Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-06-30 00:00:00

4arton, a Member

she would

prisoner

d up, and then went back to get her Christian nam

in order to summon her, as he did not like to lock her, up,
she being a respectable woman. Ile asked her christian
name, when she told him to go and find it. In three quar-
ters of an hour after that he was taking a prostitute to the
station, and in order not to come in contact with Mrs.
Lancaster, who was in the habit of interfering with the
police, to rescue prisoners, he went on the other side of

the street. She crossed over and asked his number,
saying she -wanted to report him. Told her his number
_ _

Yes ; there's the woman, there. Mr. Csbb : You might
have said that lady. Officer : Well, then, that lady. How
far was she from her own door at the time ? She was on
the parapet. How far, sir, from the door ? She was on
the parapet. Can't you give a direct answer; how far was
she from the door ? Not many perches. Do you know
what a perch is ? It might be the length of this court
from the door where she was. You swear that positively ?
I do. What did she do ? She called us murdering thieves
and ruffians. What else ? She caught me by the shoulder,
and tried to rescue the prisoner. And that you swear
positively also ? I do. I know a Mrs. Cannon ; she was
there that night, and I locked her up. For what ? For
attempting to rescue the prisoner, and excite the mob. Was
she brought before Mr. Mansfield next day ? Yes. And
what was the result ? He discharged her, because she did
not lay hands on me. Why did you not lock up Mrs. Lan-
caster? Because I had more than I was able to do at the
time. Did you know Mrs. Lancaster ? Not particularly.
Did you hear any one say "Don't have anything to do with
that policeman, as he will get you into trouble" ? I did not :
not to me, at least. To any one else ? No. Police-officer
710 said, he had a prisoner in custody, when another person
came up and rescued him. He then caught the second
person in Leeds-street, and the last witness came to his
assistance. We had to tie his legs with our belts, and
when passing Mr. Lancaster's, the lady came out and
called me a brute, and said it was a shame to let the
man go with us ; a crowd collected and shouted like
wild hounds. The feet were knocked from under me.
Saw Mrs. Lancaster take hold of 634 by the shoulder.
Mr. Cobb : You swear that positively ? I do. Here officer
Wilson, 634, made some undertone observation to the
witness, when Mr. Cobb called the attention of the bench to
the fact, and said, the policeman Wilson was prompting the
witness. Here Mr. Clough addressed officer Wilson, 634,
and said, I have told you frequently that there is no such
thing as keeping you in order. Mr. Cobb to the witness :
Did yon hear any one say, that it was a pity that there
was not some man or gentleman there to take notice of
the police, and the way they were treating the man ? No,
I did not. The witness (to Mr. Cobb) said, Mrs. Cannon
was locked up that night. For what ? For exciting the
mob. Mr. Cobb : For exciting, or inciting ? For
exciting. She , was bailed out by Mr. Lancaster and
another gentleman. Mr. Cobb : Was Mrs. Cannon or
Mrs. Lancaster the worst ? I don't know. Officer
No. 97 gave evidence partly corroborative of the
above. Mr. Cobb then addressed the court, and said the
whole, story, so far as Mrs. Lancaster was concerned, was a
tissue of falsehood from first to last. Indeed the conduct
of officer Wilson in court was quite sufficient to show what
he was. Mr. Clough himself was obliged to tell the officer
that he could not be kept in order in court ; and, when he
acted so in the face of the court, what might not be expected
from him when out in the streets °loathed in his little brief
authority. He (Mr. Cobb) would call most respectable
witnesses who would disprove in the clearest manner all the
officer had sworn, and if ever there was a policemtin whose
coat ought to be taken off, Wilson (634) was that man. After
some observations Mr. Cobb called the following witnesses :
Mrs. Cannon, 10, Barton-lane, wife of a shipsmith, stated
that, on the night in question, she heard a great noise, and
went into the street, and saw a great crowd ; the officer had
his hand on the sailor's throat. Mrs. Lancaster was standing
on her own steps ; and all she said or did was to say it was
a pity there was not some gentlemen there to see the con-
duct of the police, treating the man so. She followed to
the station-house, when the officer took her into custody,
and locked her up. Mr. Lancaster bailed her out. Mrs.
Lancaster never left the step of her door ; and witness
swears most positively that she never laid a hand on the
officer; and what he swore was perfectly untrue Mrs.
Sarah Reese said, she remembered the night in question,
and was with Mrs. Lancaster all the time at her own door,
and she never left it. She (Mrs. Lancaster) did nothing,
only said it was a pity there was no man there to see the
way the police had treated the man, which the witness said
was very barbarous. Mr. Edward Eccleston, of Leeds-
street, said he saw the affair on the night in
question ; and he fully corroborated the two other
witnesses, and swore most positively that she (Mrs.
Lancaster) never did anything nor leave the door.
She merely expressed the opinion as stated by the other two
witnesses. Mr. Aitkin asked officer Neilson 634 why he
did not bring the charge before this time, as it happened
on the 13th ? He replied he could not procure her chris-
tian name, and besides he was engaged in a murder case
that took up three days of his time. Mr. Aikin said there
was always a good deal of difficulty in these cases, when
parties interfered with the police in the discharge of their
date. If a party saw a policeman acting improperly towards
a prisoner, it certainly was the duty of that party to remon-
strate with the policeman—not to interfere so as to rescue
a prisoner, nor to excite a crowd to rescue the prisoner. The
magistrates thought it very blameable on the part of two or
three women to interfere with the' police for the purpose of
rescuing a prisoner, but they were of opinion that if the women
saw what was undue violence on the part of the police towards
a prisoner, the women would be justified in remonstrating
with the' police on the impropriety of their conduct. In

this case, there was one lady who followed the police to
Bridewell, to see the end of what she considered an
unjustifiable attack by the police. She was locked up. She
was brought before a magistrate the next day, and it seemed

opinion that the lady who was now summoned before them,
had only remonstrated with the police on the impropriety
of their conduct to a prisoner—that she had a perfect right

to do so

The magistrates did not think th

conduct of

tson ti 64, at all sa
days to elapse before he bro
and his explanation on that pom
tisfactory, and they (the magistrates) thought his conduct
in-that point, and from the manner he bad acted in the box

;isfactory

even 12

vhad allow(

ght th

was not

direct and straightforward, and his attem

was very discreditable to him 1;s a witness an

a policeman. No doubt a great deal of licence was allowed
to counsel in the cross-examination of witnesses ; and,
although counsel might, as he was entitled to do, speak
loud, and browbeat a witness, vet' it was the duty of a
policeman to answer openly, fairly, and honestly, and not
attempt to escape by evasion, as the officer (Wilson 634)
did in this case. The Magistrates would only say that his
conduct was most discreditable, and, taking the whole facts
into consideration, and the evidence on both sides, the court
could only come to one conclusion, and that was to dismiss
the complaint against Mrs. Lancaster, as unfounded.—
Mr.,Lancaster here addressed the bench, and said, he had
not offered a word until the case was concluded. He trusted
the bench would allow him to take the case before the
Watch Committee. The magistrates said, he was at liberty
to do so if he wished. Mr. Lancaster expressed his deter-
mination to do so. [We do not wish to offer any comment
on the above case, but there is not in Liverpool a more
respectable, upright, honest, and respected trader than Mr.
Lancaster, and we think his highly respected and inesti-
'taxable lady has been subject to gross usage, for expressing
humane and ladylike opinion, when she saw the police
act as brutes to the poor drunken man.]

The Times condemns Lord Campbell's election of the new
.judge, not because he is a Scotchman, but because his name
is utterly unknown to the world and the profession. The
Advertiser says the new judge is brother to the member for
Dumbartonshire,
who was a Lord of the Treasury in the
late Ministry,