The Maryport Advertiser
Friday, July 21, 1882
Police – Cockermouth | Police – Cockermouth |
|
|
| The Maryport Advertiser - Friday, July 21, 1882 | |
|
POLICE
- COCKERMOUTH
_______________ ASSAULT. - At the Cockermouth Petty Sessions, on Monday, JOHN WILSON, innkeeper, Cockermouth, was summoned for having, on the 1st inst., assaulted WILLIAM SCOTT, son of JAMES SCOTT, innkeeper, Cockermouth. MR. ATTER appeared for the complainant, and MR. PAISLEY defended. The complainant stated that on the 1st of July he was going to deliver a hamper on a barrow to MR. GRAHAM, when he was stopped by the defendant, who upset the barrow and overthrew the hamper. He (complainant) threw stones at a gate which was closed. The stones thrown would not go through the bars of the gate. The reason why complainant threw stones was that he wished to keep the defendant in as he was threatening to come out to give him (complainant) a thrashing. Defendant did come out and knocked complainant down, and whilst on the ground defendant both kicked him and struck him with his hands. MR. PAISLEY said the question at issue between the two parties had been adjudicated upon already and therefore could not be raised again. MR. ATTER said if he had a right to summon MR. WILSON before he still had that right, as this assault had never been before the Bench. MR. PAISLEY said it was within the power of the defendant in the case heard last week to ask for the issue of a cross-summons, so that the question might have been decided by the Bench. He must also raise the question of title. MR. ATTER: That question was decided by the clerk - JESSIE MURRAY and JANE GRAHAM gave evidence similar to that of the complainant. THOMAS RITSON stated THOMAS WILSON did not kick or strike the complainant. JOHN BELL said WILSON got hold of the defendant and shook him, but he neither kicked or struck him. MR. ATTER: Did you see MRS. MURRAY and JANE WILSON there? WIRNESS: Yes MR. ATTER: Whereabouts were you ? WITNESS: Aside the gate post, as you call it. MR. ATTER: How far were you off MRS. MURRAY WITNESS: About a yard a half. MR. ATTER: Then MRS. MURRAY would be nearer than you ? WITNESS: It would be a tight measure. MR. ATTER: If MRS. MURRAY says she saw the defendant strike the complainant, wouldn't she be speaking the truth ? WITNESS: She didn't see him striking; she couldn't. MR. ATTER: Would not she be more likely to see for herself than you would be to see for her (laughter). Have you been summoned ? WITNESS: Yes. MR. ATTER: When did you get your summons ? WITNESS: It's no matter about that. MR. ATTER: You seem to be a little impudent; now you will have to answer it: when did you get your summons ? The Witness did not answer. THE CLERK: Answer the question. WITNESS: I have not got a summons MR. ATTER: Haven't got a summons ? Why you told the magistrates just now that you were summoned. WITNESS: I am not summoned. MR. ATTER: You told the magistrates you were summoned, and now you say you are not. What is your explanation ? Give us your explanation? WITNESS: I cannot. MR ATTER: Was it true, the answer you gave me ? WITNESS: No, it was not. The Case was dismissed. ======================================================== |
|
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
| The Westmorland Gazette |
| Kendal Times |
| The Penrith Observer |
| Penrith Herald |
| Mid Cumberland & North Westmorland Herald |