This week only two court cases… for a change.. it may be an eye opener for some to learn about their relatives.
1869
The Effects of a Loose Tongue –
Burgh Court,
James Haggart, better known by his soubriquet of Abernethy, was charged with the crime of breach of the peace, in so far as he used threatening language to James Watson, fish merchant Cellardyke, and otherwise conducting himself in a drunken riotous manner near the east quay on Tuesday 5th. The panel pleaded not guilty, when James Watson, the complainer, appeared and gave evidence to the effect that Haggart had molested him by using the most foul and obscene language to him. He had twice gone away but only to be followed with similar abuse. John Stevenson, agent for the East Coast Railway further stated that if Mr Watson had not been a man with a very mild temper he certainly would have taken the law into his own hand, so unbearable was the language used towards him. Thomas Jack a Carter boy, also appeared in support of the indictment, which having been clearly proved, the panel was sentenced to pay a fine of 12 s 6d or twelve days imprisonment. He had also been charged in the libel with a conviction for a similar offence on the 21st march last, and in the course of a suitable reprimand Bailie Brown strongly referred to the disgraceful position to which he had been twice brought in the course of a few months, and earnestly counselled him to refrain from drinking which was bringing upon him shame and punishment.
A Mother and Daughter in Court
Burgh Court – Cellardyke
Christina Mentiplay, daughter, and Elspeth Lothian, wife of Alexander Mentiplay, fisherman, Cellardyke, were charged at the instant of Mr George Watson, tailor, fiscal of the Burgh, with having assaulted Elizabeth Doig, wife of William Moncrieff, fisherman near her house in Dove Street, on Monday 4th. The panels pleaded not guilty, when the fiscal took up the case of the daughter first, and evidence having been called for the prosecution, the said Elizabeth Doig or Moncrieff appeared, and deponed that at the time in question she was sitting with her neighbour at her own fireside, when she heard herself so much abused by the panels that she went down to the door. She was standing there when the daughter slyly drew to the place with a stick in her hand as if to strike her. She took hold of the stick to avert the stroke, when Christina Mentiplay seized hold of her cheek, which she tore and bled with her nails; and while she was struggling to get free, the mother came and seized the back of her head, tearing away at the same time her ‘mutch’ which she had not seen since. She had frequently been insulted by the panels, but she had never provoked them. She admitted, however, in reply to a question from the Provost, that she had thrown some water before the assault was made, but no one had been wet by it. Elizabeth Beat, the next witness, said she was standing near Mrs Moncrieff and saw distinctly what passed. Her evidence simply corroborated the former. Mrs William Watson was then examined for the defence. About the time she said, of the assault a number of boys were making an outcry in the street. She went out of her house to see if any of her family were there. She did not see the panels assault Mrs Moncrieff, but she saw the latter strike Mrs Mentiplay. The panels in her opinion were very quiet people, and to her own knowledge they had received much ill usage. A younger daughter of Mrs Mentiplay was next put on oath, and said that the reason why a stick was in her sister’s hand was to drive away the boys. Mrs Moncrieff was the first aggressor, and tore her sister’s face. Mrs Mentiplay, the other panel, was then, at her own request, heard as a witness. She gave a long statement, in the course of which she said that water as well as dirt was thrown at her and her family by the complainer. The boys were also in the habit of tormenting them and calling them ‘Fenians’. They were doing so on Monday when her daughter went out to put them away. While doing so, water was thrown by the complainer. Her daughter simply asked the reason of this when the complainer scratched her face. She went to her daughter’s help, when Mrs Moncrieff pushed her over and struck her with a stick.
This closed the evidence on both sides, when the Fiscal addressed the court, contending that although there was great ambiguity as to who was the first aggressor, it was clear from the witnesses on both sides that an assault had been committed, and that the order and peace of the burgh demanded that an offence of this kind should be punished, for even with provocation it was for no one in a well-regulated community to take the law into their own hands. Provost Martin, then proceeded to give judgement of the court. He said that though he and his colleague had patiently considered the case, which was an exceedingly painful one as well as the most disgraceful to all concerned, the Court considered that one side was as bad as the other, and that the Fiscal would be instructed to have the complainer brought up for trial at a future day. Under the circumstances the penalty would be as lenient as the ends of justice would admit. The Provost then concluded some judicious advice as to future good behaviour, by imposing sentence, which was a fine of 2s 6d or four days imprisonment. The other panel was then placed at the bar, and having, with the consent of the fiscal agreed to hold the evidence as repeated, she received a similar sentence. The hearing of the case occupied more than an hour, and from the large attendance in Court it appeared to have excited some interest in the Burgh. Both fines we understand were paid.