Cheshire Observer – Saturday 14 January 1860
Wednesday (Before Thos. Dickson and Chas. Potts, Esqrs.) Charge of Assault. — Michael Hash, labourer, was charged by two police officers named Brooks and Powells with assaulting them in the execution of their duty, on yesterday evening. Fined 10s and costs, for each offence or 21 days imprisonment in each case.
Chester Chronicle - Saturday 29 September 1860
Local and District.       Inspector Long. We are sorry to have to record accident to Inspector Long, which, although not of very serious nature, will cause him inconvenience perhaps for some time. It appears that the other day as he was coming down the stairs from the Police Court he slipped, dislocating his ankle and breaking splinter bone just above the ankle. The Mayor kindly offered to convey him at once to Mr. Evan Thomas, of Liverpool, to have it set; but Mr. Long, thinking it was not of that complicated nature to render it necessary for the journey, proceeded home, where Mr. Rees, of the Infirmary is attending him. He is progressing favourably.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 12 January 1861
TOWN COUNCIL MEETING. A special meeting of the council was summoned last Wednesday..........The next business was to consider recommendation, that Police-Sergeant Charles Speed be granted a superannuation allowance of 12s. per week. Ald. Griffith proposed that the recommendation be adopted. Speed had been in the force 23 years and had been a sergeant for 16 years. Mr. Salisbury wanted to know if Sergeant Speed had not been brought before the Watch Committee several times for drunkenness. He asked the council to maintain their character as honest men, and discountenance men who were not deserving of promotion. He, if he stood alone, would vote against this thing, unless on some good authority he learned that the charge was untrue. Major French knew nothing of the charge against Speed, but he had been 24 years in the force. On a question put by Mr. Parish, the town clerk read from the 22nd and 23rd Vic. section 9, by authority of which this superannuation allowance was made. Two certificates were also read, one from the surgeon stating the cause of Sergeant Speed's being no longer able to be active in the force, and the other from the chief constable. Mr. Parish moved as an amendment that the matter be referred back to the Watch Committee for further consideration. It seemed to him that they were going further than they ought If they gave Speed this pension there were others who might be expected to come for pensions too, and they would have the principal of the fund from which these pensions were to be supplied eaten up. He did not say that Speed should not have a pension, but he wanted the matter to be fully and fairly considered before they decided what that pension should be. After further conversation, in which Major French, Mr. Butt, Ald. Griffith, and Ald. Roy, took part, Mr. Salisbury ascended the motion that it be referred back to the Watch Committee, and he gave notice that at the next council meeting he would ask Ald. Griffith if there were not charges of habitual drunkenness against 10 or 12 of the police officers, and if the men who would go to class one in the new arrangement would not be the drunkards.
     Chester Chronicle - Saturday 12 January 1861
CLASSIFICATION THE CHESTER POLICE FORCE The following recommendation of the Watch Committee was submitted to the Council for adoption :—The memorial of the constables on the police force of this city for an increase to be made in their pay, with the replies to the enquiries made as to the pay of the constables in the counties and cities referred to with the resolution of the meeting of the committee held the 6th December last, having been considered, and it appearing from the replies and the information obtained, Mr. Hill laid before the meeting, that the constables in most other towns are receiving much higher pay than the men in the force this city; and Mr. Hill having reported that men are constantly leaving the force to join others consequence of the higher pay offered, and that he has great difficulty in obtaining men to supply the vacancies, Ordered- That it be recommended to the Council that for the future the force this city be divided into three classes, as follows, viz.: lst class, to consist of 10 men each, to receive 20s. 6d. weekly; 2nd class, to consist of 10 men each, to receive 18s. 6d. weekly; 3rd class, to consist of the remainder of the force, the pay each constable this class to be 17s. 6d. weekly, and the promotion to the 2nd and class be made as vacancies occur, according to seniority good conduct, and general efficiency. Alderman Griffith, moving that the recommendation be confirmed, said a memorial had been presented to the Watch Committee from the constables, praying to have their wages raised, and to be paid according to the proposed classes or divisions to which they might belong. Mr. Hill, the chief constable, had made applications to various cities and towns England as to the amounts paid to constables those places, and the Town Clerk had also made similar enquiries, and in almost every instance it appeared that the men were classified and better paid than in Chester. When the Marquess of Westminster accompanied the Mayor and Corporation to the Cathedral November last, paid the policemen a very high compliment, for he said a finer body of men than the police constables of the city of Chester he had never seen. (Hear, hear) Mr. Bowers seconded the motion. Alderman Peacock opposed the' motion, as the proposed scheme would impose an additional burden on the city of £80 and the taxes already were enormous, and pressed heavily upon the pockets of the ratepayers. (Hear, hear) Mr. Salisbury did not altogether agree with Alderman Peacock in his opposition to the motion. In his (Mr Salisbury’s) opinion it was an absurd thing to divide the policemen.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 26 January 1861
CITY POLICE COURT SATURDAY. Before the Mayor. W. Wardell, and E. C. Walker, Esqrs. Highway Robbery and Desperate Fight with the Police. — William Grysdale, who has from time to time been remanded, was again brought forward, charged with having, in company with another, garrotted and robbed Mr. Dashwood Parry, a gentleman who resides at Marford Hill, near Gresford. The robbery took place on the 26th of December last, and the prisoner was apprehended shortly after the occurrence, but he had been remanded from time to time for want of evidence sufficiently complete to convict him. The facts of the case are as follow: — Mr. Dashwood Pairy was in Chester on the night of the 26th December last, and at about half-past twelve on that night was passing from Pepper-street into Newgate-street, when he saw a number of men standing together, and who seemed as if they had been quarrelling, — he noticed that one man had his hat off, and turning to the others, he told them to give the man his hat back. He then turned round to proceed on his way, when the hatless man suddenly grasped him round the throat. Mr. Parry struggled a little, but was over-mastered by his antagonist and another man who came to his assistance. They rifled his pockets, taking from them a gold watch, a purse with some silver in it, a cigar case, and other articles. They then left him and proceded towards the Newgate, whither Mr. Parry, who shortly recovered, followed them. He missed them, and returned into Eastgate-street, where he saw P C’s Bray and Evans, to whom he told what had occurred. They went with him to where the scuffle had taken place, searched the ground, but not finding anything, they then went to the Newgate, and up the steps on to the city wall. P.C. Bray knocked at the door of a little cottage occupied by a girl, named Catherine Gill, alias Dodd, and some time elapsed before the door was opened. During this time the police and Mr. Parry heard some bustle going on inside. When they got in they saw no one but the girl, but almost immediately, P-C. Evans, who stood just inside the door, heard some one drop from the bed-room window to the walls, and he went out and caught the man, who struggled desperately with him. Bray went upstairs, and found the prisoner, Grysdale lying on a bed, with his clothes on. He (Bray) then came down again, and gave the usual signal for assistance with his stick, which was broken by his doing so. He then returned, and heard Grysdale call to the man who was fighting with P.C. Evans, "They've not handcuffed you, have they, George .'" and on George replying, by asking him to come down and help him, he said he would do so, and would soon make them loose him. He then came down and struck fiercely at Bray's head with a poker. Bray saved himself by catching the blow on his arm, after which he closed with the prisoner, and they had a terrible fight. Bray managed to get hold of the poker at the commencement of the fight, but had to let it go afterwards, and the prisoner dealt him such heavy blows with it as to cut his head open in two places. Of course Bray's strength began to fail, and he fell, but in falling had sufficient consciousness to lay hold of the prisoner and pull him down with him. The prisoner was uppermost, and taking hold of Bray's head, began to dash it on the flags, when P.C. Evans seeing something of his mate's position, let his man go, and went to Bray's assistance. The prisoner was secured and taken to the police office, when Bray was sent down to the Infirmary to have his head dressed, and to be otherwise attended to. He was disabled for about ten days. Catharine Dodd, the girl in whose house the men had been found, and another girl were called upon to give evidence, and the following is a summary of what they said. The prisoner and the man who managed to escape, (his name is Geo. Roberts), went to this house between nine and ten o'clock on the night in question. Roberts went first, his head at the time being muffled in a shawl; he pulled the shawl off and said that he would give it to Dodd, and then went out again. In a while he returned with the prisoner (Grysdale) and he brought with him a parcel which he opened and on finding it to contain books, he expressed his disappointment, saying that he thought it had been cloth. The same night they brought some horse provender to the house. They went to the house again at about one o'clock, and sent out one of the girls (Ann Brett) to get some ale. As she could not get it else where, she went to the Edgar Tavern, Lower Bridge Street, where she got half a gallon.— She had it in a can and a bottle, and when she got near the house, on her return, she heard the scuffle going on which we have described, and would not go nearer. She just the can and bottle down, and ran to Eastgate-street, and from there round to Pepper-street, where she met George Roberts ; his face was covered with blood, and he had his head tied with a handkerchief. He saw some policeman near, and, telling Brett to run for fear she might be taken up, he ran up Park-street as fast as he could. The girl, Dodd, when she saw the terrible fight going on between Bray and Grysdale, went upstairs, and finding the stolen watch and a cigar case, she threw them out of the window into Park-street, where they were found next morning, frozen fast to the earth, by a boy named Bithell. At the conclusion of the hearing of witnesses, which occupied a long time, the prisoner was committed to take his trial at the next assizes. The two girls, Dodd and Brett, were also committed, as they could not find the requisite sureties for their appearance to give evidence,
Chester Chronicle – Saturday 16 February 1861
CHESTER TOWN COUNCIL. The Quarterly Meeting of the Council was held at the Town Hall on Wednesday last. The first business the Council were called upon to transact was a formal character, and consisted of the following resolutions, which were moved by the Mayor, and carried in the usual way:— " To receive the returns of the churchwardens and overseers of the poor of the several parishes, townships, and extra-parochial places within the city and borough of Chester, of the total amount of the full and fair annual value of the several estates and rateable property within their respective parishes, townships, and extra-parochial places, for the purposes of the borough and watch rates, granted the last meeting of the Council." "To assess the amounts which each parish, township, and extra-parochial place is to pay towards the said borough and watch rates." " To order that the amounts so to be assessed on the parishes of St. Bridget, St. Martin, St. Olave, St. Michael, St. Peter. St. Mary-on-the-Hill, St. John the Baptist, the Holy and Undivided Trinity, and St. Oswald, and the township of Spital Boughton, be paid out of the Poors' rate, to be levied and collected within the said parishes and township respectively; and that the amounts so to be assessed on that part of the township of Great Boughton which is within the city and borough, and the extra-parochial places of Little Saint John the Baptist, and the precincts of the Cathedral, be raised, levied, and collected, within the said part of the said township of Great Boughton, and the said extra-parochial places respectively." "To appoint Mr. John Hill, high constable, to collect the said rates." To authorise the Mayor to issue his warrant, under the common seal of the city and borough, to the said John Hill, requiring him to demand, receive, and collect the said rates, and to pay the amounts of such rates, when received, to the treasurer of the said city and borough." “To authorise the Mayor to issue a warrant under the common seal of the city and borough, to the churchwardens and overseers of the poor of the several parishes, townships, and places within the said city and borough, requiring them to pay the amounts assessed on their respective parishes, townships, and places, towards the said rates, to the said John Hill; the watch-rate on the day of March, and the borough rate on the 25th day of July next."
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 23rd July, 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 30 March 1861
CITY POLICE COURT. Saturday      Before the Mayor, Dr. P. Jones, Col. Lloyd, and E.C. Walker, Esq.      Ex-Sergeant Speed. — Charles Speed, late sergeant of police, and to whom the Town Council recently granted 18s. per week, was charged with assaulting his son, Thomas Speed, a boy of between 15 and 16 years of age. From the boy's statement it appeared that on the 2nd of March, he went to his dinner at the usual time, and after dinner went to wash him when his father began to speak to him about a pair of shoes, which he was to take to be mended. The boy said he would take them that night, and had no sooner got the words out of his mouth than his father pulled off his coat, rolled up his sleeves, and then struck him violently, as well as pulled him about the house. One of the boy's eyes was much blood-shot and inflamed, and the Mayor asked him if that was the result of the assault. He said it was. The Mayor and other magistrates on the bench commented on the case, and repeated information which had been laid before them on a previous occasion. From that it appeared that Speed had turned the boy out of the house, with the intention of forcing him to maintain himself, though the lad was receiving but 3s 6d per week. Mr. Hill (Chief Constable) said that from what he had heard he should have felt bound to have brought the case before the bench if it had not been brought to notice otherwise. Speed denied the truth of the boy's statements, and asserted that he was unruly and mischievous. The boy said he could produce a witness to testify that he had not done as his father had said. It was further stated that at his work he was a well conducted boy. He was asked if he would return home again. He said that he scarcely durst do, as his father had threatened what he would do if he entered the house again. After some severe strictures on his conduct, and a hint that if he was brought up again his pension might be taken from him, Speed was bound over to keep the peace for 12 months, one surety in ten pounds and himself in £20.
   Cheshire Observer - Saturday 13 April 1861
 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING.
Mr. Farish rose to put a question of which he had given notice, viz.: To ask the Town Clerk whether the Council had the power to rescind the resolution passed on the 19th January last, granting a pension of 12s. weekly, to Charles Speed, ex-Sergeant in the Chester Police Force. He said he hoped that no one would go away with a wrong impression as to what his motive was in putting this question. His reason was that having seen in tie newspapers a report of a case in which ex-sergeant Speed was charged with refusing to maintain his son, and which report also stated that if he (Speed) was brought before the bench again as he was at that time, the magistrates would see if his pension could not be taken from him. He had asked this question of the Town Clerk before, but thought it would be better to put the thing thus formally, that the town's people might know more of a matter in which be was aware they took considerable interest. Mr. Walker (Town Clerk) said that circumstances might arise which might justify the Council in rescinding the pension, but none such had occurred yet. Mr. Bowers would then ask what circumstances would give the Council that authority. The Mayor thought this second question was one which could not properly be put. Mr. Dowers would be glad if such circumstances would occur as would give the Council the requisite authority. He was sure if facts which were well known to them now, had been known to them when they were asked to grant the pension, they would never have granted it. He had asked Mr. Hill about a statement made before the Council by Mr. Walker, to the effect that Sped had appeared before the bench in a state of intoxication. Mr. Hill had said that this was not the case. Mr. Walker said that what he had before said was true. Speed was drunk, and he (Mr. Walker) spoke to Mr. Hill about it at the time. After a few words from Major French on the same topic, the meeting closed.
Cheshire Observer – Saturday 1 June 1861
CITY POLICE COURT SATURDAY. Before the Mayor, Colonel Lloyd, Major French, M. Frost, Esq., and Dr. R. P. Jones. On Suspicion. — Joseph Edwards alias Punch, was brought up on remand. It appeared that he had been arrested on suspicion of having stolen several articles from the house of Mr. Thomas Sanders, Crane Street.  From the evidence of William Davenport, who was at the time in the police force, but who is now a porter at the railway station, it appeared that on Saturday night, the 2nd of March, the prisoner was in company with a lot of other men at Rothwell's public house, Crane Street. This was about closing time, and on witness going in the men departed. Witness afterwards saw prisoner go to Sanders's house, open the door with a key, and enter. He did not see him come out again. The prisoner was committed for trial to the sessions.
Thursday. Before the Mayor, T. Dixon, and R Roy, Esqrs. Major French, and Dr. R P. Jones. A Police Office Nuisance.— lt appears that the officials of our city police office are subject at times to a great nuisance, arising from the number of vagrants who call there for relief, especially at night. Sometimes large numbers call there; one night there were indeed no fewer than 31 visitors of this kind, and as they are very often importunate it is with great difficulty that they are got rid off. On Wednesday night four men went in together, one of them being drunk. It chanced that our worthy Mayor was in at the time, and was somewhat abused by the intoxicated man. They were then got rid of, but three of them named William Mitchell, Hugh Maudesley, and Thomas Cartwright, returned there, and would not go away. They were then locked up. - They were each sentenced to 7 days hard labour.
Chester Chronicle – Saturday 13 July 1861
Cowardly Assault Upon a Police Officer - Richard Smith, labourer and Ann Smith, his wife, were Charged at the City Police Court, on Monday, with assaulting Pc Pickens. The Officer was standing at the Grosvenor Bridge Toll-Gate, speaking to the Toll Keeper, on Sunday evening, when the prisoners came up to him and asked him to shake hands with them. This he refused to do, when the male prisoner knocked to his hat off, and then got him on the ground, when both of them began ill using him. Mr Musgrave, who witnessed the affair, immediately got assistance. The prisoners were taken into custody. Fined £5 each, or one month’s hard labour.
Chester Chronicle – Saturday 17 August 1861
CHESTER TOWN COUNCIL. PROMOTION POLICE CONSTABLE. At the quarterly meeting of the council held at the Town Hall on Wednesday last.......Alderman Griffith moved the adoption of the recommendation of the Watch Committee:—"That Police Constable Joseph Pickens be promoted to the first class in the police force, for meritorious conduct." It was unnecessary that he should state that Pickens was on duty on Sunday evening, July, 7th in the neighbourhood of the Grosvenor Bridge Toll-house, when he was met by two drunken men and a drunken woman. One of the men got into a discussion with the officer, who advised all three to go home quietly, which advice he had no sooner given than they knocked him on the ground, while the woman threw stones at him. He was badly abused, notwithstanding which managed to retain his hold of one the men until some other officers came to his assistance, and he with the woman were taken into custody. The other man was afterwards apprehended. Mr. J.B. Musgrave and several other individuals witnessed the affair, and they all spoke terms in admiration of the way which Pickens acted; although he drew his staff he did not use it, thus exercising the greatest patience and forbearance. On the day after the assault, the man and woman who were first taken into custody were fined £5 each by the magistrates, in default of payment one month's imprisonment, and the second man was, convicted in a penalty of 20s. and costs (4s. 6d.) or twenty-one days imprisonment. The latter fine paid, but the others not having the needful underwent, the term of imprisonment. Under these circumstances, the committee, to hold out an inducement to deserving officers, recommended that Pickens be promoted to the first class in the force. Alderman Peacock—He witnessed the affair alluded to by Alderman Griffith, and never in all his life did he see a man exercise greater forbearance than Pickens. He acquitted himself admirably, and afforded him (Alderman Peacock) great pleasure to see the way the officer struggled with the men while the woman pelted him with stones. He was worthy of all that had been said of him. He (Alderman Peacock) had been a member of the Watch Committee for a long time, and when complaints had been made about persons having torn policemen’s clothes in rows, he often had his misgivings about them but he thought that if he were on the Watch Committee again he should not hesitate, after what he had seen, in giving compensation to deserving officers like Pickens (hear, hear) . The motion was then put and carried. Mr Parish—Is the first class full, may I ask? Ald. Griffith—Yes, that is the reason the Watch Committee have come before the Council with this recommendation. ' Mr. Farish—Then this resolution is like setting aside the former resolution, and --- ` The Mayor—l would remind you Mr. Farish that the motion was carried before you got up. ... Mr. Farish..I beg your pardon. The Mayor - `The Watch Committee have the power to appoint the men in the first class up to ten; but if they wish to promote an officer to that class, they must come to the Council for express authority. Mr. B. Frost—Mr. Mayor, I would ——The Mayor —Before you speak Mr. Frost, perhaps Mr. Farish has something to say.   Mr. Parish—No, I am quite satisfied with what you have said Mr. Mayor. Mr. Frost—I was going to observe Mr. Mayor that it is understood in the Watch Committee that the next vacancy that occurs In the class will not be filled up. The subject then dropped.
Cheshire Observer – Saturday 17 August 1861
Marriage – on the 29th ult., at Trinity Church, Chester, by the Rev F Aickburn; Mr Richard Andrews, of the Chester Police Force, to Miss Walker, eldest daughter of Mr Walker, farmer of Sealand.
Cheshire Observer – Saturday 21 September 1861
NON-CIVILITY OF THE CHESTER POLICE. To the Editor of the Cheshire Observer. Sir, — On Monday night last, at about nine o'clock, I was standing speaking with a friend in Northgate-street, opposite the Police office door, and saw a man go into the office and speak to the officer on duty; he could not possibly have spoken more than a dozen words when the officer seized him in a most disgraceful manner, and run him out into the middle of the street. The tramp when released turned and looked at the officer’s number, when this model preserver of the peace requested to be informed what the tramp was looking at, and was told in reply that he was taking his number, and would report him to the magistrates. The words were scarcely spoken when the policeman said, “there it is," and struck the tramp violently across the face. It seems that the poverty-stricken tramp, reduced to the necessity of applying to the tender mercies of the Chester police for a crust and a pallette of straw could not stand this, so he took off his coat and shewed fight to the individual in blue, who at once took him into custody. He will be brought up before the magistrates this morning (Tuesday) and I must refer your readers to the police reports for the result. What will this model policeman charge him with? There are, no doubt, very many persons who apply for relief who do not deserve it, in fact are not really in need of it; but whether they deserve relief or not is this the way they should be treated? I should recommend the tradesmen in the neighbourhood to carefully watch their plate glass fronts, as this mode of treating tramps is not a sure preserver of windows. This is not a solitary case, and the matter should be looked into. Yours, etc. “Man in the Streets." Chester, 16th September.
Chester Chronicle – Saturday 28 September 1861
CHESTER COUNTY COURT. (Before J. W. Harden, Esq., Judge). FRIDAY, Sept. 20. ALLEGED FALSE IMPRISONMENT AND ASSAULT.—(JURY CASE) Thomas Williamson Jones and Mary Elizabeth Broadhurst Jones, Chester, v. John Lowe, goldsmith, Chester, and Sergeant Richard Myles, Chester. This was an action to recover £50 damages for that the defendants, on the 18th of February last, in the shop of Mr. Thomas Davies, linen draper, Bridge-street Row, assaulted and caused to be assaulted the said Mary Elizabeth Broadhurst Jones, and took hold of and detained and imprisoned her in the shop upon false charge of her having committed a felony, to the damage of the said Thomas Williamson Jones and Mary Elizabeth Broadhurst Jones to the above amount. Mr Swetenham instructed by Mr Johnson Roberts, appeared (for) the plaintiffs; Mr Ford for Mr Lowe; and Mr T. V. Royle for Sergeant Myles. The case created considerable interest, and the court was crowded throughout its hearing. Mr. Swetenham, in opening the case to the jury said—The defendant, Mr John Lowe, a highly respectable tradesman in this city, and is well known as carrying on as extensive goldsmith's business in Bridge-street row. The other defendant is a policeman, belonging to the force of this city. Mr. Jones is an auctioneer, also carrying on business in Chester, and a short time previous to the 18th February, he was married to a young lady named Elizabeth Broadhurst Jones. About the middle of February last, Mr. Lowe had the misfortune to lose two valuable rings, and came to the conclusion that some woman who had been in the shop had stolen them. On the 18th February, Mrs. Broadhurst Jones,, accompanied by her Sister-in-law, went to the shop occupied Mr. Davies, draper, who was selling off a quantity of winter stock, and in doing so passed Mr. Lowe's shop. She was looking at some goods in the shop, when, all at once, she felt herself accosted, and in the custody of a policeman. She was very much astonished at such a proceeding, and wanted to know what the policeman was doing. Mr. Lowe made some remark to the policeman, and said she had changed her dress or he could have sworn to her. The policeman then released his hold, and Mr. Lowe, without a single word of apology or regret, and walked out of the shop, leaving the plaintiff to take what care she could of herself. She afterwards left the shop to go to her own home, and in doing so she passed Mr. Lowe's shop, and saw him there with a policeman. He then had an opportunity of making an apology to her, or expressing his regret for his mistake, but nothing of the kind was attempted. Galling as this would be to anybody, it was more especially so to a young lady who had been but recently married. On her way home she complained that she was ill to her sister-in-law, and she was obliged to go into Mr. Shrubsole's shop, who administered stimulants to her. After she had become sufficiently well she went home, and there she was so ill that Dr. Dobie was sent for, who attended her once or twice, and she was obliged to remain in her house perfectly quiet for more than a fortnight. She was enciente with her first child, and the effects upon her were serious, and might have been much more so; consequently, it would have been unsafe to have brought her into court as a witness until she got over her confinement, and that was some measure the reason the case had not been brought on an earlier period. Mr. Jones, the husband shortly after this occurrence went to his legal adviser, Mr. Johnson Roberts, and told him the treatment which his wife had been subjected to, and he, consequent upon that wrote a letter to Mr. Lowe, which he thought the jury would think was an extremely proper one. was as follows:— "Newgate-street, 19th Feb., 1861. Sir, l am desired by Mr. T. W. Jones to write to you as to the gross and outrageous injury by you yesterday done to his wife, in accusing her of having robbed you, and causing her to be put in-charge of several policemen, and that the most open and public manner; and that is quite impossible that either Mr. or Mrs. Jones can submit to the great injury you have done them. At present Mrs. Jones is so seriously unwell as the result of it, that it has been found necessary to call in medical assistance to her. It is with great pain to myself personally that I address you on this subject, which a strong sense of duty alone compels me to do, hoping that you will at once give that attention to the matter which obviously demands." I am your obedient servant, " S. J. ROBERTS.     Mr. John Lowe, Bridge-street Row." On the next day, continued Mr. Swetenham, Mr. Roberts received the following letter from Mr. Ford, attorney for Mr. Lowe:—  Chester, 20th Feb. 1861. "Sir, —Mr. Lowe brought me your letter addressed to him, complaining of a gross and outrageous Injury inflicted by him upon Mrs. T. W. Jones in accusing her of having robbed him, and causing her to be put in charge of several police men. Mr. Lowe much regrets any annoyance and inconvenience that may have been occasioned your client, but so far from having given her charge, he prevented her being taken by the police, and when asked by them if they must take her, he said “no.". I feel satisfied the more the matter is inquired into the less will be the blame attached to Mr. Lowe. I shall be happy to explain the whole circumstances to Mr. Jones if he should see fit to call upon me. " Faithfully yours, "HENRY FORD. S. J. Roberts, Esq. In reply to this letter Mr. Roberts wrote the following:— Newgate-street, March 9th, 1861. Sir,—l am desired by my client, Mr. T. W. Jones, to state that if Mr. Lowe win maae written apology for the grievous wrong and injury by him done Mrs. Jones,, such apology to be published, or not, as my client may see fit, and pay £10 to some public institution in the city, to be fixed by client, and pay all expenses which have been incurred relating to the matter, including that of the medical men who were called in, the matter may be arranged. This offer and suggestion is made altogether without prejudice, and will be considered as withdrawn and ulterior proceedings taken, not accepted, and carried. out not later than the 13th instant, am yours obediently, S. J. ROBERTS. Henry Ford., Esq., Solicitor. On the same day Mr Ford wrote the annexed letter to Roberts:— Chester, March, 1861. Sir,—l beg to refer to my last letter. If you should think fit to issue process after the explanation I have given, will accept service on behalf of Mr Lowe. I am your very obedient servant, HENRY FORD. S.J. Roberts, Esq. Inconsequence of this, he said, they came there that day. No apology bad ever been offered to Mrs Jones, although so long a time had elapsed since the occurrence took place. Jones did not seek to put a farthing, in his pocket, all he wanted was the amount he had expended In defending his wife's reputation. They had come there that day to vindicate her character, and he as their representative, would say that they would 'withdraw the action at that moment Mr Lowe would make an apology, pay all the expenses which had been incurred to time, and would give such sum as his Honour would name, to sum public institution. Mr Ford—-We make no imputation upon Jones; and shall put a different colouring upon it before we have finished. Mr Swetenham said he would leave the case for the jury to decide, and the question for their consideration would be, did Mr. Lowe enter Davies's shop and give Mrs Jones in charge the police, if so, they ought to give his clients substantial damages. Mrs Broadhurst Jones deposed to going to the shop Mr T. Davies, draper, the 18th February, and when in the act of purchasing some ribbons, Sergeant Myles turned her round and felt if she bad any rings on her fingers. He asked her name, she told him, and when he asked Mr Lowe (who was standing by) if he was to take her into custody, (Mr Lowe) said "Well I could have sworn to her her dress had not been changed." Mr Lowe went out of the shop, she was not taken into custody. She was pointed at by the crowd which had assembled as the person suspected of having stolen the ring, and the occurrence made her ill that she was attended by Dr. Dobie. James Downey, who was an assistant in the employ of Mr Davies in February last, deposed to seeing the policeman turn Mrs. Jones round and feel her hands. Edward Hopkins, Elizabeth Crawford, and Mrs. Mary Jones gave similar testimony to the last witness. P.C. Thomas-Evans said—On the 18th February last was on duty in the Rows; I remember Myles asking Mr Lowe to into the shop to look Mrs Jones, and he particular; Mr Lowe then went into the shop, and about two minutes after came out again ; Sergeant Myles said to him, " Well, is this her?" or words to that effect, and replied, " is her;" Myles asked him what he intended doing, and said, "Do you give her in charge?" Mr Lowe said "Yes," and then Sergeant Myles went into the shop, Mr Lowe followed, and I went after him; Myles asked Mr Lowe if he was to take Mrs Jones into custody, and he replied, " she had another dress could have sworn to her." Cross-examined by Mr Ford—I don't remember Lowe saying, "Don't take her;" have refused to give my evidence to the defendant's solicitor before to-day. Re-examined by Mr Swetenham—l have refused also give evidence; to the plaintiffs solicitor, by order of the chief constable. Mr Shrubsole, druggist, Northgate-street—Remembered Mrs Jones coming to his shop on the 18th February a fainting state, and he administered some restoratives to her; he afterwards dispensed some prescriptions for her which had been ordered Dr Dobie. Mr Ford in addressing the jury on behalf of John Lowe, said the real gist of the action which they were trying had been brought for false imprisonment and assault was this—Before the plaintiff could recover on the two counts it would necessary for him to prove,—and (Mr Ford) spoke under the direction of his honour-first, as respects the assault, that his client, Lowe, laid hands upon or struck at her, or used threatening words or gestures towards her as laid down by Chief Justice Tindall. As to the false imprisonment, felt sure the charge could not be maintained. What were the real facts of the case, Lowe kept a jewellers shop, he was tradesman of the highest respectability, he had lived in Chester for 60 years and never during that long period had the shadow of a charge been brought against him. His shop was an exceedingly tasty one, a most desirable place for those who were disposed to make purchases from a goldsmith, but he (Mr Ford) regretted to say that sometimes the shop was visited by persons who not only took goods therefrom without paying for them, but who forgot to tell Mr Lowe that they had taken them. (Laughter.) Mr Ford then alluded to the fact of a female having paid Mr Lowe visit on the l0th February last, and who stole a turquoise and diamond ring from his shop, the woman resembling Mrs Jones, in appearance, much "two beans are like each other." should prose that Lowe did not nod at the policeman had been stated, nor do any other act Implying that that policeman was to take Mrs Jones into custody. He never charged her with felony, but what he had done he had a legal right to do. And what had he done? When he missed the ring he gave information to the police, giving a minute description of the woman he suspected of having stolen it. That was on Friday, the 15th February. On Monday, the 18th, three days after Sergeant Myles and P.C. Evans called upon Mr Lowe, saying “We think we have got the woman who robbed you, will you come out and look at her?" Lowe was engaged with some customers at the time and was unable to leave the shop, but at the request of the policeman he allowed one of his men (the porter who had seen the woman in the shop to go out and look at the person, and immediately said "That's her." This was communicated to Mr Lowe, who a short time after proceeded down the Row to Mr Thomas Davies's (draper) shop, into which the female had gone, and when he had seen her back (which was towards the door) he told the policeman that he thought she was the person who had robbed him. He (Mr Ford) did not deny that they went up to Mrs Jones, for they undoubtedly did so for the purpose of looking at her face to see and satisfy themselves if she was the person whom they were in quest. Sergeant Myles might have turned her round (having previously asked her for name (without receiving an answer), he denied that Mr Lowe ever authorised him to do it. had been said that Mr Lowe told the officer to do what he did by nod, perhaps he winked—(laughter)— and the assault complained of reminded , him very forcibly of a story had heard, and which would not be out of place here. A gentleman took a whip and held it over friend, and after jerking it the air for some time said, Consider yourself horsewhipped, sir." The friend the next day took a gun and held it over the head of the other, and said, " Consider yourself shot, sir" (laughter). Hopkins and the other witnesses never heard Mr Lowe give Mrs Jones in charge, nor did they hear him make charge against her. He was not responsible for the acts of the police; they took the law into their own hands they must take the consequences of it. He would earnestly impress this important fact on the minds of the jury; that Mr Lowe was waited upon by the police to go and look at the woman, and he did not go to them.  He went to look at the woman, and in doing so he did no more than his duty. Every one sitting on the jury would have done the same under the circumstances; but when Mr Lowe had seen the features of the woman, he was satisfied she was not  the person who had robbed him; he told the officers so, and she was not given into custody. However unpleasant this might have been, it was no more than a case of mistaken identity, therefore the present action could not maintained. With respect to the false imprisonment it was question for the court to determine, and say whether Mr Lowe maliciously, and without reasonable and probable cause, caused Mrs Jones to be apprehended. As regarded malice, why man could say that Mr Lowe was malicious person—nay he would defy the world to prove that Lowe bore malice to any one. (Applause, which was suppressed by cries of "order" from the high bailiff. Mr Lowe having been told by the police that they thought they had got the right woman, was he to remain in his shop and take no notice of the matter? Why the idea was too absurd to be entertained for one moment; he had a perfect right to look after his property, and was bound to bring the offenders to justice. (Hear, hear, and "order.") Now a word about the way which they had treated Mr Jones. Mr Swetenham had commented upon the correspondence which had passed between himself and Mr Roberts. He. (Mr Ford) had no hesitation saying this was an attorney's action—it was Roberts' action and not Mr Jones's. Mr Williamson Jones and his wife did not want to come into court, but by the untiring energy of their advocate they had found themselves there. Mr Swetenham had been kind enough to read Mr Roberts' letter to Mr Lowe, and perhaps the Court would pardon him if be read that legal effusion his own way. Mr Roberta in his letter said, "Sir, I am desired Mr T. W. Jones to write to you as to the gross and outrageous injury by you yesterday done to his wife, in accusing her of having robbed you, and causing her to be put in charge of several policemen, and that in the most open and public manner." Of  course this was more plausible than real, and the jury must take it as such—and then the letter went on to state, "I hardly need point out to you the very serious nature of this matter, and that is quite impossible that either Mr or Mrs " Jones can submit to the great injury you have thus done them." Of course not, when told not to do so by Roberts. The letter further stated, " At present Mrs Jones so seriously unwell as the result of it, that it bas been found necessary to call in medical assistance for her. Before he proceeded to finish reading the letter he would just observe that Mr Roberts was formerly the solicitor to the Chester Goldsmiths' Company, but in consequence having been dismissed from that office his feelings towards Mr Lowe—who was one of the principal members of the company—were of anything but the most friendly kind, and would in great measure account for the persevering manner in which this case had been into Court. (After a lengthy addresses on behalf of both sides, the defence was given, and again the arguments were given by both sides. This was the case for Sergeant Miles, and Mr. Swetenham addressed the jury upon the whole of the evidence which bad been given on behalf of the different parties concerned the action, and repudiated the charges which bad been brought against Mr. Johnson Roberts, by Mr. Ford, as unjust and uncalled for. His Honour summed up, and recapitulated the whole the evidence. He was sorry they had been engaged so long in case, which might on the 18th February have been settled in a few minutes. He could not but think that Mr. Lowe had been badly advised. It had been said that it was attorney's action, but it appeared to him it was attorney's defence. The jury returned a verdict against Mr. Lowe, damages and acquitted Miles.
Cheshire Observer – Saturday 2 November 1861
EXTRAORDINARY CASE OF SUICIDE IN CHESTER. Jemima Morgan, a respectably dressed, and very good looking young woman, about 24 years of age was charged at the City Police Court, on Monday, before the Mayor, Colonel Lloyd, Dr. Jones, and J. Rogers, Esq., with feloniously attempting to administer to one Thomas Henry Davies, two ounces of laudanum, with intent thereby than wilfully, and of malice aforethought the said Henry Thomas Davies to poison, kill, and murder. The principal facts connected with the case so far as they are at present known will be gathered from the following evidence :— George Charles Walker, assistant house surgeon at the Chester Infirmary, on being sworn deposed- About half-past one o'clock this morning I was called up to attend to two cases of poisoning by laudanum. I went to the surgery and found Thomas Henry Davies and Jemima Morgan there, both of whom were suffering from the effects of laudanum and alcoholic drink. Davies was insensible and incapable of being aroused; his breath was very feeble, and well nigh spent. I at once performed artificial respiration, and applied cold effusion to his chest and face. The Mayor — Did you get the assistance of the house surgeon? Witness— No. Dr. Jones— Was he in the house? Witness — Yes, he was very unwell, and I did not call him up; I had ample assistance from the nurses. Examination continued— l also tried other necessary means; but notwithstanding all my efforts he died at a quarter past nine o'clock this morning. I did not think it safe to try the stomach pump, the least pressure upon the throat causing respiration to cease. I am of opinion that death was caused by opium and alcoholic drinks. With respect to Jemima Morgan, she was capable of taking an emetic, and I gave her one immediately, which caused her to vomit freely, and tended in a great measure to restore her. I kept her muscles in motion by walking her up and down the ward with two nurses, and not allowing her to go to sleep. I also gave her a stimulant in the form of strong tea. She began to mend about four o'clock and gradually recovered. Between three and five o'clock in the morning she told me how it had happened. She said, I went to Liverpool with Thomas Henry Davies yesterday. After being there some time we had some refreshments and took a late train for Chester. On arriving at the Chester station we walked into the refreshment room and had a glass of bitter beer each. During our journey from Birkenhead to Chester be showed me a bottle, which he said contained laudanum, and that he was determined to poison himself. I said you shall do no such thing, and at the same time took the bottle from his hands and emptied it out of the window, saying to him, no, no, you never shall, for if you die I'll die also. From the refreshment room at Chester Station we walked to Frodsham Street, and called at Mrs. Wasem's, the Bricklayer's Arms, (where they had been living together.) From there we went to the Saracen's Head, and had some beer. After a short time he called in at another public house, and had some more drink. During the evening he repeatedly talked about poisoning himself. About eight o'clock we went back to Frodsham Street, and he wrote a prescription, which the little boy of the house took to the nearest druggist in Foregate-street. About 11 o'clock we went up stairs and sat in our room. After being there about a quarter of an hour, Davies again expressed his wish to take the poison. We then agreed that he should pour out my portion and that I should pour out his. He saw that I delayed to touch the glass when the fluid was poured out, and he said, "I will take all of it." We then filled our glasses with some bitter beer that we had purchased whilst walking along the streets. I still failed to touch mine, and he leaned over as if to take all of it. I then took it up and swallowed the whole of the contents of the glass — the laudanum and the bitter beer mixed. He then swallowed his portion. We got into bed, and in about a quarter of an hour after he began to breathe rather heavily. I became alarmed, got up, and called for assistance. Two persons who were in the house came upstairs immediately, and seeing the state in which we were, sent off for a surgeon. On his arrival, he recommended them to convey us to the Infirmary. I did not give Davies the laudanum; he took op the glass and swallowed the contents. I put in his glass about two ounces, and I believe he put the same quantity in mine. I had been living with him about three weeks. He gave me this ring (now in the possession of the house surgeon of the Infirmary). He came from Shropshire. He has had a great deal of money lately, with which he was to have set up in business, but instead of doing so he has spent it. All this has caused him to despond very much, and on that account he determined to do away with himself. He has been doing nothing for the past three months; before that time he was an assistant with a chemist and druggist at Rhyl. I have been in Chester about six months, I did not know Davies before he made my acquaintance. I left home because I hated my father; he behaved very badly towards his family, I have several sisters and brothers. I am determined not to return home." She then said, "I wish to know how Henry is." I fold her that he was asleep. She said, "How is it the poison has taken such an effect upon him and not upon me I wish it had taken effect, I wish to die with him." Upon the deceased was found three letters, in which it is supposed he has given his reasons for committing suicide. One letter was addressed to his mother, "Mrs. Paddock, Ridge, Whittington, near Oswestry, Shropshire ;" another to Jemima Morgan's father, " Mr. William Morgan, Avon Cottage, near Oswestry, Salop," and the other was to " Signor Woolf, High-street, Rhyl" The prisoner was remanded to Wednesday, at twelve o'clock. ADJOURNED EXAMINATION. The inquest was resumed on Wednesday, before Mr. Hostage, and in the presence of several magistrates. The first witness was Mr. G. C. Walker, who, after a reference to his previous evidence, said he had made a post mortem examination of the body, and that confirmed him in the opinion that the deceased had died from the effects of opium. He made a minute at the time, of which the following is a copy: — A post mortem examination made 26 1/2  hours after death— External appearance healthy. On turning over the body some frothy fluid came from the mouth, it smelled strongly of spirit of opium. On examining the head there was a great congestion of the superficial vessels of the brain, membranes, and sinasses - large blood vessels - the substance of the brain healthy, with the exception of the cerebellum, which was rather softer than natural. Thorax, extensive adhesion of the left pleura, the Interior lobe of the left lung slightly congested. Thorax generally supercharged with blood, the abdomen rather longer than natural, kidneys healthy, having a spirituous smell, combined with the trace of that of opium, bladder distended with urine, no peculiar smell; stomach contained two ounces of a dirty brown fluid of the consistence of gruel, and smelling strongly with opium The mucuous membrane much engorged with blood, intestines throughout healthy. Dr. Brittain corroborated Mr. Walker's evidence, and then Mr. S. W. Jones, surgeon, said: I was sent for about twelve o'clock on Sunday night. Police constable Lindsay asked me to go and see a young man who was said to be poisoned in Frodsham-street. I went in company with the police constable and Sergeant Myles to the Bricklayer's Arms, and fouud a young man and woman in bed together. The woman was screaming and clinging to the young man's body. The prisoner, Jemima Morgan, is the young woman. I did not notice anything in the room when I entered it, but went straight to the bed. I perceived the young man was breathing very heavily. I had great difficulty in separating them. She exclaimed, “I will not be parted from my dear Harry." When I had succeeded in separating them, I made a minute examination of the young man, and found him suffering from a heavy dose of narcotic poison. I endeavoured to arouse him, but could not succeed. I then directed Sergeant Myles to send the constable for a cab to convey them to the Infirmary. Before the cab came, the prisoner told me a similar statement to that related by Mr. George C. Walker. W hen l made a remark to Sergeant Myles that the deceased had taken a heavy dose of laudanum, the prisoner made answer and said “we have both taken the same dose, why has it not taken the same effect upon me? I wish to die with him." She then pointed to the dressing table) and said, there are the bottles. I took up the bottles and examined them; they both swelled of laudanum, and contained perhaps about ten drops each. I remarked to the prisoner that the labels had been scratched off the bottles, when she said, “Harry scratched them off in order that he might not get the chemist into trouble." During the time I was conversing with the prisoner, she did not appear to be under the influence of a narcotic; she appeared very hysterical; she asked for a glass of water, which I gave to her and soon afterwards she vomited about half a basinful of fluid, which smelled very strongly of laudanum; I could not distinguish anything besides the laudanum. She appeared much relieved after vomiting, and told me that Harry had determined to do it for a long time, and she was determined to die with him. After all this conversation with the prisoner (who was down stairs), I went up stairs to see the deceased, and to examine the room. I noticed the table cloth very much discoloured and upon smelling it, I discovered had laudanum been willed on it; I also put my tongue to it; there would have been about half an ounce spilled on the cloth; it had soaked through, and there was also some on the table. The deceased was carried down stairs to the cab; the prisoner walked down herself. Cross-examined— During the time I was in company with the prisoner she did not appear to be suffering from anything but violent grief. I did not notice that she had been drinking. She seemed hysterical and very much excited; but whether this arose from drink I am unable to state. I smelled at a large bottle which the prisoner told me had contained bitter beer. —.Esther Wasem, of the Bricklayer's Arms, Frodsham-street, said — The deceased came to lodge at my house a fortnight ago, and the prisoner came with him. They passed as man and wife. They slept at my house every night during the fortnight except Saturday night, when they went to Liverpool. They returned to my house on Sunday evening about seven o'clock, and appeared sober. They remained in the house an hour, when they went out. They came in again about five minutes past 11o'clock. There was no fire in their room, so I asked them if they would come into the kitchen to warm themselves. The prisoner made answer and said no, they were going to bed. The deceased shook hands with my husband, said good night, and they then went up stairs. Soon afterwards one of them came down stairs again for two glasses. We then went to bed ourselves. When we had been in bed about a quarter of an hour the prisoner came on the landing and screamed "Mrs. Wasem, we are poisoned; Harry has given me poison, and I have given it to him." At first I thought she was dreaming. I went with her to the room where they slept, when she pointed to two bottles and, said "those are them.” I was very much frightened, and said to her, "Oh no, you have done no such thing." She replied, "Oh yes, we have." I then called my husband to send for a doctor and for a policeman immediately. In the meantime I asked her how she could do such a thing. She said, "We had both made up our minds to do it." l asked her where she had got the laudanum. She said, Mrs. Brookes little boy fetched it. I asked her what was in the large bottle. She said that they had brought it from Mr. Brookes, and asked me if I would take it back; it had had bitter ale in. All the three bottles were empty at this time. The table cloth was very wet and discoloured; it smelled very strong of laudanum. The prisoner cried very much, and appeared to be in very low spirits. The deceased was in bed quite senseless and groaning. I spoke to him, but he made no answer. When Dr. Jones came I showed him the room. The deceased was carried down stairs in a blanket; the prisoner walked down. There was a letter left on the dressing table for me, which I put in my pocket. The prisoner told me there were two other letters at the City Arms, to be sent off to the deceased's and her friends. The letter for me was folded, but was not in an envelope. I don't know whose handwriting it is. When the prisoner told me to take the letter off the table, she said, " that will explain it all." The following is the letter : — " Mrs. Wasem,— l must deliver all Lizzy's things up to night to Mrs. Morgan, who will call in a few days, and will claim everything that belongs to her or me. The ring that is upon Jemima's finger you must not take off upon any circumstances, G. H. Davies." Sergeant Myles deposed to having had three letters given to him by Mr. Brookes, of the City Arms. He handed them to the chief constable. The Chief Constable produced the letters. The first was addressed :— Signor Volpe, High-street, Rhyl, North Wales :— " Chester, October 27tb, 1861. " My Dear Sir, — Please send per return one of my prints, and you will oblige, " Yours truly,  G. H. Davies. " Address—' Miss A. Brookes, City Arms, Frodsham Street, Chester.' In a few days I will send you the cash for the amount of what I owe you, therefore send your account to Mr. G. H. Davies, Blossoms Hotel, Chester." The second letter was directed to Mr. Wm. Morgan, Aston Cottage, near Oswestry, Shropshire : — " My Dear Father and Mother, — If you like to take the trouble, you will find me at Mrs. Wasem's, Frodsham-street, Chester, on the 28th October, dead, so, for God's sake, come and see me and she who loves me respectfully interred. You can keep my friend's clothes for ever. Be sure and come and fetch the box immediately, and any other luggage that I may possess.  Jemima does not owe Mrs. Wasem a fraction, therefore I trust you will not give anything. " I remain, yours affectionately, " Jemima Mohgan. “Turn over”.— For God's sake bury us both together, because our love was not of a short and fickle disposition." The third letter was addressed to Mrs, Paddock, Ridge, Whittington, near Oswestry, Shropshire :— " Chester, October 28th, 1861. " My Dear Mother, — You will find me in Frodsham Street, Chester, dead, so you must come immediately, and inter Jemima and I respectfully, and according to the rites of the Established Church. " I am, my dear mother, with fervent love, "G. H. Davies. " Address, Mrs. Wasem, Frodsham -street, Chester." The letters were all written by deceased ; the prisonerr only signing the one addressed to her parents.  Mr. Brookes was the next witness. He said the deceased left the letter with him to be posted the next morning. When deceased and prisoner left his house that night they took a bottle of bitter beer with them, and asked if he had a boy who would go an errand. He said he had, and let his son go. Deceased gave the boy a piece of paper, said that what he was going for would cost ninepence, and then gave him half-a-crown to pay for it. The boy deposed to going to Mr. Brierly, druggist, for the deceased. He got a bottle, which, with the change, he gave to the deceased. Mr. H. Brierley said— l remember the last, witness coming to my shop on Sunday night; he brought this piece of piece of paper ;it was asking for two ounces of laudanum; I supplied it to them in this bottle (produced), and put a label on it. I asked him if it was for a doctor. He said he did not know. [The Coroner spoke in strong terms to Mr. Brierley upon the careless manner in which be appeared to have served the boy with this laudanum, and said that had he not served it, in all probability the life of the deceased would have been saved. An assistant to Mr. Shrubsole, of Northgate-street, also deposed to supplying 2 ounces of laudanum to a person who brought a written paper to order it. A bottle produced was identified as the one he gave. Sergeant Sutton read a list of articles which he had found at various places belonging to the deceased. Mr Cartwright said he felt at a loss to know what the prisoner was charged with. He did not know how the coroner viewed the case, whether as an attempt to administer poison, or as a capital charge. He did not know whether he was in a position to ask him. The Coroner— lt is a capital charge in my opinion. Mr. Cartwright submitted from the statement of the prisoner, that with reference to the crime of murder, which most hare been passing in her mind, she must have had a malice, and intended to have committed the crime of murder by taking the life of the deceased. He (Mr, Cartwright) thought that under the circumstances, the prisoner could not be committed for a capital offence, and certainly not in the attempt. The Coroner, in addressing the jury, said that this painful inquiry was coming to a close, and that he could agree with Mr. Cartwright in the facts he had stated on behalf of the prisoner, yet he could not agree with him in point of law. In looking through several law cases he found one similar in nature to the one before them, where it said, " If two persons mutually agree to commit suicide together, and the means employed to produce death only take effect on one, the survivor will, in point of law, be guilty of the murder of the one who died." It would be for the jury to say if they were of that opinion, and to say whether she was aiding and abetting. His opinion, from the evidence given, was that she had done what in law made herself liable for murder. He then read several similar cases taken fern Cannington Bayne's Reports, Vol. 8, in which the parties had been brought in guilty of murder. He then went through the evidence that had been given, after which the jury retired for ten minutes, when they returned with the following verdict: — "We find that the deceased died from taking laudanum while in a sound state of mind, administered by his own hand, and that the prisoner was accessory to the act." The prisoner after hearing the decision of the jury fainted away, but soon recovered. She was committed to take her trial at the assizes. The body of the deceased was interred in the Cemetery on Wednesday night.
Wrexham Advertiser – Saturday 30 November 1861
DISTRICT NEWS. ALMOST TOTAL DESTRUCTION OF THE QUEEN RAILWAY HOTEL BY FIRE. This magnificent hotel was the scone, on Monday evening of a conflagration, the like of which has not been witnessed in Chester for many years, The first intimation of the catastrophe was occasioned by some smoke which was seen about five o'clock by a man at the railway station issuing from the back part of the roof of the building at the north-eastern end. He immediately went across and informed the inmates of the circumstance. Not a moment was lost in giving the alarm, and in a very short time the engine from the lead works arrived on the spot. Flames now began to be distinctly visible, but nothing serious was apprehended; as it was thought the fire would be speedily subdued: but, although the engine was there ready to work, no water could be obtained. Nearly one hour elapsed before any water plug could be found, which had been covered by the gravel placed on the road in the front of the hotel, and then again some time was lost before the hose was brought to bear upon the flames, which during this time had been making rapid headway. The two city engines, the reel, and the great Western engine from Saltney were also soon on the spot; but stiII all efforts were fruitless through the want of a sufficient supply of water. Two of the hose were at length carried through the station, and now that the engines were brought into play a large volume of water was successfully thrown upon the burning building. By 7 o'clock the whole of the roof at the back had fallen in. There appears to be no doubt that the fire originated in the boiler room. Mr Hill, the chief constable was indefatigable in his exertions in superintending the arrangements of his Brigade (fire) We are sorry to add that during the night, when Mr Hill was directing the hose in the direction of the thickest of the fire, a portion of the outer wall fell in, from which he received severe injuries, but we are happy to state that he is soon likely to recover from their effects. Police Constable J. Hughes was also hurt at the same time. The Hotel is insured for £15,000 in the Royal Insurance Office.
Cheshire Observer – Saturday 4 January 1862
POLICE INTELLIGENCE. CHESTER. Saturday. Assaulting a Police Sergeant. — A bricklayer named Thomas Denson, was charged with having, while in a state of drunkenness violently assaulted Police Sergeant Hickey. It was shown in evidence that on Thursday afternoon the defendant entered his brother-in-law's house, slightly the worse for drink, and commenced breaking the furniture. Sergeant Hickey was called in to take the defendant into custody, and whilst he was attempting to do so the defendant struck him violently on the cheek, knocked his hat off, and severely kicked his legs. P.C. Williams went to the assistance of Hickey, and by their united efforts removed the defendant to the police office. Fined 20s and costs, and in default of payment, to be imprisoned for one month. Also to find two sureties in £2 10s each and himself to be bound over in £5, to keep the peace for sir months.
Another Assault on the Police.— James Jordan, labourer, of Boughton was also charged with the same offence. About half-past one o'clock, on Saturday morning, the defendant was fighting in Frodsham Street. P. C. Williams went to the combatants and parted them, and advised them to go to their homes. The defendant refused to move and struck the officer over his left eye on his mouth, and other parts of his body, when, with the assistance of P. C. Laxton, the defendant was taken into custody. Fined 20s. and costs, or in default one month's imprisonment with, hard labour.
Chester Chronicle - Saturday 22 March 1862
On Wednesday William Evans, joiner, of this city, appeared before the Mayor, Col Lloyd, and J. Rogers, Esq. on the following charge, which was stated by Mr. Hill:—This man is charged, your worship, with going into an unoccupied house in Watergate-street, belonging to Col. Wrench, Sunday last, and stripping it of all the bells and gas-piping, which he put on one side in heaps ready to carry away. H also commenced to take the lead from the water cistern; the overflow pipe has been taken away and broken in two, one portion of which was found on the premises, and the corresponding portion was discovered in a drawer in the prisoner's house, along with a portion of the gas fitting also taken away. I stationed two police officers in the house on Sunday night to watch, but nothing occurred until the following morning, when this man walked into the place with a bass bag, hammer, axe, chisel, and ether tools (produced), evidently for the purpose of stripping the cistern of the lead and completing his nefarious design. He was then apprehended by P.C. Chambers; and I will now call before you Mr. Chesters, who has charge of the house in question, and who visited it on Saturday and also on Sunday.. Mr. Chesters after stating that he had charge of the house, said that he had occasion to go into it on Saturday last, when everything was alright—nothing being disturbed at that time. On Sunday afternoon, in consequence of information he received respecting an escape of gas at the house, he again went there, when he found that the whole pf the bells and gas fittings had been cut away from the walls, and had been placed in heaps in the back kitchen and back parlour, ready to taken away. He identified the overflow pipe, which had been cut away from the cistern, and which corresponded exactly with that found in the prisoners’ house. He also identified the bells and gas fittings, which were uninjured and in their proper places on Saturday. Detective Snell deposed to searching the prisoner's house and finding the portion of the overflow pipe and the gas fitting already alluded to. P.C. Chambers said he was watching the empty house on Monday morning, and soon after eight o'clock the prisoner entered the back door, carrying with him a bass hag and several tools used by joiners. He apprehended him in the yard, and when he got him to the offiee, he asked him (prisoner) what he wanted in the yard when he took him into custody? Prisoner said, "I wanted see the men who are working there." The officer told him there were no men working; there, when he replied; "I expected to find some plasterers there, and I wanted to beg some stuff from them." This was the case. Having been duly the prisoner declined saying anything, and was committed to take his trial at the forthcoming sessions.
Cheshire Observer – Saturday 26 April 1862
A ROW WITH THE POLICE.— James Mcllett, Patrick Hodgkins, and James Clauchy were brought up charged with riotous and disorderly conduct on Sunday night. Police Constable Pickens (14) stated that about half- past eleven o'clock on the evening in question he was taking an improper female to the lock-up, on the evening in question when the prisoners and several others attacked him, and succeeded in effecting a rescue. He had, however, with the assistance of a brother officer, managed to arrest those present. Police-constable Kinnealey (24) who was also present at the time, corroborated the statement of the previous witness, saying that he had been much abused himself, Clauchy having struck him and knocked off his hat. Two militia men, who had not been taken, were also present assisting the prisoners. The prisoners totally denied the truth of the charge, and witnesses were produced to prove their innocence. Richard Clauchy swore that he was passing along Steam Mill-street a few minutes before the disturbance took place, and he saw the constable (Kinnealey) talking to a loose woman. He heard the woman ask the officer where they could go and have some drink, and the latter replied, "only for his comrade" he could get it in any place. The constable was worse than anyone else at the time Kinnealey, in answer to this witness's statement, said the woman referred to did invite him to a public-house, but he refused to accompany her, and told her he was a teetotaller [sic] to get rid of her importunities. She then asked him to go with her and he could have a glass of gingerette. The woman at that time was not disorderly. The Mayor— Did you offer to take any drink from her? The Officer— “On my oath I did not”. The next witness examined was Margaret Clauchv, who stated that she was in Steam Mill-street about twenty minutes before the occurrence, when one of the prisoners wanted Kinnealey to join him in a drink and the constable's reply was, "he (Pickens) is a bad fellow, I could get plenty of drink only for him." Witness, however, did not see much of the row. The Mayor— Well, what can you say about it? Witness, energetically – “l will take my oath Clauchy did not strike the policeman”. Both the witnesses are relatives of the prisoner Clauchy. After a brief deliberation, the Mayor said that the charge against the men had been established clearly to the satisfaction of the court. There had nothing, in the opinion of the bench, been made out against the police-constable, who was subjected to the violence of the prisoners. Both the witnesses produced were relatives of one of the men, and as far as he (the Mayor) was concerned, he did not believe one word of their evidence. Kinnealey asked permission to say a few words in his own justification, but the Mayor said that any explanation was entirely unnecessary, as he stood perfectly cleared from the imputation tried to be cast upon him. The bench generally expressed their concurrence in this opinion. The prisoners were then fined 10s. each and costs, which was paid before they left the court.
Chester Chronicle - Saturday 7 June 1862
Assaulting the Police.— John Fleming, alias Taylor, an old gaol bird, and who stated that he came from Birmingham, was charged at the Police Court on Thursday, before the Mayor (J. Trevor, Esq.) Col. Lloyd, Dr. R. P. Jones, W. Wardell, Esq, with being drunk and disorderly; he was also charged with assaulting P.C. Cullen in the execution of his duty. It appears that the prisoner was drunk, and creating a great disturbance in Boughton, on Wednesday, and on the officer going to him he instantly lay down and pretended to be asleep. Cullen was about to lift him up, when Fleming caught him by the legs and tumbled him over, and afterwards jumped and kicked and struggled violently to get away. P.C. Beresford came up at the time to Cullen’s assistance, and by their united efforts the ruffian was taken into custody. Fined 20s. and costs; in default og payment two months imprisonment.
Cheshire Observer – Saturday 4 October 1862
ANOTHER BURGLARY AT MR WOOD’S - On Saturday night Mr. Wood's ironmonger, establishment in Bridge-street, was broken into by some persons who must have possessed an accurate knowledge of the premises and locality. Since the last occasion, a few weeks ago, on which Mr. Wood's place was robbed, he has been in the habit of removing nearly all his money from the premises at night, and consequently the burglars could not congratulate themselves in this instance in having succeeded in a large cash transaction. Unusual precaution has also been taken since the period alluded to, to secure the premises by extra bolts, etc. These difficulties, however, seemingly presented no material obstacles on this occasion, for an entrance was effected by lifting up the window and violently unhinging the strongly barred shutters protecting it, leading to the warehouse at the back. The communication to the shop from thence was comparatively easy; as on the former occasion the glass in the intervening door was taken out and broken in the attempt, and the desk suspected of containing money forced open, but twopence or threepence in copper was all that rewarded this perseverance. No other property was missed, and the hall door in the row was selected as the means of egress, it having been found unfastened on Sunday morning. The depredators are unknown. The most extraordinary circumstance in connection with this case is, that although two of the new honorary police force (Mr. Tait, clothier, and Mr. James Jones, military bootmaker) were on patrol in this locality the whole of that night, they were ignorant of the robbery until informed of it on the following morning. A meeting of the Patrol Committee has been held on the subject, and the two gentleman, we believe, have been suspended. [We quote the foregoing from the Courant of Tuesday. The facts however are far from correct. It is not true that Mr. Tait and Mr. James Jones were on patrol in the vicinity on that night, and that being so the Patrol Committee could not have suspended the two gentlemen named.
The Attempted Burglars Foregate-street.— Jolm Collett alias Holmes, was brought up at the Police Court on Monday, on remand, charged with attempting to break into the shop of Mr Evans, clothier, Foregate street, the particulars of which appeared in last week's Chronicle. Prisoner, after being cautioned in the usual way, made a statement to the effect that the night on which the alleged attempt was made he had been drinking to a late hour in Mr. Jackson's public-house; on leaving he met with a female in Northgate-street, and they proceeded  in quest of more drink. The woman, after some time, left him and he fell asleep the rear of Messrs Churton's Auction Mart, whither he had gone: he was asleep about twenty minutes when he awoke, and heard a noise; he got up and stumbled nearly across the road, when a police officer came and laid hold of him, and asked him what was doing there; he went alone with the officer for about ten or fifteen yards, when the policeman struck him across the arm, at the same time by striking letting go his hold; he took this opportunity of slipping off his coat, and ran up and fell over a boat into the canal; he went from there to Windmill-lane, where he lay down and went to sleep, and remained so until officer (P. C. Lawlor) came up and took him into custody, and he went with the constable to the police office. The prisoner was committed to the quarter sessions.
THE BURGLAR FOUD ON MESSRS BECKETT’S PREMISES. On Monday last, John Keeling,  joiner, was- brought up at the police-court, before the Mayor (John Trevor, Esq.),. Colonel Lloyd, Major French, Robert Ray, Meadows Frost, William Wardell, and John Williams, Esquires, charged on remand from Saturday, with breaking into the establishment of Messrs. Beckitt Brothers, Bridge-street. The court was inconveniently crowded persons anxious glimpse of the prisoner, and hear the particulars of the charge against him, the more so because he was always considered to be like Caesar's wife, a  person above suspicion.—A boy named. Thomas Caesar, in the employ of the prosecutor, was the first witness examined.. He said that he was the son of Augustus Caesar, and that on Friday night he made up Messrs. Beckett’s warehouse, about five minutes past seven o'clock, and all then seemed to secure.—John J. Harland, manager to Messrs. Beckett, deposed—On the night question I happened to be up later than usual, in the shop; whilst so writing I heard a strange noise, as though proceeding from the warehouse beneath; this might be about half-past nine o'clock; I listened for a while, and kept very quiet, and heard; the noise still going on; I made sure that was someone in the place, and trying to get through the trap-door, which is under the counter and leads to the apartment below; the trap door was wedged down, and I went very quietly over to it to see it was secure; I then heard the footsteps of some one underneath, and came back, feeling convinced some one was on the premises, and as I did not like to leave the shop to call any one I finished the letter, and by and by one the clerks, came from the house to stamp the letters for the post; I told him what I had heard, and directed him to go for a policeman, who arrived in a very few minutes after. I got a candle for the officer, and took away the wedge from the trap-door, and whilst the policeman descended the steps I held the light for him, but before that I again heard footsteps underneath. The officer called out "who is there?" but received answer, and he began to look through the place, but first could not find any one; he then made a second search, and saw the prisoner come out of the corner, and he was apprehended. The prisoner has been constantly at work on the premises for a number of years, and knew every hole and corner about the place. I accompanied the prisoner and the officer to the police station, and saw him searched, and on his person were found a skeleton key, chisel, a candle, and some matches, (all of which were produced); I returned to the shop with the officer, and on searching the place where the prisoner had been, we found lying in one of the boxes, amongst some of which he had been concealed, a skeleton key (produced), which on being applied to the safe, fitted it exactly, but would only turn the lock halfway round. —P.C. George Chambers, No. 17, examined—l was called into Messrs. Becketts' shop about ten o'clock on Friday night, and I made a search on the premises, and ultimately found the prisoner; I asked him what he wanted there but he made no reply, but to a question which I put to him, if there were any more with him, he answered there were not—Mr. Joseph Beckett stated that he saw the larger key (produced) tried in the outside door of his warehouse on Saturday morning, and it locked it and unlocked it perfectly, as if it had been made for the purpose. None of the articles produced were his property, and the safe key was a very good imitation of the original. He said the prisoner had been working on the premises for several years, and he had placed every confidence in him —The prisoner, who made no statement, was commuted for to the sessions.
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 27 December 1862
CHESTER POLICE COURT. MONDAY. (Before C. Potts, E. C. Walker, & J. Trevor, Esqrs., and Dr. P. Jones.) Daniel Vickers charged a man named James Bird, with assaulting him about half past eleven on last Saturday night. He stated that he entered a spirit vaults in company with his brother-in-law, who was drunk at the time, and the prisoner immediately commenced teasing his brother-in-law about his mustachios. Complainant remonstrated with prisoner, and was instantly assaulted by him, when he gave information to the police. John Collins assisted the prisoner in his resistance, and assaulted the officer. Police-constable Boden gave corroborative evidence. Bird was fined for the assault on the complainant, and Collins for the assault on the police whilst in the execution of their duty,. Fined each in 20s., or in default one month's imprisonment with hard labour. TUESDAY. (Before C. Potts, E. C. Walker, and J. Trevor, Esqrs., and Dr. P. Jones ) Assaulting The Police.— John M'Caslin was fined 20s and costs, or 21 days imprisonment, for assaulting P.C. Boden, in Frodsham-street, whilst in the execution of his duty. About three o'clock on Sunday morning the officer heard a noise as of glass breaking, and on going towards the place from whence the sound proceeded he saw the prisoner running away; he had a jug in his hand, and as the officer was following him he aimed a blow with it at witnesses’ head; but happily the blow did not take effect, as he stooped down and the jug struck his hat, knocking it off.— P.C Farrell deposed to assisting the last witness.— The prisoner, in defence, said that he had had nothing to do with the broken window, and was on his way to procure some ale when he saw the policeman.
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 had no sooner arrived than Wynne, without seeking to ascertain if his sergeant (who unfortunately happened to be absent at the time) was in attendance, rushed 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 have 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, but 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, cold 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 the 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 in a fighting attitude, that Wynne took hold of one of them, and that thereupon the other "blocked" his (Wynne's) hat, which he sent over his eye; that Wynne then struck the man who did this with his staff, he (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. Werburgh-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 defendants 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 having 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 5s, 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 7th February 1863
THE LATE FIRE AT THE CHESTER TOWN HALL.          THE COMMITTEE OF INVESTIGATION.
This very lengthy (full page) article relates to a fire in the Chester Town Hall, and which, was supposed, had commenced in the police office. The first witness to give evidence was Charles Speed: (Only his evidence to the Committee has been shown here due to the great length of the report, and is included as it shows Charles was now working again.)
EVIDENCE Charles Speed, a pensioned officer, but now an earthenware dealer in St. Werburgh Street, was the first witness called. He said on the 30th December, about 20 minutes past six o'clock, he was standing opposite to his shop door in St. Werbugh-street, when he perceived stroke issuing from the top of the Exchange. He ran across to the Police Office and saw Snell (pc), and told him the Town Hall was on fire. Snell said it could not. He immediately got the fire bell rung, and a crowd gathered. Police-constable Diggery rung the bell, and he (witness) used the hose. Saw the fire at the top of the roof. Saw it when he left his own shop door. Saw the flames before he left. The waterman came in a few minutes. There was a good supply of water. Saw Snell and Diggery and a great many other people present. Did not see Mr. Levies, the surveyor. He (witness) stopped below. Did not go up stairs. By Mr. Owen— lt was not five minutes from the time he saw the fire before the reel was in use. By Mr. J. Jones— When the reel was ready there was plenty of water. By Mr. Littler— He saw the fire first on the front side of the building.        
Cheshire Observer – Saturday 21 February 1863 CHESTER Mr. Hill, we understand, forwarded to the Watch Committee his resignation as Superintendent of the Chester fire brigade, and it is not improbable that all the men will follow his example. Mr. Hill now only holds office until his successor is appointed.
Chester Chronicle – Saturday 21 February 1863 Chester County Court – The Learned Judge (J W Harding Esq.,) presided at this Court on Friday the 13th inst.   CONVICTION AGAINST A POLICEMAN FOR EXCESS OF DUTY.      EDWARD SMITH –v- William WYNNE.    Mr Cartwright, solicitor, appeared for the plaintiff, who is a tailor residing in Commonhall-street, in this city; and Mr Tatlock for the defendant. The action was brought to recover the sum of £6 as compensation for injuries sustained by the plaintiff at the hands of the defendant, who is policeman (No. 18) on the Chester force, and who tore the plaintiff's coat and otherwise ill-used him on the night of the 22nd October, 1862. The case created great interest, and the court was densely crowded during the hearing. Mr Cartwright having stated the particulars of the case called the plaintiff, who deposed—“l am a tailor, and have been employed Mr Okell's; on the 22nd October last was in Frodsham-street, soon after eight o'clock, meeting a friend; whilst I was there the defendant Wynne came up to me. Previous to this I went with my friend down Frodsham-street, towards the canal-bridge, before I got to the bridge I lost him, there being a great crowd in the street; it was the day of the Birkenhead rioters being tried; on coming down towards the Hop-pole, I saw Wynne; he came and seized me by the collar, and I asked him what be meant by doing so; Snell (detective) was close by mo and looked me in the face, and I asked if I was charged with stealing anything; Snell considered for a moment and then said to Wynne," Take him off”; Wynne took me through a back place, having hold of me by the right hand and thrusting his knuckles into my neck, and I told him not to do that as was going quietly. To the Court— I was not doing anything; can't say what the officer seized me by the neck for, he never made any charge at all, and took me by the Hop-pole yard. The Witness continued—l told Wynne not to thrust his knuckles into my neck; he brought me into Foregate-street; on going towards the archway he got hold of me by the coat, and I walked before him; asked him whether I had stolen anything, and he made no answer but flew to my collar again and tore my coat at the back, and said, Come along, you b****­r;" on going up Werburgh-lane he again thrust his knuckles into my throat and caught me on the cheek bone; was taken to station and searched there; I had a handkerchief, a pair of gloves, and a thimble, which were taken from me; Mr Long booked the charge, after which he said, "Take him to the look-ups;" it was Wynne who searched me, and he pulled my pockets when Mr Long said “take him up," I Stood at his left, upon which Wynne made a step and a spring me, thrust his knuckles into my throat, tore the bow from neckerchief, and dragged me up to the cells, he taking three or four steps at a time. I was then locked up, and as he was going away called to him twice to send for some one to bail me out, but did not answer me; I called twice through the door but received no reply; I then went to the window to see I could see any one, and I at last saw a respectable looking man passing, and called to him but he did not hear me; a woman afterwards came up and I shouted to her; an old man then came up and I asked him go to Mr Hill to get me bailed out; he went to the police-office; Mr Hill was sending his men out at the time, and I was bailed out shortly after; I had then been custody an hour and a half or two hours. (The witness produced the coat and neck-tie which he wore on the occasion question; the coat was badly torn from the shoulder across the back, and the tie was also much torn and damaged.) In continuation the witness said—That (referring to the tie) was done by Wynne in the police-office, after I got there; the damage done to the coat is about £1.15s; the coat is now of no use to me, and I would not have taken £3 for it; I was not drunk on the occasion; I had been very ill that day, and had two glasses of rum, and a drop of rum in a cup of tea, that was all bad. Cross-examined by Mr. Tatlock—The neckerchief was taken from me in the police-office when Wynne put his knuckles into my throat; Mr. Long was there, but he never took his eyes off the (charge) book; am not aware that there was any officer in the police-office at the time. On the occasion in question I was going down Frodsham-street with my friend, and on losing him and going to seek for him I met two men by the Raven public-house, who caught hold of me and wanted me to into the Raven, but I would not go; Wynne collared me at the Hop Pole yard as was coming towards home; I had not been fighting that night; I did not go into the Raven and want to fight; I was turned out of the Raven because the two men speak knocked me down; they wanted me to go in but I would not go; had two glasses of rum and a drop of rum in tea that day, that was all I had during the whole of the day except a glass of gin about dinner time; up to the time I went the Raven had not been drinking anywhere; the ostler of the Raven did not turn me out; the landlord, Mr. Hughes, sent for the police; Wynne came afterwards and collared me, but I had left the Raven then; there were a great many persons round the Raven; at the time Wynne came up I was not at the Raven door refusing to leave; Wynne did not ask me to go away; he seized me without speaking; he never cautioned me, nor spoke to me, nor told me to go home; he did not say he would have to take me up if I did not go home; I was not cursing or swearing, nor had I been fighting that day; Snell was present when I was taken up; I can't say he followed me to the lockups, as did not see him; I swear Wynne did catch me by the collar, and the mark of the wound is here where he caught by the hand (the witness bared his wrist and showed the marks of the injury he had sustained); that the result of the affair on the 22nd October, and has remained ever since; Wynne did that by the Eastgate; I went quietly with him and only asked him if had stole anything; when we got to the station he assaulted me; I will swear I was put in a top lock-up, and I will swear I went up a great many steps, perhaps twenty; the next morning I was taken before the magistrates; my coat was not rather dirty; I did not show the coat to the magistrates, the man who bailed me out having recommended me not to do it; I did not then complain of the conduct of the policeman; when I was charged with being drunk and disorderly was fined, and said nothing but put the money down. The week after that I went to Mr. Cartwright; I made no application to Wynne for compensation; I did not complain to the Watch Committee. Mr. Cartwright—The Watch Committee? (Laughter.) The witness continued—l was not so drunk that I could not home; they would not allow me to go home. (Renewed laughter.) In reply to Mr. Cartwright, the witness stated that Wynne made no charge against him when he took him into custody. John Blewer deposed—l know the plaintiff; I was with him on the 22nd October last; he was at my house that night and all the evening; he left my house about eight o'clock; we had been at a funeral of a child; when he left the house he was very ill, and he had a drop of rum, which he had refused before many a time; he could drink nothing else; he was not drunk when he left; I saw him afterwards in Frodsham-street; I was going for the train and when I met him I said I had no time to speak to hi,, and bade him good night; he was all steady and sober then; that would be about 20 minutes after he left my house. Cross-examined by Mr. Tatlock—He was not drunk: but was sober enough to conduct himself. Mr Tatlock—Was he under the Influence of liquor? Mr. Cartwrigat- How can a witness answer such a question? The Witness to the Court—What he had taken might have had a little effect upon him, but he was not all drunk. A youth, named John Dunning, was next examined. He said-I was in John-street on the 22nd October last and saw the plaintiff and Wynne together; I saw them going the Eastgate; I know the plaintiff Smith; Wynne was knocking him about, but I could not see more because there was a crowd; saw them going under the Eastgate and Wynne got him by the collar and the cuff; I saw the plaintiff turn round and he asked Wynne if he had stolen anything, and was being dragged along at the time; I ran on out of the crowd to St. Werburgh-street and got before them; the plaintiff's coat was then torn from the shoulder; I did not see it torn before when I saw it; the plaintiff was walking quite steady and talking to Wynne; did not appear to be drunk; he appeared to be in the possession of his faculties, and to know what he was about; I heard no noise when Wynne was lugging him along, only the people calling shame on Wynne; I followed them up to the police station, and then went away as it was rather late. Cross-examined by Mr. Tatlock—This was about eight or half-past eight o'clock; I am sure I am speaking about the same night; I know the plaintiff (I pointed him out in the Court); I saw Wynne knocking him about; it was not like a drunken man reeling, it was dragging him along; Wynne shoved his knuckles into his throat; I saw that; he laid hold of him on the right hand side; it was, I believe, the left hand of the plaintiff the officer had hold of; I did not see whether the plaintiff had been down and his coat dirty; I did not see Snell about; I have seen people taken up before, and the plaintiff was not taken up in the ordinary way; the plaintiff was not drunk, I swear that. Re-examined—The plaintiff was not taken up according to my notions of propriety. Samuel Rogers, another young man, 19 years of age, residing in Suffolk-street, examined—l saw the plaintiff and Wynne at the Eastgate on the night in question; Wynne had hold of the man by the collar and cuff, and was thrusting his knuckles into his neck; Smith turned round and asked him if he dad stolen anything, and Wynne said "Come along you”; I saw the condition of the plaintiff's coat, it was torn from the shoulder; I saw Wynne tear the coat; he took him up St. Werburgh street, and there was a great crowd who cried out shame to Wynne; the plaintiff was not drunk at all; Wynne made no reply that I heard when Smith asked him if he had committed a felony. Cross-examined—l saw the coat torn; that took place when the plaintiff asked the officer if he had stolen anything, and he shoved him; he had hold of his right collar and his left hand; I know the plaintiff by living beside him; I happened to be telling my brother about this affair at home, and he told Smith; I had no more talk about the matter, except with Mr Cartwright. After Smith left the lock ups I don’t know whether he turned home, as I don't live in the same house with him; I don't know whether he was drunk or sober that day, except when he was in custody, and he was not then drunk. _ Edward Hodges gave corroborative evidence, and deposed to Wynne dragging the plaintiff along the street, saying "Come along yon b---- ," and to the crowd having cried out shame to the policeman. The plaintiff he said was pretty sober on the occasion.      This was the plaintiff's case. Mr. Tatlock, in opening the defence, said that unless he had been very grossly misinstructed, [sic] this was about as audacious and impudent an action as had ever been brought before his Honour. Having described the nature of the defendant's ease, and stated that the plaintiff was given into the custody of Wynne, who had been sent for by the landlord of the Raven Inn, for disorderly conduct, he said he supposed his friend Mr Cartwright would not dispute that if the plaintiff was drunk and disorderly his client was justified arresting him. He was not going to justify unnecessary violence; if his Honour believed that such had taken place the defendant must suffer for it, but the officer was only doing his duty, and took the plaintiff, after he refused to go home, to the station as quietly as he could and never laid hold of his collar. Mr. Tatlock alluded to the length of time which had elapsed before the plaintiff brought this action, and called the defendant, Police Constable Wynne (No. 18) who deposed—l belong to the Chester Constabulary, and have there about nine years. I recollect on the night in question being sent down to Mr. Hughes's, of the Raven Inn; when I got there the plaintiff was between the glass door and another door of the house, and it is not true that he was at the Hop-pole yard; there were people around there; I noticed the condition in which the plaintiff was; he was not sober; I heard him want to fight; I was told he followed two men into the house, and wanted to fight them; I asked him to go away many times; I begged of him to go away quietly. and he said there was a man inside he wanted to fight with; before I told him this I had laid no hands on him whatever; there was a crowd and disturbance, and the disturbance was caused by no one but the plaintiff; I got hold of him by the left cuff, inside, and I said, "Come on, my man, you will have to come along with me, if you don't go home." By the Court—l did not take him by the collar. Mr. Tatlock—There was no wrestling or fighting when we went along, nothing beyond the reeling of a drunken man; I have beard all the witnesses just now; there is no truth in what they said about that; Snell was with me; he stood at the end of Frodsham-street, and heard what took place at the Raven; he walked behind me to the lock-ups. I have beard what the plaintiff has said about my springing at him and catching him by the neck; it is not true; the plaintiff was noisy in the office By the Court—The plaintiff walked along the street quietly, enough, and did not struggle with me; I did not tear his coat; I did not see his coat torn before that, but saw it torn at the police office. Mr Tatlock—His coat was dirty, as though he had been on the ground; he was bailed the same night; he did not say anything in answer to the charge before the magistrates; I might have seen the plaintiff before in the street, but I knew nothing more of him, and have heard nothing more of the matter until I was served with a County Court summons. Mr Tatlock handed in a certificate of the magistrates' conviction against the plaintiff for drunk and disorderly conduct, the morning after the disturbance. Cross-examined by Mr Cartwright—When I first took the plaintiff up, it was when I told him the two doors, and I begged of him to leave, and he said he would not; I took him over " anent"—opposite the entrance to —the Raven; he was not sober, he was very drunk; he could stand, but it took me all my time to get him to the police office, I can tell you; his coat was very dirty then, but did not perceive it to be torn; it was dirty all over the back, as if he had been rolling in the street; many times over, Mr Cartwright, I, requested him to go away quietly; he was kicking up a row; told him if he did not go away I should be obliged to lock him up, and he would not go; if he had gone away I would have been content; when I got him to the Eastgate he did not ask me what had I got him in charge for; he never opened his lips to me until be got to the police office. There was no necessity for my laying hold of his collar, and did not do so; I did not tear his handkerchief (the tie produced) in the police office, be pulled it off himself; I believe it was broken, but how it was broken I can't say; he did not say anything when he pulled off that l am aware of; I won't swear there was a button on it at the time; he was booked for being drunk and disorderly; don't know whether Mr Long booked the charge, or whether booked myself; the plaintiff was afterwards put into the cells; I searched him; it is usual to do so, to a drunken man; I observed his coat was torn for the first time at the police station; Snell followed me; I did not see the boys (plaintiffs witnesses), there was a great crowd of boys the street; I did not hear any cries of “Shame," there was no such a cry, and to say there was is an untruth; the plaintiff was bailed out that night, within an hour and a half after he was locked up; if a man's friends come, and they think they can take care of him, it is lawful, at the discretion of the chief constable, to bail him out, if he is in drink. I have seen about nine years in the force, and bear as good a character as ever a man in this place. (The witness, amid some laughter, looked around the court) Mr. Cartwright—You have been somewhat unfortunate within this last week or two? Witness—No doubt. Mr Cartwright—Had you a case against some gentlemen a little time ago, and were you accused of assaulting them? Witness—Yes, Sir. Mr Cartwright—Did the magistrates dismiss the ease against one of them Witness—l was not in the court the time, Mr. Cartwrigbt—Don't you know it was dismissed? Witness—lt might have been. Mr. Cartwright - Were you not charged with striking one of the parties on the head with your truncheon, and did he not show you the blood Witness—l did not see any blood on head; I don't know anything about it.  Mr. Cartwright—Don't you know a charge was laid against you before the watch committee? Mr.Tatlock—Which the Watch Committee refused to entertain. Mr. Cartwright—Then more shame to the Watch Committee. Re-examined by Mr. Tatlock—One of the parties was fined 5s. and costs, and one of our Constables came and told me of it; the magistrates believed me rather than their side; the lockups which the plaintiff was confined were on the floor. Detective Snell, Chester force, examined, said—On the October last was I standing near the end of Frodsham-street; the Raven Inn is near the end of Frodsham-street, and I could see and hear what took place; there was a row going on, and a great crowd collected; I saw the plaintiff there; he wanted to fight somebody; Wynne came up, but I don't know whether he was sent for or not; I went to see what the disturbance was about; Wynne went up to the plaintiff and advised him to go home quietly, but tbe plaintiff did not go away; Wynne told him he wonld have to lock him up unless he went away, he still refused; Wynne then got him by the cuff of the coat, in the inside, but did not lay hold of his collar; he did not take him through the Hope-pole, but up Frodsham-street to the Eastgate; I followed them; I did not see Wynne strike or throttle him, and did not see him tear the coat; if he had I should have seen it. To the Court—l did not see the man's coat was torn. Examination continued—The coat was all over dirt; I went up to the office, walked in, and came out again; there was no unnecessary violence in taking the man up, and he was reeling and staggering about; he had plenty of opportunity of going away before he was arrested if he had chosen. Mr. Cartwright—But none after it?  Witness—No; he was arrested on a charge of being drunk and disorderly, but if he had gone away we should not have touched him. Mr. Cartwrightt—You are a forbearing race. (Laughter.) The witness, in his further cross-examination, repeated that Wynne only caught the plaintiff by the cuff of the coat; he did not see the coat at the police station, nor notice it all torn until it was shown now in court; he, however, noticed that the plaintiff had been down; he did not notice the condition of his neckerchief; he did not see Wynne search him. Thomas Dutton, ostler, at the Raven lnn, stated that on the night in question there was a crowd outside the Raven; there was man from Saltney came in, and the plaintiff followed him. Mr. Tatlock—What took place there? Mr. Cartwright objected; it could not affect the question, of assault. His Honour ruled the evidence admissible. The witness stated that the plaintiff wanted to fight with the man whom he followed into the house, the plaintiff had not been drinking at the Raven; the plaintiff said there had been a fight outside, and witness put him out; his hands and back were dirty, as though he had been down; he was not knocked down in the Raven; he was making a row until Wynne came; when Wynne came witness heard him (Wynne) say, You had be better about your business now you have got a chance," to which Smith replied, "I’ll be d------d if I do; if you want me I'll go with you," and he went away with him. Cross-examined—He did go with Wynne; his coat and hands were dirty. To the Court—l did not see the coat torn at that time. Mr Hughes, landlord of the Raven Inn, was next examined, and stated that Smith created a disturbance his house on the occasion in question; he was drunk, and wanted to fight, and witness had to send for a policeman to remove him, and he went away with Wynne. This concluded the evidence. Cartwright, in replying upon the evidence, said—At the commencement of the case he certainly had felt himself in a little difficulty with reference to the evidence; he thought in all probability, that inasmuch as the plaintiff had been convicted of drunkenness, some very serious evidence would be produced to interfere with the facts as given to him; but from the evidence that had come out in the defence he could not help coming to the conclusion that this was a most monstrous case. According to the evidence for the defence this man (the plaintiff) was making a disturbance in the house of Mr Hughes, and Hughes sends for a policeman. Wynne did not pretend to say that the man was committing an offence against him, but proved that the plaintiff walked quietly away with him. So far so good for, the plaintiff. But when they get to the Eastgate what happens there? The evidence of the boys, and there were three of them, was most important. It was proved that the man went peaceably with the Constable, but that when they got to the Eastgate he was assaulted by the policeman in the most disgraceful manner. He was seized by the collar, and the constable thrust his knuckles into his neck, in a manner such as had been a matter of discussion in more courts than one, making the man nearly black in the face. With respect to the coat, it was perfectly clear that when Wynne said he saw the dirt on it immediately after the man's arrest, if it had been torn he would have seen the rent. The inference, therefore, was that the coat was not torn at that particular period. What said the three boys who had watched the officer and the man through the Eastgate. Their evidence, and it had been given in the most ingenuous manner, went to show that the coat was torn by the violence of the officer, and one of them swore to have actually seen Wynne tearing it. They also said the mob cried shame of the policeman. It was preposterous for the police to say that the coat was not then torn; it was the result of the violence of the constable when he got the man into his savage grasp; no ordinary force used in fair play would have caused it. Everything tended to show the fearful violence that had been exercised. The police themselves admitted that they would not have taken the man into custody if he had moved on. Then where was the breach of the peace? It was quite clear the evidence for the plaintiff could not be contradicted. Against the evidence of ingenuous youth was given that of a practiced policeman—the swearer by profession—who could make the case with testimony to fit if necessary or he found himself in a difficulty; he was at it every day. And in weighing balance of testimony he (Mr Cartwright) was sure his Honour would find favour of those lads who had been examined. But even when the parties got to the police station the plaintiff was not safe; Wynne flies him like tiger— and they all knew something about Wynne—(laughter)—seizes him the throat, and tears his neckerchief from his neck. He was searched and every article taken from him, down to his thimble, and he was subsequently locked up in a cell. Could they have done worse an ordinary felon His Honour—But when people are not able to take care of themselves they do take things from them. Mr. Cartwright quite agreed that it was necessary to take things from drunken men; but if the plaintiff had been in the helpless state of intoxication the police would make out, would they have accepted bail? Certainly not! If the plaintiff had been so drunk as was stated, would the Superintendent have liberated him an hour and half after his incarceration. No doubt the Chief Constable saw that Wynne had gone a little too far, and the plaintiff being a respectable man, knew that if there was any charge against him; he should have been summoned. There had been no made against him, no charge of committing a breach of the peace made by any one; but the policeman made a charge against him himself, for which he must be responsible from the very commencement. The fact of the plaintiff having been fined on a charge of being drunk and disorderly did not affect his right to bring action in that court against the policeman for excess of duty. The charge in the first instance made by Wynne had been a most improper one. He had a right by law to take a man into custody, drunk though he might be. If he made a disturbance in the house, that was another thing. But they had got rid of him at the public-house, and therefore that portion of the aggravation had been disposed of. It had been seen how the man had been used at the station house, and even supposing he had been drunk that was no justification for the treatment he had received. He (Mr Cartwright) was instructed to say that Wynne was a very violent officer in the exercise of his duty, and his Honour would have seen from the course of cross-examination that that had not been the only case of the sort that had been brought against him. Wynne had been charged the other day with most violently assaulting a party and hitting him on the bead with his truncheon. It was a most improper thing for a policeman to treat men in this manner, and he could not do so without being amenable to the laws of the country. He hoped the verdict of his Honour would tend to secure peaceable citizens passing along the streets from being subject to such indignities, and that the policemen be taught that they could not commit these outrages, even in the execution of their duty, without being liable to account for, and justify, the excess and abuse of it. His Honour, in delivering judgment, said in the course of his experience he had come across a great many cases and none gave him more anxiety than those where the liberty of the subject was concerned. There were no cases in which it was more difficult for a person sitting in his position to come to a conclusion, and he was conscious of the exceeding difficulty policemen had, to draw the line fairly beyond which they should not go in the discharge of their duty. It was not easy for them to say we are anxious that our duty should be performed, but so far may we go and no further. Because policemen were of the same flesh and blood as other men. And was really difficult for a policeman always to keep his temper and submit to a judicial enquiry and prove that he bad not exceeded the line of discretion allotted to him. On the other hand he (the Court) knew how very important it was that the liberty of the subject should be properly preserved. They all knew that, in large communities like Chester, it was most important that men gaining their bread by the sweat of their brow, and indulging in a little recreation in the course of the evening, should not be too strictly dealt with; they should be allowed a certain degree of reasonable indulgence, but so as not exceed the proper line of propriety. Speaking for himself, he was always most anxious to draw the line as fairly and justly as possible, to protect the liberty of the subject on the one hand, and to protect the police in the due exercise of their duty on the other. But it was very difficult to do so. He had attended carefully this case. The plaintiff had been drinking and disorderedly there was no doubt. The evidence of Hughes and others showed how quarrelsome and disagreeable he had been, although they thought he was not very much intoxicated. Some people got quarrelsome when they had a glass of ale or two, and it was very possible that a man without being drunk might be Inclined be quarrelsome. His Honour, after some further remarks, went on to say that in most eases the general facts were tolerably clear, but in the present one he had great difficulty in accounting for the tearing of the coat. Tatlock—We have it in evidence the plaintiff was knocked down; in fact the plaintiff said so.- His Honour—But the police see his coat dirty, but don't see it torn; such a thing could not have escaped notice. Mr Cartwright—Why, we have from it from one of the witnesses, who positively swears to having seen Wynne tearing the coat; Samuel Rogers swears that he saw the coat torn. Mr Tatlock— We answer by saying there was a fight, and he got it done there. In reply to the Court, Mr Tatlock said that his case was that the coat was torn before the plaintiff got to the Raven, but as to how it had been torn be could not account. (a laugh.)  His Honour then said be could not come to the conclusion that there had been more violence used than was absolutely necessary- He would not allow serious damages, and he hoped he was doing his duty to the public and to all parties in giving a verdict for 40s. Mr Tatlock submitted that it was not a case in which to allow costs. Mr Cartwright opposed the application to disallow costs. His Honour decided on allowing the costs. The Court then adjourned 5.30 p m.
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 had been on duty all night, oh No. 2 beat, had been found lying 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, 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 Collinson, Mr J Okell, Mr C J Blalock, Mr R 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, but 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 a go; there are doors to the hall, but they are not closed at night; the deceased was quite sober last night. –      George Chivas, No. 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 Boughton, 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 ½ 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 very 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 a 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 it was the result of a blow or fall; I do not think it was caused by repeated blows; we examined the other organs and they were all healthy, no trace of spirits being found in the stomach; the injury to the brain from the fracture, caused death; death might have been 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 had both boots on; it had 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, [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 injury to the nail] 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 at the edge of 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. It was a very slight bruise.         Dr Brittain: I made a post mortem examination of the deceased with Dr. Weaver-, I have heard his evidence, and I agree with him, except that I think the fracture in the skull extended a little further than he said. There was a pressure in the roof of the mouth The fracture I think the result from a 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 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 rotton. (sic) 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 he 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. Such a fall on the ground would produce internal injury. Only a very heavy instrument could have caused such internal injury and there was no impression 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 be gallery at 8 o’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 must have been made by a sudden rub. I saw a mark, like scoring, leading to the edge, evidencing a struggle, a shining mark as if recently done. I measured the place this morning and found the height of the gallery to be 9feet 7inches feet finches. [To jurors: The marks were evidently from a boot.] They were two feet from the edge. The cuts oh the window cills are old. One man 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 keep 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 the 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 11 April 1863
Lalor, the Late Policeman.[To the Editor of the Chester Chronicle] - Sir,—I am anxious to bring before the public of Chester some circumstances connected with the history of poor Lalor, the policeman, who was recently supposed to be murdered, in hope that the knowledge of them may elicit that sympathy and consideration which so deserving a case is entitled to, and with the hope of obtaining for the poor widow and aged father some pecuniary aid, which may compensate in some measure for the sad loss which they have sustained the death of so good a son and no less an excellent husband. The circumstances under which he came Chester are so peculiarly interesting, as showing what kind of a man he was, that I cannot refrain from relating them and also because they cannot fail to excite still greater interest in his history. L am indebted for them to a letter which I received from a gentleman who directed Lalor to when he first came to England, and is reply to one I had written to him announcing Lalor's death, and as the perusal of the letter itself may be interesting, I transcribe that part of it which relates to the circumstances his coming here :—   " Some time ago he took the management of few acres of land from an aged father who was in debt, and married a beautiful, young, and good country girl With the land, he took on the debts, but the creditors becoming too pressing, he had resign the land to his father's care, and leave home, wife, child, and father, to earn what he could to pay off those debts." As a process of the earnestness and sincerity of his purpose, he had regularly remitted every month during the time he had been in the police force (only twelve months) the sum of 20s saved out his weekly wages 18s and on the very morning of his death his wife had received a letter from him, saying that he would soon send a pound for the purpose of obtaining seed oats. When he came here from Ireland he brought with him a letter from the gentleman alluded to, who is a resident in the locality which Lalor came, and in which I am interested by the possession of a small property, so strongly recommendatory of him as a steady and respectable man, that I had no hesitation in attending the request contained in it—that would exert any little influence I might have in obtaining an appointment for him in the police force: and on applying to Mr Hill and representing to him the circumstances under which he had been recommended to me, he immediately appointed him a probationary officer. His good conduct soon obtained for him his permanent appointment, and Mr. Hill has assured me that there was not a more steady, intelligent, or trustworthy man in the whole force than poor Lalor; that could always rely upon his doing what he was ordered to do, and that he possessed this peculiar and valuable property—that whatever he undertook, never he relinquished until had accomplished. Here, then, we have an instance of a highly respectable and intelligent man leaving his country, his , his child, and aged parent, and coming to this town for the purpose of supporting the former and extricating the latter from debt by his own exertions. The good character which he brings with him at once obtains him the means of carrying out these good and kind intentions. He proves his sincerity by sending regularly every month a certain portion his wages. In the execution of his duty he is struck down (as I believe), by the hand of an assassin, and thus, by that fatal blow, his wife is made a widow, his child fatherless, and his aged parent deprived of an excellent son, and all lose their best earthly benefactor and principal means of support; in short, they have lost everything by losing him. Surely, such a case has some claims upon our consideration, and must commend itself to the sympathy of everyone before whom the circumstances come, and do not require make a stronger appeal to their benevolence and charity. The fact that he lost his life in doing his duty in the service of the town will be considered a sufficient ground for this application. I will not, therefore, urge the consideration of any further, but leave it in the bands my fellow-citizens with the assurance that I shall not plead in vain for so sad though deserving a cause and with the hope that it will be responded to with that freedom and liberality to which so heart rending a case entitled.—I am, sir, your obedient servant. John Harrison, 16 Nicholas Street. March 31, 1863—A small subscription has been commenced by a few friends who are interested in the case, and any one disposed to contribute may send their subscriptions to me, and they will be forwarded to Lalor’s relatives.” {According to the 1861 Census, John Harrison of Nicholas Street, Chester, was a 64 years old Medical Practioner}
 
Chester Chronicle - Saturday 16 May 1863
Ruffianly Assault a Policeman.—At the Chester Police Court, on Saturday last, before Major French, Alderman Trevor, and Dr. Jones, Richard Ellis (the proprietor of a tent on the Roodee), George Harrison, and William Green, were charged with being concerned in an assault on P.C. Joseph Lea (No. 3).     Charles Haslam deposed that he was passing to his work about six o'clock that morning, and when in Paradise Row he saw or 20 persons abusing a policeman shamefully. He looked for policeman, but could not find one to come to his assistance. The defendants Ellis and Harrison he distinctly saw strike the policeman and wrest the staff from him.    A man named Johnson stated that the occurrence, there being about forty persons around the policeman. Witness went to the house of Constable Hughes for help, but that officer was unable to give his attendance as he could not get on his boots. (Laughter.) The prisoner Green was one of the assailants of the policeman, whom they had down on the ground. Ellis stated that the policeman came to his tent whilst he was packing up his chattels, in a state of intoxication, and wanted some drink, he refused to give him. Between five and six o'clock that morning there was a row at No 9 booth, and on going to see what it was he found the officer and a man, who was in his shirt sleeves boxing. There was bucket or tub behind the policeman, over which he fell, and, on getting up again, the other man “hit him down." The police constable made several attempts to strike at the man with his stick, and he was so drunk that he could scarcely stand. Defendant went back to his tent and two or three minute’s after he saw the officer proceed towards town, and in about a quarter (of an hour) he returned with two other constables. Having examined some of the booths, the officer at last came to No. 9, and apprehended the young man there. Defendant went to see if it was a friend of his who was taken and to offer bail, and was then himself charged with an assault. To Major French—l did take the stick from the prosecutor, when he hit at the man three or four times, but did not strike him. The witnesses for the prosecution, having been re-called, stated that Lee was perfectly sober when they saw him assaulted. A traveller connected with the establishment of Messrs. Walker and Knight, spirit merchants, of this city, spoke to the respectability of the defendant Ellis, who was a customer of his house. —Mr. Hill: There is no doubt he is a respectable mm, but he has got into an unfortunate scrape.—Major French said it was a pity to see a respectable man like Mr. Ellis placed in the position he was now in. No doubt a lot of low fellows would not hesitate to commit acts of violence when they had a leader who was more respectable than themselves. Mr. Ellis, upon his own statement, had disarmed the officer of his stick, and if he had acted a judicious part, he would have gone into his tent and not have interfered in matters that did not concern him. The accused would be fined each and costs for the assault, or in default 14 days imprisonment with hard labour.
 
THE KNIFE - On Monday lost William Reilly and John Browne were brought up at Chester police court, before C Potts, Esq., Alderman Trevor, and Dr. Jones on the following charge :— PC. Emmanuel Hughes said, that on Saturday afternoon he received information of a disturbance on the Roodee, and on proceeding to the place mentioned he found a man covered with blood to "all success." He took Browne, the assailant, into custody, whereupon Reilly flourished a knife, of which he the constable) would have received the fall contents had it not been for the interposition of a man named Woolley, who happened to be there as the time.—Woolley deposed that he heard the prisoner Reilly say to the officer, "If I can't fight you I will kill you;" upon which he took out a knife. Witness made at him with a whip, and with some other assistance he got him down and the knife was taken from him. The prisoner Browne also resisted the constable, and there was another charge against him of assaulting P.C. Lindsay. Reilley denied that he used the knife, or threatened to do so against the officer. The prisoners were ordered to pay £5 each, or in default one month’s imprisonment.
 
Brutal Outrage by a Chester Policeman.—The Policeman fined and dismissed the Force.—At the Chester Police Court on Saturday last, (before Major French, Alderman Trevor, and Dr. Jones), Police Constable Jacob Lord. No. 14, brought a charge against James Greenwood, smith, residing in Albert Street, for being drunk and disorderly and assaulting him in Frodsham-street, soon after six o'clock the same morning. Major French asked the prosecutor in what way the accused was disorderly? Lord: He was making noise and disturbance and I was obliged to lock him up. The defendant's face was frightfully cut in all directions, and was covered so extensively with plaster that the features were scarcely distinguishable. Major French: How did you come to abuse the man in this way? Lord: I never abused him. Major French: Did you see the man's nose cut the time? Lord hesitated in his reply. Major French having repeated the question with some sternness, Lord, who seemed to give his utterance with difficulty, said the defendant was cut before he first saw him, and that he had not touched the man himself. It being evident from the policeman's extraordinary demeanour that he was clearly under the influence of drink, Major French asked Mr. Hill (Chief Constable) if the officer was sober? Mr. Hill: He is not, Sir. The case was dismissed against the defendant.               The parties then exchanged places, and Greenwood, after expressing a desire not to press the case, which was overruled by the bench, charged Police Constable Lord with a violent and unprovoked assault upon him. Mr. Wm. Haswell, marble and stone mason, of Kaleyards, deposed—About six o'clock this morning, on going to my yard, I saw the policeman (Lord) trying to get into a public-house called the Bricklayers Arms. A man and woman who were there were endeavoured to keep him out, upon which he struck the man and then went up the Hop-pole Yard and into the Eastgate. I afterwards saw him, at quarter-past six, coming down the Kaleyards and going up to Cow-lane Bridge, when Greenwood was at the bottom of the Kaleyards. No sooner did the policeman come up to Greenwood than he struck him with his staff a dreadful blow across the nose, and beat him shamefully. Mr. Charles, photographic artist, Frodsham-Street bridge, said—My attention was drawn this morning to a policeman beating the complainant. The policeman was the defendant, Lord, and he was using his staff upon the man with fearful violence. I went over to the constable and said I would report him if he did not desist; and his stick actually flew from one side of the street to the other with the terrific violence which he used. I never saw a poor fellow beaten so unmercifully in my life before, and the man did not offer to resist (There was audible sensation in court on hearing this evidence.) Mrs. Dodd gave similar testimony to foregoing. She said as soon as the policeman came up to Greenwood he said. “Now I have got you, you b*****d , and I will pay you off" and commenced beating him about the arms and head. The defendant having been asked the usual question, if he had anything say held up his hands and said that had been roughly used, and he was obliged to strike the man. (There was no perceptible mark whatsoever on the policeman’s hand of ill-treatment) Major French then (speaking to Lord) said- “This is one of the most disgraceful and cruel cases I have heard for a long time. It is not only disgraceful to yourself as a man, but is a discredit on the force of which you are a member. We are determined to keep the Chester police force as creditable as we possibly can, and I must say there is no better conducted body of men than we have, and we are determined to keep them so. The decision of the court is, that you be fined 20s and costs of fourteen days imprisonment for this offence, and that you be dismissed the force—the money not then forthcoming, the prisoner was removed to the cells.
 
Cheshire Observer – 17 October 1863
THE CHAIRMAN OF THE WATCH COMMITTEE, THE CHIEF CONSTABLE, AND MR COUNCILLOR BOWERS. It will be a sorry day for happy England whenever the representatives of our municipal institutions cease to criticise as severely, and to investigate as closely, the acts and doings of the officers under their control, as it will be whenever the Parliament of the whole nation allows the conduct of the Ministry to escape discussion, and fails to act as a salutary check upon those high functionaries. As the whole is made up of several parts, so are the individual municipal bodies studded throughout the length and breadth of these realms but the reflex of the high public spirit and the genuine patriotism which we are proud to think animates, after all, nine-tenths alike of our hereditary and our elective legislators. We ought all to take a deep and an abiding interest in the particular locality in which our homes are situated, and where, no matter what our position may be, our influence for evil or for good in more or less felt, and when we find men willing to undertake the duties and responsibilities of office, and with unfaltering energy set to work to promote the interests of their fellow citizens equally with their own, they deserve a word of praise which but too oft is never accorded to them. It is no pleasant task for a man single-handed to point out anomalies, and to propose changes, which may somewhat unfavourably affect the fortunes of those with whom mayhap he is in daily contact, and he who fearlessly does this, and with unfaltering nerve enunciates his sentiments, and suggests a remedy, is one who does his fellow-townsmen good service. While public men whose sphere of action is confined to no particular locality often get more than their due, and reap the fruit of that which they have not sown, those whose labours are more circumscribed, but not a whit less important, are often unnoticed, or, if noticed, it is but to be abused, and instead of thanks they merely come in for the veriest contumely. This is only the way of the world, and the ways of that great nonentity are, as we all too well know, passing strange. So much for the prelude; now for the subject itself. The sitting of the Chester Local Parliament on Wednesday last was one of the most prolonged that assembly has yet held, and during the deliberations of our representatives a subject was introduced by Mr. Councillor Bowers which well merited the consideration of that body, and not, we take it, of that body only, but of the whole citizens of Chester as well. It would seem, from the lucid statement of Mr. Bowers, that for some years past Mr. Alderman Griffiths, the chairman of the Watch Committee, and Mr. Hill the chief constable of the city police, have been in the habit of visiting the different public-houses within the municipal boundaries, and of asking for subscriptions to the well-known races which annually come off on our far-famed Roodee. It would seem, too, that the applications were pretty generally successful, and that the significant fact of the applicants being two gentlemen whose official position gave them no little power over a certain class of men, usually caused the weight of their argument to lighten the pockets of those to whom those arguments were addressed. The Chief Constable, too, it Would further appear lets the ground on which the proprietors of the different booths fix their property and that in point of fact he and Mr. Ald. Griffiths form, in conjunction with the Clerk of the Course the Racing Sub-Committee. Now, Mr. Bowers contended that all this was wrong, and that for men holding such positions as the chairmanship of the Watch Committee and the chief constableship of the City Police, to visit public-houses in order to collect subscriptions to the racing fund, and for the latter official to arrange with the proprietors of booths for the erection of. places—some of which the worthy councillor termed the veriest of hells would not be tolerated in any other town in England, and that such conduct had an influence on the members of the police force the reverse of salutary. He added that if the two gentlemen named were plain Mr. Griffiths and plain, Mr. Hill he should not feel warranted in saying a word on the subject — he merely spoke of them in their official capacity. Now, we cannot but feel that there is much of truth in Mr. Bowers' fearless speech, and that that gentleman was quite justified in bringing the matter before the notice of the Council. For our own part, we have not a word to say in disparagement of either Mr. Alderman Griffiths or Mr. Hill. On the contrary, the former has long and ably filled an important public office with credit to himself and with advantage to the town, while as to the latter we only a week or two ago alluded in laudatory terms to the services rendered by him as head of our city constabulary. But it is because one gentleman is at the head of the committee having jurisdiction over the police, while the other is its official chief, that we agree with Mr. Bowers in thinking that the mere fact of their collecting subscriptions from a large class of tradesmen in behalf of the Race fund must make the police somewhat lax and partial in their treatment, of that body, and must therefore produce an effect which none of us would desire. We are certainly no enemy to the Racing Committee, all of whom are honourable, most honourable, men, nor do we discountenance a sport which is almost a national characteristic. But in the interests of Mr. Ald  Griffiths and Mr. Hill themselves and especially of the latter, we wish that they would cease the objectionable practice to which Mr. Bowers called attention on Wednesday last, that they would not, considering their relative positions, act in concert for such a purpose. Both gentlemen can show their interest in an old English pastime in a variety of ways without giving to the most captious person the slightest offence in the world, and we trust they will do so. They are, we are sure, much too anxious to promote the welfare of the city generally to do aught which could damage it in public estimation, which could sully its fair name, and in consenting to collect subscriptions they did so doubtlessly with a praiseworthy motive, but a motive which was, nevertheless, a mistake. It is absolutely necessary that the Chairman of such an influential body as the Watch Committee and the Head of the City Police should sedulously avoid any appearance of either dictating to or patronizing any class of men whatever, and we think Mr. Griffith's and Mr. Hill's own good sense will tell them that there was much in Mr. Bowers' candid speech which was true, and at which therefore they should not take offence. Each gentleman should be not only above suspicion but above reproach.
 
Chester Chronicle – Saturday 6 February 1864
CITY POLICE COURT. THURSDAY.— (Before the Mayor, Dr. Jones, Alderman Trevor, and J. Clemison, Esq.) Eliza Smith alias Oakes, a wretched-looking object, clad a well-patched counterpane, which was her only clothing with the exception of an old bonnet, a nondescript, and a pair of delapidated [sic] understandings, was charged with stealing a slop, value 3s. 6d, from the shop of Mr John Gresty hosier Eastgate street, on Wednesday night. James Johnson and John Haslam were also charged with having been concerned in the robbery. Information of the robbery was given to the police, and Constable John Hughes being put on the qui vive found the female prisoner "in discourse" with the other prisoners in Northgate street soon after the offence had been committed, whereupon he took the three into custody. The slop was found in the possession of the female, who pleaded guilty. She was sentenced to three months imprisonment with hard labour. The men were dismissed, as it was not shown that they were implicated in the affair.
 
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 12 March 1864  
(This item refers to Edward Jones who was appointed Inspector in Chester City Police Force on or about 6 March 1864. He had been an upholsterer from Handbridge)
THE NEW INSPECTOR OF POLICE   A SINGULAR CHOICE. Councillor Owen said that some time ago the Council delegated the power of electing an Inspector of Police in place of Mr. Long. He was told that the election had now taken place, and that the Watch Committee had chosen a man who had never been in a police force in the whole course of his life —in point of fact that he was quite incapable of performing the duties of a police officer. It had been for a long time a matter of complaint that the police force were not doing their duty, and a favourable opportunity seemed to offer, on the removal of Mr. Long, for effecting some reform; but it now appeared that the Watch Committee were making matters worse, instead of better. Councillor Johnson said there was a good deal of truth in Mr. Owens’s words. The young man who had been elected bore a most exemplary character, but he (Mr. Johnson) had forewarned the Watch Committee that it was most desirable to elect a competent person to fill the office, and he thought it a pity that Mr. Jones should have been chosen. The question, however, had to be solved, whether the inspector should be appointed as a perambulator of the city, or to keep the books. For his part, he thought the functions should be distinct, and the whole duties of the inspector better defined. Councillor Ford said that having taken an active part in the election of Mr. Jones, he was quite prepared to justify it. The choice practically lay between two parties. One of them was backed by strong influence, but still there were reasons which appeared quite satisfactory to his (Mr. Ford's) mind why they should not elect him. The person they did elect possessed a character which, for truth, sobriety, and integrity, n the opinion of those who had known him from childhood, left nothing to be desired, and these were items which were set to be disregarded. (Hear, hear.) He (Mr Ford) did not think they had too much of them in the police force or any other body, and it seemed to him that a little more of them would not do any harm. The fault lay rather with the Council than with the functionary elected, for if they appointed a man to be a cook, they would not expect him to be able to command a ship, and in the same manner a police inspector and a clerk were two different people. The reason probably why they had had complaints of the police occasionally was from the want of effective supervision and inspection, for it was impossible for a man to be a clerk all day and inspector all night He thought that if the present inspector were confined to the duties of an inspector, he would be found to be an efficient man. Alderman M. Frost wished to know from the chairman of the Watch Committee whether the man appointed was capable of keeping the books and writing, as it appeared to him important that he should possess both qualifications. Councillor Johnson did not think he could do either properly. Alderman Trevor thought no man should be appointed as an inspector of police unless he was competent to keep accounts, because, connected with the police force, there were certain clerical duties with which he ought to be conversant He (Aid. Trevor) had only seen one instance of the new officer's competence in this respect, and in this document a very important word was misspelt. (sic) He fully agreed in all that had been said with reference to his personal character, but for his duties as a clerk he thought any boy out of a local school would be better adapted. Councillor Furnish said that since he began to take part in the public concerns of this city he had deemed it of the greatest possible importance that they should have an efficient police force; and when the magistrates appointed Mr. Long to the position he now held, he thought it an excellent opportunity for electing a really efficient inspector to assist Mr. Hill.  It was named in the committee, when the matter was brought before them, that a difficulty would arise in taking away Mr Long, unless they appointed some other person who could do the writing in the office. After considerable discussion, the committee decided to advertise, and accordingly did so. Previously to that, Mr. Hill had temporarily installed Sergeant Miles into the office, and he became a candidate for the appointment; but when they advertised they expected to get applications from one or two from the force more eligible even than Miles appeared to be. In this, however, they were disappointed, as Miles's was the only application from their own police force. Altogether, seven candidates came forward, some of whom seemed remarkably well suited for the office. There was one who applied from Honley, near Huddersfield, who had been inspector of the Preston constabulary, and altogether seemed a most eligible man. Another was a sergeant of police at Barnsley, and who seemed almost as suitable. He had proposed a motion that these two persons should be sent for, their expenses being paid, so that the that the committee might see what they were like, but it was deemed undesirable to put the corporation even to this small expense and the motion was only supported by the mover and seconder. Councillor Farish,  went on to say that the Committee were therefore confined in their selection to a choice between Mr. Jones and Mr. Miles. To his mind, Mr. Jones was the most incompetent person they could possibly have found if they had tried. He had not had the slightest experience as a police officer, or in the general affairs life. It seemed to him (Mr. Farish) most absurd to select Mr. Jones because he was a decent fellow, and taking all the circumstances into consideration, be considered it a humiliation to the Watch Committee that this appointment should ever have taken place.
Chester Chronicle – Saturday 23 April 1864
Wednesday before the Mayor, Dr Jones, Major French and J Clemison Esq., Harbouring the Police. Isaac Taylor, landlord of the Carnarvon Castle public house, Watergate-Street, was charged with harbouring P.C. John Hughes is his house while on duty, contrary to the provisions of the Improvement Act. Defendant having but recently taken possession of the tavern, and this being his first offence, he was discharged with a caution.
 
Chester Chronicle – Saturday 30 April 1964
ANNUAL INSPECTION OF THE CHESTER POLICE. Tuesday morning last the police of this city were inspected by Col. Woodford, the Government Inspector. The men were drawn up in line in the Fowl Market, to the number of 33 including the chief constable, Mr. Hill, Inspector Jones, and Sub-inspector Gilbride. The following members of the Watch Committee were present : Ald Griffith, Mr. W M. Williams, Messrs. S. Davies, T. B. Foulkes, S Meacock, Jas. Gerrard, and R. Gregg. Col. Woodford having minutely inspected the men, their uniform and accoutrements, the police were dismissed, and the members of the Watch Committee, enumerated above, adjourned, at the request of the Colonel, to the Police Station, where he addressed them on matters relating to the force, which have been recently commented upon by the local press. The proceedings took place within closed doors, which precluded the reporters being present, but we are enabled to state pretty much what took place, which we have gleaned from a reliable source. Col. Woodford said he should feel it to be his duty, after what he had seen in the newspapers and had otherwise come to his knowledge, to report to the Secretary of State the fact of Mr Hill’s carrying-on private business, which precluded him devoting the whole of his time to the duties of the office of chief constable. The Colonel was told that Mr. Hill had been connected with the force for upwards 49 years; and had, during that time, rendered great and valuable services to the city, and consequently was entitled to a handsome pension, whenever he gave up his office. Col. Woodford acquiesced in this and stated that there was little doubt that if Mr, Hill resigned he would have as retiring allowance equal to his present salary, which he is undoubtedly entitled to. We would here take the opportunity of contradicting a statement which has been sent to some of the daily pacers, by badly informed correspondents, to the effect that Mr Hill is not entitled to an allowance consequence of not having contributed to the Police Superannuation Fund, whereas, it so happens that he has paid up-the whole of the amount due from him. Col’ Woodford com of the appointment of Inspector Jones on account of his not possessing the qualifications required by the Secretary of State, he being unable to discharge the duties of the office such as correspondence, and the registry of offences; in fact, said the Colonel, he ought to be a man of fair scholastic attainments and able to draw up reports, which he (the the Colonel understood Jones-was not able to do.) Col. Woodford expressed his disappointment at the non-arrival of the new uniform for the men, but he said was not surprised as the firm to whom the order has been entrusted, are inundated with similar and other orders, and consequently were unable to execute them to the day promised. The clothing, as is well known, is being made by Messrs. Tait, London, and it ought to have been in Chester on the 1st inst. but it has not yet been received. It may, probably be here a week or two—or in a month or two. It has been industriously rumoured the City, that Mr. Hill, since Col. Woodford's visit, has tendered his resignation to Watch Committee, but such is not the fact.
 
Chester Chronicle – Saturday 9 July 1864          
The Police.—Last week we stated that Mr. Hill, the Chief Constable, had resigned his appointment, which has held since the passing of the Municipal Reforms Act. We understand that the Watch Committee have since come to the conclusion to recommend to the Council on Wednesday to grant Mr. Hill a retiring allowance of £100 a year. He has been a most valuable officer, and to show the esteem in which he was held by the Police Force we may state that the members have subscribed sufficient to purchase a very handsome silver quart cup which will shortly be presented to him. The testimonial bears the following inscription “Presented to Mr. John Hill, Chief Constable of the Chester City Police, on his retiring from the force, by the officers and men under his charge as a mark of their respect and esteem July, 1864" The cup was supplied Mr. Butt, of Eastgate Row.
 
Liverpool Mercury – Tuesday 12 July 1864
MURDEROUS OUTRAGE AT CHESTER. At the Chester City Police Court, yesterday, before Major French, Dr. Jones and Messrs. C. Potts, J. Rogers, and J. Trevor:  Joseph Crawford was brought up on a charge of having attempted to murder Henry Huxley, a boatman and fisherman, on the River Dee. On the case being called on the prisoner stepped to the bar, and appeared very agitated, his emotion increasing as the case went on. The prosecutor was then called, but did not appear. The chief constable asked the reason, as the man had been sitting in the outer court until a few minutes before, and was told by one of the policemen that prisoner's brother had taken him away. The prisoner stated that Huxley had promised his brother not to appear. The Bench, after some remarks on the attempted interference with justice, ordered warrants to be issued for their apprehension, and proceeded with the case. The first witness called was George Gibbons, an assistant in the employ of Messrs. Brown Brothers, of Eastgate-row, who said - I was down waiting for a friend last evening in the Groves. When I was coming opposite the Deva I saw the prisoner, who was drunk. He got into a boat and tumbled into the water from it up to the middle. Huxley was in another boat, out in the river. Prisoner got into the water and jumped into the boat where Huxley was. He struck Huxley a violent blow on the face with the left hand, and then threw him into the water. He appeared to think that Huxley had knocked him into the water at first. Huxley was very nearly drowned. I did not see him struck more than once. They say he struck him with an oar. I did nor see him do so. Huxley's head was cut. He caught hold of the oar when it was handed to him, but he could not have got out without assistance. He was quite insensible when he was got out, and could not stand. Cross-examined by the Prisoner: I did not see him push you into the water, not anybody do so. You were so incapable I don't think you knew yourself. Prisoner I had no thought of throwing him into the water, but balanced over. Witness: You said you would do so.  Detective Bray said he saw prisoner take hold of the man and throw him in the water out of the boat. Huxley went out of sight, Witness ran to the spot and shouted "Throw him an oar." Prisoner was standing in the boat, and made a punch at him with the oar. (Here imitated the action of throwing a dart.) The oar struck him on the back of the head when he was under the water. Some one then caught him with an oar and brought him ashore. He was undressed and put in a warm bed at the Deva Hotel. He locked prisoner up, and on returning found Huxley being attended to by the doctor. Cross-examined by Prisoner: The oar was not pushed with the intention of rendering him assistance. You sort of darted at him. You seemed very excited, and under the influence of drink. - Prisoner: I gave him the oar to save him.-Bray - You could not do that, because his back was to you. He was about 15 feet from the shore. Thomas Willson (sic) said he was on the opposite bank of the river shortly after seven o'clock on Sunday evening, when this occurred. His attention was attracted by the crowd near the Deva Hotel. He saw the prisoner jump into the water, get into the boat where Huxley was, and deliberately strike him. He then took hold of him and pushed him out of the boat into the water. He saw Huxley taken out of the water and carried to the hotel. Dr. Bantock said he called in at the Deva by request, to see Huxley, about an hour after he had been taken out of the water, and after the usual methods had been taken to restore him to life by a gentleman belonging to Liverpool who happened to be there. Huxley lay in bed with his hand to his head. He shouted his name several times, but he gave no answer, and it was only when witness hurt him by pressing his hand on his head that he showed any signs on returning to consciousness. There was a bruise on the back of the head, and another on the forehead. He was told deceased had sunk twice, but could not say whether the stupefaction of Huxley arose from the effects of the blows or of the submersion. At this stage of the inquiry the case was adjourned till Wednesday next, the magistrates refusing bail for the prisoner's appearance. The general impression is that the case will be sent for trial at the ensuing assizes.
 
Cheshire Observer – Saturday 16 July 1864
JOTTINGS AT THE COUNCIL TABLE. " De mortuis nil nisi bonum" is a good old maxim, and its spirit would seem as applicable to retiring Chief Constables as to those who have for once and for ever shuffled off the load of humanity. Upon no subject have the various parties in the Council been more visibly at daggers drawn than upon the doings of Mr. Hill; in nothing has a more cordial spirit of unanimity been exhibited than when, his resignation having been accepted, it came to be considered what acknowledgment he should have for his long services. The change reflected as much credit upon the Council as it afforded a convincing proof of the fact that though some of Mr. Hill's practices have of late been regarded as exceptional, his career has in the main won him the high esteem of the community he undertook some forty years ago to serve. To com- pare small things with great, the point at issue was not unlike that decided in the Commons on Friday night. There the Ministry stood upon their trial; and though even their warmest friends might hesitate to give their entire approval to the course they had taken during the past month or two, their administration, when taken as a whole, was shown to have been in a high degree beneficial to the community, and on that ground, when it came to the test, they received the support of a considerable majority. So here the connection of police duties with racing engagements was obviously imprudent, and there were other incidents which might be viewed in the light of an official's peccadilloes, but upon the whole the citizens had every reason to congratulate themselves upon the choice they had made of a Chief Constable. They change in the general opinion, however, was too great to be passed over without notice by Alderman Trevor, who, in a pointed and vigorous speech, shewed how amply Mr. Hill's character had been vindicated by those who had desired most earnestly his removal from office. The late Chief Constable has enjoyed one privilege which men of higher as well as lower degree may have envied in vain. If he is not distinguished enough to have his name recorded in a "Contemporary Biography," he has no need to consult a phrenologist to have his character depictured. His ill deeds as well as his good deeds have most of them been blazoned forth to the world at the Town Hall and the Savings Bank, so that he had only to look to the discussions of the Council to obtain a reflection of every trait — whether distorted or not he himself would be left to form an opinion. Possibly this advantage may have been one of the "emoluments of office" pinned to his sleeve to make up his not very handsome salary. It was not easy to determine whether he was or was not fairly entitled by law to the £100 pension recommended by the Improvement Committee. The Act simply says that the superannuation allowance is to be calculated upon the constable's previous "pay," without stating whether the word pay means his bare salary or his income from every source in connection with the police force. Alderman Williams's interpretation is probably too lax when he says the word means simply what one party pays and the other receives; just as Mr. Meacock's rendering is too rigid when he confines the import of the word to the constable's salary alone. The fair construction would seem to be the amount received as wages and as fees for police duties, without including business which may or may not be attached to the office of constable, such as the inspection of weights and measures, &c. This sum, in Mr. Hill's case, would amount to about £140 a year. Apart from legal considerations, the moral duty of the corporation was clear. Mr. Hill had been promised £150 a year, indeed Mr. Johnson stated that he was engaged for that sum, and his other duties had been put upon him for the avowed purpose of saving the municipal funds; so that, as Mr. Bowers remarked, if the Council now took advantage of an arrangement entered into solely for their benefit, they would evidently be guilty of a breach of faith. The words of the Act are no doubt open to the meaning assigned them by the mover of the amendment, but the repute of dishonourable dealing is a thing more to be feared than a mandamus.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 4 June 1864
LOCAL AND DISTRICT NEWS.  The New Police Clothing. — We understand that at the meeting of the Chester Watch Committee, held on Thursday, the new clothing of the police was seen and generally approved of, with the exception of the pouch for the Staff, which in all probability will be altered another year.
 
  Cheshire Observer - Saturday 29 October 1864
CHESTER CITY POLICE COURT. SATURDAY; ( Before the Mayor, J. Clemison, Esq., Major French, Aid. Trevor, and J Williams, Esq )      Assault on a Woman.— Charles Speed, an ex-police sergeant, was charged with assaulting Mary Cullum, wife of a joiner, at Spitalfields Walks, near the Waterworks. Mr. Churton prosecuted. Mrs. Cullum owed the defendant a small debt, for which she had a set off. Some dispute had arisen and legal proceedings were threatened by the defendant On Saturday evening last he went to Mrs. Cullum's in a state of intoxication, and asked for some money. Mrs. Cullum would not give it him in consequence of the set off, and he then made an assault upon her. To protect herself from being kicked, Mrs. Cullum got hold of the kettle, when defendant struck it and smashed it. He behaved very violently, and came back three different times, frightening Mrs. Cullum and her five small children. Defendant was ordered to pay 10s. and costs, or fourteen days hard labour.
Advert for Contract for Police Clothing
Chester Chronicle - Saturday 14 January 1865 – note item 1 –“Tunic with metal numbers to collar”
Aldershot Military Gazette – Saturday 16 February 1867
THE THREATENED FENIAN RIOTS AT CHESTER. Some particulars of what is alleged to be a threatened outbreak Fenians at Chester, was received in London on Tuesday. It appears from one account that a man holding a Fenian commission in Liverpool gave certain information to the authorities there and his statement is said have been in all respects borne out by what has occurred. So important did his information appear that Detective Carlyle, of the Liverpool police, was sent on to Chester; and arriving there, warned the county and city authorities of the threatened attack at about three o'clock on Monday morning. Amongst other things the Fenian officer said that was intended to take possession of the 400 stand of arms belonging to the Chester Volunteers, and which were known to be kept in a small building, formerly used as cockpit. One of the first things done at Chester was to remove these arms to the Castle armoury. A detachment of soldiers was telegraphed for Manchester. When morning came the police were on the watch, and soon became aware of the arrival of numbers of roughs," of the Irish and Yankee”  type. As train after train came into the station, whether from Manchester or Liverpool, fresh additions were made to the supposed Fenians. These men lounged about the city in small groups, making frequent calls at public-houses, and having no apparent object in view. The soldiers who were stationed in the barracks were placed under arms, the volunteers were called out and rapidly mustered, about rifle and artillery volunteers answering the call. These were quartered with the soldiers in the barracks until about four o'clock the afternoon, when they were dismissed; but the precaution was taken to swear them all as special constables. At the time just mentioned a portion of the 54th Foot (West Norfolk) arrived from Manchester, and took the place vacated the volunteers. The mayor and his brother magistrates met together, and considered what would be the best means for preserving the old city from the threatened attack. Special constables were sworn in, and the police being drawn in from the outlying districts, were strengthened in the principal thoroughfares. In the early part the evening the streets and the old-fashioned rows were crowded with people, and the inhabitants generally were subject to intense excitement. The magistrates determined to sit in session all through the night, in order that they might be prepared for any emergency. At seven o'clock in the evening the volunteers again mustered, and in much greater force than was possible in the day time. A great towns' meeting was held at the same time, at which numbers of the citizens were enrolled as special constables. At eleven, a second detachment of soldiers arrived in the city. During the night groups of the supposed Fenians were seen to leave Chester on foot, as they had been balked of their design, and felt it was unsafe to stay any longer. A special train conveyed about 500 Guards from London to Chester. Captain Cafferty, of the American service, and who, it will be remembered, was arrested Dublin at the time of the suppression of the People, was seen in Chester on Monday. Shortly after his arrest, the captain was removed from Dublin to Cork, to be tried there on the adjournment of the special commission. He was tried and acquitted, but was retained custody on warrant obtained under the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act. After some time he was permitted to sail to America, undertaking that he would not return. When he reached America he did not remain so quiet as might have been expected. He was known to appear at many public meetings, and in other ways to show his sympathy with the Fenian movement in the United States. What was his object in appearing at Chester is not known, nor it known how or when he left the city. It stated that after the Bouse Commons rose Tuesday, the Government received information to the effect that six suspected persons had been arrested by the police. This has been since denied. Arrest of Supposed Fenians —On the arrival of the Liverpool and Holyhead steamer at North Wall Tuesday, sixty-seven passengers, belonging to the labouring class, were arrested, the majority carrying bags containing working tools. Before boarding one the steamers the police observed a conference of earnest character going amongst a large group of the persons subsequently arrested. Near where this group stood, three revolvers were found. The police believe that other weapons were thrown overboard to avoid seizure. Some of the prisoners denied the right of the police arrest to them, on the ground that the Habeas Act was restored. The grand jury has found a true bill against Joseph Meany  for treason-felony, and against several other persons for having arms in a proclaimed district.
Chester Chronicle - Saturday 8 June 1867
Inspection of the Chester Police Force.—On Monday morning the Chester Borough Police Force was inspected at the Linen Hall, by Col. Woodford, Her Majesty's Inspector Constabulary for the Northern District. The state of the force at the time of the inspection was follows:—I chief constable, 1 inspector, I sub-inspector, sergeants, detective officer, constables: total. 34. One constable was on duty, and one was required to complete the establishment. The following gentlemen were present at the inspection:— Mr. W. M. Williams (chairman of the Watch Committee), Major French, Messrs. Gerrard, Meacock, and S. Davies. The gallant Colonel made the following report on the Inspection: —Men: "Capital body." Clothing: "Remarkably well clothed." Books, "Very good order." The whole "a very creditable inspection;" which, may add, entitles the city to the repayment the Treasure of one-fourth the cost the force.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 3 August 1867
CHESTER CITY POLICE COURT SATURDAY. Charles Speed, ex-sergeant of the Chester police, Abbey Buildings, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in the Mug Market on Saturday night.— Fined 5s and costs or 7 days.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 26 June 1858
Heber Campbell, a drummer in the Cheshire Militia, "apparently about eighteen or nineteen years of age was charged with attempting to destroy himself.      Police Constable Hickey stated that at two o'clock that morning he met the prisoner in Handbridge, and from what he was told he was induced to follow him. The prisoner walked to the river side near the Mills, and jumped in; witness went into the water up to his knees, and called upon him to save himself, and at length the prisoner scrambled out. Witness took him into custody and he threatened to do it again. A sergeant in the militia said the prisoner lived at his house, and that he was drinking on the previous day.— Colour Sergeant Etchells said the prisoner did not bear a good character and had been tried by court martial for desertion. The prisoner, whose vacant stare and general manner gave reason to believe that he had not yet come to his right senses, said he was drunk when he tried to drown himself; he had come from Scotland, but had no friends nor relatives. He was remanded for a week.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 1 August 1863
CHESTER CITY POLICE COURT. MONDAY. (Before the Mayor [J. Williams Esq.,) B. C. Walker, J. Trevor, M. Frost, Esqs., and Dr. Jones.) An old woman named Hannah Dobson, a fish woman, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in front of the New Market, on Saturday, and fined 5s. and costs, or in default four days imprisonment Mr. Hill: They had a large take of fish, and they were all mad on Saturday night— these fish-women. Sarah Powell and Jane Thomas, on a charge of being drunk and disorderly, were fined 10s each or seven days' imprisonment. Henry Jones and Rowland Hughes were charged with being drunk and knocking at a public house door at one o'clock on Sunday morning. P.C. Wynne had charge of the case. One of the accused said that they left a public house in Northgate-street at twelve o'clock, and on hearing a row at the back of the Exchange they went to see what it was. The policeman Wynne came up to them and ordered them off. They did not go away at once, and Wynne, who appeared to be in a great rage, threatened to strike them with his stick. The accused defied him to do so, as they were committing no breach of the peace and doing no harm, and they were then locked up. Rowlands in addition, said that Jones was locked up first, and on his going to the police office, and enquiring about him, the door was opened, Wynne admitted him, and also locked him up. The case was dismissed. Sarah Woolley, for creating a disturbance and threatening to drown her infant child, in Crook street, on Saturday night, was fined 10s. and costs, or fourteen days. Beerhouse Keepers etc— The following beerhouse keepers, etc , were charged with selling liquor in their houses, in prohibited hours, on Sunday :— George Dodd, Boughton (before convicted), fined £5 and costs; Joseph Allison, the Peacock, Francis street (also previously convicted), fined £5 and costs; Charles Pritchard, Watergate-row South, fined 10s. and costs; Edward Greenwood, Axe Tavern (public-house) Watergate street, fined 20s. and costs; William Cook, Durham Ox (public-house), fined 20s. and costs; John MCreary (an ex-sergeant of police), the Bull, Pitt-street, fined 10s. and costs; James Hassall, Farmer’s Arm., case dismissed (the ale was given to his servants); John Miller, Market Tavern, George-street, fined 10s. and costs, Joseph Bewley, Cherry Orchard, case dismissed.— The Mayor, when delivering the decision of the Court in the foregoing cases, said it was high time that some strong steps should be taken to prevent the abominable practice of drinking all day on Sunday. Selling drink on Saturday night was bad enough, and the streets on these night’s, were disgraceful, from the row that took place in them, but on Sunday it was quite inexcusable, and the magistrate’s, were resolved to do what they could to put the practice down.
Beerhouse Case.— Henry Rathbone, landlord of a beer-house in Boughton, named the Odd Fellow Arms, was charged by P.C 14 (Carroll) with having two men in his house drinking on Sunday morning at about a quarter to six. Mr. Churton appeared for the defence, and called upon John Smothers, who said that he called upon the defendant and a man named Forester to go to the Baths The defendant had told him to call upon him, which he did, but had no beer, nor did he see any in the kitchen. At the time that the police man came in Mr. Forester was repairing a panel of the door with his penknife. The policeman came in, and the defendant told him there was no beer to be drawn, when he said he was a policeman, and was admitted. The officer had some drink, but there was no drink in a glass, nor a jug, nor was there a glass or a jug on the table. The policeman swore that there was ale on the table in a jug. Mr. Forester deposed to the above, and said that the policeman appeared to he in drink at the time, but he did not see the defendant offer the officer and money. PC Carroll said that when he went in, the defendant’s, wife was in the act of putting the beer away, and the defendant offered him some money to say nothing about it. The money was pushed into his hands and he observed it to be silver. Sergeant Myles deposed to having seen the complainant at seven o'clock in the morning, and he was perfectly sober. Mr. Hill said he never saw the complainant in drink since he had been on the Force. The room was cleared, and the bench remarked that the care was clearly proved, and to their satisfaction, and they, fined the defendant 40s. and costs. The Defendant:  I am an innocent man, and the policeman has .worn falsely- if there was any drink upon the table that morning, I trust I may never speak again. The defendant was ordered to pay the fine on Monday next.
Chester Chronicle - Saturday 24 April 1869 - Chester Chronicle - Saturday 24 April 1869
WRETCHED END OF FEMALE MISER IN CHESTER. On Saturday last information was given at the City Police Office of the disappearance aged woman, the name Emma Bennett, who lived in row houses at the Gorse 'Stacks. Not being of very neighbourly habits, those who lived near her were not surprised they saw nothing Miss Bennett for days together; and three weeks elapsed before any particular notice was taken of her absence, and then some workmen in a yard near the cottage made some remarks which led to inquiries being made concerning her mysterious disappearance. The police took charge the matter, and Detective Wallace, who had to break into the house, found that she had been dead for some days, having perished, not through starvation, at least miserably, and without friend near her when she died. The same day that this shocking discovery was made, an inquest was held at the Queen's Arms vaults. Brook-street, before Mr. J. Tatlock. Deputy Coroner, when Mr. T. H. Brookes was appointed foreman of the jury. After viewing the body the following evidence was taken: Ann Grice, of Carter's Court. Union-street, widow, said the deceased was her sister, and about years of age. She was never married and always lived herself since her father died, which was twenty-fire years ago. She was an upholsteress and was very industrious. It was twelve months since the witness had seen her. Witness had been once or twice see the deceased, but she was at home she would not see her, and always kept the door fast. The deceased came see witness at Mr. Carter's, and then told her that she need not come to see her. For the List five years she had suffered from asthma and difficulty breathing. Elizabeth Moyle who lives near the deceased, and the wife of George Moyle, cabinet-maker, said deceased lived by herself. Witness saw her last about three weeks ago coming over Cow-lane Bridge in the direction of her house. She said she could not get her breath, and witness walked on home, the deceased following her. There were shutters to the windows of her house, she scarcely ever had them to. Witness saw her but seldom. The house belongs to the Marquess of Westminster, and the rent is collected every quarter. Last week the neighbours began to miss her and this morning the men working in the yard at the back of the houses missed he and information was given to the police. Mrs. Martin was with the deceased the evening witness saw her on Cow-lane Bridge. She never associated much with the neighbours. Catherine Martin, who lives in Gorse-Stacks Court, said she did not know the deceased, but one night, the last witness had said, she bade deceased "good night," and she said slowly, "good night,"' and then witness passed Mrs. Moyle. Mr. Thomas Brittain M.8.C.5., said he had seen the body, of deceased and made an external examination. It was very much decomposed, and death must have taken place several days ago. There were no marks of violence visible. The body was much emaciated, almost a skeleton, and it was his opinion that deceased died from starvation. There were some bits mouldy bread, some jam, and a small bottle of port wine which she did not appear to have touched. It did not seem that there was any food in her stomach. She was covered up with a lot of old clothes in bed lying in a half-erect position, and had apparently died with a struggle. Detective William Wallace, of the City Police, said at a quarter to nine o'clock he received information that a woman living at the Gorse Sticks had not been seen for a considerable time. He went to the house of the deceased and found the door and windows fast. He broke one of the windows and got in. The door was bolted inside, but not locked, and there was no key in the lock. He looked round and the furniture seemed to be in order. He then went upstairs and found the deceased lying dead in bed in the position in which the jury had seen her. She had a cap and chemise, but no night dress on. The clothes she wore were apparently put upon her to keep her warm, but there was no sheet blanket. On searching the house he found about a couple of pounds of bread, some dripping, some jam, bottle port wine, and 3s in a small box. There were two pieces of bread on the window sill of the bedroom, which she could reach, and they were mouldy like the half-loaf in the kitchen. Mrs. Grice, recalled, said her sister would starve herself sooner than spend money. She was miserly in her habits, and had a little money in the Savings Bank. Lately she had not been working. The Deputy Coroner said he thought there was necessity for a post mortem examination, as the doctor's opinion was that she had died of starvation, which would appear tobe so from her extreme emaciation. The jury returned verdict of "found dead," as they did not consider there was sufficient evidence that deceased the had died of starvation, although she was penurious in her mode of life. After the inquest Detective Wallace proceeded the house the deceased, which he had left in the possession of a police constable from the time he entered, and in the presence of Mrs. Grice and Mrs. Gibson, the sisters of the deceased, a search was made. In one place was found the sum of £2.6.11d in copper, silver, and gold being wrapped separately and also, elsewhere, two bank books showing that deceased had deposited nearly £200 in the Savings Bank and £550 odd in Messrs. Dixon's bank, or £750 19.8d at both. Besides what Detective Wallace stated in evidence, it seems that when found the bedding on which the deceased lay was propped with earthenware pans, one of which contained rubbish. Another peculiarity was this that she had been in the habit of taking care of the pins and needles, tying them in small packets. Everything about the place bore out the statements of her sisters as her penuriousness. It is, however, but fair to say that the house, was not in a dirty state, though not quite so clean as one might expect to find the house of a spinster to be. No will was found, so far we can learn, but there a brother and two sisters of the deceased, they, on legal advice took out letters of administration a few days after the funeral of the deceased, which took place at the Cemetery on Monday.
Advert – Chester Chronicle Saturday 17 July 1869
“Sale of Building Materials and Old Uniform at new Police Station Northgate Street”
Cheshire Observer – Saturday 19 August 1871
Assaulting the Police. — Louis James was charged by P.C. Taylor with being drunk and disorderly in Lower Bridge-street on Saturday evening, shortly before eight o'clock. The prisoner, it appeared, had been turned out of a public-house, whereupon he became most riotous in the street. The policeman persuaded him to go home, but he refused and struck him in the mouth. Afterwards, on the way to the station, he kicked him many times, with such severity that he had been under medical treatment ever since. From the evidence of two witnesses it appeared that the prisoner's conduct was exceedingly violent, it having taken, according to one statement, seventy persons to get him to the police station. He was sentenced to pay a fine of 42 shillings and costs, or two months with hard labour.
Chester Chronicle – Saturday 12 September 1863
POLICE GOVERNMENT CHESTER. From the proceedings of the Watch Committee, it appeared that Mr. Hill chief constable, had complained that inconsequence of the higher rate of wages paid in the neighbourhood of Chester police officers, he could not keep his men, who were leaving him nearly every day. Alderman Griffith proposed that the present third-class constables be promoted to the second-class, and that for the future the third class constables be promoted to the second class after two month's service instead of twelve month's, provided their conduct has been satisfactory. He agreed with Mr. Hill, that, under the present system of paying police, respectable and efficient officers could not be kept in the city. The Sheriff seconded the motion. The Mayor remarked that no doubt it would be disagreeable to advance the rate of police wages, but the wages of the police were like everything else and found their level in the market. Mr. Owen said it would be satisfactory to the Council if the Chairman of the Watch Committee (Alderman Griffith) would inform them what was the number of the third-class constables. Alderman Griffith replied that the number was about one-third the whole force, or some eight or ten men. The proposition was agreed to.
THE BUTTER MARKET AND MAGISTRATES COURT. Major French submitted plans to the Council for the alterations at present going on in the Old Butter Market, Northgate-Street, for the purpose of converting into police offices and magistrates' court He said that the work was going on as rapidly as possible, and he hoped that the next Council meeting he would be enabled to report the completion of the alterations. The Mayor stated that the alterations had been commenced by the Surveyor, at his request. It was quite clear that the present police office was getting worse and worse every day, and the time was not far distant when it would have to be abandoned altogether. Great complaints had been made both by the magistrates and the public of the inconvenience of transacting the public business at the City Gaol, and it had occurred to him that in the Butter Market they could find sufficient accommodation for their business, and at very small expense, with respect to the necessary alterations. If instead of going there they had hired apartments any other part of the town it would have cost a considerable sum for the three years, during which they would probably occupy it. The estimate of expenditure to be incurred was £60, but additional allowance of £20 or £30 might be reasonably made to this figure. There was one mistake in the report with regard to the intended new building, which was that it was originally intended to have the lock-ups there, but was found that there was not sufficient room for the purpose; for if they attempted to put prisoners into the small space which would be available, they would have a visit from the Secretary of State by return of post (Laughter.) There were three rooms in which prisoners might be put for half an hour or so, but these could only be used temporarily, and the prisoners would have to be taken down the City Gaol. The Mayor concluded by moving the approval of the plans for converting the Butter Market, Northgate-street, into police offices, and magistrate’s rooms-. Mr. Farish said that he had no objection to the proposed expenditure, but he wished to call the attention of the Corporate Estate Committee to frequent complaints which had been made the town in consequence of the inability of the Inspector of Weights and Measures- (which were not properly adjusted) to fully carry out his particular occupation. Major French said that there was a temporary room for Mr. Hill (chief constable) to adjust the weights and measures, and was intended to build a place in the Butter Market for the purpose. The motion was seconded by Alderman Trevor, and carried.
Chester Chronicle - Saturday 11 June 1864 City Police Court Monday. Attempting to Pick Pockets at the Railway Station. Jane Ward and Catherine Murphy were charged on the evidence of Detective Bray with attempting to pick pockets at the Railway Station on Saturday afternoon. Mr. Cartwright appeared for the defendants.—Detective Bray said on Saturday afternoon, between two and three o'clock, he was on the platform at the General Railway Station, and saw the prisoners "trying" ladies pockets. They afterwards changed their shawls. He took them into custody, and on searching them found a purse containing four half crowns and a half sovereign in their possession. He asked Ward if it was all the money they had about them, and she said "yes.'; The prisoners had also a carpet bag, in which were two sovereigns wrapped in a piece of paper. He had seen the prisoners at the Railway Station about a fortnight ago.—A witness named Patrick Gilbride deposed to watching the prisoners in the market on Saturday week. He saw them together on that day, but did not see them attempting pick any pockets.—Mr. Cartwright said the case simply amounted to one of suspicion; he was instructed that it was completely a mistake on the part of the policeman. The prisoners had simply come to Chester on lawful business to meet their husbands, having all the accompaniments that ordinary travellers had in the way of luggage The woman whose pocket was alleged to have been “tried " was not present, therefore he hoped the magistrates would dismiss the case.—The magistrates, however, took a different view of it, and sent the prisoners to gaol for one month.
Chester Chronicle – Saturday 30 July 1864 TESTIMONIAL TO MR. JOHN HILL Chief Constable of the Police Force of the City of Chester, having resigned after a service extending over a period of nearly forty years, it is proposed by his numerous friends that the occasion should not be allowed to pass without affording the citizens and the public generally an opportunity of presenting him with a substantial token of their esteem. Subscriptions were stated to not exceed one guinea. Over 60 guineas was subscribed and in addition, local banks were open to receive donations from the public.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 6 August 1864 LOCAL AND DISTRICT NEWS - The Watch Committee of Chester met on Wednesday, to consider the appointment of a new Inspector of Police for the Borough. There were 32 applications, the applicants ranging from Captains in the army and Commanders in the navy to journeymen tailors. Four of the applicants were finally selected to attend personally at a future day, the names being as follows: — Mr. Alexander, chief constable of Leominster; Mr. Fenwick, superintendent and inspector at Leeds, Mr. Pattison, head constable at Beverley; and Mr. Scanlon, head constable at Lincoln.
London Standard - Monday 17 October 1864
The City Police. — The City Police Committee have resolved to adopt for the force the “Britannia hat," or helmet, recommended to them two years ago by the surgeon to the force. Mr. G. Borlaso Childs.— City Press.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 24 December 1864
CHESTER CITY POLICE-COURT. A Policeman Wanted at Saltney.— Whilst the Bench were adjudicating upon a case of drunkenness from Saltney, Alderman Trevor called the attention of the Chief Constable to the necessity of a city policeman being stationed at Saltney, and said that he had been informed by a gentleman (formerly a member of the Town Council) that the scenes of drunkenness witnessed at Saltney on Sundays were really disgraceful. — The Mayor said that the Flintshire magistrates were going to erect a lock-up at Saltney. and the city authorities ought certainly to do something — Chief Constable Fenwick said a policeman was going to be stationed at Saltney, and they were now only waiting until a house could be obtained for him to live in. — John Reece, the man whose case was being heard when this conversation arose, was fined for being drunk. He stated that he got the liquor he drank at the Engine public-house. Mr. Fenwick asked for and obtained the consent of the Bench to lay an information against the landlord.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 14 January 1865
Chester Town Council - INCREASE IN THE WAGES OF THE POLICE. The Town Clerk read a recommendation of the Watch Committee that the pay of the police constables be increased as follows, viz. :— 1st class to 21s. per week, 2nd class to 20s. per week, and 3rd class to I9s. per week. The proceedings of the Watch Committee included a report from Mr. Fenwick, the chief constable, stating that in consequence of the low state of wages, the Chester police force served as a depot for the County, because when men became entitled to their discharge, they were attracted thither by the superior pay. Recruits who knew neither the city nor its inhabitants were far less useful than men who had gained experience in the force. It was proposed that as before, the number of first-class men should be limited to ten, and that to entitle men to be removed from the 3rd to the 2nd class, they must have served twelve months. Mr. W. M. Williams said that this recommendation was laid before the Watch Committee by the Chief Constable. It was found that the Chester force was paid much below the average. At Birkenhead, where there were 59 men, the wages were 18s 20s and 22s, and in the county of Cheshire 19s., 20s., and 211., while in Chester the men were only paid 18s, 18s 6d, and 20s 6d. The Chief Constable had given him a memorandum, stating that out of ten men who resigned during the last twelve months, six had gone to the Cheshire Constabulary. He remembered a similar argument being used by Mr. Hill. The additional expense occasioned by the increase of wages would be very trifling, viz. :— Ten first-class men, £13; 2nd class, £58 10s; 3rd class, £7 16s; total, £79 6s. In order to meet that they deducted a quarter to be refunded by the Treasury, £20. There was a great expense occasioned by the frequent alterations to clothing, accoutrements, etc, consequent upon policemen leaving the force, which they estimated at £35. This left an approximate net cost to the city of £22 more than it already paid. The Watch Committee had well considered the question, and now asked the Council to approve of the recommendation. Mr. Ford seconded the recommendation, and said that he had advocated the increase for nearly two years. He mentioned two years ago that the best men were drafted from the city police force to the county. For the paltry saving made by the present wages, it was not worthwhile to lose efficient men from the force. Mr. Williams had alluded to the expense caused by the alterations of clothing. A more important matter was the more extended detection of crime which followed through having experienced officers. It was like having a badly paid servant. As soon as you had taught her duties, away she went. (Hear, hear.) The recommendation was then carried unanimously.
THE HELMET HATS. Mr. W. M. Williams moved that the Watch Committee be authorised to supply the constables with the usual clothing. Alderman J. Williams said it was very proper that the police should be supplied with clothing, but he could not bring himself to vote in favour of a motion to give the police or any other human being, those horribly ugly hats. (Laughter.) Mr. Ford seconded the original proposition, which was carried, Alderman Williams, amid some laughter, holding up his hand in the negative. The Town Clerk stated that the Home Secretary had certified to the Treasury that the police had been maintained in a state of efficiency during the last year. Mr. Ford was glad to find that the prognostication that when the appointment was made they would lose the government allowance was not verified but the contrary.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 11 February 1865
LOCAL AND DISTRICT NEWS. Mr John Hills Testimonial. — We have already given an account of the presentation of plate, at the Savings Bank, to Mr. John Hill, consisting of a silver centre piece together with a purse containing 186 sovereigns, as a mark of esteem on his retirement from the office of Chief Constable, after a period of service extending over forty years. Since the presentation Mr. Hill has had the names of all the subscribers engrossed upon vellum, and beautifully illuminated by our talented heraldic professor, Mr. S. Brown, Bold Square, Chester. There are two pieces, the larger of which contains the names of all the subscribers, two hundred and sixty two in number. In the upper part on the right (or dexter side) are the arms, crest, garter, and motto of the City. Behind the shield is seen the gold baton or mace of a high constable (emblems of his office), the whole surrounded with appropriate foliage. On the left or sinister side are the armorial bearings of Hill, with the motto "Pour apprendre oublier ne puis." The second piece contains the signatures of the City Magistrates, supported on each side by the sword and mace; the whole surmounted by the coronet of the Earldom of Chester, issuing from which are palm branches, emblems of the peace and good feeling existing between the city and the late chief constable Underneath on a scroll is the city motto, " Antiqui colant antiquum dierum."
Chester Observer – Saturday 25 February 1865
INSPECTOR'S REPORT ON THE CHESTER. Last week we gave the report of the Government Inspector of Constabulary on the Liverpool and Birkenhead Police. This week we give the report on the Chester Constabulary Force. Borough of Chester.— Population in 1861, 31,101; area in acres, 3,518; number of constables, 35; population to one constable, 864.      At the inspection of the police for this city, which was made on the 26th of April, the Inspector ascertained upon enquiry that the chief constable was engaged in private business, and was employed in collecting contributions towards the formation of a race fund, and in other matters connected with the races; he therefore considered it his duty to represent to the members of. the watch committee then present, that such practices were incompatible with the proper duties of that officer.      On the next day the Inspector wrote to the mayor a letter, of which the following is a copy : — 27th April 1864. Sir, I have the honour to apprize you that, after my inspection of the police force of the City of Chester yesterday morning, I considered it my duty to report to Secretary Sir George Grey that the chief constable is engaged in private business, that he has been employed in collecting contributions towards the formation of a race fund, and in other matters connected with the races. I have to add, that I also deemed it my duty to report that a person has recently been appointed to the responsible office of inspector who not only had no previous knowledge of police duties, but whose education in other respects is admitted to be defective. I have, etc.,— (Signed) J. Woodford, Lieutenant Colonel, Inspector of Constabulary. Mayor, Chester. The result has been, that the chief constable resigned his appointment and was granted a pension upon his retirement, and that the inspector has been retained in the service on the ground of his having proved to be a useful and valuable officer. A successor to the Chief Constable was appointed on the 10th, and entered upon his duties on the 31st of August last. This establishment consists of 36 men of all ranks, and, in the opinion of the Inspector, is sufficient in number for the ordinary duties of the city.
Cheshire Observer – Saturday 8 April 1865
CHESTER CITY POLICE COURT. SATURDAY. (Before the Mayor, Major French. J. Trevor, and J. Clemison, Esqrs.) Drunkards. — John Cairns was charged by Police Sergeant Lindsay with being drunk in Foregate-street, on Friday evening Prisoner stated that he had lost his coat. Fined 5s. and costs or three days hard labour. Obstruction. John Griffiths, butcher, Foregate street, not appealing to answer a summons charging him with obstructing the footpath, by hanging meat outside his shop in a narrow part of the footway. Police Sergt. Lindsay proved the service of the summons, and Police Sergt. Hickey deposed to the offence. There had been a previous offence proved. — Fined 10s. and costs.
Cheshire Observer – Saturday 20 May 1865
The public have doubtless noticed this week a change for the better in the style of the police hats, new helmets having just been supplied to the force by Mr Quellyn Roberts, of a much improved construction. They are only half the weight of the old glazed hats and are made with a guard, which will resist a severe blow, and in addition acts as a ventilator. Having a chin strap, the helmet will not fall off in case of a row, as the old hats almost variably did. The men also speak of their new coverings as much more comfortable in wear as the old style.  Some months ago, Councillor Gerrard drew attention to the fact that the buttons and badges worn by the Police were not impressed with the correct city arms, and when the new hats were ordered, Mr. Samuel Brown, heraldic artist of this city, was commissioned to execute a heraldic design. His design is a really ornamental one, being formed of the Arms of Chester, encircled by the words "Chester Police," with a festoon on each side, surmounted by an Earls Coronet. New buttons, with the city crest (a sheathed sword and garter) with the words " Chester Police” have also been placed on the new coats recently supplied to the force. It is customary to hear persons inveigh against the helmet hats, but if they are more durable and comfortable than the old ones, we think the fact alone ought to decide point in their favour. (Notes on Samuel Brown Heraldic Painter - 1828 Sam is listed in Pigots Herald Painter Bold Square Chester 1841 Census Samuel born Chester aged 50 listed in Bold Square Chester with Mary 1844 Sams Dau Married Ad given Bold Square 1847 Sam Made a Freeman of the City of Chester by Apprentice 1851 Sam 3 Bold Square Chester Age 60yrs 1855 Sams wife Mary dies Bold square Chester 1858 Sam age 66 Marries again to Eliz Fryer Widow  1861 Census Sam at 17 Bold Square age 70 yrs  1865 Sams 2nd wife dies 3 Bold Square 1867/8 Sam on Electoral register - after that Sam seems to disappear - Not on 1871 census. Footnote in 1844 Virginia Brown Married Queen Street Independent Chapel Listing Sam Brown Herald Painter as her Father She is not listed with Sam in 1841 and cannot find a bapt for her but later census give birthplace as Chester Sam Buried both wives in Overleigh cemetery In the same grave)
Chester Chronicle – Saturday 29 April 1865
Serious Charge against a Respectable Tradesman.— Mr. John Little, grocer, of this city, was charged with being drunk and assaulting P.C. Tracey, (No. 22) in the execution of his duty on Saturday night last. Mr. Duncan, of the firm of Ford and Duncan, appeared for Mr. Little. The officer, when he applied for a summons against the defendant on Monday, told his story, which be found another part of our police report, and he adhered to the same statement to-day. The summons, as will be seen from Monday's proceedings, was not granted. Mr. Little's solicitor promising that he should appear to-day without the necessity of such process being served upon him. The policeman's evidence was to the effect that while endeavouring to disperse a crowd of persons Eastgate-street, a few minutes after twelve o'clock on Saturday night, Mr. Little went up to him and remonstrated with him for not being there earlier as a fight had taken place. The officer told him mind his own business, when defendant said "you are half drunk" and gave him push, sending, him off the footpath. He then took Mr. Little into custody.—ln examination Mr. Duncan, said the officer said that Mr. Little went up to him and said there had been a row in the street, opposite his shop, for nearly half hour, when he replied that could not have been as he had passed down towards the Eastgate about ten minutes before. The charge he preferred against the defendant to the Inspector was for being drunk and assaulting him. He did not say to Mr. Little "mind your own business, you don't pay watch rates." When defendant came to him he was taking a hat off man's head which one of those in the row had sworn to as being his property. He (the officer) could swear that was perfectly sober at the time. He did not go on duty until 11 o'clock that night. He would say that Mr. Little was drunk at the time.—P.C. Diggory said he was with Tracey at the time and corroborated his testimony. —Inspector Jones said: A little after 12 o'clock on Saturday night, he met the officer, Tracey, who had defendant in custody. Mr. Little was saying to the constable, "you are drunk, you are drunk." He told witness that he charged the officer with being drunk and neglecting his duty. Witness told him that if he had any charge to make against Tracey he had better go the office and do it proper manner and not call out in the street—Cross examined.—The constable charged Mr. Little with being drunk and assaulting him.—By Dr. Jones—The officer was quite sober. Mr. Little must have been tipsy or he would not have acted the way he did.—A man named Ferritt said he heard Mr. Little accuse the officer of not doing his duty, and saw him push him in the breast when he took him (Mr. Little) into custody. —The evidence of Peter Thomas, who did not witness the assault, but heard one or two of the expressions already deposed to having been given,—Mr. Duncan said this was a very serious case, because it involved the character of a highly respectable tradesman, hitherto held a high position in the city, and he (Mr. Duncan) thought he should be able to prove that what the policeman had stated was false. It appeared that at about quarter o'clock on Saturday night, Mr. Little closed his establishment and took his letters to the post. On his return he met with Mr. Small and Mr. Cowap, two Rifle Volunteers, and Mr. Little belonging to the same corps as themselves, and a conversation sprung up respecting the international match that was going on. Having conversed upon the subject for a long time they walked down Eastgate-street, and at last stood on the side path opposite Mr. Little's shop. While so standing a number of persons congregated together on the street and a fight ensued. It lasted about quarter an hour, during which time Mr. Little, Small, and Cowap, looked about for a policeman, but none could be found. Ultimately, however, when the fight was over and the people about to disperse, Tracey and Diggory put in an appearance. Mr. Little then went to Tracy and said, "really it is too bad your not being here sooner, there has been great disturbance." The officer said "mind your own business, you don't pay watch rates." Mr. Little said Oh. I see what is the matter, you are half-drunk." Tracey said "if you say that again I'll lock you up." Mr. Little repeated the assertion, when the officer seized him a most ruffianly manner by the breast, tearing open his coat waistcoat, and shirt, and took him into custody. Mr. Little said “you need not do that, I will go with you quietly." When they arrived at the Cross they met the Inspector, and the officer said "this man charges me with being half drunk." The Inspector said "you are not drunk and that is enough for you." Mr. Little then went up to the police office and enquired for Mr. Fenwick, the Chief Constable, who he was informed, was ill at home, and they (the magistrates) were aware, he came meet the charge on Monday morning. Those were the circumstances of the case.—Mr. Charles Cowap was then called and corroborated Mr. Duncan's statement. Mr. Little was perfectly sober and acted in a most calm, dispassionate manner. The officer, the contrary, was not sober, his ruffianly conduct to Mr. Little, and his demeanor [sic] generally, indicated the fact. Mr. Small gave similar testimony. The Magistrates retired, and after few minutes consultation returned into court and dismissed the case.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 29 April 1865
Alarm of Fire. — At half-past three on Wednesday, an alarm was given by acting Police Sergeant Lindsay, and the fire-bell rung. The fire was among some straw in a midden, upon which some hot ashes had been thrown, but there was more smoke than anything else. A reel was brought to the place, and the fire soon put out.
The police force of the borough of Chester underwent the annual government inspection on Saturday last, at ten o'clock, in the Linen Hall. Colonel Woodford, Inspector-General of Constabulary for the northern district, was the inspecting officer. The clothing and accoutrements were minutely examined, and the men were put through a few military movements, with which the inspector expressed himself pleased. The books at the police station were also examined. The Chairman of the Watch Committee and a number of members were present, and we believe that at the close of the proceedings the Colonel expressed himself well satisfied with the appearance of the police, terming them "a fine body of men."
Cheshire Observer – Saturday 29 July 1865
Chester City Police Court Monday - Lynch Law at Handbridqe.—      William Wright was charged with indecent conduct to a little girl, 12 years old, of interesting appearance. It seemed that on Sunday the prisoner saw the girl in Sty-lane, and behaved in an indecent manner towards her and made improper overtures. This came to the knowledge of the women of Handbridge, and with the assistance of a man the prisoner was pilloried to a gate, and his conduct made known to the passers by. After under-going the torments of pillory for some time he was released, when he made straight for the police station and related how he had been treated by "the women of Handbridge." Inquiries were made, which resulted in the police obtaining evidence as to his conduct to the little girl. Hence the charge against him-— He was committed to prison for three months.
 
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 10 March 1866
THE CITY POLICE FORCE - From the Reports of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary for the year ending 29th September last, laid before the House of Commons last week, the following relates to the Chester City Police Force :— There has not been any alteration in the strength of the police force of this city since the last report, though a considerable number of changes have taken place among the men, by resignation or dismissal, to the extent of nearly two-fifths of the whole establishment. When inspected, on the 22nd April, the force was complete, and presented the appearance of a fine and very effective body of men; the clothing, however, seemed to be somewhat deficient in quality, or, at any rate, much inferior to that which had been provided in some other boroughs at no greater expense. The books appeared to have been well kept. The office, charge room, and cells for prisoners being of a temporary character, pending the rebuilding of the town-hall, do not call for any observations beyond the fact that they were clean and in good order. The Inspector is of opinion that the number of this force is, on the whole, sufficient for the ordinary duties of the city, and that there are good grounds for believing that it will be maintained in a satisfactory state of efficiency. The force being reported efficient by the Inspector entitle the city to the repayment by Government of one fourth of the cost of the establishment.
Chester Chronicle – Saturday 17 November 1866
Breach of the Game Act.— Mary Speed, an old woman, was charged with a breach of the Game Act. Detective Bray saw the old woman in Bridge-street on Thursday morning last with two baskets in her possession containing eleven dead rabbits, which were stiff and warm and covered over. Her defence was that she had bought the rabbits of a woman from Mold, whose name she did not know. She was dismissed.
 
Cheshire Observer Saturday 15 December 1866:
James Ratcliff, one of the pensioners of the City Police Fund, has come into possession of funded property to the amount of £125,000, besides an estate which realises £3000 per annum.(JT says: 2012 rates = £125,000 equates to £5.395.000 and £3000 equates to £129,480.)
 
 Chester Chronicle - Saturday 2 March 1867
CHESTER CITY POLICE COURT. Saturday.—(Before the Mayor, E. C. Walker, J. Smith, J. Rogers, and E. S. Roberts, Esqrs.) Assault.— John Douglass, potato dealer, Back Brook-street was charged with being drunk and assaulting Alfred Bloor landlord of the Cottage public-house. The complainant stated that early this morning defendant attempted enter plaintiff's house. He would not allow him to go in, whereupon defendant struck complainant in the face. P.C. 16 said that little after one o'clock this morning he was in Brook Street, and saw the defendant kicking at Mr. Bloor's door. He saw defendant strike complainant—Defendant said there was a lot of people playing at bagatelle Boor's house. He had been inside, and saw two policemen playing at the game, but he did not take their numbers.—Complainant said there were two officers playing at bagatelle.—Defendant's wife implored the Bench to be merciful to her husband, as she had six children to maintain.—Defendant was fined 5s. and costs, or three days.—Defendant's wife: How long in gaol if he does not pay?— Reply - Till Monday.—Defendant's wife: Then he shall go. (Laughter)
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 13 April 1867
THE PAY OF THE POLICE SERGEANTS. The Clerk read the proceedings of the Watch Committee, who recommended that the present scale of pay of the sub inspector and sergeants of police be abolished, and that in lieu thereof the following scales be adopted:— The sub-inspector to receive 28s. per week; each sergeant 24s. per week, and after three years service as such, and provided his conduct has been satisfactory, to receive 26s. per week. Alderman W. M. Williams said, as Chairman of the Watch Committee he had very little to say in advocating the adoption of the recommendation of the committee. They had all heard the minutes read, and although the application for increase of salaries had been made prior to the last council meeting the committee thought it better to thoroughly mature the matter and investigate it before bringing it before the Council, which they did, the result being the recommendation which they had all heard read. He had much pleasure in moving the adoption of that recommendation. In many towns there were four classes of police sergeants, but in Chester, where the sergeants were not so numerous, two distinctive classes were sufficient. They would perceive that by this alteration the sub-inspector would receive 28s. per week, that a sergeant would receive 24s. per week, and after three years' service as such, and provided his conduct was satisfactory, 26s. a week. He dared say that they (the Council) would like to know the annual increase that would be thus entailed. Sergeant Sutton came into the force in 1847, and was appointed sergeant in 1857, his sergeancy extending over 10 years, his total service in the force being 20 years. Hickey came into the force in 1857, was promoted to a sergeancy in March, 1861, thus being in the service 10 years, out of which he had been 6 years sergeant. Evans came on the force in December, 1850, and was appointed sergeant in August, 1864, making 2½ years as sergeant, and I6½  years in the force. Hughes, the junior sergeant, entered the service in August, 1855, and in June, 1866, he was promoted to the office of sergeant, thus being 11 months as sergeant, and 11¾  years in the service. The effect of the recommendation would be this: Sutton and Hickey's immediate promotion, at 4s a week, would be £10 8s annually; Sub-inspector Lindsey, 3s. a week, would be £7 16s. annually, giving a total of £18 4s., from which must be deducted one-fourth, paid by the treasury £4. 11s , leaving the nett annual outlay £13 13s. Evans would be entitled to the advance in August next, and Hughes in 1869, supposing their conduct should prove satisfactory in the meantime. He had much pleasure in moving the adoption of the recommendation. Mr. Tasker seconded the recommendation. He thought the resolution did not go far enough, for respecting the policemen it was something like the old saying, "Live, horse, and thou shalt have meat (grass)." There was another thing for consideration to which he wished to draw their attention to, which was that the humble, private policemen in the city of Chester were less paid than the men of any other force in the neighbourhood, the least rate of wages in the county constabulary being 20s, that at Birkenhead 22s. per week. Alderman W. M. Williams said he thought that Mr. Tasker's remarks were beside the question. It would be time enough to speak of an advance to the constables when an application was made to the Council. When this took place the attention of the Watch Committee would be called to it. Mr. T. Q Roberts wished to know what was meant by the words "provided his conduct has been satisfactory.'' Alderman W. M. Williams— That is to say, supposing there are no marks against him. The Mayor then put the resolution to the meeting, and it was carried nem dis.
Nottinghamshire Guardian – Friday 25 October 1867
THE ATTEMPT TO FIRE CHESTER POLICE STATION. It was about ten o'clock at night on Friday when an explosion was heard on the roof of the police court which adjoins the police office and cells. The inspector happened at the time to be in the magistrates room, making an entry in the charge book. Startled by the explosion he looked up, and, through the skylight saw a brilliant flash. The room immediately was filled with a dense phosphoric vapour which entered between the leaves of the ventilator; the boards of which were on fire. After the explosion the inspector, anticipating that an attempt was about to be made to liberate some prisoners confined in the cells, locked the door, and by way of giving an alarm rung the fire bell. The Fire Brigade were immediately on the spot, and on climbing the roof found the slates and woodwork covered with a smouldering phosphoric flame, which, resisting the application of water, was (viz., by throwing earth upon the roof) with difficulty extinguished. On removing a portion of the woodwork it was found that there adhered to it a substance resembling “Greek fire.” On a more minute examination of the roof the neck and shoulders of a three-ounce bottle were found, the cork of which was securely fastened down with a covering of linen tied with string. Inside the glass was a substance resembling phosphorus in appearance and smell. The outside of the glass was blackened by the explosion. Chief Constable Fenwick then sent for the mayor and magistrates, also despatching messengers to Colonel Call, of the 18th Royal Irish, and Captain Smith, Chief Constable of Cheshire. The volunteer corps were warned, and the police-constables who had been on duty during the day were also summoned and armed with loaded revolvers. Shortly after one o'clock this morning a sentinel at the back of the castle observed a group of men standing in the field below. He gave an alarm to the garrison, and the soldiers were called up, but the men had made off. It is believed that the attempt on the police station was made for the purpose of diverting the attention of the authorities to that part of the town, and that the group of men observed at the back of the castle were there for the purpose of making an attempt upon the garrison in the event of some part of the regiment being withdrawn into the heart of the City. The watch committee of the Chester Town Council, together with Earl Grosvenor, MP., and other magistrates for the city held a meeting. The permission of the watch committee was granted for the swearing-in of special constables, and it was resolved to offer a reward of £100 for the apprehension of the perpetrator of the dastardly act. Captains of special police have been sworn in since.
Chester Chronicle – Saturday 14 December 1867
Chester Winter Assizes: TRIALS OF PRISONERS. CHESTER. John Green, 32, labourer, Wrexham, was indicted for feloniously and burglariously breaking and entering the house of Andrew Nixon, in the City of Chester, in the night of the 15th of September, and stealing therefrom four coats, one vest, one handkerchief, one dress, and other articles, to the value of £10, of the goods and chattels of the said Andrew Nixon. Mr. H. Lloyd prosecuted, and prisoner was undefended. The prosecutor retired to rest on the night question at ten o'clock, leaving everything in the house perfectly safe. About midnight he was disturbed by hearing a noise in the kitchen as if produced by some one moving the table. He listened for few moments, and then heard the sound a match being struck followed some whispering. He went into the bedrooms and ascertained that none of the family were downstairs, whereupon he called his son and proceeded downstairs. He then found that the kitchen had been entered the window, and on further examination the articles mentioned in the indictment were found to be missing. The circumstances of the prisoner's apprehension were rather singular. P.C. Bowers was on duty the neighbourhood about 12 o'clock, and heard a "pattering" noise on the pavement. He stopped and saw the prisoner running towards him without hat, shoes, or stockings, coming from the direction of prosecutor's premises. He was taken into custody as a suspicious character, and when they arrived at the police station, information of the burglary had reached there. Prisoner was immediately suspected, and when searched a pocket handkerchief was found upon him, which was identified by Mr. Nixon as his property. A hat left upon the premises was shown to have been the prisoner's, and a pair of boots and a pair of stockings, found in an adjoining yard, at the bottom of a ladder which had been used to scale the wall, were likewise shown to be the prisoner's. It was also proved that he was seen by the canal side lying down. The watchman told him he could not sleep there, whereupon he exclaimed, "Oh, I shan't take cold; I have three or four old coats to lie upon." In the morning the coats missed by Mr. Nixon were found near the spot in question. The prisoner conducted his own case and although his countenance did not betray any ordinary amount of intelligence, yet he sharply cross-examined the witnesses from a paper which he held in his hand containing notes of the evidence. The jury found the prisoner guilty, and a former conviction having been proved against him, His Lordship said he was aware that the prisoner had been in trouble before, and from his career, he had come to the conclusion that he was a very dangerous man to remain Chester. He should, therefore, sentence him to 7 years penal servitude.
Chester Chronicle – Saturday 1 February 1868
Chester Special Constables.—Total return of the special constables sworn in for this city up to Saturday evening last:—North District.—Superintendent 1; deputy superintendent 1; sergeants, 9; rank and file 178; total, I89. East District.—Superintendent 1; deputy-superintendent 1; sergeants 11; rank and file 216; total, 229. West District.—Superintendent 1; deputy-superintendent 1; sergeants 4; rank and file 94; total, 100. South District (including Saltney).—Superintendent 1 ; deputy superintendent 3; sergeants 23; rank and file 301; total, total, 846.—Jno. Brown, Chief Inspector S.C.
Chester Police.—At a special meeting of the Watch Committee, held on Monday last, the following promotions were made, viz.: —inspector John Lindsay to be first-class inspector, vice Jones resigned; Serjeant Sutton to be second class inspector, vice Lindsay promoted; and Detective officer Joseph Lea to be sergeant, vice Sutton promoted.— All the men are old servants of the city, the average service of the three being about 13 years. Chester Special Constables.—Total return of the special constables sworn in for this city up to Saturday evening last:— North District.—Superintendent, 1; deputy superintendent, 1; sergeants, 9; rank and file, 178; total, IS9. East District.—Superintendent, 1; deputy-superintendent, 1; sergeants, 11; rank and file, 216; total, 229. West District.—Superintendent, 1; deputy-superintendent, 1; sergeants, 4; rank and file, 94; total, 100. South District (including Saltney).—Superintendent, 1 ; deputy superintendent, 3; sergeants, 23 ; rank and file, 301; total, total, 846.—Jno. Brown, Chief Inspector S.C.
 
Chester Chronicle – Saturday 8 February 1868
Special Constables – Twenty of the employees of Messrs Frost Brothers were sworn in as special constables for the City.
Chester Chronicle – Saturday 22 February 1868
Monday - (Before the Mayor. W. M. Williams. C. Potts, J. Smith, and W. Johnson. Esqrs. 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 some one 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 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.
Chester Chronicle – Saturday 18 July 1868
CHESTER COUNTY POLICE COURT. Thursday.—Before T. Dixon, Esq., and F. Lyons, Esq. Charge of Rape Against an Ex-policeman.— George Snell, gamekeeper, of Great Mollington, formerly of the City Police Force, was charged with violently assaulting and ravishing Emma Knight, his domestic servant. Mr. Cartwright defended the prisoner.—Prosecutrix said: I live at Peploe-street, Bishopsfield, Chester, and was at the house of the defendant on Monday, the 13th inst. In the morning, Mrs. Snell went to Chester, leaving me in the house to clean the rooms. I was in the house alone when defendant came in. He came up stairs, and called me to pull the chairs off the bed. I pulled them all off but one, and when I was pulling that off, he caught me by the arms and threw me on the bed. Prosecutrix described minutely the nature of the assault, and said: I could not have got from him; I had not said there was some one at the back door. I did not scream, but struggled as much as I could to get away. I went to the next door neighbour, and told her everything! I shall be fifteen next August—Cross-examined: I have been in defendant's employ six months. It was about his time for coming home when he came in on Monday, and I was beginning to brush the room. My mistress put the chairs on say the bed before she went Chester. I didn’t say anything when the defendant threw me on the bed, although he kept me there an hour, but I struggled hard to get away, and when I said there was a noise, he got up directly. I went down stairs, out through the back, and saw Mrs. Sturgeon in the room up stairs, next to the one in which what I have described took place. The window was shut, and she was looking through it. They are small houses, all under one root- Harriet Sturgeon, the wife of George Sturgeon, lives next door to the defendant. Emma Knight came their house about two o'clock. Witness was at the window, and she made signs for her come down. She did so, and found prosecutrix crying and very much excited. She did not at first say what had happened, but at last said on being pressed what the defendant had done to her. Witness told her she had better remain her house till Mrs. Snell came home; and when she came, witness told her that the servant was in her house and wished speak with her, and Mrs. Snell came and fetched her into her own house.—Cross-examined: When prosecutrix got composed, she asked her if Mr. Snell had behaved roughly to her, and she said he had been very nasty. —Hannah Knight, mother of the prosecutrix, said Mrs Snell came to fetch her to Mollington, on Monday, but she could not go till Tuesday morning. When she got there, her daughter told her what had happened, and she brought her to Chester, and took her to the police office, and afterwards to Mr. Brittain, surgeon.—Mr. Thomas Brittain, surgeon, gave evidence to the effect that violence had been used, and that the full offence complained had not been perpetrated.—P.C. Wood apprehended the defendant, who said when charged, "I know nothing more of her than you do. I can see what it is; they want to make money out of me."—After a short consultation, the magistrates dismissed the case.
Chester Chronicle – Saturday 30 January 1869
CHESTER CITY POLICE COURT. Saturday.—Before the Mayor (Alderman T. G. Frost), W. M. Williams, Esq., R. Frost, Esq., Major French, and Dr. Davies-Colley. The Thief's Old Story.— John Williams, tramping saddler, was charged with stealing six rolls of cotton print, the property of Messrs. Williams Brothers, Northgate Street Row. Pc Towell said last night he met the prisoner coming up Bridge-street, with six pieces of prints, and asked him where he got them from. His reply was the one which might have expected from a thief, that he got them from a man, whom did not know, in Bridge-street. The constable took him into custody, he did not consider this I satisfactory account as to how the man came possessed of them. This morning, Mr. Elias Williams, Northgate Street Row, said that about 7 o'clock last night the prints produced were outside his shop door. This morning he missed them, they were worth £3.14.0d.—The prisoner pleaded not guilty, had nothing say, and was committed to the quarter sessions for trial.
Cheshire Observer – Saturday 6 February 1869
A CHESTER TRADESMAN CHARGED WITH LEAD-STEALING. BAIL REFUSED. Mr. Evan Davies, plumber, Foregate-street, Chester, who was apprehended on Friday, charged with stealing and receiving a quantity of lead piping, the property of the county of Chester, was brought up on Saturday for examination. The Court-room was densely crowded during the hearing. Mr. Cartwright defended the prisoner. Mr. Fenwick said the prisoner was arrested yesterday afternoon on a warrant charging him with feloniously stealing and receiving a quantity of lead piping, the goods and chattels of the inhabitants of the County of Chester. The piping was used to carry water from the river into a pump inside the Castle walls, and about five feet of it were exposed outside the walls. On Wednesday last this pump went dry, and a man named Peers was sent to see the reason, when he found that five feet of the piping had been stolen, the matter was reported to the police, and shortly after nine o'clock on that evening Detectives Wallace and Bray saw a light through the chink in the shutters of the defendant's shop, and they walked in. They found the two pieces of lead piping produced, together with a large quantity of sheet lead actually melting in a pot. The prisoner, when asked how he accounted for it, said he bought it of a man, but he didn't know who. He afterwards said one of his boys might have bought it, and that he didn't know anything about it. He (Mr. Fenwick) would not be able to complete the case to-day, for two reasons. One was that the prisoner had made a statement this morning which, he considered, should be either proved or disproved; and the next reason was to enable Mr. Potts or Mr. Roberts to attend on behalf of the County, which he believed they would do on Tuesday. He should therefore ask the Bench for a remand until that day. James Peers, a mechanic and warder at Chester Castle, said that on Wednesday morning last his attention was called to the pump in the Castle, and on examining it he found it was drawing air instead of water. It worked properly all day on Tuesday. At four o'clock on Wednesday afternoon, when the tide had receded, he went down to the river, close to the Dee Mills, and on examining the pipe, found that a part of it had been cut off, and another part broken. About five feet of piping was taken away altogether. The two flanges produced were the only part left. When he made the discovery he told the Governor, and information was given to the police. Cross-examined— The bottom part of the piping had been cut with a saw, and the same process appeared to have been tried with the top part, but the stone-work prevented it being carried out, and it had to be broken off. His attention was first called to the piping after it got into the hands of the police on Thursday. He believed the pieces produced to be parts of the piping stolen. Samuel Jones, plumber, in the employ of Mr. Washington, Goss-street, who did the work for the County Prison of Chester Castle, said he went with Peers, the last witness, on Wednesday, to look at the pump, and found that a piece 4ft. 9in. or 5ft long had been taken away. The top and bottom flanges were left. He (witness) put up the piping and finished the work on the 22nd January last. The witness then asked the weight of the piping, but his knowledge on this point was evidently very limited, for he first stated it would weigh 181bs. to the foot, and when the total weight of the stolen property was computed at that rate, he said it would only weigh 6ibs. to the foot. (Laughter). Cross-examined— He did not think a plumber would have cut a pipe as this had been cut (slantingly), —he would have cut it off straighten Mr. Maysmor Williams - He would have made a better job of it, I suppose, (Laughter).— Witness : Yes, sir! Mr. Cartwright (to witness) — There are bolts in the piece; now, if a plumber had gone to this place and had made up his mind to steal this piping, could he not have taken out these bolts and taken the whole away? — Witness : Yes. Mr. Fenwick — Can you say whether working hours or nine o'clock at night is the best time for melting lead.— Witness: It depends upon whether they are working overtime or not. (Laughter). Mr. Fenwick — Then, can you say whether nine o'clock would be working hours.— Witness: I suppose so, it they are working overtime (Laughter). Detective Bray said he was with Detective Wallace about nine o'clock on Wednesday evening, in Foregate-street, near the prisoner's shop, which was closed. He saw a light through the shutters, and upon that he knocked at the side door. Prisoner came out through the front door, and he (witness) said to him, " I want to see into your shop, Mr. Davies." There was no one there except himself, Wallace, and the prisoner. The prisoner, in reply to witness, said, "You can," and he went to a fire-place, and saw melting in the furnace some sheet lead and the two pieces of piping produced. He took them out, and the sheet lead as well, and asked prisoner how he accounted for having them in his possession. He replied, "I bought them off a man whom I don't know, or the boys might have bought them." He then asked him, "Are you in the habit of melting lead at this hour of the night?" and prisoner replied, "I generally do it when everything is quiet, after the boys leave work." He took the lead into his possession that evening, and lodged it in the Police-station. He arrested the prisoner yesterday on a warrant. Cross-examined by Mr. Cartwright —He received information of the robbery at half-past six o'clock on Wednesday evening. He had not at that time found out who the thieves were. Since then he had found one of them — he meant the prisoner. He had other prisoners in custody for stealing lead, but not for the offence with which the prisoner is charged. McGrath and another prisoner were taken up, but not for this offence. When he spoke to prisoner about melting the lead, he (prisoner) did say that he might have had it for some time, or the lads might have bought it. He also said it might have been there since the day before or the morning of that day (Wednesday). The pipe was accessible to anybody else when the tide was out, but one could not get at it when the tide was in without a boat. It was not often fishermen fished on that side. Mr. Fenwick then asked for a remand until Tues day. Mr. Cartwight opposed the application, maintaining that although the accused might have imprudently purchased this lead, he was an innocent man. He did not wish the ends of justice frustrated, but he must ask Mr. Fenwick to go on with the case, or that the prisoner should be discharged altogether, or to come up again on recognisance’s. Mr. Fenwick had given no reasons for an adjournment. He had said something about Mr. Roberts or Mr. Potts attending to prosecute, but he (Mr. Fenwick) could conduct the case himself, and in the interest of the accused he must ask that the case should be proceeded with. Mr. Fenwick said he could not go on with the case any further to-day. The prisoner had made a statement implicating other persons, and he should have three other witnesses to examine. Mr. Cartwright — ls the statement in writing! Mr. Fenwick — lt is not in writing. Mr. Cartwright said if he had made such a statement that was an additional reason why he should have the case proceeded with, and, if he was an innocent man, discharged. The Mayor (to the Chief Constable) — If this case is remanded until Monday, will you be prepared to go on with it ? Mr. Fenwick — Monday will not suit Mr. Potts or Mr. Roberts. If it is remanded till Tuesday one of them is sure to attend. Mr. Cartwright — ln the meantime will you take bail. The Mayor (to the Chief-constable) — Will it interfere with the ends of justice? Mr. Fenwick — I am afraid it will. The Mayor — Then we cannot accept bail. Mr. Cartwright protested against Mr. Fenwick's right to oppose bail in that way; and there was nothing in the case that could enable him to say that if bail was accepted the ends of justice would be defeated. He must again ask the Bench to accept bail for Mr. Davies. It interfered greatly with his business to be kept in custody. The Mayor asked if Mr. Fenwick had any evidence to offer why bad should not be accepted. Mr. Fenwick said he could give no evidence. He could only say that other persons were implicated in the case, and if the prisoner was allowed out on bail the ends of justice might be interfered with. Mr. Cartwright objected to any such doctrine, and protested against justice being meted out to any man in this way. The charge was one easily to be met, and there was no man in that Court who believed Mr. Davies had been guilty of stealing this lead. He was a most respectable man, had a number of people dependant upon him, and if he was detained in custody it would be his very ruin ; and it was very hard to punish a man in that way if he was proved at last to be innocent. He contended that the Bench ought not very easily to refuse bail, and he had six or seven respectable tradesmen in Court who were ready to bad him. If he was kept in court over that day the result would be his ruination. After a few further observations, the mayor said they had sufficient evidence to justify them in refusing bail. They should adjourn the case until Tuesday. Mr. Cartwright said he must ask for an adjournment to Wednesday, as he did not think he could appear on Tuesday. The case was then remanded until Wednesday.
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 Frodsham-street, when he suddenly fell backwards upon the pavement. Some of the bystanders 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 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 awing into submission certain villanous-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 "dicker".   [Engage in petty argument or bargaining. Treat something casually or irresponsibly; toy with something.] 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 curbstone 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 curbstone. 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 passed 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 Frodsham-street. 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 a 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. I 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 homorrhage. (sic) 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 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 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.
Chester Chronicle - Saturday 11 September 1869 Catherine Parry, prostitute, Potter's-court, was charged with being drunk and assaulting P.C. Mellor. It seems that the prisoner, a vivacious little brunette, was at the Castle gate at eleven o'clock on Saturday night, and abusing the sergeant on guard the choicest Billingsgate. Because the police officer attempted to remove her she struck him on the side of the head and kicked him. The prisoner denied that she was the offending party, and said the policeman tried "to throttle her”, though she had done nothing.—The magistrates disbelieved her, and sentenced her to one month's imprisonment, for which she thanked them.
 
Cheshire Observer – Saturday 18 December 1869 CRIME IN CHESTER. Although somewhat late in the field, our weekly history of Chester would be incomplete if we omitted all notice of the annual report issued by the Chief Constable of Chester. On the whole the document for the year ending the 29th of September, 1869 is a very favourable one, and while we are as yet by no means arrived at such a happy stage of perfection to be able to show a clean calendar, it nevertheless affords some amount of satisfaction to reflect that the city has not been appalled during the past year with any great and startling crime. Of the entire number of indictable crimes, only three-one for forgery, another for obtaining goods by fraud, and the third for a simple larceny were deemed of a sufficiently serious character to merit the punishment of penal servitude. The total number of indictable crimes committed during the year was 79, says the report, as against 80 the previous year. For these offences 55 persons were arrested, 44 being committed for trial, 8 discharged for want of prosecution, and three for want of evidence. Of the 44 persons committed for trial three, as we before stated, were sentenced to penal servitude, 19 to imprisonment, 21 acquitted, and one awaiting trial. The number of acquittals is somewhat above the ordinary number, but the excess is accounted for by the facts that four persons were indicted for a burglary and a simple larceny from an adjoining house, and the grand jury ignored the bill in both cases; I find that in another case a man was indicted for three robberies, and only convicted of one. Nearly half, twenty-two, of the persons proceeded against for these offences are "known thieves," and seventeen of them were persons of previously good character. A special note is made of the fact that very few offences are committed against the person in Chester, only nine being reported during the year. While however, we have thus a comparatively small number of crimes of a serious character, the list of minor offences, dealt with summarily by the magistrates comprising common assaults, breaches of the peace, offences against the local acts and bye laws, and offences under the Vagrancy Act is still very large although even here there has been a marked decrease on the year 1868, being 271 less than the preceding year. Indeed the number of minor offences of the nature already indicated have been less in 1869 than in any year since 1863. In 1865 the cases numbered 2,007, in 1869 they amounted to 1,532. The average for the past seven years has been 1,764, so that this year we may congratulate ourselves upon the fact that the cases of this description have been upwards of 200 below the usual number. It may be an interesting fact for our teetotal friends that though the largest decrease has been in the number of drunken cases, still by the pre-eminence that offence still holds among other offences the percentage with one exception is the smallest the number of drunken cases for 1868 being 473, and in 1869, 388, showing a decrease of 85; whilst the common assaults which, standing the next highest number in the catalogue, were 325 for 1868, and 273 for 1869, show a decrease of 52. The cases of larceny disposed of summarily show a slight increase, the numbers being 83 for 1868, and 111 for 1869. Of the total number of petty cases prosecuted 821 (58% per cent) were convicted, and 641 discharged. Of those convicted 461 were imprisoned for short periods, 274 were fined, and paid; 99 were ordered to find sureties; 12 (deserters) were delivered to the army or navy; and 25 received other punishment. Three juveniles brought before the magistrates were ordered to be detained in a reformatory, and 17 were sent to the Boughton Industrial Schools. “Here I may remark” says the Chief Constable "that notwithstanding the good effected by these and similar institutions, it is, perhaps a little disheartening to find that there are not only juvenile offenders still, but that there numbers increase, both in Chester and throughout the country. Upwards of 10,000— an increase of about 500 on the previous year — persons under 16 years of age appeared before Justices last year for dishonesty. Now when it is known that during the last 10 years 70 per cent.,— 7 in every 10— of the juveniles detained in Reformatory Schools have not relapsed into crime, but have done well, it is a subject for congratulation that we are not so bad as we might have been. It is hardly possible to over-rate the value of these schools. Children are rescued at an age when they are especially susceptible to the influences of ignorance and crime, and fed, educated, and effectually taught habits of industry. With regard to the number of bad characters the Wine and Beerhouse Act, 1869, has had a beneficial effect by enabling the magistrates to refuse certificates to the proprietors of those beer-houses who were known to conduct them badly. The number of brothels in the city has been reduced by the co-operation of the owners and agents of property with the police from 19 to 8. To look after our criminal population, and protect our persons and property we have an entire force of 36 constables, who cost the city during the past year £2,390 13s 9d, being at the rate of £66 8s 2d total cost per man, as compared with £77 8s 7d as the average total cost of the police of England and Wales. We cannot do better than conclude with the remark with which the Chief Constable commences his report. Although the figures in these yearly reports vary more or less, the fact remains that nearly 40 per cent, of the persons sent to gaol are re-committals; 35 per cent, of them are entirely destitute of education; 60 per cent, are imperfectly educated; so that only 5 per cent, can be said to have received an education of any practical utility. There is still abundant evidence in support of the conclusion that ignorance, drunkenness, and the pernicious example set to the young in such haunts of wretchedness as Potter's Court, Rock Yard, and Crook Street, supply the bulk of the cases brought before the Bench. The same drunkard appears for the twentieth, thirtieth, or fiftieth time; the same thief continues to steal, and, if detected, to be housed, clothed and fed at the expense of the honest ratepayer. Where to fix the responsibility for these results, is not quite so clear, I think, however, that the existence of these elements of disorder involves a question which seriously affects the community."