[list-cumbria] Carlisle Patriot, 31 Jan 1824 - Public Office (2)

[Petra Mitchinson]

Saturday 31 Jan 1824   (p. 3, col. 4)

 

PUBLIC OFFICE—TOWN HALL. 

 

[continued] 

 

Mr. PEARSON said he merely appeared for Mr. NORMAN, the solicitor, and he knew nothing of the case before he came into Court. As to
the dog, he had heard that it was a very fierce one, and had repeatedly annoyed and assailed different animals and persons. But no
property in it had yet been proved; nor a word as to the amount of the damage sustained. 

 

Major HODGSON himself was then sworn.—The dog was a valuable one—it was a present to Mrs. HODGSON; he would not have taken any money
for it. It was very lame at present. He would not have taken £5 for the dog; but he could not put any real value on it. 

 

Cross-examined by Mr. PEARSON.—I do not know that my dog attacked and killed a grey-hound of Mr. LOWRY's of Stanwix—it did not do
so. I don't believe that it does, in general, attack other dogs first. It is not particularly fierce—not too fierce for a house-dog.


 

By Mr. SAUL.—It is fierce only when disturbed. I never saw it leap at a man. 

 

John HODGSON sworn—I was witness to the whole affair at a few yards distance. I saw ROBINSON strike at the dog twice or thrice with
an axe; but whether he hit it or not I was not near enough to ascertain. 

 

Cross-examined by Mr. PEARSON.—I know the dog well—it is not very fierce. I never knew it attack any one, without it was molested.
It is in general tied up: but when loose, goes into the house, and no precaution is there taken in respect to the children. 

 

Mr. PEARSON.—Are the Magistrates perfectly satisfied that the case is within the act of Parliament (The Court nodded assent). It
appears to me that the Legislature, by every kind of personal property, looking at the preceding part of the sentence, merely meant
wood cut down, which then becomes personal property peculiarly liable to damage and depredation. 

 

Mr. SAUL.—The act is as strong as words can make it. 

 

Clerk of the Peace.—Whatever judgment the Court may pronounce, an appeal is given to the Sessions. 

 

The Magistrates (the Mayor, Rev. W. FLETCHER, and Mr. FAWCETT,) retired a short time. On returning, 

 

Mr. FLETCHER said the Court had convicted the defendants. If the dog had been killed it would have awarded the full penalty; but as
the matter stood, it had fined John and Wm. STORDY 10s. 6d. each, and John ROBINSON 5s., exclusive of costs. 

 

Mr. SAUL.—I am desired to say, that if the penalties are paid without appeal, Major HODGSON does not wish himself to receive any
part of them. 

 

The defendants, after a short consideration, declined appealing, and paid the penalties, which, together with costs, amounted to
40s. Major HODGSON left the fines to be distributed among the deserving poor. 

 

A warrant was granted against John ROBSON, labourer, and William ROBSON, mason, of Aglionby, for a most violent assault upon James
BELL, labourer, and also upon his wife, in their own house, into which they rushed on the preceding Thursday evening (a quarrel
having previously taken place near Warwick) having first burst open the door and broken the window. The complainant was tied up
about the head, and exhibited marks of very severe punishment on the face and throat. He said that if he had not obtained
assistance, he should have been murdered: that they knocked down his wife, and seized him by the throat, threw him back upon his own
bed, and then attempted to throttle him. His marks certainly bore out his statement. 

 

A warrant was also granted against two men named HASKINS, one RUMNEY, and another man, all weavers at Upperby, they having assaulted
Philip ——, at that place on the 22d inst., while he was attending a sale. 

 

On the 22d, James FERGUSON, of Nealhouse, applied to Mr. FLETCHER at Dalston, and obtained a warrant against Margaret MURRAY, on
lodging a charge against her of stealing various articles of wearing apparel, and money out of his pockets, in his mother's dwelling
at Nealhouse. The parties appeared at the public office this day; when it came out that they had had a quarrel, and that some
revenge was in the case; moreover, the alleged offences were committed more than a year ago. The complaint was dismissed. 

 

On Wednesday, Mr. E. ROWLAND was convicted, on the information of Mr. PEET, in a penalty of five pounds, for refusing, when
required, to give him a receipt for money paid for rent, on stamped paper, having previously given a receipt without a stamp. Mr. R.
denied that the last-mentioned document was ever written by him—in short, he declared it to be a forgery; but the evidence adduced,
and the handwriting itself, were such as to induce the Court to convict. There is a dispute between the parties as to a distraint
for too much rent; and as Mr. ROWLAND immediately gave notice of an appeal to the sessions, we shall have an opportunity of
reporting the particulars of the case more at large. 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.cumbriafhs.com/pipermail/list-cumbria/attachments/20240512/56af7093/attachment-0001.htm>