirmed there could be no doubt; but the Jury world exercise their judgment and discretion.
On the other hand, SIMPSON having been put into the box, without either of the prisoners venturing upon examining her, in
contradiction of John DENT, pretty clearly shewed how matters stood in that respect. If they were satisfied of the prisoners' guilt,
it was their duty to avow it by their verdict; if they had any doubt, the prisoners were entitled to the benefit of that doubt. 

The Jury found both Guilty, without hesitation. 

Mr. COURTENAY said there was another indictment against the prisoners for grand larceny; but they having been found guilty of a
superior offence, perhaps his Lordship would not think it necessary to go into it. * 

Mr. Justice HOLROYD thought it unnecessary, but he would try the case in which a third party was concerned. 

THOMAS RICHARDSON was then again arraigned, for having on the 5th of December last, at the township of Ambleside, stolen, taken, and
carried away, a quantity of collar check, and a quantity of Kendal cotton, value four pounds, the property of James COOPER; and
CHARLOTTE CRILLIN, aged 42, wife of John CRILLIN, of Millom, in the county of Cumberland, labourer, was charged with having received
the said collar check and Kendal cotton, knowing the same to have been feloniously stolen as aforesaid. 

Mr. ALDERSON said this was another case against RICHARDSON, but it was investigated in order to reach CRILLIN, and for that purpose
only, he having been convicted of a greater offence, which would involve a severer degree of punishment than would await him from a
mere conviction upon this indictment. After giving an outline of the case, Mr. ALDERSON (who was alone) called 

Randal DORMANTON, who deposed—I am employed by Mr. James COOPER, as a weaver, and was so on the 4th of December last, near
Ambleside. On that night I worked till near eleven o'clock, and leaving the shop, locked the door with a hang-lock. On coming next
morning at half-past four, I found the door wide open, the staple broken, and the lock lying on a stone on the outside—the staple
with it. I did not miss any articles till six o'clock, when I discovered that three webs of woollen cloth had been stolen—one of
collar check, and two Kendal cottons. Though called cottons, they are woollen cloth. These I had seen in the looms the night before;
the former quite finished; one of the Kendal cottons wanting about six yards. They had been cut out of the looms. I informed my
master of the robbery. 

James FAWCETT called.—I had RICHARDSON in custody on the 25th December. We had a conversation respecting Mr. COOPER's robbery; and I
was afterwards with him before Mr. MAUDE, the magistrate, and what he there said was reduced to writing. 

T. H. MAUDE, Esq.—The prisoner, RICHARDSON, was before me, and the examination now put in was taken in writing, without threat or
promise. The examination was put in and read. It stated, that he went with RAWSTHORN to Grasmere, for the purpose of robbing a
weaver's shop; they broke the window, but having disturbed some persons living near, they decamped and went to Ambleside. Here
RAWSTHORN said he knew of a weaving shop which might easily be robbed. Informant thought they had better leave it alone, and go
home; but RAWSTHORN declared that he would not come so far for nothing; so they went to Mr. COOPER's shop, the door of which
RAWSTHORN broke open, and brought out to witness, first the collar check, and next the Kendal cottons, which he cut from the looms.
They took the goods so far as the Lime-kiln near Low Wood, and there informant declared he would not carry his part any further, so
they hid the whole in a wood near at hand, and covered it with moss, &c. and then returned to Kendal. 

Thomas TROUGHTON, constable of Ambleside, called. I went with Mr. COOPER, the prosecutor, to CRILLIN's house, on the 27th December,
found her at home, and told her that we were come to seek for some collar cheek and Kendal cottons which had been stolen from Mr.
COOPER's warehouse. She resides in Cumberland, and travels with cockles in a cart. She said she knew nothing at all about them. I
then observed, that as we had come so far, I hoped she would not object to her house being searched—certainly not, said she, "You
are welcome to do it." We searched and found the collar check now produced, between the bed and the cords. After this, she produced
some Kendal cotton. At this time Mr. COOPER was standing near the door, and CRILLIN begged that I would not call him upstairs. I
asked her how she came by the goods? She replied, that she bought them of a man and a boy, who were unknown to her, near a lime
kiln, beside the Low Wood, about six in the evening, but could not tell the day. There is a lime-kiln there; and the spot, all
around, is in the county of Westmorland. I apprehended her and took her to Kendal. She first said she was to give 13d. a yard for
one, and 15d. for the other cloth—this was at her house. On her way to prison, I asked her how she was to pay for the things, not
knowing the people of whom she bought them? She then said "I knew them very well—I have often traded with them before." I asked
their name—she answered, "Geo. RAWSTHORN," and that she was to give four pounds for the whole, towards which sum she had paid 24s.
These webs I have had in my possession ever since. 

CRILLIN had no questions to ask the witness. 

Mr. COOPER sworn.—I am a manufacturer, and live at Ambleside. I went to prisoner's house with Mr. TROUGHTON—I heard what passed
between them when she was first spoken to. She denied all knowledge of the goods. (Mr. COOPER identified the webs, and produced the
ends which had been left in the loom; these he compared with the webs and found to correspond precisely, even to the cutting.) I can
say that the goods are mine. They are not finished—not in a saleable state by me as a manufacturer: they are never disposed of in
this state by the trade—they want milling, and contain all their original grease. If offered to one of the trade, their state would
probably have been deemed suspicious. The check is 48 yards; the whites were two 24's; but the greater part of one of them was not
found. The latter is generally used by sadlers in lining collars; the former are exported to the West Indies. Value of the whole,
£4. 

By the Court—The woman is married—her husband was in the house when we were there. 

This was the case for the prosecution. 

RICHARDSON, in his defence, said he was not guilty of stealing the goods. 

CRILLIN said she bought them not knowing they were stolen; they told her they made them themselves. She did deny them, because she
wished to save her blind man and small family; this lie she did tell, under fear, but was very sorry for it. She concluded by
handing in a paper respecting character—had no witnesses, being a long way from home. 

Mr. Justice HOLROYD summed up. CRILLIN was indicted for purchasing, knowing the goods to have been stolen; the alleged knowledge
constituting her offence. RAWSTHORN was not indicted in this case, because RICHARDSON's declaration could not be received against
him, though it was effectual against himself. Of RICHARDSON's part in the transaction there could be no doubt; that was rendered
clear enough by his confession and other circumstances. That the woman was not innocent, her own inconsistent declarations and
concealment of the property strongly indicated; her whole conduct shewed that she was aware, not only that the goods had been
stolen, but also from whom they had been taken. 

The jury returned a verdict of Guilty against both prisoners, after a very brief consultation. 

Mr. TROUGHTON, on being questioned by his Lordship, said he knew that CRILLIN's husband was blind; and that she had a very large
family, whom she chiefly supported—no less than fourteen children.—It appeared, by what fell from the learned Judge, that the Rector
of Millom, Mr. DIXON, and other parishioners, bore written testimony in the woman's favour; there was no one present, however, who
knew the Rev. Gentleman's hand writing. 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* The case alluded to was an indictment against RAWSTHORN and RICHARDSON, found true, charging them with feloniously stealing,
taking, and carrying away, at the Burgh of Kendal, eight pieces of woollen cloth, of the value of £10, the goods and chattels of
John WHITELY, clothier, of Stainland, Yorkshire. 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[to be continued] 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.cumbriafhs.com/pipermail/list-cumbria/attachments/20240716/959bdbf3/attachment.htm>