Transcribed by Emily Smith. Geo. <Note the difference in the sentences for these two cases.> The Northern News With Which Are Amalgamated The HALTWHISTLE and ALSTON NEWS and NORTH CUMBERLAND REFORMER No. 514 —Vol. XI. Saturday, January 6, 1900 CITY QUARTER SESSIONS. DRUNK AND HORSERACING. CHARLES CAVILL alias McDONALD, was indicted for fraudulently converting to his own use a bicycle of the value of £ 15s, the proporty of Robert J. DIAS, Carlisle, of which he (defendant) was bailee at Carlisle on October 24th, 1899.—He pleaded guilty and put in a statement which was read by the Clerk of the Peace. In it he attributed his downfall to drink and horseracing. He had been once convicted before, and on his release from prison tried for three months to lead an honest life, but being enticed by some companions he fell again. He urged that the offence was not premeditated, but committed on the impulse of the moment, and earnestly begged for one more chance.—Mr. FOSTER, who prosecuted, stated that prisoner engaged in bicycle from Mr. DIAS on Oct 24th, 1899, and the same morning pledged it with Messrs. CORRY, Botchergate, thereby redeeming another machine which he had previously pledged there. On the 29th he paid for the time he had had the bicycle, and hired it till Nov 3rd. As he did not return it on that day Mr. DIAS got out a warrant, with the result that prisoner was arrested at Glasgow with the redeemed bicycle in his possession.—Prisoner pleaded guilty to a previous conviction for felony at Carlisle Assizes on Nov. 3rd, 1898.—The CHIEF CONSTABLE said he was not aware of any other offence against the prisoner, but believed his statement that he tried to lead an honest life after his discharge was true. He had been in the army, but was discharged on his conviction.—The Recorder said he would give prisoner a second chance. He must go to prison with hard labour for nine calendar months. A SERIOUS CHARGE. ROBERT GILLILAND (49, labourer, imperfectly instructed), was indicted for unlawfully and indecently assaulting Florence BURNELL, 13 years of age, at Carlisle, on December 26th, 1899. A further count charged him with common assault. He pleased not guilty, Mr. CAVANAGH prosecuted, Mr. T.S. LITTLE defended. The parties, it appeared, live in Pack Horse Lane, where the girl lives with her father and mother, two brothers and a sister, and a cousin named WILSON. On the morning of the day in question, after the father and mother had gone out to work, and while the children were yet in bed, prisoner went into the house and sent the girl WILSON for a pint of beer. A little later prosecutrix and the rest came down. Miss WILSON went out, and the prisoner then sent prosecutrix for another pint of beer. On her return the other children also went out. After asking her to drink, which she refused, he took her on his knee and committed the offence complained of. She sent her younger sister on her return shortly after ten to inform Miss WILSON, who came and found her crying, and went for the mother, who came home and examined the child at the Police Office. Evidence as to the girl's condition and corroborating the fact of an assault having been committed, as was also given by the mother.—Detective Sergeant BLACK deposed that he arrested prisoner on a warrant chargeing him with criminal assault after the statements made by the mother and the prosecutrix. On being charged prisoner said" That's a lie."—In defence, Mr. LITTLE strongly commented on the alteration in the charge from a criminal assault on the warrant to indecent assault. This, he contended, discredited the consistency of the evidence for the prosecution. In the course of his address he stated that he could not call any witnesses. This gave rise to some sharp passages between the Councel and the Recorder, the latter challenging the accuracy of Mr. LITTLE'S statement, and Mr. LITTLE retorting that he would not allow even the Recorder to instruct him how to conduct his case.—The Recorder said he could not allow a misstatement of fact. The counsel could call a witness.—Mr. LITTLE contended that it would be absurd to call the prisoner, who had probably been drinking the night before, and was drinking again that morning. He suggested that the evidence of the girl, who was at an age most liable to illusions in such matters, should be discounted, and commented on the absence of a medical examination.—The Recorder, in summing up, said that in an offence of this kind medical evidence was not material. There was no attempt to dispute the facts that the prisoner and prosecutrix were alone together as stated, and that complaint was made at the earliest opportunity. The prisoner had not been put into the box to give evidence, as he had full power to do.—The Jury retired, and shortly returned with a verdict of guilty.—In answer to a question whether he had anything to say why sentence should not be passed upon him, prisoner said "I am innocent as far as I know about it."—The Recorder said he was sorry to see a man, who up to that time had earned his living by honest labour, in such a position. he would be as lenient as he could, and accused would be imprisoned as a second class convict for three months. -- Emily Smith