Ancaster incident
John Walpole Willis, a judge in the civil lawsuit's appeal, admonished government officials for not pursuing criminal charges.
Historians have used the incident to highlight the tensions between the ruling elite and the growing agrarian society in Upper Canada, resulting in the Tories using violence in an attempt to retain their political and social influence with the province.
[1] Those opposed to Tory rule were called reformers and wanted to expand the rights of citizens, particularly recent immigrants to Upper Canada from the United States.
This position gave Rolph power over regional government affairs and caused him to work closely with members of the Tory elite.
[8] John stated in a letter that his enemies, referring to Tories, were pursuing him and George due to his opposition to Upper Canadian society.
[7] At the time of the attack, John was in England to petition the Colonial Office to give citizenship rights to Americans who had moved to Canada.
[10] On the night of June 3, 1826,[a] a group of men met at the home of James Hamilton, a doctor and magistrate in Gore county.
[10] The mob invaded the home at around midnight, dragged Rolph outside to a field, removed his clothes, and applied tar to his skin while threatening him with more harm.
[17][20] Ten months after the incident, George filed a civil lawsuit in the District of Gore Assizes Court against the three assailants he could identify: Simons, Hamilton and Robertson.
[21] Rolph filed the case in this court because it would be presided over by a visiting judge and local jury, and avoid the biases of the magistrates in Gore County.
John argued during the trial that the assault was planned at the dinner Hamilton had scheduled at his home, and the tar and feathering would have required the mob to purchase the materials ahead of time.
[15] John also stressed that the incident happened at night, which he argued meant that Upper Canadian law required additional criminality to the offence.
[22] Witnesses stated that Simons told a neighbour about some of the details of the attack and that he was only ashamed that they lost the feathers and had to damage Rolph's property to get more.
Macaulay's report stated that a belief that Rolph was committing adultery was not a strong enough justification for the attack so he refused to allow evidence which addressed this accusation.
[31] Rolph appealed both the amount of damages awarded and Robertson's not-guilty verdict to the Court of King's Bench in Upper Canada.
[33] Sherwood stated at the trial that Rolph could have complained about Boulton's role as defendant to their court or a local magistrate if he thought it would interfere with his duties as the solicitor general.
[42] The grand jury recommended criminal indictments for ten defendants, administered by the attorney general of Upper Canada and submitted to the Court of the King's Bench.
[41] The Gore county magistrates and accused insisted that the case be tried in the local courts, as this would allow the defendants' friends to control the process.
He claimed that the jury did not receive evidence implementing most of the defendants and called Rolph various negative descriptors such as "ass" and "scoundrel" without admonishment from the judge.
[45] On April 15, John Rolph presented a writ signed by Willis, telling the magistrates to halt their proceedings and to send the case to the King's Bench.
[46][47] MacNab claimed that the April sessions in front of the grand jury was a publicity stunt by the Rolphs to characterise the attack as an "official riot".
Tories would counter this argument in the years after the election by claiming that Reformers were participating in lawless activities to achieve their political goals.
A select committee of Upper Canada's legislative assembly condemned the magistrates for their actions and recommended Rolph's reappointment to the role.
[37] Robinson asked members of the Law Society of Upper Canada for instances where they thought he did not fulfil his obligations as solicitor general.
[57] These and other incidents caused the Legislative Assembly of Upper Canada to form a select committee to investigate the abuse of power perpetuated by public prosecutors.
John Rolph mentioned this in the civil trial by calling the defendants "gentlemen" and congratulating the jury members, who were farmers, for being "yeomen".
Many members of the grand jury wrote letters to Colbourne describing political dissension in the Gore district caused by corrupt magistrates, citing the judge's actions in this case as an example.
This policy allowed attorney generals such as Boulton to be hired as lawyers for civil cases, earning extra income.
Reformers were infuriated with this practice, as demonstrated in this incident, as they believed the Crown should be advocates for justice and initiate criminal lawsuits in the protection of their citizens.
[9] Reformers also disagreed with Boulton's legal argument at the trial, which stated that the defendants' actions were justified because they thought Rolph was committing a crime against public decency.
