The Genealogist - UK census, BMDs and more online


The Times, Thursday, Jul 20, 1871; pg. 10; col F-G

                              NORTHERN CIRCUIT.
                                CARLISLE, JULY 18.

The learned Judges of this circuit arrived here yesterday afternoon from
Newcastle, and proceeded at once to open the Commission. In the afternoon the
Lord Chief Baron attended Divine service in the cathedral.

The calendar contains the names of 26 prisoners, and in respect of the nature of
the crimes is rather a heavy one.

The cause list this morning contained an entry of nine causes, eight of which
were marked for special juries. The greater part of the causes arise out of
railway accidents.

         CROWN COURT. - (Before the LORD CHIEF BARON.)

His Lordship took his seat this morning at 10 o'clock, and charged the Grand
Jury.

William KAISELEY, aged 23, John WHITE, aged 22, and Charles PARKER, aged 22, all
"navvies," were charged with the wilful murder of Cornelius COX, at Armathwaite,
on the 15th of October last. The case was postponed from the last assizes, owing
to the absence of a material witness.

Mr. KAY, Q.C., and Mr. HERSCHELL appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. CAMPBELL
FOSTER defended the prisoners.

It appeared from the opening statement of the learned counsel for the
prosecution, and from the evidence, that the deceased man and the prisoners were
all "navvies" employed in making the New Midland Railway from Settle to
Carlisle, at a cutting near Armathwaite. There were a great number of Irish
labourers employed as well as English. The prisoners were Englishmen, and the
deceased was an Irishman. A bad feeling, it appeared, had existed between the
two sets of labourers, which had culminated in an outbreak of violence between
them. The witnesses were all Irish, and it would be necessary for the jury, in
weighing the evidence, to consider all these circumstances. The Englishmen, for
the most part, were quartered in the cottages in the village of Armathwaite, and
frequented a publichouse there. The Irishmen were quartered in huts outside the
village, and frequented a publichouse called the New Inn. There could be no
doubt that a bad feeling had existed between the English and the Irish labourers
for some time, and on the 15th of October, which was a Saturday and pay day,
about 20 Englishmen went to the New Inn and occupied the rooms, and drinking was
going on. A number of Irishmen were also there. All seemed to have gone on
pretty quietly till about 9 o'clock at night, when a body of Irish labourers
came down to the inn and assailed it with stones, smashing in the windows of the
lower rooms, and driving many of the English upstairs for refuge. This seemed to
be the signal for a general row, and fighting commenced both inside and outside
the house. In the course of it the landlord with his children took refuge in the
cellar to avoid the stones, great numbers of which came in "like shots" through
the windows. While this was going on, according to the evidence of an Irish
"navvy," named FOSTER, the prisoner WHITE set upon the deceased man COX, who was
quietly seated in a chair in the front kitchen, and, saying "You are another of
those ------- Irish ------," struck him in the face with his fist and knocked
him down. There were five other Irishmen then in the room, and the three
prisoners. FOSTER then said he saw KAISELEY and PARKER drag COX by the legs out
of the kitchen into the yard, and there, while WHITE and KAISELEY held him by
the legs, PARKER struck him on the head with a shovel and with an iron crook
till he became insensible. They found him two hours afterwards at the other side
of the yard wall, which was six feet high, on his back in a field, quite
insensible, and, with the assistance of the police, wheeled him in a barrow to
his hut. He died two days afterwards. The witness FOSTER was partly corroborated
by another witness named M'DONOUGH, who saw the prisoners drag the deceased man
into the yard and PARKER strike him with some weapon - he could not see what -
on the head in the yard when a crowd broke into it. Two other witnesses, NOLAN
and NORRIS, saw him knocked down in the house. On the cross-examination of
FOSTER and M'DONOUGH it was elicited that FOSTER never mentioned in the house
what he had seen to any one, nor did M'DONOUGH, and that all four Irishmen sat
down, on the invitation of the prisoner KAISELEY, immediately afterwards, to
partake with him of a half gallon of ale, which, however, the landlord would not
furnish. It was suggested for the defence that it was incredible that their
evidence could be true if they had just seen their mate knocked on the head till
he was insensible by KAISELEY and the other prisoners. All the witnesses
remained in the house till the English at last made a rush out of it and chased
the Irish, who were flinging stones up the road. The Irish witnesses, when all
was quiet, retired to their huts, had their suppers, and smoked their pipes.
Finding COX did not return, they set off back in about two hours in search of
him, and found him as described. A post mortem examination discovered that he
had an extensive wound at the side of his head, and that his skull was
fractured. A large clot of extravasated blood pressed on the brain, which had
caused his death. It appeared that it was a pitch-dark night, and it was further
contended that FOSTER could not have seen what he undertook to describe, and
that there were no bloodstains on the iron crook, which there must have been had
it been used as alleged. The shovel had not been found.

It was suggested for the defence that the deceased might probably have received
the injury upon his head while all were fighting together in the house, or from
one of the stones thrown through the windows, or he might have fallen over the
wall in endeavouring to escape from the back yard. The evidence of FOSTER was
scouted as entirely unworthy of belief, and without his evidence there was no
affirmative proof that the prisoners or any of them had inflicted the injuries
on the deceased which were said to have caused his death, still less that there
was any of that premeditation and malice aforethought which were necessary to
constitute the crime of murder.

The learned JUDGE, in summing up, after drawing attention to the serious nature
of the charge, left it to the jury to say how far it was probable the deceased
had received his death wound from a stone. According to the uncontradicted
evidence of the witnesses the blows had been struck at the deceased without the
least appearance of provocation, and unless the jury could suppose there were
some antecedent circumstances of provocation it would be their duty to convict
the prisoners of murder. They would first have to consider whether they could
believe all that the witness FOSTER had said, and whether there had not been
some suppression of evidence on his part. He had sworn he knew of no bad feeling
existing between the English and Irish "navvies," yet it was abundantly clear
that it did exist; and they would consider the fact that he had avowed that he
had looked on while his companion was beaten to death and had raised no alarm.
If there was a disturbance, they would next consider whether there was enough of
fighting and contention going on to make the attack on the deceased one
committed in hot blood, and to reduce the crime to manslaughter.

The jury retired, and, after an absence of half an hour, returned with a verdict
of Not Guilty as to all the prisoners.

The trial of this case occupied the Court nearly all the day.

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

Petra