\u2018an evil-disposed little girl over whom her mother had no control.\u2019<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\nThe jury found Isabella guilty and she was jailed for 18 months with hard labour.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In March 1868, Robert Hindson was fined for assaulting Inspector Charles Stephenson in the course of his duties. In October 1868, police caught \u2018two notorious poachers,\u2019 Robert Hindson and Thomas Nicholson. A year later, a Robert Hindson was fined for being drunk on the highway. Thomas Gibson Cant appeared for the defence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
None of this, of course, means they were any less entitled to fair treatment from the police or courts than, say, the local vicar. A principle Thomas Gibson Cant was to persue with vigour.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The first fish case<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
In March 1872, Robert Hindson and Isaac Hodgson, \u2018well-known poachers\u2019 were charged with illegal fishing, and a violent assault on Sergeant Bertram and Constable Coulthard. When the officers asked to search their bag, they attacked them about the head and face with large sticks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
They were each jailed for four months for the assault, which they had denied. Hindson was fined \u00a35 plus costs, or two months further in prison, for having salmon fry in his possession. The bag also contained fresh-water trout\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Mr Cant thought it that as the police were effectively the prosecutors and witnesses, and had the magistrates onside, the trial was unfair. He also thought it unfair that officers had stopped Hindson and Hodgson and demanded to search the bag in the first place: this was an infringement of their liberties.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In August 1872, Thomas Gibson Cant appeared for Hindson and Hodgson, seeking 14 shillings from the two police officers for \u2018unlawfully seizing and detaining\u2019 the trout. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Mr Cant claimed that PC Bertram had made up the assault claim. He also blamed the Liberal Government for the 1862 Night Poaching Act (effectively, it seems to have allowed the police to \u2018stop and search\u2019). He also brought in other matters. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The judge told him several times to stick to the actual case. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Mr Cant repeatedly advised Hindson, in the witness box, not to answer \u2018where did the fish come from?\u2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The judge adjourned the case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The second fish case<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
In November 1872, another case came to trial. The foreman of the jury was William Nevison \u2013 we will come back to him later. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
(Of interest to Cumbrian Characters<\/em>, one of the other jurors was coach builder Robert Graham Pears). <\/p>\n\n\n\nThis time, the allegation was the PCs Robert Bertram and William Henderson Kelly had illegally seized and detained about 57lbs of fresh-water trout belonging to Robert Hindson.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Mr Cant said the police had later dumped the fish on the pavement, and they\u2019d ended up as breakfast for the poor people living near the police station.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
He started on about the 1862 law and the highways previously being \u2018sacred to the foot of the poor man,\u2019 before the judge suggested they get to the evidence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Mr Cant started to talk about Imperial Rome. His honour said they had nothing to do with Imperial Rome and Mr Cant was just trying to excite the feelings of the jury.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
After several more arguments, the judge warned him he\u2019d adjourn the case if he carried on: <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\u201cIt is too preposterous.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\nMr Cant then spoke at length about the right to enjoy the fragrance of hawthorn blossom from the streets of one\u2019s market town, before another political diatribe about the the Liberal government\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n
His honour: \u201cI really must discharge the jury.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Mr Cant continued his flow, but did bring it to the actual case in hand.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Robert Hindson again refused to say from where he\u2019d got the fish. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The judge advised the jury that in law, there ought to be a verdict for a very small amount of money for Robert Hindson.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The jury duly found for Hindson: damages, half-a-crown.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The first perjury case <\/h2>\n\n\n\n
A few weeks later, Robert Hindson charged \u2018Inspector Robert Bertram\u2019 with perjury. The allegation was that Mr Cant had applied for the fish to be released BEFORE and after Hindson and Hodgson were tried in the March case. And Inspector Bertram had, in a later case, said on oath that no demand for the fish was made until AFTER the trial. Mr Cant swore that Mr Bertram had been present when he asked Inspector Fowler before the trial. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Mr Cant was asked if he was summonsed for assault in 1865, but declined to answer \u2018unless I am allowed to explain\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The bench said there was so much confusion in the case, they couldn\u2019t sent it for trial. Robert Bertram should be discharged.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The court door<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
A week after that, a similar perjury case was heard against Superintendent John Thomas Fowler. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
But it started with Mr Cant complaining that defence solicitor Mr Arnison had entered court through the inner door, when he, Mr Cant, had been stopped from using it in the previous case. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
When the bench told him they didn\u2019t care about the door, Mr Cant spoke about:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\u2018the acts of impudence and insults that have been heaped upon my by the police for the last six months\u2019.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
He was effectively told to give it a rest. But didn\u2019t.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
When he got to the reason they were there, it was the same as before. Superintendent Fowler had said under oath no demand had been made for the fish till after the trial. This was not true.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
After introducting more irrelevant allegations into the court, and quoting Horace, he called on Hindson to give evidence. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
While the bench deliberated the case, Mr Cant went through the inner door, \u2018to see if they stop me,\u2019 amid considerable laughter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The magistrates ruled there was no case to answer. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
John Hindson (Robert\u2019s son) was then up for perjury, for saying at the same trial he had applied for the fish in the morning. The magistrates dismissed his case as well.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But it didn\u2019t end there.<\/p>\n\n\n\n