Chester Chronicle - Saturday 21 January 1860
ALLEGED DEATH FROM VIOLENCE AT TRANMERE.
EXTRAORDINARY INSTRUCTIONS TO THE COUNTY POLICE. adjourned inquest the body of Richard Gardiner, a tailor, who resided Hillside Cottages, Lower Tranmere, was resumed on Thursday, before Mr. H. Churton, coroner, at the Queen's Arms public‐house. The deceased was drinking in a beerhouse in Queen‐street, Lower Tranmere, Saturday night last, for two or three hours. Upon leaving, at eleven o'clock, he staggered into the shop of Mr. Woodfin, boot and shoemaker; but as he had previously caused some annoyance in that place, he was taken of the shop by Mr. Woodfin and a plasterer named Cubbon, and removed to a water‐closet in the neighbourhood.
Subsequently be was assisted a boy out the closet, and was conducted about 20 yards in the direction of his own house, but could not proceed further he was left on the footwalk.
The inquiry was adjourned on Monday, in order that Mr. Roper, surgeon, might make a post mortem examination of the body of the deceased, whose face was very much bruised, and his clothes torn.
Thursday several witnesses were examined, and from their evidence it appeared that the unfortunate man was seen lying on the high road in a helpless state of intoxication at two and three o'clock on Sunday morning. The three police constables of the district—Westall, Brighouse, and Potts—also saw him, but they made effort to take him home, although witness told them that he lived Hillside Cottages. Constable Westall assisted the deceased for about 30 yards, when the latter again fell down, and the officers then went away.
In explanation of their conduct, the constables stated the jury that they bad instructions from Superintendent Smith not to interfere with a drunken man on the high road; that they were not to spend their time looking after such a character; and that the bridewell‐keeper had instructions not to book a drunken man, nor lock him up for safety.—Mr. Roper's evidence was the effect that the marks of violence upon the body of the deceased would not produce death, which said had resulted from apoplexy, induced either by drunkenness or exposure to cold.
Mr. Superintendent Smith, upon being sworn, stated that his instructions to his men were that simple cases of drunkenness they were not to apprehend such persons, as the law did not permit them to do so. The Coroner: What I want to know is this— have you given any specific instructions in cases of persons being found helplessly drunk on the high road. Superintendent: I do not know that I have, for I never contemplated such case this drunken man might well be put into a hospital Into a bride‐well. I told the constables they were not to interfere with drunken men when they were simply drunk and not making a disturbance. The Coroner—Have you given instructions to your constables to remove drunken men of the highway into a place of safety?
Superintendent—No; I not fond of their interfering with a drunken man at all, if it can be avoided, more than the law dictates. Of course it would be inhuman in me to say that they were not to put man out of danger. I would not sanction such instructions as those. Reply to further‐questions, the superintendent said that, generally speaking, there were some friends or volunteers who would take drunken man home, but that constable was not doing his duty to lock a man up for simple drunkenness. The Coroner—Look at the question common sense view. We have an efficient constabulary force—or ought to have— and we are all under the impression that the police were instituted for the protection of the lives as well as the property of her Majesty's subjects. Now, if man is found helplessly drunk on the highroad, unable to move, exposed to the inclemency of the weather, at this season of the year, do you not think it right and proper and necessary that instructions should be given to the constables to remove such man so found, either to his own home, known, or to the lock‐up, as a place of safety, till the morning? Superintendent—l would have such person removed to some place or other, and have the parish doctor called in, whether suffering from extreme drunkenness or any other cause; but then cannot anticipate exactly the circumstances of every case. The Coroner—We have heard from‐some of the police constables who been examined that their instructions are never to interfere with drunken people when found on the high road, on footpath, or anywhere else. Superintendent—My instructions are what I have stated. If the parties are making disturbance, the constables are to book them for committing breach of the peace, but they are not to interfere in simple cases of drunkenness. Mr. Win. Wareing Perrey (foreman to the jury)—l find the printed regulations of the chief constable, page 43, these words —" Any person found drunk any street, etc‐, shall be apprehended, and brought before any justice of the peace within whose jurisdiction the same may be." Now, the deceased was found helplessly drunk from eleven o'clock at night until three in the morning, and repeatedly witnessed by your officers, but in consequence of instructions received from you they are prevented from taking him to his own house, or place of safety, and saving his life. That is the reason why I ask you why you contravene these directions specifically laid down Superintendent—Those directions do not say that they shall be. That depends on circumstances. A number of other questions were put, answer to some of which Mr. Smith said he felt certain, from what he knew of the constables, they would have removed the deceased they had anticipated any harm.
Mr. Perrey—lt is distinctly stated your officers that were not for these special instructions received from you they would have removed the unfortunate man. Superintendent—Very likely; but it would take a great number of constables to remove all the drunken men in Tranmere. It would take a hundred. The Coroner—The officers state that in the case of drunken man he would not received or booked by the bridewell keeper. From whom did the keeper get his authority—from Captain Smith or from the Birkenhead authorities? Superintendent—They have powers in Birkenhead that we have not; we would receive man for safety, but the bridewell‐keeper would not book him. The Coroner then proceeded to address the jury, observing tbat from the evidence of Dr. Roper it appeared that death had been produced apoplexy, but whether induced by long exposure to the inclemency of the weather, or by excessive drinking, was entirely a matter for their consideration. It was very possible, and he thought probable, that the actual cause of death arose from excessive drinking, very likely accelerated by long exposure to wet and cold. Then they arrived at the question, which seems to have excited a goad deal of attention in their minds as to the conduct of the police in that district of the county of Chester. He had had some experience in these matters, and that experience was that if a drunken man were found helplessly drunk, either the streets of Liverpool, Manchester, or Chester, he would be immediately taken care of; and would either, if his abode was known, be removed to his own house, or, if a stranger, unknown, he would be taken to the bride‐well as place of safety. In this ease it was clear that the deceased was a man of excessively drunken habits, and on Saturday night went into public house, where he indulged to a considerable extent. After leaving he rambled about, and ultimately he was lodged in a water closet; from that closet he escaped, and afterwards was found lying on the road without a hat. He was seen in that state three o'clock in the morning, which time it was proved beyond all doubt that he was not in apoplectic state. He was suffering from drink to such an extent that he bad scarcely the use of all limbs, and was found in that state by three police constables and some other persons. One of the constables assisted him up, but, failing getting him to go on, the poor man was left where was. The three constables afterwards separated. In the course of five minutes, two of the constables, Westall and returned to the place, and found the deceased still lying there. They simply removed him from the road to the footwalk, where he was left, and he (the Coroner) might state that daring the time the constables were there the name of the deceased was given, well as his place abode, which appeared to be only a few yards from the spot where he was then lying, and where he was subsequently found dead seemed that only one constable out the three made any effort remove him, and that was Westall, who succeeded getting him thirty or forty yards in the direction of his home. His impression, therefore, was, that if Westall had been assisted by the other officers, the deceased might readily have been taken to his own house; and be might also observe passing that one of the constables was no doubt under the impression that deceased was lying in a state of great danger, for constable Potts said the man was not removed he would necessarily be starved to death. He (the Coroner) not surprised that, knowing as he did— and he had had experience in these matters—that when drunken man was exposed to the weather it took hold of him, and he perished if not removed to dry place. Tbis unfortunate man. At this unseasonable hour, after the public houses had been closed, was seen on the high road; he was left there and at seven o'clock in the morning he was found a corpse— a dead man. This was a very serious matter as regarded the police regulations of that part of the county, and would be for the jury to take the question into consideration, and bring such verdict as he trusted would have the effect of having the present regulations, or non regulations, entirely revised. He thought that all eases where a man was found helplessly drunk on the high road, a specific, an imperative order ought to be given to tee police to remove him to his home or to some place of safety. The police, he repeated, were instituted not only to protect property, but also lives of individuals; but, according to this regulation, a man who might be seized with apoplexy or epilepsy on the high road, might be left to remain there in consequence of the constable being under the impression that he was in a state of drunkenness. If such state of things was to exist, inquests most necessarily be of frequent occurrence, and lie hoped the credit of the constabulary, which had hitherto been well conducted—at least, Captain Smith had the character of conducting the constabulary with zeal and assiduity that case would act as a warning al! similar cases, that when a man was found helpless and incapable of taking care of himself, should taken care those whose duty it was to so.
The coroner closed his remarks briefly alluding to the evidence given by Dr. Roper. After about an hour's consultation, the jury returned verdict to the effect that the deceased was found dead Sunday morning, that he was a man of intemperate habits, but that his death , as accelerated by several hours' exposure to the inclemency of the weather on the public highway. Appended to this verdict 'he jury expressed strong feeling against Superintendent Smith, in consequence of the instructions given to officers not to interfere with drunken men unless found committing a breach of the peace and the jury believed that the constables had not acted up to the rigid instructions their superintendent, the life of the deceased might have been saved
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 22 June 1861
DESPERATE ENCOUNTER WITH A BURGLAR
A diabolical attempt to kill a policeman was perpetrated at an early hour on Saturday morning, in Congleton, and the circumstances that led to the affray are somewhat singular. It appears that police‐constable Walter Taylor of the Congleton borough police force, in company with another officer, named Stanley, fell in with a drunken man, whom they took to a house in Rood Lane. When they reached the man's house, between one and two o'clock on Saturday morning, they found the man's son and his wife awaiting his return. The son went out to fetch a pot of porter, and being absent rather longer than his wife thought necessary, she went in quest of him, As soon as she got out of the house, she saw two men jumping over some rails enclosing a silk factory. She at once drew Taylor's attention to them, and that officer ran up alone and collared one of them. By this time they had got a considerable distance from the house where Stanley was. A desperate struggle ensued between the two burglars and Taylor, unfortunately the latter could not make his staff available, and in attempting to secure one of them, the other approached him with a large open clasp‐knife and stabbed him several times in the body. Stanley came up just in time to hear him say, 'I'm stabbed' I'm dying.” He was caught in his fellow‐officer's arms, and conveyed, bleeding profusely, into Mr. Slater's house. The two thieves made their escape. Several medical gentlemen were called in, and Taylor's case was at once pronounced hopeless. Some of the stabs have penetrated the lungs, whilst others are of such a magnitude and severity as to make it a matter of wonder that he did not die on the spot. There are seven separate wounds, two of them of a very dangerous nature. Five men have since been apprehended on suspicion. Meanwhile it was found that the silk factory of Mr. Barton, in Rood Lane, near the place where the affray took place, had been broken into, and two bundles of silk stolen, one of which was picked up near the spot where poor Taylor received his wounds. The Injured officer has not been able to look at any of the men at present, and such was his precarious condition on Saturday that the town clerk, and a magistrate deemed it necessary to take his depositions. We are glad to learn that, from inquiries made last evening, his condition was, if anything, more favourable. The five men apprehended on suspicion of being concerned in the robbery of silk and the stabbing of police‐constable Taylor, wore brought up at the Town Hall, Congleton, on Monday. John Snape and William Billington, tramps, were discharged, it being proved that they were at too great a distance from Congleton at the time the robbery and assault took place to admit of their taking any active part in the affair. John Chesters and Levi Davies, two Congleton men, who were apprehended the night of the affray, and John Burns, a returned convict, from Macclesfield, were then brought up on a charge of being concerned in the silk robbery and murderous assault on police‐constable Taylor. Superintendent Bohanna said that the medical gentlemen had pronounced Taylor to be in too low a state to see any of the prisoners. — They were accordingly remanded for a week.
Chester Chronicle – Saturday 16 February 1861
Chester City Council
SUPERANNUATION ALLOWANCE TO POLICE CONSTABLES. Upon the proceedings of the Watch Committee being read, Ald. Griffiths moved, "That a superannuation allowance of 12s. weekly be granted to Police Constable William Parry." In moving the adoption of this recommendation he would merely observe that Parry had been on the force twenty‐four years since the passing of the Municipal Reform Act, and prior to that ten or twelve years. Parry was 67 years of age, and it was the opinion of those gentlemen of the committee who voted for the allowance that he was entitled to it. (Hear, hear.) Mr. J. Rowe seconded the motion. In addition to what Ald. Griffith had stated, he would just observe that the allowance would come out of the superannuation fund to which every policeman on the force contributed 6d a week. The fund now amounted to between £300 and £400, and the ratepayers would not be obliged to contribute towards the pensions until the fund was exhausted. Mr. Salisbury—He would say at the outset of his remarks that was an unpleasant thing to oppose the recommendation of the committee, especially when it was brought before them the shape of the present motion, proposed and seconded had been by Ald. Griffith and Mr. Rowe. The minutes of the proceedings of the Watch Committee stated that six committeemen voted for the allowance, two were against it, and three were neutral. The latter gentlemen he supposed had no trust committed to them—(laughter)—therefore they pleased themselves whether they voted or not. Now he knew nothing of Parry—in fact he knew nothing of the police force, nor would know any of the men in plain dress if he were to meet them, except Mr. Hill and "Man" Hughes—laughter)—therefore he could have no personal feeling with regard to this recommendation. If he entertained any personal feeling at all, it was one of regret having to oppose anything recommended by the Watch Committee, brought before the Council for adoption by his friend Ald. Griffith, because everything brought forward by that gentleman had considerable weight with him at all times—(hear, hear) —but he (Mr. Salisbury) was in the Council as a trustee for the ratepayers of the city of Chester, and in speaking on this matter he would not adopt the line of argument which had been put forth by Mr. Rowe, namely, that the superannuation fund was composed of the savings of the policemen, which he readily admitted; but they must bear in mind the fact that the Town Council had to guarantee the fund, and were bound to make up any deficiency which might occur from time to time; and how could they make it up but by taxing the pockets of the ratepayers (hear, hear). Therefore it was nonsense to say that the ratepayers would not have to pay the pension allowances to police officers, for he maintained they would have to pay. (A Voice: Mr. Rowe said they would not have to pay until the fund was exhausted) This was a question of vast importance to the public of Chester; it was for the citizens to say how far they would allow this pensioning system to extend; and he ventured to say if that if they were asked about the matter, their opinion would be that it was in opposition to that right principle which ought to guide men in parting with money given to them to hold as trustees for the public (hear, bear). he had already stated he knew nothing of Parry, except that he was a Welshman—and that was a great recommendation with him (Mr. S.) as he was a Welshman (laughter),—but Alderman Griffith had stated that he had been in the service a great number of years, and he supposed that no charge had been made against his character, as Alderman Griffith had said nothing about it; but with a great deal of truth it had been said “a burnt child dreads fire," and he supposed that if there were any charges against Parry would have transpired, but—he must say Alderman Griffith had told them nothing about the late Sergeant Speed—they had never heard a word of that, and for ought he knew there might be charges against the Welshman Parry of which they knew nothing—therefore the absence of those charges would influence his vote on the occasion. Now he had had copied for him from the book kept by Mr. Hill, the chief constable— and he was sure it was a true record of what had taken place—a list of complaints against Speed. Every one of them would remember at the last meeting the Council voted £30 a year, or rather 12s. a week for Speed as a retiring pension, and now they were asked to vote a similar sum to Parry. Respecting Speed he would observe that on the 29th November, 1856, he was reported for neglect of duty, as being drunk and absent on Sunday from 8 to 1 o'clock, for which he was fined 5s. On the 26th October, 1857, he was reported as being absent from duty for two days, after being at Ruthin Sesssions, for which he was excused. On March 13th, 1859, he was reported for neglect of duty in not reporting a policeman for fighting and gossiping with men, for which he was fined 10s. and reprimanded by the Watch Committee, On March 25,1860 he was reported for leaving his section at one a.m. in a state of intoxication, and letting P.C. Evans mark him off roll call. A short time after he was reported for leaving his section at half‐past two o'clock on Sunday morning and going home, telling Sergeant Sutton he had friends to see—more likely one friend to see. (Laughter) He was also reported for taking drink from a brewer's man—very likely one of Mr. Eaton's men —(Mr. Eaton: Very likely—Laughter)—for which he was fined 5s. On July 23,1860, be appeared before the magistrates in a state of intoxication; and on November 8, 1860, he was charged with allowing the men at gossip the Cross, when he was fined 2s. On December 8, 1860, he went off duty on three occasions in the morning, and he got the officers to call over the roll for him. In January, this year, the Watch Committee received a medical certificate stating that Speed was unfit for duty, and he (Mr. Salisbury) would ask the members of that committee if they did not know that Speed was suffering from the disease spoken of? Did Mr. Hill know, and. if he did, did he tell Colonel Woodford, the Government inspector, of it ? If so, did Colonel Woodford perform his duty to the Government as he ought to have done After what they had heard (Mr. Salisbury) would ask the Secretary State could not withhold the money from Speed? The Town Council might not it think worth their while to give themselves further trouble about the matter, but it was a serious question, and one which the ratepayers ought to have cleared up. He had never heard a word about those charges against Speed, and be ventured to think that the Council would be of opinion that they had committed a grave error when they voted him a £30 year pension. Why, he had been informed that be (Speed) had recovered from his illness, and was not only able and willing, but was going to attend to other duties, which would very likely bring him in a larger sum than earned before—in fact, he was far more able to work than his friend with his arm in sling (Mr. Bowers), or Mr. Robert Frost, with his bad leg—(laughter)— and it was a most extraordinary thing that the Watch Committee were not aware of the complaints against Speed when this mater occupied their attention, and was more extraordinary that they should have brought their recommendation before the Council for adoption if they were cognisant of the facts. (Hear, hear.) Coming to the notice on the paper, he would ask, were they going to vote £30 more to another police officer? He would not stop to discuss the question whether the superannuation fund was a proper thing or not, because the Act of Parliament enabled the fund to be formed, and directed what should be done with the money, but the Council were not obliged to vote away in pensions to officers who had misbehaved themselves. (Hear, hear.) Were they going to give Parry 12s a week, although he had contributed to the fund since its formation to the present time? Nothing had been said about his conduct; it might have been good or it might have been otherwise. Sergeant Speed's conduct had only just been brought to light, and he did not know what might be said of Parry hereafter. He (Mr. S.) would say on that thirteenth day of February, which was Ash Wednesday, day when they might express their regret for what they did at the last Council meeting, that they had a claim made upon them by an officer named Parry, who, if he had borne a good character when on the force, was entitled to a double claim, and for this reason. If a man whose moral character was bad, and who had been charged with such grave offences as he had recounted, a superior officer withal— was entitled to 12s. week, surely a man whose conduct had been good was doubly entitled to a pension. (Hear, hear.) But, however much Parry might be entitled the claim, let it be understood why they were parting with him. Was it because he was unfit for duty—an inefficient officer? (Cries of "No, no") Well, a certain amount of valuable information bad been volunteered by Alderman Griffith, and a like amount of invaluable information by Mr. Rowe. (Laughter.)— [Mr. Rowe—What is that ?]—That the ratepayers would not have to pay these pensions. There was no mistake about it, for they would have to pay them, as the interest of the fund would not pay Sergeant Speed's money; the principal would soon be exhausted, and the citizens would have put their hands into their pockets and make the required amount. Let them make a stand, and not vote away the public money recklessly. He did not say anything against the claim of Parry, but as trustee for the ratepayers, he would not be like Mr. Bowers, who, the last meeting, proposed one thing, while he did an opposite thing in committee. (Laughter.) He would say, seriously, let them think of what they were doing, let them pause and reflect, and not vote away the money without enquiring into the man's character. If Alderman Griffith could give sound reasons why the money should be granted, he would be one of the first to support him (hear, hear), but he would rather leave the Council than vote sub silentio upon so important a matter as this. Mr. Bowers thought be ought to say a word in justification of his conduct at the last Council and Committee meetings, referred to by Mr. Salisbury. With regard to his proposing one thing in Committee, and another thing in the Council, he would just observe that when Speed's affair was brought before the Watch Committee, a proposition was made to give Speed a retiring allowance of 16s. a week, being two‐thirds of his salary; he (Mr. Bowers) thought the sum too much, and proposed that it be 12s. week, being under the impression that they were bound to give him a pension, but when he went to the Council meeting, and heard that they were not obligated to give pension, he deemed it his duty vote against it. (Hear, hear.) Instead of being censured by Mr. Salisbury for what he had done, he thought he was entitled to commendation. (Hear, hear.) They ought to be very careful in voting away the public money, and in no ease ought they to give a pension without being fully satisfied that the man was worthy of it. At the last meeting, Mr. E. C. Walker stated that Speed a short time previously had been before the magistrates in a state of intoxication, and he wished to know if that was the time Mr. Salisbury had alluded to, namely in July last. (Mr. J. Jones: No, no," it was another time, a short time before the last Council meeting.) If that circumstance had not been recorded great blame was attached to some one,—no doubt the person whose duty it was to enter it in the minute book. With respect to Parry, he would inform Mr. Salisbury that he was a man who had borne a good character all his life; he was 67 years of age and justly entitled to a pension. The Government Inspector had said that he ought to be superannuated; therefore he (Mr. Bowers) hoped the allowance would be granted. Mr. M. Frost spoke in favour the recommendation. Mr. Butt said he was sorry the revelations Mr. Salisbury had made did not transpire at the last meeting—(Voices: Its great pity)—because he for one would have voted against Speed having the pension. He thought Parry was entitled to the allowance. Mr. Wilcoxon—Perhaps the Chairman of the Watch Committee would tell them what he knew about Parry. Alderman Griffith—There had been only two reports against Parry during the whole time he had been on the force, which extended over a period of nearly years. (Hear, hear.) The first complaint was for not reporting a disorderly house in 1843, and the other was for being drunk on duty on a Sunday night in 1852. Mr. Farish said he voted against the motion in Committee, because he thought 12s. a week was too much for a pension, and that the fund could not afford it. If they passed the recommendation they would have £62 a year to pay. Now there were 31 policemen, and each paid 6d. week to the fund, making 15s. 6d., which they might put down for Speed's allowance, and if they had other policemen to pension off—which in all probability they would have at no far distant date—the principal and interest would soon be absorbed; there would be no fund, and the ratepayers would be called upon to pay the money (hear, hear). Many a poor hard working man would taxed to contribute towards the retiring allowances, which in many instances would exceed their wages, and he did not think right that the working class should be taxed for such a purpose (hear, hear.) He was not alone when he voted against this motion in Committee, for Mr. Robert Frost took the same view of the matter as himself, and opposed it. In conclusion, he would just observe that Messrs. Titherington, French, and other were absent when this question came before the Committee, a fact which he merely mentioned because Major French “twitted him” (Mr. Farish) for being absent when Speed's allowance was brought forward (laughter, and hear, hear). Mr. R. Frost opposed Parry's pension for the reason that he considered it be excessive, and the expenses of the police force were of great magnitude, and continually growing larger. It was only the other day the men's wages were raised, and at the last Watch Committee meeting two policemen in the third class sent in their resignations, alleging a reason they saw no chance of ever getting into the second or first class. They were pampering the men in such a manner that there was no good to be done with them; there was no pleasing them, and there was only one tailor in Chester who could make their clothes to their satisfaction (laughter). If they went on indulging the policemen in the way they were doing, it was impossible to say what whims they would acquire. By way of amendment, he begged to propose that £20 a year be paid to Parry instead of £30, as recommended. Mr. Salisbury seconded it. After a few remarks from Alderman Griffith, Mr. Bowers, and Mr. Rowe, They put the amendment the meeting, which was lost, by a majority 6—10 voting for it and 16 against it. The original motion was afterwards put and carried.
The Policemen again. Mr. Salisbury wished to know pensions to police were to be granted unconditionally The Mayor—Pensions would be granted according the provisions of the Act of Parliament. Voices They will be granted conditionally. Mr. Salisbury —Just so. Now John Hughes had been on the force 16 years, and had been promoted to the first class, and if he (Mr. Salisbury) had been rightly informed, Hughes had been reported for bad conduct no less than 15 times. Another man, of the name of Evans, had also been promoted the first class after 10 years service, and six complaints had been made against him. A man named Price, after four years service, had also be promoted to the first class, and no less than six complaints had been made against him. Now he would ask whether the men whose names he had just mentioned were fit men for the first class. (" No.") If, on the other hand, every man in the force had been reported for bad conduct, what value could attached to the Marquess of Westminster's assertion that the Police Force of Chester was conducted admirable way.'' He was not going to re‐open this question that day, but he wished that Alderman Griffith would not allow the facts he had stated to escape his notice. Alderman Griffith could not understand why Mr. Salisbury should trouble the Council with remarks respecting the promotion of police officers, because the whole affair was left in the hands of the Watch Committee, the Council having nothing to do with it. (Hear, hear). Mr. Salisbury having again stood up to reply to Alderman Griffith, the majority of the Councillors made their exit, and the Mayor declared the meeting an end. The Council broke soon after one o'clock.
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 17 May 1862
POLICE INTELLIGENCE. CHESTER COUTNTY.
A Gas Fitter in Trouble. — Ezra Williams, a gas‐fitter in this city, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Northgate‐street on Sunday morning. Police‐constable Jonathan Williams preferred the charge, which defendant stoutly denied, asserting in strong terms that he was not drank, and to prove his assertion he appealed to Mr. Long, the inspector. Mr. Long stated that defendant was drunk, evidently much to defendant's surprise and dissatisfaction. A man who witnessed defendant's vagaries was also called for the defence, and he likewise corroborated the officer's testimony. It was in vain defendant attempted to deny the fact, and he was fined 5s. and costs.
He ought to know better. — P.C. Kinealey appeared to charge two men named John Moroney and George West— the latter with assaulting him in the execution of his duty, and Moroney with rescuing West from custody. West is a porter at the Railway Station, and had formerly been a police officer of this city, From the officer's statement it appeared that he was in the neighbourhood of Brook‐street on Saturday night, when he heard a great disturbance in Black Diamond‐street. On proceeding thither he found the defendants in company with others making a great row, which he tried to quell by his persuasive powers, but ineffectually. While he was thus laudably endeavouring to settle matters amicably, some one shouted out if the police‐man interfered or arrested any of them they would "give it him." This had the effect of causing a greater uproar, and West being the ringleader he was apprehended. The policeman was at once mobbed by the crowd, and West was rescued from custody by Moroney, whom Kinealey eventually secured. West in defence stated that the officer was drunk, that the crowd was quite, and that there was no necessity for his interference. A man who saw the row here stepped forward, and on bring sworn said Kinealey was perfectly sober, and that he exercised great forbearance when being ill used by the crowd. P.C. Diggory also stated that Kinealey was sober at the time alluded to. The magistrates said the case had been fully made out, and the Mayor severely reprimanded West, who, as an old police‐officer, he said ought to have conduced himself in a proper manner. They were each fined 10s. and cos's. The money was paid.
Drunk. and Disorderly.— Ed ward Hall, a dealer in earthenware and who occupies a stall in the exchange, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in the market on Saturday evening. Defendant in consequence of his disorderly conduct was spoken to several times by P.C. Jonathan Williams, but he would not be quiet, rather insisting on abusing everybody that came to his standing. Such a nuisance could not be tolerated and he was consequently locked up. Defendant admitted the offence and expressed his contrition. After a severe reprimand from the Mayor he was released on paying half a crown to the poor box.
A Railway Watchman Fined fob Drunken and Disorderly Conduct —Patrick Nolan, a watchman in the employ of the G.W.R. Company, was brought up on a charge of being drunk and disorderly. P.C. Evans said that as he was taking his Saltney round on Sunday morning, about half‐past 9 o'clock, he found the defendant, who was very drunk, creating a great disturbance. Nolan, who did not deny the charge, said he was sorry for what he had done, "something had occurred and driven him to drink, or it would not have happened." Fined 5s. and costs.
A POLICEMAN DRUNK AND DISORDORDELRY. —
Patrick Kinealy police constable, No. 34, was charged by Sergeant Sutton with being drunk and disorderly. A few minutes before ten o'clock the night preceding, the Sergeant was marching his men to the Cross, when the accused came up to him and said, "you have laid it in for me; the officer did not want to exchange any words with him and' the prisoner replied " nor I with you ;" he then became very excited, and another policeman No. 23, fearing that ha would strike the Sergeant, asked for the stick which the prisoner carried, but the latter refused to deliver it up; the Sergeant was then compelled to lock him up for the night. The prisoner was drunk at the time. Mr. Hill — he was at the roll call, and noticing him to be in a state of intoxication, I told him to fall out, if he liked, to go home. This occurred after I dismissed him. Prisoner— I want to know why the Sergeant interfered with me at all as l was not on duty. If I was drunk, I consider I had a right to be detained in the station house, and not let off. The Mayor— The magistrates are the best judge of that. Prisoner— I know that, Sir, but I had no right to be taken at all. P.C. Bray (23) stated that he went to the assistance of Sergeant Sutton the occasion in question, and the prisons was so drunk and furious in his conduct that he had to be carried to the office. Prisoner— l can take an action against him (Sutton) for acting as he has done. Mr. Hill— He did not misbehave himself whilst he was in the office. Prisoner— l believe l am going to lose my situation. Mayor— Not a doubt of It. Have you any more to say in your defence? Prisoner— Nothing, sir. Mayor— Your conduct in getting drunk, and instead of going home, causing a disturbance in the street, has been very disgraceful ; your defence is a very poor one, and you are, besides being suspended, fined 20s. and costs, or in default one month's imprisonment.
Cheshire Observer
Saturday 8 February 1862
POLICE INTELLIGENCE. CHESTER
Tuesday Catherine Kelly once more.— This notorious prostitute was again brought up, charged by Police constable No. 17, with being drunk in Bridge‐street, about ten o'clock on the previous night, and making use of some foul language. "Catherine" wished to be forgiven "just this time," but the magistrates sent her to gaol for 14 days, in default of paying 5s. and costs.
Midnight Prowlers.— William Wilson alias Joyce and Michael Bowen, who said he was a glazier, were charged as follows :— From the evidence of Sergeant Hickey and Police‐constable Wynne, it appeared that the prisoners, in company with four other men, were prowling about Bridge‐street Row at a quarter to two o'clock that morning. On seeing the sergeant one of them exclaimed " Nix, oheese it," and then ran away. Hickey gave the usual police signal, and Wynne, who was close at hand, seized botb of the men, and securely detained them; the other got away. Wilsen said he was a hawker from Dublin, while Bowen said he came from Manchester. Sergeant Hickey said that great annoyance was being caused to the citizens at the present time by gangs of fellows who were now in Chester, having no particular vocation. Sergeant Myles also proved that the prisoners bad been seen in the company of thieves, and that they were all turned out of a bad house on Sunday night. They were remanded until Saturday.
Wednesday — Suspicious Characters. — John Watson, James Snidon, Ann Ross, and Louisa Bennett were charged with being well‐known bad characters, and with having been loitering in Northgate‐street early that morning for an unlawful purpose. It was proved that the two men had just left the castle where they have been undergoing a term of imprisonment, and Bennett has been imprisoned 12 months for a robbery from the person. They were all committed to gaol for one month.
Friday.— Drunk and Capable —Charles Jones a tailor, residing in Chester, was charged by Police constable Andrews, with having been drunk and incapable at about a quarter past two o'clock this morning in Boughton was ordered to Pay 2s. 6d. to the poor box.
Chester Chronicle -Saturday 26 April 1862
CHARGE AGAINST YOUNG MAN FOR SHOOTING HIS MOTHER AT KINGSLEY.
COMMITTAL OF THE PRISONER MANSLAUGHTER.
Inquest was held on Tuesday, before Henry Churton Esqr. county coroner, at the Red Cow public‐house, Kingsley, near Frodsham, on the body of an old woman, named Susannah Oultram, who died Sunday morning , from the effects of gun shot wound inflicted by her son, William Oultram, on Wednesday, the 2nd instant. The deceased was 72 years age, widow, and lived with her son, and older members her family the same house.
The prisoner, who was brought up custody of the police, is strong, athletic young man, of about 24 years of age, and was represented in his defence by Mr. E. S. Bent, solicitor, Frodsham. A respectable jury having been empanelled, of which Capt. Hitchin was foreman, and viewed the remains, John Oultram said, I am a shoemaker residing at Kingsley, and am the son of the deceased Susannah aged 72 years. She was a widow and had lived with her several years. William Oultram youngest brother, Eliza Oultram, and also my apprentice Samuel Ashton, resided with my mother. On or about three weeks tomorrow (Wednesday) as I was in bed I heard the discharge of a gun, I immediately got and went down stairs when I found my mother and William Oultram in the parlour. William was on his knees tying the wound that was in my mother thigh, and which was bleeding very much. I asked my brother what he had done, when he said the gun had gone off, and he did not know she was in the parlour. I then ran out of doors to inform my brother who lives a little lower down. On return I found William Rowlands and Eliza Oultram the house. My mother was carried to bed and a medical man for. I remember my brother William being at home the previous day (Tuesday), he was attending to the cows, and was quite sober, and had been so for same time past. Mother and William were on good terms, they were generally so, when he was in drink he was ill‐tempered. I remember finding my brother's gun on the floor near the parlour door, I swear it was in the parlour on the Wednesday morning in question. I picked it up and took to my brother's where I left it, it was usually hung in the house place, I cannot say whether it was loaded or not; no‐one used it except my brother William, who sometimes uses it for rabbit shooting early the morning. On the Wednesday morning he told me he was going out to shoot rabbits: The discharge of the gun took place at about two o'clock in‐the morning. I was awoke a short time before I heard the discharge, I heard brother who was in drink muttering something, and I heard my mother asking him go to bed. Cross‐examined by Mr. Best—Before went I down stairs I heard my mother say, “Oh I am shot" . My brother said, “You are not shot, you are only feared.""
Eliza Oultram said—l am the grand‐daughter the deceased, with whom have lived or 9 or 10 years; I also slept with her. I remember hearing the report of a gun on last Wednesday fortnight. It awoke me up, and I went down stairs, and I found grandmother sitting on a chair in the parlour; my uncle William was tying her leg up with handkerchief; he was crying, and said the gun had gone off unawares. The deceased was afterwards carried by my uncles Samuel and William, to bed. I remember William going from home Tuesday night before it was dark; he was quite sober. I did not see him again until after the report of the gun; he seemed sober; he was occasionally in the habit going into the fields to shoot rabbits; he generally left at day‐break. I know nothing of any quarrelling between uncle and his mother; they lived happily together.
Samuel Ashton said—l am an apprentice of George Oultram's and board and lodge in the house of the late Susannah Oultram. I remember hearing the report of a gun sometime ago; it occurred near two o'clock in the morning. I went down stairs as soon as I could; there was a candle burning in the parlour when found deceased sitting down by the side of the stairs; William was kneeling at his mother's feet, tying a handkerchief round her legs. As I was going down stairs, I heard deceased say, 'he has shot me." I asked William what he had done, but he gave me no answer; he was very tipsy and could scarcely stand. I was afterwards sent to Rowlands' house to inform him of what had occurred. I then returned to master's house. I recollect hearing the Wednesday morning, as was I going down stairs, William Oultram swearing, as if he were vexed, about something. I was first awoke by the swearing and about a minute or so afterwards, heard the report of the gun. Deceased and her son William were generally on good terms.
William Rowlands said—l am a shipwright living at Kingsley, and the son‐in‐law of deceased. I remember being sent for at about two o'clock on the morning in question! Samuel Ashton came for me. In consequence of what he said to me, I went to the house of the deceased, when I found sitting on a chair at the bottom of stairs, and Bill was screaming. Oh, my poor mother!" Eliza was holding her on the chair. William said, " Oh, mother, will you forgive me The Deceased replied, "Bless thee, my !ad thou did not know I was here." I then went for Mr. Robinson, the surgeon.
Samuel Oultram said—l am a shoemaker living at Kingsley. I remember my brother John calling me at about 2 o’clock on Wednesday morning; I got up and went to deceased's house; I found her in the parlour. William was clasping her in his arms, he seemed much distressed, and nearly out of his mind. I assisted carrying my mother up‐stairs. Deceased and William lived comfortably together, excepting that when he got drunk, as he sometimes did, I have heard my mother blackguard him the next morning.
John Robinson said—l am a surgeon, practising at On Wednesday morning, the 2nd April, was requested to visit the deceased Mrs. Oultram. I saw her at about half past three o'clock. I found on examination an extensive lacerated gun‐shot wound in the left thigh, also a smaller one on the inner side of the right thigh. There was also a slight bruise on the right arm. I have continued to attend her ever since, and various times I have extracted shots from the wounds in the thigh, and which I now produce. The deceased died on Sunday morning last, from the effects of the wounds I have described. From the appearance of the wounds the gun might have been two or three yards from the deceased at the lime it went off.
Joseph Shaw said—l am a police constable belonging the Cheshire I recollect being on at duty at Kingsley on the morning of the 2nd of last, I was returning home from night duty at about a quarter to four o'clock, when I arrived at the deceased's house. I went there consequence of seeing a number persons there‐I inquired what was amiss, and I made further enquiries, which induced me to take Willam Oultram into custody. I charged him with shooting his mother with intent to murder her. He replied that his mother must have been saucing him and that he took the gun down to frighten her to bed. I afterwards cautioned him to say nothing more. He was crying and seemed much put out of the way; I perceived that he had had drink. I recollect seeing the prisoner at twenty minutes before o'clock in the morning in the Horse Shoe public house; he left there by the back door‐he had had drink, but was not drunk; he refused leaving by the front door, as wished to avoid a row with man named Spence. The morning of the 2nd inst was dark and cloudy with occasional showers.
Mr. Bent applied to have the depositions of the deceased put in evidence, but the Coroner having deemed this, course inadmissible, decided, order to do full justice to the prisoner, to adjourn the case to Thursday morning, in order to have the attendance of Mr. Ashton, solicitor, Frodsham, before whom the deceased's statement was given.
The prisoner having been duly cautioned, made the following statement—l went in, and was getting my supper, and never spoke. I tumbled my supper on the floor, and my mother heard me, and came down and asked me to go to bed. I told her I was going out again. She then went straight up stairs, as I thought. She did not like me going out with a gun and I thought I would go out when she did not see me. As I was reaching the gun down it either catched the chair or the table and went off it and fell on the floor out of my hand. My mother cried out, “l am shot.” I thought it had gone into the drawers, and that she had gone upstairs.
The gun was produced, but was found to go off readily at halt cock. The inquiry was then adjourned to Thursday, bail for the accused being refused.
THE ADJOURNED INQUEST, according to appointment, was held at The Red Cow Public House Kinglsey on Thursday morning, at quarter past ten before H Churtoa, Esq. The names of the jury men having been called a general wish was expressed by them , was to see the house where the fatal occurrence took place. They proceeded thither and minutely surveying the place before returning to the Inn. We have already stated that the investigation was adjourned to Thursday, in consequence of the absence in Staffordshire of the official (Mr. Ashton solicitor of Frodsham) who depositions of the dying woman.
Mr John Ashton was now present, and on being sworn said “I am a Solicitor at Frodsham; I produce the demons of Susannah Oultram, taken before Mr. Hayes one the county magistrates, on the 2nd inst. Deceased said, “I was gone to bed when my son came home. I shouted to him that the door was not fastened. I got up and came down he was not sober when he came in; he fell down he got and picked up his meat, and eat it. I didn't sauce him. I do sometimes but didn’t then. I didn't see him get the gun the candle had gone out, and it was quite dark and he could not see me. The gun went off taking down from the top of the house, or after he had taken it down. I said '”Will thou hast shot me,' and I dropt to the floor. He said, 'nay I hav'nt I've only feared thee.
Hethen took his neckerchief from his neck and wound up the wound. There was no one in the house but John and the apprentice, and they were bed. Eliza also was bed with me‐Deceased was under the impression whe the above deposition was taken that she was in a dying state. I was present when deceased put her mark to her deposition, together with Mr. Hayes was also present.
This concluded the whole of the evidence against the accused.
The learned coroner then addressed the jury as follows:‐This very melancholy case seems resolve itself , into accidental death or into one of manslaughter, depending of course upon the view you may take of the evidence which you have heard during this somewhat protracted investigation. I may say that with regard to depositions in regard of wilful murder entirely fail to prove either malice, or any wilful intention on the part of the son, to take away the life of his mother. Therefore I apprehend that charge entirely falls to the ground. In cases this description there is always very considerable amount of difficulty in extracting evidence from immediate relations, and I think that you will agree with me that was fully exemplified Tuesday last and particularly with regard to John Oultram, who you will remember said that he was asleep in the room immediately above the room where the deceased was shot. He was awake sometime before the fatal shot was fired; and you remember his evidence entirely differed from the young man, the apprentice who slept in the same bed, and who after some difficulty was urged to say that he did hear the accused swearing as if he was vexed; but he said nothing on reference to any expressions made by the mother. All that he said was that he heard noise in the room below, but he heard nothing said by the mother to the accused. Shortly after that he was hearing the report of gun. The son could no anything about what took place at the time, although he would have been awake and heard everything that gave understand that he heard his brother something below, but there was nothing distinct and it may be that evidence seems be borne out every other way. If, gentlemen, you think the statement’s made have been corroborated as to the mother, how you can return any other verdict except that accidental death. There is some very material discrepancy:
The news report goes on much further and basically means the Coroner going over the evidence given by all parties in great detail
Continued
The learned coroner then proceeded to read the depositions commenting thereon with his usual care and judgment. The room having been cleared the jury, after twenty deliberations, returned a verdict of manslaughter.
On the application of Mr, Bent the coroner admitted the prisoner bail.
The prisoner appeared to be alive to the grave position which he was placed, and at intervals during the investigation he evinced much emotional feeling.
Newcastle Journal - Friday 17 October 1862
THE NEW POACHING ACT. ANTICIPATED RIOT AT NORTHWICH. On Tuesday, at the Northwich Petty Sessions, Thos. Foster, Job Ashley, Richard Heath, John Ashley, George Ashley, John Burgess, and Thomas Maddock, were charged with being in possession of nets for the purpose of taking game. The prisoners were met by several police constables on the lst inst., at six o'clock in the morning, on the Broken Cross Bridge, near Northwich. They had with them two dogs, and most of them had bags on their shoulders. Sergeant Bohanna stated that, on seeing them, he seized Foster and Job Ashley, and the other prisoners were taken by other officers. In all, the officers took from the prisoners 500 yards of netting, 33 rabbits, and a quantity of sticks and bludgeons. The Magistrates convicted all tbe prisoners, and imposed on each a fine of £4, including costs. In default of payment, the prisoners were all committed to gaol for two months. On the decision of the Magistrates being announced, a scene of uproar and confusion ensued. The prisoners used the most violent and defiant language to the Bench, and it was with considerable difficulty that they were removed. The court was filled with friends of the prisoner's, and it was only by considerable energy and determination on the part of the Chief Constable and Superintendent Blake, aided by a good staff of police, that a most serious riot in the town was prevented. The streets were crowded, and it was generally expected that an attempt would be made to rescue the prisoners; but they were eventually safely lodged in prison.
In the Cheshire Archives reference ZDPO/15 series there is an undated later (circa 1862?) addressed to John Hill CC Chester, from William H Adams of 4 Dewsbury Street Longsight Bar Manchester. This letter requests of Mr Hill, the writers character testimonial from John Thornbury (of Manchester?) relating his employment in the Chester City Police Force. It also says he has a letter from Captain Palin of Manchester City Police. He says in this letter that he “resigned / dismissed” the Chester City Police Force – “in consequence of being convicted, but not for misconduct in your Force”. It appears that Adams is seeing employment with the Gas Works in Longsight and wishes some kind of “testimonial” to assist him in seeking employment. He states that he is “well known to the Authorities in Manchester”, and that he will be residing at Dewsbury Street, as he writes “I shall be residing here should I be required as a Witness at the Assizes.” The letter is signed William H Adams. (There is no follow‐up letter in this file)
Chester Chronicle ‐Saturday 11 October 1862
THURSDAY. (Before the Mayor, Col Lloyd, Dr. Jones, C. Potts. E. C. Walker, and J. Rogers, Esqrs.) The Late Daring Burglaries IN Chester.— Charles Cooper, alias Glover, and Thomas Lloyd, were brought up at the Police‐court on remand from the previous day, on a charge of committing a daring burglary at Mrs. Davies's, the Egerton Arms Inn, Egerton‐street, early on Wednesday morning. The prosecutrix, Mary Davies, who was suffering from a severe cold, and was scarcely audible to the Bench, was accommodated with a seat during the enquiry, and the Court was crowded to excess by the public. The prisoners were defended by Mr. Cartwright. The prosecutrix deposed—At a quarter past one o'clock Tuesday night, I went to bed, being the last to retire, and saw the place locked up and safe. There was one till in the bar locked and the other was unlocked. Everything was safe at one o'clock, and I heard nothing until the bell rang to call us in the morning; soon after this, about a quarter to five o'clock, some one tried my bedroom door, which was locked, and I called to the servant girl, who slept in the same room with me, to get up, but she did not answer; I called out again, when the girl got up, and some one gave the door another push; I called out to the girl "Anne, don't open the door," but I no sooner said the words than the door was burst in—breaking the door side in, lock and all; I then saw a man in dark clothes, but not very dark trousers, and he had something in his hand, but I don't know what was, it was not sufficiently light for me to recognise him; I was frightened and screamed out, and the children, who were in the same room, screamed also. The man then went away. After this I got up and examined the premises, and l found the back kitchen window wide open, and a pane of glass broken sufficiently large to admit man's hand to unfasten the window. I went up stairs and examined another bedroom, and the bureau which was there I found broken open; the door was torn off and the papers scattered about the place; some jewellery was taken out of the bureau, and the room window was open. There was a step ladder outside which had been raised against the window, and which was not there the night before; it was my step ladder. I missed three brooches, two bracelets, a coral necklace, a gold hoop, a gold chain, a little gold basket, a locket, a half guinea coin, a two‐penny piece, and one rupee silver coin. Those articles produced are my property. I missed, as nearly as can say, about 3s money from the till in the bar, and some tobacco and cigars. Cross‐examined by Mr. Cartwright:‐The ladders I spoke about was in the yard fixed against the window; there are a wall and door the Egerton‐street side, and it was for a person to get over the wall and place the ladder there; no one that night slept the in the room where the bureau was kept, and the door of that room was broken open from the out side of the room in which I describe the panel as having been broken, was the kitchen on the ground floor; that window looks into the yard; there was a screen in the kitchen which had been placed under the window, the window being rather high. The money was taken from the open till, and the other till was broken open; the room in which the bureau was placed an the first floor; there were no lodgers in the house that night; the persons who slept in were my brother, my own family and the domestics.—Anne Garston deposed that she slept in the room with her mistress, Mrs. Davies, on the night in question, and in the morning, about a quarter to five o'clock, the door was broken and a man entered with something in his hand, but what it was she could not tell; he ran out of the room and threw the light into the lobby, and I gave the alarm and saw nothing more of him. The prisoner Glover (identified) was the man who broke open the door. The potato crusher produced belongs to Mrs. Davies, and witness saw it the back kitchen the night before the occurrence. The witness was cross‐examined by Mr. Cartwright, and swore positively to Glover's identity, as she noticed he had defect in one of his eves. She could not swear to the prisoner Lloyd, as she only saw the man's coat, which was brown, and resembled that the prisoner. Wm. Adams, No. 14, deposed that he was on duty in Brook‐street on Tuesday night, in company with P.c. Robinson, when, about five o'clock the morning, he heard some one cry out in the Egerton Arms; they went round to Egerton‐street, when he saw the man Cooper (identified) coming out of the back bed‐room window of the premises, down the steps that were reared against the window; Cooper jumped over the yard wall; witness got over the wall, when he saw Cooper running across the yard, and throwing some tobacco and other property away as he went along; the prisoner got over the other wall, and scattered more tobacco about, but at length witness succeeded and he gave him in charge to Robinson. Witness then returned to the house, when he the prisoner (Lloyd) and another man who made his escape, coming over the wall of Mrs. Davies’ yard; Lloyd made off down Crewe‐street into Francis‐street, and there he turned round to strike witness with a stick which had under his coat; witness pursued him through Egerton‐street to the bridge, and down to an entry in Boughton, where he lost sight of him, being obliged to give up the chase through the incumbrance [sic] of his big coat. In company with five or six other officers he went to the house of Mrs. Glover, St. Anne‐street, which is the residence of the prisoner Glover, and there he found the prisoner Lloyd concealed in the back yard: the potato crasher produced, or something like it, was picked up in the yard. The man Cooper, on witness charging him with the robbery, said he was helping the officer to catch the other prisoner. (Laughter) Lloyd made no statement to the officer. There were two bad shillings found upon Cooper. 2s. 5½ d in copper, a pen‐knife, and other small articles.—Officer Robinson, No. 16, corroborated the testimony of the last witness in so far as he was concerned the proceedings. When Cooper was given into his custody, he was taking him to the lock‐up. and on reaching the canal the prisoner said he would jump in, and commenced to tussle with the officer, when suddenly he appeared fall lame—(the prisoner's foot was bandaged up in Court, and he was provided with a seat whilst the enquiry lasted) —that lameness might have been caused his efforts to get away; was not drunk, but he appeared to be "swat" a little. (Laughter) Both prisoners were committed for trial on this charge at the next assizes, Mr. Cartwright reserving the defence.—The prisoner Lloyd was then put upon his trial on a second charge, of being concerned the at Mrs. Higginson's vaults, Brook‐street, last week. Mrs. Higginson identified the prisoner as being the man who entered her room on that occasion with a lighted candle, and part of the property—a glazier's diamond, etc., having been found in the prisoners bedroom at Mrs. Glover's; Anne‐street, was committed on this second charge to the assizes.
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 18 October 1862
RIOTOUS PROCEEDINGS AT BIRKENHEAD.
On Saturday last we reported that on the previous Wednesday there had been a somewhat serious riot in Birkenhead, and we regret to say that the bad feeling then engendered has greatly increased, and during this week there have been some serious outrages.
Police‐constable Butterworth, 11, Birkenhead police force, was cut on the back of the head with a stone. He was taken to the hospital, where his wound was dressed, and thence home.
Sergeant West, a most praiseworthy and brave officer of the Birkenhead police force, received two very severe wounds on the face. He was attended by Dr. Jeannette, subsequently removed to the hospital, and thence home.
Police officer Porter, No. 2, of the Birkenhead force, was severely wounded in the head. He was attended to by Mr. M'Dougall, at the hospital, an then removed to his home.
Police‐Constable Hughes, 49, Birkenhead police force, was severely wounded in the back of the head; his wounds were dressed by Dr. Jeannette, and he was removed to his home.
Constable Leitch, 23, Birkenhead police force, was struck on the back of the head with a hatchet in Oak‐street. The poor fellow was set upon by a number of ruffians and tearfully ill treated. He was reported dead at twelve o'clock on Wednesday night. This man had been a very short time in the force, and we have authority for stating that he displayed indomitable courage in the discharge of his duty on this occasion, but unfortunately became isolated from his comrades, when he received a fearful blow, which split his skull open.
Officer Eaton, 53, Birkenhead police force, received a severe cut on the head, and for some time was lying at the hospital in a very hopeless state. He rallied however, and at midnight was deemed somewhat better.
Police‐officer 8, Radley, and officer 18, were much contused about the legs by brickbats. It was with great difficulty the poor fellows could retire from the combat with their comrades.
Inspector Gregory, a young, intrepid, and discreet officer of the Birkenhead force, having charge of the wounded police, was severely hurt by a blow on the hand, and lost his cutlass. In a second attack he lost his hat, and was wounded, but not before he had laid half a dozen of the rioters in the dust. The lattter were carried off by their comrades, under cover of a shower of bricks and stones from houses, which kept the police at a distance.
Another officer of the Birkenhead police force, whose name we could not ascertain, was reported as having teen captured by the mob, and lying in Watson‐street in a dying state. A priest came running throughout the crowd about eleven o'clock, crying for a doctor and protection for two police‐men, whom he said were dying in Watson‐street.
Several of the Birkenhead and the county police made an onslaught upon the rioters in Oak street. A policeman was knocked down, and scandalously ill treated; when a Catholic priest, whose name is not known, but who can be identified, and several of the rioters were set on dragging him up the street.
Superintendent Hammond, of the county constabulary, to whom we cannot award too much praise for his courage and determination to enforce the law, seized the priest and another man, when he was instantly felled to the ground, and remained for a time insensible. It is stated that the priest in question was heard by Superintendent Hammond to incite the crowd to further acts of violence. The superintendent, on recovering somewhat, found a mob closing upon him; sprung to his feet, and fought his way out. He lost much blood, and was assisted to the surgery of Dr. Ricketts, in Price‐street, where his wounds were dressed, and he was subsequently conveyed home.
Police‐constable Greenacre, of the county constabulary, was knocked down and severely wounded in the mouth and face by stones.
Altogether the police succeeded in apprehending about a dozen prisoners, of whom several were women who had thrown stones upon the police from the windows of houses. About half‐past ten o'clock information was brought to the rendezvous in Price‐street that a number of rioters had obtained possession of some houses and courts in Oak‐street, and Watson‐street and were assailing the police, whose duty it was to protect the neighbourhood. Immediately a party of the local police were despatched to the spot. On making their appearance they were met with a shower of brickbats and stones, and several of them severely hurt. Intimation of this reception was quickly conveyed back to Price‐street, and a detachment of the county constabulary proceeded to the spot at the double. Like their predecessors and comrades in the fray they were received with volley after volley of bricks, stones, plates, dishes, glasses and every available domestic article of crockery‐ware that could be converted into a missile The inmates of one house, No. 6, Oak‐street, were particularly active in their assault, and upon these premises the police at once made a determined onslaught. The door was barricaded, and the only chance of admission was by the window. The window of the ground story was smashed in, and the police entered.
Police‐officer J. S. Martin a powerful man, who has lately joined the Cheshire Constabulary, was the first to enter, and from personal observation we can testify to his great courage and officer‐like conduct. The moment he got through the window a fellow.‐whose name after‐wards turned out to be Patrick Fahey, and who had nothing on but his shirt, dealt Martin a tremendous blow on the back with a brick. Martin pinned his man, and despite the efforts of the other
Almost as much unfortunate was police‐man Morris, No. 43, of the Birkenhead force. He was shockingly gashed about the face; he sustained a tremendous cut to the forehead; and it was feared that his leg was broken, but his injury proved to be not a fracture, but a severe contused wound.
The information of this sad occurrence was conveyed to Price‐street, and Captain Smith, the chief constable of Cheshire, hastened to the spot with a body of the constabulary, armed with cutlasses. No further onslaught, however, was made upon the police on the appearance of so formidable a force.
A Catholic priest, whose name we were unable to ascertain, but who is distinguishable by the peculiar broad brimmed beaver hat which he assumes, had hurried off to procure medical assistance and police help Dr. Lambert, of Price‐street, attended with much promptness to the wounded men.
Morris was conveyed to the Birkenhead hospital; the injuries which Burgess had received were of such a nature that Captain Smith, with the advice of Dr. Lambert gave directions that he should be accommodated with a bed on the premises, and rendered every special attention which his sad case demands. He was conveyed to an upper apartment, almost insensible, Morris had his front teeth knocked out. Both men were dreadfully disfigured.
Mr Superintendent Birnie received some severe blows from stones while on horseback.
Policeman Butter worth (1 1) had a severe cut on the bead from a stone; he was taken to the hospital, and he went home after the wound was dressed.
Police Sergeant West received a very severe cut from a stone, and some serious cuts on the forehead.
Policeman Hughes (49) was wounded on the back of the head.
Policeman Leach (23) a terrible cut on the head, inflicted with a stone by a woman from whom he was wresting an axe with which he was attacked. Three persons were apprehended tor complicity in this assault.
Inspector Gregory and Policeman Williams had to be conveyed to the Hospital.
Policemen Porter (2), O'Reilly (8), and Simms (55), were so seriously injured as to be unfit for duty.
Besides these cases many of the police were conveyed to their hones without opportunity being afforded of reporting their injuries.
The county force were marched down Price‐street to the Birkenhead Police‐station at half‐past twelve, and at one o'clock all was quiet.
When the riot was at its height, the mob, who had previously armed themselves with huge stones from the newly macadamised roads in the neighbourhood and had smashed in several windows, proceeded to the shop of Mr. W. Coulter, provision dealer, Watson street, on which they made an attack amidst the most frightful yells and shouts. Glass and shutters were quickly demolished, and the shop fronts were in a short time a perfect wreck, when numbers of the crowd rushed in and plundered it of whatever property they could lay their hands on. The shop of Mr. Martin, carrier, in the same street, shared the same fate, and the windows of Mr. Milae, draper, corner of Price‐street, were broken. The windows of Mr. Shillinglaw, druggist, of the British Queen, and other houses in the neighbourhood were broken. It seemed that the premises of those known to be members of the debating society were specially selected for attack.
EXAMINATION OF THE PRISONERS AT THE POLICE COURT. On Thursday morning the Police Court was densely crowded, and there was a very fall bench of magistrates. Sir Edward Cust presided, and the others present were William Jackson, Esq, M.P, R Bryans, Esq., J. H. Younghusband. Esq , J. B, Case, Esq., S Ledward, Esq , William Inman, E^q.. Rev. M. Coxon, Capt. Graham, and R. Barton, Esq.
Eight men, named Michael Martin, Patrick Fahey, sen , Patrick Fahey, jun., Michael Fahey, Tbomas Buckley, John Gorman, Michael Hogan, Thomas Larkin, all navvies, and two women, Elizabeth Curtiss and Catherine Larkins, were brought up. Michael Martin, a labourer in the service of the township, was the first prisoner placed in the dock. Mr. Moore appeared on his behalf.
Inspector 11. Gunning, of Ibe Birkenhead police force, deposed to having been in charge of a body of police at about half‐past nine o'clock on Wednesday night. He saw a crowd assembled at the corner of Price‐street and Park‐street, by whom stones and brick‐bats were thrown, some of which struck his men, and one came in contact with his left arm. The police charged the mob, which dispersed towards Park‐street and Oak street. The rioters, one by one, afterwards returned to the place from which they had been dislodged. Witness was standing about 30 or 40 yards distant from them, and saw the prisoner (Martin) throw a stone or a brick at him, but fortunately it missed. Another man, not in custody, also threw a stone, and both then ran away. Witness gave chase to and caught Martin. Police officer Allison gave corroborative evidence. Both witnesses were positive as to the identity of the prisoner. Mr. Moore stated that he had not had an opportunity of seeing the prisoner, but understood that he was at work at ten o'clock, so that it must be a case of mistaken identity. He applied for a remand, which was granted.
The prisoners Patrick Fahey, sen., Patrick Fahey, jun., Michael Fahey, Thomas Buckley, John Gorman Michael Hogan, Thomas Larkins, Catherine Larkins and Elizabeth Curtiss, on the application of Mr. Charles Pemberton, who appeared to prosecute for the county police, were next placed in the dock. Mr. Moore defended the Faheys, and Mr. Rymer tbe prisoners Thomas and Catherine Larkins. Mr. Pemberton said that he charged the prisoners in the dock with assembling themselves together for the purposes of creating a riot, and also with assaulting the police in the exercise of their duty on Wednesday night. He did not propose to enter into the case fully that morning, as seeing that the offence only took place on the previous night, the evidence was not yet in a complete state. He would however, go sufficiently into the matter to justify the remand of the prisoners to such day as the court might determine. He might state that it having on the night in question, come to the know‐ledge of the county constabulary that their services were required at the north end to assist in putting down a riot, they proceeded to the neighbourhood of Oak‐street. (the reporter describes the solicitor speaking in great length the way in which the incident occurred, and is basically a repetition of the facts as described earlier)
Other County police officers mentioned as witnesses are:
Officres John Slater Martin. W.J. Mason. Samuel Powall. Inspector Richard Rowbottam. Inspector Egerton. Officer William Maddocks. Inspector Keenan.
THE STATE OF THE TOWN ON THURSDAY. This afternoon it was found that Mr. Burgess the superintendent of the Cheshire detective force, was progressing favourably, and that Dr. Lambert was in hopes that he would this morning be in a condition to warrant his removal to his home from Mr Gregory's the Milkhouse Arms, in Watson‐street, where he was taken after he had received the dreadful usage as described by us. Mr. Hammond, the superintendent of the county constabulary at Birkenhead, is much better but quite unfit for duty. Policeman Mortis, of the Birkenhead force, lies in a shocking state at the Birkenhead Hospital. His wife, who visited him yesterday morning, did not at first recognise him such dreadful mutilation had been inflicted on his head and face. His front teeth have been smashed out completely ; there is a tremendous cut on his forehead‐there is a dangerous wound at the back of his head' his body is discoloured by contusions ; and he received a blow on the leg which nearly fractured it, and rendered it temporarily useless.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 6 September 1862
EXTRAORDINARY PROCEEDINGS AT TARPORLEY.
On Monday week, Thomas Wilcock, police constable, reported to Mr. Churton, coroner, the death of Mary Goulding, the wife of Martin Goulding, lodging house‐keeper and general dealer. The police report simply intimated that the deceased went out of doors on Monday morning for the purpose of feeding the pigs, that she fell down in a fit, and after being carried into the house, almost instantly expired.
On Monday afternoon, a jury was impanelled at the Police office at Tarporley, when the following facts were sworn to:
Eleanor Price, deposed—! am the wife of William Price, who is a travelling hawker, yesterday I came to Tarporley, and took lodgings at Goulding's, at whose house I had previously lodged— l found the deceased complaining of being very unwell. This morning (Monday), she also said she was very ill ; shortly before eight o'clock she went out to feed the pigs, and soon afterwards I heard a scream, and on going to see what was amiss, I found her on the ground apparently in a fit, she frothed at the mouth, and had difficulty in breathing; I called for assistance, and the deceased was earned into the house; I perceived she had lost a very considerable quantity of blood amounting to several quarts, and in about a quarter of an hour she expired. A medical man was sent for. Deceased, who was much addicted to drinking, appeared to be far advanced in pregnancy.
Martin Goulding deposed— l am a lodging‐house keeper, living at Tarporley, and am the husband of the deceased Mary Goulding, aged about 30 years. For some time past the deceased had been very unwell, and three weeks ago she had a fit, from which she recovered; she had moreover been subject to fits for several years, and for two or three days she had suffered from loss of blood. This morning, at about eight o'clock, I was informed that deceased was very ill; I was present when she died, at about nine o'clock; she was much addicted to drinking, and was the worse for drink the day before she died; last week she was drunk five nights in succession, and had not took her clothes off during the whole of that time.
Shortly before the termination of the evidence, an old woman named Hunter, rushed into the police office bringing with her a little boy named Fox, who was asked by the Coroner if he had any statement to make, when he said— that at about eight o'clock that morning he had seen Martin Goulding beat his wife with an ash stick and otherwise ill use her, in the yard at the back of the house ; the manner and conduct of the boy excited the suspicion of the Coroner in reference to the truthfulness of his statement, when, on being somewhat severely cross‐examined, the lad made a clean breast of it, by stating that what he had said was altogether false, that he was not in Goulding's yard, and that he had been induced to come forward to make the statement by a person named Dorrity.
The Coroner severely censured the boy for coming forward to make a statement that might have placed the husband of the deceased in a very unpleasant position. Had he been older, and his statement taken on oath he would have committed him to Chester Castle for perjury. As it was, he hoped the Superintendent of Police would communicate with his father, who, if he regarded the interests of the boy, would give him a severe flogging.
The Coroner then proceeded to sum up the case to the Jury, and left it to them whether they would wish the body to be examined in order to satisfy their minds as to the precise cause of death, but if the facts elicited satisfied them beyond all reasonable doubt that the woman died from haemorrhage, resulting from pregnancy, they might record a verdict to that effect; he, the Coroner had not the least doubt that the poor woman had died from loss of blood, induced by a long course of excessive drinking. — The Jury were unanimous in returning a verdict of '' natural death."
After the inquest on Monday, Martin Goulding was apprehended on suspicion of having caused the death of his wife. The case was heard before Col. Tomkinson and Mr. Haywood, at Tarporley, on Saturday last. Mr. William Henry Churton, solicitor, of Chester, appeared for Goulding. The witnesses called to support the case against Goulding were three little boys, and Mr. Seller's evidence was also taken.
Henry Dorrity said— l am nine years old. Last Monday morning, at about eight o'clock, as I was fetching some coals, I saw Martin Goulding kick his wife in the back three or four times; he thrashed her when she was down with a stick; John Kelly was in the yard; he was not in the yard at first, but in the house. Cross‐examined by Mr. Churton— Goulding had his boots on, and was dressed all but his hat; I was never warned off by Goulding for stealing his coals; he has warned me about bringing drink for his wife; I first told my grandmother, Mrs. Hunter, of what I saw.
Charles Fox, who had been examined on Monday by the coroner, then stated that he saw Goulding kick his wife and strike her with a stick. He said— I was in Marin Goulding's yard at about eight o'clock; Henry Dorrity and William Hunter were in the yard, as well as some women I did not know. Cross‐examined by Mr. Churton— l dared not tell this before the coroner, because I should be put in Chester Castle ; Mrs. Heal, of Tarporley, told me so. I told my father and mother last night that I had seen nothing of this; I was afraid of their thrashing me.
William Hunter, aged 12 years, said— At about eight o'clock on Monday morning I was at the gate leading into Martin Goulding's yard; I heard Mary Goulding come into the yard ; she shouted, "Oh Lord, he has murdered me out this time.'' Cross‐examined by Mr. Churton— l did not see Martin Goulding in the yard; if he had followed her out of the house I should have seen him.
Mr. Seller, surgeon, said— l made a post mortem examination of the body of the deceased ; there were no marks of violence on the front part of the body of the deceased, excepting a slight mark on the cheek, and although there were slight marks on the back, the skin was on no part of the body broken, and the discoloration at the back part was due to sugellation, or the natural gravitation of blood. The whole of the internal organs were healthy, excepting the heart, which was fatty ; the uterus was impregnated, and contained a dead child, at or about its full period ; the placenta, or afterbirth, was detached from the uterus, which was the cause of the flooding ; the child had evidently been dead several days before the death of the mother ; I judge it to have been so from the decomposition of the child ; I was informed that the flooding took place about three days before the death of the mother, and it would be occasioned by the separation of the placenta from the womb. The discoloration on the back part of the body might have been caused by falling down stairs; it might also have been occasioned by a kick.
Mr. Churton, at this period of the inquiry, submitted that the evidence of Mr. Seller was conclusive, inasmuch as it shewed, beyond all doubt, that the death of deceased had resulted from natural causes, and he hoped the magistrates would at once dismiss the case. Col. Tomkinson said they look a very different view of the case. Mr. Churton then addressed the bench, and stated that although the proceedings were preliminary, they were of such a nature as deeply to affect. the husband of the deceased; he hoped, therefore, the magistrates would hear the statements of the numerous witnesses he was prepared to bring before them, in order to prove the innocence of the accused, but he hoped they would not give credence to the improbable stories of a lot of little boys, some of whom had been bribed to come before them, while another had deliberately perjured himself before another tribunal. He nevertheless submitted, with all deference that the medical testimony had proved beyond all doubt that the death of the deceased had resulted from haemorrhage, or loss of blood, the placenta having bean detached from the uterus for a period of several days before her death took place, leaving all the vessels open, and thus exposing the poor woman to all the consequences of flooding. She was, moreover, subject to fits of a serious character, and had been addicted to excessive drinking for a considerable period. The skin on the body of the deceased was not broken, and there were no marks of injury to account for the deceased's death. In order, therefore, to establish a case of manslaughter, they must prove beyond all doubt that the deceased died from violence, and that the injuries occasioned thereby were inflicted by the husband and were the cause of death. The Clerk to the Magistrates submitted to Mr. Churton that as the investigation was a preliminary one he need not take down the evidence for the defence in writing. The magistrates were, however, prepared to hear all they had to say. Mr. Churton said it was important to his client that the evidence of his witnesses should be taken down, but as there was an objection to it he would not insist upon it.
Eleanor Price gave her evidence precisely as it appeared before the coroner, stating that Martin Goulding was sitting by the fire when his wife left the house to feed the pigs, and that he had neither shoes, stockings, nor coat on, that she had never seen him abuse his wife, and if he had done so she must have seen him; that Goulding had not been out of the house oo Monday morning, and as soon as he found his wife was ill he immediately sent for the doctor. She never saw any of the boys who were said to be in the yard.
Agnes Morris, another lodger, who had been there three weeks, stated that Mary Goulding had been ill during the whole of that time, and had asked her to stop longer on that account; she complained of her left side together with lightness in the head and spitting blood; on Monday morning she went to feed the pigs, and at the time she did so her husband was sitting by the side of the fire without his shoes or stockings on; she heard a scream in the yard; she went to her and found her in a fit, she was flooding very much after she was brought into the house she had a second fit ; she was far advanced iv pregnancy, and told witness she would never get over her confinement; witness never saw her husband abuse her; she had been drunk five nights in succession, and never had her clothes off; she did not see any boys in the yard.
Mary Salt, a neighbour, said about a month ago Mary Goulding sent for her as she was very ill, she lay on the screen and was very tipsey ; thought she was in labour ; I sent for Dr. Seller ; she had thrown up a potfull of blood, and was flooding over since; the doctor said it would be a serious case, and begged hard of her to give up drinking ; she was subject to fits, I have seen her in them both in and out of the house; I have lived 15 years as a neighbour, and never saw him abuse her.
Edward McGinn stated, I am a carpenter and have been living at Goulding's for the last month, and during that time Mrs. Goulding has been in a very bad state of health, she told me it was spitting of blood; on Monday morning she went out to feed the pigs, Martin, her husband, was sitting on the screen without shoes or stockings on ; he had not been out that morning ; I heard a scream outside the door and saw the two women fetch Mary Goulding in ; Martin sent me off for a doctor ; I never saw Martin abuse his wife ; about four nights before her death he saved her from being burnt, she was drunk and fell across the grate ; on the day before her death I saw her fall down stairs, she was then drunk ; on the Monday morning I saw the two women going to carry Mary Goulding into the house ; I was told she was in labour ; I never saw her husband strike or abuse her : he never came out of the house until I heard him say, " Oh, Lord, go for the doctor ;" he had then no shoes or stockings on.
James Morris corroborated the above, and stated that he assisted Mrs Goulding into the house, and never saw her abused by her husband. Elijah Salt, labourer, stated that on Tuesday he met young Dorrity in Tarporley, that he asked him if he knew anything about Goulding striking his wife, he said he did not nor was he in the yard, he only heard her shout, that he afterwards saw Martin Goulding on the bench crying; he (Dorrity) said Mrs Hunter was going to give him some money to buy some nuts if he would tell that he saw Goulding beat his wife, but he said he was not going to tell lies ; he also said she was going to give another boy the same.
Mr. Churton, coroner, was then called, and stated the facts in connection with the proceedings at the inquest ; that he found the body blanched from loss of blood, without any indications of external violence, and from what he saw, together with other facts brought before him, he had no doubt the woman had died from uterine haemorrhage. He had suggested a post mortem examination, but the jury were unanimous in not considering such a course necessary, and he quite coincided in the decision they had come to. Mr. Churton thought it right to state that if the police authorities had succeeded in obtaining evidence likely to establish a criminal charge, he regretted he had not been communicated with ; inasmuch as he might, under certain circumstances, have entered into an enquiry de novo.
Colonel Tomkinson — But you are aware that the magistrates have full power to investigate the case. Mr. Churton— Certainly ;I am quite aware of it ; but the coroner is the only person possessing the power of ordering a post mortem examination so essential to a proper decision. Col. Tomkinson
— After the coroner has finished his inquest, surely we are justified in ordering a post mortem examination. Mr. Churton ‐Certainly not, you are quite mistaken. The room was then cleared, and in the course of a few minutes Martin Goulding was committed to Chester Castle for Wilful Murder.
Mr. W. H. Churton offered to give bail to any amount, but it was refused. Goulding has been doing for several years a very large business as a general dealer, more particularly in hides, and has realised a considerable amount of money; he has left in Tarporley four very young children.
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 26 September 1863
TRIAL AND COMMITMENT OF THE "LONG FIRM."
FATAL AND MELANCHOLY RESULT.
Before the Rev. Mr. T. Brooke.
On Tuesday, Henry James and Percy Edwards, who stood remanded from yesterday week, on the charge of obtaining goods under false pretences, from Messrs. William and John Dyson, cabinet‐makers and furniture dealers, 61, Oldham street, Manchester, were brought up at the Police‐court, before the presiding magistrate, when the following evidence was given :—
Elizabeth, sister of the Messrs. Dyson, deposed— On the 3rd August List the prisoner Henry James called in at her brother's shop in Manchester and represented himself as a gentleman resident at Sunnyside Cottage, near Alsager Station, by Crewe, and there selected £50 12s worth of furniture of the most costly description, suitable, as he at the time averred for the establishment of a bachelor. After selecting the articles the prisoner wrote his address on a card, — on one side of which was the address, "Mr. Bold, Lords‐chambers, Corporation‐street, Manchester,"— telling the witness at the same time that immediately on the goods being sent off the bill was to be sent to Mr. Bold and he would pay it. — On cross‐examination by James, the witness further deposed that Mr. Bold's name was not given as a reference, but as a paymaster.
Elizabeth Bird, assistant in Messrs. Dyson's establishment, deposed as to the prisoner James having called in, and after selecting the goods went away, leaving the card now produced, and at the same time stating that Mr. Bold would pay the bill for the goods then selected.
William Dyson deposed as to having, betwixt the 3rd and the 11th of August, received a letter from Henry James ordering the furniture selected to be sent to Sunnyside House via Congleton, and, in accordance with such order, the goods had been duly sent ; that, in consequence of Mr. Bold's address and name being brought forward by James they had sent forward the articles; that they never called upon Mr. Bold for payment of the money until the 4th September, when that gentleman at once stated that he knew nothing at all of James ordering the goods, and that ii was a swindle.
John Robinson, goods manager to the North Staffordshire Railway Company, Congleton Station, deposed as to the goods having arrived in due coarse, and that James had advised him to keep such goods as did come for him until called for.
Theophilus Farrell, railway clerk, deposed to the prisoner Edwards calling at the station, along with a carter, and removing the goods, remarking in the course of conversation that the furnishing of his house had cost him between £800 and £400, and yet he would require still more.
Joseph Pedley, in the employ of Mr. Smallwood, deposed to having carted the goods in question from Congleton Station to Sunnyside House, and that, in company with the prisoner Edwards, he had carted all the furniture ; but instead of being paid for the cartage 7s, Edwards gave him a lot of flower pegs, telling him to take them to his master, and he would call and pay the bill, which he never did.
David Sherratt, furniture broker, Crewe, deposed that about four weeks ago Edwards came to his shop and asked if he would purchase some furniture, in consequence of his selling off his effects, as his wife had been ordered to remove from Sunny Side Cottage for the benefit of her health ; that in company with Darlington, a carter of Crewe, he had gone to Sunnyside House, and, after buying the articles in the usual way of business, had paid £22 10s for the entire amount ; that he had never had any previous transaction with either of the two persona ;. that both of them assisted in packing the cart, and at the same time offered to sell him a field of corn, through which he had passed, near to Sunnyside.
William Darlington deposed to the carting of the goods, and as to seeing the money paid by Mr. Sherratt.
John Earlwood, police‐constable of Alsager, deposed that James had, for the last twelve months, been residing at Sunnysid ; that during that time he had been carrying on as a systematic swindler, obtaining goods from all he could and never paying them ; that he (the constable) had frequently tried to get entrance into the house, but never could, the doors being always looked.
Inspector Wilson, of Crewe, deposed as to the apprehension of the two prisoners, in Bristol, at an hotel, having previously been residing at the Washington Hotel, Liverpool.
There was here put in a mass of invoices, letters, &c found in the possession of both the prisoners, sufficiently evidencing that they had been victimising merchants in London, Bristol. Birmingham, Leeds, Chester, &c.
During the hearing of the case both the prisoners cross‐examined the witnesses, but did not in any way affect the evidence given. The presiding magistrate found the charge was clearly established, and committed them to stand their trial at the quarter sessions, Knutsford, in October.
Both the prisoners craved for a remand, in order to procure evidence. It was notified that bail would be accepted for them of £50 each, two sureties, and themselves in. £10G each.
As a pitiful and melancholy finale to this affair we regret to state that, in consequence of the great shock of the feelings of Mrs. James by the intelligence of her husband's apprehension, she died at Cheltenham on Monday.
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 28 March 1863
MYSTERIOUS DEATH OF A POLICEMAN IN CHESTER.
On Tuesday morning, soon after fire o'clock, information was conveyed to the Police‐office, that Constable Daniel Lalor_who bad been on duty all night, on No. 2 beat, had been found lyying dead in the yard of the Commercial Hall.
Mr. Hill, the head‐constable, on being informed of the circumstance, at once pursued an inquiry into the mysterious circumstance, and learnt that Sergeant Myles had' seen the poor fellow at twelve o'clock, and three o'clock; that Mrs. Roberts (a woman living in the yard), had heard heavy footfalls at four o'clock on the stairs leading to the balcony, and that a shoemaker, named Edward Jones, had discovered the deceased lying in a pool of blood, almost under that gallery. There was a bruise over the left eye, the skull was fractured, the night stick was lying under him, and the hat was lying some seven or eight feet off the body. The latter fact led to an inference that Lalor had met with foul play from a person, or persons, whom he had evidently gone on to the balcony (which had no railings) to watch.
Accordingly, communication was had with Mr. Tatlock, the deputy‐coroner, and the following jury were impanelled at the Town‐house, in the course of the day:— Mr. John Hope, Mr E Benson, Mr J Little, Mr H Morris, Mr C Brooks, Mr E Collinsoni, Mr J Okell, Mr C J Blalock, Mr T Cartright, Mr !T Davies, Mr S Thurman, and Mr G Shrubsole.
Richard Myles, sergeant of police, was the first witness called, and he said : —I knew the deceased, who was a private in the Chester police ; he was on duty last night on No. 2 beat, from the end of Frodsham‐street down Foregate‐street, and Bold‐square, and the Commercial Hall was in his beat; I was sergeant of the district in which the beat of the deceased was last‐night; he went on duty at ten o'clock at night; the Commercial Hall is a place much frequented by prostitutes and loose characters, who slept on the balcony each side of it. l saw him at half‐past twelve this morning, and told him to look round there occasionally, and see that there was no one about; I saw him again at three o'clock, exactly at the end of Frodsham‐street, and he said everything was right in his beat; I left him, and did not see him again alive; he ought to have attended at the Police‐office at five o'clock, to be dismissed; he did not attend; I waited till a quarter past five o'clock, as he did not appear, I left; shortly after I had gone home, Police‐constable Robinson came to my house and told me that deceased was lying dead in the Commercial Hall; I went there and sent for Mr. Weaver, surgeon; deceased was lying about a yard from the Balcony, with his feet from it : his hat lay in the area about a yard from his feet ; his stick was there also ; he was lying partly on his back and partly on his left side; there was a pool of blood two feet distant from him, and the same distance from the balcony; there was a wound on his forehead over the left eye; it was not bleeding then, but appeared to have bled, recently; he was not bleeding from the nose, but his face was covered with blood; I examined the landing above where he was found, and discovered a mark on the wood as though a person had slipped from the edge; I noticed marks of a scuffle having taken place ; it was a starlight night, but there was no moon ; the deceased had been on the beat a fortnight ago; there are doors to the hall, bat they are not closed at night ; the deceased was quite sober last night. –
George Chivas, Mo. 12, deposed : —I was on No. 3 beat, E section, a little after half‐past three o'clock this morning. I came over to Seller‐street end, and after being there a short time, I saw Daniel Lalor, the deceased. He came to the corner of the street, and was standing by the Queen's Head Inn. He had not been there a minute, when a man came up from Bougbton, apparently going to work, and the deceased went to Foregate street towards the Cross, in company, and In conversation with him. I did not know the man, and had not seen him before. We generally meet men every hour. I did not see the deceased afterwards. I have been on No. 2 beat myself, and have seen loose characters in the gallery of the Commercial Hall.
E. Jones, shoemaker, of Ball Court, Foregate‐street, said: About a quarter past five o'clock this morning, I was going through the Commercial Hall to Foregate‐street to call a man up. I do so every morning. I saw the deceased on his head, and knew him about 1 or 2 yards from the gallery. His head was close to the ground. His face was in his hands, and his head was buried in the ground, towards the gallery. His hat was about three yards from, his feet I did not see the staff. I shook the deceased, and as he did not stir, I pushed him on his left side. I then observed a pool of blood under the right side of his face, the size of a large plate. I did not perceive him breathing. I went to the bottom of the hill, and told a man I found there to inform the police of the fact. I saw one of the police before I left. There were no marks of a scuffle on the ground. After I moved him I saw his stick under his right side.
Eliza Roberts deposed: I live in the Commercial Hall. This morning about four o'clock, I heard some one going up the steps leading to the balcony. I heard no noise before or after. It was a heavy footfall. I live in the middle of the Hall. I did not hear any foot‐step going past my house. There was no one in the place except myself and husband.. —
At the suggestion of Mr Hill, the enquiry was adjourned to Thursday.
At the adjourned inquest on Thursday, the Town Clerk attended on behalf of the Watch Committee, and the following evidence was taken: —
Dr. Weaver deposed: Since the inquest on Tuesday, I have made a post mortem examination of the deceased, and Dr. Brittain assisted me. We found on the surface a bruise over the left eye, and a discoloration of the right, and a slight bruise on the nose; the left nail of the big toe torn almost off; those were the only marks externally; on removing the scalp we found that the blow over the left eye was vary superficial; but on the top of the head, inclining to the right side, were foul marks of a severe contusion, the scalp being filled with blood; on removing the bone, we found that the fracture started from the injury outside, extending towards the base of the skull; we could not perceive any corresponding mark outside; his hair was very thick, so that might prevent at mark : the skull was broken in several pieces, round the right eye, the bone forming the roof of the orbit; these pieces came, away that accounts for the right eye swelling and blackening; of course, there was a quantity of blood lying on the brain; the fracture of the skull was continuous, and I am of opinion that the result of a blow or fall; I do not think it ft was caused by repeated blows; we examined the other organs and they were ail healthy, no trace of spirits being found in the stomach, the injury to the brain from the fracture caused death; death might have bee very rapid; the usual result of a heavy fall is a fracture of that nature it might have been caused by a blow from a very heavy instrument ; I should expect in that case to find a greater mark outside, indicative of the blow; a man could not by simply failing on the ground, be so fractured, and so I think the deceased must have fallen from a height — such as the gallery above, where he was found lying; he might have had a sort of convulsive struggle, but nothing more; he might have been found lying dead in any position, as he might have struggled violently. By Mr Walker he; lie had both boots on; it bad occurred to me that had he fallen backwards, the toe of his shoe might have caught something, so as to cause the injury to the nail, I The boots were produced, and Mr Hill explained that the absence of a mark shewed nothing, as the catching of the toe nail might have occurred without leaving any mark. It is my opinion, the deceased, was sober at the time. I cannot account for the injury to the toe. He might have caught his toe in something. A little blood was on the toe. A juror suggested that the toe might have caught a splinter, or nail attached to the platform, as he probably mistook in the dark the place where the ladder was, and so have stumbled over. Evidence continued: The bruise on the forehead could have been very easily caused. I think the bruise over the left eye was caused by a blow, but I cannot say whether a blow from an instrument or a fall was a yery slight bruise.
Dr Britain: I made a post mortem examination of the deceased with Dr. Weaver‐, I have heard his evidence, and I agree whith him except that I think the fracture of the skall exteendedl a little futher than he said. There was a pressure in the roof of the mouth. The fracture I think the fall from a height and not a push from the ground. The bruise over the left eye might have been caused by a knock against a pillar, or a slight blow There was no bruise was no on the body ‐only the toe nail torn, That must have been caused by a pressure— his other foot being put on it would do it. It could not have been caused by a splinter, for the wood on the edge, of the gallery was quite rotten. The injury to the toe nail was recent.
Mr. Hill said that on one occasion, in a row, he lost his toe nail by it being stamped on and there was no mark left on the boot Dr. Weaver remarked that the knees of deceased's trousers had a patch of dirt. [ Evidence continued ]: To a juror; There were no marks on the hands, other than the blood that lay about. He must have been sober as his stomach had only the usual acid smell. The man may have got up and again fallen on his knees. I cannot otherwise account for the position in which be was found, for I cannot understand how a push or a fall from the gallery would cause him to lie, in that position. The injury over the right eye was, I think, the effect of a blow, and the nail must have been stamped On. The bleeding may not have commenced immediately. Only a very heavy instrument could hare caused such internal injures‐and there was no impress outside of such an instrument. A blow from a fist might have knocked him off the gallery. That blow could not have been caused by the fall on the ground, it was very slight as was also that on the nose.
Sergeant Sutton: No one in the place seems to have heard any noise, except the woman Mrs. Roberts who was examined on Tuesday. I examined the gallery at 8 o’clock clock on Tuesday morning. Opposite to where the blood was. I found a mark on the edge, of the gallery, as of a heavy foot. The wood, was broken a little and seemingly recent. There was no rail there. I did not see any broken splinters on the ground. The impression on the wood most have been made by a sudden rub. I saw a mark, like scoring, leading to the edge, evidencing a struggle, shining marks as if recently done. I measured the place this morning and found the gallery to be 9 feet 7 finches.
To jurors: The marks, were evidently from a boot. They were two feet from the edge. The cuts oh the window sills are old. One mark said they had been done a fortnight ago. Our men have often had to bring away bad characters from there. It is one of the worst places in the town. It is private property and that accounts for it not being lighted. The deceased most have had an object in going up there. He had special orders to keen an eye to it. He was never subject to fits. .
To Mr Walker; The gallery is a dangerous place to get upon at night.
After this a short and desultory conversation ensued, and the jury retired. In about half an hour they returned into the room with the following verdict ‐
That the deceased had been found dead with his skull fractured, but how he came by his death there was not sufficient evidence to show; but the Jury can not separate without expressing a strong opinion through the evidence of tbe police, as to the insecurity of life in the Commercial Hall, and the indecencies which are nightly committed there; and beg that the attention of the city authorities be called to the condition of the neighbourhood." '
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 06 June 1863
LOCAL AND DISTRICT NEWS CHESTER,
The Chester Police Accommodation.
At a meeting of the magistrates, consisting of the Mayor, Major French, Dr. Jones, T. Dixon, C. W. Potts, E. C. Walker, and R. Roy, Esqrs., consideration as to the state of the Police accommodation of the city was gone into. They considered that the room at the City Gaol for the carrying on of public business was wholly inadequate to the purpose, and that the police accommodation at the Town Hall, is not only at present defective, but in the event of the building, which is expected shortly to be taken down, they will be necessitated to change their quarters. The want of a new Town Hall is felt more and more every day, and no time should be lost in making arrangements for the finding of a new one. The result of the consultation was that a committee composed of the Mayor, Major French, and R. Roy, Esq., was appointed to take the question into consideration, and to report thereon, and a meeting of magistrates then to take place on the matter forthwith.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 31 January 1863
ALLEGED EXTRAORDINARY OUTRAGE BY A POLICE CONSTABLE.
A charge of disorderly conduct against Mr. J. Primrose, reporter, and Mr. J. Evans, letter‐press printer, and a further charge of assault against the former preferred by Police‐constable Wynne, of the Chester force, was heard at the City Police Court on Monday last, before Dr. R. P. Jones and Messrs. J. Trevor and M. Frost.
It appeared that the defendants, with two friends (Mr. T. Evans confectioner, and Mr. James Jones letterpress printer,) were going along Eastgate street on the previous Saturday night a few minutes after twelve o'clock. One of them had a small dog, which made a snap at another of the party. In joking retaliation for this the owner of the dog was tapped on the hat, and he in return made a similar attempt on the hat of his friend. They continued in this jesting way for a short distance down Eastgate‐street, when one of the gentlemen had his hat knocked off.
In his pursuit of the hat he jostled slightly against P.C. Wynne (No. 18), whom he had not seen before that evening, but who at that moment came up the street, apparently in an irritable and excited state. The officer immediately seized Evans, thrust his knuckles violently into his throat, and produced nearly strangulation by the force of the pressure. 'Mr. Primrose, who had lost his hat, knowing that the other had done nothing to justify his being interfered with in this way, civilly remonstrated with the constable, and advised him to release the man; but he had no sooner done so than the policeman, without further warning or comment dealt him a terrific blow on the head, which was uncovered, with a heavy bludgeon, occasioning a wound from which the blood flowed copiously. Of course Mr. Primrose, thus attacked, demanded instantly to‐be conducted to the constable's sergeant, before whom to lay a charge of assault against the officer, and they proceeded to the station‐house at the Exchange. There they bad no sooner arrived than Wynne, without seeking to ascertain if his sergeant (who unfortunately happened to be absent at the time) was in attendance, reached into the room, and, hastily taking up a pen, demanded the names of two of his accusers, as he said he intended to charge them with a breach of the peace and assault; there having been no previous intimation that he intended to adopt this course, and no assault or disturbance whatever, except those committed by himself, having occurred. It was evident the policeman now determined to anticipate the accusation against himself, for which he was specially and with no other understanding accompanied to the police station, by making the first charge, in order that he might hare the privilege of presenting his own version of the case before the magistrates.
Sergeant Hickey shortly afterwards made his appearance ; and the two defendants, who were so suddenly and unexpectedly made so by the crafty ingenuity of the policeman, explained their view of the matter, protested against the trickery of the constable, and insisted upon the charge of assault against Wynne being taken. The sergeant replied that he could not take a charge against a brother officer
The defendants and their friends then pointed out the condition in which officer Wynne was, stating that he was very much under the influence of liquor, with which the sergeant and another officer (J. Hughes), who was in attendance at once agreed.
Bail was then offered for the appearance of the defendants on Monday morning at the police court, hut this was refused, the sergeant observing that in the absence of his superior officer he had no power to do so. The defendants were consequently removed to the cells in the city gaol, which they described as not being fit for a pig to remain in, there being no accommodation, and the stench arising from a heap of rotten straw which was thrown in a corner of the damp, old floor, being dangerously offensive and stifling ; and were released the following morning on bail.
The case came on for hearing on Monday before the above‐named magistrates, Mr. Tatlock, solicitor, being engaged for tbe police‐officer, and Mr Cartwright for the defendants. The complainant, PC. Wynne, and a special constable named Bennett, swore that there was a considerable disturbance in Eastgate‐street on the night in question, caused by the defendants and their friends; that two of them were a fighting attitude, that Wynne took hold of one of tbem, and that thereupon the other "blocked" his (Wynne's) hat, which he sent oyer his eyes; that Wynne then struck the man who did this with his staff, hit (the defendant) having his hat on; that the defendant charged Wynne with assault; and that 'they all went to the police station by way of St. Werberg street. The evidence for the defence showed that Wynnne interfered in a most uncalled‐for manner, that without the slightest provocation he struck one of the defend ants a heavy blow, whilst his head was still uncovered, that no assault was made on Wynne, and that they subsequently on Wynne being charged with the assault, went to the station house by way of East‐gate‐street and Northgate‐street.
After a lengthened hearing, the room was cleared, and the magistrates haying deliberated for a few minutes, gave their decision. They said it was a very trifling charge indeed that had been preferred by the constable; but they believed the evidence for the complainant that an assault had been committed by one of the defendants on the officer; that this defendant for such assault be fined as, and that the charge of creating a disturbance against both parties be dismissed. This decision produced the greatest surprise in Court, and it is believed that further steps will be taken by the defendants in the matter.— Chester Courant.— [We understand the magistrates refused to hear the defendant's case. — Ed. C. O]
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 28 March 1863
MYSTERIOUS DEATH OF A POLICEMAN IN CHESTER.
On Tuesday morning, soon after fire o'clock, information was conveyed to the Police‐office, that Constable Daniel Lalor_who bad been on duty all night, on No. 2 beat, had been found lyying dead in the yard of the Commercial Hall.
Mr. Hill, the head‐constable, on being informed of the circumstance, at once pursued an inquiry into the mysterious circumstance, and learnt that Sergeant Myles had' seen the poor fellow at twelve o'clock, and three o'clock; that Mrs. Roberts (a woman living in the yard), had heard heavy footfalls at four o'clock on the stairs leading to the balcony, and that a shoemaker, named Edward Jones, had discovered the deceased lying in a pool of blood, almost under that gallery. There was a bruise over the left eye, the skull was fractured, the night stick was lying under him, and the hat was lying some seven or eight feet off the body. The latter fact led to an inference that Lalor had met with foul play from a person, or persons, whom he had evidently gone on to the balcony (which had no railings) to watch.
Accordingly, communication was had with Mr. Tatlock, the deputy‐coroner, and the following jury were impanelled at the Town‐house, in the course of the day:— Mr. John Hope, Mr E Benson, Mr J Little, Mr H Morris, Mr C Brooks, Mr E Collinsoni, Mr J Okell, Mr C J Blalock, Mr T Cartright, Mr !T Davies, Mr S Thurman, and Mr G Shrubsole.
Richard Myles, sergeant of police, was the first witness called, and he said : —I knew the deceased, who was a private in the Chester police ; he was on duty last night on No. 2 beat, from the end of Frodsham‐street down Foregate‐street, and Bold‐square, and the Commercial Hall was in his beat; I was sergeant of the district in which the beat of the deceased was last‐night; he went on duty at ten o'clock at night; the Commercial Hall is a place much frequented by prostitutes and loose characters, who slept on the balcony each side of it. l saw him at half‐past twelve this morning, and told him to look round there occasionally, and see that there was no one about; I saw him again at three o'clock, exactly at the end of Frodsham‐street, and he said everything was right in his beat; I left him, and did not see him again alive; he ought to have attended at the Police‐office at five o'clock, to be dismissed; he did not attend; I waited till a quarter past five o'clock, as he did not appear, I left; shortly after I had gone home, Police‐constable Robinson came to my house and told me that deceased was lying dead in the Commercial Hall; I went there and sent for Mr. Weaver, surgeon; deceased was lying about a yard from the Balcony, with his feet from it : his hat lay in the area about a yard from his feet ; his stick was there also ; he was lying partly on his back and partly on his left side; there was a pool of blood two feet distant from him, and the same distance from the balcony; there was a wound on his forehead over the left eye; it was not bleeding then, but appeared to have bled, recently; he was not bleeding from the nose, but his face was covered with blood; I examined the landing above where he was found, and discovered a mark on the wood as though a person had slipped from the edge; I noticed marks of a scuffle having taken place ; it was a starlight night, but there was no moon ; the deceased had been on the beat a fortnight ago; there are doors to the hall, bat they are not closed at night ; the deceased was quite sober last night. –
George Chivas, Mo. 12, deposed : —I was on No. 3 beat, E section, a little after half‐past three o'clock this morning. I came over to Seller‐street end, and after being there a short time, I saw Daniel Lalor, the deceased. He came to the corner of the street, and was standing by the Queen's Head Inn. He had not been there a minute, when a man came up from Bougbton, apparently going to work, and the deceased went to Foregate street towards the Cross, in company, and In conversation with him. I did not know the man, and had not seen him before. We generally meet men every hour. I did not see the deceased afterwards. I have been on No. 2 beat myself, and have seen loose characters in the gallery of the Commercial Hall.
E. Jones, shoemaker, of Ball Court, Foregate‐street, said: About a quarter past five o'clock this morning, I was going through the Commercial Hall to Foregate‐street to call a man up. I do so every morning. I saw the deceased on his head, and knew him about 1 or 2 yards from the gallery. His head was close to the ground. His face was in his hands, and his head was buried in the ground, towards the gallery. His hat was about three yards from, his feet I did not see the staff. I shook the deceased, and as he did not stir, I pushed him on his left side. I then observed a pool of blood under the right side of his face, the size of a large plate. I did not perceive him breathing. I went to the bottom of the hill, and told a man I found there to inform the police of the fact. I saw one of the police before I left. There were no marks of a scuffle on the ground. After I moved him I saw his stick under his right side.
Eliza Roberts deposed: I live in the Commercial Hall. This morning about four o'clock, I heard some one going up the steps leading to the balcony. I heard no noise before or after. It was a heavy footfall. I live in the middle of the Hall. I did not hear any foot‐step going past my house. There was no one in the place except myself and husband.. —
At the suggestion of Mr Hill, the enquiry was adjourned to Thursday.
At the adjourned inquest on Thursday, the Town Clerk attended on behalf of the Watch Committee, and the following evidence was taken: —
Dr. Weaver deposed: Since the inquest on Tuesday, I have made a post mortem examination of the deceased, and Dr. Brittain assisted me. We found on the surface a bruise over the left eye, and a discoloration of the right, and a slight bruise on the nose; the left nail of the big toe torn almost off; those were the only marks externally; on removing the scalp we found that the blow over the left eye was vary superficial; but on the top of the head, inclining to the right side, were foul marks of a severe contusion, the scalp being filled with blood; on removing the bone, we found that the fracture started from the injury outside, extending towards the base of the skull; we could not perceive any corresponding mark outside; his hair was very thick, so that might prevent at mark : the skull was broken in several pieces, round the right eye, the bone forming the roof of the orbit; these pieces came, away that accounts for the right eye swelling and blackening; of course, there was a quantity of blood lying on the brain; the fracture of the skull was continuous, and I am of opinion that the result of a blow or fall; I do not think it ft was caused by repeated blows; we examined the other organs and they were ail healthy, no trace of spirits being found in the stomach, the injury to the brain from the fracture caused death; death might have bee very rapid; the usual result of a heavy fall is a fracture of that nature it might have been caused by a blow from a very heavy instrument ; I should expect in that case to find a greater mark outside, indicative of the blow; a man could not by simply failing on the ground, be so fractured, and so I think the deceased must have fallen from a height — such as the gallery above, where he was found lying; he might have had a sort of convulsive struggle, but nothing more; he might have been found lying dead in any position, as he might have struggled violently. By Mr Walker he; lie had both boots on; it bad occurred to me that had he fallen backwards, the toe of his shoe might have caught something, so as to cause the injury to the nail, I The boots were produced, and Mr Hill explained that the absence of a mark shewed nothing, as the catching of the toe nail might have occurred without leaving any mark. It is my opinion, the deceased, was sober at the time. I cannot account for the injury to the toe. He might have caught his toe in something. A little blood was on the toe. A juror suggested that the toe might have caught a splinter, or nail attached to the platform, as he probably mistook in the dark the place where the ladder was, and so have stumbled over. Evidence continued: The bruise on the forehead could have been very easily caused. I think the bruise over the left eye was caused by a blow, but I cannot say whether a blow from an instrument or a fall was a yery slight bruise.
Dr Britain: I made a post mortem examination of the deceased with Dr. Weaver‐, I have heard his evidence, and I agree whith him except that I think the fracture of the skall exteendedl a little futher than he said. There was a pressure in the roof of the mouth. The fracture I think the fall from a height and not a push from the ground. The bruise over the left eye might have been caused by a knock against a pillar, or a slight blow There was no bruise was no on the body ‐only the toe nail torn, That must have been caused by a pressure— his other foot being put on it would do it. It could not have been caused by a splinter, for the wood on the edge, of the gallery was quite rotten. The injury to the toe nail was recent.
Mr. Hill said that on one occasion, in a row, he lost his toe nail by it being stamped on and there was no mark left on the boot Dr. Weaver remarked that the knees of deceased's trousers had a patch of dirt. [ Evidence continued ]: To a juror; There were no marks on the hands, other than the blood that lay about. He must have been sober as his stomach had only the usual acid smell. The man may have got up and again fallen on his knees. I cannot otherwise account for the position in which be was found, for I cannot understand how a push or a fall from the gallery would cause him to lie, in that position. The injury over the right eye was, I think, the effect of a blow, and the nail must have been stamped On. The bleeding may not have commenced immediately. Only a very heavy instrument could hare caused such internal injures‐and there was no impress outside of such an instrument. A blow from a fist might have knocked him off the gallery. That blow could not have been caused by the fall on the ground, it was very slight as was also that on the nose.
Sergeant Sutton: No one in the place seems to have heard any noise, except the woman Mrs. Roberts who was examined on Tuesday. I examined the gallery at 8 o’clock clock on Tuesday morning. Opposite to where the blood was. I found a mark on the edge, of the gallery, as of a heavy foot. The wood, was broken a little and seemingly recent. There was no rail there. I did not see any broken splinters on the ground. The impression on the wood most have been made by a sudden rub. I saw a mark, like scoring, leading to the edge, evidencing a struggle, shining marks as if recently done. I measured the place this morning and found the gallery to be 9 feet 7 finches.
To jurors: The marks, were evidently from a boot. They were two feet from the edge. The cuts oh the window sills are old. One mark said they had been done a fortnight ago. Our men have often had to bring away bad characters from there. It is one of the worst places in the town. It is private property and that accounts for it not being lighted. The deceased most have had an object in going up there. He had special orders to keen an eye to it. He was never subject to fits. .
To Mr Walker; The gallery is a dangerous place to get upon at night.
After this a short and desultory conversation ensued, and the jury retired. In about half an hour they returned into the room with the following verdict ‐
That the deceased had been found dead with his skull fractured, but how he came by his death there was not sufficient evidence to show; but the Jury can not separate without expressing a strong opinion through the evidence of tbe police, as to the insecurity of life in the Commercial Hall, and the indecencies which are nightly committed there; and beg that the attention of the city authorities be called to the condition of the neighbourhood."
Chester Chronicle ‐Saturday 09 September 1865
The Liverpool Mercury and Manchester Guardian, Tuesday, each contain the following paragraph:—
"On Tuesday, the 25th of March, 1863, a policeman named Daniel Lalor was found dead in the quadrangle of the Commercial Hall, Chester, his body presenting injuries which led to the suspicion that he had been thrown from the balcony which surrounds the interior of the Hall.
Nothing rewarded the research of the police from that time until yesterday, when a deposition was made before the justices of the peace at Chester, by a man named Casey, that a man (whose name has not transpired outside the office), now a private in a regiment of foot stationed at Plymouth, confessed to him the time, under the seal of secrecy, that he had had a hand the disposal of Lalor. The man. implicated has been, we are told, already apprehended, and in few days the public at large will be acquainted with the whole of the facts."
The Courant says the public at large will have to remain, as heretofore, in ignorance of "the whole of the facts," inasmuch as neither man named Casey or any other man made a "deposition" before the justices at Chester, implicating anyone in the death of the policeman alluded to. Only last week the daily papers were hoaxed into printing an account of a murder which did not occur in Cheshire, and on Tuesday the public were supplied with the sensational information contained in the above paragraph.
Liverpool Mercury Thursday, 9th July, 1863
Charge of Embezzlement Against The Collector Of Rates
At Liscard
Edward John Catterall, who for many years has held the situation of rate collector for the district of Liscard, was brought up yesterday before Charles Holland, Esq., charged with appropriating the sum of £296 (Government taxes) to his own use. It has been the custom of the tradesmen the district, who are annually appointed to collect assessed, property, and income taxes, to turn over the business to Catterall, who has held the office of rate collector for many years, and up to the present time discharged his duties faithfully. There are two parties appointed to collect income and property and two for assessed taxes.
The prisoner was defended by Mr. Bretherton.
Mr. Grinnell, the first witness called, deposed that Mr. Copeland (his colleague) and himself agree to pay Catterall a bonus of £5 to collect the taxes for them. He (the prisoner) would also receive the poundage. The moneys over by Catterall to them was in bulk, no details being given as to who has paid. The last sum paid to them was on the 16th of June, which was £97. Two hours after, the prisoner received from Mr. Woodcock, of New Brighton, £5 5s.; no entry was made on the counterfoil of the check book that such a receipt had been given. They afterwards discovered the deficiency to be £96 5s. 0½d.
Mr. Woodcock proved paying the said amount of £5 5s.
Mr. Benjamin J. Spedding, clerk for the commissioners of income tax, etc, for the hundred of Wirral, stated that the appointment of Messrs. Grinnell, Copeland, Crosley, and Thompson, as collectors of income, property, and assessed taxes for the parish of Liscard, was made on the 20th of Oct., 1862. The collectors may be called upon by the surveyor of taxes to pay in their accounts at any time.
Mr. Rowbotham, inspector of Police, stated that he received the warrant, on the 26th of June, and a few days afterwards the prisoner wrote to him stating that he would meet him on the 4th instant at his own door and deliver himself up. The prisoner did so.
Mr. Bretherton, for the defence, stated that it was a mere matter of debt, and the sum of £5 which the prisoner received was not wages, but a commission.
The magistrate decided upon sending the prisoner for trial upon this case.
The next case against Catteral was, from his own admission, the deficiency of £200 in his account for assessed taxes. From the evidence of Mr. Crosley, it appeared that he had also paid him a bonus or commission of £1, and he would likewise receive the poundage. The total amount the district is assessed amounts to £1321 6s. 5d., of which has been collected by the prisoner £1026 18s. 4d., leaving a balance of £264 18s. 5d to be accounted for.
After Mr. Bretherton had spoken for the defence, which was simply a reiteration of his former plea, the prisoner was committed. Bail having been asked for, the magistrate decided upon accepting two sureties of £150 each.
Liverpool Mercury Thursday, 6th August, 1863
Chester Summer Assizes
Before Mr. Baron Wilde
Edward John Catterall surrended to his bail on a charge of having, at Liscard, on the 24th of June last, embezzled various sums of money received on account of his masters, Richard Clifford Gwinnell and Robert Campbell. The evidence. however, failed to sustain the charge of embezzlement, and the prisoner was acquitted. ‐‐There was a second indictment against the prisoner for having embezzled £200, and the sums of money, the property of his masters, Charles James Crosley and Plasket Thompson, at Liscard, but no evidence was adduced, and a verdict of not guilty was returned.
Special constables ‐Hyde, Cheshire 1863
There was distress in the cotton districts due to the stoppage of the supply of cotton during the American Civil War. A number of special constables were sworn in to deal with potential unrest in Hyde. The names of those sworn in are listed in HO 45/7523 after the following wording:
I Joseph Little of Hyde in the County of Cheshire, Deputy chief constable, upon my oath, do say that I have reasonable grounds for apprehending and do apprehend that there will be this day a tumult and riot in Hyde aforesaid; and upon my oath aforesaid I further say that great numbers of people are tumultuously assembled in the public streets of Hyde and at other places and have done much damage to private property and have endeavoured to induce the rest of the inhabitants to join in the tumult by intimidation and violent means that I apprehend such offences will continue to be repeated and that the inhabitants of Hyde and neighbourhood labour under grat fear on that account; that the ordinary constables appointed for preserving the peace in Hyde aforesaid and in Godley, Newton, Werneth and Matley Townships wityhin the division of Hyde in the said County are not sufficient of efficient in number for the detection and discovery of the offender or offenders, for the preservation of the peace or for the protection of the inhabitants and the security of the property in Hyde aforesaid.
Sworn before us four of Her Majesty's Justices of the Peace for the said County of Chester acting in and for the division of Hyde aforesaid this twenty third day of March 1863. Joseph Little
J Sidebottom Thos Ashton John Sidebotham Thomas Thornely
The document lists only the names of the special constables, but in many cases it is possible to identify the individuals in the 1861 census: in these cases their occupations have been added to the
table. First name(s) Surname Occupation in 1861 census Sampson Ardern tailor and draper Arthur Aspland cotton spinner & manufacturer William Baker John Barlow Robert Bell linen draper Frank Bowker labourer John Bradbury Cliff Broadbent James Brocklehurst druggist Richard Burch Gasfitter, engraving tinplate worker (employer) James Butterworth commercial clerk George Dunn Caley solicitor's clerk James Cheetham John Cheetham Charles Coburn Beriah Cooper linen draper Jacob Fletcher Crompton commercial clerk John Crook Samuel Davenport grocer's shopman William Davy John Detheridge William Detheridge joiner Samuel Fletcher cotton weaver Thomas France Joseph Goodfellow Simeon Goodfellow machine turner Joseph Goodwin bricksetter's labourer Joseph Green William Hampson felt hatter John Handford grocer Thomas Ferns Handford cotton spinner, grocer & corn dealer John Harrowhill carpenter Alexander Thornely Hibbert cotton mill manager Charles Hibbert cotton mill manager Edward Hibbert living on interest Frank Hibbert Henry James John William Henry Matthew Thomas Thomas Joseph Samuel William Ebenezer John Samuel Henry Rider Joseph
Thomas Fletcher Nadin Saul Nathan William Oldham John Palmer Joshua Pickford Thomas Swindells Pickford Robert Pleasant John Potts George Ratcliffe John Rowbottom Edward Shaw Thomas Shepley Hibbert Hibbert Hibbert Hibbert Hurst Johnson Lawton Leah Leather Mackay Marshall Marshall Marshall Molyneux Mycock cotton stripper engine driver cotton mill
mechanic
grocer & corn dealer cotton weaver manager gas works
mechanic's fitter mechanic's fitter
linen draper chemist & postmaster watch maker
carter
ironmonger
grocer shopkeeper
Thomas Shepley Thomas Sherrocks George Simpson cotton spinner Joseph Slater overlooker Samuel Slater Shoemaker James Smith William Smith Mark Stafford cotton warp sizer John Taylor Samuel Taylor Zachariah Taylor Joseph Tempest machine fitter Samuel Thornely grocer Joseph Thornton George Turner Thomas Turner Robert Wagstaffe Joseph Walker Peter Walker cotton waste dealer James Ward smith mechanic William Warhurst labourer Edward Whitehead mechanic William Whitehead felt hatter Thomas Wilkinson machine fitter Frank Wrigley Howard Wrigley manager cotton mill Cheshire Observer - Saturday 18 June 1864
ANOTHER CHILD MURDER IN CHESHIRE.
Two women, named Sarah Jane Shersen and Mary Jackson, have been committed to the Assizes at Chester for the murder of a child at Altrincham. Mrs. Jackson, who is a woman 50 years of age, has brought up Sherson from her infancy, and they were living in the same house at the Village of Hale at the tune of their apprehension. The infant who it is alleged has been murdered was an illegitimate female child. Sherson gave birth to it at Jackson's house on Tuesday week, and it was buried in the garden adjoining immediately afterwards
The inquest was held on Saturday, at the Axe and Cleaver, Altrincham, before Mr. W. R. Dunstan. The first witness called was an inspector of police, named Britnor, who said that on Thursday last he went to Mrs. Jackson's house and asked whether Shersen bad been recently confined. She said "No;" and asserted with some indignation that the rumour prevailing to that effect was totally unfounded. Her husband corroborated her words; but, upon the inspector telling her he must take her into custody for making away with the baby, they both admitted the fact. Britnor then examined the ash pit adjoining the house and found some blood in it, and took the two women to the lockup. On questioning Sherson as to what had taken place, she admitted having been confined of a full grown female child on the previous Tuesday morning, but she said it was dead when she saw it, and Mrs. Jackson took it away. Mrs. Jackson added that she had been very wicked in trying to screen her guilt, as she had taken the baby away and buried it in the garden walk.
A sergeant of police, named Alton, who accompanied Britnor, deposed to finding the body of the child in the garden, and said that during the inspector's absence Mrs. Jackson looked at Sherson and said, " You know I have not seen anything, and there has been nothing;" but Sherson replied, "Don't, don't. You know there has." The body, when found in the garden, was wrapped in brown paper, and was buried about four feet deep.
Mr. Blease, surgeon, having made a post mortem examination of the body, said it was certainly that of a very fine nine months' child. The average weight of a nine months child was seven pounds. This one weighed seven pounds fourteen ounces. There were no external marks of violence except abnormal marks. The face and front of the neck were very red. The redness had been produced by pressure upon the front of the neck, which had been applied during life, but not necessarily with an intention to murder. On opening the brain he found it quite healthy, but very much congested. The deep vessels of the neck were also full of blood, more so from the chest upwards than below the chest. The vessels of the chest were normal. He removed the lungs and placed them undivided in a large basin of water at the bottom of it with his hand. They instantly came to the surface. He repeated this several times with the same result. He then divided both lungs into numerous pieces, and placed all the pieces in water, but no portion would sink. Those signs taken together clearly proved that the child had breathed. One gasp would not have done it. The floating was more than from merely one gasp. He had no hesitation in saying that the child was born alive. The cause of death was congestion of the brain, produced by the flow of blood from the brain being prevented by some pressure upon the front of the neck. The blood had been driven naturally to the brain, but the return to the heart bad been impeded by outward compression, and hence congestion of the brain arose. Examined Sarah Jane Sherson the previous day at the police station, and found that she had recently been confined.
This was all the evidence offered, and the jury returned a verdict of " Wilful murder" against Sarah Jane Sherson and Mary Jackson. The elder prisoner was taken to Cheater Castle on Monday, but Sherson was in too feeble a state to be then removed.
Cheshire Observer
Saturday 17 September 1864
ALLEGED UNDUE VIOLENCE OF THE RUNCORN POLICE.
The magistrates at Runcorn were engaged on Tuesday in the investigation of a charge of assault preferred by Mr. J. H. Stuart Pears, resident engineer of the Bridge Works, Runcorn, against Mr. Inspector Watson, the superintendent of the local police force, and Police‐constable Eyes. The case excited a great deal of interest, and the court was crowded. The magistrates were Mr. John Johnson, Mr. W. W. Brundrit, and Mr. W. Wright. Mr. Charles Copeman (Snowball and Copeman) appeared for Mr. Pears, and Mr, Bretherton for Inspector Watson and Eyes.
Mr. Copeman, in stating the case, wished to impress upon the mind of the bench that this was no ordinary question, but one which had the most serious bearing in relation to the future peace and good order of the town
The story of what had taken place was this :— On Monday evening, Sept. 5, Mr. Pears went to Wilson's Hotel, in Runcorn, in company with two young men in a different branch of the same service as himself — Woodhouse and Reed They stood at the bar, and each bad something to drink, Mr. Pears taking lemonade. They had not been there many minutes before Inspector Watson came in accompanied by another person. Something took place which appeared to vex Watson, it being alleged that Woodhouse and Reed put their eye‐glasses up and looked at him in a quizzing way, which no doubt was offensive though it would have been better for an officer in Watson's position to have taken no notice of such conduct. But there was no allegation that Pears did anything offensive to Watson. He had never seen Watson before. Nevertheless Watson came up to Mr. Pears and said, "As to you, Pears. I know you well enough, and I will let you know it." Mr. Pears replied, "Go away ; I wish to have nothing to do with a common policeman." Watson then went away, but Mr. Pears remained afterwards for a quarter of an hour in a private room of the hotel, but during that time he was perfectly sober.
Afterwards Mr. Pears left the house with his two friends, but he returned in a few minutes afterwards, and an inquiry was made for Woodhouse, but Woodhouse was not there. Two or three minutes afterwards Watson returned and applied to Mrs. Wilson to turn Pears out, but Mrs. Wilson would state that Mr. Pears had been guilty of no offence, and that she declined to have him turned out. Pears was then seized, and, though he did not raise a hand against the officers, was dragged out of the hotel, down the steps, and into the street, and alternately "prodding " him from behind, and " punching him in the head, the officers conducted him to bride‐well, where he was detained for three hours and a half, until the middle of the night.
Now this (Mr Copeman urged) was most improper treatment, particularly as it would be proved that Mr. Pears was perfectly sober and had done nothing to provoke the officers. Evidence was then heard, and it' was very contradictory. . After a brief retirement, it being; then past six o'clock, the magistrates returned, and Mr. Johnson stated that they had given the case their most patient consideration, and looking at all the circumstances, and at the mass of conflicting evidence that had been adduced, they had found it, very difficult to come to any decision. They regretted exceedingly that the police should have put themselves into this position. The whole affair appeared to be a drunken squabble from beginning to end. No doubt there had been a great deal of aggravating and vexatious conduct on the part of these, young men, whose positions ought to have induced them to act better. But looking at all of the complications of the case, and the contradictions in the evidence, the court had decided that it was impossible to convict the two defendants, and they should therefore dismiss them.
Before concluding his remarks, Mr. Johnson complimented the legal gentlemen engaged upon the ability which they had manifested on behalf of their respective clients.
Mr. Bretheton applied for a certificate of dismissal, which was granted.
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 20 May 1865
SERIOUS OCCURRENCE
In our police report last week we stated that a man named Maguire was charged with breaking the leg of a Wm Taylor, a deaf and dumb man, at a public house in Foregate‐street. The poor fellow's leg was set at the Hospital, but he was attacked by delirium, and died on Thursday last.
An inquest was held at the Golden Lion on the same day, before Mr. Hostage, when the following evidence was taken : —
Thomas Davies said— l am landlord of the Golden Lion, and I have known the deceased William Taylor. He was a deaf and dumb man, about 52 or 53 years of age. About half‐past six on Wednesday the 10th inst. a man, a stranger to me, came into the smoke room and wanted to sing for money. I told him I did not allow such things in my house, and took him by the arm down the passage and put him out through the front door. He stood outside the door and I saw Mr. Taylor go to him, but I saw no more, as I went down to the cellar to draw liquor, and whilst there I was called back. On going into the commercial room I saw the deceased held in the chair by a number of persons who happened to be at the house, and the man whom I had put out of the house was in safe keeping. I then gave the man into custody for committing a violent assault, and he was sentenced to one month's imprisonment. I found that the deceased's right leg was broken, and I sent for Dr. Weaver, who set the leg, and attended deceased until his death.
Dr. John Harrison was called in on Saturday last. The deceased died at four o'clock on Thursday morning. Deceased's health up to Thursday was good, but having had too much drink the night before, he had not got up until about one o'clock on the day in question. When I went to the smoke room I left Taylor standing in the bar, and I had to pass the bar to take the man down the passage.. Taylor was quite sober on that occasion.
Dr. Weaver, surgeon, said— l was called in on Wednesday, the 10th last, to attend the deceased. He was suffering from a fracture of the small bone of the right leg and dislocation of the foot, commonly called Pott's fracture. I reduced the dislocation and put on splints, and directed that he should be taken to bed. I saw deceased again in the evening in bed, and found him quite comfortable, and I saw him again on Thursday. On Friday I found the bandages disarranged and the splints displaced. On examination I found that the foot was displaced again. Deceased became more and more restless, so I called in Mr. John Harrison, surgeon, on Saturday. Deceased would not keep the splints on he would take them off in half an hour after being put on. He took them off about a dozen times between Friday and Sunday. On Sunday night we put him into a straight‐waistcoat, and had four men to hold hint when he found himself unable to get up he became quiet. On Tuesday evening he became slightly comatised and the symptoms increased until he died on Thursday morning. He began to suffer from delusions and delirium on Saturday. Delirium tremens is often caused in free livers by accident. Deceased died from coma, and the effects of delirium tremens caused by the accident, I have seen teetotallers, who never drink, suffering from delirium tremens induced by accident. The injury to the bone of the leg might have been caused by a kick, or by a fall on the kerb stone, or any other sharp point. Deceased knew me up to Thursday morning, but he was not very conscious after Saturday.
P.C. Samuel Philips said— l was called into the Golden Lion about six o'clock on the 10th last and a man named Maguire was given into my custody by the landlord for assaulting Mr. William Taylor, the deceased, knocking him down and putting his ankle out. Maguire made no reply, but assaulted me when taken into custody, and the following morning he was convicted and fined 20s, and costs for the assault, or in default one month's imprisonment.
The magistrates kept the question of the first assault open. The man appeared to be sober when he was taken into custody.
The inquest was then adjourned until Wednesday next, the 24th, at half‐past 11 o'clock, in order that the Tarvin carrier, who saw the assault, might be obtained to give evidence.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 22 December 1866
CHESTER COUNTY POLICE COURT SATURDAY.
(Before C. Potts, Esq , P. Ewart, Esq., Lieut. Colone Glegg, and Major French.)
Game Trespass. — Edward Evans and Joseph Rees were charged with trespassing in pursuit of game on tbe land of the Marquess of Westminster, on the 13th instant.
John Close said he was a gamekeeper to the Marquess of Westminster. On Thursday night, the 13th instant, about twelve o'clock, he was watching in the Belgrave Avenue‐He saw three men come into a field (adjoining a plantation) in the occupation of Evan Evans, the farm upon which belonged to the Marquess of Westminster. He heard a dog. Morgan, a watcher, was with him, and they ran after one of the men. Tattersall, a constable, and his (witness's) son, was also with him, and they ran at the two others. The man witness ran after commenced throwing stones at him. The man had a stick in his hand. One of the stones made a mark on the barrel of his gun; and another caught Morgan on the head. The man witness ran after got clear off. He then went to the two men whom Tattersall and witness's son had caught. The two defendants were the men. Where the men were he found a bag containing three rabbits, fresh killed. —
Edmund Tattersall said he was a constable in the Cheshire Constabulary. He was with the last witness on the night of the 13th inst. He saw three men going along the plantation side. He saw them set a net, and went to them and caught the defendant Evans. Rees was in a ditch. Witness called upon him to come out. He did so, and was then caught. The nets and pegs produced were found in the pound. Saw the two defendants and the man not caught setting the nets. —
John Close, the younger, confirmed the evidence of the last witness, and added that the man who ran away struck witness upon the arm. —
The two defendants were each committed to prison for three calendar mouths ; at the expiration of that period to find two sureties not to offend again for twelve months, or in default to be further imprisoned for six calendar months.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 10 February 1866
ROBBERY OF WATCHES IN CHESTER AND CAPTURE OF THE THIEVES.
On Thursday the 25th ult. Mr. C. Allmark, watchmaker, Russell‐street, Boughton, in this city, had occasion to leave his shop for a short time. About eleven o'clock in the morning, after fastening the door of the shop in the usual way, (no one living on the premises); he went into Bridge‐street, and on returning about an hour afterwards was startled to find that the padlock by which the shop door was secured, had disappeared. On trying the door he found that the stock‐lock also had been opened. Entering the shop his worst suspicions, which had by this time been aroused, were confirmed, the window having been stripped of fifteen watches, about twenty wedding and other rings, and three guards. Information was given to the police, who visited the place, only to be convinced that the robbery was a bold and barefaced one, as numbers of people were passing to and fro at the time, and that it bore traces of having been accomplished by no "prentice hand " in the art of thieving. Enquiries were set on foot and on Thursday week from information which had reached the Chief‐constable, Detective William Bray was sent to Liverpool, with orders to search for the property and a man named Philip Dixon, son of the notorious "Phil Dixon,'" so well known to the citizens of Chester. After spending the day in Liverpool without tracing out his man, Bray was returning towards the ferry when his attention was directed by a well‐dressed person approaching him, suddenly turning round and bolting in an opposite direction. A glance was sufficient to convince the officer that the person so quickly "making himself scarce '' was Phil himself, and he at once gave chase, which promised to be a very hopeless one. A hue and cry was made, and, after knocking down several persons who attempted to stop him, notwithstanding that he was shouting "stop thief" as lustily as any of his pursuers, the redoubtable Phil was brought to a stand still. He was earnest in his entreaties to the crowd to let him go, as "it was for nothing but a row," and before Bray could arrive several of the by‐standers seemed disposed to grant his request, but for the praiseworthy assistance of two or three gentlemen who were passing, and into one of whose hands the fugitive had clandestinely put a silver watch and hair guard. He was at length secured and brought by Bray to Chester, and two women also who were in his company. Following up the clue, the Chief Constable went to Liverpool on the following morning, and applied to Mr. Raffles, the stipendiary magistrate, for a warrant to search the premises of Mr. J. L. Thornis, the proprietor of the Strawberry Grounds Hotel, which was granted. He then, in company with two Liverpool detective officers, went to Thomas, and after cautioning him, that individual positively denied that he knew anything of any watch except his own, which he produced from his pocket. But upon sundry little transactions which had taken place during the bargain being mentioned, he threw up his hands and said, " Good G — d, what will my wife and children do ?”' He then took the officers up‐stairs and showed them four watches and several rings which he had bought, and which have since been identified as Mr, Allmark, as his property. He was brought in custody to Chester the same afternoon, and on the following day (Saturday) was brought before the magistrates with Dixon and the two women, and remanded until yesterday. Since then the police have been successful in recovering the large bulk of the stolen property from Liverpool, Manchester, and elsewhere.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 13 October 1866
CHARGE OF ASSAULT AGAINST A CHRISTLETON CONSTABLE.
At the Chester Count; Police Court, on Saturday, before C. Potts, Esq , (chauman) Major French, P. Ewart, Esq., and Colonel Clegg,
William Bithell, a county constable stationed at Christleton, was charged with assaulting Samuel Speed, clerk, on the evening of the 26th September. Mr. Bridgman appeared for the complainant and Mr. Cartwright for the defendant. Mr. Bridgman stated the case. On the evening of the 26th September there was a missionary meeting held in the girl's schoolroom at Christleton, of which meeting Mr. Thomas Dixon was chairman. The meeting commenced at seven o'clock, and complainant, having taken his tea in Christleton, went to the school room for the purpose of attending the meeting, arriving there at a quarter past seven. The building was full and many persons were standing round the door not being able to get in. Speed went up to the door, and at the time Mr. J. Smith was addressing the meeting, he placed himself in the porch and was perfectly quiet, so quiet that the persons standing there could hear every word which Mr. Smith said inside.
Bithell went up to Speed and jostled him from the door and they both fell down some steps, Bithell on the top of Speed. The night was dark, and Speed would tell the Bench that Bithell kicked him while on the ground. Speed then asked Bithell what he had done that for, and Bithell replied "If you are not off, I will lock you up." In the scuffle Speed had lost his hat and while he was looking for it Bithell jostled him to the gate and Speed had to go without his hat, which was sent to him next morning. He believed the defence would be that Speed was drunk, but respectable witnesses would be called who would swear that he was sober.
There must have been some motive or other to induce Bithell to make this attack upon Speed. That there was a motive was perfectly plain, and the motive suggested by Speed was this :— Some time ago Bithell had to answer a charge of being the putative father of a child. The case was dismissed as against Bithell, but a little while ago Bithell met Speed and said, "What has your wife been saving about the child ?" Mr. Cartwright objected to this as being irrelevant to the charge. The Bench ruled that it was inadmissible Mr. Bridgman said then it was in consequence of something said at the end of a conversation with Speed that Bithell interfered so unjustifiably upon this occasion.
Samuel Speed, the complainant, was then called. He said: I live in Christleton and am a grocer by trade, but my present occupation is that of a clerk. On the evening of the 26th of September I attended a meeting at the girl's school in Christleton. I had had my tea before I went there. I got there at a quarter past seven o'clock. The room was very full of people, and there were people standing round the building. I could hear the speakers while I was standing outside. I stood in the porch. While I was standing there William Bithell came up, and asked me what I was standing there for. I said I was endeavouring to gain admission. Without cause or provocation he threw me down upon the ground and fell upon me. I fell down the steps and he fell upon me. He jumped up and gave me a violent kick upon the side, and shoved me down to the gate as if I was something. (Laughter.) He ill used me shameful. I said "Bithell, what's this for ? ' He said "If you speak to me another word I'll lock you up." I said "Where's my hat ?" and he ran at me and shoved me down. I had lost my hat. He pushed me about eleven yards to the gate. He tore my trousers across the knee. Before this I was perfectly quiet. When I was upon the floor several people shouted "shame! shame ! “ I felt ill after it. Some little while ago I remember having a conversation with Bithell respecting something my wife had said. At the end of it he said " I shall have it in for you some day." Cross‐examined: I was never in the room at all. I simply stood at the porch. Bithell dropped my light weight upon the ground. (Laughter.) I did not trip Bithell up. Bithell did not fall upon me accidentally There is no question about it that it was wilfully done. After the first affair I returned to the porch. I asked for my hat and he said if I spoke another word he would take and lock me up. There was nothing said in the room about me making a noise. I utterly deny having gone beyond the porch a second time. My hat was sent me. A girl said it had been picked up in the cloak‐room. I don't know the noise made by me stopped the speaking inside. I was quite sober. On the day in question I had been to Chester before my tea. I had been electioneering with Mr. Wigginer'a lot, and the side I represented were strictly teetotal (Loud laughter) I had had something to drink. I think I can positively swear that I had not had more than five glasses of ale during the day, and I had had plenty of meat to support it. (Laughter) I like good old ale and plenty to eat. (Roars of Laughter)— not sixpenny beer, though. (Renewed laughter.) I was not a little merry when I got to Christleton from Chester election. I was glad to think that I got my man in. My man was Mr. Wigginer. I didn't top the beer I had had with a little gin at Dutton's‐On my oath I had nothing "short." When I went to Dutton's I was perfectly sober. I don't remember seeing John Jones and John Brown at Dutton's, but I know that they are there every night. (Laughter) My wife was not angry with me for being a little over the line. She did not upbraid me for being groggy. ‐Re‐examined— All the ale I took that day was five glasses. I was perfectly sober as l am now.
Thomas Crookson, builder, of Kelsall, deposed that he was in Christleton on the evening of the 26th Sept. He was passing through the village from Rowton, and stopped when he found there was a missionary meeting going on. The room was full and he stopped outside. Speed came up to a window, looked in and then walked into the porch. Witness could hear the speaking outside as well as if he had been inside. The people were quiet and he could hear the speaking distinctly. The first he saw of the affair was when Bithell threw Speed down the steps. He heard Speed ask the policeman what he had done that for, but did not hear Bithell make any reply. Then Speed wanted his hat, and Bithell made him go from the steps without it. Speed came to the door again to look for his hat. Speed could not get into the room because the porch was so full. Saw Speed go into the porch again just as he (witness) went away. Speed acted and looked like a sober man. Speed was not an acquaintance of his. He was a stranger in the village. Could not see any cause for the policeman to interfere. Speed complained when he was going home that he had been kicked. He did not complain in the presence of the policeman that he had been kicked.
William Bebbington, shoemaker, Mary Owen, and George Richardson, gave precisely similar evidence; the only additional facts elicited being that Speed asked somebody for a pin to fasten a flower in his coat.
Mr. Cartwright said he was instructed to appear on the part of Bithell to answer this charge of assault, and he need hardly say that to a young man like Bithell, who had been upwards of four years in the force, it was a most important inquiry. Bithell had served in the force without a single complaint against him, and was well known at Christleton, and much respected; and he (Mr. Cartwright) was told that upon all occasions he was a constable who exercised forbearance. His learned friend had sought for a motive. Mr. Bridgman knew that the first thing the Bench would look for would be the question what motive had this police‐officer to go and commit the violence attributed to him? Even supposing that he had a motive, would be have carried it out under such circumstances, in a room full of people, and he a policeman, a man of all others who would be well up to the fact that he was surrounded by evidence of his own acts? Was it likely, if he wanted to punish this man, that he would do so in such a place as had been represented, when he had plenty of opportunities of doing it in the dark, every night, without witnesses at hand. His case was this: There was a missionary meeting upon this particular evening. That meeting had been proceeding for some time until Mr. Speed came up. Everybody was quiet and there was no noise. Bithell, as a police‐officer, was properly doing his duty, seeing that there was no interruption to the meeting. He was there as a part and parcel of his business to see that no breach of the peace ensued. Up came this Mr. Speed, drunk. He commences chaffing with Richardson, flourishes his hand and puts his fist in Richardson's face. It was not said that he held his hand up to strike Richardson, but that action was sure to create a disturbance, and that would be quite sufficient to entitle Bithell to remonstrate with Speed‐Speed asked for a pin to fasten a flower in his coat, and he asked in such a manner as to disturb the meeting. Was it not likely to provoke laughter, to do such a ridiculous thing as ask for a pin in such a place at a missionary meeting? Bithell seeing that the place was disturbed asked Speed to be quiet. He, however, went on creating a noise, and Bithell got hold of Speed to put him out ; in some manner or other both of them rolled down the steps. It was clear, however, that the fall was purely an accident. To say that the officer threw himself upon Speed was preposterous. After they had rolled over Speed returned to the porch, and there he stood for 20 minutes grumbling and calling to Bithell to interfere with him. At last be set up such howling (laughter) that he quite disturbed the audience. The howling was something extraordinary. It was admitted by complainant's witnesses that Speed cried; be (Mr. Cartwright) had it that he "howled." Was it likely that a man of Speed's age and experience would be so unmanly as to shed tears? If he did there was fresh cause for defendant's interference. But after the bowling had gone on for some time Bithell did turn Speed from the porch to the gate. He concluded by pressing the Bench to consider that there must have been some reason for Bithell's interference, and this would be seen from the evidence now to be called.
John Jones, clerk to Mr. Davies, coal merchant, Chester, deposed that he attended the meeting in question at Christleton. He was standing at the porch of the school‐room.
Mr. Speed came up while he was standing there. Speed was drunk. Two little girls were standing before him. Speed said to the little girls" What the devil are you doing here." Saw Thomas Jones there. As soon as Speed came in Thomas Jones said, "Let's tap him." (Laughter.) After recounting a number of vulgar phrases made use of by complainant, witness said Speed put his hand in Richardson's face and gave Thomas Jones a lug upon the head. He next took a flower from one of the little girls, and asked her for a pin to fasten the flower in his coat. He did not get a pin. Then Bithell came up and cautioned Speed to be quiet or leave the porch. The conversation was going on in a pretty loud tone of voice. Some of the people in the room looked round to the porch as if they felt annoyed at the noise made there. When Bithell told Speed to be quiet, Speed said, "What the have you to do with it." Then Bithell got hold of Speed by the arm, and Speed got Bithel round the waist, and they fell down the steps together. Witness believed they fell down the steps accidentally. After that Speed came back to the porch and asked for his hat. He asked witness if he had seen him do anything to cause Bithell to put him out. Witness told him to behave himself. After being quiet a few minutes he said, "Bithell, have you found my hat," and then commenced to cry in a loud voice. This crying or howling could be heard in the school room.
William Roberts, Cotton Hall, farmer and churchwarden of Christleton, said on the evening in question he was in the school‐room all the time of the meeting. He did not see Speed. Heard a man making a noise but did not know who the man was. The noise was an annoyance to the congregation. Thought he would go and stop the noise. But he heard Bithell's voice saying, "Go home, or behave yourself."
William Holywell and Samuel Heslan also gave evidence asserting that Speed was drunk.
Superintendent Wilson, of the county constabulary, gave evidence as to character. He had known Bithell to bear a good character as a member of the force, both for demeanour and general good conduct.
Mr. Bridgman then summed up the evidence. The Bench then dismissed the summons, the Chairman observing that they had heard a great deal of evidence on both sides, but considered it of such a contradictory character that it was only right to give the benefit to the party they thought most likely to be in the right. They could not think that the policeman, a very respectable man, would do what was attributed to him; and on the other side there was evidence that the complainant was not at all events quite as sober as he ought to be
Illustrated Police News - Saturday 28 September 1867
PERSONATING A DETECTIVE OFFICER AT ALTRINCEAM.
A respectably‐dressed young man, who gave the name of John Terrell, and who, it was stated, formerly carried on business in Manchester as a commission agent, was charged at the Lyme Police‐court, on Saturday, with personating a detective officer.
Inspector Britnor, of the Cheshire constabulary, stationed at Sale, said that on Friday morning he received a telegram purporting to have come from Mr. Platt chief clerk in the detective department at Manchester, informing him that a detective officer would leave Manchester by the next train for the purpose of apprehending two Fenians at Altrinoham, and requesting him to give the officer whatever assistance he might require. He went to the station to meet the train, on the arrival of which the prisoner stepped out of a carriage, and, coming up to him, said, " Are you Inspector Britnor, ?" He replied "Yes." Prisoner then told him that he was a detective officer, that he had been sent from Manchester to apprehend two Fenians at Altrincham, and that he wanted him to accompany him to the latter place by the next train to make the arrest, adding that he did not anticipate any difficulty, but in consequence of what had happened at Manchester, it was not desirable that he should be alone.
They went on to Altrincham by the next train and proceeded to the police station, where the prisoner asked for the loan of a pair of handcuffs, which were given him. He then left the station, stating that he was going to make inquiries respecting the whereabouts of the Fenians, and that he would return at five o'clock in the evening.
He did not, however, return, and Inspector Britnor, accompanied by another officer, went in search him. On their way down the street they were told that the prisoner was in a public‐house further down, and that he had told several people in the house that he was a detective officer and had come to Altrincham to apprehend Fenians.
Inspector Britnor telegraphed to Manchester to ascertain whether there was any truth in the prisoner's representations, and received a reply stating that there was no detective officer in the Manchester force of the prisoner's name, and that they know nothing whatever of the affair. The officers then went back to the public‐house, where they found the prisoner in a state of intoxication, with the handcuffs in his hand, and took him into custody.
Superintendent Andrews said that so far as he could make out, it was nothing more than a foolish freak on the part of the prisoner, but if the officers had acted upon the information he gave them a great deal of trouble and annoyance would have been caused in Altrincham. He did not wish to press for punishment. The prisoner, who ex‐pressed deep sorrow for what he had done, promised to pay the costs which had been incurred, and after being cautioned by the magistrates against a repetition of the offence he was set at liberty.
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 16 November 1867
EXTRAORDINARY CASE OF CHILD MURDER AT RUNCORN.
On Sunday morning, about half ‐past twelve o'clock, as Inspector Egerton, of the Cheshire constabulary, was entering the Town Hall Runcorn, he saw a woman crouched in a corner of the lobby. On asking her what she wanted, she said she had killed her child. She had it with her, she said, and on the Inspector letting her into the office she had the apparently dead body of a child on the table.
Dr. Batterton was at once sent for, but failed to resuscitate the child. On being cautioned in the usual manner, the woman said she had walked that night to Moore, and had drowned the child in a pit near that place. She held it in the water three times before life was extinct. She also said she felt much happier now she had done the deed, and was sorry she had not taken little Emily (another of her children) and drowned her too. The prisoner proved to be the wife of a “gauger” at the Bridge Works, named Greenwood. The murdered child was six months old, and was the youngest of four children. This Greenwood is a most respectable man of his class, and has always been very kind to his wife.
The inquest on the body of the child was held on Monday afternoon, before Mr. J. Nicholson, coroner for the township of Halton. The evidence adduced confirmed the above facts, and leaves little doubt that the woman Greenwood was insane when she committed the act. For the past 15 months the prisoner had been depressed in spirits, but had uniformly shown kindness to her children. A short time ago she asked her husband to get her into a lunatic asylum, but the latter being attacked with an illness he was prevented taking any steps in the matter. From her own confession, it appears she had twice "been tempted to kill her baby before" — once by smothering it, and once by cutting its throat with a razor; but "some‐thing prevented her doing it."
Dr. Batterton, on making a post‐mortem examination of the body of the murdered child, found it perfectly healthy. He had no doubt its death was caused by drowning.
On Sunday afternoon the prisoner went along with Inspector Egerton near Moore, and pointed out the place where she had murdered the child. The Jury returned a verdict of "Wilful murder" against Emma Green wood, the name of the mother of the deceased, later in the day the prisoner was brought up before Mr. W. W. Brundrit, J. P. by whom she was committed to take her trial at the Chester assizes.
She said nothing during the inquiry, beyond stating that what the witness said was correct.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 30 November 1867
SHOCKING TRAGEDY NEAR MIDDLEWICH. SEVEN PERSONS BURNT TO ASHES
One of the most appalling calamities which it has been our duty to record took place on Sunday morning last, shortly after five o'clock. On that morning the inhabitants of Middlewich were aroused from their slumber by the tolling of the fire bells from the parish church, and found that a messenger had arrived with the astounding intelligence that Brierly Hulme Farm House, in the township of Kinderton, distant about two miles from Middlewich, had been destroyed by fire, and Mr. and Mrs. Cooke, their four children, and a nurse girl buried in the ruins.
On visiting the spot early on Sunday morning we found the intelligence too true, and the house and all therein was a complete mass of smouldering fire, and the Middlewich fire engine playing upon it. A number of men, seeking carefully for the remains of Mr. Cooke and his family, discovered, at the spot under the smouldering ruins where Mr. and Mrs. Cooke and their children had slept, the charred trunks of four persons, evidently those of Mr. and Mrs. Cooke and two of their children; but after working all day until five o'clock, and turning over the whole of the ruins very carefully, not the slightest trace of the other three remains could be found. The farm belongs to Sir John Chetwode, Bart., of Oakeley, and has been occupied by the Cooke's family for many years.
Edward Cooke, the unfortunate victim, was born and lived there the whole of his life, and upon the decease of his parents became the tenant of it, and shortly afterwards married Miss Elizabeth Goodall, of Brereton; and had issue by her four children, all of which, with their parents, perished in the flames. The house was one of the half‐timbered houses which may be met with frequently in Cheshire, was thatched, and singular to relate had only one door for ingress or egress, and but one window that opened. The ground door comprised the common arrangement of dairy and back kitchen at one end, a large‐kitchen occupying the centre of the house, and the family sitting‐room the extreme end in the other direction. The sleeping rooms above were divided into separate accommodation for the men servants at one end, the family at the other end, and the female servants with them. Over the back kitchen four servant lads slept, and they all made good their escape. Over the kitchen and sitting‐room slept the farmer, his wife, four children, and two maid servants, and in this part of the house the melancholy loss of life occurred, only one person out of the eight occupying these chambers managing to get away through a bedroom window.
The discovery of the fire was first made by one of the lads, who got up in the darkness to look at the clock in order to see whether it was time to rise. He found the kitchen was on fire and blazing fiercely, and he immediately roused the household by his cries. The other lads got out through the windows, which were not far above the ground. Of course all was confusion at such an awful moment, and it is not clear what occurred afterwards. The servant girl who has escaped states that when the alarm was given her master got up and went down stairs to the kitchen to see the state of affairs. He appears to have found the whole of the lower part of the middle of the house in flames, and escape by the staircases or lower doors completely cut off. He was driven back by the heat and smoke, the flames appearing to follow him in his retreat to the upper floor.
It is supposed that he next tried some of the windows, but these were all but one strongly barred as a protection against burglars, and probably much valuable time was lost in this way which might have been devoted to rescuing the children. The girl who was saved jumped out of a chamber window, and expected her mistress, who was in the room with her, to follow. On recovering from her terror, however, after alighting on the ground, she saw, on looking back, nothing but dense volumes of smoke issuing from the window, and it is feared that her mistress, in her anxiety to communicate this mode of escape to her husband and children, must have gone back into the room, and succumbed to the stifling effects of the smoke. Nothing more was seen of master, mistress, the four children, or the other servant girl; the flames devoured everything with terrible rapidity, and it was too evident what was the fate of those left inside the house.
The origin of the disaster is not altogether involved in mystery. From the testimony of the only servant girl who made her escape, it would appear to be owing to a very dangerous custom common in other places besides country farm‐houses. On Saturday night a quantity of clean clothes intended for Sunday were left suspended before the kitchen fire when the family retired to rest, and the strong probability is that a spark flew out from the grate, set fire to these, and so communicated to the furniture and house part the highly inflammable character of the structure and the circumstance of the inmates being fast asleep while the flames were getting a good hold of every‐thing around, accounting for the suddenness and completeness of the catastrophe after the discovery that the place was on fire had been made by the servant lad who got up to look at the clock.
All the furniture, bedding, cheese (the whole summer's), and dairy vessels were entirely consumed. We understand that Mr. Cooke had insured his farming stock in the sum of £500 and his furniture in £100. We are also told that Sir John Chetwode's loss is covered by insurance.
During the whole of Sunday one continued stream of visitors from all parts were passing and re‐passing each other on their way to and from the scene of the appalling disaster.
On Monday afternoon last, about three o'clock, an inquest was held on the remains, before Mr. W R. Dunstan, Coroner, and a jury composed of the following persons (at the Brierly Pool Farm, occupied by Mr T Joseph Lownds), viz.: Messrs. D. Harding, Kinderton, (foreman), Luke Jackson, S. W. Swinton, O. Ball, S Stanier, J. Dierden, R. Hewitt, J. Badey (Middlewich), P. Arden, D. Edge, J. Venables, and J. Burgess. After the coroner and jury had viewed the charred remains, which had been placed in a tub, the following evidence was given : —
John Roylance, sworn — l am about 18 years of age. I have lived as waggoner with the deceased Edward Cooke since Christmas last. His family consisted of himself, his wife and four children, Ann Davenport, Frank Oilier, John Dunning, John Venables, P. Higginson, servants, and a nurse girl whom we called Elizabeth, and myself. Higginson, whose parents live at Middlewich, was sent to that place by my master on Saturday night last on an errand, and stopped there at night. John Wilkinson always slept at his mother's, the next house to Mr. Cooke's, and did so that night. About nine o'clock the same night myself, Ollier, and Dunning, the two servant boys, went to bed. We slept over the kitchen, the rooms over which are entered by a stair‐case out of that place. The kitchen and the staircase are separated from the house‐place by an entry, out of which the only outdoor opens into the yard. When we went to bed we left my master and mistress, their four children, Ann Davenport, and the nurse girl in the house‐place. I did not hear anything during the former part of the night. I dreamt that I was killed and awoke frightened. I lay awake about an hour and a half, I then thought it was time to get up to go to my horses. I got out of bed and lighted the lantern, and went down stairs to see what time it was. I was not dressed. This would be as near as I can guess, about half‐past five o'clock. I did not smell any fire or see anything until I got into the passage between the kitchen and house‐place. In putting my hand through the hole to open the house door I found it was very hot. I pushed the door open and found the house‐place full of fire, just like a brick oven, the flames curling round the ceiling I ran upstairs and alarmed Dunning and Oilier. I called out so that all might hear it I thought I heard my master call out, but I am not sure. I got part of my clothes and came down stairs again, and got into the yard. I then went up in again for my coat, and again came down into the yard. Dunning followed me; Oilier got through a side door out of the bedroom into the yard. We all three then went round the house making an alarm. We could hear them screaming. We all three escaped in our shirts. I never saw my master or mistress, or their children or nurse girl alive after I went to bed on Saturday night. I then went to alarm them at the next farm, and on going back I met Ann Davenport. She had nothing on but her night clothes. My hair was very much burned, and I ache all over.
Ann Davenport sworn — l am a single woman, and have lived with the deceased, Edward Cooke, at Brierly Hulme Farm, as servant of all work since Christmas last. On Saturday night last, about eleven o'clock, I went to bed, leaving my master and mistress at their supper in the house place; the children and the nurse‐girl had gone to bed before. When I went to bed the clothes horse full of clothes was in the house, but not near the fire. After I had been in bed about two hours I heard master and mistress coming to bed. My mistress came out of their room into mine, and said to me, " Why, you are not asleep yet." I told her I had been to sleep, and she replied, "When you get up in the morning, you must be sure to take the clothes away from the fire without dirtying them; master has put some wood on, and made a good fire to air them." My mistress then went back to her own room and I went to sleep; when I awoke I heard a loud crackling noise. I thought the lads were up and had lighted the fire. I did not smell anything, neither was there any smoke in the room. Shortly afterwards I heard the lads shouting out; I got up and went into my master's room and alarmed him ; there was no smoke in his room; the children were all asleep. My master got up and opened the stairs door; the house place was full of fire, the flames of which met him and he fell backwards. The fire rushed up stairs into my master's room. My master got back into his room, and my mistress laid hold of him and clasped him; they both cried out "Lord have mercy upon us." My mistress appeared as if she could scarcely, breathe. I got back into my bedroom ' and shook the girl, but could not wake her. I was nearly gone myself. I could not speak. I managed to get to the window, the only one that anybody could get through. I broke it open, and just as I was trying to get through Oilier reared a ladder against it. I got upon it, and then jumped down. Just as I was getting on the ladder my mistress laid hold of my leg. As soon as I could I called out to her to follow me. I called out to them to throw the child through the window and I would catch them, but I never saw my mistress or the children again after this. I saw my master come to the window and put his head through as if to get his breath. He called out again, “Lord have mercy upon us," and then went back. I never saw him again. I escaped through the window in my night dress. I stopped a few minutes, and then made my way to the next farm (Mr. Venables). My master was about 40, my mistress was about 36, her name was Elizabeth. The eldest child, Ellen, was just turned 7; Sophia was just turned 4; Edward was just turned 2; and Mary, the baby, was born in May last. The nurse girl's name was Elizabeth Shaw; her father is a labourer, and fives in the Potteries; she was 12 last June. L am sure my master and mistress, their four children, and the nurse girl were all suffocated before the floor or roof fell in. My master and mistress and the four children slept in two beds, close together in the same room. The place has been pointed out to me where my master and mistress's remains were found; it is just under the place where their bed stood. There was an iron guard round the fire‐place, between the clothes horse and the fire‐place; the clothes were cotton. The house was a thatched one, and had a great deal of timber in it. I lost all my wearing clothes.
Thomas Hardern sworn — l am a police officer, stationed at Middlewich. On hearing of the fire on Sunday morning, I went to the place, and arrived there about half‐past six o'clock. I found, the floor of the rooms fallen in, but not the roof! It fell shortly after‐wards. There is nothing standing but the two chimneys and part of the wall of the milk‐house. The buildings are on the other side of the road. The place was pointed out over where Mr and Mrs Cooke's bed had stood, and there I found the remains of four charred trunks, evidently from the size those of Mr. and Mrs. Cooke and two children. They were all lying together. By the side of where the remains of Mrs Cooke were found, I saw her wedding ring picked up. I produce it. I saw some feathers found under the remains, and also a piece of bedstead. All the smouldering ruins were carefully turned over, but no other remains were found except part of a back bone and thigh. The whole of the remains which were found are those which the Jury have viewed. There is no means of identification except from the size. T
he Coroner, in addressing the jury, remarked that of all the awful occurrences which had taken place in their experience, probably none had equalled in painful interest the one constituting the present inquiry; and, at all events, it was very unlikely that any of their number had ever been called upon to witness such a distressing scene as it had been their painful duty that day to investigate. Here was a father, mother, four children, and servants, who retired to rest, after their week's labour, on the Saturday, as usual, with the anticipation of rising to enjoy a quiet Sunday, when they were suddenly cut off. He then called their attention to the evidence, and said that the attention of the jury would be called to two particulars. Did the whole of the deceased persons meet their death from the house taking fire, and then how did the fire occur? There was no evidence clearly to show how the fire originated, whether it was by accident or otherwise; but there was nothing to give the least suspicion of incendiarism. The evidence plainly showed that the deaths had been caused by suffocation, arising from the house having taken fire. The question to be decided by the jury would there‐fore be, first, did the whole of these persons meet their death through the house taking fire? and, secondly, what was the cause or origin of the fire?
The jury, after a short deliberation, returned the following verdict :— " That the seven deceased persons met with their death from suffocation, from the flames and smoke arising from the house taking fire. As to the cause of the tire the jury have no evidence to show." They wished to append to their verdict that they were unanimously of opinion that if the house had had proper means of ingress and egress some, if not all, of the unfortunate victims might have been saved.
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 9 February 1867
BRUTAL MURDER OF AN OLD MAN AT SEACOMBE.
On Tuesday great excitement was caused in Seacombe and Birkenhead by the report that an old man had been brutally murdered in broad daylight in one of the most frequented parts of the township of Seacombe. That morning an old man about 60 years of age, named Hugh M'Comb, who resided in Oak street, Birkenhead, and who was in the habit of purchasing marine stores, &c, on board vessels in the Birkenhead docks, went on board a vessel at the Great Float and purchased some old ships sails. After doing so he and a man who is since missing went to the Pool Inn at the head of the Great Float. M'Comb remained outside talking to a man named Wm. Parry, while the man who had previously been in his company went into the public‐house. This man returned in a few minutes, and remarked to M'Comb, "he is not in," as though he had been making inquiry in the house for some person. M'Comb and he then walked off in company along the line of rails adjoining the Float, and running from Duke‐street Bridge to Poulton. At the end of the copper ore works, which are surrounded by a high wall, they were lost sight of by Parry. Nothing more was seen of either man for half an hour. About twelve o'clock Mr. Laing, a foreman, employed at the copper ore works, found the body of M'Comb under a coal wagon, and between the rails, in a much frequented part of the road, where it was weltering in blood.
County Police constable 160 (Percival), who was on duty in the neighbourhood, was apprised of the occurrence, and he at once hurried to the place, and found the old man quite dead, but still warm. An examination of the body showed that the jugular vein had been cut, evidently with a knife, which had first passed through the lower part of the left ear, and which had no doubt caused death. The old man's right eye was terribly discoloured, as though he had been severely kicked, and under his throat was a black mark as if he had been garrotted. The state of the ground about indicated that there had been a scuffle, and that the body bad been dragged about ten yards and placed under the wagon. It must have been while the body was under the wagon that the stab was inflicted, for, although, as stated, there were marks showing that it had been dragged along the ground, there was no blood any where but in the place where the deceased lay under the wagon. This fact, coupled with the marks under the neck, confirms the supposition that the old man had been in the first instance garrotted and then murdered. He had only one arm, having lost his right one about twelve months ago by an accident, and it is conjectured that, being suddenly attacked, he was unable to defend himself. The police constable, on searching the body, found in the outside pocket of the deceased's monkey jacket a purse containing 92 sovereigns, besides a knife and a pipe. At first sight it would appear that the object of the murderer could not be plunder, but if the statement of a younger brother of the deceased's be true, that a short time before be was last seen alive the old man had about £200 on his person, it is clear that the assassin has committed the double crime of murder and robbery. It is also stated that when the deceased, a short time before his death, paid for some sails which he had purchased, he had on him a large quantity of silver and copper, but when found under the wagon there were none but gold coins in his pockets. The deceased, who was a widower and had one son, bore the reputation of being an inoffensive old man. It appears that for some time past he had been in the habit of carrying all his money about with him, and this no doubt was known to his murderer. As a reason for his carrying the money with him it is said he was afraid of its being stolen, as about 18 months ago his nephew robbed him of a sum of about £30. The body was removed to the Pool Inn, to await an inquest.
OPENING OF THE INQUEST. The inquest on the body was opened on Wednesday after‐noon, at the Pool Inn, before Mr. Henry Churton, County Coroner, and a highly respectable jury, of which Mr. J.
C. Boyd, chairman of the Wallasey Local Board, was appointed foreman. After being sworn in, the jury proceeded to view the body, which was lying in an outhouse‐It presented a shocking spectacle. An examination disclosed: that deceased had received a severe blow on the top of the head, and had also been stabbed in no fewer than five places. The jugular vein was divided on each side of the neck. The threat was swollen and discoloured, as if the old man was first strangled, then dragged along the ground for ten or twelve yards, placed under the wagons, and repeatedly stabbed with a knife. The police had some difficulty in keeping back the crowd of people who were anxious to see the corpse. A son of the deceased was present—a young man about 25 years of age — and the poor fellow uttered loud cries on seeing the mutilated form of his aged parent. The jury next proceeded to the spot where the murder was perpetrated. An examination of the spot could not fail to show that the murder was committed in the most daring manner. The place where the body was found is amongst the frequented portion of the Dock road, and though concealed from ships in the Great Float by the wall of the Copper Ore Works, in view of the house of Mr. Laing, foreman of the works, distant not more than 120 yards. In immediate proximity to the spot there are also a number of houses, and on the rails between which the body was found wagons are being continually removed to the coal yard of Messrs Evans and Co., at the head of the Great Float. No doubt the murder has been committed by some person who knew that the deceased was in the habit of carrying all his money with him. The fact was no secret, for when M'Comb lost his right arm 18 months ago by an accident at the goods station of the Great Western Railway, and was taken to the Borough Hospital, no leas than 130 sovereigns were found sewn in the lining of his coat At that time the old man made a will, by which, it is reported, he left £80 to his son, the remaining portion being divided among other relatives. After returning from viewing the body, the Coroner (addressing the Jury) said he looked upon the case as one of great gravity and importance, requiring a thorough investigation, and, although the cause of death was quite apparent it would be necessary that the body should undergo a post‐mortem examination. Of course that would require time, and the police would also require time to get up the necessary evidence. He suggested, therefore, that they should adjourn the inquiry until an early day next week. It was then agreed that the enquiry should be adjourned till Monday forenoon next, at the Courthouse, Liscard, and the Coroner gave an order that Mr. Byerley, surgeon, who, he said, was a first‐class man in his profession, should make the post mortem examination. Captain Smith, Chief constable of Cheshire, together with Mr. Hammond, the superintendent of the Wirral division, has been making diligent inquiries in the neighbourhood of Poulton and Birkenhead. In this course they were assisted by several able detective officers of the division. On Wednesday evening two men, who reside in the neighbourhood of Toxteth Park, Liverpool, were taken into custody on suspicion of having committed the offence; but on being taken to the County Constabulary Office, at Birkenhead, the result of inquiries there instituted was such that they were not detained. A reward of £20 has been offered for the apprehension of the murderer or murderers.
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 14 September 1867
THE LATE MYSTERIOUS MURDER AT SEACOMBE. APPREHENSION OF THE SUPPOSED MURDERER.
It will be in recollection that on the 5th of February last an atrocious and mysterious murder, accompanied, as is supposed, by robbery, was committed at midday, in a much frequented part of the township of Seacombe. Every exertion was made by the police at the time of the murder to discover and apprehend the assassin, but without avail, notwithstanding that a Government reward of £100 was offered, with a free pardon to anyone but the actual assassin, and it was supposed that the murder would remain one of those mysteries of which there are many such. However, in consequence of some information sent by Superintendent Hammond, of the Cheshire constabulary force, to the Dundalk police, they apprehended on Friday last a man named James Markey, on the charge of the murder and robbery. Markey is a man about 24 years of age, and he formerly resided in Birkenhead, in the neighbourhood in which McKeown lived, and he disappeared at the time of the murder. It is said that at one time he was a police‐officer in the Liverpool force, and that he was dismissed for misconduct. On Markey's apprehension, a telegram was sent to the county constabulary at Birkenhead, and Superintendent Hammond proceeded to Dundalk, and early on Tuesday morning arrived at Birkenhead with the accused man.
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 28 September 1867
SEACOMBE MURDER. The young man Markey, accused of having murdered Hugh M'Comb, on the 5th of February last, near to the Great Float, Seacombe, was brought up, under remand, on Monday, at the County Magistrates Court, Birkenhead, before Messrs B. Darbyshire and R. Bryans. The chief constable of the county, Capt. Johnes Smith, and Major Beswick, head of the Birkenhead constabulary force, were present during the investigation. Mr Charles Pemberton, solicitor, of Liverpool, appeared to defend the case for the prisoner, and the court was crowded. Evidence of the murder having been given, George Hart, a man residing at 15, St Anne‐street, Birkenhead, deposed that he was working at the Copper Works on the day of the murder. McKeown and his brother came to him about ten o'clock in the forenoon, and asked if the captain (meaning the captain of the ship Coringa) had come‐The prisoner came up and planted himself right behind the captain and the other gentlemen, and within fourteen yards of where he (witness) was standing, and he remained there about a quarter of an hour. The prisoner was in company with M'Kehon. The two men (deceased and prisoner) left him, and went behind the engine‐house, and witness did not see anything more of them. About twenty minutes past one o'clock, Felix M'Kehon came and told him that his brother was killed. Cross‐examined— The prisoner was then dressed similar to what he was now (when in court). There was no reward out when he (witness) gave the information to the police. Mary Phillips, wife of William Phillips, shopkeeper, stated that on the 5th of February she saw the prisoner in company with Hugh M'Kehon (the deceased). The two men came out together from between two wagons, at the back side of the Copper Works. They came out upon the cart road side, stood for a minute or two talking together, then crossed and went away. In cross‐examination, the witness said she had seen the prisoner before that day, but had never spoken to him in her life, but the prisoner was the man she saw that day. Mr George Lawrence, who described himself as a gentleman, stated that he remembered the 5th of February. He saw the prisoner and another man together at twenty minutes to 12 o'clock that day between the Pool Inn and Wallasey‐road. The prisoner's eyes were fixed upon the man, and as he passed him (witness) he appeared to be in great agitation. "The old man," said the witness, "stood outside while the murderer went into the Pool Inn. In about a minute the prisoner came out again. “When he passed me," said the witness, "he blushed— scarlet red came out of his face." The prisoner said to the old man, " He is not here ; we will go down to the ship." Cross‐examined— When he first saw the man and the prisoner together he was about twenty yards distant from them. He had never before seen the man who was with the old man. He felt suspicions of him. He afterwards caw the prisoner at the bride‐well. He was brought out with half a dozen more, and he (witness) immediately identified him as the man he had seen with the old man. The witness described the prisoner's dress on the day he saw him with the old man.— Mr Pemberton : Can you explain to the Court who made you suspicions ? — Witness : I believe the Lord himself made me suspicious. — Mr Pemberton : You sometimes preach, I believe ?
— Witness : Yea, I do preach sometimes.— ln answer to Mr Pemberton, the witness said he identified the prisoner without the slightest hesitation, and he was sure that he was not at all mistaken. William Parry deposed that between eleven and half‐past eleven on the day of the murder he was passing the Pool Inn. Hugh M'Kehon stood there. While he (witness) was talking to him, a man, whose features he did not see until he had passed him, came out of the inn‐He saw the deceased dead; about three quarters of an hour before that he had seen him alive. Whilst he (witness) was talking with Hugh M'Kehon, the prisoner came up and said, "He is not here; we will go down to the ship." Mary Phillips deposed that she lived in Ashton in the Willows, and kept a lodging house. She was sister to Hugh M Kehon. She had lived in Oak‐street, where her brother lodged with her. The prisoner lodged with her when she lived in St. Ann‐street, and he and her brother slept in the same room. Mr Pemberton — He was always a very peaceable young manl, I believe ? Witness— All I know of him is that he was a big rogue to me. He robbed me of some money. Margaret Clayton gave evidence to the effect that upon one occasion she had a ticket to receive relief from the Provident Society, and that when she was there the prisoner was also there as a recipient of the society. Police officer William Jones (63) said he knew the prisoner, and had done so for three years. About three weeks before the murder he had a conversation with the prisoner. He met him on the left fort, and prisoner asked him to let him know when there was any vacancy in the police force. He said he was very badly off at the time, and had no clothes to go and see the Major. In a few days after that the prisoner met him near to Duke street bridge. The prisoner asked him if he had seen M'Kehon going over the bridge and he (witness) told him that ha had not. Thomas Martin Bennett, a musician, living at 26, Gleave‐street, Everton, but professionally engaged at the "Vine" singing room, stated that the prisoner had been in the habit of coming to his house. He first came there on the 21st of February last to take lessons on the violin from his (witness's) eldest son. The prisoner went by the name of John Martin. He seemed then to be well off.— cross‐examination, the witness said he had never seen the prisoner with more than two shillings upon him. He had never seen him dressed in a gray suit. John Thomas Bennett, son of the last witness, said he had known the prisoner for about twelve months as a policeman in Liverpool. The prisoner took lessons from him on the violin, and told him that he had been an engineer. The prisoner seemed to be well off. Witness knew him by the name of John Martin. He appeared to have plenty of money, though he had never seen him with any. He treated the pianist, and the pianist treated him. Prisoner offered to treat him to a trip to Ireland three weeks ago last Friday, and to pay all expenses, and also for his loss of time. The prisoner said he had had money sent to him by his uncle in Ireland. On Tuesday the prisoner was again brought up before Messrs. R. Bryans and B. Darbyshire. The court was crowded to excess. The further hearing of the case was then adjourned Charles Atkin, pianist, said that about six weeks ago prisoner was at the bar of the Vine Concert Hall, Liverpool, in liquor, and offered to treat the performers, at the same time showing about 20 or 30 sovereigns, besides some Paper, Ellen Roberts, of 42, Prussia‐street, was next examined, She stated that the prisoner lodged with her in the month of April last. He was lame and walked with a stick. He remained a fortnight and then left, saying he was going to Ireland. The prisoner returned about the end of June, and remained until last Saturday three weeks. When he came to lodge with witness he gave the name of James, but not his second name. He afterwards told witness to call him John before the young musician, and to two women who called. He used to come in at twelve or one o'clock, and get up about ten or eleven in the morning. The prisoner generally remained in the house all day and went out at night. He said he had been in the police, and had worked for the Corporation. A box which belonged to the prisoner was here produced, and identified by the witness. Prisoner paid 2s 6d per week for his lodgings, and found his own food. In cross‐examination, Mrs Roberts said she asked the prisoner on one occasion to lend her some money, but he said he had none; the prisoner lodged poor enough at her house. Re‐examined— The prisoner often told witness to deny him if anyone called. By Mr Pemberton.— Two men called, but witness did not deny the prisoner to them. Witness identified a hammer found in the prisoner's box as her property. Evidence was then called to prove that deceased was in the habit of carrying large sums of money about with him after which, Samuel Johnson, sergeant in the Irish constabulary stationed at Kilcorrey, near Dundalk, was called and deposed that he saw the prisoner at his uncle's house in Carrickedmond on the 1st of June. Went there to take agricultural statistics, the prisoner's uncle being a farmer. On going into the gate, the prisoner said, "Holloa, Sergeant, do you want me?" Witness said, No Saw the prisoner four or five times altogether. On the 7th of August last received information of the murder, and made inquiries about the prisoner, whom he traced to Liverpool. On the 1st September the prisoner returned to Ireland and on the 6th witness took him into custody on the quay at Dundalk. He was sitting on a milestone. Witness said he wanted to speak to him, Tb* prisoner asked what he apprehended him for. They then went up to the police barracks, and witness told him he was charged with a murder and robbery committed in England. The prisoner became very much agitated, and after a pause said “ Is it me ?" Witness said, " Yes, you are the man.' He did not say anything more. Witness searched him. The prisoner handed out a pocket‐book with four sovereigns in it. He also found 11s in silver and 4s 4d in copper. Also, two keys, a chain, and two knives. There was a revolver, capped and loaded, in his right breast pocket. Prisoner said he had bought it in Liverpool to protect himself, for his uncle had cautioned him that he was about to be beaten about a girl he was to have been married to last summer. The prisoner added that he would shoot anyone who interfered with him. Superintendent Hammond deposed to having apprehended the prisoner, who was described to him as a man of dark complexion. Mr Pemberton— Seeing him now, would you describe him as a dark‐complexioned man. Witness— Not at all. Some further evidence having been given, the magistrates committed the prisoner for trial at Chester assizes. The prisoner preserved his cool demeanour throughout, and when conveyed to Chester a great crowd assembled to witness his departure.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 12 September 1868
BRUTAL MURDER IN CHESHIRE.
Early on Sunday morning a murder was committed near Altrincham under the most atrocious circumstances. The unfortunate victim is a young man named Thomas Jenkinson, aged 34, foreman at a tile and brick works, very much respected in the neighbourhood.
It appears that a gang of Irish farm labourers had been drinking in Altrincham on Saturday evening. About midnight they proceeded up Long‐lane on their way to Ringway, evidently intent upon mischief. They armed themselves with brick‐bats and tore down palings as they went along, attacking several persons whom they met. A farmer named John Holford, and another man, John Yesford, were both wounded, but escaped without very serious injury. Having proceeded up the road about three‐quarters of a mile, near Claremont‐house, they encountered Thomas Jenkinson and two youths named, John Falkner and John Ward, who were on their way to commence mushroom‐gathering at daybreak. Without any provocation the gang of ruffians, consisting of ten or twelve, set upon Jenkinson, and. battered in his head with bricks and palings. Death must have ensued almost instantaneously. The two youths fled, and gave the alarm to the police in Altrincham.
Superintendent Andrews and Sergeant Dulton, with assistants, were soon on the track of the murderers. Some of them were apprehended, concealed in the outbuildings of the neighbouring farms, and some were taken in Altrincham. Three were apprehended near Lymm, through the timely information of a cabman, who happened to have heard of the murder, and was on the alert. One of the ruffians was secured by Superintendent Andrews, after a desperate resistance. Sergeant Dulton was also the means of capturing another under similar circumstances.
THE INQUEST. The inquest on the body of Thomas Jenkinson, was held on Tuesday, at the Altrincham police‐court, [ before Mr. J. Wroe Dunstan, coroner. The prisoners taken before the magistrates were present. Their names are Patrick Madden, Michael Paddon, John Paddon, William Carr, Patrick Towey, and Michael Doulan. Mr. H. S. D. Richardson, barrister‐at‐law (instructed by Mr. F. C. Wharton, solicitor, Manchester), appeared for Madden and Towey ; Mr. Whitlow, solicitor, Altrincham, appeared for the relatives of the deceased.
William Yesford, labourer, living at Hale, was first examined. He said — On Saturday night last, I was in Altrincham with my wife. We went to the Woolpack public‐house about ten o'clock that night. The six prisoners came into the house about eleven o'clock. They were in company with another man not in custody. I and my wife left the house at twelve o'clock, and the prisoners left at the same time. After we had been turned out the prisoners remained for some time knocking at the door of the Woolpack trying to gain admittance again. We all went together as far as the top end of Bowdon Station, when the big man with the black cloth coat (not in custody) turned around and said, "I am the finest man in Altrincham, and I will fight any man in Altrincham." He was the biggest man of the lot. The prisoner Towey said "I am as big a *******man as you any day." No fighting took place then, and we went across the railway, when the men began talking Irish, and my wife remarked to me, "You had better be careful, for there is some badness in them." We then got over a stile, which took us into Long Lane, and Towey then caught hold of my wife and said, " Stand out of the road, I will fight any Englishman in Altrincham. Three young lads then came over to the stile and said to Towey, "If you don't let the woman alone we'll go into you." Four of the men, Michael Paddon, John Paddon, Patrick Towey, and the other not in custody, chased these lads out of the road, and threw stones and bricks at them. Patrick Madden said to me, "Come along, my man, they shan't touch you." We went to the lane end, and when we got there one of the prisoners threw a brick at my wife's head. She said they ought not to do that and immediately afterwards Towey threw a brick, which struck me in the forehead and fetched nearly a quart of blood out of me. I was taken home, and while they were bathing my head I heard a cry that they were killing Jenkinson. I went out of my house with my wife and daughter, and after going about a quarter of a mile we saw the deceased lying with his head against the hedge backing, on the left hand side of the lane going in the direction of Hale Barns. We raised him up, and found he was quite dead. We then got a five‐barred gate, and carried him home to the house of his brother. I had not seen Jenkinson before I went into the house. By the Jury: It was about one o'clock when I saw Jenkinison dead. I saw neither of the prisoners at the time.
John Faulkner, living at No. 5, New‐street, Altrincham, said‐l am a brick‐setter's labourer. Early on Sunday morning I was near the style leading into Long Lane. I was going mushrooming with two other lads, and we saw the prisoners there. One of them caught hold of me, and commenced jumping around me, offering to strike me, but another man came up and said, "I know the lad well, let him go again," and so they did ,I then ran on and joined my mates, and got into Yesford's company. Towey caught hold of Mrs. Yesford, and said, " The first *******English man that takes this woman off us to‐night we will murder him." Four of them chased us into Peel‐street with bricks and stones. Yesford and his wife came up and whilst they stood talking to each other, Towey threw a brick at Yesford, which struck him in the head Yesford went to his home, and we boys ran up to a field, about 50 yards from Peel‐street, where the prisoners were breaking up the fences. One of them said, "We will not be the same as Kelly and Deasy, Patrick, we will stand to be killed." At this moment they heard a noise of someone coming, and they ran away. The deceased came up, and said to me, "Come on, Jack; come with me." I and my comrades had been shouting before this for help. The deceased came forward, and I stood still for a minute or so. Mr. Oldford came up, and I said, "I will go up with you and see who they are ;" but he said " No, stop where you are, lad I can make my way through without you." I and my comrades followed him, and kept shouting to make the men in front think there were more of us. They ran in the direction of Hale Barns. We ran after them, and over‐took them. One turned round and said (pointing to deceased), "This is one of the gang" and Towey said, " Let's kill him," and they all turned round and struck at him, and he dropped down at once. The Coroner — Do you mean to say that they all struck him? Witness — Yes, every one.
They struck him on the head with the railings, and as they struck him the railings flew in all directions. They then got fresh railings. One of the men threw a stone at my comrade, John Ward, and knocked him down. Another man knocked Murray down with a piece of railing. They then turned back and passed the deceased a second time. They all walked up the footpath together, and the last man struck him on the back of the head with a railing. The prisoners went on towards Hale. Ward, Murray, and I turned the deceased over. He was then alive, but bleeding very much. He said, "Help! help! I am killed." Murray stopped with the deceased and I followed the men. I was joined by some more lads, and we followed the prisoners to Hay Head, and watched them into some buildings there. When we came back the deceased had been removed and Murray was coming towards us with a policeman.
James Murray, plasterer, of Altrincham, gave corroborative evidence. He helped to lift deceased from the footpath, and to place him against the hedge.
Police‐sergeant Locket said— About half‐past one o'clock on Sunday morning, in consequence of information I received, I went to the house of James Jenkinson, where I saw the body of the deceased. There was a great deal of blood about the head, and there were several deep cuts and other marks of violence. In consequence of other information, I took a cab and went towards Hale and Kingway. After searching several places, I went to Isaac Cookson's, at Hay Head, and found the door of an old building fast, as if barricaded inside. I heard a man inside, and shouted to him to open the door, but he would not. I then broke the door open, and I found the prisoner Towey lying under some sacks which, together with some straw, formed a bed. I shook him and said "Now my man, get up." He sprung up and said "What do you want?' I identified him as a man who had been turned out of the "Woolpack.". He got up and commenced dressing himself, and I left him in charge of two policemen. I next went to Mr Riddgways farm a few hundred yards distant, and I found the prisoner Wm Carr lying on the top of a bed in his clothes. He got up, and I placed him and Towey in the cab. In company with Police‐constable Nicholson, went to the farm of Rogerson, about a quarter of a mile off, and we found in an out‐building there four Irishmen— two of them being Mr Rogerson's servants, and the other two were the prisoners Michael Paddon and John Paddon. They were both bleeding, and appeared to be suffering very much. I searched the place, and underneath the straw l found a pair of flannel drawers, covered with blood. I found them underneath the bed which was occupied by the two Paddons. I next went to the farm of Mr. Jackson, and found Madden in the custody of Police‐constable Harrison. I produce three pieces of broken rails which I picked up close to a gate in one of Mr. Cookson's fields, near to the building where Towey was found. (Each of the pieces of was saturated in blood). I produce pair of stockings, which I found under the bed of the prisoner Towey. They were quite wet as if they had been recently washed. When the prisoners were at the station I charged them with being concerned in the murder of the deceased. Towey said, after being cautioned, "At the time that I came up two of those chaps were arguing, and then I went a hit farther on, and then someone flew with a stone at them, and then I ran off as hard as ever I could." The prisoner Carr said : I left with Patrick Towey, and we came up from Bowdon Station, and there was a row at those new buildings in Long Lane. So we went off in that way and those chaps followed us, and one of them threw a brick or stone. Then I made off as fast as I could. Then I went on a bit, and in about 60 yards we turned back again, and we saw this man thrown down (meaning the deceased). We then made off as fast as we could.
Police‐constable Harrison deposed to the apprehension of Patrick Madden. He asked Madden if he had been anywhere near the lane in which the deceased had been killed, and he replied, " Yes, but I did not strike anyone."
Mr. Gregory Haines Atwell, of Altrincham, surgeon, said— Yesterday morning, by order of the coroner, I made & post‐mortem examination of the body of the deceased. I found the deceased much injured about the temples and the back of the head. On both temples were bruises and contused wounds. There was a large wound on the back of the head, from three to four inches in length. There was a very severe fracture of the skull, in connection with this wound, commencing at the back of the head and extending in both directions. On the left side it passed forward nearly to the temple, and on the right side it passed into the floor of the skull and into the spinal canal There was a large diamond‐shaped‐piece of bone entirely unconnected with the skull. This wound was quite sufficient to cause death. Death must have taken place within a few minutes after the blow was inflicted. The blow causing the fracture must in my opinion, have been inflicted after the deceased was knocked down. Any of the heavy pieces of railing produced would be likely to cause such a wound. By Mr. Richardson — There was no other wound on the head which would in itself have caused death. I do not think he could have fallen with sufficient force to have produced such a wound. The Coroner then proceeded to sum up the evidence, and said there was a total absence of provocation on the part of the deceased. He seemed to have been most wantonly and cruelly attacked by the prisoners, and if the jury were of opinion that the whole of the prisoners were acting together in concert, then they would be all equally guilty of the‐crime of murder, because there was nothing at all in the‐case upon which he could direct them to reduce the crime to manslaughter.
The jury, after deliberating for about a quarter of an hour, returned into court with a verdict of "Wilful Murder” against the whole of the prisoners, who were acting in concert with others unknown to the jurors.
On Tuesday afternoon Police constable Saxon arrived in Altrincham with another man who is supposed to have been concerned in the outrage, giving the name of Patrick Burke. He was apprehended at Liverpool just as he was about to leave in one of the Dublin packets. It is supposed that there is yet one other of the gang at large.
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 28 March 1868
FATAL ACCIDENT TO A POLICEMAN
The police constable stationed at Eccleston, Chester, named Edwin Tattersall, met with his death in a melancholy manner on the railway near Beeston, while under the influence of liquor, on Wednesday.
P.C. Tattersall had been to a constabulary inspection at Tarporley on Wednesday morning, and received permission to stop to the races. Returning he must have been too late for the train at Beeston and started to walk along the line to Tattenhall, where he could have passed the night at the police station.
He was not again seen alive after leaving Beeston, his body next morning being found on the line by a platelayer named Large, who was going to his work. It was lying across the rails, completely cut in two, and the head almost severed from the body. In fact so terribly mangled were the remains as to be almost indistinguishable.
Several trains must have gone over the body, as many would pass between Crewe and Chester during the night; that which in all probability caused the death of the de‐ceased was the goods train which arrives in Chester at eleven o'clock at night, the engine of which was found to be spattered all over with blood. The engine was drawing fifty heavy trucks, all of which must have passed over the body, causing the complete severance already described.
An inquest was opened at Beeston, before Mr. Churton, coroner this (Friday) morning, and adjourned for a week, in order that a post‐mortem examination of the body might be made, and the inquiry attended by the driver of the goods train by which deceased is supposed, to have met his death.
One or two singular circumstances may be mentioned in connection with the accident. The first is that although deceased's body lay on the line his belt, still clasped, was found some feet away; the second is that two men's caps were picked up not far distant. As deceased's body was completely cut in two and the belt might have fallen off, there may be nothing in the first circumstance, and with respect to the second, deceased was known to have been in the company of two men, in a state not differing from his own.
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 11 July 1868
POISONING. OF A POLICEMAN'S WIFE IN CHESTER.
An inquest was held at the Alma Inn, on Thursday, by Mr. Tatlock, touching the death of Harriet Good, wife of William Good, a Chester policeman, from the accidental swallowing of poison.
William Good, 21, Gloucester‐street, Chester, said that his deceased wife was 22 years of age, and was subject to fits. On Wednesday week she had a fit, which made her very poorly, and on Friday morning last she got out of bed and told witness she was going down to get some spirits from a bottle in the cupboard.
The bottle was kept on a shelf, and on the shelf beneath was a second bottle similar in size, containing nitric acid and mercury, which witness used for the purpose of cleaning his buttons and belt The bottle was labelled "poisoned," and he had often cautioned his wife to put it out of the way of the children. When the deceased came back she was taken with a short cough, and said, "I'm afraid I have not taken the spirit" Witness immediately jumped out of bed, and running downstairs found that the poison bottle was empty. He called in a neighbour, Mrs. Kenyon, and was going for a doctor, when his wife begged him not to leave her lest she should die while he was away.
He and the neighbour then gave her three cups full of salt and water, and deceased vomited freely until the vomit was as clean as the water she drank.
Witness called in Dr. Roberts between nine and ten, and he attended her regularly till her death on Tuesday last Dr. Roberts deposed that he found the deceased in a very weak state, but not suffering pain. On examining her mouth he found that it was getting corroded. Deceased rallied from the first shock of the poison, but her mouth got worse daily, and on Monday last he found that it was ' sloughing. "
On Tuesday she died of suffocation, caused by obstruction of the larynx, due to part of the "slough" falling upon it, or to inflammation.
The jury found that deceased poisoned herself by mistake.
Cheshire Observer
Saturday 26 September 1868
Chester Police Court
MONDAY. (Before the Mayor, W. M. Williams, Esq., and W. Johnson, Esq.) James Chambers, the proprietor of an omnibus which runs between Chester and Northwich, was summoned for cruelly working a horse. Police‐constable Pinchers stated that on Saturday he saw the defendant's 'bus when opposite the Blossoms, filled with passengers, and then a boy brought a horse out of the stable, he saw a wound on the horse's shoulder, and he told Mr. Chambers the horse was not in a fit condition to work. He told defendant that if he worked the horse he would report him for it. Defendant fetched a veterinary surgeon who said there was nothing the matter with the horse which could prevent it being used The constable's statement was not corroborated, but he said that Mr. Meacock, confectioner, saw the horse and had promised to attend to give evidence, but he had not done so. The defendant called William Shone, who said he was a veterinary surgeon at Tarvin, and he stated that defendant called him to examine the horse. He did so, and found a small wound which could have been covered with a threepenny piece. The bench dismissed the case.
TUESDAY (Before the Mayor and Major French.) Charles Foster, riveter, Foregatestreet, was charged with being a suspicious character. Police Constable Pinchers stated that at a quarter‐past one o'clock this morning he was on duty in Foregate‐street, when he saw the defendant and two other men loitering about Messrs. Churton and Elphick's auction mart. They went near the gates and he went to them and arrested one whom he knew to be a thief. The man, however, broke away and he then secured the prisoner. He was discharged with a caution.
Chester Chronicle – Saturday 22 February 1868
Monday ‐(Before the Mayor. W. M. Williams. C. Potts, J. Smith, and W. Johnson. Esq. Unprovoked Assault upon Policeman. ‐William Roberts baker, Henry Joynson, labourer, and a man named Woolley, who did not appear, were charged with assaulting James Green, of the County Constabulary, on the 14th inst. Mr Cartwright prosecuted. It appears that December last the policeman arrested some men, who were convicted of poaching and in consequence he incurred the displeasure of the prisoners, one of whom hinted that he was "stopped on the road and searched”, he would rip up the constable. On the day previous to the assault, complainant was taking a prisoner to the railway station, when Johnson went up to him and said, "You have missed a catch. “Never mind” was the answer,”it may be your turn next;" and the complainant went on. The following day (Friday) he was near the Cross, and not on duty, when Joynson came up to him and said, "What made you say it "would my turn next" Complainant corrected him. and said the words were "It may be your turn next." Immediately Joynson raised his fist, and with an oath said he had a good mind to punch the complainant's head. A crowd collected, and someone shouted out, "Give it him”! Roberts and Woolley then came up. The former struck the constable, and repeated the blow as he was drawing his staff. Several closed round him and Woolley swore he would "knock his b..... brains out." Just then William Johnson, a bricklayer, came to his assistance, and asked if they wanted to "eat the fellow."' (the complainant). Witness stood up manfully in defence of the policeman till heard Woolley's threat, and then thought it prudent to make the best of his way out of the crowd with his friend. P.C. Humphreys, of the City police, then gave assistance, but was unable to arrest the men, although he stood between the crowd and complainant, and prevented further mischief. The magistrates asked the prisoners if they wished to put any questions to the constable, when Roberts said it was of no use he (Green) had intimidated him many times and had pulled out a pistol to him. The bench did not believe the stories of the prisoners, who said the policeman was always dogging them about, and they were, committed each for one month, with hard labour.
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 17 July 1869
CITY AND BOROUGH OF CHESTER.
SALE OF BUILDING MATERIALS AND OLD POLICE CLOTHING.
TO be Sold by Auction by Mr. John Jones, at the Police Station, Northgate‐street, Chester, on Friday the 23rd day of July 1869 at Three o'clock in the afternoon precisely, subject to conditions to be produced at the Sale.
THE MATERIALS of the Buiding in Northgate‐street formerly the Butter Market, but now used as the Police Station; such materials to be removed and the ground cleared on or before the 7th August next. ALSO, in one or more Lots as may be determined at the Sale, a quantity of old POLICE CLOTHING, consisting of about 30 Great Coats 60 Tunics 60 pairs of Trousers, and a number of Cast off Capes, Belts, Helmets &c.
Cash payment will be required for each Lot, on the fall of the Hammer.
Here is another bit of information re Chester Police Office at the Exchange. Information from the Newspaper Cheshire Observer
1869 July 31 Cheshire Observer ‐“Very soon the ugly old building which now obscures the front of the Town Hall will be pulled down, and the finishing touches will be given to the approaches to the grand entrance. To pull down the old police station and leave the meat market standing will present about as handsome an appearance as that mythical animal "a pig with one ear," so often quoted as an emblem of disproportion or disfigurement in their highest forms. There can be no doubt that the view of the Hall from the Northgate entrance will be entirely spoiled by such an unsightly building as the meat market being in such close proximity to it, and to have made a clean job of it the Corporation should have pulled it down with the police station. A fine sweep might then have been obtained to the front entrance of the Hall, and the principal approach made worthy of the building.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 29 May 1869
DEATH OF A SUPPOSED BURGLAR
At the Turf Inn on Tuesday afternoon, Mr. Tatlock, deputy coroner for the city held an inquest on the body of a man named John Shires, alias Isaac Parish, who it will be remembered, was found under peculiar circumstances at the bottom of a rock near Heron Bridge, on the 27th of July last and conveyed thence to the infirmary, and from there to the workhouse where he died on Monday last from a fractured spine and consequent paralysis.
Thomas Harper deposed that he was passing me at Mr. Pott's house at Heron Bridge on the 27th July last when he heard sounds from the opposite side of the river in a meadow which he, after a little time, recognised as a human voice. Witness traced the sound to the bottom of a rock, across the meadow, and found deceased lying on his back, with his head about two yards from the bottom of the rock in the meadow. Witness enquired what was the matter, and deceased, who was bleeding from the mouth, and turning his head very uneasily, said he had been bathing, and stayed in rather too long ; that he had made the best of his way out and sat down where witness had found him, and was struck with paralysis. Witness asked what had caused the bruises on his head, but at that time he made no answer. Witness then endeavoured to raise deceased by his head and shoulders, but finding the pain was too great for him to bear, he put him down again and procured assistance. A man was sent to Chester for a conveyance, and deceased was subsequently taken to the Infirmary. But before he was removed, witness again asked the cause of the injuries, and deceased then said two men had been abusing him. Witness then asked whether deceased had any money on him for which the two men would abuse him, and he said “Yes, £2, and 1 suppose they have got it. Deceased had all his clothes on, and about seven yards from him, witness found a large chisel, and near his head a pallet knife. There were likewise two pieces of rope in a dirty handkerchief lying close up to the rock, and a small axe handle lying to the right of the chisel. His cap was lying about two yards from him. By Mr. Fenwick, chief constable — l saw him undressed at the Infirmary, and his feet had not an appearance as if he had been bathing.
Detective Bray said that on the morning of the 27th July last, by order of the Chief Constable he went to examine the place where deceased had been found. There was a great quantity of blood at the bottom of the meadow, about three or four yards from the rock. On the top of the rock a quantity of brambles were disturbed, as though somebody had fallen over. There was an iron railing about four feet high within two feet of the edge of the rock, and any one getting over must fall down. The soil at the edge of the rock was disturbed as though somebody had slipped over. It was about 25 feet high, and the face almost perpendicular.
Mr. Fenwick deposed that in consequence of a message from the house surgeon of the infirmary on the morning of the 27th July last the Mayor and one of the magistrates, the clerk and himself went down to the Infirmary to see deceased, who was known by the name of John Shires. The house surgeon said in the man's presence that he was suffering from injury to the spine and a broken jaw, from which he could not recover. Deceased was then asked by the magistrates whether he thought he was dying, but he evaded the question. He was then asked about the statement he had made as to the two men abusing him, but he would make no reply. The magistrates then left, and witness did not see him, again alive.
On the same morning there was a report of Mrs. Watson's house, in Queen's Park, having been broken into. Mrs. Watson had been disturbed during the night, and the man had run away. Witness had examined Mrs. Watson's house, and found that an entrance bad been effected by the water closet window, and upon the lid of the closet was left the impression of a boot. Witness compared this with the boot of the deceased, and found that they exactly corresponded. No force had been used to open the closet window. The lid of the closet was immediately under the window. The man had left the house by the front door. This house would be about a mile from where deceased was found. He had first gave his name as John Shires of Bristol, but about a week, afterwards witness found out the man's name was Isaac Parish, and that he came from London. He said he was an upholsterer by trade. The things produced were the goods used by a modern housebreaker. Nothing was missed from Mrs. Watson's house on the night in question. There were several matches which had been ignited in the house. A 'man might go in a straight line from Mrs. Watson's house, if he wanted to avoid the town, to the place where deceased was found.
Thomas Harper was re‐called and said he had seen deceased since he had been in the Workhouse, and he said he wished witness had not found him, for he should have died then where he was, and he would rather have died than suffered what he had since he had been there. The fall had done for him in this world, for it had shaken his inside all to pieces.
Detective William Wallace stated that he accompanied Sergeant Bray to the rock, on the 27th July last. He corroborated the evidence of Sergeant Bray and added that he found a quantity of matches which had been ignited close to where deceased was found.
Dr. Brittain, medical officer at the Workhouse, said that deceased was brought to the Workhouse during last winter, and he had since been under his care. He was suffering from, fracture of the spine which caused paralysis to the lower part of the body. Deceased died on Sunday, the 23rd instant, from exhaustion produced by paralysis. A fall down from the top of the rock to the bottom would be likely to cause the fracture of the spine. Had previously attended the deceased in the Infirmary, until he (Dr. Brittain) had resigned his appointment there. There were no marks upon deceased, as if he had been abused by anyone. The Jury were of opinion that there was sufficient evidence to prove that deceased fell from the rock, and died from the injuries he then received. "
Cheshire Observer
Saturday 22 May 1869
SUDDEN DEATH OF A CHESTER POLICE SERGEANT.
On Saturday night. William Hughes, aged 48, who has been for many years a member of the city police force, was in the act of dispersing some noisy women in Frodshamstreet, when he suddenly fell backwards upon the pavement. Some of the by‐standers at once went to his assistance, thinking he had fallen down in a fit. In a few minutes Inspector Lindsay and P.C. Bowers arrived, and Hughes was lifted into a cab and driven off to the surgery of Dr. Weaver, in Nicholas‐street, who is surgeon to the city police. On arriving thither Drs. Watson and Henderson pronounced the unfortunate man dead, and the body was taken to deceased's house in Bridge Street, the melancholy news having first been gently broken to his wife by Inspector Lindsay. Hughes was a native of the city, and had served in the police for nearly 14 years. Until lately, he was a remarkably robust and healthy‐looking man— so much so, that he might have sat to the artist of Punch's cartoon about two years ago, which represented John Bull as a police officer swing into submission certain villainous looking Fenians. The likeness was very striking, and Hughes was subjected to considerable good‐humoured “chaff" about it. The first evidence of Hughes's failing health appeared about February last, when the police were at drill in the Linenhall. On that occasion he fell down suddenly, and had to be taken home in a cab, the doctor attributing his illness to an affection of the heart. Hughes's death is much regretted; his brusque yet unassuming manner for so many years having gained him many friends. Deceased has left four children, three of whom are, however, grown up. An inquest was held on the body on Monday, at the Red Lion Inn, Lower Bridge‐street, before Mr. John Tatlock, deputy coroner, when the following evidence was given: — John Longworth deposed — I live in King‐street, and am a "clicker." I knew that the deceased was on the police force, and saw him fall on Saturday, about eleven o'clock, in Frodsham‐street. The deceased was ordering a woman away opposite the "Lord Raglan." I think she had been "kicking" up a disturbance. Deceased was on the right‐hand side of the street, and he afterwards crossed the street, and as he put his foot against the curb stone he tried to clasp some iron bars at the corner of the flour mill. He seemed unable to do so, and he fell backwards on the footpath on his head near the curb stone. A young man that was with me went and picked him up. He made a noise like some one falling in a fit. I then ran for a policeman. Did not seem excited when he was talking to the woman. Mr. G. L. Fenwick, chief constable, said — deceased was a sergeant in the force, and up to February last was a very healthy man. About 20th February he was at drill in the Linen‐hall, and he fell, and was taken in a fit to Dr. Watson's surgery. He was then off duty several days, and he has since complained of a pain in his side. On Saturday night it was reported to me that he said he would go off duty through the pain in his side. Did not see him going on duty. Did not complain to me on Saturday. He had been in the force 14 years. James Bowers said — that ten minutes eleven o'clock on Saturday night last I was on duty in Foregate‐Street with Inspector Lindsay. A person came and told us Sergeant Hughes was in a fit in Frodsham‐Street I went and got a cab and took it into Frodshamstreet. Inspector Lindsay with the aid of the bystanders lifted him into the cab, and placed his back to the rear, of the cab, and rested his head upon my arm. I felt breathing on the side of my face from deceased. In a minute or two I heard a gurgling in his throat, and the breathing ceased. I then tried his pulse but I could not feel it. I placed my hand on the chest but could feel none there. We took him to Dr. Watson's surgery, in Nicholas Street, who saw him. Saw him last on Friday. Deceased did not complain them. He told me he had a pain in his side. Saw him when he was ill in the Linen‐hall, and he appeared the same way on Saturday. Dr. Watson — knew the deceased. He had been under my treatment in February. He was suffering from syncope. He was brought home in a fainting condition. He was under my treatment then nearly a week. Never been under my care since. I saw him going out on duty on Saturday night. I met him in Eastgate‐street, when he said he was unwell. I told him if he did not feel better to come down. He was brought to my surgery on Saturday night at a quarter past eleven. He was then dead. 1 have since made an external examination of his body, but found no marks of violence upon it. My opinion is that he died from the rupture of one of the lower vessels of the heart. He appeared as if he was suffering from internal haemorrhage. When I saw him in February I had an impression that he was suffering from dilatation of the aorta, and cautioned him not to exert himself any more than, necessary. Never informed me that he had received any accidents. The jury returned a verdict of “Died from disease of the heart." The deceased was interred at the Cemetery, on Tuesday afternoon. Being very generally respected in the city, a huge number of people assembled near his residence in Lower Bridge‐street at the time fixed for the funeral. A procession was formed, consisting of oddfellows from the Deva (of which lodge he was a member) and other lodges, and twenty‐three of the Borough Police Force. The hearse was followed by deceased's relatives and friends. The weather was very unfavourable, but, notwithstanding, a number of the inhabitants of the district followed the cortege to the Cemetery.
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 23 January 1869
SUSPECTED CHILD MURDER IN CHESTER.
Some little excitement prevailed in Bishopsfield on Sunday morning, owing to a report being circulated that the body of an infant had been found on the pit‐bank, near the Ermine Hotel, with blood stains upon it. The rumour turned out to be correct, for at eight o'clock that morning, it appeared, a little girl was attracted to the pit‐bank by what she thought was a bundle of clothes. On reaching the spot, however, she found that it contained the body of a child, and that the head was much covered with blood. Information was given to the police, and the child was removed to the Ermine Hotel, where an inquest on the body was opened before Mr. Henry Churton.
The only witness examined was Phoebe Roberts, twelve years of age, daughter of Ann Roberts, who deposed that on Sunday morning at eight o'clock she was going out with some milk when she noticed by the side of the pit a bundle with a child's head protruding. It was by the root of a tree within a few inches of the water. She saw there was a wound on the top of the child's head, and blood was flowing from it. There were spots of blood on the child's arms, but the wrapper was quite dry. Several persons then came up, and the body was removed to the Ermine Hotel.
The Coroner said this was an exceptional case in this neighbourhood, although he had to deal with such cases constantly at Birkenhead, Tranmere, Seacombe, and along the coast of the Mersey. With regard to this case one or two courses could be pursued. In the first place it was competent for them, assuming there was no appearance of violence upon the body, to re‐turn an open verdict of found dead. On the other hand they might consider the propriety of ascertaining whether the child was born alive or was still‐born. Assuming it was born alive it might be necessary to ascertain what might have been the cause of death. They had the fact that a good deal of blood was effused on the outside of the head, and that blood would appear to have issued from a wound at the top of the head. It might be necessary to ascertain if that wound and the bleeding had anything to do with the cause of death. If it had, a serious responsibility rested on some one. Therefore they could not terminate that inquiry satisfactorily without an examination of the body, and he thought they should give the police an opportunity of ascertaining the mother of the child. He would therefore adjourn the inquiry for a couple of days.
On the re‐assembling of the jury on Wednesday evening, the coroner ordered one of them, Charles Lloyd, a cow keeper, living in Bishopsfield, to leave the room, he being in such a state of intoxication that Mr. Churton did not think him fit to adjudicate on the inquiry.
Dr. Brittain was then examined. He said he had made an examination of the body on Tuesday. It was the body of a newly‐born female child. The body was quite fresh, but the umbilical cord was broken. There were no external injuries or marks to indicate that the child had been strangled, or anything of that kind. The child was in the same state as it would be when born. With regard to the post mortem examination: he examined the head first. He found no fracture or puncture of any bones of the head. The brain was healthy, but beginning to decompose. There was a little gravitation of blood in the vessels of the brain, which might be caused by the child being put to lie on its head. He then examined the chest, and removed the lungs and the heart. The lungs were filled with air all through. He placed them, with the heart attached, in a basin of water, and they floated. From that circumstance he arrived at the conclusion that the child had breathed, and had an independent life. He also examined the bowels, stomach, and intestines, but there was nothing unhealthy in them that would account for death.
THE ADJOURNED INQUEST. The Coroner — What do you say was the cause of death? Dr Brittain — The cause of death was neglect at time of birth, owing to the want of proper precautions being taken. There was nothing to indicate that the child had died from suffocation, and the blood which had been spoken of as appearing on the child's head was maternal blood. Mr. Livesey (foreman) said that the little girl in her evidence on Monday stated that the blood was flowing freely from the child's head. He should like the doctor to explain that. Dr. Brittain said the little girl was mistaken. There was no wound on the head, but what was made by himself.
P.C. Atkin (who was on the spot 10 minutes after the body was found) said there appeared to be a bruise on the scalp, but he saw no fresh blood on the head. The Coroner in addressing the jury said there was no other evidence to be brought before them on the inquiry. He must express his regret that Mr. Burgess' detective powers had not enabled him to discover the mother of the child, which was one of the objects for which the inquest was adjourned. The other object was to inquire what was the cause of the child's death, it being suggested that it had died from external injuries. It was satisfactory to find that Dr. Brittain, who was a gentleman of great experience in these matters, positively declared, after making a post mortem examination, that the child was a nine‐months, well developed, female infant, and that there were no marks of injury whatever upon the body, nor anything to lead him to the conclusion that death resulted from any external or internal violence, beyond neglect at the time of birth. Their verdict should be in accordance with what Mr. Brittain had said, or an open verdict. By returning an open verdict it would be perfectly competent for the police to prosecute their inquiries still further, as it was very likely the case would turn out to be one of concealment of birth. The room having been cleared and the jury left to themselves for about ten minutes, the public were re‐admitted, and the foreman, on behalf of his brother jurors, delivered a verdict of "Found dead." The wrapper which enclosed the child bears no marks which could lead to its identification, but it is a fact that at the time the wrapper was found it was dry, although it had been raining an hour before. This leads to the supposition that the child had been brought from the city. The infant had not had the usual attentions of a midwife.
THE DEATH OF A SPECIAL CONSTABLE – THE TRIAL
Cheshire Observer – Saturday 14 August 1869
Tuesday ‐THE MANSLAUGHTER CASE AT CHESTER. Robert Roberts, 29, clerk, Chester, surrendered to his bail, charged under the warrant of the deputy coroner (J. Tatlock, Esq.), with the manslaughter of Darby Dwyer, at Chester, on the 1st May last. Prisoner pleaded ‘not guilty’. Mr. Brandt appeared for the prosecution and Mr. Swetenham for the defence. Mr. Brandt, in opening the case, said it was a some what curious and certainly a distressing one. What ever might be the guilt of the prisoner at the bar, he had no ill‐will against the man he had killed. He did not intend to kill him; still, in striking the blow which caused death he was responsible for the death of deceased. The deceased had always been sworn in as a special constable during the Chester race‐week. On the Saturday before the race‐week, Dwyer had been sworn in, and was then probably at a loose end. He went into Messrs. Walker and Knight's vaults to have some refreshment, with a woman named Kendrick. They would find that this took place through the practice of people having too much drink, which he (the learned counsel) was sorry was prevalent in this country. The prisoner at the bar — who held such a respectable position that he (the learned counsel) was surprised to find him in such company — plucked the hair of Dwyer. It was a kind of rough game, a practical joking which very often ended in unfortunate things. Somebody said, "You had better leave him alone,” but he did not leave him alone. Dwyer came up and knocked Roberts down. As soon as Roberts got up again he came towards Dwyer and gave him a heavy blow, by which Dwyer was sent across a table and his ribs were broken, and he went out, and in a week afterwards, he died. The question would be whether Dwyer died on account of the injuries inflicted by the prisoner at the bar on the night in question. Ellen Kendrick deposed — l am a widow residing in Upper Northgate‐street in this city. I knew Darby Dwyer, and there was some tale of our being married. I remember the first of May. On that night I and deceased went into Walker and Knight's vaults, and whilst we were having something to drink prisoner came up jokingly and pulled deceased's hair from behind. Dwyer after this brought two glasses of drink to the table where I was sitting, and was going back to pay for it when prisoner pulled his hair again. I then told prisoner to leave him alone, as it would not be allowed, when he came towards me with his fist shut. Dwyer then interfered when prisoner struck him, and he fell against the edge of the table on his right side. That fall was in consequence of the blow. Dwyer gave a sort of scream, but did not say anything. I then pushed past the prisoner to get up, and fetch a policeman, and on returning with a police man, I met Dwyer coming up the steps with Mr. Taylor. He did not say anything, I took him home and he went to bed while I made him a cup of tea. I have a son named John Kendrick. He did not altogether like the idea of my being married to Dwyer, but as far as I know there was no disturbance between the two on the night in question. There was a disturbance between my son and Dwyer's son. My son left Dwyer's house before I did, and he never went back again that night. Dwyer was then taken ill, and I attended him till his death which occurred about a week afterwards. Cross‐examined by Mr. Swetenham
— l had the whiskey at Walker and Knight's vaults, and Dwyer had the rum. I did not threaten to throw a glass in the prisoner's face. I might have said I would, but I do not recollect. Both prisoner and Dwyer fell on the table, being close together. Dwyer might have fallen in the wrestling. By the Judge — they were standing face to face when the prisoner struck Dwyer a blow in the face. It was in consequence of the wrestling that Dwyer fell on his side. Cross‐examined by Mr. Swetenham — l have been examined about this matter two or three times before. I do not recollect saying before the Coroner that deceased called out whilst he was on the table, "Oh, he has broken my ribs." Mr. Brandt objected to a cross‐examination on the depositions taken before the Coroner, as not being legal. His Lordship over‐ruled the objection, remarking that it would apply equally as well to the depositions taken before the magistrates.
Cross‐examination continued. — After the fall on the table deceased went to Mr. Horton's, at the Bull's Head, and had twopennyworth of rum. I did not think of this when before the Coroner. Dwyer said, whilst in the Bull's Head, that he had been hurt in Walker and Knight's Vaults. Henry Cotgreave heard him make this statement Dwyer remained in Horton's about ten minutes or a quarter of an hour. I believe he asked some persons to have some drink, but they did not have any. I know Martha Handley. I do not know that Dwyer went to her house between eleven and twelve o'clock on that night for a shirt. He did not stay in bed after I put him there more than half‐an‐hour, and after that I do not know whether or not he went into Martha Handley's house. After Dwyer came down stairs we sat talking some time, and my son came to the step of the door, but no further. On my oath I do not know that after that my son knocked Dwyer down upon the bottom of the stairs. I did not hear him call out, “Oh, my God." I saw deceased run after my son down part of the entry, and throw a brush after him. I did not notice after that whether Dwyer put his hand to his side. After this, young Dwyer came from the top of the entry, and my son struck him in the mouth. I suppose the reason of Dwyer running after my son down the passage was because he did not wish me to go just then. After the examination before the Coroner, I told Horton, who came to me, that Dwyer told me he had told the priest that he was struck at the top of King street. I did not state before the Coroner that we called at Mr. Horton's public‐house, because I was not asked the question. I do not recollect that Horton found fault with my evidence before the Coroner. By Mr. Brandt. — Dwyer was a Roman Catholic and he told me that he had told the priest he was struck at the top of Kings‐street, because he did not want him to know he (Dwyer) was in a public house. From the time we left Walker and Knight's, till I left Dwyer there was nothing further occurred than I have stated to break his ribs. By the Judge— my engagement to be married was not known either to my son or Dwyer's. I am forty‐five years of age, and Dwyer was fifty two. I am not a Catholic. Catherine Taylor deposed— l am a lodging‐house keeper living in the entry next Walker and Knight vaults. On Saturday night, the 1st May, I heard a noise in the vaults, and in going to see what was the matter I saw Roberts hit Dwyer three times on the head. I said, "What a shame it is to strike an old man like that," and Roberts asked, "What I had to do with it?" A man named Davis then interfered, and Dwyer came out put his hand to his chest, and said, "Oh, my chest." By Mr. Brandt— l did not see the first blow struck. When I saw them they were both together on the floor. Joseph Davies deposed — l live in Shoemakers Row in this City, and on the lst May was in Walker and Knight's vaults. I heard a bit of a scrimmage, and on going in to see what was the matter, I saw the prisoner and Dwyer on the floor. I went and interfered, and told prisoner he ought to be ashamed to hit an old man like that. I only saw Roberts hit Dwyer once in the mouth. After this Roberts turned round and struck me, and we both had a fight. I did not see Dwyer after that, nor did I hear him give utterance to any expression of pain. Henry Cotgreave, an agent, living in Chester, gave corroborative evidence as to how the quarrel commenced, adding that Mrs. Kendrick took up a glass and threatened to throw it in Roberts' mouth, then the latter replied that was just what he should like. Roberts was then making towards Mrs. Kendrick when Dwyer took hold of him and pushed him on the floor. Roberts then jumped up in an excited state, and a struggle ensued. I did not see Dwyer crushed against the table, but they were in such a position that their coats necessarily came against the take. By Mr. Swetenham — l was present at the time Mrs. Kendrick was. What Mrs. Kendrick had said with regard to Robert’s crushing Dwyer against the table is not correct, so far as I saw. Mr. George Fenwick, Chief Constable of Chester, said — l knew Dwyer. For many years he was sworn in as constable for the races, and between eight and nine o'clock that night he was sworn in as special constable for the races, which were to take place on the following Tuesday. He was then quite sober. James Bowers, P.C. for the City of Chester, de‐posed—I was sent for to Walker and Knight's vaults on the evening in question, and as I was walking along the street I saw Dwyer. He was stooping forward as though spitting. We went into the vaults, and Dwyer pointed to Roberts and said "That's the man that has ill used me." I then went to look into the "snug" where the row had taken place, and when I returned Dwyer had gone. Cross‐examined —when I saw Dwyer there was blood on his mouth. Neither he nor Mrs. Kendrick said a word about his ribs being hurt, and he appeared perfectly well able to walk. Christopher Hickey, Sergeant, City Police, deposed — I went to see deceased on Friday night, 7th May. He told me he did not think he should get better. He took hold of my right hand, and put it on his right side, and I found the ribs very much shrunk. Dwyer died next day. Mr. Alexander Hamilton, M.K.C.S., said — l am visiting surgeon to the Chester Infirmary. I remember being called in to see Darby Dwyer, on the 5th of May. I found him in bed and on examining him found one or two of his ribs broken, on the right side. I prescribed for him, but on the Saturday he died. On the 10th May I made a, post mortem examination. I found the 9th, 10th, and 11th ribs on the right side broken, but the broken ribs had not penetrated to the cavity of the chest. The right lung was almost entirely solidified, but it was impossible to say whether it was caused by the broken ribs. The greater part of the left lung was suffering from the effect of chronic disease. The chances against his living much longer were much against him. I believe inflammation of the lungs was the cause of death. It is impossible to say whether if the ribs had not been broken death would have taken place at the same time. I believe the fracture of the ribs accelerated death in some degree. I do not think that the mere fact of his drinking in Walker and Knight's vaults on the Saturday evening previous did so. Cross‐examined by Mr. Swetenham‐l am still of opinion that deceased might have died without the fracture of the ribs. His Lordship‐l understand the witness to state that acute inflammation upon chronic inflammation might have caused death, and that acute inflammation might have been caused by cold or some other cause. Mr. James Taylor, M.R.C.S., said — l assisted to make a post mortem examination of the body of Dwyer. In my opinion death was caused by acute inflammation, but I should say the broken ribs might have increased the inflammation. The blow on the chest would have had a tendency to cause inflammation. The broken ribs would not have directly produced the inflammation, but they might have accelerated it. John Kendrick deposed — l am son of the witness Mrs. Kendrick. I did not know anything of Dwyer being engaged to be married to my mother. On the night in question Dwyer ran after me with a brush, but we did not have a fight, and I did not break his ribs. This finished the case for the prosecution. Mr. Swetenham addressed the jury for the defence. He said he approached the case with natural feelings of anxiety on account of the respectable position which the prisoner at the bar had hitherto held in this city, For sometime, and indeed at the present moment, for he had surrendered that day to his bail, he had been a clerk in the employ of Mr. Preston, who was the solicitor to the London and North‐Western Railway, in this town. He had had the misfortune on this night to get into very questionable company, and had got into a row there, and because of that misfortune and the death of this old man, who it would appear was eaten up with disease, had had to go through the disgrace and expense and the anxiety of going to a trial upon such a serious charge as this of manslaughter. Really he thought, on behalf of the prisoner, he might well be content to draw their attention to the evidence for the prosecution; but it would not be satisfactory to his client or his friends unless he met the whole of this story from beginning to end, and therefore, although he knew it would have the effect of prolonging this trial, which had hitherto been long enough, and of such a nature as must fully have shown them that the prisoner ought not to be found guilty of this charge. As, however, he could not read the jury's minds and say they were unanimously of opinion that he was not guilty of the charge, he should be obliged to call witnesses to show how it was Dwyer met the blow which caused the fracture of his ribs. But before he did that perhaps they would permit him to draw their attention, as shortly as possible, to the evidence produced for the prosecution. With regard to the evidence produced by the prosecution to prove to the jury that prisoner had been guilty of an unlawful act, and had caused the death of a fellow creature, he could not help saying that such weak evidence was hardly ever adduced to ask a jury to convict The learned counsel then minutely criticised the evidence of the prosecution, and stated he would show the jury distinctly that the blows which broke Dwyer's ribs were given to him in his own house, not by the prisoner, but by John Kendrick. He then called witnesses for the defence. Richard Reed deposed— l am a lance corporal in the Royal Engineers, the 1st of May I was in Walker and Knight's vaults, and saw Dwyer come in with Mrs. Kendrick. Dwyer asked for some drink, and Roberts tapped him on the hat. They afterwards had a struggle, and Roberts struck Dwyer once or twice in the mouth. There was no other blow struck on any other part of the body. Dwyer was not knocked against the table, and I did not hear him complain in any way. He went up the steps without any assistance, and then came back to get some liquor he had left in the glass. He went away the second time without complaining. Mr. Brandt— Dwyer and Roberts "chaffed" each other, but Roberts began it. Dwyer got a smack in the mouth, but it was nothing very serious, and he went away as if nothing had happened. George Horton, landlord of the Bull's Head Inn, deposed — Dwyer and Mrs. Kendrick came into my house on Saturday night the first of May. They had 3d of rum and the same of whisky. Dwyer was bragging of what he had done to Roberts. After the coroner's inquest I went to see Mrs. Kendrick, and had some conversation with her about her evidence. Cross‐examined by Mr. Brandt— l only saw a slight mark on Dwyer's mouth. I did not observe there was anything unusual with him. By His Lordship — my house is between Walker and Knight's vaults and Dwyer's own house, and going home he would have to pass my house. John Cotgreave, deposed— l was present in Horton’s public house on the night of the first of May, and saw Dwyer there. He did not complain of anything that had happened. I saw that his mouth was bleeding a little, otherwise he appeared in his usual state of health. Thomas Burghall said on the night of the first of May I was in Mr. Horton’s house. I saw Dwyer's mouth was bleeding, and heard the latter say he had got hit in Walker and Knight's, and to the party who did it he had given more than he got. Dwyer did not complain of his ribs. Martha Handley deposed — l live in Dunning’s entry. On Saturday night Dwyer came to my mother's for a shirt, she had had to wash for him, but it was not ready, and he went back again. That was between 11 and 12 o'clock. I afterwards heard Dwyer laughing and talking in his own house with Mrs. Kendrick. I afterwards saw John Kendrick go to Dwyer's house and ask his mother to come out as he wanted his supper. Dwyer went to the door and told him that he would not let his mother come. I heard Dwyer say to Kendrick that if he did not go away he would strike him. He did strike him. Kendrick then rushed into Dwyer's house, and immediately afterwards I heard Dwyer fall on the stairs, and. heard him exclaim "0 my God." I then ran from my door where I had been standing to see what was the matter, and I saw Kendrick back out of the house with his arms raised, and the old man rising from the stairs. I then saw Dwyer seize a brush and run part of the way down the passage after Kendrick, and throw the brush after him He was pressing his hand to his left side. After that Kendrick met young Dwyer at the entry, and hit him in the mouth. Examined by Mr. Brandt — l saw him lying on his left side and he afterwards had his hand pressed against his left side, and the brush in the right hand When Dwyer came to our house he had some spots of blood on his face and appealed a little intoxicated. Mary Handley said— l remember on the night of the 1st May, hearing John Kendrick go to Dwyer's house, and ask for his mother. Dwyer went to the door and said she was not coming. Kendrick said "if you don't let her come you must look out for it" Dwyer then struck Kendrick, and Kendrick struck Dwyer and knocked him down on the stairs. When he got up he put his left hand to his side and said “0 my God." Examined by Mr. Brandt— l am sister to the last witness. I have never had any talk with her about the evidence I should give‐John Dwyer deposed— l am son of Darby Dwyer who is dead. I was at home on the night of the 1st of May, when my father came home with Mrs. Kendrick. He then made no complaint about his ribs. I left him about a quarter of an hour before this event, but returned again in consequence of hearing a disturbance. I met John Kendrick and asked him what the row was about, when he turned round and hit me in the mouth. I put my father to bed about half‐past twelve. He complained of his side, and said he had been in a row in Walker and Knight's vaults, and that John Kendrick had pushed him down. John Kendrick recalled— l know Emma Foster, I saw her on the night in question but I did not tell her I had hit him on the stairs. Emma Foster deposed — l live at 65 Upper North Gate‐street on the night of the 1st of May, I saw John Kendrick who said to me "I have hit old Dwyer on the stairs. Mr. Hamilton recalled, in reply to His Lordship, said “I believe Dwyer could not have walked home without showing that he was in pain by his walk.” Mr. Taylor, recalled, expressed his agreement as to what Mr. Hamilton had just stated. Mr. Swetenham in summing up the case for the defence, said that after the answers given to His Lordship by the last two witnesses it certainly was unnecessary for him to occupy much of their time, for however doubtful the case might have been before, after the evidence of Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Taylor, he thought the matter was as clear as it could possibly be that the injury to the ribs, which, say for a moment, did accelerate the death of this old man, could not possibly have been caused in Walker and Knight's vaults," but must have been inflicted at Dwyer’s own house. He went on to contend that had the injury been inflicted in Walker and Knight's vaults it would have been utterly impossible for Dwyer to have gone to Horton' s house and then home without complaining. He attributed the broken ribs to the blow which John Kendrick had given Dwyer in his right side which knocked him down on his left as described by the girls Handley, and he felt confident the verdict of the jury would be "not guilty." Mr. Brandt pointed out that as counsel for the prosecution it was not his duty to press the case against the prisoner, but merely to see that all the evidence was fairly and impartially laid before the jury, and he then briefly pointed out to the jury the strong points in the evidence for the prosecution. His Lordship, in summing up, remarked that had there not been the discrepancy in the evidence for the defence, that deceased put his hand to his left side after the blow which, if they believed the statement of Martha and Mary Handley, was struck him by Kendrick, the case would have been very weak indeed; but in this respect there was some doubt and difficulty. There could be no doubt that the ribs of Dwyer were fractured, and it was for the jury to consider, first, whether that fracture materially accelerated death, and if so, whether the fracture took place at Dwyer's own house or at Walker and Knight's vaults. The Jury consulted a few minutes and then re‐turned a verdict of "Not Guilty." There was a burst of applause in court, but it was immediately suppressed, the learned Judge threatening to commit anybody who should be brought before him for being guilty of such misconduct The Court then rose.
Cheshire Observer
Saturday 22 May 1869
SHOCKING DEATH OF A POLICE‐SERGEANT NEAR CHESTER.
Mr. H. Churton, county coroner, held an inquest on Monday at the Royal Oak Inn, Hoole, on the body of Sergeant Nathan Stacey, an old officer of the county constabulary stationed at Mickle Trafford, who met with a very sad death on Saturday last under circumstances stated below. The foreman of the jury was Mr. R. Hartshorn, of Hoole. The first witness called was the wife of the deceased, who said her husband was 44 years of age. She last saw him at half‐past eight on Saturday morning in his bedroom. He was then dressing, and she told him she was going to Chester. He was then in perfect health. She went to Chester, as she usually did on a Saturday, at nine o'clock, and while at Mr. Williams's shop, in Eastgate‐street, in the course of the morning, a woman told her that her husband had bean found in a water‐butt nearly dead, and she returned home at once and there found him by the kitchen fire and a number of people rubbing him. He was not dead then. Mr. Moreton, surgeon, of Tarvin, was there at the time, and Mr. W. C. Watson, surgeon, of Chester, soon afterwards followed. Everything that could be done to save him was done before the doctors arrived by Mr. Reece and his establishment. She was about half an hour in the house before her husband died. The tub at the door of the house contained soft water, and her husband had almost every morning to break the ice with a hammer in order to get at the water to wash himself with. James Crane, in the service of Mr. Reece, of Trafford, said be knew the deceased very well. On Saturday morning, shortly after nine o'clock, as he was passing his house he saw him with his feet up out of a water tub in, the yard. The feet were quite still, and he went in and pulled the deceased out as quick as he could. The legs and the greater part of the body were out of the water, while his head and a portion of his chest were completely submerged. His arms and head were at the bottom of the tub. The deceased was in such a position that he could not possibly have extricated himself. There was a chair standing by the rain tub. When he extricated the deceased from the rain tub his face was as black as coal, and he breathed a little when placed on his side, but was quite unconscious. Witness tried to get into the house, but could not, and he then went for Mr. Reece, and as he was going sent two women to the deceased. On his return from Mr. Reece the two women had carried the deceased into the house, where he was put in to a hot water bath, rubbed with hot flannels, and brandy administered to him. He was put in hot blankets into a bed in front of the fire, and everything that it was possible to do to save him was done. Was not present at his death, but heard of it soon after 12 o'clock. Mr. W. C. Watson, surgeon, Chester, said he saw the deceased on Saturday moraine, at his own house. He was then lying on a bed in front of the kitchen fire, and was quite unconscious, and continued so until the time of his death, which took place in his presence in about three quarters of an hour afterwards. Mr. Moreton, surgeon, of Tarvin, was there when he arrived, and everything was done that could possibly be done to save him. At one time he seemed as if he would rally, but he suddenly lapsed into a comatose state, and went off very rapidly. His opinion was that death resulted from drowning. There was a great amount of evidence of congestion of the lungs and brain, and it was impossible to get his body warm. Police Inspector Wood said the deceased was in the habit of attending the County Police Court at Chester Castle, every Saturday and in his coat pockets were all the papers which he would have had to bring to Chester. The Coroner, in the course of his summing up to the jury, said the case was one of the most extraordinary that ever came within his experience, but he had no doubt that the deceased in leaning forward and endeavouring to break the ice in the tub, which he succeeded in doing to a certain extent, his feet must have slipped off the chair on which he was standing and he fell head foremost through the hole he had made in the ice, and falling in that particular position his body would be in a sort of vice, and he would not have had the smallest power to extricate himself from that horrible position. Of course insensibility would very soon ensue, and in falling into unusually cold water and in a most unfavourable position his lungs and brain must have become congested almost immediately, and insensibility quickly followed. The Coroner continuing, said: When I heard of the case first I felt greatly shocked and very grieved indeed to find that one of the most active, energetic, and faithful police officers that I have had to do with had suddenly lost his life under such painful and distressing circumstances. The jury must have all known him, and regarded him very much as I did as a most excellent officer and one who was universally respected. I think it right to make these observations because I have known poor Stacey for many years and have been associated with him some scores of times in connection with my office as coroner, and I never knew a man so anxious to do his duty as he was and he did everything most satisfactorily and well. The Jury returned a a verdict of "Accidentally drowned.”
Cheshire Observer
Saturday 13 March 1869
DAMAGES OBTAINED BY A CHESTER MAN !
FROM A COUNTY CONSTABLE CAUTION TO POLICEMEN.
At the Birkenhead County Court, on Friday, before Mr. Sergeant .Wheeler and a jury, the cause William Brown v. Thomas Casson was tried It was an action brought by William Brown, a painter, living in Foregate‐street, Chester, against the defendant, Thomas Casson, a police officer stationed at Bromborough, to recover the sum of £6 damages, for that the defendant, on or about the 12th day of Dec. last, illegally stopped the plaintiff on the turnpike road leading from Birkenhead to Chester, whilst the plaintiff was traversing the same, and detained the said plantiff in custody, and searchedl his person and goods without any legal authority.
Mr. W. H. Churton, of Chester, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Anderson for the defendant. Mr. Churton, in stating the case, said that the plaintiff in this action was a poor but respectable working man, employed by Mr. Morris of Chester, and occasionally by Mr. Ellis, of Chester, and Birkenhead. On the 12th Dec. last he was in Liverpool on business, and in returning he determined to walk to Chester, taking the one o'clock New Ferry boat on the way. After landing he pursued his way along the turnpike road in the direction of Chester, when on passing the defendant, who was standing in the road talking to a girl, he was stopped by him and ordered to give an account of himself.
The poor man stood upon his rights, and when the constable demanded to know what he had got in a brown paper parcel he carried, replied that it was nothing to him (defendant.) More words followed this, and eventually the constable took and opened the parcel, examined the articles contained therein, searched the pockets of the plaintiff, and then, finding nothing against him, told him he might go, and himself left the place. Mr. Churton stated that the constable found upon the plaintiff receipted invoices for the goods contained in the parcel, but still continued his search. This took place in the presence of three other persons.
Mr. Churton contended that the constable had no legal justification for such conduct, and that if the jury by their verdict sanctioned such treatment no man's liberty would be safe. He urged that a constable had only a right to apprehend a person without a warrant where he had reasonable ground for supposing the person he had arrested had been guilty of felony. He submitted that such a power must be exercised by policemen with the greatest caution, and he contended that in this case there could be no reasonable ground of suspicion, inasmuch as the plaintiff was walking along a public highway in the middle of the day, and never attempted, although he saw the policeman before the policeman saw him, to run away, but quietly walked up to him and passed him, when he was stopped upon speculation only by the defend‐ant. He contended, there could be no reasonable ground of suspicion, except the way in which the plaintiff was dressed, and if police constables had the power to apprehend every person who was badly dressed, then no poor man could go unmolested. He stated that Brown had fortunately, friends who came to his assistance, and who were determined, upon public grounds, to put a stop to any further proceedings of a like nature. The defendant was called upon to give an apology, but did not do so, and Capt. Smith had written to say that the defendant had acted strictly in accordance with what he had considered his duty, although the result proved a mistake, and that the defendant would meet the case as in the execution of his duty.
The plaintiff therefore asked at the hands of the jury by their verdict a vindication of the Liberty of the poor man.
William Brown, the plaintiff, was called and proved the facts, and, though subjected to a severe cross‐examination by Mr. Anderson, remained firm to his statement of what took place. Mr. Churton proposed also to call Mr. Ellis, painter, Chester, to give the plaintiff a character, but as the plaintiff's good character was admitted by the defend‐ant his Honour ruled that he could not be called Mr. Anderson, on behalf of the defendant, contended that the defendant had only acted in strict accordance with his duty.; that it was his duty to stop any suspicious character about the neighbour‐hood, there having been many robberies of late, and that it was entirely because plaintiff refused to give information that the defendant detained him and searched his parcel and person. His Honour— Mr. Anderson, can you really contend that conduct like this is legal ? I confess it would be new law to me if it were so, for supposing the con‐stable had even the right to detain the plaintiff he clearly had no right to turn the public highway into a place for searching people. 1 would suggest to you that there are two ways of addressing the jury — the one in justification, the other in mitigation. Had you not better adopt the latter course ? Mr. Anderson— l do not feel justified in so doing, .though I am free to confess that my view of the law corresponds with yours. Mr. Anderson then stated that the constable had acted in the mildest way possible consistent with his duty ; that when he met the plaintiff he said, "My good man, what have you got in your bundle ? where are you going ?" and it was simply because the plaintiff refused to give him any information that he searched his bundle and trousers pockets. He thought the plaintiff had sustained no actual damage, and that the jury would return a verdict for the defendant.
The defendant was called, and in his evidence corroborated the statement made by his attorney. His Honour asked the defendant how long he had been in the force. Defendant — About ten years. His Honour— Are you in the habit of stopping people in this way, and then making the highway your house to search people such as Defendant
— Yes. His Honour — Ah ! in Cheshire ! Not in Lancashire ! (Laughter.) Defendant — No. George Jelhcho, coachman with Mr. Gray, of Eastham.; Mrs. Roberts, of the Lodge, Eastham; and George Taylor, a lad, who were called for the defence, to prove that the constable behaved very civilly. Mrs. Roberts said that after the plaintiff's parcel was tied up again he rolled it over in the road and made it dirty. Mr. Churton replied on behalf of the plaintiff, and His Honour laid down the law on the subject. He said: There are circumstances in which a police constable is entitled to detain a man, in some cases with and in some without a warrant. By the Game Act of 1862, a constable is entitled to stop a man, and search either his pockets or his person, to see if he has been engaged in any act of poaching. But in this case there was no allegation of poaching. It was that several robberies had been committed in the neighbourhood. The question therefore was as to the constable's powers in a case of suspicion of felony. Upon this the law is perfectly clear. A private individual may cause a man to be arrested, but unless there has actually been a felony committed he is not protected in case of an adverse decision, but a police constable hag a right to take a man into custody as a suspicious character, even though he does not know of any felony having‐been committed, if he has any reasonable ground of suspicion. But the constable must be guided, as a judge lately laid down, by reason, care, and caution, and when a man is walking along the highway of course it behoves a constable than to act with infinitely greater reason, «are, and caution than if the man he suspects was found off the road or proceeding by night. And the law is further, that a constable must not search a suspicious person in the road, but must take him to the nearest police station, have the charge regularly booked, and the prisoner brought before a justice in the usual manner, and the charge investigated. It is an axiom of law that if a man is taken into custody in due course of law he can only be discharged in due course of law also. Where, asked his Honour, would be our rights if thi3 rule was to be departed from ? There would be safety for no one. His Honour then summoned up the evidence. The jury, without a minute's delay, returned a verdict for the plaintiff for the full damages claimed and costs.
SPECIAL CONSTABLE
DARBY DWYER
CHESTER CITY POLICE FORCE

THE DEATH OF A SPECIAL CONSTABLE – THE TRIAL
Cheshire Observer – Saturday 14 August 1869
Tuesday ‐THE MANSLAUGHTER CASE AT CHESTER. Robert Roberts, 29, clerk, Chester, surrendered to his bail, charged under the warrant of the deputy coroner (J. Tatlock, Esq. ), with the manslaughter of Darby Dwyer, at Chester, on the 1st May last. Prisoner pleaded ‘not guilty’. Mr. Brandt appeared for the prosecution and Mr. Swetenham for the defence. Mr. Brandt, in opening the case, said it was a some what curious and certainly a distressing one. What ever might be the guilt of the prisoner at the bar, he had no ill‐will against the man he had killed. He did not intend to kill him; still, in striking the blow which caused death he was responsible for the death of deceased. The deceased had always been sworn in as a special constable during the Chester race‐week. On the Saturday before the race‐week, Dwyer had been sworn in, and was then probably at a loose end. He went into Messrs. Walker and Knight's vaults to have some refreshment, with a woman named Kendrick. They would find that this took place through the practice of people having too much drink, which he (the learned counsel) was sorry was prevalent in this country. The prisoner at the bar — who held such a respectable position that he (the learned counsel) was surprised to find him in such company — plucked the hair of Dwyer. It was a kind of rough game, a practical joking which very often ended in unfortunate things. Somebody said, "You had better leave him alone,” but he did not leave him alone. Dwyer came up and knocked Roberts down. As soon as Roberts got up again he came towards Dwyer and gave him a heavy blow, by which Dwyer was sent across a table and his ribs were broken, and he went out, and in a week afterwards, he died. The question would be whether Dwyer died on account of the injuries inflicted by the prisoner at the bar on the night in question. Ellen Kendrick deposed — l am a widow residing in Upper Northgate‐street in this city. I knew Darby Dwyer, and there was some tale of our being married. I remember the first of May. On that night I and deceased went into Walker and Knight's vaults, and whilst we were having something to drink prisoner came up jokingly and pulled deceased's hair from behind. Dwyer after this brought two glasses of drink to the table where I was sitting, and was going back to pay for it when prisoner pulled his hair again. I then told prisoner to leave him alone, as it would not be allowed, when he came towards me with his fist shut. Dwyer then interfered when prisoner struck him, and he fell against the edge of the table on his right side. That fall was in consequence of the blow. Dwyer gave a sort of scream, but did not say anything. I then pushed past the prisoner to get up, and fetch a policeman, and on returning with a police man, I met Dwyer coming up the steps with Mr. Taylor. He did not say anything, I took him home and he went to bed while I made him a cup of tea. I have a son named John Kendrick. He did not altogether like the idea of my being married to Dwyer, but as far as I know there was no disturbance between the two on the night in question. There was a disturbance between my son and Dwyer's son. My son left Dwyer's house before I did, and he never went back again that night. Dwyer was then taken ill, and I attended him till his death which occurred about a week afterwards. Cross‐examined by Mr. Swetenham
— l had the whiskey at Walker and Knight's vaults, and Dwyer had the rum. I did not threaten to throw a glass in the prisoner's face. I might have said I would, but I do not recollect. Both prisoner and Dwyer fell on the table, being close together. Dwyer might have fallen in the wrestling. By the Judge — They were standing face to face when the prisoner struck Dwyer a blow in the face. It was in consequence of the wrestling that Dwyer fell on his side. Cross‐examined by Mr. Swetenham — l have been examined about this matter two or three times before. I do not recollect saying before the Coroner that deceased called out whilst he was on the table, "Oh, he has broken my ribs." Mr. Brandt objected to a cross‐examination on the depositions taken before the Coroner, as not being legal. His Lordship over‐ruled the objection, remarking that it would apply equally as well to the depositions taken before the magistrates. Cross‐examination continued. — After the fall on the table deceased went to Mr. Horton's, at the Bull's Head, and had twopennyworth of rum. I did not think of this when before the Coroner. Dwyer said, whilst in the Bull's Head, that he had been hurt in Walker and Knight's Vaults. Henry Cotgreave heard him make this statement Dwyer remained in Horton's about ten minutes or a quarter of an hour. I believe he asked some persons to have some drink, but they did not have any. I know Martha Handley. I do not know that Dwyer went to her house between eleven and twelve o'clock on that night for a shirt. He did not stay in bed after I put him there more than half‐an‐hour, and after that I do not know whether or not he went into Martha Handley's house. After Dwyer came down stairs we sat talking some time, and my son came to the step of the door, but no further. On my oath I do not know that after that my son knocked Dwyer down upon the bottom of the stairs. I did not hear him call out, “Oh, my God." I saw deceased run after my son down part of the entry, and throw a brush after him. I did not notice after that whether Dwyer put his hand to his side. After this, young Dwyer came from the top of the entry, and my son struck him in the mouth. I suppose the reason of Dwyer running after my son down the passage was because he did not wish me to go just then. After the examination before the Coroner, I told Horton, who came to me, that Dwyer told me he had told the priest that he was struck at the top of King street. I did not state before the Coroner that we called at Mr. Horton's public‐house, because I was not asked the question. I do not recollect that Horton found fault with my evidence before the Coroner. By Mr. Brandt.— Dwyer was a Roman Catholic and he told me that he had told the priest he was struck at the top of Kings‐street, because he did not want him to know he (Dwyer) was in a public house. From the time we left Walker and Knight's, till I left Dwyer there was nothing further occurred than I have stated to break his ribs. By the Judge— My engagement to be married was not known either to my son or Dwyer's. I am forty‐five years of age, and Dwyer was fifty two. I am not a Catholic. Catherine Taylor deposed— l am a lodging‐house keeper living in the entry next Walker and Knight vaults. On Saturday night, the 1st May, I heard a noise in the vaults, and in going to see what was the matter I saw Roberts hit Dwyer three times on the head. I said, "What a shame it is to strike an old man like that," and Roberts asked, "What I had to do with it?" A man named Davis then interfered, and Dwyer came out put his hand to his chest, and said, "Oh, my chest." By Mr. Brandt— l did not see the first blow struck. When I saw them they were both together on the floor. Joseph Davies deposed — l live in Shoemakers Row in this City, and on the lst May was in Walker and Knight's vaults. I heard a bit of a scrimmage, and on going in to see what was the matter, I saw the prisoner and Dwyer on the floor. I went and interfered, and told prisoner he ought to be ashamed to hit an old man like that. I only saw Roberts hit Dwyer once in the mouth. After this Roberts turned round and struck me, and we both had a fight. I did not see Dwyer after that, nor did I hear him give utterance to any expression of pain. Henry Cotgreave, an agent, living in Chester, gave corroborative evidence as to how the quarrel commenced, adding that Mrs. Kendrick took up a glass and threatened to throw it in Roberts' mouth, then the latter replied that was just what he should like. Roberts was then making towards Mrs. Kendrick when Dwyer took hold of him and pushed him on the floor. Roberts then jumped up in an excited state, and a struggle ensued. I did not see Dwyer crushed against the table, but they were in such a position that their coats necessarily came against the take. By Mr. Swetenham — l was present at the time Mrs. Kendrick was. What Mrs. Kendrick had said with regard to Robert’s crushing Dwyer against the table is not correct, so far as I saw. Mr. George Fenwick, Chief Constable of Chester, said — l knew Dwyer. For many years he was sworn in as constable for the races, and between eight and nine o'clock that night he was sworn in as special constable for the races, which were to take place on the following Tuesday. He was then quite sober. James Bowers, P.C. for the City of Chester, de‐posed—I was sent for to Walker and Knight's vaults on the evening in question, and as I was walking along the street I saw Dwyer. He was stooping forward as though spitting. We went into the vaults, and Dwyer pointed to Roberts and said "That's the man that has ill used me." I then went to look into the "snug" where the row had taken place, and when I returned Dwyer had gone. Cross‐examined —When I saw Dwyer there was blood on his mouth. Neither he nor Mrs. Kendrick said a word about his ribs being hurt, and he appeared perfectly well able to walk. Christopher Hickey, Sergeant, City Police, deposed — I went to see deceased on Friday night, 7th May. He told me he did not think he should get better. He took hold of my right hand, and put it on his right side, and I found the ribs very much shrunk. Dwyer died next day. Mr. Alexander Hamilton, M.K.C.S., said — l am visiting surgeon to the Chester Infirmary. I remember being called in to see Darby Dwyer, on the 5th of May. I found him in bed and on examining him found one or two of his ribs broken, on the right side. I prescribed for him, but on the Saturday he died. On the 10th May I made a, post mortem examination. I found the 9th, 10th, and 11th ribs on the right side broken, but the broken ribs had not penetrated to the cavity of the chest. The right lung was almost entirely solidified, but it was impossible to say whether it was caused by the broken ribs. The greater part of the left lung was suffering from the effect of chronic disease. The chances against his living much longer were much against him. I believe inflammation of the lungs was the cause of death. It is impossible to say whether if the ribs had not been broken death would have taken place at the same time. I believe the fracture of the ribs accelerated death in some degree. I do not think that the mere fact of his drinking in Walker and Knight's vaults on the Saturday evening previous did so. Cross‐examined by Mr. Swetenham‐l am still of opinion that deceased might have died without the fracture of the ribs. His Lordship‐l understand the witness to state that acute inflammation upon chronic inflammation might have caused death, and that acute inflammation might have been caused by cold or some other cause. Mr. James Taylor, M.R.C.S., said — l assisted to make a post mortem examination of the body of Dwyer. In my opinion death was caused by acute inflammation, but I should say the broken ribs might have increased the inflammation. The blow on the chest would have had a tendency to cause inflammation. The broken ribs would not have directly produced the inflammation, but they might have accelerated it. John Kendrick deposed — l am son of the witness Mrs. Kendrick. I did not know anything of Dwyer being engaged to be married to my mother. On the night in question Dwyer ran after me with a brush, but we did not have a fight, and I did not break his ribs. This finished the case for the prosecution. Mr. Swetenham addressed the jury for the defence. He said he approached the case with natural feelings of anxiety on account of the respectable position which the prisoner at the bar had hitherto held in this city, For sometime, and indeed at the present moment, for he had surrendered that day to his bail, he had been a clerk in the employ of Mr. Preston, who was the solicitor to the London and North‐Western Railway, in this town. He had had the misfortune on this night to get into very questionable company, and had got into a row there, and because of that misfortune and the death of this old man, who it would appear was eaten up with disease, had had to go through the disgrace and expense and the anxiety of going to a trial upon such a serious charge as this of manslaughter. Really he thought, on behalf of the prisoner, he might well be content to draw their attention to the evidence for the prosecution; but it would not be satisfactory to his client or his friends unless he met the whole of this story from beginning to end, and therefore, although he knew it would have the effect of prolonging this trial, which had hitherto been long enough, and of such a nature as must fully have shown them that the prisoner ought not to be found guilty of this charge. As, however, he could not read the jury's minds and say they were unanimously of opinion that he was not guilty of the charge, he should be obliged to call witnesses to show how it was Dwyer met the blow which caused the fracture of his ribs. But before he did that perhaps they would permit him to draw their attention, as shortly as possible, to the evidence produced for the prosecution. With regard to the evidence produced by the prosecution to prove to the jury that prisoner had been guilty of an unlawful act, and had caused the death of a fellow creature, he could not help saying that such weak evidence was hardly ever adduced to ask a jury to convict The learned counsel then minutely criticised the evidence of the prosecution, and stated he would show the jury distinctly that the blows which broke Dwyer's ribs were given to him in his own house, not by the prisoner, but by John Kendrick. He then called witnesses for the defence. Richard Reed deposed— l am a lance corporal in the Royal Engineers, the 1st of May I was in Walker and Knight's vaults, and saw Dwyer come in with Mrs. Kendrick. Dwyer asked for some drink, and Roberts tapped him on the hat. They afterwards had a struggle, and Roberts struck Dwyer once or twice in the mouth. There was no other blow struck on any other part of the body. Dwyer was not knocked against the table, and I did not hear him complain in any way. He went up the steps without any assistance, and then came back to get some liquor he had left in the glass. He went away the second time without complaining. Mr. Brandt— Dwyer and Roberts "chaffed" each other, but Roberts began it. Dwyer got a smack in the mouth, but it was nothing very serious, and he went away as if nothing had happened. George Horton, landlord of the Bull's Head Inn, deposed — Dwyer and Mrs. Kendrick came into my house on Saturday night the first of May. They had 3d of rum and the same of whisky. Dwyer was bragging of what he had done to Roberts. After the coroner's inquest I went to see Mrs. Kendrick, and had some conversation with her about her evidence. Cross‐examined by Mr. Brandt— l only saw a slight mark on Dwyer's mouth. I did not observe there was anything unusual with him. By His Lordship — My house is between Walker and Knight's vaults and Dwyer's own house, an going home he would have to pass my house. John Cotgreave, deposed— l was present in Horton’s public house on the night of the first of May, and saw Dwyer there. He did not complain of anything that had happened. I saw that his mouth was bleeding a little, otherwise he appeared in his usual state of health. Thomas Burghall said on the night of the first of May I was in Mr. Horton’s house. I saw Dwyer's mouth was bleeding, and heard the latter say he had got hit in Walker and Knight's, and to the party who did it he had given more than he got. Dwyer did not complain of his ribs. Martha Handley deposed — l live in Dunnning's entry. On Saturday night Dwyer came to my mother's for a shirt, she had had to wash for him, but it was not ready, and he went back again. That was between 11 and 12 o'clock. I afterwards heard Dwyer laughing and talking in his own house with Mrs. Kendrick. I afterwards saw John Kendrick go to Dwyer's house and ask his mother to come out as he wanted his supper. Dwyer went to the door and told him that he would not let his mother come. I heard Dwyer say to Kendrick that if he did not go away he would strike him. He did strike him. Kendrick then rushed into Dwyer's house, and immediately afterwards I heard Dwyer fall on the stairs, and. heard him exclaim "0 my God." I then ran from my door where I had been standing to see what was the matter, and I saw Kendrick back out of the house with his arms raised, and the old man rising from the stairs. I then saw Dwyer seize a brush and run part of the way down the passage after Kendrick, and throw the brush after him He was pressing his hand to his left side. After that Kendrick met young Dwyer at the entry, and hit him in the mouth. Examined by Mr. Brandt — l saw him lying on his left side and he afterwards had his hand pressed against his left side, and the brush in the right hand When Dwyer came to our house he had some spots of blood on his face and appealed a little intoxicated. Mary Handley said— l remember on the night of the 1st May, hearing John Kendrick go to Dwyer's house, and ask for his mother. Dwyer went to the door and said she was not coming. Kendrick said "if you don't let her come you must look out for it" Dwyer then struck Kendrick, and Kendrick struck Dwyer and knocked him down on the stairs. When he got up he put his left hand to his side and said “0 my God." Examined by Mr. Brandt— l am sister to the last witness. I have never had any talk with her about the evidence I should give‐John Dwyer deposed— l am son of Darby Dwyer who is dead. I was at home on the night of the 1st of May, when my father came home with Mrs. Kendrick. He then made no complaint about his ribs. I left him about a quarter of an hour before this event, but returned again in consequence of hearing a disturbance. I met John Kendrick and asked him what the row was about, when he turned round and hit me in the mouth. I put my father to bed about half‐past twelve. He complained of his side, and said he had been in a row in Walker and Knight's vaults, and that John Kendrick had pushed him down. John Kendrick recalled— l know Emma Foster, I saw her on the night in question but I did not tell her I had hit him on the stairs. Emma Foster deposed — l live at 65 Upper North Gate‐street On the night of the 1st of May, I saw John Kendrick who said to me "I have hit old Dwyer on the stairs. Mr. Hamilton recalled, in reply to His Lordship, said “I believe Dwyer could not have walked home without showing that he was in pain by his walk.” Mr. Taylor, recalled, expressed his agreement as to what Mr. Hamilton had just stated. Mr. Swetenham in summing up the case for the defence, said that after the answers given to His Lordship by the last two witnesses it certainly was unnecessary for him to occupy much of their time, for however doubtful the case might have been before, after the evidence of Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Taylor, he thought the matter was as clear as it could possibly be that the injury to the ribs, which, say for a moment, did accelerate the death of this old man, could not possibly have been caused in Walker and Knight's vaults," but must have been inflicted at Dwyer’s own house. He went on to contend that had the injury been inflicted in Walker and Knight's vaults it would have been utterly impossible for Dwyer to have gone to Horton' s house and then home without complaining. He attributed the broken ribs to the blow which John Kendrick had given Dwyer in his right side which knocked him down on his left as described by the girls Handley, and he felt confident the verdict of the jury would be "not guilty." Mr. Brandt pointed out that as counsel for the prosecution it was not his duty to press the case against the prisoner, but merely to see that all the evidence was fairly and impartially laid before the jury, and he then briefly pointed out to the jury the strong points in the evidence for the prosecution. His Lordship, in summing up, remarked that had there not been the discrepancy in the evidence for the defence, that deceased put his hand to his left side after the blow which, if they believed the statement of Martha and Mary Handley, was struck him by Kendrick, the case would have been very weak indeed; but in this respect there was some doubt and difficulty. There could be no doubt that the ribs of Dwyer were fractured, and it was for the jury to consider, first, whether that fracture materially accelerated death, and if so, whether the fracture took place at Dwyer's own house or at Walker and Knight's vaults. The Jury consulted a few minutes and then re‐turned a verdict of "Not Guilty." There was a burst of applause in court, but it was immediately suppressed, the learned Judge threatening to commit anybody who should be brought before him for being guilty of such misconduct. The Court then rose.
Page 1
9_12_2013