Police. - Wigton.

Snubbing A Policeman. – At the Wigton Police-court on Tuesday, Thomas WANNOP, blacksmith, Blitterlees, was summoned for having, on the 29^th of May, unlawfully resisted Police-constable Matthew SLEE, whilst in the performance of his duty. – Police-constable Slee stated that on the day in question he was on duty at Blitterlees. There was a pic-nic there, and he wished to visit the ground for the purpose of inspecting the tent, and also to endeavour to serve a warrant on a man who he heard was in the neighbourhood. When he went up to the gate the defendant was standing, and he said, "Sixpence, Matthew, for going into here." He stopped a moment thinking the defendant was joking, and then stepped forward to the gate again, when the defendant placed his hand on his (complainant’s) breast and shoved him back, at the same time saying, "Thou’s not going in here to make another catch the same as thon did last year. There is no licence on the ground." Complainant asked him if he meant what he said, and he replied, "Yes, I do." He stood back on the road for a few minutes, when defendant went to him and asked him to go in and think nothing more about it. He replied he would go in when he thought fit. He afterwards went in and paid sixpence under protest. – Mr BENSON: Did you tell him you were gong to execute a warrant? – Complainant: No. It is not likely I was going to tell him my business? – Mr Benson, in addressing the Bench on behalf of the defendant, said the complainant was not entitled to go into the field except he could show reasonable cause for going there; and as he did not show any reasonable cause the defendant was justified in not admitting him without payment of the usual charge. The defendant was gate-keeper at the pic-nic, and had been on many previous occasions, and he instructed him (Mr Benson) to say that on previous occasions the policeman always paid for admission. – The Chairman said the Bench thought there was sufficient proof that there had been an interference, but at the same time they were of opinion that the defendant did not know that under certain circumstances policemen had a right to go into such places for given purposes. Considering that, they would only impose a penalty of 5s and costs.

~~~~~~~~~~

Maryport Advertiser and Weekly News June 23 1882

Police. - Wigton.

A Pauper Lunatic – Mr BENSON applied on behalf of the Wigton Board of Guardians, for an order to make a pauper, John Edward COATES, now chargeable to the Wigton Union, chargable (sic) to the county. – Peter Charles IREDALE stated that he serve a notice upon the County Treasurer on the 8^th June, intimating to him that the Wigton Board of Guardians intended making the application. The expenses incurred in connection with the pauper up to the present time amounted to £16 10s 6d. – The application was granted.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Maryport Advertiser and Weekly News June 23 1882

Police. - Wigton.

Wilful Damage. – Henry WALKER, John WALKER, Thomas DIXON, Thomas CASS, Edward MATTHEWS, and John PATTINSON, all of Fletchertown, were summoned for having, on the 13^th inst., unlawfully and maliciously thrown down a wall, the property of the Allerdale Coal Company. – Mr M’KEEVER appeared on behalf of the Colliery Company, and stated that as Henry Walker had pleaded guilty, he wished to withdraw the summons against him, and to call him as a witness. – Thomas Pattinson MARTIN stated that he was manager for the Allerdale Colliery Company. On the 14^th of June his attention was drawn to the state of the wall near Priest Croft disused pit. The wall formed a fencing round the mouth of the old pit, and he found that two or three yards were broken down. He afterwards saw Henry Walker, and questioned him about the wall, and he said he was there, and that all the boys summoned helped to throw the stones down. The damage done amounted to 10s. There was some timber knocked down the old shaft from near the surface. – Henry Walker deposed that Thomas Dixon, Thomas Cass, John Walker, Edward Matthews, and John Pattinson all threw stones down the old pit; and Matthews also pushed a stone down with his foot. They got the stones form the pit edge, around the wall, and on the pit bank. – The defendants were ordered to pay 2s each for the damage done, 1s fine, and the costs of the proceedings.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Maryport Advertiser and Weekly News June 23 1882

Police. - Wigton.

Dispute About Bill-sticking. – John HEWITSON, bill-poster, Wigton, was charged with having, on the 8^th inst, unlawfully and wilfully committed damage to and upon certain personal property there of a private nature, and belonging to Joseph Noble WALLAS, thereby doing injury to the said property to the amount of ten shillings. – Mr CARRICK appeared on behalf of the defendant, and stated that he intended to raise the question of title; and moreover, that what his client had done he had permission to do by the proprietor. – Mr Wallas said it was more a private affair than anything else between him and another tradesman in the town, notwithstanding that the summons had been issued against the bill-poster. He took the hoarding in front of the Wesleyan chapel for bill-posting purposes, one month before the boards were put up, agreeing to pay 5s for the privilege to a fund which Mr FOSTER, the owner of the hoarding, specified. When he found the defendant had been sticking bills on the posting station he sent him a letter on the 5^th of June warning him against posting any more bills there. On the 8^th of June, between the hours of one and two o’clock in the afternoon, he found the defendant posting bills and covering up some of the complainant’s bills. Defendant had repeatedly done the same thing since. – The Chairman: Is it that door I saw in coming into Wigton? – Complainant: No, it is in front of the Wesleyan Chapel that I have got. We are obliged to get posting stations of our own to prevent the bills from being covered up and on account of the exorbitant charges (Mr Carrick: No, no), and if denied I will call Mr Carrick himself. – Mr Carrick: I will take care you don’t do that at any rate (laughter). It is an unfortunate case, but it does not redound to Mr Wallas’s credit. – Mr Wallas was entering into an explanation of the case when he was interrupted by the Chairman, who asked if he wished to tell them that he was the sole lessee of the hoarding. – Mr Wallas: Yes. – The Chairman: Who gave you liberty? – Mr Wallas: Mr Foster did. –Mr Carrick: did you know he had a right to let it to Mr McMECHAN? – Mr Wallas: No, he had no right after he let it to me. – Mr Carrick: Did you try to prevent Hewitson from posting the bills relating to the foundation stone laying of the very chapel the hoarding was erected in front of? - Mr Wallas: No, I did not. – Mr Carrick: Did you ever say you did not care either for him (Mr Foster) or Mr Thomas? – Mr Wallas: No, I did not say that to Mr Hewitson. – Mr Carrick: Mr Thomas is the minister? – Mr Wallas: It doesn’t matter a button who he is. If he is the Lord Bishop he had nothing to do with it (laughter). - William Foster, who stated that he was the owner of the posting station in question, was next examined. His replies to the questions were vague, but he admitted that he thought Mr Wallas was entitled to the sole right when he paid the 5s. to the school fund. – The witness was afterwards cross-examined by Mr Carrick, when he said Mr Carrick came down last night and wanted to settle it. – Mr Wallas: Not in a very gentlemanly way. - Mr Carrick: To settle it last night! How dare you make such as assertion? – Witness said he had let the hoarding to Mr Wallas and that they could do what they liked about the business. – Mr Carrick said people should speak the truth when not sworn as well as on oath. – The Chairman: There is plenty of larking amongst men to humbug others. We see plenty of that every day. – Mr Carrick: There should not be. – For the defence Mr Carrick said Foster gave leave to Mr McMechan to have the bills posted. – The Chairman: This is idle tittle tattle outside. – Mr Carrick said Mr Foster was a respectable business man, and would not speak tittle tattle. This was a very serious matter for his client, who was a respectable business man. – Mr Thomas McMechan deposed to seeing Mr Foster in regard to posting bills on the hoarding, and Foster said he might post as many bills there as he had a mind. – The Chairman said Mr McMechan had no more right to the hoarding than Mr Carrick had. If the owner of a property disposed of it and afterwards gave leave to other parties, it was all bosh. – John STUDHOLME, boot and shoemaker, Wigton, was called to give evidence of a conversation between himself and Mr Foster in regard to the hoarding, but Mr Wallas objected to the testimony, and a note was made of his objection. – The Chairman said Mr Carrick had not the least shadow of ground for his case. Mr Foster had sold his right, and he had no more right to give leave to other parties than Mr Carrick had. – The Bench afterwards retired with the clerk to consider the case. - On returning, the Chairman said they had to try to administer the law on the merits of the case, and they had come to the conclusion, guided by decisions upon the Act of Parliament that Mr McMechan in what he did acted bona fide, believing that he had full permission to post upon the hoarding. They would dismiss the case. – Mr Wallas said he intended to take the case further. – The Chairman observed that he might do what he liked. They gave no decision as to whether he was the owner; but they considered that Mr McMechan was under a real supposition that he had a right to put bills upon the hoarding. – The Clerk (Mr RIGG) said where the defendants had a reasonable supposition of right the justices must dismiss the case. – Mr Wallas: With regard to costs? – The Chairman: We say nothing about costs.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Maryport Advertiser and Weekly News June 23 1882

Police. - Wigton.

A Hard Case. – William BENNET, labourer, Solway Cottages, Bowness-on-Solway, was summoned by Thomas MOORE, relieving officer, under the following circumstances. – Mr Moore said that on the 16^th of August last year an order was made that the defendant pay 2s per week towards the support of his parents. The arrears were now £4 1s which, with costs, was made £4 9s 6d. – The defendant said, with the wages he got, he could not pay the amount required. – The Chairman: If your circumstances really are as stated – and you cannot pay 2s per week – you must make application to have your case re-heard, and then say and allege that you cannot pay 2s per week: then the magistrates will take it into consideration, and if they see fit they will reduce the order. A distress warrant will be issued against you. – Defendant said he could not pay the sum. He was only making 15s per week, and he had five mouths to feed, and also to pay house rent and other matters.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Maryport Advertiser and Weekly News June 23 1882

Police. - Wigton.

Showing Her "Monkey". – James HINDE, Nether Row, Caldbeck, was summoned for neglecting to send his children to school, and an order was made causing him to ensure their attendance. – William HODGSON, charged with a similar offence, had a like order made against him. – William WILSON, farmer, Intack, Caldbeck, had a similar charge preferred against him and Mrs Wilson appeared in his stead. – A little altercation arose between the school attendance officer and Mrs Wilson, which the Chairman stopped by saying to the defendant: you are not benefiting your case by showing your monkey (laughter). – An order was also made in this case.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Maryport Advertiser and Weekly News June 23 1882

Police. - Wigton.

"Ratione Tenure" Roads. – John TIFFEN, Aikton Hall, farmer, was summoned in consequence of an application made by John ROBINSON, surveyor of highways, for the purpose of making a highway, situate in the parish of Aikton, converted into a parish highway: and there were similar informations against Mary GRAHAM, farmer, Gamblesby, and G E HASELL, Aikton Rectory. – Mr M’KEEVER appeared for the Highways Board, and Mr HODGSON, Carlisle, for Mr Hassell and Mr Tiffen. – The Surveyor deposed that he got instructions to examine ratione tenure roads, for the purpose of having them converted into parish roads. The roads were in good repair. – Mr Hodgson contended that the public were not in any way injured by the state of the road, and that there were no reasonable grounds for changing its present condition. It was a very arbitrary thing for the Highway Board to try to get the road. – The Bench, in the cases of Mr Hassell and Mr Tifffen, decided not to order their portions to be converted into Union roads, as they saw no just reason whatever that any alteration should be made; the public were accommodated to the utter-most. – In the case of Mary Graham an order was made; the defendant desiring that it should be done.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Maryport Advertiser and Weekly News June 23 1882

Police. - Wigton.

Neglecting To Comply With An Order. – John HUDDART, labourer, Bell Style, near Wigton, was summoned by Isaac BECKTON, relieving-officer, in regard to non-payment of an order. – The Relieving-Officer said the defendant had been summoned, and an order was made against him, which, with expenses, amounted to £3 1s 6d. He now applied that the defendant be committed in default of payment. – The defendant was ordered to be sent to gaol for one month.