[list-cumbria] Carlisle Patriot, 01 May 1824 - County Sessions (3)

[Petra Mitchinson]

Saturday 01 May 1824   (p. 2, col. 5 – p. 3, col. 5)

 

COUNTY SESSIONS. 

 

[continued] 

 

DIXON v. ROGERS. 

 

This was an appeal against a conviction under the 3rd of G. 4. by the Rev. Mr. MATTHEWS, for wanton and furious driving. 

 

Mr. AGLIONBY, for the appellant, raised a preliminary objection, as to the authority of the Court, but could not sustain it. 

 

Mr. COURTENAY said the appellant, John ROGERS, had been convicted of wantonly and furiously driving the Royal Sailor Coach, which
runs between Whitehaven and Carlisle; and if ever a conviction was right, this was one. His client was the driver of a gig on the
same road, called the Bee, and this was not the first time he had had to complain. His vehicle was not overturned by the coach, but
it was lifted up by the wheel of the coach as it passed; and that ROGERS had wilfully driven against the Bee would be very apparent
from the evidence. 

 

Mr. AGLIONBY raised another objection, in this stage, to the form of conviction, which was also over-ruled. 

 

Philip JACKSON sworn.—On the 29th of Feb. I was a passenger in DIXON's gig. We were overtaken about three quarters of a mile on this
side of Maryport, by the Royal Sailor, driven by John ROGERS, in the parish, I believe, of Crosscannonby. I saw the coach
approaching, and I told our driver that they meant to upset us; I judged so by the manner of their approach. DIXON drew off the
road, and left plenty of room—room enough for another gig besides the coach—and yet the wheel of the coach struck the gig as it
passed, and lifted it up. The road was six yards wide; and had the coach been driven with proper care this could not have happened. 

 

Cross-examined by Mr. AGLIONBY—Thomas DIXON is the name of the driver of the gig. I am not to receive any part of the penalty. We
were on our way towards Whitehaven; and the spot where the occurrence took place is about 4¾ miles from Allonby, but I don't know
whether it is in the parish of Crosscannonby or not. The Royal Sailor approached us at the rate of six or seven miles an hour. It
was the near hind wheel of the coach which struck us. There were other two young ladies inside the gig with me (a laugh.)—And were
the other ladies as much afraid as you say you were? I can't tell. 

 

By Sir. J. R. G. GRAHAM—The horses of the Royal Sailor were only trotting. 

 

Elizabeth HOLMES—I was riding on the outside of the Bee, by the side of the driver; the shock of the coach lifted it up, and I was
very much alarmed, and laid hold of DIXON. We had got off the road upon the green (no hedges), and there was plenty of room. After
ROGERS passed he lifted up his hand three times, apparently on purpose, and turned round and laughed us to scorn, as it were. 

 

Cross-.examined—Why surely Ma'am he would not laugh you to scorn? No, he perhaps did not laugh at me individually.—He appeared to
have run against us purposely. I am sure there was not a cobble stone in the road; it was the hind wheel that struck us. 

 

Susan LITTLE.—I was inside the Bee, and felt the jolt or shock occasioned by the wheel of the Royal Sailor, but I did not hear DIXON
call out. 

 

Cross-examined.—I did not see the blow; and I cannot say whether the shock was occasioned by a cobble stone or not. I did not think
much about it at the time. 

 

Wm. JACKSON was recalled to describe more particularly the place where the contact took place; and Mr. SAUL, the Undersheriff,
proved it to be in the parish stated in the conviction—of Crosscannonby. 

 

This was Mr. COURTENAY's case. 

 

Mr. AGLIONBY again urged an objection to the form of the conviction. The offence was put in the alternative, "did injure or
endanger"—and this could not be so stated. It was not clear enough. All convictions must be certain. PALEY, on convictions, laid it
down that the ground of conviction "cannot be stated disjunctively, or in the alternative." He also raised a minor objection as to
the connection between the terms wilful misconduct, and wanton and furious driving. He insisted that the nature of the wilful
misconduct should have been fully set out in the conviction. 

 

Mr. COURTENAY replied—There was no authority for stating in a conviction what the wilful misconduct was; the act merely required
that the allegation should be proved before the magistrate. Wilful misconduct was so vague that it could not be set out. And as to
the alternative. To that he would say, that fright was an injury, and lifting the carriage, endangering. Both of these were in
proof. In an indictment for libel, there is a charge for writing, another for printing, and a third for publishing; it was enough to
prove one, and the rest were thrown overboard. So here, if you prove one of the alternatives, the rest may be thrown overboard. The
argument as to the disjunctive did not apply here, where the judgment was the same on both. 

 

Mr. AGLIONBY denied the correctness of his learned friend's illustration as to libel. If he were correct, A. B. might be charged
that on a certain day he did commit a burglary or murder on C. D. This was his friend's answer to the dictum respecting certainty.
But certainty was requisite in law and in reason. He relied upon his arguments. 1st, Wanton driving was not furious; wanton was
negatived by the evidence. 2ndly, It was insufficient to say "wilful misconduct" merely. And, 3rdly, There was the alternative. 

 

The Court admitted the form of conviction. 

 

 

[to be continued] 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.cumbriafhs.com/pipermail/list-cumbria/attachments/20240928/2fa93299/attachment-0001.htm>