Crime and Punishment in Upper Canada. Janice Nickerson

Moodey and Daniel Tiers, who pledged £10 each) to be extended to the next session. When the case came up again in January, Esther Dunham, her prosecutor (presumably the victim of the alleged assault) didn’t show up, so the case against Mary was dismissed. There’s a note in the minutes pointing out that Esther hadn’t been bound in recognizance to prosecute, so they couldn’t fine her for wasting the court’s time. The clerk was probably making a point to the magistrates!

      In October 1805, Mary was charged again with assault and battery in two seemingly separate cases: first by Peter Whitney and second by Jane Mitchell. For the case prosecuted by Peter Whitney, Mary again said she was not ready to defend herself and asked for the case to be put off until the next session. The mag–istrates agreed and bound her on her recognizance of £20 (her sureties John McBride and Adam Everson pledged £10 each). For the case prosecuted by Jane Mitchell the trial went forward. Twelve jurors were sworn in and the prosecution called four wit–nesses: Jane Mitchell, Peter Whitney, William Jackson, and George Bond. Mary called four witnesses for her defence: James Kendrick, William Washer, Walter Moodey Junr [junior], and Walter Moodey Senr [senior]. The jury brought forth a verdict of not guilty. The first case kept getting put off (by the magistrates this time) until finally it was due to be heard in January 1806. But Peter Whitney didn’t show up, so the case against Mary was dismissed again!²⁴

      During the Upper Canada period the prosecution of cases at the Quarter Sessions was not officially supervised by anyone. The victim, or whoever was taking the role of prosecutor, could hire a lawyer, if he or she chose (or more importantly, had the funds). If not, the magistrate simply examined the witnesses him–self. Local magistrates generally prepared the cases for the Assizes with help from the Clerks of the Peace. If the case concerned a capital offence, the Attorney General or Solicitor General would conduct the actual prosecution.²⁵

       List of Witnesses, R. vs. Samuel Farensworth, Lincoln County Court of General Sessions of the Peace Records, Archives of Ontario, RG 22-372, Box 25, Folder 22.

      If the defendant had the means, he could hire an attorney to represent him, but that was rare in the nineteenth century. Generally, only people accused of capital offences hired defence counsel.

      Witnesses for the prosecution were heard first, followed by those for the accused. Some of the witnesses might not have any specific information about the events of the crime, but were there to testify to the accused’s “character” and life circumstances.²⁶

      After all the witnesses were called and evidence presented, the judge or magistrate might have made a short speech instruct–ing the jury on their duties. These statements were often full of hyperbole concerning the moral depravity of the offence and commenting on the behaviour of the accused, witnesses, and lawyers. Sometimes the judges explicitly told the jury what ver–dict they ought to return.²⁷ The jury then considered the verdict. In most cases all of this took place on the same day. Few nine–teenth-century trials took longer than a few hours.

      Although the function of the jury was strictly to consider the facts presented to them and decide whether or not the pros–ecution had proven the guilt of the accused, they often disre–garded the evidence when they believed the prosecution was unjust, or if the penalties were too repugnant. Juries were espe–cially reluctant to convict on serious offences at the Assizes (it is generally believed that this was because they felt the legal punishments were too harsh). For example, in Niagara District, of eleven cases of assault on a constable tried between 1837 and 1850, only five resulted in convictions, despite credible wit–nesses to the assaults.²⁸

      Following the reading of the verdict by the jury, convicted criminals were taken into custody by the sheriff and his gaoler to await the end of the Quarter Sessions or Assizes (usually a mat–ter of a few days at most), at which time they would be brought back to court to hear the court pronounce the sentences for all the cases in sequence.

       Quarter Sessions

      Minor offences that were not dealt with by summary justice were tried by the Courts of General Quarter Sessions of the Peace for each District. They were called Quarter Sessions for short because they met four times a year.These courts were presided over by three local Justices of the Peace. During each session, the court travelled throughout the district, sitting for a few days in each major town so that jurors and witnesses wouldn’t have to travel great distances.

      In addition to trying minor criminal and civil cases, the Court of Quarter Sessions were responsible for a wide range of administrative duties, such as appointing district officials, issuing licences of all kinds, administering the swearing of oaths, autho–rizing the building and repair of roads and bridges, and attending to social welfare.²⁹

       R vs. Charles Ragan, 15 January 1835, Minutes, Western District/Essex County Court of General Quarter Sessions of the Peace, Archives of Ontario, RG 22-103, Volume 2.

      The trial of Charles Ragan, of Chatham, for larceny is a typical example. The minutes tell us that Charles Ragan was indicted for larceny on 14 January 1835, the case was heard on the following day, six witnesses testified (Francis Drake, John Jones, Almira Akerly, Carson Mosier, Caleb Akerly, and William Spakman), Ragan was found guilty and sentenced to gaol for six months.³⁰

      The case files provide a great deal more information. First, from the information of Carson Mosier we learn that early on the evening in question, Mr. Jones had given him a half dollar, some silver change, and a few coppers. These had gone missing and he suspected Charles Ragan of stealing them.³¹