CHESHIRE OBSERVER, Saturday April 9th 1870
CHESHIRE SPRING ASSIZES
THE ALLEGED MURDER NEAR STOCKPORT
Sarah Shaw, 32, Norbury, was indicted for wilfully and of malice aforethought, killing and murdering her husband Daniel Shaw at Norbury on the 14th January 1870.
Mr Horatio Lloyd appeared for the prosecution and Mr Brandt for the defence.
Mr Horatio Lloyd, in opening the case for the prosecution said the only question in the case would be whether it was the crime of murder or that it was the lower crime of manslaughter. The learned council then called the following evidence;
Mary Unwin stated that she was the wife of Abraham Unwin, Norbury. She knew the deceased, who was a gatekeeper at a level crossing on the London and North Western Railway and had lived in that capacity for eight or nine years. The prisoner had lived with him during that time. Witness’s cottage was about five hundred yards from the crossing. She recollected seeing Daniel Shaw on the evening of the 14th January at her own door. He seemed to be going towards home. He had lost his right arm.
Amelia Barber, Norbury, who lived about two hundred yards from the deceased’s cottage said she was at home on the night in question and recollected the prisoner coming to her house about a quarter to nine; she appeared very much distressed and her hair was hanging down and her eye was going black, as if she had had a blow. She said ‘Mrs Barber our Dan has been lacing me; I fired the gun and killed him’. Witness said ‘Oh dear’ and ran to the shippen to her husband and asked him to come and see Dan. They all then ran down to the deceased’s house and witness’s husband arrived there first. They saw outside the house the deceased lying on his back about three or four yards from the steps. Witness’s husband spoke to him, but deceased made no reply, only a slight moan. They carried him into the house, the door being open. They placed him on the sofa and witness moved the table, which was against the door, to the side of the sofa, as she was afraid he would fall off. He was quite dead and he showed no signs of life after he was taken into the house. There was a gun lying on the table. Witness’s husband went for a doctor and she said to prisoner ‘What have you done. Oh where have you shot him?’ The prisoner replied ‘I put the gun on the table and shot through the door. I did not know he was behind. I meant to frighten him but not to hurt him,’ Prisoner appeared to be very much distressed. She also told witness that that her husband said, when he was going out, that he would give it her when he came in again; and as he was passing a side window he said he would like to blow her brains out. Prisoner said she hadn’t thought of the gun till then. She unbuttoned the deceased’s clothes and showed the witness where she had shot him. The entrails were protruding. The prisoner then put her arms round her husband’s neck and said ‘May the Lord have mercy on thy soul.’ She added it was all through jealousy. The portion of the door through which the shot had passed was then produced in court.
Cross examined by Mr Brandt – They did not live very happily together. She said it was jealousy on her part. She appeared excessively distressed and she seemed surprised that the deceased was dead. The house was in great disorder. There was a little blood on her cheek and she appeared to have been abused.. Henshaw Barber, husband of the last witness said his wife called to him about a quarter to nine o’clock on the night in question. He went to the deceased’s house and outside the cottage they found him lying on his back between four and five yards from his door. Witness spoke to him but he only heard a rattling in his throat. They then carried him into the house. He noticed a gun on the table when he went in, the muzzle towards the door. Witness went for a doctor and returned with one in half an hour. The prisoner said she and her husband had been quarrelling nearly all day and that when he went out he said ‘I will give it thee when I come in.’ and when he got to the window he said ‘I should like to blow thy brains out.’ She then said she fired the gun to frighten him but not to hurt him. She added ‘I have done it and am willing to die.’ Witness thought the prisoner had had a recent blow.
Thomas Moore, surgeon, Stockport, deposed - On the 14th of January he was fetched to the deceased’s cottage by the last witness. He got there between nine and ten o’clock. The deceased had died from a gun-shot wound near the navel. The wound was about one and a quarter inches in diameter. The intestines were protruding when he first saw the body. He subsequently made a post mortem examination and found in the wound a small quantity of chips of wood, evidently from the door, some shot and wadding (witness produced the charge which he had taken from the deceased’s body). The deceased had died from the effects of the shot and witness thought he would have expired about half a minute after receiving the charge.
Cross-examined by Mr Brandt – There was shot enough to cause death without the chips. There was also part of his dress in the wound. The prisoner, he thought, had received a blow on the face.
By his Lordship – He accounted for the chips in the wound from the deceased’s close proximity to the door. The deceased would be very likely to stagger after being shot. He might fall in any direction.
P.C. George Rutter, stationed at Norbury, went to the deceased’s cottage about half past ten o’clock on the night of the 14th of January. He charged the prisoner with killing her husband, and she made no reply. He found the gun, produced, in the corner of the house, the hammer of which was down, and there was a spent cap on the nipple. The interior of the gun was black and smelt very strongly of powder. It appeared to have been recently discharged. He conveyed the prisoner to the lockup and told her to say as little as she could about it, as what she said might be given against her on her trial. She said she had been falling out with her husband all day and he had thrown the poker at her, but it missed her, and caught the table. He also threw a pair of scissors at her, which missed her, caught against the cupboard door and fell behind the cream jug. Her husband then got the gun and said he would shoot her, after which he went out to attend to a train, leaving the gun on the table. She heard him at the window and she then took hold of the gun, pulled at it and it went off, but she only did it to frighten him. While witness was at the house he saw a mark on the table as if the end of a poker had fallen upon it.
Cross-examined by Mr Brandt – Witness ascertained that the prisoner had been ill-used. She said she did not intend to hurt him, only to frighten him. He believed the deceased could load a gun and fire it although he had lost his right arm.
P.S. Thomas Dale, Norbury, district, said he visited the house about twelve o’clock at night on the 14th of January. He measured the distance from the top of the step to the hole in the door and found it was three feet five inches. The step was on a level with the floor inside. He placed the table against the door, put the gun on the table, and the top part of the muzzle was twelve inches below the hole. The distance from the sole of the deceased’s feet, allowing for the shoes, to the wound was three feet five inches. The top step was about a foot in width. The bottom step had a rise of four inches and the upper one had six inches. The deceased was about five feet eleven inches in height. He found the poker, produced, underneath the sofa.
By Mr Brandt – He believed the deceased was standing on the top step when the shot was fired. He found the house in great disorder.
Re-examined by Mr Lloyd – When a train was passing the deceased generally stood against the window.
By his Lordship – He thought the prisoner could not have seen the deceased coming to the door.
John Lawton, superintendent of police went to the cottage on the Friday night and again on Monday. He found a pair of scissors behind a cream jug. The body was removed at night.
Amelia Barker was recalled and said the prisoner did not say to her ‘I lifted the gun off the table and it went off.’ She said she put the gun on the table.
This was the case for the prosecution and Mr Brandt then addressed the jury for the defence. He said the longer he lived and the more he practised in criminal courts the more really, sincerely nervous was he in undertaking briefs of this nature. The crime was one of the most serious, and the slightest mistake on the part of an advocate might be of the most serious consequence to the prisoner, and he always felt in a state of uncertainty and anxiety. But in this he had some comfort in his mind that he did not think that the jury could convict this poor unhappy woman of murder. It was then a question whether she was guilty of manslaughter and it would be a question whether she might not have discharged the gun by accident, because no-one had denied that the prisoner had always said ‘I did fire off the gun to frighten him but not to hurt him.’ That would be a question of law and he must leave it in the hands of his Lordship. Did they think she intended to kill her husband and did they think she was guilty of murder? He submitted that from the beginning to the end of this most painful case there was nothing whatever that would lead them to suppose that she had any malice whatever or that she knew that she was shooting at her husband. He was sure this poor unhappy woman had their full sympathy. It was clear that she had been treated for a number of years most cruelly, and on this very day she was dreadfully ill-used. What were her feelings on that dreadful evening? Full of remorse and sorrow of the most bitter nature. What had been her feelings since, and what were her feelings now? Nobody could imagine the torture and sorrow influencing the poor woman’s mind at the present moment. If she was acquitted it would be little consolation to her for the loss of her husband. However, they had to consider the question whether she was guilty of murder. It was evident that from the beginning to the end she was an affectionate wife, and how could they conceive that at the moment her husband left the house it should pass through her mind that when he came in she would fire the gun and murder him. For short of it they could not say she was guilty of murder, because malice and forethought must be shown. They must take it for granted that there had not one word of malice been heard to proceed from her, and she always spoke of him affectionately. Therefore on that count she would be acquitted. The learned counsel then contended that the gun might have exploded accidentally while the prisoner was taking it off the table but if she had fired it for the purpose of frightening her husband, was that an unlawful act? He would leave that in the hands of his Lordship. How could a man experienced in firearms, let alone a woman, think it probable that the charge of shot would go through a door. Even if she thought the shot would go through the door, she could not tell her husband was there. If she fired it with the mere intention of intimidating and frightening him, or if the gun went off in her hands by accident then she would be guilty of nothing whatever, or at the most be only guilty of manslaughter.
His Lordship then summed up the evidence and the jury, after a short consultation returned a verdict of ‘Manslaughter’.
His Lordship asked the jury whether they thought the prisoner had fired the gun with the intention of frightening her husband.
The Foreman – We believe she fired the gun with the intent to frighten him and not with the intent of doing him any harm.
His Lordship said after the jury had expressed their opinion that the gun was not fired with the intention of injuring her husband, he would be able to deal more leniently with the prisoner. She must be imprisoned for twelve calendar months with hard labour.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 9 July 1870
CHESHIRE ADJOURNED QUARTER SESSIONS.
A Policeman Charged with Highway Robbery.
Peter Shawcross, a police constable stationed at Chester, and late of the Liverpool force, was indicted for stealing 5s. from Thomas Littler, at Over, on the 24th of June, and at the same time feloniously beating the prosecutor. It appeared from the evidence for the prosecution that at the time of the alleged occurrence the officer was on special duty at Over, and the prosecutor, who worked at a nursery in the neighbourhood, was returning home from his work between eleven and twelve o'clock at night, when he met the officer, who asked him if he was going home. He replied that he was and walked on, and the officer followed him, and struck him with his stick several times, knocked him down, and took the money out of his pocket.
Two witnesses were called for the prosecutor, who said the officer struck the prosecutor, but did not knock him down, and it appeared that the prosecutor did not say anything about being robbed at the time.
The Chairman said the charge was a trumped up one, and, after the evidence for the prosecution could not be proceeded with. A verdict of not guilty was returned, and the costs for the prosecution were disallowed.
Wrexham Advertiser –Saturday 23 July 1870
EXTRAORDINARY DISTURBANCES NEAR CHESTER.
On Friday night a most unusual scene occurred in Hoole‐road, near Chester. About a month ago a certain retired major who lived in the above road, and by his physique and affectation of religions fervour had gained for himself the reputation of being "a great and good man," ran away with the wife of a neighbour for whom he had expressed the most friendly feelings. The major in question is about 53 years of age, and has a wife his senior by many years, and a confirmed invalid. The person with whom he eloped was on the right side of forty, and the mother of five children. Her family are well known in Wrexham and neighbourhood, her father having resided here some years since. Much indignation was felt at the conduct of the runaways, the more particularly as the husband of the lady was deservedly popular, not only in that neighbourhood, but throughout the adjoining town. About a fortnight ago the absconders were passing through Shrewsbury station, and were recognised by a party of excursionists from Chester, who greeted them with a volley of hisses and groans. On Wednesday night the couple arrived at Chester station, and proceeded to the house of the too gallant major. They had been, however, recognised by one travelling in the same train, who despatched a special messenger for the purpose of apprising the neighbours of their arrival. In consequence of this the couple, on alighting, found themselves greeted with a repetition of the unwelcome sounds before heard at Shrewsbury. On Thursday the news of the return of the runaways, and their sojourn in the same house as the previously deserted wife, spread through the neighbourhood, and at night the house was surrounded by a large crowd of people, who performed what is called "the rough music" with a collection of tin cans, marrow‐bones, cleavers, etc., interspersed with harangues of a startling character, hisses, groans, and imprecations. The proceedings of Thursday evening having become widely known, and there being rumours that they would be continued next night, there was an immense number of people in Hoole road at dusk on Friday evening. The news had been pretty well circulated that an effigy would be burnt, and this had swelled the number of people who were present. The noises that had been made on the preceding occasion were repeated. A couple of fiddlers had posted themselves on the road side, and songs, which we must presume were "appropriate to the occasion," were sung with great gusto by one of the violinists. A rabble of boys, also provided with vessels of tin, bone‐clappers, and sticks, indulged themselves in singing nigger songs in unison and to the accompaniment of their instruments, some of them occasionally scaling the spikes in front of the house and rapping loudly at the door. The crowd would at one time number scarcely less than a thousand. It consisted for the most part of respectably dressed people, who took no further part in the affair than being spectators. The active participators would not exceed perhaps a hundred. Shouting, hooting, hissing, and discordant noises of kinds were freely indulged in till eleven o'clock, about which time an effigy was brought out of the adjoining street, and was borne above the people's heads to the front of the house where the offending couple was staying. The figure was that of a burly man, wearing a white cocked hat and white gloves, but otherwise attired as a civilian. By a movement given to the pole the strut of a military man was given to the figure in an exaggerated manner. Upon the figure was pasted a bill, but what was stated upon it was not plainly made known, as it was destroyed almost immediately through the eagerness of the multitude to set fire to the straw which formed the padding of the figure. The figure blazed out fiercely to the accompaniment of a universal roar of groans and hooting, and as soon as the bearer found it impossible to stick longer to his standard he threw the figure upward among the crowd. The blazing form was then taken possession of by the crowd, who tossed it upward, backward, and forward until the whole of it was destroyed. The commotion continued for half an hour longer; but as some in the crowd began to throw stones through the windows, the police, under Detective‐inspector Burgess, cleared the footpath. The principal portion of the crowd then withdrew, but quiet was not completely re‐stored until about half‐an‐hour past midnight. After Friday night's proceedings many of the respectable inhabitants of the locality addressed complaints to the police, and the county constabulary, who have a station about 20 or 30 yards from Hamilton Terrace, took steps to prevent further tumult. On Saturday it was noised about the town that there would be another "indignation meeting" that night, and people began to assemble soon after nine o'clock. Two effigies had been prepared representing a male and female, each being seven or eight feet high. The men who had these figures were given to understand that they would not be allowed to burn them on the highway, but might do so on the green by the Flookersbrook pits or in Folly Field, and they promised to burn the figures either at one or other of the places mentioned. About ten o'clock the figures were brought out and paraded up and down the road, and those in charge of them being again reminded that they would not be allowed to burn the effigies on the road, turned down Newton Lane and went into Folly Field. Instead of setting fire to the figures in the field, the men brought them out opposite Mr Brown's house, and were making for the highway fronting Hamilton Terrace. Inspector Burgess and other officers met them at this point, and Burgess took an effigy from the man who was carrying it, and who persisted in taking it into the highway. Burgess having done this was assaulted by a man named Johnson, who was thereupon with some difficulty taken into custody by a posse of policemen, and conveyed to the Bishopsfields police station. An hour and a half elapsed after this affair before anything further was done, the crowd in the meantime growing bigger with fresh accessions from the city. At last the figures were burned upon the space of ground near the pits. This accomplished, about fifty of the more tumultuous of the crowd marched from the spot where the effigies had been burnt, with the avowed intention of releasing Johnson. They commenced throwing stones at the police station, and in a very short space of time every pane of glass except three in the six windows at the front of the building were smashed to atoms. A house next to the station had a few panes of glass broken by stray shots. About a dozen policemen were in the station, and the "situation," as may be imagined, was very uncomfortable. While the stone‐throwing was going on, about a dozen policemen sallied out, cutlass in hand, and charged the mob assembled in front of the building. While the police were making this charge on the mob they caught a man in the act of wheeling a barrowful of stones to the police station. The man decamped, and the police took possession of the wheelbarrow and stones. Soon afterwards the mob, with the exception of a few loiterers, dispersed, but there was much excitement in the neighbourhood for some hours afterwards. A few people were slightly hurt with the cutlasses, the sides of which only were used by the police. The police station, with its once trim and neat flower garden, was, in its dilapidated condition, the object of much interest to large numbers of people who, on Sunday, visited the neighbourhood for the purpose of going into the field where the Primitive Methodist camp meeting was being held. On Monday, John Johnson, labourer, was charged before Major French and A. Potts, Esq., with assaulting Inspector Burgess while in the execution of his duty, and was fined £5. Several summonses have been issued against other parties connected.
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 20 May 1865
Gallant Conduct.
Last night a child fell into the canal near Queen‐street. Detective Officer Bray, who chanced to be near, heard some cries, and ran to the spot. Without stopping even to take a pipe out of his mouth, he jumped into the water and saved the child's life. Such conduct deserves acknowledgement
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 25 March 1871
Gallant Rescue. — As James Bray, a son of Detective Bray, was passing along the canal opposite Charlotte‐street, on his way home from business, on Thursday evening last, he saw a child fall into the canal close to him, and, without the slightest hesitation, he jumped in with his clothes on after the sinking child, and brought it to the bank in safety. Strange to say, Detective Bray rescued a child from a watery grave close to the same spot a short time ago.
they have invariably received at his hands. We be‐lieve that nearly every member of the force subscribed, and they succeeded in raising a sufficient sum to pur‐chase a neat gold pencil case. Detective Bray was chosen as the mouthpiece of the men. He performed the duty allotted to him in a pleasant manner, and ex‐pressedTthe deep regret which the members of the force felt at the separation. Inspector Jones made a suita‐ble speech in acknowledgment of the testimonial.
Liverpool Mercury - Friday 13 January 1871
PRESENTATION TO SUPERNTENDENT HAMMOND.
Yesterday, at the usual weekly sessions for the hundred of Wirral, held at the County Hall, Birkenhead, a presentation was made by the magistrates to Superintendent Thomas Hammond, who has been lately superannuated in consequence of the loss of his sight. Mr. Hammond was connected with the Cheshire constabulary about 24 years, and upwards of ten years was superintendent of the Wirral division.
In October, 1862, he received a severe injury on the head whilst assisting the Birkenhead police to it put down a formidable riot in that township. Since that unfortunate occurrence, Superintendent, Hammond's sight has been gradually failing, and he is now entirely blind.
On the bench, yesterday, were Messrs. J. R. Shaw, R. Bryans, J. B. Case, and ex Lieut. Colonel King. Mr. SHAW (the senior magistrate), addressing Superintendent Hammond, said that on that day week it was his pleasing duty to make at few remarks expressive of the sympathy of the bench towards him (Mr. Hammond) before he left that of the country. There were only then three or four magistrates present, but a paper had been signed by 17 of the justices of the hundred of Wirral. Three more of the magistrates had not yet had an opportunity of expressing their sentiments with regard to Mr. Hammond, but 17 guineas had been subscribed by the bench, Mr. Shaw then handed to Mr. Hammond a purse containing 17 guineas, and said that no doubt before he left Birkenhead the sum would be made up to 20 guineas, The whole of the magistrates united in their good wishes towards Mr. Hammond. They hoped that rest and quietness would restore him to comparative health, and they would be glad to heal of his future happiness.
Captain Smith was present, and he cordially joined in the step taken by the magistrates. Captain Smith, the head‐constable of the county, said he wished to say a few words on the occasion. He begged to state that he fully appreciated any the approbation of the services of the Cheshire constabulary, especially in this instance, when it came' voluntary from the magistrates. He looked upon it as an unexpected honour, and he was glad that in this case it was conferred upon Superintendent Hammond. When he (Captain Smith) first came to Cheshire he selected Mr. Hammond to be sergeant, then to be inspector, and afterwards to be superintendent, and in each position he had given the fullest satisfaction. Mr. Hammond always possessed one great quality, and that was he was above all suspicion. Superintendent Hammond was above anything approaching to a trick or an unworthy action. He (Captain Smith) always found him a worthy and honourable man, and it was on that account he went to the court of quarter sessions and recommended him to the highest amount of superannuation ever before awarded. The superannuation fund was drawn from the pay of the men themselves. Now, Superintendent Hammond was injured in Birkenhead, and not while in the service of the county. The constabulary were called out to assist in putting down a riot in Birkenhead, and therefore he (Captain Smith) hoped the inhabitants of Birkenhead, who bad escaped the heavy tax on their funds of £110 per annum, would avail themselves of the present opportunity of recognising Superintendent Hammond's services in a suitable manner, and thus exhibit their sympathy towards him. Mr. R. B, Moore, solicitor, said that as the senior member of the profession present in the court he begged on behalf of himself and his professional brethren to endorse all that had been uttered in reference to Superintendent Hammond, and it afforded him much pleasure in intimating that a number of gentlemen intended on Monday next to present Mr. Hammond with a testimonial of their esteem. They were all aware that Superintendent Hammond received serious injuries in the riots in Birkenhead in 1862, and he (Mr. Moore) hoped the inhabitants of the township would now sympathise with Mr. Hammond in his affliction.
Superintendent Hammond, in receiving the testimonial from the magistrates, said he was afraid be would not be able to convey in words his thankfulness to the bench for the honour conferred on him. The testimonial presented to him was a substantial one. He was not aware that he had done anything special to merit such a mark of the approbation of the magistrates. He was not aware he had done anything more than his simple duty in endeavouring, as far as his humble abilities, would permit, to discharge the duties of his situation. At all times he had received the greatest kindness and consideration from the head constable, as well as from the magistrates. He begged to thank the magistrates for their kind feeling and sympathy with him in his present affliction. Although a sadly afflicted the testimonial which the bench had that day presented to him would console him in some measure on retiring from the Wirral Constabulary. He should always look back upon that occasion with pleasure, as their expressions towards him had assured him that his conduct had been such as to merit the approbation of the magistrates with whom he had acted for a considerable length of time, He was not aware he could say anything more except again to express his gratitude towards the bench, from whom he had always received the greatest kindness. (Applause.)
Liverpool Mercury - Friday 13 January 1871
PRESENTATION TO SUPERNTENDENT HAMMOND.
Yesterday, at the usual weekly sessions for the hundred of Wirral, held at the County Hall, Birkenhead, a presentation was made by the magistrates to Superintendent Thomas Hammond, who has been lately superannuated in consequence of the loss of his sight. Mr. Hammond was connected with the Cheshire constabulary about 24 years, and upwards of ten years was superintendent of the Wirral division.
In October, 1802, he received a severe injury on the head whilst assisting the Birkenhead police to it put down a formidable riot in that township. Since that unfortunate occurrence, Superintendent, Hammond's sight has been gradually failing, and he is now entirely blind.
On the bench, yesterday, were Messrs. J. R. Shaw, R. Bryans, J. B. Case, and ex Lieut. Colonel King. Mr. SHAW (the senior magistrate), addressing Superintendent Hammond, said that on that day week it was his pleasing duty to make at few remarks expressive of the sympathy of the bench towards him (Mr. Hammond) before he left that of the country. There were only then three or four magistrates present, but a paper had been signed by 17 of the justices of the hundred of Wirral. Three more of the magistrates had not yet had an opportunity of expressing their sentiments with regard to Mr. Hammond, but 17 guineas had been subscribed by the bench, Mr.Shaw then handed to Mr. Hammond a purse containing 17 guineas, and said that no doubt before he left Birkenhead the sum would be made up to 20 guineas, The whole of the magistrates united in their good wishes towards Mr. Hammond. They hoped that rest and quietness would restore him to comparative health, and they would be glad to heal of his future happiness.
Captain Smith was present, and he cordially joined in the step taken by the magistrates. Captain Smith, the head‐constable of the county, said he wished to say a few words on the occasion. He begged to state that he fully appreciated any the approbation of the services of the Cheshire constabulary, especially in this instance, when it came' voluntary from the magistrates. He looked upon it as an unexpected honour, and he was glad that in this case it was conferred upon Superintendent Hammond. When he (Captain Smith) first came to Cheshire he selected Mr. Hammond to be sergeant, then to be inspector, and afterwards to be superintendent, and in each position he had given the fullest satisfaction. Mr. Hammond always posessed one great quality, and that was he was above all suspicion. Superintendent Hammond was above anything approaching to a trick or an unworthy action. He (Captain Smith) always found him a worthy and honourable man, and it was on that account he went to the court of quarter sessions and recommended him to the highest amount of superannuation ever before awarded. The superannuation fund was drawn from the pay of the men themselves. Now, Superintendent Hammond was injured in Birkenhead, and not while in the service of the county. The constabulary were called out to assist in putting down a riot in Birkenhead, and therefore he (Captain Smith) hoped the inhabitants of Birkenhead, who bad escaped the heavy tax on their funds of £110 per annum, would avail themselves of the present opportunity of recognising Superintendent Hammond's services in a suitable manner, and thus exhibit their sympathy towards him. Mr. R. B, Moore, solicitor, said that as the senior member of the profession present in the court he begged on behalf of himself and his professional brethren to endorse all that had been uttered in reference to Superintendent Hammond, and it afforded him much pleasure in intimating that a number of gentlemen intended on Monday next to present Mr. Hammond with a testimonial of their esteem. They were all aware that Superintendent Hammond received serious injuries in the riots in Birkenhead in 1862, and he (Mr. Moore) hoped the inhabitants of the township would now sympathise with Mr. Hammond in his affliction.
Superintendent Hammond, in receiving the testimonial from the magistrates, said he was afraid be would not be able to convey in words his thankfulness to the bench for the honour conferred on him. The testimonial presented to him was a substantial one. He was not aware that he had done anything special to merit such a mark of the approbation of the magistrates. He was not aware he had done anything more than his simple duty in endeavouring, as far as his humble abilities ,would permit, to discharge the duties of his situation. At all times he had received the greatest kindness and consideration from the head constable, as well as from the magistrates. He begged to thank the magistrates for their kind feeling and sympathy with him in his present affliction. Although a sadly afflicted the testimonial which the bench had that day presented to him would console him in some measure on retiring from the Wirral Constabulary. He should always look back upon that occasion with pleasure, as their expressions towards him had assured him that his conduct had been such as to merit the approbation of the magistrates with whom he had acted for a considerable length of time, He was not aware he could say anything more except again to express his gratitude towards the bench, from whom he had always received the greatest kindness. (Applause.)
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 20 July 1872
BEBINGTON.
Discovery of a Missing Man.— Since the 8th instant Thomas Molyneux, a labourer, who worked for Mrs. Davies, farmer, of Lower Bebington, and resided in the neighbourhood, has been missing from his home. He had previously been in a desponding state. On Sunday morning, the 14th, about ten o'clock, Sergeant Warwick, of the Cheshire County Constabulary, found the body of the missing man in a pond near the village of Brimstage, and removed it to the Red Cap public‐house, where an inquest was held on Monday by Mr. Churton, coroner, and an open verdict of found drowned returned. The villagers had discovered the body before Sergeant Warwick came up, but with that superstition which prevails in some rural places they would not touch it, and it was left to the constable to recover it.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 8 June 1872
DOUBLE CHARGE OF FELONY AGAINST A POLICEMAN.
Robert Moore, a police‐constable in the police force of Birkenhead, was brought up on remand on Monday at the Town Hall, Birkenhead, before Mr. Preston charged with having ravished Jessie Henderson, on the 26th of May. Mr. Hannan appeared to support the prosecution, and Mr. R. B. Moore defended the prisoner.
The prosecutrix stated that she was the daughter of James Henderson, a joiner, residing at 15, Back Myrtle‐street. She would be 19 years of age on the 3rd July next. On the evening of Sunday, the 26th ult., she and her younger sister and a girl named Sarah Stanley went about seven o'clock for a walk. They crossed the halfpenny bridge to Seacombe, and returned by the iron bridge. While within the dock wall, and about the middle of the quay of the Great Float, they met the prisoner, who asked where they were going, and what they were doing there. They replied they did not know they were doing any harm, and he said they must give him their names and the numbers where they lived, at which Sarah Stanley began to cry. He then went towards a hut, and unlocked it, saying he must lock them up, but went past that hut, and told them if they came across a field he would let them out by a side gate. They were unwilling to go, and the prisoner took hold of prosecutrix by both shoulders and of Stanley by the jaoket, and the younger sister ran away.
On getting to a second police hut he let Stanley go, and opening the hut pushed prosecutrix in, and threw her down on a form. The rest of the young woman's evidence is not fit for publication, but it was to the effect that the prisoner had committed the offence named in the charge against her will, while she screamed and struggled. She further stated that while she and the prisoner were in the hut her mother came to the hut and asked if she (prosecutrix) was there. She answered in the affirmative, and the prisoner put his hand on her mouth. After arranging his dress, and replacing his hat, coat, and belt, which he had put off, the prisoner opened the door and pushed the prosecutrix out. The mother asked him to give an account of himself, but he said nothing and turned round to take a drink out of a can which was on the mantelpiece. Her father then came to the place and asked prisoner what he had been doing. The latter then ran to strike him, and the mother went between them, when the prisoner struck her on the cheek.
Sarah Stanley corroborated the prosecutrix's statement up to the time when the prisoner took Jessie Henderson into the hut.
James Brown, an apprentice joiner, living in Back Myrtle‐street, stated that on the day named, about eight o'clock, he went towards the docks, and saw the prisoner take prosecutrix into a hut and shut the door. He heard her cry "O don't; leave me alone," and knocked at the door. Prisoner opened the door and told witness to go home or he would lock him up.
Mary Henderson, mother of the prosecutrix, stated that her younger daughter came up to the house and told her that a policeman had taken Jessie into a hut. Witness went down to the hut and asked if her daughter was in, who replied that she was, speaking as if some one had a hand on her mouth. She also stated that the prisoner afterwards struck her in the face, as described by her daughter.
Inspector Allison stated that on Sunday, the 26th May, the prisoner was a police‐constable in his district, his beat being on the quay of the West Moat. On going down to the prisoner's beat, he saw a number of people running towards the wall by the timber ship. He saw James Henderson, father of the prosecutrix, and was witness to an assault committed by the prisoner on him (assault not described), and the prosecutrix made a complaint to him (witness). He took the prisoner and the others to the police station and there made a formal charge against the prisoner, who replied that he was innocent, and never was in the hut with the prosecutrix. Cross‐examined by Mr. Moore, witness said the hut was built of brick, and inside was 8 feet long by 5 feet wide. The form referred to was a locker in which coals were kept.
Dr. Jennett stated that he had examined the prosecutrix between nine and ten o'clock on the Sunday evening of the alleged assault, in her mother's presence. It was possible that the offence might have been committed, but he could not say whether it had been or not. There was no evidence of injury, and he could not discover any marks on the young woman's body as if a struggle had taken place.
Police Constable Brown, who was on the beat next to the prisoner, spoke to having seen the parties together after they came out of the hut. In reply to Mr. Moore, he said Henderson had a knife in his hand, as if to stab the prisoner. Mr. Moore addressed the bench briefly, and Mr. Preston expressed his intention to commit the prisoner for trial at the Assizes. In reply to a question by the Magistrate, Dr. Jennett said be had been attending James Henderson, father of the prosecutrix in the case. He remained in a very critical condition, and it was doubtful whether he would recover, as he had had a relapse that morning. At one time he had been partly restored to consciousness, but could not talk rationally, and he could not give any account of the transaction. It was just possible that in a few days he might be able to give evidence.
The prisoner Robert Moore was then further charged with assaulting and doing serious bodily injury to James Henderson, on the same date as the other offence The only witness examined was Inspector Allison, who stated that as he was proceeding to the hut on the occasion referred to, he saw Henderson coming round the corner of the dock wall into Corporation‐road, followed by the prisoner, who was at first about twenty yards behind him. The prisoner got bold of Henderson and the struggled together. Before witness could get up to them prisoner had tripped the prosecutor up then fell heavily on the back of his head, striking iron rail. He was severely injured and rendered insensible.
Mr. Preston remanded the prisoner for a week on this charge, and ordered him to he sent to Chester in custody on the first charge.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 30 March 1872
CASE OF CONCEALMENT OF BIRTH AT CHESTER.
An inquiry was opened at the Town Hall, on Wednesday afternoon, before Mr. Tatlock, Deputy Coroner, on the body of a newly‐born male child belonging to a widow woman named Elizabeth Edge, who lived at Boughton. The Coroner said the jury were called together to inquire how and by what means a male child name unknown, came by its death, and they would be careful to observe whether there were any marks of violence upon the body.
Detective Sergeant Bray said : This morning I was directed by the Chief Constable to go to Chapel‐lane, Boughton, in this city, and I went in company with Detective Sergeant Wallace, The female present in Court (Mrs. Elizabeth Edge) was at Mrs. Roberts', at Filkins‐lane, washing. We went there and saw her, and I told her that we were two‐police officers. I asked her "Have you been confined of a child lately?'" and she said "I’ve been poorly, Sunday and Monday." I said "Have you any objection to a doctor examining you to see whether you've been confined or not?" She made no reply, and I said "A doctor will be sent for, and we will apprehend you. Be cautious what you say." I told her to come down to her house, and she went with us. When in her house we apprehended her, and she said, without being asked, "I delivered myself of a child which was still born at three o’clock on Monday morning. I was three weeks off my time, it's upstairs in a bed. I had no money to buy a coffin for it." I went upstairs along: with Wallace and Edge. She unlocked a box in which was concealed the body of the child the jury have now seen in Court. It was in the same position that it is now, with its head pressed on the chest, covered with a cloth. The box was about three feet long. Coroner, Was there any necessity to press the head on the chest? ' Witness: None at all‐Coroner: Was the cloth tied? Witness “Wrapped over the body but not tied. The box had several articles of wearing apparel in it, but it was not full. There was plenty of room. Coroner ‐Did you say anything to her then ? Witness : I told her we should have to bring her to the police‐office, and she said " Yes, I suppose I had better go." Corone: Did you tell her why she would have to go? Witness: ”Yes for concealment of the birth of her child, and it was in answer to that that she said she supposed she would have to go. We got a cab and brought her to the police‐office, and afterwards went for Mr. Job Harrison, who saw the body of the child which we had brought to the office. Coroner : Do you know whether Elizabeth Edge lives by herself ? Witness: She has a family of children. Coroner : Is she married ?. Witnesss : She is a widow. I know that of my own knowledge. I don't know how many children she has, she told me four. I don't know their ages. Coroner : How long has she been a widow ? Witness : She told me herself that she had been a widow nine years. Her occupation was that of a char‐woman. Edge, in reply to' a question from the Coroner said she would not ask the witness any question.
Mr Harrison surgeon, said: I saw the deceased first this afternoon between twelve o’clock and one o’clock at the police‐office. It appeared to be a fully developed child newly born. The umbilical cord was tied. I have examined it narrowly, for marks of violence and found none. The Coroner: Can you say whether the child born alive? Witess: I cannot without examination. The Coroner: Well, gentlemen, we shall have to have a post‐mortem examination in that case. After some discussion, it was decided, to suit the convenience of a juror, to adjourn the inquiry to the following, morning at 7 30, that a post‐mortem examination might be made; The inquiry was resumed at the appointed hour on Thursday, morning.
Detective‐Sergeant Wallace said: I went down with Bray yesterday to the house of Mrs. Edge, and as she was not in, I went to Mr. Roberts', Filkin's‐lane; I remained in the lane, and soon afterwards — a couple of minuses — Edge came out with Bray. Bray asked her if she had been delivered of a child, and she said, "No." I then asked her if she were in the family way then, and she said, " No." I then asked her, " Have you been in the family way ?" She said,. “ No." I suggested to Bray in her hearing, that she should be examined: by a medical man I asked her whether she would have any objection to being examined by a medical man, and she made no reply. I put the question again, and she made no reply. I said nothing to her about apprehending her, and I'm not quite clear what Bray said. I said to Bray, in her hearing, " There is a cab ; I'll go to see if the doctor is in," and she than, said, " Well, I have been delivered of a child." Bray or I asked her — I’m not quite sure which — where it was, and she said upstairs in a box. She then went upstairs, and we followed. She took a bundle of keys from her pocket and opened the box. The box was about 2ft long, 18 in. wide, and 18in deep.. She moved some small paper boxes and articles of wearing apparel, and then took up the body of the !deceased, which was wrapped in a cloth, and handed it to Bray. I could not say whether it was on the bottom of the box, but it was very near. I could not see whether the child was lying length ways of the box or across it. She was then charged by Sergeant Bray with concealing the birth of her child, and she said, “ I had no money nor nobody; I put it there until such time that I could get 1s to bury it, as I have a burial ground out in the country where I could get it buried for 1s." We then procured a cab, and brought her to the police station. Coroner: Is that all that passed? Witness‐That's all. Coroner : Did she say it was still‐born on Monday morning ? Witness : Yes, she did say that. Coroner : Well, that’s most important. Witness: : She said it was still‐born, and came with it’s feet forward. Coroner : Did she say when she was delivered ? Witness : I'm not quite clear. The house in which she lived contains kitchen and small scullery at the bottom and one bedroom only upstairs, with two beds running parallel to each other, with about two feet of space between them. Coroner : Where was the box ? Witness : On the floor on one side of the room opposite one of the beds. The cloth in which the child was wrapped was in exactly the same condition as now. Coroner : Did you notice any marks in the room of any kind ? Witness : Yes, I examined one of the beds and found a woman's petticoat saturated with blood ; and in a dolly‐tub in the back kitchen I found sheets marked with a good deal of blood. They were in water.
Elizabeth Edge pointed out the dolly‐tub where these things were in reply to a question as to where the bed clothes were.
Mr. Job Harrison, surgeon, said: I made a post mortem examination of the body last night. Externally I perceived that the chest was small, flattened and narrow, and had not the arched appearance that it has when a child has fully breathed. Coroner : Did you notice that appearance as though the head had been pressed on the chest ? Witness : Yes, I did. There's nothing in that it is merely from the position of the child being folded up On opening the chest I at once saw that the lungs lay far back in the chest and did not fill up the chest as they do when respiration and inflation have taken place. I then removed the lungs and the heart. The lungs were dense, and looked more like the liver than the lungs; they were neither sponge nor crepitous, and seemed as though they had received no air. I then separated the heart from the lungs and put the latter into water, and they immediately sank to the bottom of the vessel. I then took them out again and examined them closely, and there was not any indication of crepitous or inflation. From these appearances I am of opinion that the child never breathed. Coroner But was stillborn? Witness: Stillborn. Coroner : Was it a fully grown child ? Witness: It was; quite at its time I should say. Nothing to account for its death. It is not unusual for a child to lose its life if it comes feet first, if a medical man or midwife is not present to assist. The Coroner asked the jury whether they would require any more evidence, even supposing there were other witnesses? Their duty was to ascertain the means of death and from the evidence of the doctor the child never was living, in the legal acception of the term. It was for them to say whether the child was stillborn.
The Jury found that the child was stillborn.
Cheshire Observer
Saturday 7 September 1872
CONVICTION AND DISMISSAL OF TWO CHESTER POLICEMEN.
At the City Police Court on Thursday, before F. A. Dickson, Esq. (chairman), Sir T. G. Frost, W. M. Williams, and E. G. Salisbury, Esqrs., Police Constables Walker and Platt, of the city police force, were charged with being drunk and riotous on the previous Friday night, and with assaulting a man named Turner. The Chief Constable said: l am instructed by the Watch Committee to prosecute these men for being drunk and riotous. They ought to have known better than to be guilty of such conduct. And not only are they charged with being drunk and riotous, but the riotous conduct bas been very much aggravated by two or three very bad assaults. No person will be here to‐day to charge them with those assaults, but the Watch Committee felt it to be their duty to do so. Mr. Salisbury : Are they not policemen ? Chief Constable: They were up to last Friday. They were then off duty and in plain clothes, but still they are amenable to the law as police officers. The first witness called was George Thorneylow, of Brook‐lane, who said: On Friday night last, about a quarter to eleven I was going up Cow‐lane with another young man. We were behind the two defendants, who were in plain clothes. There was another man with them and two women, and one of them was kicking up a great noise in the street. The Chairman : Which of them ? Witness: P.C. Platt. When we went over the bridge I heard two men quarrelling about lodgings. On the defendants coming up they "shoved " against one of the men. The Chief Constable: Wilfully or accidentally ? Witness : I think it was quite accidentally. The man said, " Please don't ' shove ' me off the pathway." The defendants having gone on some distance turned back, and they said to the man, "What about 'shoving' you off the pathway ?" Mr. Salisbury ‐. When you say. they, whom do you mean ? Witness— P.C. Walker : They then commenced kicking the man. Mr. Salisbury : Were they sober ? Witness: They were not exactly drunk, nor were they sober. Mr. Salisbury : Were you in a condition that you were neither perfectly drunk nor perfectly sober? Witness : I was not. The man put his hands on the railings to prevent their catching hold of him. They threw him over the railings beside the Canal. He caught hold of the railings to save himself from being thrown into the canal. Platt caught hold of him and kicked him. I saw nothing more. Defendant Walker : Did you hear me say anything ? No. Did you see the man hit me ? — No. Did you see him hit me on the floor ? — No. Did you see me kick him ? — Yes. Defendant Platt : Did you see me go into Crosby's ? Yes. Defendant (to the Bench) : Will you allow me to call Walker? I shall be able to prove I did not go into Crosby's. Mr. Salisbury : Is this all the evidence ? Chief Constable : Oh, no. It will be time enough when the case is finished for these men to call each other. Mr. W. M. Williams (to Piatt) : The witness said you kicked the man. Platt : I shall be able to prove the contrary by Walker's evidence. The next witness was Samuel Pritchard of Back Brook‐street, who said : I was going down Cow‐lane towards the station about half‐past ten on Friday night last, but I stopped on the bridge by myself for some time. While there I heard two men have some words about a lodging — one wanted to lodge with the other. Two men afterwards came up one of whom had a young lady on his arm, and they knocked against a man who was on the parapet and he said " Don't push me down please." The men went on some distance without saying anything. They then returned and asked the man who "shoved" him off the parapet. He again said " Don't 'shove' me off the parapet, please." I could not tell which of the men spoke. The two men then hit and kicked the man as hard as they could, caught hold of him and threw him over the railings. The man held on by the rails and one of the men put his foot through the bars and kicked him in the face. I think the two defendants are the men. Mr. Salisbury : You cannot say which of the two men did all this ? "Witness : I could not swear to the two men. Chief Constable: Were the two men you saw drunk or sober ? Witness : They were about half and half; they were neither drunk nor sober. Defendant Walker (to witness) : Did you see me do anything ? Chief Constable : He does not swear to you. P.C. Jones was next called. He said : I was on duty in Foregate‐street on last Friday night. I saw the two defendants between Seller‐street and the City‐road. They were in plain clothes, off duty, and drunk. I saw Platt strike a man named Paul Price without any provocation whatever, and he was attempting a second time to strike him but I stopped him, and I persuaded them both to go home. They walked away arm in arm. They created a considerable amount of disturbance; they were shouting and making a great noise. They were both drunk undoubtedly. Defendant Walker: You saw only Platt strike the man. Did you see that I wanted to go home ? The Chairman : What time was this ? "Witness: That was about half‐past eleven. Inspector Sutton was next called. He said : I saw the two defendants about ten minutes to twelve on Friday night. They were both drunk. Mr. Salisbury : There is no mistake about it ? Inspector Sutton : No mistake at all. Chief Constable (to defendants) : Any questions to ask him ? Defendants: No‐Chief Constable: The man who was assaulted has not been seen since I took down his statement on Saturday. The Chaibman (to the defendants) : Have you any statement to make ? Defendant Platt : We were both in drink, and we were aggravated by the man on Cowlane Bridge. He first of all assaulted Walker, and I took his part. As for throwing the man over the bridge, we did nothing of the kind. He got over the bridge himself to stand on the stone close to the bridge. Inspector Sutton will, I think, be able to prove, from a button found at the place, that where be got over the railings was some distance away from the water. The man merely got over the bridge the same as other men have done. Chief Constable (to Inspector Sutton) : Did you see Turner ? Inspector Sutton : I did. He was under the influence of drink, but I think he was perfectly well aware of what be was doing. Mr. Salisbuby _ Who is Turner ? The Chief Constable : The man who was assaulted. Defendant Platt : It appears the man or Paul Price are not severely assaulted or else they would appear here. The Chairman : What have you to say, Walker ? Walker : lam very sorry it has occurred. Mr. Salisbury (to Platt) : You recollect the questions you put to the witness, and, recollecting them have you nothing to say to the Bench ? Piatt : It is useless now. Walker : There is one witness who never heard me say anything, and another who could not swear to me. Mr. Salisbuby : I know that as well as you do. You put certain questions to the witnesses. One of these latter you need not trouble about And yet, after the questions you put, you have said nothing to the Bench. Platt : I wish Walker to be called as a witness on my part. Mr. Salisbury : It is quite competent for you to do that. Walker was then sworn. Platt : Did you see me go into Crosby's ? — No Mr. Salisbury : What is Crosby's ? . Chief Constable: It is a public‐house at the bottom of Cowlane Bridge. Platt: Did I assault the man first?— No ; he "shoved" me and knocked me down on the floor. Walker was about to leave the witness‐box when he was called back by Mr. Salisbury, who said “Don't be in a hurry to get out. You were both drunk ? Walker : Yes ; both of us were drunk Mr. Salisbury : Very drunk The same as many other men are”. The Magistrates then consulted together for a few minutes, after which the Chairman said, “We have carefully considered the evidence, and we have made up our minds. We are quite satisfied that the assault and the charge of being drunk and riotous have been proved. In your position as policemen, instead of setting a good example you do the very opposite. It is beyond endurance l am authorised by the Watch Committee to tell you that you are dismissed the service, and we fine you each 40s. and costs or a month's imprisonment with hard labour. The fines were subsequently paid. .
Cheshire Observer
Saturday 21 December 1872
CHARGE OF AFFILIATION AGAINST A CHESHIRE POLICE SERGEANT.
At the County Magistrates' Court, Wrexham, on Monday before H. W. Meredith, Esq. (Chairman), J. H. Foulkes F. H. Barker, T. O. Jones‐Parry, Esqrs., and Captain Griffiths; John Clarke, a police sergeant, in the Cheshire Constabulary, stationed at Hoole, was summoned to cause why he should not contribute towards the illegitimate child of a single woman named to Fanny Jandrell formerly housemaid in the service of Captain Johnes Smith, Chief Constable of the Cheshire Constabulary.
Mr. Sherratt, of Wrexham, appeared for the complainant and Mr. Cartwright, of Chester, for the defendant. In opening the case for the complainant said she was an unmarried woman, of 26 years of age and until recently was a servant in the employ of Captain Smith of Hoole Lodge, Chester, where she had been for upwards of two years, leaving on the 13th October last, the child, in consequence of which .this present action was brought, having been born on the 3rdof the same month, and in the house of her master. If his instructions were correct it appeared that the defendant who was a police sergeant, a man of some responsibility and in the confidence of Captain Smith was in the habit of occasionally visiting the house on business matters, and, as would be told them by a witness named Miles, a coachman, was on was on terms of familiarity with the complainant, which, considering the position of the parties, was not exactly right Last Christmas Day it would appear that Capt. And Mrs Smith and daughter were absent from home — indeed Captain Smith did not return until the following March, while his wife and daughter returned in about a fortnight or afterwards.
At about half‐past eight on the evening of Christmas Bay, Clarke presented himself at the house of Capt. Smith at which time the only inmate of the house, was the complainant, the other servant having left for various places during the day, and did not return until about ten o'clock, when Clarke had left. The only corroborative evidence against Claire was that of the coachman Miles, who, when about 150 yards from his master's house met the defendant, and between whom some words passed, which would be retailed hereafter. That was the only evidence he could adduce in support pf the charge except that of the complainant herself, for it was not likely in matters of that kind that three persons would be allowed to be directly witnesses of what had been done. It appeared that on the night in question the key of the stable was left in the door, and that this was seen by the defendant, who admitted to Miles on the road that he had locked the stable door and put the key in the kitchen, so that would be confirmatory evidence of the fact that he had been in the kitchen on that occasion. The complainant would also tell them that on that night Clarke had seduced her, and he alone, and that he was the father of the child with respect to whom the present proceedings were instituted. The act took place in the kitchen very much against the will of the complainant, who struggled to get away from the defendant, but without success. From the other side no doubt the Bench would learn something with respect to a young man named Brookes, with whom the complainant was acquainted, and she bad been summoned to produce certain letters which had passed between them. No doubt the complainant was acquainted with the young man Brookes, but he believed he would be able to prove that she got no nearer to him than the letters during the correspondence. The last of the letters would also reveal to the Bench the surprise of this young man that it should have been stated that he had had any improper familiarity with her. The letters would also show that be was her affianced husband, but now unfortunately for the complainant, had broken off the match in consequence of what had taken place.
Under those circumstances, if the Bench felt satisfied with the evidence he would put before them in the way of consideration, and which at the first blush might seem rather slight, he would ask them to make the usual order in such cases.
The complainant was extremely anxious that the matter should be properly settled, for upon the result of the case her reputation and character unfortunate depended. Fanny Mandrell, the complainant, was then called. She said : l am a single woman, and my age is 26! I am at present staying with my sister, Mrs. Wright, at Offa Terrace, Wrexham. My child was born on the 3rd October last; it is a boy and is at present living. The defendant John Clarke, is the father of it. I made his acquaintance about two years and ten months since, when 1 came to Hoole Lodge, Chester, to serve in the capacity of housemaid at Captain Smith's. I left on the 13th October last. My fellow servants while I was in the employ of Captain Smith last year and this year were Ann Owen, Ann Wiiiiams, Eliza Check, and Henry Miles, coachman. Captain Smith went away last year in November, and returned home in the following March. Mrs. Smith and Miss Smith went away on the Saturday before Christmas, and returned in "about a fortnight afterwards. None of the family were in the house during that time; Ann William's and myself Were at home on Christmas Day, but about half‐past live in the evening Ann William's, the ladysmaid, went to chapel, and returned about ten. I was the only person in the house during that time. During her absence no one called at the house except John Clarke, the defendant. I knew him then very well. He had been in the habit of coming to my master's house during the present year and the year previous. He made himself agreeable in every way. He is a married man. I knew on last Christmas Day that he was a married man. He came to the house about half‐past eight in the evening of Christmas Day. I was in the kitchen at the time. As soon as he saw me he caught hold of me by the arm and I endeavoured to get away and succeeded, but lie caught hold of me again. To the Magistrates' Clerk: There was mistletoe hanging, from the roof of the kitchen at the time. To Mr. Sherratt : When he caught hold of me the second time I tried to get away from him, but did not succeed. He then threw me on to a rocking chair and seduced me. It was against my will. I fought to get away from him but he being a strong man I did not succeed. I did not scream. I struggled with him for about ten or fifteen minutes before he accomplished his object. I fainted and he left immediately afterwards. He was in the house about an hour altogether. To the Magistrates: I did not threaten him then with the consequences of what he had done, but I did afterwards. To Mr. Sherratt : Miss Williams returned about ten o'clock. I did not tell her what had happened. I told her he had been there. The defendant told me on one occasion that 1 should not have George Brookes with whom I corresponded. He was a follower of mine. He was a gentleman's servant. The defendant knew I corresponded with him. He never saw me writing to him. but I used to talk about him in the kitchen in his presence. I don't know how he came to know about the letters produced, unless it was through Capt. Smith who asked me for them. I suppose Capt. Smith must have told him. I don't know the defendant's reason for saying that I should not have Brookes. Brookes never tad any improper intercourse with me. He is not here to‐day, nor do I know where he is. I was confined on the 3rd October. I told the defendant Clarke of my being in trouble. He never had intercourse with me but once, and that was on Christmas Day. Nobody else ever had. When I found I was likely to become a mother I mentioned it to Clarke. He said if I was in child he was not the father. The conversation took place on the road from Chester to Hoole Lodge. I told him it was the child of nobody else. I met him accidentally on that occasion. We were both going the same way. I have walked with him to Hoole Lodge on many occasions, before and after the affair on Christmas Day occurred. I walked with him about three or four times from Chester to Hoole Lodge after the intercourse had taken place. On the occasion to which I refer he said there was nothing the matter with me, and I said there was. He replied if there was he was not the father of the child ‐it was not his. Upon another occasion he called me out into the yard of the house— that was before I told him he was the father of the child— and he said that Capt. Smith had been speaking to him about another servant that he had tried to seduce. He told me he had been very uneasy, as Capt. Smith had been speaking to him about a servant he had tried to seduce in September, and he said, "I thought it was you and that you had been telling him about it." I told him I had not spoken to Capt. Smith about the matter. He said, "If I thought you had I would ask you to go away with me." I told him that I should never do that. I told him in March that I was likely to be confined. Miles has never been present in the house When Clarke was larking with me. To Mr. Cartwright : We have not been larking together. Clarke never took any liberties with me until Christmas Day, nor subsequently. Miles is the coachman. I do not know that Sergeant Clarke has frequently reproved Miles for being out late at night during the absence of Capt, Smith's family. I know that he reproved him for being out late on Christmas He did not reprove him in my presence. Miles told me afterwards when he came to fetch away the key to the stable. Miles was angry about being reproved.
Clarke is a sergeant in the Cheshire Constabulary, and resides with his wife at the lockup, a short distance from Hoole Lodge. During the absence of Captain Smith and family it was Clarke's business, daily and at night, to visit the house and see that every‐thing was secure. He did so. Sometimes he went once and sometimes three times in the day and at night. When I met him on the Hoole Road and told him the condition in which I was, I met him by accident and not by appointment. He was then carrying out his usual practice of visiting the house. I was on friendly terms with his wife— not very friendly. I frequently called at the Station‐house as I passed. I had to call there on business for Mrs. Smith I called once or twice on my own account. I have only' called once since the occurrence on Christmas Day I have been several times at the lock‐up since Christmas Day, but not at the house. I have spoken then to Mrs Clarke. I never had a long conversation with her. I sat with her during a storm in May for about an hour. I was then in an interesting condition. I said nothing to her about it ‐1 did not hear that Mrs. Clarke applied to see me on the day of my confinement or the day afterwards. The servant told me l she had been at the house. Nobody was in the house on Christmas Day when I was violated by Clarke. I struggled, but did not scream. I never described to anybody what took place then. I made a statement to Captain Smith and Mrs Smith after my confinement.; I told Mrs. Smith first and afterwards Captain Smith, I told Captain Smith it took place on a chair, not on a rocking chair. I did not say it was one of the ordinary Windsor chairs in the kitchen. Capt. Smith did not ask me particularly to describe the chair; he said "a chair," and I said " a chair." I am sure of that. I told one of the servants it was on a rocking chair. Capt. Smith said it was impossible from my description that it could have been done. No medical man was asked a question in my presence. Clarke was not there at the time I fainted. It was about ten minutes or a quarter past ten when Miles came in, I believe. I think Ann Williams was in before that time. I have known Brookes about four years. He was courting me before Christmas, 1871. I had not seen him for six or eight months before that time.‐I do not know where he was at Christmas, 1871. I visited him in Liverpool at his sister's residence ‐Her name was Mrs. Kempsey. I was there in July, 1871. I corresponded with him early in January this year. I did I not see him between Christmas Day, 1871, and the 4th January this year. I wrote to him on the 2nd of January that I was going to Liverpool, and that I should like to see him.
Mr. Cartwright then read a letter from Brookes dated 4th January, and commencing with "My own dear Fanny," in which the writer expressed a hope that she would soon visit Liverpool, and signed himself " Your affectionate lover." Cross‐examination continued: I had a holiday at the commencement of January last for the purpose of going over to Liverpool. I had two days. When I came back to Hoole Lodge from my holidays the letter just read was waiting for me. I went with Ann Williams to Liverpool the first day. I did not see Brookes. I went to the house of a friend at Everton. 1 remained in Liverpool the entire day. I came back with Ann Williams as far as Chester, and then went on to Wrexham. Miss Williams returned to Hoole Lodge. I made no inquiries while in Liverpool after George Brookes. I did not go to his sister's house. I went at night to my sister's residence at Wrexham. I remained there all night. I went about the town of Wrexham the next day by myself and I afterwards went to the theatre with my brother‐in‐law. I went to Hoole Lodge by the first train on the following morning and found the letter dated the 4th January waiting for me. I made no appointment with Brookes after receiving that letter. I afterwards went to Liverpool on a Sunday. I cannot say the date. I think it was about June or July. I cannot remember how often I went to Liverpool to see Brookes between January and July. I went there before Capt. Smith returned. I could not possibly say whether or not I saw Brookes in the mouth of March. He had been to Hoole Lodge to see me before Capt. Smith's return. He saw me about the end of February. He came unexpectedly. I was not alone with him in the kitchen, Mary Sutton was there till the time. He remained in the house about three quarters of an hour. I went into town with him and had some refreshments in a house some‐where near Eastgate‐street. I remained there about half an hour. I saw him off in the train at the Chester Station; that was between five and six o'clock. I saw him again at the end of March in Liverpool and walked about with him. I met him there again in July. He then came with me as far as the Chester Station and returned to Liverpool. I received a letter from him on the 1st July, 1872. (Mr. Cartwright read the letter, which commenced with "My own dearest Fanny," and in which he states” Mrs. Curry has got rigging me about you, and says you and me have been trying our hand attempting a family; but I said " there is no such thing." I should be very sorry to hear it; but I think she is labouring under a mistake. Cross‐examination continued: I did not exactly make an arrangement with Brookes to marry him at the time. I told him I wished him to marry me. I pressed him to do so. There was no time fixed. I do not know where Brookes is at present. I have adopted no means to find out where he is. Henry Miles, coachman, was then called, and he deposed to the interview on Christmas night, 1871, with Clarke, and also to his finding the key of the stable door in the kitchen next morning, where, he was told by complainant, it had been left by Clarke. Ann Williams was also called, and deposed to hearing Clarke on one occasion "chaf:" the complainant, and say she should not marry Brookes. Mrs. Wright (complainant's sister) was also called, and deposed to her sister visiting her in January last, as stated by the complainant.
This concluded the case for the prosecution, and Mr. Cartwright submitted that according to the requirements of the statute the case was not proved, as there was no corroborative evidence.
The Magistrates consulted for some time, and the Chairman said they found the case not proved "for want of sufficient corroborative evidence," and did not call upon the defendant or his witnesses.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 29 June 1872
DETERMINED SUICIDE BY A GENTLEMAN AT CHESTER.
An inquiry was held at the Grosvenor Hotel yesterday (Friday) morning, before Mr. Tatlock, deputy coroner for the city, into the circumstances attending the death of Mr. Charles James Gunner, a solicitor and banker, who lived at Bishop Waltham, and who was at the time staying at the Grosvenor Hotel.
The distressing circumstances of the case will be found detailed in the following evidence. The Chief Constable attended and watched the proceedings. The following gentlemen were sworn on the jury:
—
Messrs. J. Jones (foreman), B. Bolland, A. P. McLellan, Jno. Phillipson, J. J. Harland, Chas. Lee, J. Dennis, A. Lamont, J. Little, E. Minshull, R. Dodd, and H. Davies. The Jury having viewed the body, the first witness called was Mr. Moreton Eagle Harmer, who said : —
I live at the Elms, Norbiton, Kingston‐on‐Thames. I have known the deceased since last Saturday, since when I have been travelling with him, starting from Ryde on Saturday afternoon. We crossed over to Southsea on Monday, came on to Oxford, and in the afternoon of Wednesday we arrived at the Grosvenor Hotel, Chester. We had dinner about seven o'clock. The deceased partook of a farinaceous pudding, and expressed a wish to have it kept for lunch the next day. During the evening I read most of the Times newspaper to him, and some chapters of a novel which we had been reading together, and at about twenty minutes to 11 o'clock I bade him good night and saw him go into his room, in which the Jury have now seen the body, and which adjoined our sitting‐room. My bedroom was on the other side of his room, and next to it. There was a door between my room and his, and between his and the sitting‐room, so that we occupied a suite of apartments. On the following morning, about a quarter before eight, our servant came into my room, and said, "I hope you won't be frightened, sir, but Mr. Gunner is dead. "I got up, and said, " Good God, what do you mean?" and he said he had found deceased lying upon the floor in a pool of blood. I sent off for a doctor directly. When I saw the body it was lying on the floor, nearly parallel with the dressing table. I thought he had burst a blood vessel. I could not then see the throat, which was turned from me. There was an immense quantity of blood. He had been in bed, as I could see the clothes were disturbed, and he had only his night‐shirt on. When the doctor arrived he examined him, and then we saw that his throat was cut from ear to ear. Then my attention was‐drawn to the razor on the table. The razor was here produced by Detective‐Sergeant Bray, and was identified by witness as that belonging to the deceased. The blade of the razor was covered with blotches of blood.) The witness continued to say “ I noticed blood upon the blind and dressing‐table, and the razor was upon the dressing table. The deceased's watch was also spotted with blood. I heard no noise during the night. I cannot say whether the door communicating with his room was unlocked, but I believe the servant unlocked it when we arrived here. When I left him that night I came down to the smoke‐room, and went upstairs again about twelve o'clock. The deceased was what the doctors call a hypochondriac. He was suffering from nervousness and extreme depression of spirits. I had seen him once before Saturday at Kingston‐on‐Thames, but only became acquainted with him on Saturday last. The Coroner: Did you arrange to travel together? Witness: Well, his brother made the arrangement that the deceased should travel and that I should accompany him. The Coroner : You would not know about his state of mind ? Witness : I can only speak from hearsay. When he arrived here on Wednesday he complained of being tired from the long journey from Oxford. At dinner, I ought to say, that he put his hand on his forehead, and I asked him whether he was suffering from headache, and he said " No ; it is not headache, I'm afraid it is something worse." The Coroner: Did you ask him what it was ? Witness : No, I never talked to him about that. I merely said, "I have got a headache myself from travelling in the train." While I was with him he had a great idea, that he could not walk, and when he had got a couple of hundred yards or so he would say he could go no further, but I used to persuade him to come on. I believe this was imaginary. The Coroner : Was he in any business or profession ? Witness : He was a banker at Bishop Waltham. The Coroner : Did you ever hear him talk of taking away his life ? Witness : I never heard him say anything about it. By the foreman: We had fish and mutton also for dinner on Wednesday. We had a pint of light claret, and he had perhaps a third of it. By a juror: He was a married man with ten children. I never heard him complain of disappointment as regards his circumstances. The Coroner: How long did you think of travelling ? Witness: Well, some months. We were thinking of of going from here to Ireland.
James Peters said: I live at London Road, Kingston‐on‐Thames, and am a gentleman's servant. I was travelling as servant to the deceased, with whom I have been since last Saturday. I did not know him before. When the last witness left him on Wednesday night I went into his bedroom, as usual, and helped him undress and placed his bath ready for the next morning. He told me he thought he did not feel very well that night, but no doubt he would be better in the morning, and I asked him whether I should tell , Mr. Harmer that he did not feel very well, and he said, " On no account, I don't wish to disturb Mr. Harmer's rest." I have been in the habit of letting him put the candle out, and on Wednesday he asked me to stay and put it out, as he did not know whether two pillows on the bed would be enough for him, he generally having three. He got into bed and said he thought two would do for that night, and asked me to put the candle out, which I did, and left the room about a quarter past eleven o'clock. He told me to call him the next morning about eight o'clock, but I went into the room a few minutes before that hour. I knocked at the door twice, but he did not answer me. I then opened the door and went in and found the deceased lying on the floor' I looked at him and thought he was not quite dead He was lying in a pool of blood. The Coroner: What made you think he was not quite dead? T Witness : Because I saw one of his eyes open, I went up to him and spoke to him, and he did not answer I then moved one of his legs to see that he was quite dead, and found that he was. He was lying on his side on his left arm, the right arm being over his neck. I thought he had broken a blood vessel with coughing I did not then see the razor. I went and told Mr Harmer that the deceased gentleman was lying dead, and that I thought he had broken a blood vessel. Mr. Harmer sent at once for a doctor. The Coroner: Did you notice anything in the manner of the deceased on Wednesday ? Witness : No, sir ; he said he did not feel quite as well, but thought he would be better in the morning. The Coroner : Was he low‐spirited ? Witness : Yes. The razor was in the case when I saw it at night. I believe it was his razor. A Juror : Had he dressed himself when you found him ? Witness : No, he had his night‐shirt on.— Was the body warm when you got hold of him ? No, it was cold.
. Job Harrison, surgeon, said : I was called to see the deceased a little before eight yesterday morning, and when I arrived I found the body on the floor, warm, lying on its left side, nearly turned over, with the face towards the fire‐place and the feet opposite the dressing table, just in the position that you would expect to find a man who had stood before the dressing table and fallen. I do not think he had fallen, but that he had placed himself in that position ; that was my impression. If he had fallen naturally he would have fallen on his back. A Juror : Would he have had time to put the razor on the table before falling ? Witness : Oh, yes. (Witness cited an instance where a person cut his throat, placed the razor on the table, and walked six yards before expiring.) By the Coroner : When I went into the room some one said he had broken a blood vessel, but I did not think so. I then saw the razor on the table and the curtains bespattered with blood, and I knew exactly what it was. I then turned the body over, and saw at once that his throat was cut. The Coroner : Is it a deep cut ? Witness : Yes ; not so deep on the left hand side as on the right. He had made an opening into the wind‐pipe. On the right hand side he had gone very deep, and had divided all the large vessels. The Coroner : Did the wound look like one that was self‐inflicted ? Witness : Yes ; on the right hand there were streams of blood, as though it had flowed over that hand when he inflicted the wound. From the temperature of the body, and judging from the temperature at this time of the year, I should say the deceased had been dead two or three hours. The Coroner: I suppose he would live a very short time after the wound was inflicted ? Witness : A very short time, a very few minutes. By the Foreman : The wound was made from left to right, I think, but I cannot say for certain, because the left arm and hand were lying in the blood under the body. The body was not bloody at ail, and that is what makes me think he had got into that position without falling, and that he put himself down. The Coroner : Was the body quite free from blood ? Witness: I think so, with the exception of just about the neck.
The Coroner then remarked to the Jury that he should think they would have no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that the wound was self‐inflicted, but the other question was as to the deceased's state of mind. He did not know whether they would consider it necessary to hear the evidence of the brother on that head. Mr. Harmer, in answer to one or two further questions, said Mr. Davey, of Ryde, was the deceased's medical adviser, and the deceased had been staying at Ryde seven or eight weeks for the benefit of his health. He had stopped at other places. Mr. Davey and Mr. Roots advised the deceased to travel. The Foreman said the Jury thought it would be more satisfactory to know something of the deceased before Saturday, although they wished to spare the brother of the deceased all they could.
Mr. Thomas Gunner was then called into the room, and said: I live at the Lea, Winchester, and the deceased was my brother. He was 54. He was a banker and solicitor. He had been out of health more or less for 18 months, and he has been in a hypochondriacal state but without any disease of the brain. He was recommended to travel by two medical men, and it was arranged that Mr. Harmer should accompany him. I lived ten mile* from him, but saw a great deal of him lately. I noticed that he was in a desponding condition in reference to the state of his health and thought himself much weaker than he really was. One day last week — last Thursday— be said he thought he should lose his mind, though I have seen no symptoms of any loss of mind. I can only speak of his condition from last September, and from that time until last March he improved very much. In March or April he and his wife were staying with me, and he seemed to be rather going back, but I did not see any decided symptoms. He left my house about seven or eight weeks ago, and west with his wife and three children to Ryde in the Isle of Wight. I have seen him twice or three times there, and I have heard from his wife that he did not improve but rather the other way. Upon that he took the advice of medical men, and went on a tour with Mr. Harmer. I last saw him alive at four o'clock on Saturday at Ryde, and he was then in the same condition that he had been in for some little time. There was a dejection. I may say that he had ceased to take an interest in his wife and younger members of his family, who are quite children. Previously be had been a most affectionate husband and father. There had not been any symptoms of insanity in the family. By the Foreman : Previous to eighteen months ago he shewed depression and went to Hamburgh,, and became well again. As a nonmedical man I should say he overwrought his brain; he had a very large business as a solicitor, and he always superintended everything himself, and was always anxious about business after business hours. The business of the bank was small, and I don't think that work affected him much. The Jury then returned a verdict that the deceased had committed suicide, being at the time of unsound mind.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 13 July 1872
SUSPECTED CASE OF CHILD MURDER.
Mr. Tatlock, deputy coroner for the city, held an inquest on Wednesday, at the Town Hall, on .the body of a female child which had been found in a bag on the previous evening in the left luggage office of the Chester General Railway Station.
The Chief‐Constable (Mr. Fenwick) watched the case on behalf of the police.
The first witness called was John Bellis, railway clerk, who said: On the 29th June last about two o'clock in the afternoon I received a bag at the left luggage office. I have no recollection of the person from whom I received it. I gave a ticket for it, the number of which was 369. The bag was black glazed imitation leather.
John Williams 50, Upper Gloucester‐street, assistant station master at the general railway station, said about six to half‐past six o'clock last evening I had occasion to go into the left luggage office to look for some notices, and I found several of the notices I wanted lying under a black canvas bag. I took the notices up, when the inspector remarked what a nasty mess there was on the papers. I said "yes." There was also a very disagreeable smell from it. I left the office then. The bag produced to the jury is the same bag. There was a piece of string tied round the handles to keep them together. There was no address on the bag which was opened by the left luggage clerk.
John Lythgoe, lost luggage inspector at the General Railway Station, said: I noticed a very bad smell in the cloak‐room for several days past, I did not know where it came from until about six o'clock last evening when, on the bag being moved to get the notices from under it, I smelled at the bag and then moved it close to the door. When Mr. Huxley came back from his tea I told him he had better open the bag, and he did so, and we saw the body of the child. There was some flannel round it. The bag was not locked. I did not notice whether there was any lock on it. It was fastened round the handles by a piece of string.
Detective‐Sergeant Bray said: About a quarter to seven yesterday evening I went down to the Railway Station, and the bag shown to the Jurors was shown to me, and in it there was the dead body of a child. It was not dressed, but had a piece of old flannel wrapped around it. It wore a chemise, and under it a piece of calico fastened round the breast with two pins. I also examined the bag; it had a lock, but it was not locked. I found on the bag two labels, " Chester, G. W. R. to London, and a third ' " Chester to Oswestry, G. W. R."
Mr Job Harrison surgeon, examined, said— l examined the child in question last night, and I should say from appearances that it was about a fortnight old. It was in a state of far advanced decomposition. On the right side of the face, just over the temple, there was a large black mark, the eye projected, and the side of the temple appeared more pressed in than the other. That mark I should think was caused by a blow. I did not feel that the temple bone was broken. There was also a distinct black mark on the right side just over the lower rib, caused, I should think, by a blow. There was no other mark. I took the binder from round the child’s waist to see what was under it. The marks on the right side and temple were not due to decomposition, but must, I think, have been inflicted before death. Decomposition has set in so rapidly since yesterday that a post‐mortem examination would not enable me to judge of the cause of death. I should think from the appearance of the marks externally that they were sufficiently violent to account for death. The skin was not broken in either case.
To the Foreman of the Jury: The blows must have been inflicted before death, as there would not have been that extravasation of blood after death which was noticeable.
The Jury, by direction of the Coroner, returned an open verdict that the child was found dead, having marks of violence upon its body.
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 15 November 1873
DEATHS.
On the 4th inst. at his residence, Goss‐street, Chester, John Hartley, aged 82; for many years a watchman and policeman in this city.
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 13 December 1873
SHOOTING AT A WARRINGTON POLICEMAN.
On Wednesday, at the Warrington Borough Court, a tradesman, named John Henry Gordon, was charged with firing a pistol at Constable Neill, of the borough police force, with intent to prevent the detention of a prisoner.
Shortly before two o'clock on Wednesday morning Neill and another constable discovered the prisoner and a woman in a stable belonging to the prisoner. The constables burst open the door, and as they were about to take the woman to the lookup the prisoner formally gave her into custody on the cbarge of having stolen 4s. 6d. from him.
The woman got hold of the prisoner's arm and refused to let go, until he drew a revolver and threatened to blow her brains out. He ultimately discharged the pistol in the air.
The officers then proceeded on their way with the woman, and the prisoner called Neill to him and asked him what they were going to do with her. On being told that it was their intention to lock her up, the prisoner exclaimed, " I might as well make a clean job of it at once; it's either you or me for it."
In consequence of the threat Neill stepped backwards and when he had got about 15 yards away the prisoner raised the revolver in a line with his shoulder and fired at him. The charge did not hit the officer.
The woman was then locked up and shortly afterwards a number of policemen apprehended the prisoner with the revolver in his possession. Three of the chambers had been discharged and the other three were loaded with ball cartridges. The prisoner was examined on Wednesday morning by a medical man, who stated that he had been afflicted with delirium tremens.
The prisoner reserved his defence, and was committed to the assizes for trial. The woman was discharged
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 17 May 1873
WINSFORD.
BRUTAL ASSAULT ON A CHESHIRE CONSTABLE.—
On Tuesday afternoon a fight was taking place at Winsford between a boatman named William Atherton and a horse driver, when P.C. Bradshaw went to quell the disturbance and in doing so he was frightfully ill‐used.
He was thrown down, and when on the ground was kicked about the face and head in a most brutal manner. The disturbance was witnessed by a crowd of men be. No one volunteered assistance until Sergeant Steel came to his relief. Atherton was taken into custody, but the other man has for the time escaped.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 13 June 1874
LOCAL INTELLIGENCE.
CHESTER
On Monday afternoon last the remains of Detective‐Sergeant Bray, who died on Friday morning were consigned to their last resting place. The hearse was preceded by twenty members of the Ancient Order of Shepherds of which society the deceased was a member under the superintendence of ex Chief Shepherd Fisher, and was followed by a detachment of the City Police Force, numbering about twenty, under Inspectors Lindsey and Farrell. A large concourse of spectators lined the street.
On arriving at the Cemetery the coffin was carried to the grave by four sergeants. As deceased was a Roman Catholic, the funeral was performed according to the rites of that church, the Rev. Father Cholmondeley officiating.
The deceased, who was 48 years of age, had been connected with the City Police Force upwards of twenty years, and always bore the character of an efficient and intelligent officer.
Liverpool Mercury - Friday 30 January 1874
On Tuesday evening, a handsome time piece and a purse of £17 were presented to Sergeant Hindley, of the Cheshire constabulary force, by the inhabitants of Wallasey, in recognition of his diligent and faithful discharge of his official duties during the 16 years of his residence in the parish. The presentation was made at the St. James school room, New Brighton, by Thomas Bouch, Esq., JP who spoke In the highest, terms of Sergeant Hindley's efficiency as an officer. H. Smith, Esq., J.P., George Holt, Esq., and Albert Wright, Esq and the Rev. R. D. Fowell, also added their testimony of the respect In which the sergeant was held by all classes, and congratulated him on his promotion.
Manchester Courier and Lancashire General Advertiser
Thursday 17 December 1874
THE WEAVERHAM MURDER.
At the Abbey Arms, Delamere, yesterday, before Mr. J. Wodehouse Wm. Barker, a platelayer on the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway, was charged with the wilful murder of a married woman named Sumner, the wife of a labourer, of Weaverham, Cheshire, on the 28th of November, at Acton, near Weaverham.
Evidence was given by two witnesses, named Elizabeth Ross, servant at the Gate Inn, Weaverham, and Catherine Ball, landlady of the Wheat Sheaf, of the same town, that the prisoner, with Sumner and his wife, were at their respective houses drinking, and that they left the latter hostelry about ten o'clock to go home —
Martha Evens, a servant girl, as she was returning from Wilbraham's Quay a little after ten o'clock the same night she met the prisoner leading Sumner by the arm, and speaking roughly to him, the deceased at that time walking a yard or so in front. —
Mr. Fletcher, who appeared for the prisons to state this witnesses evidence with respect to her identity, but she positively swore that she saw them all by the light of an adjoining lamp. In her opinion, the husband of the murdered woman was too drunk to inflict any such injury. At this juncture Superintendent May to complained that an important witness for the prosecution had disappeared, and in such a manner as led him to infer that he had been tampered with.
Mr Fletcher repudiated any such reflection, and said that if the prosecutor took the necessary steps this witness would be forthcoming ordered a warrant to be issued.
To resume the chain of evidence, Wm. Roberts stated that as he was walking home about 12 o'clock on the night of the murder he discovered Sumner and his wife lying in the roadway a few yards apart from each other. Sumner, who was very drunk requested witness to assist him to get his wife upon his back, but on endeavouring to do so he fell down, as the woman was speechless he went to procure assistance. The husband—who was at first arrested, suspected of murder, but afterwards discharged—said that as he and the prisoner sat drinking at Weaverham, he (Barker) offered to see him home, and he acquiesced. He recollected perfectly well leaving the public‐house, but remembered no more until finding himself endeavouring to struggle out of a deep ditch. He called both to prisoner and his wife for assistance, but they neither answered; and when he got out he found his wife lying in the roadway. The previous witness came up as he was unsuccessfully endeavouring to get his wife up the hill. He was sure that just prior to this the prisoner stood at his side, as he jocosely remarked that they were both so drunk he should have to lock them up.
P.C. Furness deposed to visiting the spot where the woman was discovered, and finding a large lock of hair and abundant traces of a severe struggle. He had since compared the hair with the deceased woman's, and found it to correspond in every particular.
Mr. J. Smith, surgeon, of Weaverham, after a post mortem examination of the body, attributed death to violence, exposure to a cold and a wet night, and to disease. It was evident to him that although several of the wounds might have been caused by repeated falls, yet it was impossible that the bruises which he found on the arms could be produced except by violence. The court then adjourned for the production of the analyst's evidence who examined the clothes.
Manchester Courier and Lancashire General Advertiser
Tuesday 22 December 1874
THE WEAVERHAM MURDER. At the Sessions House, Oakmere, yesterday, William Barker was up on remand charged with the murder of Mary Summer, at Acton Bridge, on the 28th ult. Dr. James Cambell Brown, of Liverpool, and public analyst for Cheshre, having examined the clothes worn by the prisoner on the night in question, stated that he found traces of blood on the lining of the left cuff of the coat, and on the outside of the left waist coat pocket. There were also blood stairs in the left trouser pocket, and on other parts of the trousers. The trousers bad been very dirty, and had been washed, and the lining of one trouser leg been burned out half‐way up. On the prisoner's handkerchief there were three blood stains.
A woman named Ann Haddock identified the prisoner as being a man whom she saw coming from the direction of where deceased and her husband were found.
Mr, Fletcher of Northwich, contended on behalf of the prisoner that no case bad been made out. The injuries the deceased had received might have been caused by her husband when be tried to drag her home.
The presiding magistrate Mr. Woodhouse, was of opinion that there was a case, although it was not as clear as it might be, and he should therefore commit the prisoner for trial at the next Cheater Assize?.
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 11 December 1875
SANDBACH. Petty Sessions.—
At the petty sessions, on Monday (before G. W. Latham, F. H. R. Wilbraham, and W. Casson, Esqrs.), Joseph Latham, of Alsager, engraver, was summoned by P.C. Goss for being drunk and disorderly, and refusing to leave the Alsager Arms on the 8th ult. when requested by Mrs. Burgess, the landlady, to do so. Mr. J. E. Garside, of Congleton, appeared for Mrs. Burgess, and Mr. T. Cooper, of the same place, for the defendant. It appeared from the evidence that defendant was in the complainant's house on the day named, and was served with two glasses of gin, when he went into the taproom and struck several parties there. On Mrs. Burgess hearing a disturbance she went to see what was going on, and ordered defendant to leave her house, when he became very quarrelsome and disorderly, and went into the "snug" until a police‐man was found, who requested him to leave the house, but he still refused, and was ultimately ejected by the constable. Several witnesses were called by Mr. Garside who spoke to the quarrelsome demeanour of the defendant, but none of them would say he was drunk. Mr. Cooper said that be should be able to prove that his client was neither drunk nor quarrel‐some; therefore he did not come within the meaning of the Act. After hearing witnesses for the defence the Magistrates decided that the offence had been proved, and fined defendant 40s., including costs. — P.C. Goss was summoned by Joseph Latham for assaulting him at Alsager on the 8th ult. Several witnesses stated that the constable used more violence in putting complainant out of the Alsager Arms than was necessary. This defendant denied, and said he put the complainant out at the request of Mrs. Burgess. The Magistrates dismissed the case.
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 11 September 1875
Suicide at Childer Thornton —
On Tuesday morning, at half‐past seven o'clock, the body of William Cochrane, an engine driver at Hooton Boneworks, was found drowned in Dixon's pit, near Childer Thornton, by a man named James Jones. The body was removed to the Royal Hotel to await the Coroner's inquest. During the morning Sergeant Roche, of the county constabulary, who is stationed at Little Sutton, received by post a letter from Cochrane, dated the previous day, stating by the time the letter was delivered that he (Cochrane) would have ended all his miseries in this world, and that his body would be found in Dixon's pit. Jealousy had evidently led the unfortunate man to commit the rash act, for he concluded his letter to the officer by stating that his wife and a man whose name is not given, were the cause of his trouble. The deceased, who was 55 years of age, lived at Oatfield‐terrace, Hooton, and has left a widow and three children. Mr. Pollard seconded the resolution.
Cheshire Observer
Saturday 11 December 1875
The Case of Supplying a Policeman with Liquor.
The case of Samuel Williams, landlord of the Durham Ox, who was on Wednesdsy fined £5 and costs for supplying liquor to policeman Stanier when on duty on the 26tb ult., and which was adjourned until to‐day for the production of the licence, now came on. His licence having been handed in, the Bench intimated that they would not endorse it. It will be remembered that, according to Stanier's own statement in the witness box, half an hour after going on duty he was supplied with two glasses of whisky by the defendant's wife, and that about a couple of hours subsequently being found drunk on his beat by Inspector Farrell, be was taken to the Police Office. He was temporarily suspended, but has since the hearing of the case against Williams been reinstated and on Friday proceeded against a person a being drunk the Preceding night.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 27 November 1875
KNUTSFORD.
The Murderous Attack on a Cheshire Policeman
A few weeks ago Police‐Constable Wiberley, of Heatley, was attacked by about a dozen Irishmen, who kicked him all over the head and body, and the result of the injuries, it is feared, will prove fatal. Shortly after the occurrence eight Irishmen were arrested. On being taken to the injured man's house on Tuesday he identified four of them as being participators in the attack.
The four men identified were remanded until Wednesday, and the others were discharged. The four prisoners— Michael and Luke Conroy, James Waldron, sen., and James Waldron, jun., were brought up at the Sessions‐house, Knutsford, on Wednesday.
They were defended by Mr. Moore, of Warrington.
Police Sergeant Leighton and Dr. Brabazon deposed to the critical condition of the constable Wibberley and his inability to be present. The prisoners were therefore remanded.
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 6 February 1875
THE TRAGEDY AT LYMM.
At the Lymm Police Court, on Friday week, Watson Whitely, a Liverpool chimney sweeper, was charged with murdering Mary Rigby, at Lymm, Cheshire. The prisoner is about 26 years of age. — Catherine Lawless, of Tatlock ‐street, Liverpool, stated that in September, 1873, she lived as servant at 21, Ardwick‐street, Liverpool, and saw Mary Rigby every other day. After witness left her situation deceased came to her at Tatlockstreet. Prisoner stood at the top of the street, but could not hear their conversation. Two months previously prisoner asked her for Catherine Lawless, saying that Mary Rigby wanted her. Witness went once to William Henry‐street with the deceased, about twelve months ago. Deceased went to the top of a cellar, where prisoner, who was out, lived. Deceased wrote one letter there and told witness so.— Louisa Jane Hodgson, 16, stated that her father purchased prisoner's business in September. A letter afterwards came, in which she saw the name Mary Rigby, Stafford‐street. She gave it to the prisoner, who received it without a word. Afterwards another letter came. Witness had known the prisoner for five years. He and his wife lived apart.— Superintendent Steen mid he apprehended the prisoner at Tuebrook, Liverpool. Lawless identified him as having been with the deceased. He said " I never called upon her nor received any letter."— Prisoner was remanded until Thursday. On Thursday last the prisoner was brought up on remand, before Messrs. John Barton and C. B. Dewhurst, at Lymm, Chehire, charged with having, between the 31st December and the 20th January feloniously killed Mary Rigby. The circumstances of the case had already been fully reported, but it may be briefly mentioned that on the 20th January, a woman, supposed to he 16 or 17 years of age, was found in the canal at Lymm, and upon an inquest being held a verdict of "Found dead," was returned. Before the interment of the body at Lymm Parish Church, it was identified as that of Mary Rigby, 20 years of age, who had been in service with Mrs. Craik, Stafford‐street, Liverpool. She left her mistress's house on New Year's Eve, on a visit to her mother, at Lymm, but never arrived there, and after leaving her mistress's house was not seen again till found in the canal at Lymm. On the prisoner being placed in the bar, Superintendent Steen said that some hair produced on the last occasion, which was in the hand of deceased, had been proved not to be the hair of the prisoner. A relation of the, prisoner — said to be his uncle — stated that he bad engaged professional assistance, but the attorney had, by mistake, passed the station. Superintendent Steen said that he did not think it worth while to wait for the attorney, as he (the superintendent) did not propose to offer any further evidence against the prisoner. The Chairman, addressing the prisoner, said he was discharged; at the same time he (the magistrate) thought it was entirely owing to the prisoner's want of candour that he got into trouble. It was pretty clearly proved that he had some acquaintance with the deceased, which he denied. The inconvenience of his incarceration was, therefore, his own fault. The uncle of the prisoner asked Mr. Steen if he paid for the prisoner's supper when he was in the bride‐well at Liverpool. Mr. Steen replied that he had paid all demands, and that he told the police at Liverpool to give him his supper. The Uncle: He bad no supper. Mr. Steen: Then he ought to have had. I paid them their charge of 1s. 3d.,and he ought to have had his supper. Mr. Steen: Yes, for his maintenance. He was taken there (Liverpool), and he ought to have had his supper. The prisoner was then discharged.
Cheshire Observer
Saturday 19 June 1875
THE ALLEGED MURDER AT CREWE.
At the Crewe Police Court, on Saturday; before Mr. W. Tollemache and Major Starkey, a bricklayer's labourer, named Geo. Henry Goosey, was charged with the wilful murder of Jane Mountfleld, his mother‐in‐law, a woman 77 years of age.
Sarah Jane Palmer, who resided in the same house with the prisoner, said Goosey had treated deceased with uniform harshness since Christmas one day he seemed especially violent, and in addition to threatening to knock her brains out, said he wished she was dead. Just after Christmas deceased came running excitedly in to their room in the front of the house and asked permission to stay there, as her life was endangered, prisoner having thrown a large sawyer's iron "dog" at her and struck her with it on the back.
About five o'clock on the evening of the alleged murder, as she stood at the door, she heard deceased, who was somewhat deaf from age, place a pan heavily upon the ground. Prisoner, with an oath and a threat, asked what she was knocking about the things for. Deceased said, "You are always corsing me" and witness immediately heard a fall. She ran to the kitchen and found deceased lying with her eyes shut and senseless, with blood flowing from a gash in her head, and the prisoner coollv looking on.
Prisoner's wife came in from the back yard and exclaimed, " Oh, George, George, you have murdered my mother you have killed her at last." He replied, " Serve the old • right; she ought to have been dead years ago."
Deceased was raised by 'witness and prisoner's wife and placed In a chair, and afterwards 'carried to the door but Goosey, though appealed to, declined to render any assistance. At that time blood was flowing freely from the two great gashes and deceased was senseless. She never recovered consciousness, but died two or three hours later.
At the time the deed was done prisoner's three children were with him in the kitchen, and as they were' crying, he said, "Hold your, noise ; I did not touch your grand‐mother" when the eldest, between six and seven years of age, exclaimed. '"Yes, you did; you knocked her down with a stick." Witness said, " Oh, Goosey, bow could you find it in your heart to do such a thing to an old woman and he replied, She shouldn't tantalise me, then."
As deceased appeared to be rapidly sinking, ah*; I asked both prisoner and his wife to go for a doctor, but the former excused himself by saying, " No; she's only foxing— the same as usual;" and the wife added, "I've never seen her so before. She still pressed them to procure medical assistance to save unpleasant consequences but Goosey replied," We shall get into no bother I don't care if she dies to‐night and I am hung to‐morrow ; but a moment afterwards he added, " But I am sorry I have done it." Witness further said that there was no food for the deceased on the day of the murder, and witness had given her both her breakfast and dinner. : After they carried deceased upstairs prisoner came up and said, ‐I didn't strike her with my fist, but I pushed her with my arm across the chest."
Goosey; who was a worthless bad man, and had scarce done a weeks work since Christmas, had beaten the old woman till her arms and legs were black, and she frequently ran to their apartments for protection.— Henry Palmer, husband of the previous witness, said prisoner was in the habit of asking tbe old womsan why the — — she did not die. —
lnspector Morris said. The prisoner came to the station‐house immediately after the occurrence and represented that his mother‐in‐law had met her death through an accident. Prisoner said the deceased was patting a pan upon the fire when she slipped; hut when he went to the house he found no signs of a fire having been in the grate.
Dr. Bailey, of Crewe, said the prisoner came to him and said his mother‐in‐law bad tumbled downstairs and injured herself. He went and saw her, but the case was hopeless from the first.' On the next day he made an examination of the body, and found a contused lacerated wound under the arm and a fractured skull. The poker exactly fitted the wounds and such a weapon would be likely to cause them. It was impossible to a fall against wood to have caused them.
Goosey was committed to take his trial at the Chester Assizes for wilful murder.
Cheshire Observer – Saturday 11 September 1875
MELANCHOLY SUICIDE OF A DOMESTIC SERVANT IN CHESTER. Elizabeth Weatherill, a domestic servant, 27 years of age, who was latterly engaged in Liverpool, but who had been for many years in service in Chester, committed suicide by drowning herself in the Dee, on Sunday evening, under circumstances of a very painful character. These will be found detailed in the following evidence given at an inquest held on the body at the Deva Hotel, the Groves, by Mr. Tatlock the city coroner, on Monday afternoon. Mr. George Lee Fenwick, Chief‐constable of Chester, said the deceased had been for a number of years in his service. She come to him at Helperby, North Yorkshire, in 1860, when she was twelve years of age, and she afterwards removed with him to Chester, and had not left his service since that time with the exception of a few months. About the end of April or the beginning of May last she left him, and went to service in Grove Park, in the suburbs of Liverpool. He had only seen her once since then, until Sunday afternoon last. She called at his house on that occasion, which was ten or eleven weeks ago, and as far as he could see she was all right and well. On Sunday afternoon, between five and six o'clock, she again came to his house, and he spoke to her in the lobby as she was going out. He asked her if it was true she was leaving her situation, and she said it was, and added something to the effect that Liverpool was killing her, and did not agree with her health, and that she was leaving next Thursday or Friday. She then appeared to him to be in bad health, and he was so struck with her strange, ill appearance, that he made an observation to that effect to some of his family, and found that others had noticed it also. The deceased was a good‐tempered girl generally, though occasionally given to sullen, sulky fits, and he noticed on Sunday ‘that there was something different’ in her appearance. He went to Liverpool that (Monday) morning, and broke the news to her master and mistress, but ascertained nothing that would lead him or them to suppose that she meditated doing away with herself. She had left everything carefully arranged, and all her things were tidily and carefully put up, and her boxes locked, as if she did not intend returning, though her master and mistress were under the impression that she was coming back on Sunday night. She had left no note, nor said anything out of the way to anybody, except lamenting over coming to Liverpool, which she said was the worst day's work she bad done. He found afterwards that deceased had written to his young daughter, saying she was coming to Chester on Sunday, and asking for the times of the trains. His daughter wrote her, giving the information she asked for, and he recognised the handwriting on an envelope found in one of her gloves as his daughter's. He had heard nothing as to the state of her mind, except that she had complained during the past week of being very ill. Detective‐Sergeant William Wallace, of the Chester City police, said he had known the deceased for the last ten years. He saw her last about seven o'clock on Sunday evening, when she called at the police office. He shook hands with her, and asked how she was. She, replied, "Not so well, Wallace." He said, "What is the matter with you?" She said, "In fact I have pains from the top of my head to the sole of my feet." She said she would be leaving Liverpool in a few days, and added that the place was so very warm, and she was so much confined; that, she could only get out once a fortnight or three weeks; and that the only thing she had to cheer her was the Chester newspapers. Witness noticed that she appeared depressed and melancholy. She was usually cheerful. She asked for Lindsay, and witness told her he was not in, and she then walked away, saying, "Will you thank Pinchers for sending me the newspapers." Saw her then walking down Northgate‐street, in the direction of the Cross. That was the last be saw of her, and about an hour after there were brought to the office a jacket, a bonnet, two neckties, pair of gloves, pair of cuffs, and an envelope in one of the gloves, with her same on it. These witnesses (sic) recognised as belonging to the deceased. He searched her clothing, but all he found was a bunch of keys and a purse, containing 4s. 11d. there was no return ticket in her pockets. James Chalk„ a private in the 59th Regiment, attached to the 30th, now in Chester, said that, about twenty minutes to eight o'clock on Sunday night be was walking on the Queen's Park side of the river and saw some articles of women’s apparel lying close to the water, opposite the water works. The jacket was folded up. From one of a pair of gloves an envelope protruded with a woman's address on it. Witness hailed a boat which was then coming down the river, and the men in it remained at the spot until witness gave information to the river police. A drag was brought, and after a few minutes search the deceased's body was found. About fifteen or sixteen minutes elapsed from the time he saw the articles of dress on the bank until she was taken out. There were some eight or ten people about on the meadows at the time, it being then approaching dusk. The body was found about five yards from the side. The river is deep there close to the side. William Saunders Rose, river constable, deposed that he met the last witness on Sunday night about a quarter to eight, and in consequence of what he told him, witness got a drag and dragged the river opposite Mr. Titherington's garden. When they had been at work about six or seven minutes the deceased's body was found. It was brought to the boathouse and a doctor was sent for, but she was quite dead. There had been a good many people on the meadows that evening. Ellen Pritchard, a married woman living in the Groves, said she washed the deceased. There was no mark of violence on her. Witness searched her pockets but there was nothing found upon her. The Coroner having summed up, the jury after a few minutes deliberation returned a verdict to the effect that the deceased committed suicide while she was in on unsound state of mind.
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 25 March 1876
CONGLETON COUNTY POLICE.
Monday.— Before C. Swettenbam, E. H. Solly, R. Beales, and C. W. Hogg, Esqrs.
William Band, porter at the Alsager Railway Station, was summoned on a charge of libel on the wife of Mr. Yates, a commission agent at that place. The circumstances giving rise to this charge were peculiar. The defendant had written a letter to Captain Smith, chief constable of Cheshire, complaining that on the 23rd ult., the night of a sale at Alsager, P.C. Goss, the constable stationed there, was drunk, and that on leaving the house a woman fell down, and he fell close to her. In the letter Band proceeded to complain of immoral overtures made to his wife by the constable some time ago. On this letter Goss had been sent for to a private inquiry at Chester, which, having terminated in his favour, Captain Smith had handed to him Band's letter to do what he liked with. He accordingly brought over Mrs. Yates and her husband last week to Congleton and applied to Mr. Garside, the clerk, for a warrant for the apprehension of Band on the charge of libelling that lady.
The warrant being refused, an application was then made to Justices by Mr. T. Cooper on behalf of Mrs. Yates, and they also refused a warrant, but granted a summons returnable on Tuesday, when Mr. Cooper appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Paine (Tenant and Paine, Hanley) for the defence.
W. Band, the defendant in the case, after receiving his summons, laid an information against P.C. Goss for being drunk on the occasion in question. This was taken after the libel charge, Mr. Wilson appearing for Band, and Mr. Latham for Goss.
The interest taken in the subject by the people of Al sager and the neighbourhood was evinced by the Town Hall being crowded chiefly by respectably dressed persons from that quarter, most of them apparently being sympathisers with the defendant; though P.C. Goss was not without a number of rather demonstrative supporters‐.
Mr. Cooper opened the case by reading the alleged libel on Mrs. Yates, which consisted entirely of the simple allegation that she fell down near the Alsager Arms, on the night in question. There was no allegation, except by possible innuendo, that she was drunk. Mr. Cooper, however, contended that from the subsequent conversations of the defendant with various persons he had supplied tbe links shewing both malice and that the charge of drunkenness war really intended in the letter.
Mr Paine said he would offer no opposition to any evidence Mr. Cooper might call, but would content himself at the proper time with submitting to the Bench that the alleged libel could not be amplified or explained by parole. It must speak for itself.
Mr: Cooper proceeded to call several witnesses, the chief of whom were Goss and Yates, the former of whom swore that both he and Mrs. Yates were quite sober on the night in question, and that he was helping her husband to take her home, when she fell in a fit and in the fall dragged him down with her. He extricated himself, and contrived to set her on her feet, after which they all went home.
In cross examination witness admitted that the defendant Band did come up with his lantern as he was rising from the ground, and that he did order him to take if away, because the light of it blinded both him and Mrs. Yates.
Mrs: Yates, the complainant, deposed that she had attended the sale with her husband, and had bought a piano. Also, that being subject to fits, she bad the feeling of one coming on while in the room, and requested a gentleman named Warrington to look for her husband, and afterwards P.C. Goss and he attended her home. No medical man was seat for.
Several other witnesses deposed to the sobriety both of P.C. Goss and Mrs. Yates, and to the fact of Band having said they were both drunk.
Mr. Pain said in defence, briefly but very ably, put it as conclusively borne out by the evidence, that the alleged libel was tree. All it said as to the lady was that she fell down, which the evidence for the prosecution proved she did. They could not travel out of the four corers of the libel; and the mass of evi dence that had been given as to the defendant talking at other times to one man or another about the occurrence could not affect his previous letter to Captain Smith, which was the whole of the pretended libel as laid in the information. He was not there to say the lady was drunk; far from it. And as to the policeman (who has made no charge of any libel on himself), he could not see why he was imported into the case with Mrs. Yates. He should call no evidence, for he had nothing to answer.
Mr. Cooper having contended that the parole evidence was admissible to show the extent of the libel, the Bench decided otherwisei and that there was no case.
Mr. Paine applied for costs, which after hearing Mr. Cooper contra they granted.
By the next case, "Band versus Goss" , Mr. Wilson opened by regretting that at the gentleman who had so ably conducted the previous one had not undertaken the task. There were many reasons, and, as the Bench would understand, there were some special ones, why it was irksome to appear in cases against policemen, but as Messrs. Tennant and Paine had not been instructed in time, he had consented at the complainant's urgency, to appear for him in what he believed to be his true and righteous case. The Bench would see that he had these difficulties to contend with. The complainant, in, his letter to Captain Smith, had admits to having had for months an ill opinion of the defendant, from the domestic misconduct therein alleged.
Mr. Wilson called the following evidence : —
William Band, porter at the Alsager station, deposed that he was leaving his work with the booking clerk at 9. 30. on the night in question, and in passing the Alsager Arms towards his own home he saw the defendant and a woman come out and walk in a peculiar manner a few yards where they both fell. Witness went up to them and showed his lamp, on which defendant said"D***you, take that light away." Witness went to the house and called Mr. Weaver, the manager, who came out, and also told him to take the light away. Defendant was a long time in getting up. From his walk, and speech, and manner, had no. doubt he was quite drunk. Did not see Yates there at all. — The witness in cross‐examination admitted that he went straight from the spot to the house of a Mr. Cooke, where were two other gentlemen, whom he told of defendant’s situation, and said they might go and see him for themselves. Admitted a bad opinion of defendant from reasons which he stated.
Edmund Meadowcroft, the booking clerk, aged 15, in very clear and straightforward evidence, corroborated the last witness. Was sure the defendant was drunk. Cross‐examined : Did not see Yates there. Believed he was not anywhere near, but could not swear as it was dark.
John Shufflebothan deposed that Goss was leaning against a door in the passage and fell down on the floor. In his belief he was drunk. Heard him talk indecently to the servant maid. Mr. Latham objected. This had nothing to do with the present charge. Mr, Wilson put it that the public use of such words might be taken as evidence that the man using them could not be sober, especially he being a guardian of good order. The Bench allowed the words to he stated, which were of a very beastly nature.
John Burton, saddler, Alsager, was present, and corroborated the last witness, both as to the falling down and the indecent language to the servant girl.
Mr. Warrington, a retired gentleman, noticed Mrs. Yates apparently in a fainting condition in the sale room (he could not say from what cause), and that he went to look for her husband. P.C. Goss was leaning against a door, and he asked him where Yates was. Goss opened the door and disclosed Yates drunk and with his coat off wishing to fight. Said to him, "You little drunken devil, come and look after your wife” and pulled him out of the room. Could not say whether or not Goss was drunk. Saw him only momentarily. Did not hear that he had taken any proceedings against Yates for being drunk and fighting. Mr. Latham asked what this evidence had to do with the case. Mr. Wilson only put it in, as the other, as some proof that a constable, who allowed fighting and drunkenness, could not be very sober.
That was his case. Mr. Latham, for the defendant, addressed the Bench in direct contradiction to the charge, which he said was the result of a confederacy in Alsager against the defendant in consequence of the firmness and vigilance with which he had done his duty there. The whole place was in commotion, and the crowded state of that room was a proof of the party feeling that prevailed. Band's ill will had been shown and admitted. His evidence was clearly coloured by his prejudices, and the boy had merely said ditto to him. Mr. Latham commented at some length severely on the complainant. He ridiculed the evidence of Shufflebotham and Burton as incredible and malicious, and said that the only witness of truth (Mr. Warrington) had refused to declare the defendant drunk. He did not like to weary the Beach with repeating the evidence of the several witnesses who in the other case had deposed to Goss’s sobriety.
Mr. Wilson said he would take all their evidence as if given in this case.
Mr, Latham would then call only five or fix more witnesses, who would prove the defendant to have been quite sober. He then called Mr. Burgess, gardener; Mr. Barker, farmer; Serjeant Dale, and several others, who declared defendant to have been sober, and to have refused to partake of anything.
The Justices, after retiring, unanimously dismissed the charge; but, under the circumstances, refused costs. The decision was received with demonstrations of applause by a small portion of the audience. It is due to the complainant, W. Band, to state that he handed in to his advocate a testimonial as to his respectability, integrity, and truthfulness, signed by the Vicar and the principal inhabitants of Alsager; though of course the document could not be used in the case.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 4 March 1876
BROXTON PETTY SESSIONS.
Before J. H. Leche, Esq. (chairman), B. Barbour, R. Howard, and 6. Barbour, Esqrs. Riding without Bjins.— John Gilbert, labourer, of Kelsall, was summoned for riding without reins on the 26th January.— P.C. Bowe said that on the day in question he met defendant riding on a lorry drawn by two horses, without reins, in the township of Tattenhall. —Defendant admitted the offence, and expressed his regret, saying that he had only got on to the shafts because he was footsore. — The police gave defendant a good character, and the Bench let him off on payment of costs.
Assaulting a Policeman. — George Ashbrook and George Dutton, stonemasons, of Saighton, were summoned for committing an assault on a policeman in the execution of his duty on the 19th February. — P.S. Palm, stationed at Waverton, said that on the 19th February he was on duty at Waverton, and in passing near the Brown Cow public‐house he heard some one go in and ask for two glasses of ale. The landlady refused to serve the parties, saying they bad already had enough, and witness then heard a fight, and the landlady ran to the door. He went into the house and found the defendants making a great noise, and when he told them to be quiet they assaulted him several times. The landlady called in a man named Bradshaw to help to quell the disturbance, and the defendants also struck him. — Defendants were also summoned, along with a third man named Job Gillham, for being drunk on licensed premises at the time of this disturbance. — P.S. Palm proved the case. — For the assault on the police Ashbrook and Dutton were fined 20s. each, and costs 13s. 6d; and for the second offence each was fined 10s., with 11s. 6d. costs, or in default seven days'
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 19 August 1876
THE ALLEGED ASSAULT BY A POLICEMAN.
At the City Police Court, yesterday (Friday), before F. Finchett‐Maddock, Esq. (in the chair), T. Q. Roberts, W. McEwen, and R. Nicholson, Esqrs., Thomas Leech, constable No. 14 in the city police force, was summoned by Mary Cavanagh for assaulting her on the 15th July.
It will be remembered a similar summons was before the Court, consisting of Messrs. E.
F. French, E. G. Salisbury, T. Davies‐Colley and C. Dutton, on the 22nd July, and the result was that the magistrates were unable to come to a decision, being equally divided, and there being no casting vote vested in the chairman, the natural consequence almost was a re‐hearing of the case, and this was fixed for yesterday.
Mr. Cartwright again appeared for the complainant, who is the wife of a labouring man living in Steven‐street; and Mr. Churton for the policeman.
The facts of the case as sworn to by Mrs. Cavanagh, her husband, some of her lodgers, and two or three residents of the street, were to the following effect: — on the night of Saturday, the 15th July, Mrs. Cavanagh left the house for the purpose of proceeding to a provision store to make some purchases. As she got into the street she saw there was a crowd through which she would have to pass. On coming up she saw the defendant and another policeman, named Stanier, with a drunken man named Martin in custody. Martin was struggling hard with them, and just as she came up be wrenched himself from their bands and made his escape, passing close by her. The policemen made no effort to pursue him, but Leech, as she was passing him on the foot walk, turned at once to her, looked into her face, raised a heavy stick and struck her a severe blow on the top of the head. She was nearly stunned, but asked Leech what he struck her for. For some time he would not answer her, but, when pressed, said, “You are all a b....... lot in this street." The complainant was then removed to the Infirmary in a cab, and had her wound dressed.
The defence was that there was a great crowd in Steven‐street, who jostled and roughly used the policeman, and in fact attempted to rescue the man Martin, and busy amongst them was the complainant, Mrs. Cavanagh, who, they alleged, made several distinct rushes at them with the view of setting the man free. Another prominent would‐be rescuer was "a man," who repeatedly kicked Leech, and it was when endeavouring to defend himself from this man that a blow aimed at him with his stick was avoided by him and fell on complainant's head. — This defence was supported by Police‐constable Stanier.—
Yesterday, in course of cross‐examination, Mrs. Cavanagh admitted that a woman might have said to her when she was struck that she did not think the officer did it intentionally. She denied, however, having said in reply, " No, I don't think be would do it on purpose." She also denied having either attempted to rescue Martin from the custody of the police or molested them in any way. — In answer to Mr. T. Q. Roberts she said she went to Mr. Fenwick's office on Monday morning, when Mr. Fenwick told her to come again at half‐past eight o'clock at night, when Leech would be there. She attended, and Leech was brought in and said she had attempted to rescue the man Martin from custody; but that he did not strike her intentionally. The other policeman was then called in, and be said the same thing.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 29 January 1876
SHOCKING DOMESTIC TRAGEDY IN CHESTER.
SERIOUS CHARGE AGAINST A CUSTOMS OFFICIAL.
At the City Police Court, on Thursday, before the Mayor (W. Johnson, Esq.), T. Q. Roberts, Esq., F. A. Dickson, Esq., and J. Oakes, Esq., John Thompson, clerk in the Custom House at Chester, and living in Grosvenor‐place, was brought up in custody charged with doing grievous bodily harm to his wife, Ellen Thompson.
The Chief Constable conducted the case for the prosecution, and the prisoner was undefended. The Chief Constable, in stating the case to the Bench, said there was at present a difficulty as to what form the charge should take. He should, however, narrate the circumstances, then call a few witnesses and ask for a remand for some days. On Wednesday night, about half‐past seven o'clock, two gentlemen came to him and said from what they heard they thought it was desirable that some police‐officer should go to Grosvenor‐place, off Grosvenor‐road, to the house where the prisoner lived. There had been, they said, strange noises heard in the prisoner's house during Tuesday and on Wednesday, that day, the prisoner and his wife had not been seen at all, and it was thought that something dreadful had happened. He went down, and there he found Sergeant Lindsay had obtained an entrance. On going into the house he found the prisoner's wife lying on her back in the kitchen. The prisoner was then upstairs in bed, suffering from delirium tremens, or something akin to it. The house was in a most wretched condition. On the advice of Dr. Job Harrison, the woman was taken to the Infirmary on a stretcher, and there she was examined by Dr. Chambers. She was very severely injured, and some of the injuries were probably the result of a fall. The neighbours knew that the prisoner and his wife had been drinking for weeks, and it was not improbable that she might have fallen, but during Tuesday night some of the neighbours heard what they described as kicking. On Wednesday morning the prisoner called in a girl named Emily Moore, who found the prisoner's wife lying upon her face between the passage and the kitchen in a pool of blood. She was then dragged into the kitchen and left there from nine o'clock in the morning until they found her at night. According to the prisoner's statement she most had lain there 21 hours at least. She was unconscious when they found her. Sergeant Lindsay and he had examined the house that morning and had seen large pools of blood in a room upstairs, and large quantities of hair in three or four different places in the house; and there was the appearance of some desperate struggle having taken place upstairs, and that by some means the woman had got to the bottom of them, and lain there 21 hours. The Chief Constable added that in consequence of the condition of the prisoner, he had not yet completed his enquiry and investigations He then called the following evidence: —
Emily Moore deposed : — I live in Grosvenor‐equare. I know the prisoner, who lives near us. I know Mrs. Thompson. I saw the prisoner about half‐past nine o'clock. He sent a girl for me, and when I came he opened the door for me. He asked me to fetch, him some beer, and I did so. I fetched a quart. Mrs. Thompson was lying on the floor at the bottom of the kitchen stairs, with her head near the mat, but not quite on it. I asked him what had happened, and he said he had tried to get her upstairs, and she had fallen down. He asked l me to help to take her in the kitchen, and I did so, patting her on her back and placing a pillow under her bead. I noticed that her head was bleeding, and her face much bruised, and her eyes blackened and closed. She did not speak, and was‐unconscious. She bled at the mouth and nose. I asked her could I do anything for her, and she did not answer, I brought a basin and some water, and washed her face. I then went out, and on going back to the house on several occasions I found the door shut, and I did not get in until the police entered. I have not noticed that the prisoner and his wife have been drinking. On Wednesday morning I did not notice that he was under the influence of drink. I only did what he asked me.
Sergeant Lindsay said : From what I heard I went to Grosvenor‐place about 20 minutes to seven o'clock on Wednesday evening, and, on going to the prisoner's house, found the door closed. I thought I heard some one moving in the house and I rang the bell, and the last witness came across the street, pushed the door open, and I went in. I did not then see the prisoner. I afterwards found him upstairs in bed undressed. I got a light and lit the gas and saw the woman lying on the kitchen floor in a state of unconsciousness. Her face was very much swollen and her eyes very much discoloured. I sent for Dr. Job Harrison, and on his recommendation she was taken to the Infirmary on a stretcher. While the messenger was gone for the doctor I gave her some water and she drank it eagerly, but she did not speak. She smelled of drink. I have been at the house this morning and I found the hair and pads (produced), some in the lobby and some in the drawing‐room. In the latter I saw several spots or marks of blood on the carpet. One of the marks was the size of a crown piece, another the size of the sole of a woman's foot, and another large mark appeared to have bean washed. Near the door of the same room there was a patch of blood evidently wiped up. The mat at the bottom of the stairs was saturated through and through with blood and a pillow in the kitchen, where she was lying, had some blood oh it. In the bed‐room where the prisoner was there was a wash‐stand which contained water, in which it appeared that some one had washed, as the water was coloured with blood.
Mr. Eber Chambers, house surgeon at the Infirmary, said: A woman named Ellen Thompson was brought to the Infirmary on a stretcher, on Wednesday night, about eight o'clock. She was only partially conscious, but sufficiently so to answer one or two questions, but I could not understand her owing to a thickness in her speech. She had a cut about an inch long over the back of the right side of the head, which might have been done by a fall or by a stroke from a blunt instrument. Both her eyes were bruised and blackened. She had also been bleeding from the left ear, and there was evidently some injury to the brain, as the muscles of the left eye were all paralysed. She had also been bleeding from the mouth, as there were marks of blood on her lips and teeth, but I could not say whether it was from internal injury. I did not examine sufficiently to see if there was a fracture of the skull, but from the bleeding from the left ear I should say it was fractured at the base. There was a large bruise on the right shoulder about six or eight inches square; another over the ribs about three inches square; a large bruise on each buttock; a small bruise on the right side of the stomach, and several small bruises on the left side of the body; but the largest bruises were on the right side. The skin on her legs about the shins was grazed, and there were also bruises. During the whole of last night she has had a series of convulsive fits at intervals of about every ten minutes. When I last left her she was unconscious, having just come out of a fit; but last night I asked her how she bad received the injuries, and she said some one, whose name I did not quite catch, had done it. I thought the name sounded like "Thompson," and I asked her if Thompson had done it, and she said "Yes." She also made a motion with her arms, as though he had held her with his left arm and beat with his right fist. Still, I don't think the majority of the injuries have been produced in that way. I think the large black bruises are very probably produced by falling downstairs, or some thing like that. They are very extensive, and such as would be produced by a heavy fail downstairs. As to the smaller bruises on the other side, I should hardly like to say at the present moment how they were caused. I should like to examine them more closely when they come out. I have not examined her injuries minutely, in consequence of the state she is in. I should say her life is very greatly in danger. She will most probably die. As to the injuries on the shins, they would apparently be caused by her running against something.
The Chief Constable: That is all the evidence I shall bring before the Court to‐day. I shall now ask for a remand for a week, the prisoner to be brought up in the interval if necessary, on a charge of inflicting grievous bodily harmi on bis wife. The Mayor (to prisoner; We remand you for a week, and you may be brought up again, if necessary, within that period. The prisoner said: I know nothing at all about it. He was then removed. The unfortunate woman died yesterday (Friday) morning.
THE INQUEST Mr. J. Tatlock, the City Coroner, opened an inquest on the body of the deceased at the Infirmary, at half‐past three o'clock in the afternoon. The following evidence was called:—
John Roberts deposed: I live at 26,Grosvenor‐square. I am a clerk and accountant. I knew the deceased, Ellen Thompson, wife of John Thompson, an official in the customhouse of Chester. She lived with her husband at a house in Grosvenor‐square, about five or six doors from me, on the same side. I know nothing of her death, or how she was injured. They had been living in the square for some time before I knew them. By the Jury: I have not seen her or her husband for two or three weeks I should say, but I was on visiting terms at their house. I never saw the deceased drunk, but I have sometimes observed that she smelt of rum.
Mr. Eber Chambers, house surgeon at the Infirmary, said : The deceased was brought to the Infirmary about eight o'clock on Wednesday evening, by the police, on a stretcher. She was partially dressed. She was taken to a ward, where she was undressed. On examining her I found a cut on the back part of the right side of the head, about an inch in length. Both her eyes were blackened and bleeding had taken place from the left ear, and there was also dried blood about her mouth, and the blood at her ear was dry. The wound on the head had stopped bleeding. The muscles of the left eye were paralysed. On examining her body I found a very large recent bruise on the back part of the right shoulder, which must have been caused within 48 hours of my seeing her. There was also a bruise over the lower ribs on the same side, about as large as the palm of my hand, three or four inches square. There was a bruise on both buttocks, the largest being on the right side. The latter was about eight or nine inches square; that on the left side was about the same size, but not so severe. I also found a bruise on the right side of the stomach, about two inches by three. The right hand was considerably bruised over the back. On her left side there were several smaller bruises, and also one on the left arm, but none so severe as those on the right side. There was a bruise above each ankle, and the skin was grazed on both legs up to the knee from the instep. She was partially sensible when brought in, and complained of pain. She was put to bed and kept quiet, and she rallied. She was very cold, and suffering from a good deal of shock when brought here. Hot bottles were applied and she rallied, and she continued doing fairly until about one o'clock in the morning. She was then taken with a fit of convulsions. These recurred during the night about every ten minutes or a quarter of an hour, but in the morning, after giving her some medicine, about half‐past 10 o'clock, they ceased to be so frequent, and she had only two or three during the rest of the day. She never recovered consciousness after the first fit, and died at a quarter to seven o'clock this morning.
At this point the Coroner suggested that it would be desirable to adjourn the inquiry until a post‐mortem examination had been made, and remarked that the prisoner, who was not now represented, might be in attendance when it was resumed. The inquiry was adjourned until 5 o'clock on Monday afternoon at the Town Hall.
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 2 December 1876
HORRIBLE DEATH OF A WOMAN IN CHESTER.
CHARGE OF MANSLAUGHTER. On Wednesday the City Coroner (Mr. John Tatlock) and a Jury at at the Bars Hotel, Foregate‐street, to inquire into the cause of the death of a woman named Emma Ruffles, who died on Tuesday forenoon, under circumstances which tend to the belief that she came to her end by violence at the hands of a man named William Smathers, with whom she cohabited.
Smathers was apprehended on a warrant on Tuesday and was present at the inquest, in custody of the police. He was asked by the Coroner whether he wished to give any evidence, and, on testifying his willingness to be sworn, the Coroner cautioned him that should the verdict of the Jury affect him, his evidence might be used against him. He consented to be sworn, and deposed as follows :— I live at 10, Russell‐street, and am a painter. The deceased was 43 or 44 years of age and she lived with me. On Tuesday morning when I got up, soon after seven o'clock, the deceased was on the couoh in the kitchen, where I had left her the night before, as I could not get her up stairs. She was asleep when I came down but soon awakened, and asked me if I would fetch her a noggin of whiskey. I went to Tasker ‐Bars Hotel and fetched her one. She took rather more than half of the whiskey neat, while I was there. I then went lo Mrs. Wetnall and asked her to come to my house and clean it up, as I thought deceased was not able to do the work. I thought so because she was very drunk the night before, and had gone to sleep on this couch. Before going to bed I put a pillow under her head and covered her over with a blanket. She was in the habit of sleeping down stairs when she had been drinking. She had been drinking on Saturday and Sunday, and was drunk both days — in fact, she could not keep a penny. She slept down stairs on Sunday night. After going to Mrs. Wetnall 's I went up town to see Mrs. Devine, a woman who used to clean for me, and asked her to go to the house and clean it, as I thought afterwards that Mrs. Wetnall might not get, as she was making a dress. When I returned from Tasker's with the whiskey the deceased was lying on the floor with the pillow under her head. A man named Arthur Davies, who lodges with me and was sleeping in the top room, got up at the same time I did, and went to his work before I set out for the whiskey. When deceased asked me to go for the whiskey she said she was " bad," and would be all right after it. I am working near Manchester, and had only come over on Saturday. After meeting Mrs. Devine I did not return to my house, but went down to my sister's house to get something to eat, for there was nothing in my house to eat, all my money and the deceased's money having been spent. I did not see deceased alive again. I heard she was dead at 12 o'clock noon, and I could not believe it. A person named Nelson, from the Hop Pole, whose child was at my house, told me first of the woman's death. The occupants of the house on the night of the 27th were myself, the deceased, Arthur Davies, and Nelson's child. When I came down stairs I did not notice any scratch on deceased's face, as she was lying with her face to the window; but when I returned with the whiskey, when her face was towards me on the floor, I noticed it was scratched and bleeding. She did not say how that happened, and I did not ask her. She used to fall down very often when drunk, and get marks like those upon her. I noticed blood on her right hand when she was lying on the floor. When I returned with the whiskey she sat up a bit and asked me to pour half of it out, and I did so. She drank it and said " Leave me alone ; I'll be better just now," and I said I should go and fetch Mrs. Wetnall I don't know how deceased got bruised unless by falling. She has fallen across and against the fender many a time. I don't know whether she has had any dispute with anybody, nor if she has been struck by anybody. I was not at home all last week until Saturday, when I came to Chester. I gave her 10s and she had 10s. a week of her own. She had been drinking all the week. It was about eleven o'clock when I got home on Saturday night. I met her up town about seven o'clock, and she was not sober then. I gave her the money then. Mrs. Devine was with her then. I did not see her again until eleven o'clock. She said she was going to the market, but she did not bring anything home. Arthur Davies: I live at No. 10, Russell‐street. I am a plumber. I lodge with William Smathers, and have lodged there for a week. I slept in the house every night, and the deceased was at borne every day during the week. She was drunk every day. On Monday night, the 27ih November, the deceased was at home, and William Smathers was there also. She called Smathers' family foul names, and he struck her and knocked her down. I had my back to them at the time, washing myself, and did not see a blow nor hear a blow, but I saw and heard the deceased fall. She was almost helplessly drunk, and she fell on to the mat. She said when she fell, " I wish to God I had died when I bad those two apoplectic fits." She made no remark in reference to Smathers. I never saw Smathers strike the deceased. When she fell she did not get up before I went out five minutes afterwards — about ten minutes to six in the afternoon. I came back about a quarter to eight o'clock, and she was then sitting in an arm chair and Smathers was sitting on a sofa. He was drunk. I went out again, and came back about a quarter to eleven. Deceased was then lying on the floor in the kitchen, and Smathers was sitting on a chair. He asked me to assist her to bed, but I declined unless there was some female present. I went to Mrs. Devine’s but could not get her up, and I returned to the house. I fetched down a pillow and propped her up as well as I could on the floor, to keep her from lying on the cold tiles. Afterwards I went to bed, leaving Smathers silting on the chair, but I heard him coming up to bed about ten minutes afterwards. When I came to the house, about eight o'clock, I saw the deceased attempt to strike Smathers, and both were quarrelling. I did not see him strike her then. I got up next morning at seven o'clock and came down stairs, and deceased was lying in the same position on the floor. Smathers was sitting on the sofa. Deceased was not awake. Smathers spoke to me. I left for my work, and did not again see deceased alive. I noticed blood about her mouth when I came down on Tuesday morning, but did not see if her face was scratched. — By the Jury : Smathers was downstairs before me about five minutes. There was no quarrel between them then. When I came down Smathers said, "Poor thing, she lies there." And I said you had better get her off to bed as soon as possible. Smathers came to answer the door in his shirt, as I had been called up by my mate, and he was sitting on the sofa in that condition, waiting, I suppose, to shut the door after I went out. He was drunk the night before; I cannot say whether he was drunk then. My mate, Frank Pritchard, was in the kitchen with Smathers and the deceased when I came down. There was no whiskey sent for while I was there. I heard no row during the night, and I found the deceased in the same position on Tuesday morning as I left her in on Monday night. They had no quarrel on Sunday or on Saturday night. By Smathers: We did not come home together on Monday night. By the Chief Constable: The mat is by the front door, and the deceased fell on it with her whole body on her back. She did not exclaim nor make any noise as she was falling. She was standing by the table and he was sitting on the sofa, facing each other, there being about six or seven feet between them. When she fell Smathers was standing near her. I noticed no blood after she had fallen on the mat. I don't know what began the quarrel; I was not in when it began. I didn't notice whether the woman had any marks on her face on Saturday or Sunday. Smathers had his top coat on, on Monday night. He wore white cuffs on Sunday, but I don't know whether he did on Monday. (A blood‐stained apron produced.) I don't know that apron; nor that the deceased wore an apron like that. I can't say that she had an apron on on Monday night. By Dr. Taylor: When deceased fell on the mat she fell face forwards, and her head came against the door, in which the key was, and the side of her face must have come in contact with the key. I heard her fall against the door, but I can't say whether it was her head only or not. She fell a dead weight. Dr. Taylor: I was called to see the deceased at three o'clock on Tuesday afternoon. She lay on a bed up‐stairs. She was dead, and must have been dead a few hours. I examined the body externally. There were recent bruises — one behind the head on the right side, one on the front of the right shoulder, one on the left breast, one on each of the legs between the knee and the ankle on the front, one on the outer side of the right hip, one at the back of each elbow, and on the upper lip and forehead and nose were several recent scratches or scrapes. There was a scratch on the front of each elbow and one on the back of the left wrist. There was a little blood coming from the nostrils and mouth. The fingers of the left hand were covered with blood, and there was a little blood on the fingers of the right hand. Those are all the recent marks, but the body is almost covered with old bruises of various dates. I counted ten in front of the chest alone. I am unable to say what deceased died from without a post‐mortem examination.
The inquest was then adjourned until Thursday in order that the doctor might make a post‐mortem examination of the body. The inquest was resumed at the Town Hall at two o'clock on Thursday afternoon. Mr. Marshall appeared on behalf of Smathers, who was present in custody, and Mr. Penny appeared for the relatives of the deceased woman. Dr. Taylor was the first witness called. He said: I made a post‐mortem examination of the body of the deceased woman yesterday (Wednesday) afternoon. In addition to the recent bruises I mentioned yesterday I found another recent bruise on the left side of the head, rather towards the back; exactly on the corresponding position to the other on the right side. I found on removing the scalp recent effusions of blood between the scalp and bone on both sides underneath the bruises I have mentioned. On opening the skull I found a large clot of blood covering completely the left side of the brain ; the thickest part of that clot corresponding to the bruise and the effusion under the bruise on the left side of the head. There was also an effusion of bloody fluid into one of the ventricles of the brain on the left side. The brain generally was in a high state of congestion. There was no fracture of the skull. I found no disease anywhere which could account for death. Deceased died from compression of the brain, the result of the clot of blood on the left side. On the right side of the head there was a corresponding effusion of blood to the bruise, but only under the scalp. The bruise on the left side might have been the result of a fall on the floor or on any hard uneven body. A person standing up and falling down on the floor without being pushed down might have received this injury. I could not say positively how long the clot of blood had been accumulated ; but it was recent ; I should think about the same length of time as the effusion under the scalp. If the accumulation were gradual it must have been gradual within a few hours. If the bleeding were gradual, unconsciousness might not come on until some hours after the injury was caused. The blood oozing from the mouth was probably the result of a blow on the mouth causing some injury to the teeth. The clot of blood on the brain was in my opinion the result of the injury which produced the bruise on the left side of the head. By Mr. Penny: The bruise on the right side seemed to be of about the same date as that on the left side. If one fell into an angle, the two bruises might have been caused together; they could not have been produced by the same plain surface. The other bruises on the right shoulder, on the left breast, and on each of the legs were probably produced about the same time. How they were caused I cannot say; but they must have been produced by blunt instruments or plain surfaces. The other bruises, which were all over the body, were caused in a similar way. By Mr. Marshall: All the bruises I saw might have been caused by falls. I examined other organs of the body— the heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, and stomach. The liver was slightly diseased, but I could not detect disease in any other organ. The extravasation of blood on the brain entirely covered the left hemisphere of the brain. The bruise was directly over a prominent part of the head. I did not detect any ruptured blood vessel from which the blood which formed the clot exuded. I have heard that the deceased has had two fits. I think that the thickest part of the clot being directly under the bruised part of the head completely puts out of consideration the question of apoplexy as the cause of death. If death had resulted from apoplexy from disease I should have expected to have found disease in some of the blood vessels, whereas I found no such disease. The blood vessels were healthy. Deceased was lying on her back when I saw her, but she had been removed from the kitchen. I do not think that the thickness of the clot at the part where it was thickest was caused by gravitation, the result of her lying on her back. Had that been the case it would have been an inch further back. The brain tissue was uninjured, and appeared healthy. Contusion of the brain tissue is frequently found after injury, much more frequently bleeding is found. I do not say that the brain of the deceased was not injured, but I detected no injury, except the result of the bleeding. By the Jury : I don't think the bruise on the left side is the direct result »f the blow of a fist. A fall against a key in a door would not cause the injury, but a fall against a door with some force might cause it. If deceased fell with her head into the corner of the door with some force that might have caused both wounds on the back of the head. To the Coroner: Supposing disease existed in the blood vessels of the brain such a blow as would produce this bruise would be still more likely than in a healthy brain to cause rupture of the blood vessels. There may have been weakness of the blood vessels,, the result of excessive drinking ; and that would predispose to rapture of the blood vessels whatever was the exciting cause. By the Chief Constable: There was a small stain of blood both on the back of the front door and on the wall. There was no external bleeding from the bruises on the back of the head.. Dr. Watson was present at the postmortem examination, and there was no disagreement between us as to the facts. There could be no doubt as to what we saw.
Francis James Pritchard : I live at 3, Hamilton Court, Foregate‐street, and am a plumber. On Tuesday morning, the 28th of November, about seven o'clock, I went to Smathers' house to call Arthur Davies, who was sleeping there. I knocked two or three time§ before the door was answered. I waited two or three minutes. Smathers answered the door. I can't say whether he came downstairs or not. He had only his shirt on. I told him I had come for Davies, and he went in and left the door a little open. I pushed in, and as I did so Davies was coming downstairs. I saw the deceased lying on the floor. I noticed that her face seemed to be scratched. I stayed there a minute or two,. and I said to Smathers—" Couldn't you get her to bed then, Bill ?" and be replied, " No, lad, she was too drunk last night ; she was helpless; but I’ve made her pretty comfortable; I've put a pillow under her head." He also said he would try again to get her to bed to rest for an hour or two. Davies and I then went out together. At the time of this conversation Davies was in the back with the light. Deceased seemed then to be comfortably asleep. Her bead was packed up on a pillow. I knew the deceased. The last time I saw her before this was between, twelve and one o'clock on Monday, going into the Bars Hotel. She was then drunk. When I went into the house deceased was lying with her head towards the window, close to the door, and one could just push the door open sufficiently to get in with out interfering with her. By Mr. Penny: Deceased had no bed under her; she lay on the tiles of the floor. There seemed to be a shawl or some black covering over her, but I could not say whether it was more than her dress. She seemed to be covered all but her face. By Mr. Marshall: I didn't notice sufficiently to be able to say whether there was anything under the deceased or not.
Esther Devine : I am wife of Patrick Devine, tobacconist, 19, Williams Buildings, City Road. I knew the deceased. About ten minutes past eleven o'clock on Tuesday morning Smathers spoke to me by the Eastgate. He asked me to go as far as his house. He said "Missus has not spoken to me this morning; I don’t know what is the matter with her." That was all that passed between us. He then went away, saying he was going to fetch his sister. I went to his house, and found the deceased on the couch in the kitchen. There was only a child in the house besides. Deceased had only on a black dress, and she was very cold. I went up stairs, fetched a blanket, and put it over her. Then I made a fire, heated some salt and Mr. Nelson then came in. He and I carried the deceased up stairs to bed, and I after‐wards came down to fetch some more salt. In about ten minutes after she was dead. Nelson then went for a doctor. I saw the deceased on Saturday evening and I was in town with her. I saw her about seven o'clock and again about ten. On the latter occasion she was not sober; she was not helpless drunk, but had bad a good deal. Smathers came in with Davies a little after ten o'clock. I also saw her on Monday, and stayed with her nearly all day. I left about six o'clock, and at that time deceased was in drink, but was not " to say drunk." Smathers came in before I left. He had had a little drink. There was no dispute or quarrel between them. I left before Davies came in, and did not return that night. By Mr. Penn: There was no accident in carrying deceased up stairs. She never spoke after I saw her on Tuesday morning. By Mr Marshall: When I was at the house on Monday afternoon I saw her sitting on a hearth stool before the fire. I went for something to eat, and when I came back she was lying on the couch. She had not covered herself up and she had had a good deal of drink. She would be middling sober about six o'clock. This would be about three o'clock, when she was very nearly drunk. She had not then a scratch on her face. When I saw Smathers on Tuesday morning he was not drunk. By the Chief Constable : When I got to the house on Tuesday forenoon I could not perceive a smell of whiskey on deceased; there was about half a noggin of that liquor in a small bottle on the table. By the Jury: There was food in the house.
John Nelson: l am "boots" at the Hop‐Pole Hotel. My child has been at nurse at Smathers' house since the latter end of last June. The last time I saw the deceased was about seven o'clock on Saturday evening, the 25th November. She was then sober. I did not see her again alive until about twelve o'clock on Tuesday morning, when I went to see my child. I found Mrs. Devine there. The deceased lay on a sofa, and I assisted Devine to carry her upstairs and put her to bed. Mrs. Devine and I came down stairs together, and Mrs. Devine went up in about ten minutes with some hot salt. She called to me from the top of the stairs that she "thought Mrs. Smathers was dead." I then went to look for Smathers, and met him in the street, about half‐past one o'clock, by Brassey's, the ironmonger's. I noticed the deceased's face had a couple of scratches on it, but they were not bleeding at the time. By Mr. Penny: When I met Smathers he was sober, though he might have been drinking. By Mr. Marshall : I remained at Smathers' house until Dr. Taylor came. I heard some person in the room tell Smathers to go to the Town Hall to give information to the police of he death ; and I came up to the Town Hall afterwards and found that he was there and had given the information. By the Chief Constable: When I met Smathers I said, " I may as well tell you at once that your wife" is dead, and you had better get down home." He said, "Oh, I can't believe that," and he and I then walked off to his house.
Mary Clarke: lam wife of Robert Clarke, a brick‐setter, and live next door to Smathers. On Monday evening I was going out to do a little shopping, between eight and half‐past eight, and I heard deceased calling out‐loudly, but I could not distinctly hear what she said. I could also hear Smathers' voice, but could not distinguish the words. I could not say if they were quarrelling; they always talked loud whether they quarrelled or not. It rained so heavily at the time that I could not hear distinctly. When I was coming back, in about half an hour, after doing the shopping, I heard nothing, and I did not hear anything during the night after. I heard nothing but what I have now mentioned, as I was going out shopping at about half‐past eight o'clock. By Mr. Penny: I have often heard deceased and Smathers quarrel; but I never saw either strike the other. I have beard tbem through the division wall of the houses.
Detective‐Sergeant Nixon said: At half‐past four on Tuesday afternoon, the 28tb inst., I went down to No. 10, Russell‐street. I saw William Smathers; he was sitting on a chair in the kitchen. I asked him the name of the deceased, and he told me " Emma Smathers." I went upstairs and saw deceased, dressed, lying on a bed, and I observed there were scratches on the face, and blood oozing slightly from the nose and mouth. I went and saw Dr. Taylor, and returned about seven o’clock in the evening. I then examined the house and found this apron (a blood ‐stained apron produced) behind a towel rack, and a linen cuff (produced) on the dressing‐table by the bed. That appears to be stained with blood also. When I came down stairs I asked for Smathers, but he had gone. There were blankets, a shawl, and a pillow on the couch in the kitchen stained with blood. I went in search of Smathers, but could not find him. He was apprehended about eleven o'clock by Detective‐Sergeant Wallace, in bed at his sister's, in Lower Bridge‐street. By Mr. Penny : There was a blood mark on the front door about six inches from the floor, and I noticed a blood stain on the wall there, a little higher up. By Mr. Marshall : It was not to me that Smathers gave the information ; I was out when he gave it at the police office. By the Jury: I should say the cuff I found is a man's cuff. I searched for the other, but could not find it.
Arthur Davies recalled, examined by Mr. Marshall: Smathers came home from his work every Saturday to Monday for some weeks past, and he and the deceased were always on good terms, and got on very comfortable. By the Jury: When I saw the deceased about eight o'clock on Monday night she did not seem to be in any pain in consequence of the fall at six o'clock. She was very much intoxicated, but did not complain of any‐thing.
Thomas Evans : I am nine years of age, and I live with my grandmother, the witness‐Mary Clarke, in Russell‐street, next door to Smathers. On Monday night last, the 27th November, about nine o'clock, I heard deceased screaming "Murder." I was in our house, and heard the cry of "Murder” three times together. I did not hear anybody else, voice, but the door of Smathers house was opened and hung to again. I went into the street, and also saw the door opened and shut. Somebody came out. A little time after, when I was inside our house, I beard the deceased cry out "Murder," twice. I looked at the clock when I heard the first cries of murder, and it was nine‐o'clock by it, but it is a quarter of an hour fast. I don’t know what time it was when I heard the second cries. My grand‐mother and aunt were in the same room with me and heard the screams, but they did not go outside. By Mr. Penny: I heard the deceased call out 'Murder" when I was outside. The door was shut, "very fast." By Mr. MARSHALL: I am quite sure I heard "Murder" shouted when I was outside. No one else came out. I have heard noises from Smathers house before. I have heard deceased shout "Murder " before, and that is the only word I ever understood. By the Jury: When the screams of “Murder" were heard, my grandmother said Mr. Smathers and the deceased were fighting.
Mrs. Clark (recalled): Our clock is half an hour and ten minutes fast now; it was half an hour fast on Monday night. When I was going out of my house my grandson came to the door, and I passed on and left him at the door. I was half an hour or better away, and what transpired I can’t say. As I was passing out of my own door I beard the deceased call out “Murder," but as she was always in the habit of shouting "Murder," I thought nothing of it, and passed on. I heard no cries when I came back. My daughter Emma Lunt was in the house when I left and when I came back, and my daughter Elizabeth Clark was in the room when I left and in the kitchen when I came back. Emma Lunt left the house about nine o'clock. She lives in Henry‐street. By Mr. Penney:.‐When I went out I heard the noise of Smathers door being shut. It was not shut particularly violently; they were in the habit of shutting the door violently. By Mr. Marshall: The deceased and Smathers were noisy people. “Deceased used to cry out " Murder" as a regular thing, and we did not take any notice of it. If I bad thought there was anything like real murder I would have gone to the door to see about it.
Elizabeth Clarke: I am daughter of the last witness. I recollect last Monday evening. I was in the Kitchen, but I heard nothing unusual. I heard Smathers and the deceased talking loudly in the next house: but I heard no word in particular. I forget whether the boy Thomas Evans was in the room, as we had some company— my sister and her husband and her little boy. I heard Smathers door slammed to, but I did not hear anything besides, only the loud talking. By the Jury: I didn't hear any cry of "Murder;" but my mother did remark that they were quarrelling.
Mrs. Devine recalled: The apron produced by Sergeant Nixon belonged to the deceased. She wore it on Monday; put it on clean to go out, and when she returned she lay down on the sofa with it on.
Emma Lunt: l am a daughter of the witness Mary Clarke and wife of Henry Lunt a bricklayer, living in Henry‐street. I was at my mother's house on Monday evening last, having gone there with my husband, about seven o'clock. My husband was in and out of the house, as he was fetching some boxes. Between eight and half‐past eight o'clock my husband and I left for home. I then heard Mrs. Smathers screaming in her own house, the door of which was wide open ; but as Mrs: Smathers is often drunk, and quarrels are so frequent there, and as it was raining in torrents at the time, I did not pay much attention. I did not hear anybody else's voice except the deceased's. I could not hear a noise while in my mother's house. We were talking together. I did not notice whether the boy Thomas Evans went out. I did not distinguish any words that the deceased may have made use of. She was in general screaming “murder" when she was tipsy, and I heard the word "murder" that night. I heard Smathers door slam to as we were crossing the street in the rain going home. By Mr. Marshall: I inferred from the deceased .screaming on Monday night that she was drunk, as that was what she was in the habit of doing when she was tipsy. Mr. Smathers, as far as I have seen, acted the part of a good husband towards the deceased. The woman was quiet, as far as we knew, when sober, but always noisy when she was drunk.
Mr. Marshall and Mr. Penny intimated that they did not intend to call any witnesses. The Coroner then summed up to the jury. He first referred to the medical evidence, from which, he said, the jury would have no doubt that the deceased came to her death not from natural causes, but from some injury sustained by her, and it would be for them to say if they could tell how that injury was received. The evidence was certainly not clear "on that point. The only evidence pointing to anything like a blow being struck by Smathers, was that of Arthur Davies, who lodged in the house. When she fell she expressed a wish that she had died of some fits of apoplexy she had had, but one would have thought she would make use of some remark about Smathers if be had knocked her down. Davies did not see a blow struck, but he came to the conclusion that the woman was struck by Smathers, and he (the Coroner) didn't think it was a very unnatural conclusion to come to, as the two had been quarrelling at the time. There was no further evidence of Smathers having struck any blow, or being connected with the deceased's death. The doctor said the bruise which proved fatal might have been produced by a fall. The Coroner then went carefully over the evidence of the boy Evans, Mrs. Clarke, and her daughters, and with regard to these women he thought they had not given their evidence in a straightforward or satisfactory way. He then told the jury that they would have to come to a conclusion as to whether there was sufficient evidence to justify them in saying that the deceased came to her death by an act of Smathers, or whether there was so much doubt about the matter that they would not put him on his trial for the death. It would not do to act on suspicion merely; they must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the death of the deceased was attributable to the violence of Smathers, before they put him on his trial. If they were satisfied that it was so, then they would consider what verdict they should return. If they thought he had received words of provocation and that he struck her or pushed her down and she was thus fatally injured, but that no weapon was used, very likely they would not consider that there was sufficient violence to justify them in saying that he acted with malice aforethought. But no words of provocation would justify a man in striking another, and the least their verdict would be in that case would be manslaughter, and it appeared to him that in this case they could hot return anything more. He did not mean to imply that it was a case in which they ought to return a verdict of manslaughter, but he did not think tbey would be justified in returning any‐thing higher. They might find that the cause of the fatal injury was so obscure that they could not on the present evidence connect it with any act of Smathers, and in that case they would return an open verdict, when the matter could be again taken up if additional evidence were obtained.
The jury, which consisted of fourteen gentlemen, retired at twenty minutes to seven o'clock, and after an absence of nearly three‐quarters of an hour they returned to court, when the foreman (Mr. J. Tiddy) intimated that twelve of their number were agreed upon a verdict, but that the other two held a different opinion, and there was no probability of their giving in. The Coroner said he would take the verdict of the twelve, and be recorded their names as agreeing to a verdict. He then asked the foreman what verdict they arrived at. The Foreman: Manslaughter against William Smathers. This verdict was accordingly entered, and the Coroner made out his warrant committing Smathers to the assizes for trial on the charge of manslaughter.
William Smathers was brought before the City Magistrates yesterday (Friday). After a lengthened hearing the prisoner was remanded until the following morning.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 15 April 1876
HORRIBLE OCCURRENCE IN A POLICE CELL AT THE TOWN HALL
A FEMALE PRISONER FATALLY BURNED
In February last a robbery of a £20 Bank of England note, £7 in gold, a tortoise shell purse, and a small gold brooch, the property of Mrs. Lonsdale, of Birmingham, was committed at the Grosvenor Hotel, in this City, and all efforts to discover the perpetrator were unavailing.
At length, by an intricate process of checking, the missing bank note was traced from the Bank of England down to a Chester tradesman, who bad received it in payment of certain purchases from a female named Hannah Cheers, wife of Mr. Thos. Cheers, who occupies a respectable position in the city.
Acting upon this information the police obtained a search warrant, and, on searching Mrs Cheers' house, came upon the jewellery and a portion of the money.
On Wednesday afternoon Mrs. Cheers was apprehended on the charge of having committed the robbery, and was lodged in a cell at the police station. The apartment in which she was confined appears to have been one larger than the ordinary cell, and had an unguarded fire in it.
About midnight, the officer on duty hearing the shrill screams of a female ran in the direction from which they proceeded, and on entering the cell he discovered Mrs. Cheers enveloped in flames. Assistance was procured and after some difficulty her burning garments were extinguished, but not before her body and head had been horribly burned, her face being completely excoriated; She was at once conveyed to the Infirmary, where her injuries were attended to, but, as might be supposed,, she succumbed in great agony about nine o'clock on Thursday morning.
The case was called on at the Police‐court in the usual course, when Mr. J. P. Cartwright appeared to under take the woman's defence. The occurrence was briefly referred to. The unfortunate woman has left a family of ten children. An inquest was held in the afternoon by the City Coroner, Mr. J. Tatlock.
Thomas Cheers, the husband of the deceased, identified the body as that of his wife.
Detective‐Sergeant Wallace said he apprehended the deceased at her residence, in Boughton Heath, between one and two o'clock on Wednesday, and brought her to the Town Hall, upon a warrant. She was put in the lock‐up by herself. Witness saw her again between four and five, in company with the Chief Constable. She was put into what is known as the sick cell (not an ordinary cell), which was provided with a bed, fire, and light in the room. She complained of being unwell. She was perfectly sober, and was not burnt when arrested. The cell she was in was about 12 by 15 feet.
Thomas Diggery, a reserve constable in the city police force, said be was on duty in the police‐office from nine on Wednesday night till nine on Thursday morning. It was his duty to visit the prisoners every twenty minutes. He went with deceased’s husband to see her about a quarter to ten. She was sitting on a chair about the middle of the room; He next saw the deceased a few minutes after when he went to 'fettle" the fire. She was still sitting on the chair about the same place. She would be about four or five feet from the fire, which was not guarded. It was an open fireplace. Saw her subsequently at short intervals up to a quarter to one o'clock, when she was all right and then sitting on the bed, which was from three to four yards from the fire. She was then awake. Went from her cell to the muster‐room, and when there, about two or three minutes to one o'clock, heard a 'skrike." Inspector Dann was in at the same time, and they thought that this came from a another prisoner being brought in. In another moment witness heard another “skrike”, which, he thought came from the cells and he ran down as hard as he could, and Inspector Dann followed him. When he got to the cell door he saw deceased through the opening all in flames about two yards from the door. She was standing up, and had her arms thrown above her head. He opened the door as quickly as he could, and, without speaking, she rushed out into, the corridor. He went in and got the blanket from the bed and threw it round her, and Inspector Dann held that, while witness got another blanket and put it round her legs. The flames were thus put ouu and lnspector Dann went for Dr. Job Harrison who directed deceased to be taken to the Infirmary‐She was removed from the cell to the muster room, and when there witness asked her how she got burnt She said :— l felt tired and I thought I would take off my boots. As I got up to place my boots on the chair my clothes caught fire. Between ten and eleven o'clock she took off her gown. She was taken to the Infirmary about half‐past one in the police car, in which witness placed three blankets and wrapped them around her, besides the two she had round her before. There was a bell handle in the cell communicating with a gong in the corridor, but the gong was not struck. There was not a large fire; there was no blaze; it was a nice red glow.
Edward Dann Inspector of police, gave corroborative evidence, adding that deceased, in giving him an account , said her cotton petticoat caught when stooping down to pick up her boots.
Doctor Chambers said: when deceased was admitted to the Infirmary she was suffering from burns more or less severe over the whole body. None of them had charred very deep, being superficial, but they were very extensive. She was treated and went to sleep after having some anodynes, which were given her to ease the pain. She became much easier towards morning but died about quarter to nine that (Monday) morning, from shock. She gave to witness a similar account as to how the accident occurred as to the police officers. He thought the proper course was to bring deceased to the Infirmary, as it was so near, in place of dressing her injuries at the police‐station. The extent of the burning, not its severity, was the danger, and there was no hope of saving her life. She was well wrapped in blankets and well protected from the cold.
The Chief Constable stated that the time that elapsed from the occurrence till the deceased was in the Infirmary was about half and hour.
A Juryman remarked that the police out of humanity had provided the prisoner with a fire and that by some means her clothes caught fire and she was burnt.
The Coroner referring to one of the Rules of the Police Station, read...”prisoners in custody in the lock‐ups are to be made as little uncomfortable as possible; safe keeping and not punishment being the object while they are in the custody of the police.”
A Juryman said it might have been made otherwise if the fire had been guarded. Though he thought this was “misadventure”, he could not help thinking if there had been a guard the accident might not have occurred.
The Chief Constable said that he could explain that. There was a temporary fender there once, and they often put in that cell, fellows mad with drink and one man was found smashing the door and everything around with this fender, and since then it had been removed. The authorities might manage in the future to erect a sort of bar which might be a fixture. The fireplace was especially built into the wall and he could not very well understand how the accident happened.
The Jury found a verdict to the effect that deceased died from shock caused by burns having been accidentally received.
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 21 October 1876
WHEELOCK. Presentation to a Police Constable. —
At the Wheelock reading room, on Monday evening, Police Constable Thomas Jones was presented with a purse containing twenty sovereigns and and illuminated address, on his removal from Wheelock to Hall Green, Lawton, on promotion to the rank of sergeant. The proceedings opened with a substantial tea, to which about 100 sat down. Mr. H. S. Adshead, who presided, made the presentation in very suitable terms. Sergeant Jones, in acknowledgment, said he could scarcely find language to express the gratitude he felt in his heart to them for the very handsome present. After a vote of thanks to the chairman the company separated, having enjoyed a social and most agreeable evening. The address was signed on behalf of the inhabitants of Wheelock and its vicinity by Richard Whittaker (president) and James Lycett (secretary).
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 17 March 1877
CONCEALMENT OF BIRTH AT HALE
Mary Elizabeth Morgan (19), servant, Altrincham, and Mary Ann Warburton (23), married, Hale, were indicted under these circumstances : — Mary Elizabeth Morgan being delivered of a certain male child, they (the prisoners) unlawfully, by a certain secret disposition of the dead body of the child, endeavoured to conceal its birth, at Hale, on the 4th and 5th February last. Mr. Marshall prosecuted; Warburton was defended by Mr. Swetenham, and Morgan by Mr. Dunne. — Mr. Marshall, in stating the case to the jury, said the prisoner Morgan was a servant in the employ of Mr. Burgess, a farmer who lived at Hale. About the 16th February last, in consequence of an anonymous letter which the police authorities at Altrincham received, they made enquiries from the prisoner Warburton about Morgan having given birth to a child. She at that time denied knowing anything about the matter, but afterwards she made a statement which would become important evidence in regard to her guilt. When the prisoner Morgan was taken into custody she also made a statement which he (Mr. Marshall) thought was really an admission of her guilt.
Police Inspector Leighton, Altrincham, stated that on the 15th February he saw Warburton and told her he was in possession of information that Morgan had been delivered of a child about a fortnight before, that she (Warburton) knew about it, and that her sister dug a hole in the garden, put the child in, took it up again, and she (the prisoner) buried it. She replied "I don't know anything about it." He asked if she had never been confined or stopped from work, and Warburton said "No." He then went to Burgess's farm at Hale, where he accused Morgan of having concealed the birth of a child of which she had been delivered. She denied that she had had a child. Next day he again visited the farm in company with a police constable and took Morgan into custody, and revisited the farm in the afternoon, when, on digging in the garden, the dead body of the child was discovered, and other evidences of the birth of a child were found in Morgan's clothes box. On the 19th he apprehended Warburton on the charge of assisting Morgan to conceal the birth of her child on the 4th February. He placed the prisoners together, and Superintendent Aston read a statement which Morgan had previously made. Warburton then said she never knew anything till the Monday, and she went on to say that she found the body in the garden, and accused Morgan of being confined, which she denied. Morgan then pitched the body of the child down a closet. On hearing this Morgan said to her, "Eh! Mary Ann, thou'rt the biggest liar that ever spoke." — Superintendent Aston stated that in his presence Morgan admitted having given birth to a child and having buried it in a garden. She also made a statement to the following effect: — " No one has any‐thing to do with only myself. I was confined in my bedroom between two and three o'clock last Friday morning week, and I conveyed it down stairs while they were at breakfast and buried it in the garden, and then I went on with my work the same as usual. I thought it was dead when it was born and that it would not be any harm to bury it " On the 18th February, Morgan made a further statement to him and Inspector Leighton, in which she directly asserted that Warburton was not only cognisant of her pregnancy, but assisted her in disposing of the body of the child, and in concealing the evidences of its birth.
Mr. Renshaw, surgeon, said he examined the body of the child, and was of opinion that it had not breathed in its separate existence, or, if it had, only for a few seconds.
For the defence, Mr. Swetenham called witnesses on behalf of Warburton, who stated that she in their presence spoke of Morgan having been delivered of a child, and that she had found the body.
On hearing this evidence, his Lordship directed Warburton's discharge, saying there was no case against her. Mr. Dunne therefore said he could not struggle against a conviction on the evidence, but he submitted several technical points of objection, which, however, the judge overruled.
The jury then found Morgan guilty and acquitted Warburton. Mr. Dunne then proceeded to address the judge in mitigation of sentence, but his Lordship said this was not a case for severe punishment. He postponed sentence.
Cheshire Observer
Saturday 29 September 1877
A Birkenhead Police Constable Censured
At the Birkenhead Police Court, on Wednesday, before Mr. Preston, a young Man named Denis Hogan was charged on remand with being drunk in Conway‐street, on the night of the 18th instant. On Tuesday, when the case was first before the court, Police‐constable Morrissey (No. 4) stated that the accused was so drunk that he staggered about the street, and had to creep up the steps of his house to get inside. Hogan called a witness to prove that he was not drunk, and also stated that Police‐constable Bannon (No. 31) was present at the time. The case was adjourned in order that Bannon might be in attendance. The latter officer vow stated that he was decidedly of opinion that Hogan was not; drunk. He walked steadily enough, and he did not see him stagger.— Mr. Preston, in dismissing the case, I remarked that he had no hesitation in saying that he did not behove that Hogan was drunk at the time.‐At a later period of the day Major Barker, the head constable, entered the court Mr. Preston, addressing him, said that he felt bound in the interests of justice to mention the case to him‐Police‐constable Morrissey had made a statement which to (the magistrate) believed to be grossly Iexaggerated. His worship then detailed the circumstances of the case, and remarked that it was so highly important that the truth should always be spoken by police‐officers, that he felt bound to report the case to the head constable for the consideration of the Watch Committee. He (Mr. Preston) had the strongest feelings with regard to the truthfulness of police‐officers, so much depended on their testimony.— Major Barker .‐aid he would bring the case before the Watch Committee, and the fullest investigation would be made. Morrissey had hitherto borne a very good character, and bad been fifteen years in the force.— Superintendent Clarke also testified to the good character of Morrissey ‐Mr. Preston said he confessed he had always had a high opinion of the man, but now he had lost confidence in him, and could not again believe his evidence unless it was corroborated.
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 31 March 1877
EXTRAORDINARY CHARGE OF CRIMINAL ASSAULT.
Henry Wood, striker, Saltney, was charged, under a warrant, with a criminal assault on Amelia Wilde, in the service of Mrs. Dale, landlady of the Elephant and Castle Inn, Northgate‐street. — Mr. Cartwright appeared for the complainant and Mr. Churton for the defendant. — Mr. Cartwright, in opening the case, said the complainant was the daughter of a Mr. Wilde, who had been for many years in the employment of Mr. Hewitt, coach builder. It appears the complainant was employed at the Elephant and Castle Inn, situated at the back of the Shambles, Northgate‐street. She acted as general servant and in the absence of her mistress attended upon the customers, and took care of the house.
On Sunday evening, the 25th February, the prisoner called at the house, asked for some drink, which he received, and then made one or two remarks to the complainants which, though of no particular import, still, coming from a stranger, were of a rather familiar character. Nothing particular happened on that occasion, and the prisoner left. He again visited the house on the following Sunday evening, and called for some port wine, which was served to him. There was nobody in the house at the time, except the complainant. She took the port wine called for into the parlour where the prisoner was sitting, and as she held out her hand for the money, he caught hold of her by the hand and then commenced to take liberties with her, threw her on the ground and then committed the offence with which he was charged. The prisoner shortly afterwards left, and when her mistress returned home, she complained of what had occurred, and subsequently did the same to her father.
It was ascertained that the prisoner worked at Liverpool, a warrant was granted for his apprehension, and he was subsequently arrested. The matter was placed in the hands of the Chief Constable, but as the father of the complainant considered the case a very serious one, he instructed him (Mr. Cartwright) to appear on behalf of his daughter. He might add that her left leg hand arm was partially paralysed, and that, therefore, she was less able to make a forcible resistance, than if those limbs were in their normal condition.
Amelia Wilde, the complainant, was then called, and said she was twenty years of age, and was general servant at Mrs. Dale's, The Elephant and Castle Inn, Northgate‐street. She saw the defendant there on Sunday evening, the 25th February, between seven and eight o'clock. Mrs. Dale had gone out, and there was nobody in the house. He came up to the bar, and she went from the kitchen to serve him. He asked for a Bottle of ginger beer, and she told him there was none in the house. He then asked for two penny worth of peppermint, with which she served him, and he paid her the money. As she was putting the money in the till he said "Miss, are you coming out to‐night?' and she replied, "If I was coming out I would not go out with you." The prisoner said no more, but went into the parlour, where he was soon afterwards joined by a man named Jones, and the prisoner and he had some conversation and they left the house in about ten minutes, the prisoner not speaking again to her that night. She saw him again at Mrs. Dale's on the following Sunday evening about ten minutes or a quarter past seven. He came to the bar and asked for two pennyworth of port wine, and said to her, "How are you, miss?" and she replied, "Quite well, thank you," and as he was putting the money in her hand in payment of the wine he squeezed her hand and tried to get her on the settle. She gave him a push to keep him away, and he then got her down on the floor, where he kept her for about ten minutes, and committed the offence with which he was charged: She could not shout, as he had one of his hands on her mouth. He afterwards wanted to shake bands with her and say "Good night' but she refused. He then asked her if she was vexed, and she replied, "Yes, and very much too." The prisoner then got up to go out, and she followed him to the door to see if she could get anybody to assist her, when the prisoner, addressing her, said, "Are you not afraid of me?" and she replied, "I am not, nor of a better man than you” He said, "Suppose I cut your throat," and she said, "You daren't do it; you know better than that." The prisoner then went off as hard as he could in the direction of Mrs, Potts's house. Mrs Dale came home shortly before tan o'clock, and she complained to her about what had occurred: About a quarter of an hour after the prisoner left a Mr. Wainwright came in and asked her what was the matter with her, as she looked downhearted, and she told him what had occurred. She also told Mr. Grimes, the butcher; and on the following Wednesday she told her father what had occurred. She saw the prisoner on the following Saturday night in company with another man going into the market.— By Mr. Churton: Sunday evening, the 25th February, was the first time she ever saw the defendant. Never was introduced to him‐. Didn't know Thomas Fletcher, and never spoke to him in her life. Did not walk out with him on Christmas‐Eve, or any other occasion. Didn't know Samuel Fletcher. Neither of the Fletcher’s ever introduced her to the prisoner. Nothing improper took place between her and the prisoner on the night of the 25th February. Never had any improper intimacy with Thomas Fletcher Was quite sure that it was port wine the prisoner asked her for on the second Sunday she saw him; it was not ginger‐beer. If a person came into the house, they could walk straight into the parlour where the offence was committed. The parlour and the street doors were both open. The par‐lour and the parlour windows front the street, and any person passing along the street could see into the room if the blind was up. The prisoner sat on the settle in the room. There was a table before the settle. When she served him with the port wine and was waiting for the money, he caught bold of her hand and squeezed‐it; she said if he would not let it go she would call her mistress. He asked her if she was not joking, and she replied, "No, she is up stairs." He: then put one of his hand' to her mouth, and never removed it until he accomplished his purpose. One of her bands was crippled and he held her other hand so close that she could not get it away. She tried to get away from him while on the ground but could not. On Sunday evening, the 25th February, when the prisoner left with Mr. Jones, he returned again to the house and asked for a second two penny‐worth of peppermint, with which she served him. He drunk it up and went out saying "Good night," to which she replied “Good night” He did not return a second time on the Sunday following. Last Sunday night the prisoner came to the Elephant and Castle again. He walked up to the bar and asked for a bottle of ginger beer, and as she was serving him with it her father came to the bar and asked if this was the man. Mrs.
Dale was there also. She replied that he was the man. Her father said, "Are you the man who insulted my daughter," and the prisoner answered "No, I never insulted her in my life."' Her father then said, "Are you sure," and he said. “Yes, perfectly sure." Her father then directed her to go for a policeman, and she went, the prisoner remaining behind. Detective‐sergeant Wallace came and took the prisoner into the parlour, where he asked hi, if he had insulted her ' witness) and the prisoner said he had. The officer took his name and address, and the prisoner went away, no specific charge being made against him.—Re‐examined: Her father was at the place that night because he was watching for the prisoner, and before she served the prisoner with the ginger beer she told her father that he was the man who had insulted her. Her father had been watching for two Sunday nights before. There were Venetian blinds on the parlour window, and they were down on the night in question, and the gas was lighted.
Mrs. Ellen Dale said she was a widow and kept the Elephant and Castle, Northgate‐St. She went to church on the Sunday night in question, and on her return she found the prosecutrix in a very excited state and crying. She complained that the prisoner had outraged her, and witness told the father. The prosecutrix was a very steady and honest girl.
Samuel Wainwright, butcher, Princess‐street, deposed to seeing the prosecutrix on the night in question crying and in an excited state. She complained to him that the prisoner had grossly insulted her.
William Wilde, coachmaker, said he was the father of the prosecutrix. She complained to him that the prisoner had abused her and he watched at the place. He saw the prisoner last Sunday night at the Elephant and Castle, and said to him, "Are you the man that abused my daughter a month ago?" He said, "I did not abuse her. I have been acquainted with her before." Prosecutrix said she had never seen him before, except the Sunday night in question. Witness then called prisoner a scoundrel, and said, "If I had a pistol I would blow your brains out." He then said, "For God's sake forgive me. I belong to a respectable family, and it will be such a disgrace." Sergeant Wallace was fetched, and to him the prisoner gave his name and address, and they left the house together. Witness shortly after went out along with another man and they met the prisoner, who said to him, "Will you come to some terms, and I will settle it before it goes any further." Witness said he would see Mr. Fenwick first, which be did, and afterwards applied for a warrant. He also said to the prisoner, "I will send you after the organ‐grinder."
Detective Sergeant Wallace said he was called to the Elephant and Castle on Sunday night, when he told the prisoner that the girl complained of his having committed a criminal assault upon her. The man said he had her consent, and he repeated this when he was apprehended on Tuesday. — On cross‐examination he said he first heard of the matter on the 11th March; he heard nothing more of it until last Sunday evening.
This was the case, and Mr. Churton called two witnesses for the defence — two brothers named Thomas and Samuel Fletcher, living at Saltney, the former of whom swore to frequent familiar intercourse with the prosecutrix, and both swore that they were witnesses of the occurrence on the night in question, and that it was done thoroughly with the consent and partly at the desire of the prosecutrix.
The Magistrates committed the prisoner to take his trial at the Summer Assizes, but admitted him to bail — himself in £150 and two sureties of £75 each.
The hearing of the case lasted nearly six hours.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 17 March 1877
CHESHIRE SPRING ASSIZES.
THE LATE OUTRAGE ON A CITY POLICEMAN
EXEMPLARY SENTENCE ON A CHESTER RUFFIAN. William Sharps, 34, labourer, Chester, was indicted for having, on the 17th December last, feloniously, with a stick, cut and wounded Thomas Snaith, a policeman of the Chester city force, with intent in so doing to resist and prevent his lawful apprehension. He was further charged with stealing five fowls, the property of the Rev the Dean of Chester, on the same date. Mr. Marshall prosecuted, and the prisoner, who pleaded not guilty, was undefended. Mr. Marshall having briefly opened the case, called the following evidence : — Charles Setchell, gardener to the Dean of Chester, proved on the night of the 16th December last locking up 39 fowls in the fowl‐house, and that on the following morning five were missing. The distance from the fowl‐house to King Charles' Tower was about 150 yards.
Thomas Snaith, a constable in the Chester City force, said on the morning of the 17th December, about 20 minutes to two o'clock, he met the prisoner at King Charles Tower on the Walls. He was carrying some fowls, and he asked him where he got them from, and the prisoner replied "I don't know." He turned his lamp first on the fowls and then on the prisoner's face, and he had not the slightest doubt that it was the prisoner. Witness then told him he would have to go to the police‐office. The prisoner thereupon started to strike and kick witness, and witness then took hold of him by the collar and struck him with his night stick. The prisoner continued to resist, and after a struggle got possession of the stick and struck witness a great blow with it on the forehead. He became unconscious, and when he recovered himself he was a few yards from the place, and the prisoner had gone and the fowls also. Witness managed to crawl to the police station, and was laid up for about five weeks.
Mr. Job Harrison, surgeon to the city police force, said on Sunday morning, the 17th December, the last witness was brought to him. He was bruised all over the head and face, and had one severe contusion on the forehead. He was bleeding from the head, and appeared to have bled a good deal. He was disabled and under treatment for about five weeks. All such wounds as these were dangerous until after a certain space of time. Witness was subsequently called in and saw the prisoner. His head was covered with bruises, and the bloody marks on the cap produced corresponded with the bruises and marks on his head.
William Good, sergeant in the city police force, said Snaith was under him on the date in question. He remembered his coming to the police office, about two o'clock in the morning, with his face covered with blood and in a very exhausted state. In consequence of a report he made, witness at once went to the spot on the walls, and found it covered with blood, and a quantity of fowls feathers were lying about. He found the cap (produced) in the field which ran up to the walls, just underneath King Charles's Tower.
Elizabeth Sharps, said she was the prisoner's mother, and lived in Victoria‐terrace, Boughton. The cap produced belonged to the prisoner.
Elizabeth Smathers, who lived with the last witness, said she was the prisoner's niece. She recollected the prisoner going out about six o'clock on the evening of the 16th December. She next saw him the following morning at nine o'clock. She then noticed a scratch on his forehead. She asked him who he had been fighting with, and he said he had got into a bit of a bother last night. After breakfast he asked her to wash his head, and she then saw five cuts on it.
William Wallace said he was detective‐sergeant in the Chester City force. On the 21st December last he, in company with Detective Nixon, arrested the prisoner at his mother's house. They found him concealed under a bed upstairs. When being taken away he said, "Some good friend has split ; if you had been a minute later you would not have caught me. What is the charge like?" Witness said he would tell him the purport of it — that he was charged with unlawfully wounding a policeman and resisting his lawful arrest. At the police‐office the warrant was read over to him, when he said, "I never saw the man before." The distance from the hen‐house to the walls was about 130 yards. He saw the hen‐house on the Sunday morning, the 17th December, and noticed that the slates had been removed from the roof. This was the case for the prosecution, and then his Lordship asked the prisoner if he had anything to say to the jury. The prisoner replied as he had done to each similar query throughout the trial, "I've nothing to say."
Sarah Cleland, the sister of the prisoner, was then called by him, and stated that her brother was at her house on the Saturday night at a quarter to 11 o'clock. Her house was at 32, Union‐street. She did not let him in. She again saw him on Sunday morning.
His Lordship then briefly summed up to the jury, who, after a second's consideration, found the prisoner guilty. He then pleaded guilty to a previous conviction for felony. His Lordship, in passing sentence, said the prisoner was an old offender, and he felt he was bound to relieve the city of Chester from his presence for a considerable time. He found that the prisoner had been convicted five times before and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment. He (the Judge) had no doubt the prisoner was the man who stole the fowls, and who resisted his apprehension and inflicted the injuries on the police. It ought to be publicly known, whether a person was guilty or not, if he were apprehended by a policeman it was his duty to submit. The prisoner considerably aggravated his offence by the resistance to the policeman, and if it had not been for that he (the Judge) would have given him only seven years as an habitual criminal, but considering what he had done to the officer he now sentenced him to 10 years' penal servitude, and that he be subject to five years' sub‐sequent police supervision.
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 22 September 1877
COUNTY PETTY SESSIONS Saturday. — Before the Rev. S. Richardson (in the chair), Major French, Meadows Frost, Esq., J. Grace, Esq., Capt. Trelawny, and T. Hoggins, Esq.
Serious Poaching Affair at Eaton.— Jas. Dean, Wm. Dean, Chas. Dean, John Langley, and
W. Hughes, all of Saltney, were charged with trespassing in pursuit of game and maliciously wounding James Talbot and George Sheaves.
Mr. Cartwright appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Ellis defended the prisoners. —
Mr. Cartwright, in opening the case, said that on Wednesday night two keepers named Talbot and Sheaves, employed on the Eaton estate, were on duty near a field in the occupation of Mr. Thomas Jones, of Dodleston. They had two dogs with them muzzled. Hearing a noise they ran forward, and saw a body of men armed with cudgels and pikels. Talbot and Sheaves seized two of the men and a desperate struggle ensued, the cudgels and pikel being freely used by the poachers. One of the dogs was stabbed to death, and the other injured. Ultimately the two keepers were overpowered, and the men escaped, but left behind them two caps, which had been used for the purposes of identification. He (Mr. Cartwright) would not be able to complete the case that day, but he should call sufficient evidence to justify a remand. The keepers, Talbot and Sheaves, were so injured by the prisoners that they were unable to attend that day.
A policeman who assisted to arrest the prisoners had also been injured.
Mr. Ellis said he must object to a remand unless some identification of the prisoners were proved, and besides this he was prepared to go on with the case. He had his witnesses in Court, and he thought it was very hard that be would be not allowed to call them. He must protest against this sort of thing, as the prosecution had had as much, nay more, time than he had had to get up their case. — Mr. Cartwright said be should call Mr. Brailsford, who would prove sufficient to enable their worships to grant a remand. — Mr. Brailsford, head gamekeeper to the Duke of Westminster, was then examined, and said be laid the information against the prisoners for poaching in the night time. They had found two caps, which he believed belonged to two of the prisoners.
The two keepers, Talbot and Sheaves, were seriously injured, and were unable to give evidence there to‐day. The prisoners were taken yesterday on the warrant which he applied for. — Cross examined by Mr. Ellis ; Were you present when the scuffle took place on Wednesday. — Witness: I was not. — Mr. Ellis: Do you identify any of the prisoners? — Witness: I do not — Mr. Cartwright: That is all the evidence I propose to offer to day, and considering the nature and seriousness of the offence I must ask you to remand them for a week — Mr. Ellis: And I must object to a remand on the ground that the evidence adduced is insufficient. There is no identification of these men. Mr. Brail‐ford's evidence is mere hearsay, and I trust your worships will not imprison these men for a whole week merely on suspicion.
The Chairman : The Bench are unanimously of opinion that there is sufficient evidence before them to justify the remand of the prisoners until Saturday (to‐day) . — The prisoners were then removed in custody, the Magistrates declining to admit them to pail.— The prisoners were apprehended on Friday afternoon at Saltney by Detective‐Inspector Williamson and other police‐officers, and conveyed to prison in two cabs. As they were returning to Saltney to get some more information they were met by Edward Dean, a brother of the prisoners Dean, who, with a stone in his hand, ran at P.C Reecce, of the Cheshire constabulary, and struck him with it on the side of the head causing the blood to flow freely. So severely indeed was he injured, that Mr. Reade, surgeon, had to be sent for Inspector Williamson and his men, as well as Sergeant McBride, of the Flintshire police, went to the assistance of Reecce, and a desperate struggle ensued, Dean behaving more like a wild animal than a human being. During the struggle he bit nearly in two a finger of one of the police officers. During the conflict Dean, who owes Sergeant McBride a grudge for having him convicted of poaching on a former occasion, kicked that officer severely in the leg and spat in his face.
McBride, who is a powerfully built man,soon brought him to bis bearings. and administered to him a physical rebuke which he is not likely soon to forget. After considerable difficulty they got Dean to the lock‐up at the Flintshire police‐station, Saltney, where he remained in custody until this morning, when be was brought before the Mayor of Chester (Alderman W. Johnson), who is a J.P for Flintshire, and was remanded to the Hawarden Petty Sessions, which will be held on Friday, the 28th inst., bail being accepted, himself in £20 and two sureties in £10 each.
Dogs.— Detective Inspector Williamson reported that a small white dog had bitten three children at Kinnerton, and the magistrates made an order that all dogs in the Chester Castle police division should be confined for two months.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 24 March 1877
JAMES BANNISTER THE CONDEMNED CRIMINAL AT CHESTER CASTLE.
A petition, which is in course of signature, is shoot to be presented to the Home Secretary, praying that Her Majesty might grant a commutation of the sentence of death passed at the recent Assizes upon James Bannister, for the murder of his wife at Hyde. It is anticipated that the petition will be both numerously and influentially signed.
The following is a copy of the petition : — Sheweth that James Bannister is now lying under sentence of Death in the County Gaol of Chester Castle, for the wilful murder of his wife. That at 10 o'clock on the night previous to the murder the prisoner and his wife had retired to bed on friendly terms, and were heard conversing amicably afterwards. That at 4 o'clock on the following morning the other inmates of the house were suddenly alarmed, and the prisoner was found with his throat cut and his wife with her head smashed. Both appeared in a dying state, but the prisoner, after an interval of nearly two months, was sufficiently recovered to admit of his removal from the Royal Infirmary at Manchester, to which he had been admitted, to Chester Castle. In the interval, however, he had at times been so violent from delirium tremens that he had to be forcibly retained in bed. This fact, and the previous demeanour of the prisoner, which was not unkind towards his wife, lead to the conclusion that the fatal act was not the result of premeditation but of a sudden paroxysm of delirium, which found temporary relief by the effusion of blood from the oppressed brain, and thus enabled him to call assistance when too late. That murder like other crimes may vary in degree of culpability, and that absence of clearly established malice aforethought in this case, and the undoubted fact that the crime was committed under a sudden maniacal paroxysm, reduce this crime to murder of the second degree, which ought not, in the opinion of your petitioners, to involve the extreme penalty of the law. That another reason your petitioners would offer why the life of James Bannister might with propriety be saved is that there is something revolting in the idea that a man should, by the exercise of high scientific skill and the tender nursing of benevolent women, be rescued from the jaws of death only that his miserable life may be taken at the hands of the executioner. The neck of the prisoner, your petitioners are informed, is not yet completely healed, there being a hole in the wind pipe, through which the miserable man partially breathes, a circumstance that would infallibly invest hanging in this case with peculiar horrors better imagined than described. For these reasons your petitioners venture to express an earnest hope that you may be able to see your way to recommend her Majesty in this sad case to exercise her Royal prerogative of mercy, for which your petitioners will be truly thankful, and ever pray. A memorial to the same effect has already been signed by the Recorder of Chester, the Mayor, Visiting Justices, and most of the professional gentlemen of the city, and sent to London for presentation to the Secretary of State. The day fixed for the execution of the unfortunate condemned criminal is Monday, the 2nd April. Should there be no commutation of the sentence in the meantime he will be executed within the walls of Chester Castle at 8
a.m. This will be the first private execution in Cheshire since the passing of the Act.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 7 April 1877
EXECUTION at CHESTER CASTLE STORY OF THE HYDE MURDER. The murder for which James "Bannister underwent the extreme penalty of the law within the walls of Chester Castle on Monday morning was of a class which has, unfortunately, been too common in the annals of the assizes of this and neighbouring counties during the last few years. A very small number of the persons charged with this class of crime have been found guilty of the capital offence. There seems to have been a disposition on the part of English jurors to deal rather leniently with such crimes, and hence, unless guilt was brought very clearly home to the culprit, he had a narrow escape. Her Majesty's judges and grand juries have only in the extremist cases found true bills against m en charged with the murder of their wives, but when once the capital offence was in their opinion thoroughly established, there has been no scruple on their part to find a true bill. There has also appeared a thorough determination on the part of the Crown to put down such offences, and wherever clemency has been invoked in these cases, their enormity and prevalence have, no doubt prevented it being granted. The case of James Bannister is parallel with several wire murders that have recently been reported, and this appeared in several circumstances connected with the crime for which he has just suffered. D is undoubtedly apparent that both the culprit and his victim were intemperate in their habits, and that they closely resembled in this respect McKenna and his wife, of Rochdale, the former of whom was executed at Manchester, last week, for a similar crime McKenna was a drunken husband, and his wife was not less given to intemperance; while in the case of Bannister he was so far overcome by indulgence in intoxicating liquor as to be occasionally beyond control. The Rochdale and the Hyde cases are parallel, inasmuch as they both exhibit the baneful effect of the undue use of intoxicants. Bach case has led to an observation from the learned judges who tried them that drink is the curse of the country, and our temperance friends have not been slow to avail themselves of this text to “point a moral and adorn a tale." The circumstances connected with the murder of Mrs. Bannister may be expressed within a very small compass, the facts being very plain and circumstantial, although the motive for the deed is not very apparent. From the evidence adduced at the trial by the various witnesses it seemed that the culprit Bannister was a weaver, 40 years of age, and lived with his wife and an illegitimate child of the latter at the house of a Mr. and Mrs Grayson, in Russell‐street, Hyde. For a week preceding the 14th December the culprit had been on the “spree," and had neglected his work at the factory where he was employed. Shortly before six o'clock on the 14' h be came to his lodgings from the factory and had tea with his wife, both then appearing to be on friendly terms. Bannister, after having tea with his wife, went out, and returned about half‐past nine o'clock in the evening, when the other inmates of the house, judging from the voices they heard, considered both to be on friendly terms. Soon after Bannister came into the house he went upstairs with his wife, and they were heard talking together, still apparently friendly, until two o'clock in the morning. The tenor of their conversation appeared to be generally “friendly," from what could be heard by Grayson and his wife, who slept in an adjoining room, the partition being very slight. This continued until half‐past four o'clock, when Grayson heard “something like a blow," and Bannister shouting out "Elijah," Grayson's Christian name. Grayson immediately sent his wife to the apartment occupied by Bannister and his wife, and she re‐turned saying that Bannister was on the bed with his throat cut. Grayson then went into the room and found Bannister, as his wife had said, with his throat cut, while Mrs. Bannister was sitting on the bedside with her hands up to each side of her head and blood flowing from wounds on her head. Indeed she was, as the witness described it, "buried" in blood. Close by the prisoner's head was found a hatchet, marked with blood, which was usually kept in the coal‐hole down stairs, and which it was a point in the theory of the prosecution had been taken by the culprit from this place to the bedroom on the night in question. Under a heap of clothes was subsequently found a pocket knife which was marked with blood, and which was afterwards ascertained to have been in the possession of Bannister. Grayson, when he discovered the situation, immediately communicated with the police, who were speedily on the scene. The deceased woman was taken to the Stockport Infirmary, while Bannister himself was conveyed to the Manchester Royal Infirmary. The woman died three days afterwards, but her husband ultimately recovered and was brought before the justices and committed for trial for wilful murder. When placed upon his trial. Bannister pleaded not guilty, and was defended by Mr. E. J. Dunn, Mr. Ignatius Williams appearing for the prosecution. Mr. Dunn suggested the theory that in a frenzy of delirium he believed there were all kinds of objects about him, and that if he did injure his wife at all he did so with the axe, or hatchet, without any intention, and that, during a brier sensible interval seeing what he had done, he cut his own throat and called on his landlord. In support of the theory of no bad intention towards his wife, it was mentioned in defence that Bannister took upstairs a jug of ale the night of the occurrence: and that further he was mentally afflicted, having sustained sunstroke while in the Cheshire Militia. Against this hypothesis were placed the facts that the culprit deliberately removed the axe from the coal‐hole downstairs to the room where he and his wife slept, and it was proved beyond doubt‐that when the other members of the family retired to rest, this murderous implement was in its usual place in the coal‐hole. Mr. Justice Lush, who tried the prisoner, in summing up, said it was a very sad case, and it was, unhappily, one of those which very frequently arose, and which was entirely attributable to drink. He did not know whether the public outside would ever take notice of the lesson which these cases ought to teach them, but hitherto the lesson did not seem to have been of much service. The jury must deal with the case according to the law, and he must tell them that whatever a man did in a state of drunkenness, to whatever state drink might have reduced him, so long as he knew what he was doing he was certainly responsible. No man could excuse himself for a crime which he committed under the influence of drink, or through a fit of frenzy or madness which he voluntarily brought upon himself. Of course, if a man by a long course of drinking reduced himself to the state of an idiot, then the law treated him as an idiot, and did not hold him responsible for his acts, but there was no evidence in this case that the prisoner's mind had become permanently diseased. His Lordship, in commenting upon the evidence, pointed out that the prisoner had acted rationally in the house before retiring to rest, and that he must have taken the hatchet upstairs with him. If the prisoner killed his wife in a state of frenzy resulting from drink, he was responsible for the act. The Jury, after an hour's deliberation, returned a verdict of “Guilty." which was unaccompanied with j the now frequent recommendation to mercy. The Judge, in passing sentence of death, addressed Bannister as follows:
— “The jury have found you guilty of wilful murder, and, on the evidence, I do not think they could have arrived at any other conclusion. You have brought yourself into this wretched condition entirely through drink, and are another miserable example of that intemperance which is the curse of this country. I don't know whether people in your station of life take to heart the lessons to be derived from cases of this kind, but they do not appear to do so. There is not an assize town in which we do not find that a large number of cases in the calendar are the result, of drink. I do not wish to say anything to add to the pain of your position. You have caused the death of your wife, and for that you will have to suffer. You will be taken to a place where religious consolation will be given to you, and although your time in this world is now short you will have more time for repentance than you allowed your poor wife. I earnestly hope you will avail yourself of that opportunity and employ the short time remaining to you in preparing for another world." Bannister, on hearing the dread sentence pronounced, appeared quite overcome, but was quickly removed from the dock. During the trial he manifested great restless‐ness, and bestowed close attention on the evidence. Since his condemnation Bannister behaved in a becomingly penitent manner. Strenuous efforts were made to obtain a mitigation of the sentence, and amongst the petitioners were the Gaol Chaplain (the Rev. J.
M. Kilner), the City Sheriff (C. J. Blelock, Esq.), and several of the visiting justices. The following petition will show upon what ground the Royal clemency was prayed for: — " That James Bannister is now lying under sentence of death in the County Gaol of Chester Castle for the wilful murder of his wife. That at 10 o'clock on the night previous to the murder the prisoner and his wife had retired to bed on friendly terms, and were heard conversing amicably afterwards. That at 4 o’clock on the following morning the other inmates of the house were suddenly alarmed, and the prisoner was found with his throat cut and his wife with her head smashed. Both appeared in a dying state, but the prisoner, after an interval of nearly two months, was sufficiently recovered to admit of his removal from the Royal Infirmary at Manchester, to which he had been admitted, to Chester Castle. In the interval, however, he had at times been so violent from delirium tremens that he had to be forcibly retained in bed. This fact, and the previous demeanour of the prisoner, which was not unkind towards his wife, lead to the conclusion that the fatal act was not the result of premeditation, but of a sudden paroxysm of delirium, which found temporary relief by the effusion of blood from the oppressed brain, and thus enabled him to call assistance when too late. That murder, like other crimes, may vary in degree of culpability, and that absence of clearly established malice aforethought in this case, and the undoubted fact that the crime was com‐mitted under a sudden maniacal paroxysm, reduce this crime to murder of the second degree, which ought not, in the opinion of your petitioners, to involve the extreme penalty of the law. That another reason your petitioners would offer why the life of James Bannister might with propriety be saved is that there is something revolting in the idea that a man should, by the exercise of high scientific skill and the tender nursing of benevolent women, be rescued from the jaws of death only that his miserable life may be taken at the hands of the executioner. The neck of the prisoner, your petitioners are informed, is not yet completely healed, there being a hole in the windpipe, through which the miserable man partially breathes, a circumstance that would infallibly invest hanging in this case with peculiar horrors better imagined than described. For these reasons your petitioners venture to express an earnest hope that you may be able to see your way to recommend her Majesty in this sad case to exercise her Royal prerogative of mercy, for which your petitioners will be truly thankful, and ever pray." A similar petition, signed by the Recorder of Chester (Horatio Lloyd, Esq), the Mayor (Johnson, Esq.), and most of the professional gentlemen of the city, was also forwarded. No answer was received to either petition until Sunday morning last, when intimation was given by the Home Secretary that he saw nothing in the circumstances of the case which would induce him to advise Her Majesty to interfere with the course of the law. This being the first execution in connection with the Castle, special preparations had to be made for carrying it into effect. Previously, as most of our readers are no doubt aware, criminals condemned at Chester Assizes were executed in the City Gaol, the unwelcome duty devolving upon the city officials. This anomaly has, however, been done away with ; but it may not be out of place just to recall the manner of execution then, which we gather from the report in our file of April, 1866, of the execution of Samuel Griffiths for the murder of Isaac Newport, at Dunham, in February of that year. That was the last execution in Chester, and as will be observed from the date, took place in public. We copy the following extract from the report we have mentioned: — “On Saturday morning Griffiths was removed from the Castle in a most private manner. The sheriff (Mr. C. Dutton), and Mr. Fenwick (Chief Constable of the city), drove up to the Castle in a cab and demanded the body of the prisoner. The culprit shook hands with all the prison officials and bade them farewell. He was then conveyed to the City Gaol." Here he remained until the following Monday morning, when he was hanged in front of the gaol. The mode of execution is very different now. The convict, immediately upon his condemnation, was removed to a strong cell in the Castle, in which he was confined until he was hanged on Monday morning. He was watched day and night by two warders; and, as we have said, was executed in private and inside the Castle. THE EXECUTION. The culprit was executed on Monday morning shortly after eight o'clock. At a quarter to eight a solemn toned bell rang forth a melancholy peal from the tower of St. Mary's Church, close by the prison, and precisely at eight o'clock, the prisoner having been previously pinioned in his cell, the usual melancholy procession started for the scene of the execution. The procession was composed thus: — Chaplain (in surplice). Warder. Culprit. Warder. Warder. Marwood Executioner Warder High Sheriff (T. U. Brocklehurst, Esq.) Acting under Sheriff (John Tatlock, Esq.) Governor of Gaol (Mr. J. B. Manning). Dr. McEwen (the Gaol Surgeon). Representatives of the Local Press. Winding its way quietly along the narrow passages from one side of the prison to the other, the procession arrived at the scaffold, or rather the instrument of execution, which is built at the point inside the gaol opposite the end of Shipgate, at about three minutes after eight. The situation and construction of the dread instrument prevent our terming it a scaffold. On the slope at the extreme south‐east end of the prison quarters, in what may be fairly described as a narrow ravine— a pathway between two very high walls— a hollow of about ten feet deep was built up or "in" with brick, and upon this was erected the traditional two uprights and the crossbeam with its ordinary attachments — the double ring 'or the noose. Throughout the brief, though trying walk, the prisoner conducted himself with marvellous firmness. We have indicated above his position in the melancholy procession: and, in that place, with his arms strapped or pinioned, in his shirt sleeves and bare head, he walked quietly on to the drop, Marwood taking charge of him at this point. With well‐maintained firmness he complied with Marwood's directions as to how he should stand, and the moment the proper position was attained, the executioner placed the strap round his legs, though from his mode of execution these formalities would! Seem to be superfluous. Then departing from his usual | custom Marwood placed a white cap over the head of Bannister, and subsequently adjusted the noose round I the poor man's neck, paying particular attention to the j disposal of the " knot" under the left ear. There was, strictly speaking, no knot. A rope of more than, ordinary thickness was employed with the view of j avoiding a ghastly or serious rupture of the self‐I inflicted wound on the prisoner's throat; and the slipping point of the noose, which, as we have stated, | was under the left ear of the culprit, was formed of a j brass ring inside the tie, so as to admit of more easy I sliding. During the walk from the cell to the place of execution, and the ghastly ceremony on the drop, the j unhappy man, though making no outcry, was very j pale, and seemed thoroughly to feel his awful position, j but looked as if he were determined to bear the inevitable I without flinching. Just after his legs were strapped, and before the white cap was drawn over his face, he gave one firm last look around, his despairing gaze: resting for a moment or two on the small knot of; spectators of his execution. It should be mentioned | also that while in the procession and on the scaffold no audible response to the chaplain's prayers was made by I the prisoner. Marwood having very quickly arranged everything — the ceremony occupying say about two minutes — drew back from the drop, and then one of the warders took out the iron spike which secures the bolt. In another second Marwood had drawn the bolt and Bannister fell into the cavity out of sight of those who stood about eight or ten feet away. To this circumstance is probably due the absence of anything like the traditional thud which accompanies the fall of a convict on the old scaffolds. Looking into the hole or pit, the poor man was seen, quite dead, hanging with the left side of his head and neck exposed, and, as was expected, the wound on his neck was to a certain extent reopened. Marwood, in reply to enquiries by the reporters, was very communicative, and even intelligently so. He at once told the depth of his drop— six and a half feet— and ventured the opinion that the man could not have lived a moment after he fell. This certainly seemed very probable. The executioner seemed proud of the new scaffold, which appears to be built on a plan of his, first adopted at Reading, and subsequently at Newgate, and he thinks it is only a question of a short time when they will be generally used. He was especially commendatory of the dead man's firmness, averring that he had never seen a condemned culprit conduct himself in the awful scene with greater self‐possession and nerve. The accounts kindly given to us of Bannister by the officials seem to vary as to his disposition, but no doubt the opportunities of observation were under different circumstances. Dr. McEwen, the prison surgeon, describes him as a man of a cool and determined character, who, when once he made up his mind to do a thing, would do it; and this seems to be borne out by his demeanour just before his execution. The Chaplain, again, says that since his condemnation Bannister was continually pacing backwards and forwards in his cell, stopping rarely from morning to night. He appeared to be of an excitable temperament. He was very penitent, but he always persisted in saying that he bad no recollection of the deed, and that he did not know how the axe was brought upstairs. He listened with earnestness to the ministrations of the chaplain, and was in the habit of repeating scraps of poetry and sacred verses which he believed to be applicable to his position; among these were the 51st Psalm, Have mercy, Lord, on me. As Thou wast ever kind, Also the hymns, " 0 Lamb of God, I come," particularly that verse — Just as I am, though tossed about With many a conflict, many a doubt. Fighting’s within and fears without, &c. that beginning, Oh for a heart to praise my God. And, latterly, that commencing when in the solemn hour of death. It was his intention to have recited on the scaffold‐Sinful indeed I am, and vile, Oh give me, Lord, one brightening smile. And where Thou art oh let me be— Saviour, be merciful to me, but he did not carry this intention into effect. Some verses on “The Curse of Drink" were copied by him from a pamphlet written by the chaplain, and sent in a letter to Hyde. They were printed in several news‐papers as being the prisoner's own composition. They are as follows: — what is the curse in all the land Mostly to crime a link? Thou know'st, O Lord, and we know too, It is the curse of drink. Drink is the cause of many a woe; Of vice it is the sink, Of love and peace the deadly foe, The curse, the curse of drink. What is it makes so many poor. Who might— did they but think — Through (Shod, keep want far from their door? The cursed curse of drink. What is it fills asylums full, And prisons to the brink? Alas! O Lord, we know too well: Chiefly the curse of drink. The terrors of this cursed vice Should make us from it shrink, For plainly it is hell's device To prompt the curse of drink. Lord, that we fall not by excess, Let us not dare to blink The consequences that express The cursed curse of drink. But make us know and feel, O Lord, Whate'er we vow or think, That Thou alone canst, by Thy Word, Crush Satan's curse of drink. When Thine Apostle cried to Thee, Thou would' st not let him sink; And, if sustained by Thee, shall we Avoid the curse of drink. — Amen. The unfortunate man quoted also some lines from the same pamphlet, entitled "Keep thyself pure," which he enclosed in a letter to his daughter. Immediately before his execution he said to the Chaplain, “Write to the Hyde Temperance Association, and ask them to carry on their good work." Intimation was conveyed to him in his cell on Sunday morning that the Home Secretary had declined to interfere with the course of justice. This information seemed to upset him very much for a time, but he gradually recovered his self‐possession, though he was unfit to attend the usual divine service. He retired to rest at the ordinary hour at night, but did not sleep until two o'clock in the morning. He got up and dressed at half‐past five when the prison bell rang, and was joined by the Chaplain at a quarter‐past six o'clock. Breakfast was placed before him, but he could not eat, and pushed it away, saying, “I don't need it." Marwood arrived at his cell a few minutes before eight o'clock. He quietly submitted himself to the executioner, and divested himself of his coat to undergo the operation of pinioning the arms, merely saying, “Oh! you are Mr. Marwood then." When the drop fell, a black flag was run up a pole erected on the roof of the Crown Court; and a considerable crowd, composed of soldiers and civilians, assembled in the Castle Square to look at this, the only evidence of the dread sentence being carried out that they could see. Everybody who passed out of the prison entrance was for some time an object of curiosity, and it would appear that the great desire was to have a look at Marwood.
THE INQUEST. After hanging an hour according to law, the body was cut down and placed in a shell in the dead house to await the inquest. The wound in the neck was then apparent, but there was nothing unpleasant or repulsive in the appearance of the face. At 11 o'clock Mr. Henry Churton, the county coroner, and a county jury assembled at the Castle, and, after viewing the corpse, heard the evidence of the Governor (Mr. Manning). It was to the following effect: — The deceased was received by him on the 10th February from Hyde, on a charge of the wilful murder of his wife Rebecca. He was tried before Mr. Justice Lush at the last Assizes, convicted and sentenced to death, and the sentence had been carried out at eight o'clock that morning in his (the witness's) presence. The Coroner asked the question whether death was produced by strangulation. Mr. Manning: I am not sure about that. I am not sure it was not dislocation. In fact it is an open question, and the legality of such executions has been questioned. The Coroner said the "long drop" would cause dislocation of the neck, or a fracture of the bones connecting the spine with the head, and one or the other there was no doubt would produce instant death. The witness added that the body remained suspended an hour, and he identified it afterwards as that of James Bannister, who had been executed. The Coroner, in briefly addressing the jury, regretted their having to meet for so unpleasant a duty on Easter Monday, but the execution was fixed for that morning in conformity with the regulation drawn up by the Home Secretary, which recommends that three Sundays should intervene between a convict's condemnation and the day of execution, and that for the sake of uniformity such executions should take place on the Monday morning following at eight o'clock. A formal verdict was recorded to the effect that the body which had been viewed was that of James Bannister, who had been executed in accordance with the sentence passed upon him by Mr. Justice Lush.
The following letter has been addressed by the Gaol Chaplain to the Secretary of the Hyde Temperance Association: —
County Prison, Chester Castle, April 2nd, 1877.
The Chaplain has a mournful pleasure in forwarding the following memorandum, and cordially joins in the prayer with which it concludes : — James Bannister, shortly before he was led to execution this morning, with clasped hands and on bended knees thus expressed himself : " I have one request, sir, to make of you before I die, and it shall be my last. When I am gone, write to the Hyde Temperance Association, and beg of them to carry on their good work, and may God bless them in it." The Chaplain may add that Bannister had often reverted (in his review of the past) to the period, not more than a year ago, when, he said, he and his wife were living together in temperance and comparative happiness, possessed of a good house and furniture, and earning between them fifty shillings a week. The happiness was comparative only, because there was no religion, for temperance, it should always be remembered, though an adjunct of the Gospel cannot be rightly regarded as a substitute for it. To the Secretary of the Hyde Temperance Association.
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 17 November 1877
MURDER OF A SWEETHEART IN CHESHIRE.
At the Fleece Inn, Queen‐street, Lower Tranmere, on Monday, Mr. Churton, the county coroner for Cheshire, held an inquest on the body of Elizabeth Strong, 31 years of age, who resided with her mother, at 10, Westbury‐street, Higher Tranmere, and was, as already reported, shot, on the 5th instant, by a man named Benjamin Howard, a ship carpenter, with whom she was keeping company, and died on Friday night last.
The man, Howard, who was taken into custody immediately after the occurrence, is apparently about 50 years of age, and presents a very miserable and emaciated appearance. He was present during the inquiry, crying and trembling the whole time.
John Peet was the first witness called. He said he was a tailor and draper, living in Queen‐street, Lower Tranmere. The deceased was his sister‐in‐law, and lived with her mother at No. 10, Westbury‐street, Higher Tranmere. He was at home on Monday, the 5th instant, about nine o'clock at night. The deceased came there about half an hour previously, with her mother, to see the fireworks in the village. The prisoner (Benjamin Howard) accompanied them. They had been sitting together in witness's house for a short time, when Howard left them, and going outside the door, fired off a revolver in the street. He fired lour or five times. After that he returned into the shop with the revolver in his hand, and suddenly turning round fired at the deceased, who had come into the shop from the kitchen a moment previously, and was approaching the door leading to the street. Witness distinctly saw him point the pistol at her when about two yards off, and after the shot was fired she staggered towards the door, where witness was standing, and said, "Oh, John, I am shot." Witness afterwards discovered that the deceased was shot in the back of the head, and blood was flowing from the wound profusely. The prisoner did not make any exclamation at the time of the occurrence. Dr. Laidlaw was called in soon after. When the prisoner had fired the shots in the street the prisoner said, "That's the way to make a good report," and before returning in the shop he added, "That is the last," or, "They are all fired off." Dr. Laidlaw and other medical gentlemen attended the deceased to the time of her death, at 11 30, on Friday night last. To witness's knowledge there had been no unpleasantness between the prisoner and the deceased just before the occurrence, and they seemed as friendly as usual. Witness had heard the prisoner threaten the deceased several times. He (prisoner) had said that he would "lose his own life, and that he would not lose it alone." The prisoner used those very words more than once in the hearing of witness, but not in the presence of the deceased. The threats were not made to the deceased herself, but to him (witness.) — By a juror: Witness did not attach any importance to the threats at the time they were made by the prisoner, because they were made so often. The prisoner, being asked by the Coroner if he had any questions to put to the witness, said — Did you not know my feeling for Elizabeth, and have you not heard me say that I would lay my life at her feet ? "Witness : Yes ; I have heard you say so. Prisoner: Then, do you think that I would have harmed her ? ' Witness : It is hard to say. Witness here stated that the prisoner had been a lodger at the house of the deceased's mother for some time, and had returned from sea about six weeks previously to the occurrence, during which time he lodged at the house. William J. Strong, brother of the deceased, was then called. He said that on the Monday night in question he was at the house of the last witness, and heard several shells fired. He afterwards heard his sister‐in‐law, Mrs. Peet, call out "Oh, my sister is shot"; and on leaving the kitchen, where he was sitting, he met the deceased coming from the shop. She said, "Oh, William, I am shot"; but nothing about who had shot her. She was bleeding profusely from the back of the neck. Witness held the deceased in his arms for some time in the kitchen, and the prisoner, coming in, said "Oh! what have I done ?" Witness ordered him out of the room. Mr. Moore, solicitor, who appeared for the prisoner, came in at this stage of the inquiry, and elicited, in cross‐examination of the witness John Peet, that the prisoner had made the deceased a present of a gold watch. James Courtney, a boy, deposed to seeing the prisoner fire off a pistol three times on the night in question, while standing at tbe door of Mr. Peet’s shop immediately afterwards he (prisoner) went into the shop, and, stooping down behind the counter, did something to the pistol in his hand. Afterwards he stood up, and pointing the pistol at the deceased, who was standing near to the shop door, fired. The deceased called out, "I am shot," and soon afterwards fell into her brother's arms. The prisoner went to the druggist's to ask him to come to the house, and as soon as he (prisoner) got into the street he threw the pistol upon the foot‐walk. The weapon was afer‐wards picked up by Mr. Peet and thrown into the shop. George Wallace testified that he also saw the pistol fired in the street by the prisoner, who afterwards went up Olivs‐mount towards Westbury ‐street. Thomas Perm, who lives in Westbury‐street, stated that he met the prisoner at his lodgings on the night in question soon after the occurrence, who told him that the boys had been firing pistols in Lower Tranmere. His pistol was kaded with ball cartridge, and in raising it to fire he unfortunately hit Lizzie. Prisoner then gave witness a revolver and told him to take care of it. Witness afterwards gave the prisoner in charge, and the pistol produced (which was loaded in its six compartments) to the police. (This was a second pistol he had possessed himself of while at his lodgings.)— By Mr. Moore : The prisoner did not say to him that he would either have shot himself than the deceased. Jane Dean, a widow, sister of the deceased, who lived with her at 10, Westbury‐street, stated that her mother, the deceased, and the prisoner left the house apparently all good friends on the day in question for the purpose of visiting Mr. Peet. The prisoner returned about nine o'clock in a very excited state, saying " What a job this is ! " and when questioned he said, "I have shot Lizzie." Witness, continuing, said that the prisoner had persecuted her sister (the deceased) shamefully for the last six weeks because she said she did not want to be with him. He wanted to pay his addresses to her, but she told him several times that she would have nothing to do with him. She (deceased) received a gold watch from the prisoner, and some other trifling present, but only under protest, because he would not take them back. The prisoner was a sober man. Mr. W. G. Laidlaw, surgeon, who attended the deceased after the occurrence, and examined her in company with Mr. Ryan, surgeon, said that he had made a post‐mortem examination, and found a penetrated wound on the back of the skull, the bullet having taken a direction down and outward. The ball lodged in the skull. The right lobe of the cerebellum was a mass of pus, and completely broken up. The gunshot wound was the cause of death. Police constable 165, of the county force, deposed to taking the prisoner into custody in the evening of the 5th instant, and, in answer to the charge of shooting the deceased, he said, " I shot her, but it was a mistake." The prisoner appeared then to be in great distress. Mr. Moore then briefly addressed the jury on behalf of the prisoner, remarking that, if the evidence were considered from beginning to end, it pointed to the unfortunate and lamentable occurrence as an accident, and nothing else. The Coroner, in summing up, said that it had been properly suggested that the whole occurrence might have been an accident, but he thought that, looking at it in all its bearings, it was a case beyond suspicion, and without an extenuating circumstance.
The jury, after consulting for some time in private, brought in a verdict of "Wilful murder" against the prisoner, who was committed for trial at the next assizes at Chester. The occurrence has caused considerable excitement in the usually quiet village, and during the whole day, while the inquest was going on, a large crowd of people were assembled in the street. The prisoner was brought before the County Magistrates at Birkenhead, on Tuesday. The evidence taken before the coroner was reheard. Additional evidence was given by Esther Hardacre, a joiner's wife, who stated that on Thursday, Oct. 25th, prisoner asked her to speak to the deceased and endeavour to persuade the latter to marry him. Witness did as desired, but bad to communicate to prisoner the following day that his wishes had been unfavourably received by the deceased. He replied, " Lizzie seems as stiff as ever," and (touching the breast of his coat) " I have something here that will lake the stiffness out of her — a paymaster that will pay all debts. Robert Dean, the deceased's nephew, stated that the night before his aunt was shot, prisoner, apparently vexed, said within his hearing, "I'll lose my life, but I'll not lose it alone."
The prisoner was finally committed for trial at the next Chester Assizes on a I charge of wilful murder.
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 9 June 1877
LITTLE SUTTON.
Supposed Homicide.
A young man named John Parry, a labourer, who formerly held licensed premises at Rock Ferry, and recently resided at Little Sutton, is in the custody of the Birkenhead county police on a charge of having caused the death of his lodger, a man named Samuel Limebourne, about 52 yean of age.
A bout half‐past ten o'clock on Saturday night last the men had a quarrel, in the course of which Parry struck Limebourne a blow on the left eyebrow, inflicting a wound.
The injured man left his lodgings, and wandering along the road‐met a policeman, to whom he told the circumstances of the assault. He refused to see a doctor, and the officer obtained fresh lodgings for him at the house of a man named Basnett.
About half‐past nine o'clock on Sunday morning, Limebourne went to Dr. Jackson, of Little Sutton, and having geot his wound dressed returned to his lodgings. He died, however, at seven o'clock the same night.
The circumstances coming to the knowledge of the police, Sergeant Roche and Police‐constable M’Neil arrested the prisoner on a charge of having caused Limebourne's death. On Monday at Little Sutton an inquest was opened before Mr. Churton nn the body of the deceased, but the coroner postponed the inquiry for a week in order that a post‐mortem examination may be made.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 27 January 1877
TARPORLEY
Robberies by Canal Boatmen.
Seven men were brought up on Monday at Tarporley charged with stealing three tons of pig iron, the property of the Shropshire Union Canal Company, consigned from Pontycyltte to Wolverhampton by Mr. Hyde iron merchant, of Wrexham.
On the 8th January, Absolom Marsh, Joseph Westwood, and Richard Bradshaw, marine‐store dealers, of Nantwich, assisted by John and Edwin Owen, Robert Jones, and Joseph Maddocks, canal boatmen, were seen by a company's servant busily engaged filing two carts the property of two of the marine‐store dealers with pig iron from one of the boats plying to Barbridge.
Information was sent to Superintendent Saxton, of Nantwich, who procured the assistance of several constables, and were on their way to Barbridge tbe scene of the robbery, when they met the two carts broken down on the road within a short distance of each other in consequence of being overloaded.
The other men, who were only apprehended after a free fight with the canal population of Barbridge, were found to have sold the marine‐store dealers as much of the iron as they could carry away for 30s.
The prisoners were committed for trial.
Page 1
9_12_2013

Cheshire Observer
Saturday 13 July 1878
GALLANT CONDUCT OF A CHESTER POLICE OFFICER.
WELL DESERVED AND GRATIFYING RECOGNITION.
In our issue at the time we had much pleasure in noticing the bravery of Police‐Constable Patrick Roe, who, at great risk to himself, on Easter Monday saved a child five years of age, named Alfred Ratcliffe, from drowning iv the river, and it is now equally gratifying to have to record an official and substantial recognition of his gallant conduct.
On Wednesday, Alderman W. Maysmor Williams, J.P. (chairman of the Watch Committee), who was accompanied by Mr. Thomas Hughes (deputy‐chairman) entered the City Police Court at eleven o'clock, and, addressing the presiding justice (Major French) said: Mr. Chairman, before you proceed with the business of the court perhaps you will allow me a moment or two to discharge a very pleasing duty on behalf of the Watch Committee of this Corporation. It would be well in the recollection of the Corporation and citizens at large that on Easter Monday last, the 22nd April, between one and two o'clock in the afternoon, a child, named Alfred Ratcliffe, fell off the stage opposite the Groves into the river. There happened that afternoon to be a very great fresh in the river, and the child was fast floating down. Fortunately there happened to be on duty one of the most excellent members of the force — Police Constable Roe — who was far up the Meadows, and he, on the alarm being given, immediately rushed down, and, without any hesitation whatever, jumped into the river in his uniform ; and, fortunately for the child, rescued it from a watery grave. The fact having been reported to the Royal Humane Society they very properly sent down to Mr. Fenwick to present to Police Constable Roe a memento of his wonderful courage upon that occasion. The Watch Committee thought it would be very desirable that this matter should be made as public as possible, in order to show that we have in this force a man so possessed of bravery and courage as to save, under these circumstances, a child from, as I said before, a watery grave. The Watch Committee has also felt it to be their duty to present Roe with a gratuity of £3. This testimonial came down the other day, and I will now read it : — " At a meeting of the committee of the Royal Humane Society, held at their office, 4, Trafalgar‐square, on the 21st day of May, 1878, J. M. Case, Esq., in the chair, it was resolved unanimously that the courage and humanity displayed by Patrick Roe, police constable, in having, on the 22nd April, 1878, jumped into the river Dee, Chester, to the rescue of Alfred Ratcliffe, who had fallen therein and whose life he saved, calls forth the admiration of the Committee and justly entitles him to the honorary testimonial of this society, inscribed on vellum, which is hereby awarded. — Argyll, President; J. M. Case, Chairman; Lambton Young, Secretary.
Handing the scroll to Roe, Alderman Williams continued: — Roe, on behalf of the Watch Committee, and I am happy also to be the medium of the Royal Humane Society here, I present you with this testimonial. I feel sure that you have the good opinion of every one in Chester, and that you not only did your duty, but you did your duty almost at the risk of your own life. And I feel certain that if this child should ever grow up, under God's providence, to be a useful member of society, that he will look back upon that day and upon you and your family as having done for him a most happy and glorious deed. I need not say more than this — that I as Chairman of the Watch Committee have much pleasure in presenting you with this testimonial, in addition to what the Watch Committee did the other day. Major French: I have no occasion to say much upon this subject. The gallantry and bravery of your conduct expresses everything, and this testimonial from the Humane Society will be a valuable document for you to retain in your possession. Take care of it. I must express myself the approbation of the magistrates of your conduct. They think that your conduct was highly praiseworthy, and we are glad to see that in the police of the city of Chester we have men that are not only forward and adventurous in maintaining the peace of the city, but also, if necessity requires their perseverance, they do not fail to plunge into difficulties and dangers to save the lives of those people, for the good of their country. We present you with this memorial; and what the Chairman of the Watch Committee has said is highly complimentary, but it is no more than you deserve. You deserve everything that can be said of a man who displayed such courage in rescuing a fellow citizen from a watery grave.
Roe, giving the salute, received the testimonial with a simple expression of his thanks. Alderman Williams said the Watch Committee would be very glad to frame the testimonial for him, so that he might hang it up in his house.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 31 August 1878
CHARGE OF PERJURY AGAINST A CHESTER POLICEMAN.
DISMISSAL OF THE SUMMONS.
SEQUEL TO THE BOUGHTON MORAL DEMONSTRATION.
William Lough, constable number 28 in the Chester City Police Force, was summoned at the City Police Court, on Tuesday, to answer a charge of having on the bearing on the 17th August of certain summonses for breach of the peace, committed wilful and corrupt perjury.
The magistrates present were the Mayor (W. Farish, Esq.), W. M. WilKams, F. A. Dickson, W. McEwen, J. Oakes, and H. Cburton, Esqrs. Mr. W. H. Churton appeared to support the summons, and Mr. Marshall (instructed by Messrs. Bridgman, Weaver, and Jones) was for the defendant.
Mr. Marshall said be wished, before Mr. Churton opened, to make application that the offence with which the defendant was charged might be stated specifically in the summons. At present the whole matter was entirely vague, and he submitted that the summons as it stood was bad. It did not allege any specific offence; all it said was that on a certain occasion the defendant did commit perjury. In all cases of larceny it was necessary to set out on the indictment the specific things alleged to be stolen; and it was also necessary in cases of perjury to set out on the indictment the particular words in respect of which the defendant was charged with having committed perjury. He asked that the summons might be amended by inserting the words.
Mr. Churton argued that a summons was not necessary in the first place, and that it was not necessary to set forth the words. If it did come to an indictment it would then be necessary to state the substance and effect of what the man was charged with. Mr. Bridgman wrote to bim the previous day on the matter, and he sent Mr. Bridgman a letter which stated in substance and effect the charge against the defendant. He told Mr. Bridgman that the charge was that Lough swore he did not use his stick, and did not strike Mitchell.
Mr. Marshall said any communication which might have passed between Mr. Bridgman and Mr. Churton was wide of the mark. It was very important that they should know the exact words, because the whole thing might turn on a single word. Mr. Churton said he charged the defendant that in substance and effect, he swore most solemnly, most distinctly, and most positively that he did not use his stick in an affray that took place in Boughton, and that he did not strike Mitchell.
Mr. Sharp (the magistrates' clerk): I consider the information and the summons perfectly correct. Mr. Marshall said be should like to know on what grounds. Mr. Churton said the Aot of Parliament did not involve any summons at all. Mr. Marshall said it was silent on that matter entirely. Mr. Churton said that as a matter of fairness to the defendant they took out a summons. After some further argument, Mr. Marshall said he would press the objection, and asked a note to be made of it.
Mr. Churton then proceeded to open the case. He said this was not an ordinary summons taken out by a private individual. Their worships would remember distinctly that there were two or three summonses issued against certain defendants, which came on for trial at this court on Saturday, the 17th August. They were charged with a breach of the peace by burning effigies and otherwise creating a disturbance in Spital Walk. Their worships would remember that on the bearing of the summons he appeared for the defendants, and stated that there really was no breach of the peace committed by the defendants at all; and he alleged that a breach of the peace, if any, had been caused by the police themselves using their sticks or staves, and that until these sticks or staves had been used there was no disturbance.
For the defence he cross‐examined the witnesses, who were almost all policemen, and their worships would remember that he distinctly asked Police‐constable Lough in cross‐examination whether he did not strike the man Mitchell, who was one of the defendants, and whether he didn't use his staff or stick. He then positively said that he didn't strike Mitchell, and that he didn't use his staff, and that none of the police did use their staves. Finally he called his witnesses to prove that there had been no disturbance until the police interfered, and there was a man named Maddock positively and distinctly swore that he saw No. 28 strike Mitchell on the head with a stick he had in his hand.
After that positive evidence the Mayor directed Lough to be called back, and very pointedly and clearly called his attention to the fact which Maddock had stated, and he most positively said, after hearing the evidence of Maddock, that he did not use his stick and did not strike Mitchell. That is the perjury alleged, and the defendant knew that that was the offence with which he was to be charged. When their worships gave their decision they bound the defendants over and suspended Lough then and there, and for what]? He knew for what; he knew perfectly well what the charge was — namely, that he said he didn't use his stick and did not strike Mitchell. Their worships directed a prosecution against him for perjury, and a summons had been issued against him, upon which he now appeared. And the Mayor stated that the Bench thought really it was the fairest thing for the defendant himself, because he would then have the opportunity, in a full investigation before this Court, of clearing his character and proving what he said was correct. This was no doubt a painful case. As a member of the Town Council of Chester, and a member of the Watch Committee, who had something to do with the police, he (Mr. Churton) felt it to be a very painful duty to prefer a charge against this man of perjury, and he trusted that in anything he said he should not be guided in any way by the slightest degree of prejudice. He wished to bring this case fairly and calmly before their worships. He felt that the duties of the police were very often most unpleasant, and it was the duty of the magistrates, whenever the police did their duty in the interest of the public, to protect the police in the execution of that duty, and to do all that they could to see that their proper influence on behalf of the public peace was upheld; but it was absolutely necessary, if ever there was anything necessary in this world, that policemen should be witnesses of truth. Because it frequently happened that a policeman was the only witness against a man, and it depended very much upon that man's telling the truth or not whether an innocent person might not be found guilty. He was sure that the Chief Constable would feel that it was important that the police should be thoroughly well known as witnesses who on all occasions spoke the truth. It was not for him (Mr. Churton) to urge this case against the defendant; it was only for him to prove that there was a prima facie case of perjury.
Mr. Churton then narrated the circumstances which led to the effigy burning in Spital Walk on the 12th. 13th, and 14th August, and went on to say that on the night of Wednesday the 14th, a man named Peter Mitchell, who was one of the three summoned for a breach of the peace, got hold of an effigy, and as soon as he did so he was seized by the defendant Lough, the effigy whisked out of his hand; and as soon as he was seized he was struck a violent blow on the head with a stick. He (Mitchell) would tell their Worships that it was given with a kind of cane with a knob at the end, and that he was struck with the knob; that the policeman aimed a second blow; that he held up his hand which received the second blow, and that while this was being done he saw tbt it was P.C. 28. He told Sergeant Good that P.C. 28 struck him. He was summoned for a breach of the peace, and on the hearing of the summons Lough swore that he did not strike Mitchell. The very fact of Lough being called baok after the very clear evidence of Maddock, tended to show most clearly and conclusively that what he said could not be the result of accident. Here was a very serious charge made against a policeman of using his stick, and when he was called baok, he deliberately said he did not use his stick. He (Mr. Churton) therefore said that was deliberate perjury. He should call Mitchell, Maddocks, and a number of other witnesses, and their evidence would be very positive, that they saw No. 28 strike Mitchell. The prosecution had been taken by the order of their Worships, and in the interests of the public, for Mitchell had no feeling against the defendant, and if Lough could clear himself so much the better.
Mr. Churton then called the following evidence : — Peter Mitchell, the prosecutor, said : I am a labourer in the employ of the London and North‐Western Rail‐way Company, and live at Wrench's Court, Tarvin Road. I was summoned to this court on the 17th August for a breach of the peace, and on the hearing of that summons I heard P.C. Lough, the defendant, give evidence. I heard him asked whether he had struck me, and he said he had not struck me on the head and had not used his stick. I heard a man named Maddock give his evidence. Saw P.C. Lough recalled. I heard him say, when asked if he had used his stick, that he had not. On the 14th August I went down to Spital Walk between nine and ten at night. Saw a crowd of people assembled there who brought some " images" out. Got hold of one of them when they set them on fire. There was no assault up to this time. I "hoisted up" the " image" I had got. Defendant then got hold of me by the collar and struck me on the head with a stick from behind his right shoulder. Was wearing a hat at the time, which was split by the blow. He struck at me a second time, when I put up my hand, the blow falling on my fingers. The crowd, as soon as they saw me struck, pushed the constables towards where the fire was burning. Sergeant Good came up. I told him I had been struck on the head with a stick by the defendant. He asked me my name, which I gave, and also my address. Inspector Lindsay afterwards came up, and I gave my name to him. He told me to "go away and have no more to do with it." I was not seen there afterwards. — ln cross‐examination he said his bouse was about 120 yards from Spital Walk. He had been home and had his tea. Standing at the end of Spital Walk he heard a great noise, and went to see what it was. He should think there were about 600 or 700 people there. The "images" were "bags of straw" they bad neither heads nor legs. He hoisted up one of the burning bags of straw. It was then that defendant came up and struck him. There were no other policemen near at the time. He would swear that. He concluded it was defendant who struck him because when he turned round defendant had hold of his collar. He would swear that it was defendant who struck him. It was not true that he had told Good, Murphy, and Steen that he was not sure it was defendant who struck him. Had never had any conversation with them about the matter. It was about 10 o'clock when he left the public‐house that night. He bad stayed there about half an hour. He was about three‐quarters of an hour in the crowd. He had not set light to any of the bags, and did not see who did. He saw the crowd pushing the constables towards the fire. It was after he was struck that the other constables came up. Saw nothing of P.C. Lloyd. Had no time to look for anybody after being struck. He could not say whether there was a disturbance at the public‐house about closing time, because he was at home. — Reexamined : The effigy was about 5ft. lOin. long, including the stick. It was simply a “bag"
Luther Maddocks, Spital Walk, stoker at the Water‐works, said be was at Spital Walk on Wednesday, the 14th instant, about ten minutes past nine, and saw the first image lighted. Saw about six policemen there at first, near to each other. Saw the last witness tbere among tbe crowd. He was "raking the fire" when he was taken in oharge by defendant, who laid hold of him by the back of the neck. Saw defendant strike bim on tbe bead with what appeared to be a staff. He was about five or six yards away at the time, and when he saw him struck he went towards the defendant, but was unable to get to him because of tbe crowd. Tbe two other constables also used their sticks. They were P.C. 9 and 26. He had given evidence at the first hearing of the case on Sa.urday, tbe 17th instant. He heard defendant give bis evidence, and heard him deny that he bad struck anyone. — Cross‐examined : He was in tbe crowd till about eleven o'clock. He could not saw when defendant struok Mitchell. No one could say who lighted tbe images, er where tbey came from. Was sure that Mitchell was raking a fire when defendant came up ;he was not hoisting the effigy. The orowd were crushing about at the time Mitchell was arrested. Did not see any one else hurt. Ralph Phail, a fuel inspector in the employ of the London and North Western Railway Company, said he lived in Spital Walk, and he was in Spital Walk at the time tbe effigies were burnt. He was there from the commencement. Saw Mitchell there between nine and ten o'clock. There was a great orowd about at the time. Mitchell was stirring tbe fire up, when defendant laid hold of him by tbe collar. The crowd then closed in towards them. Saw him struck on tbe bat by the defendant after tbe crowd crushed towards them. Sergeant Good afterwards came up, and told tbe con‐stables to desist using their sticks, whioh they did. Did not hear Mitchell complain to Good.—Cross‐ex‐amined : Mitchell refused at first to give his name, bat eventually did so. Inspector Lindsay came up before Sergeant Good, P.C. 9, 28, and 26 used tbeir sticks. He was about four yards from defendant at the time he struok Mitchell. Mitchell was stirring the fire wben defendant struck him with what appeared to be a black walking stick. William Cooper, joiner, 14, Tarvin‐road, said he was ia Spital Walk on the 14th August. Saw Mitchell there, and a policeman take hold of bim. He was raking a fire up at the time, and was struck, but he could not say who by. Robert Harris, shopkeeper, Spital‐walk, said he was examined as a witness at the first hearing of the case. He was in Spital‐walk on the 14th and saw Mitohell tbere, opposite to where he stood. Saw him struok by a polioe officer, but oould not say who the officer was. Sergeant Good was there and told tbe officers to desist and " drop those sticks." Sergeant W. Good said he was on duty in Spital‐walk on Wednesday night, the 14th Aug. He reached there about half‐past nine. There was a large crowd there ; as nearly as he could calculate about a thousand people. Saw the witness Mitchell there in custody of defendant. Inspector Lindsay had come up before him. P. C. Murphy, Steen, Lloyd, and defendant were also tbere. Mitchell complained to him that he had been struck on the forehead with a stick by a policeman, but defendant was not present at the time, he was 14 or 15 yards away. Saw defendant and P.C. Lloyd strike amongst the crowd with their sticks. They did this after Mitchell had complained to him. The defendant had a white cane and Lloyd a black stick. In cross‐examination he said that the officers com‐plained to him of having been struck, and one of them (Steen) bad bis helmet knocked off. David Roberts, gardener to Mr. John Thompson, Boughton Hall, said he was in Spital‐walk on the night of tbe effigy burning. He saw two fires, and saw three policemen tbere in conversation together, but be would not 6ay wbo they were. Saw them using tbeir sticks. This was a little after nine o'clock. He did not see Mitchell apprehended. — Cross‐examined : The police‐men seemed to be pushing the crowd back, as it was crushing on tbem. William Calder Grant said : I am a professional reporter, and was in the polioe court, reporting, on Saturday, the 17th instant, when a oharge was made against Peter Mitchell and others for a breach of the peace in Boughton. I took rough notes, of that case sufficient for the purposes of my newspaper report. I heard Constable Lough give his evidence, and I heard bim asked in cross‐examination whether he had struck anyone. I produce my shorthand notes taken on that occasion, and find from them tbat Constable Lough said, " I did not use my staff, and did not see a staff used by any other policeman." After a witness named Maddocks had given his evidence Constable Lough was recalled and asked a question by the Mayor, who alio called bis attention to what Maddocks bad eaid. In reference to that part I have only on my notes, " P.C. Lough denied using his stick." By Mr. Mabshall : I am not prepared to swear that the words " P.C. Lough denied using his stick " had reference to anything more than the alleged attack on Mitchell. I am under the impression that it referred to tbe general use of the stick. Re‐examined by Mr. Chubton : I have on my notes of Lough's evidence the words in reference to Mitchell, " I arrested him." Arthur Smith : lam a reporter for a Chester news‐paper, and was in court on Saturday, the 17th instant, when a charge was made against Peter Mitchell and others for a breach of the peace at Boughton. I took nates of that case sufficient for a newspaper report. I produce those notes. From them I find that Constable Lough in his examination in chief said, " I arrested him," meaning Mitchell. In cross‐examination by Mr. Churton he said, " I did not use my staff, and I did not see any other policemen use their staffs." After a wit‐ness named Maddocks had given bis evidence Constable Lough was recalled, and in reply to a question put by the Mayor, he said, " I did not strike anyone. The constable who was with rae the whole time is here. I arrested this man. The crowd were trying to crush us into the ffre." Mr. Sharp, the magistrate's clerk, swore to the defen‐dant giving bis evidence on oath on Saturday, the 17th. He remembered Lough being recalled, but he oould not speak as to the words used in reply to tbe Mayor. He had not taken a note. This concluded the case for tbe prosecution. Mr. Mabshall submitted that tbe evidence as laid before tbem by the prosecution was not material to the issue raised on the previous hearing. The information stated that the defendants did unlawfully commit a breach of the peace in Spital‐walk. The allegation praotically made by tbe prosecution in this matter was that a rap given by a policeman witb a cane was ma‐terial towards determining tbat question. He sub‐mitted that from the evidence that was by no means so. The question was whether the defendants had the inten‐tion to inoite the mob to burn effigies and so create a disturbance of tbe peace. The blow inflicted on Mitchell had nothing whatever to do with the disturbance, and therefore the alleged pur jury was not material to the issue. The Magistrates, after having retired for some time intimated their intention of proceeding with the case, and hearing whatever witnesses for the defence Mr, Marshall had to bring forward. Mr. Mabshall, in opening the oase for the defence, said he was under considerable difficulty in appearing, in consequence of the decision of the magistrates to pro‐secute. He presumed from the intimation given at the last sitting that this prosecution was undertaken in order to give defendant facilities for clearing his charac‐ter rather than for anything else, and that they had no intention to commit in any case, but intended to hear the evidence through. It was quite clear that the cause of the disturbance was a sort of moral demonstration on the part of the people of Boughton to show their disap‐proval of the peccadillos of a wife who bad run away from ncr husband. That was a very pretty way of putting the matter. But what were the facts ? Why, that the witnesses brought before them knew nothing about the objeot of this moral demonstration. They went into Spital‐walk because there was a row and they wanted mischief. So far from the interference, of the police being the cause of the disturbances, that inter‐ference did not take place until three quarters of an hour after the disturbance began* A number of per‐sons from the neighbourhood, men who had left their work, and who did not miHd having a bit of fun con‐gregated together to. put the neighbourhood in _ uproar, which bad led first to the complaint which had been made in that court, and then to this unfortunate' proseoutwn for perjury. When tbe first witness got into Spital‐walk the fun had just begun. There was what they called an image or an effigy, really a bay of straw soaked in paraffin, for tbe purpose of a moral demonstration. Now it was clear that if the police had not interfered a thousand people collected together witb that mischievous intention might bave put tbe whole neighbourhood in flames. This was what was oalled a moral demonstration ! The police go down into the neighbourhood to save the people frem having their houses pulled over their ears, and tbe people about tbere wbo were attempting to amuse themselves at their neighbours' expense turn round upon them, and, thinking they bave caught one of them tripping, determine tbat be shall smart for it either in that court or another. But he should prove to them that it was not the defendant who struck Mitchell at all, but Lloyd. Whether he inflicted a blow on tbe top of bis head be did not know, but he should think net. When he complained to Inspector Lindsay be com‐plained of a blow on bis forehead, but when his fore‐head was examined tbere was no mark tbere. Sergeant Good was oalled as a voucher for the prosecution. But in his evidence he showed that Mitchell had never mentioned defendant to him, either by name or number. He complained of having been struck by a policeman, and nothing more. It was upon tbe evidence given by Mr. Smith tbat the whole case for the prosecution rested. He was the only person who took a note of the defendant's words, which were not " I did not use my stick," but " I did not strike anyone." This he (Mr. Marshall) submitted was as different as dark from light. He submitted that there was no case for any court, and that the case for the prosecution bad com‐pletely broken down. The prosecution was clearly an afterthought, and it would be a great gratification to tbe defendant to show tbat in this matter he had been libelled, and tbat ths charge was wholly untrue. He hoped to have his dismissal at the hands of tbeir wor‐ships immediately from that court. P.C. Jas. Murphy who deposed to going down to Spital‐walk. Two other constables, 28 and 29, went with him. It was between nine and ten o'clock when the disturbance commenced. P.C. 9 was there before him, and Inspector Lindsay afterwards joined tbem. None of tbem bad staves. He had a cane. Tbe defendant also bad a light cane, and P.C. Lloyd a stick. Witness and Lloyd were placed between Spital‐walk and the canal side to prevent any effigy being carried out. They had not tnen been brought out. Steen and he, when they saw the other constables being jostled in tbe crowd, went to tbeir assistance. When they got there they saw Mitchell in charge of Inspector Lindsay, and Lloyd and Lough had hold of Evans. Told Inspector Lindsay to let Mitchell go as be knew bim, and he did so. He did not see Mitchell struck by anyone. He saw Mitchell was rather excited. He complained of being struck by the police, and he (witness) advised him to go home, as be would be able to get satisfaction either from the Chief Constable or the magistrates. He served him with a summons on the following day, but saw no marks on his forehead. He showed him the mark on his finger, and where his hat was cut. The crowd seemed to hira to be a dangerous one. He would not have considered himself safe if he had fallen down.— Cross‐examined : He was not pushed about till he went to the assistance of defendant, and was not much pushed about then. There was no pushing till Mitchell was taken into custody. There was no stick used after he came there by any policeman that he saw. Good came up after be was tbere. Heard him tell the police to " Keep the sticks quiet, boys." He would swear positively be never struck anyone himself. The first witness called for the defence was — P.C. John Lloyd (29) saw a crowd down Spital‐walk. He was in defendant's company at tbe time, and con‐tinued to be so the rest of the evening. He was there about half an hour before Mitchell was arrested. He was olose to defendant at the time. Defendant took Mitchell by the breast. Witness was trying to protect himself with his stick from being put on the fire, and he happened accidentally to catch Mitchell on the bead. He bad no hat on. He did not see the defendant strike Mitchell. He should bave seen him if he had done so. He (witness) was struck with a lump ef something on the baok, and was also violently kicked, but he did not know by whom. — Cross‐examined : He struck no one except Mitchell. He only struck him once — on the head, and tbat blow was accidental. He gave no other "accidental, friendly taps." Never beard Mitchell complain of tbe blow. Inspector Lindsay said it was shortly after seven when he went to Bpital Walk, and he remained there until eleven o'clock. It was about eight o'clook when the crowd commenced to assemble. It was between nine and ten when the burning of effigies commenced. The crowd got very unruly when they were set on fire, and were noisy. He (witness) considered it a breach of the peace. Tbe first he saw of Mitchell was in the custody of defendant, who had a cane. P.C. Lloyd was behind defendant at tbe time, and had another man in custody. Both had their sticks " elevated." He told them to t»ke them down, and they did so. The crowd were hooting, jostling, and shoving them about as much as they could. He con‐sidered the police were in danger, and the men they had in custody as well. Mitchell complained of being struck, but did not say who struck him. He gave his name at once on being asked, and was immediately released. Murphy and Steen bad come up then. Saw Steen's helmet knocked off afterwards. Several of the officers complained of being struck. Saw a cut under one of Sergeant Plimmer's eyes. Except from the constables he received no complaints from any one about being struck.— Cross‐examined : Mitchell's hat was off wben he came up, and he did not see it any‐where. He complained of being struck, but did not say where. He told him be had not been struck sinoe he came there, and he said " No." The officers had their sticks elevated, and he saw them " quietly come down again." Did not hear Good say, " Keep them sticks down, boys." Did not see a blow struck either before or after. By Mr. Sharp : Did not consider there was any oocasion for the police to use their sticks. James Griffiths, painter, Russell‐street, was behind Mitchell at the time he was arrested by defendant, who got hold of him by the neck with his left hand. He had a light stick in his other hand. Did not see defen‐dant strike anyone. If he had struck anyone he would have struck him. Saw Inspector Lindsay go to Mitchell and ask him for his name, which he gave and was afterwards released. Cross‐examined: He knew the lady who was the cause of the disturbance, but did not wish to join in the moral demonstration against her. (Laughter.) Mit‐chell was " stirring up the effigy with a long pole." (Laughter.) Saw no one apprehended beside Mitchell, who was struck by P.C. Lloyd with a stick across the hand. Did not think he had a hat on then. Lindsay did not say anything about sticks ; it was Good. The sticks were up keeping the crowd back. By the Mayob : If Lindsay had said anything about the sticks I should have heard him. Cross‐examination resumed : I went home before eleven o'clock. Re‐examined : There was a great noise, and unless a man spoke loudly he would not be heard. Saw Lloyd have hold of Mitchell. P.C. Walter Steen said he was on duty in Spital‐walk on this occasion. He did not see Lough strike any‐body. Saw Mitchell in Lough's custody. Mitchell said to witness afterwards, " I've been struck, Walter " I said " Who by ?" and he said " I don't know, but never mind it's not much." Witness asked if he had struck him, and he said '‐No, Walter, not you, nor 26." Witness's helmet was knocked off; whatever the missile was it was not a soft lump of earth. The crowd were very disorderly. Mitchell did not go straight home when he was told, but kept the crowd about him for about ten minutes, and commenced singing a song. Saw him again abeut a quarter to eleven near the vaults. By Mr. Chubton : Could not say whether it was a comio song or not ; did not recollect the words. The crowd had been pushing each other about and were very disorderly before Mitchell was taken into custody. Mr. Chubton : What made you ask if you had struok Mitchell? J Witness : I don't know. He might think I did it. Mr. Chubton : Were you striking anybody: giving them a friendly tap on the head ? (Laughter.) Witness; Not I, sir; I know my way about Boughton too well for tbat. (Laughter.) Evidence continued : Did not hear Good say anything about putting sticks down. Mitchell had no hat on when witness saw him first. Sergeant Plimmer, of tbe City force, said he was in Spital‐walk on the night of the 14th. Was not near Mitchell when he was arrested. Was cut under the eye with some missile thrown in the orowd They were very disorderly, and were pusling and jostling towards the police. Mr. Churton did not cross‐examine. .*_• Jam es Mc l>onell was in Spital‐walk on the night of the 14th. He saw Mitohell in the custody of .Lough before Murphy came up. Inspector Lindsay was there at this time, and he asked Mitohell for his name. The crowd was very rough and pushing the police towards the fire, and they made a great noise. Heard Mitchell complain that he was struok, and Ser^t. Good asked him who it was, and he made a reply that he didn't know. Witness was struck with gravel or mud in tbe face. Cross‐examined: Heard Sergeant Good say "Put down them sticks." Mr. Chubton : Who had them up ? Witness : There were 28, 29, and I had my stick up myself. They had their sticks up in one hand and held prisoners in the other. They were not tapping any‐way'and they put down their sticks. This was the case for the defence. Mr. Chubton then replied on the evidence for the The Magistrates then retired, the time being ten minutes after seven o'clock. After an absence cf about 20 minutes they returned to Court. The Mayob then said : — Mr. Marshall, the Magis‐trates, as you may very well believe, have been very much exercised in their minds about this affair. All through the day it has been a matter of great anxiety to us all, and there has evidently been a large amount ef very strange swearing on both sides. But under tbe circumstances, believing we would be perfectly justified in giving the young man the benefit of any doubt we bad, the Magistrates have come to the decision to ask me to tell you that tbey would not proceed further in this matter, and that they dismiss the summons. We express our very deep regret at the way the evidence has been given on both sides. There has been a large amount — I hardly like to call it violent swearing — l hardly like to describe it at all — most unsatisfactory evidence on both tides. However this is the decision of the Bench. Tbe bearing of the case occupied over seven hours, and during the whole time the Court was crowded, the greatest interest being shown by the public in the pro‐ceedings. When the decision was given there were some applause and hisses, which were however at once suppressed.
Observer - Saturday 13 July 1878
GALLANT CONDUCT OF A CHESTER POLICE OFFICER.
WELL DESERVED AND GRATIFYING RECOGNITION.
In our issue at the time we had much pleasure in noticing the bravery of Police Constable Patrick Roe, who, at great risk to himself, on Easter Monday saved a child five years of age, named Alfred Ratcliffe, from drowning in the river, and it is now equally gratifying to have to record an official and substantial recognition of his gallant conduct.
On Wednesday, Alderman W. Maysmor Williams, J.P. (chairman of the Watch Committee), who was accompanied by Mr. Thomas Hughes (deputy‐chairman) entered the City Police Court at eleven o'clock, and, addressing the presiding justice (Major French) said: Mr. Chairman, before you proceed with the business of the court perhaps you will allow me a moment or two to discharge a very pleasing duty on behalf of the Watch Committee of this Corporation. It would be well in the recollection of the Corporation and citizens at large that on Easter Monday last, the 22nd April, between one and two o'clock a child named Alfred Ratcliffe fell of the stage opposite The Groves into the river. There happened that afternoon to be a very great fresh in the river, and the child was fast floating down. Fortunately there happened to be on duty one of the most excellent members of the force — Police Constable Roe — who was far up the Meadows, and he, on the alarm being given, immediately rushed down, and, without any hesitation whatever, jumped into the river in his uniform; and, fortunately for the child, rescued it from a watery grave. The fact having been reported to the Royal Humane Society they very properly sent down to Mr. Fenwick to present to Police Constable Roe a memento of his wonderful courage upon that occasion. The Watch Committee thought it would be very desirable that this matter should be made as public as possible, in order to show that we have in this force a man so possessed of bravery and courage as to save, under these circumstances, a child from, as I said before, a watery grave. The Watch Committee has also felt it to be their duty to present Roe with a gratuity of £3. This testimonial came down the other day, and I will now read it : " At a meeting of the committee of the Royal Humane Society, held at their office, 4, Trafalgar‐square, on the 21st day of May, 1878, J. M. Case, Esq., in the chair, it was resolved unanimously that the courage and humanity displayed by Patrick Roe, police constable, in having, on the 22nd April, 1878, jumped into the river Dee, Chester, to the rescue of Alfred Ratcliffe, who had fallen therein and whose life he saved, calls forth the admiration of the Committee and justly entitles him to the honorary testimonial of this society, inscribed on vellum, which is hereby awarded. — Argyll, President; J. M. Case, Chairman; Lambton Young, Secretary. Handing the scroll to Roe, Alderman Williams continued: — Roe, on behalf of the Watch Committee, and I am happy also to be the medium of the Royal Humane Society here, I present you with this testimonial. I feel sure that you have the good opinion of every one in Chester, and that you not only did your duty, but you did your duty almost at the risk of your own life. And I feel certain that if this child should ever grow up, under God's providence, to be a useful member of society, that he will look back upon that day and upon you and your family as having done for him a most happy and glorious deed. I need not say more than this — that I as Chairman of the Watch Committee have much pleasure in presenting you with this testimonial; in addition to what the Watch Committee did the other day.
Major French: I have no occasion to say much upon this subject. The gallantry and bravery of your conduct expresses everything, and this testimonial from the Humane Society will be a valuable document for you to retain in your possession. Take care of it. I must express myself the approbation of the magistrates of your conduct. They think that your conduct was highly praiseworthy, and we are glad to see that in the police of the city of Chester we have men that are not only forward and adventurous in maintaining the peace of the city, but also, if necessity requires their perseverance, they do not fail to plunge into difficulties and dangers to save the lives of the people, for the good of their country. We present you with this memorial; and what the Chairman of the Watch Committee has said is highly complimentary, but it is no more than you deserve. You deserve everything that can be said of a man who displayed such courage in rescuing a fellow citizen from a watery grave.
Roe, giving the salute, received the testimonial with a simple expression of his thanks.
Alderman Williams said the Watch Committee would be very glad to frame the testimonial for him, so that he might hang it up in his house.
Cheshire Observer
Saturday 21 September 1878
TATTENHALL.
The Late Police Superintendent Wilson. — We are sorry to have to record the death of Mr. John Wilson, superintendent of the police in the Broxton division of this county, which took place at his residence at Tattenhall, on Saturday afternoon last, in the fifty‐second year of his age. Mr. Wilson had been ailing for some considerable time and for the last two or three months was unfit for duty, the nature of his complaints— pronounced diabetes and heart disease — forbidding exertion of any kind. A little over six months ago he was hale and hearty and possessed of a remarkably fine physique, but the diseases which have terminated his life, began at that time to operate on his system, and their severity increase‐so rapidly that in about three months his stalwart form was reduced almost to a shadow. Mr. Wilson was the type of what the officers of the police service should be. Active, intelligent, and thoroughly well‐grounded in his duties, he was by nature and disposition courteous and kind, even when official firmness had to be shown. On these grounds, as well as for his many admirable private social qualities, will his loss be keenly felt by all with whom he came in contact. Mr. Wilson, it may be said, was a policeman from his youth. When about 22 years of age he joined the old Lancashire Constabulary, in which he served five years. He subsequently served four years in the old Cheshire Constabulary, and on the formation of the present Constabulary system in 1857 he was appointed a sergeant. In 1863 he was raised to be an inspector, and in December of 1864 he received the appointment of superintendent of the police in the Broxton division, a position which he held until his death. An application for his superannuation was to have come before the October Quarter Sessions. The remains of the deceased were interred in Tattenhall churchyard on Tuesday afternoon, and the funeral was attended by the Chief Constable of the county (Captain Arrowsmith), the superintendents and inspectors of the various divisions of the county, and the coffin was borne by constables of the Broxton division.
Cheshire Observer
Saturday 4 May 1878
PRESENTATION TO SERGEANT CLARKE, AT HOOLE.
On Wednesday evening, Mr. John Clarke, who, until a few weeks past, has for over twenty years occupied the post of Sergeant in charge of the Cheshire Constabulary station at Bishopsfield, near Chester, was the recipient of a very gratifying presentation from the inhabitants of the district. Sergeant Clarke's removal from the place in which he was looked upon as a sort of landmark, and an almost indispensable part, has caused very considerable regret, but police‐officers are very much like the military, and when circumstances render it necessary they must submit to a " shift," as unhesitatingly as the warrior does to his periodical change. Still the severance of kindly associations, which have been intensified by an unbroken continuance of so long a period as 20 years, must be a severe trial, and must require no little degree of determination to bear. Therefore, when Sergeant Clarke's removal to a station on the Cheshire side of the Mersey, near New Brighton, was notified, most of the people of Hoole at once desired to give him some token of their respect for him, and of their regret at his departure. This feeling was taken in hand and directed in the proper channel by some of the leading residents of the district, and in a short time a goodly sum was received, from those who might be fairly described as a representative class of subscribers; and Sergeant Clarke was asked to meet his friends at the Boys' National School‐room, Peploe‐street, Bishopsfield, Hoole, on Wednesday evening, there to receive the expression of the goodwill of the inhabitants for him and his career while he lived amongst them. The chair was occupied by the Rev. Frederick Anderson, Incumbent of All Saints, Hoole, and there was a considerable attendance of ladies and gentlemen present, amongst whom were Messrs. J. Bridgman, A. Pritchard, W. Lees, H. Richards, J. Mowle, S. Golder, J. Lamb, W. Grice, Baker, Captain Arrowsmith, Etc
Mr. Bridgman, who has acted as secretary to the testimonial fund, was first called upon to read the list of subscribers. Having done so, he stated that the total amount subscribed was £42 10s., and that after deducting all expenses there remained a purse containing a sum of money, a framed address, and a nicely bound book containing the names of the subscribers, to be presented to Sergeant Clarke. The Chairman, in making the presentation, said it gave him very great pleasure in being present that night, and also in acquiescing in the request that he should present the testimonial in the name of those who had subscribed towards it. When they heard of the change that was likely to be made, and that Sergeant Clarke was about to leave the district, many of them felt that they could not possibly let him go away after being such a long resident in the parish without some mark of respect and good will towards him, and also towards Mrs. Clarke. (Hear, hear.) Many in the district had known him all the years he had been stationed there, and some of them had only had the pleasure of knowing him for a shorter period; but he (the chairman) was sure they were all agreed on this one point, that he had fulfilled all his duties in the most conscientious manner, and with the strictest integrity, and that he had always acted in every way to do what was right.
(Hear, hear, and applause.) He had no doubt had many difficult duties to fulfil, and sometimes unpleasant duties in the position in which he was placed, and he (the chairman) had no doubt Sergeant Clarke had often found it very much like a clergyman found it— that it was impossible to please everybody. Yet at the same time he felt quite sure that Sergeant Clarke had always done what was right, and had, so far as was consistent with his duty, acted to others as he would that others should do to him. If he had erred it certainly had not been on the side of severity, but rather on that of leniency. (Hear, hear.) He (the Chairman) was sure Sergeant Clarke had the good‐will and respect of everybody in the district. (Applause.) He had already heard the names of those who had subscribed towards the testimonial ; and amongst those names be might perhaps be allowed to mention those of the family of the late Captain Smith, the insertion of which must certainly give him very | great pleasure. They all felt that in Captain Smith, Sergeant Clarke, if he might so express it, had a good master and most faithful friend, and his loss was not only felt by him, but deeply deplored throughout the parish. (Hear, hear.') He had gone to a better home, and he (the chairman) felt quite sure, if he knew what they were now doing, it would have his most hearty approbation. And then to him as clergyman of the parish, it was a very great pleasure to see one of his parishioners who had occupied the important and difficult position which Sergeant Clarke had done, so highly respected, and to know that in all the duties he had fulfilled he bad always given the greatest satisfaction; and he thought it only right to take this opportunity of saying that Sergeant "Clarke had shown himself while living among them, not only an honourable man in a worldly sense, but a true Christian. (Hear, hear.) He would conclude by saying that they all sincerely trusted Sergeant Clarke would like his new district and his new abode. It would doubtless be some little time before he got used to it, but they knew that all these changes happened under the providence of God, and he knew that he (Mr. Clarke) looked upon it in that light, and felt that he had ordered the change. They sincerely hoped that he and Mrs. Clarke might have long life and happiness and prosperity in every way. (Applause.) He had now very much pleasure in presenting Sergeant Clarke with the purse, and in asking his acceptance of the address, which he would be able to bang up in his own home, and when he looked at it, to think of all his friends in Chester; and in that book he would find copies of the advertisements that were inserted in the Chester newspapers, and the names of those who had subscribed. (Applause.)
The address was as follows : — " Presented together with a purse of money subscribed by the inhabitants of Hoole, near Chester, and other friends, to Sergeant John Clarke of the Cheshire Constabulary on the occasion of his removal to another locality in recognition of his faithful and efficient services in the above district during the long period of 20 years, and in testimony of his integrity and general courtesy, and with every good wish for his future happiness and welfare.— (Signed on behalf of the subscribers) Frederick Anderson, Chairman of the Presentation Fund Committee, Hoole, Ist May, : 1878."
Sergeant Clarke, who spoke under considerable emotion in acknowledging the gift, said during the period that he had been an officer in this district he had never had such a difficult duty to perform as he had now, in endeavouring to find words to express his deep gratitude to them for their kindness on that occasion. Therefore he asked them not to accept as his thanks what he said in words, but to believe that his feelings prevented him giving utterance to them. It was now nearly 21 years since he was first stationed in that district, and he then made a solemn vow that he would to the best of his skill and ability perform the duties of the office which he then undertook. Through that period, he assured them, he had at all times tried to do so; to ba honest and truthful, and he believed he had been successful. (Hear, hear, and applause.) He had no sympathy with those constables who thought they were the most successful who produced the largest number of cases before the magistrates. He did not think that was any criterion to go by — (hear, hear) — and he could assure officers that so far as the magistrates of the Chester Castle division were concerned, that they did not think any the better of any constable who was continually troubling them with those cases. (Hear, hear.) He thanked his friends for their kindness on this and on all other occasions. He had always endeavoured since he joined the force to perform well the duties of his position; and the rules which guided his conduct were, first, that he always endeavoured to carry out the orders and instructions of his superiors in their entirety, whether they had been in accordance with his own views or not ; he had always endeavoured to gain the confidence and respect of the justices before whom he had to bring cases ; and he had also endeavoured to gain the esteem and confidence and respect of the inhabitants of the district. (Applause.) He believed he had succeeded; and he should continue to take the same course as hitherto, and trusted that in the same way he would receive the confidence and respect of those amongst whom he should in the future be situated. (Hear, hear.) He did not feel that he had any cause to regret that he was being removed. The constabulary, they knew, was thoroughly itinerant, and it was necessary therefore, that its members should be removed from time to time. He had only this further to say; he thanked them all sincerely and from the bottom of his heart. The purse he should prize more for its own value than for that which it now contained. The list of the subscribers would, when he looked at it, remind him of friends, all of whom he knew; and the beautiful address would lie especially near to his heart. It would remain in his family while he lived, a much prized possession; and go down to those who came after him a cherished heirloom when he had passed away. (Applause.)
Captain Arrowsmith then briefly spoke, bearing testimony to Sergeant Clarke's worth as a police officer. He remarked that this occasion was of more than ordinary interest to him, because it gave him an opportunity of seeing the efforts of one of his officers appreciated, and also of making the acquaintance of the people of Hoole, where he had come to reside. (Applause.) The Chairman announced that he had received a letter from Mr. Charles Smith, saying that the members of the late Captain Smith's family were, much to their regret, unable to attend the meeting, but expressing their gratification at the kind expression of appreciation which was being given to Sergeant Clarke, of whose value they entertained the highest opinion.
Mr. A. Pritchard then spoke, bearing emphatic testimony to the excellence of Sergeant Clerk's conduct while he had known him, a period of 16 years. Mr. W. Lees moved a vote of thanks to Mr. Anderson for presiding, which was seconded by Mr. Bridgman, and supported by Mr. Baker — these three gentlemen all speaking a few words in commendation of Sergeant Clarke's career — and carried unanimously. The Chairman acknowledged briefly, and the proceedings were thus brought to a close.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 19 January 1878
THE ALLEGED POISONING CASE IN CHESHIRE.
On Tuesday, at the Warrington County Police Court, Before Mr. E Greenall (chairman), Mr. C. Parr, and Mr. Alderman Hepberd, the parents of the child Sarah Heesom were brought up charged with the murder of the child on the 3rd day of October, 1877, at Walton Inferior.
Mr. Moore appeared for the prisoners. The court was crowded. The Magistrates' Clerk (Mr. Nicholson) to the female prisoner : Is Ellen Heesom your lawful name ? The female prisoner: Ellen Johnson is my lawful name. Elizabeth Moss, wife of John Moss, farm labourer, was the first witness called. She said I was in the habit of going into the prisoners house, and saw the child almost daily during its life. I never knew the child to be ill until the day of its death. On the day it died I went into the house. It was a little after one o'clock. I had seen the child that morning in the arms of the female prisoner. I cannot say how it was then. I was not near enough. When I went into prisoners' house about one o'clock the female prisoner was sitting with the child on her knee. The male prisoner worked at a brewery some little distance from his house, and was in the habit of coming home to his meals. When I went in at one o'clock the female prisoner said, "Sarah has taken very ill. She has commenced vomiting, and l am afraid she is going like Lydia." I understood by "Lydia" that she referred to Lydia Johnson, an older child of hers. Lydia Johnson is now dead. Whilst I was there the child was very ill, and it vomited whilst I was there. The vomit was of a lightish colour, streaked with blood. For a short time I had the child on my knee. It was both purged and vomited. I remained about half an hour. In the course of the afternoon I went in again, at the request of the female prisoner, a little after four o'clock. The child was much worse. It had convulsions. I saw the male prisoner, and he said he was surprised at the child being so suddenly ill. Mr. Gormall, the doctor, came between six and seven o'clock, and saw the child. I was present at its death, which took place about nine o'clock. It had a very bad fit of convulsions just before it died. A little brandy and water and rhue tea were given to it before its death. When the male prisoner told me he was surprised the child was so sick, he said he had had it in the garden. It is not quite two years since the prisoners came to live at Walton.
Mary Owen, wife of William Henry Owen, Lower Walton, said: I live next door but one to the prisoners. I recollect the child Sarah Heesom being born. It was a fine healthy child up to the time of its death. I saw it every day that I was at home. I saw it on the 3rd of October a little before twelve o'clock. It was then tied in a child's chair, sitting by the fireside in the prisoners' house. It seemed quite well and hearty. The female prisoner was getting dinner ready. At one o'clock I saw the child again. It was then quite well, and was still sitting in the chair. At ten minutes to two I saw it again. It was then sitting on its mother's knee. She said it was very poorly and was vomiting. The vomit was of a light yellow colour. The mother said she had sent for the father, but he had not come. I knew her previous child Lydia, but she said nothing about her at that time. The child worked its shoulders and shook its head very much, and seemed in great pain. It was frequently purged, and the vomiting continued. I was in several times, and on one occasion it vomited blood. I last went into the house about five o'clock, when I found the child very poorly. It had several fits of convulsions. I didn't hear of the death of the child that night, but was told of its death next morning.
John Hallows, sexton at Stockton Heath Church, said: I know the two prisoners. On Sunday, the 7th October, 1877, a child of the prisoners was buried at St. Thomas's Church in the name of Sarah Heesom. Edward Heesom, the male prisoner, came along with the funeral as chief mourner. The body was exhumed on the 21st December. The male prisoner accompanied me to the vestry. The Rev. Mr. Tofts, the officiating clergyman, was present, and he said to Heesom, "Heesom, what has been the matter with your child?" He replied, "It has had the diarrhoea and consumption for either 13 or 26 weeks. I am not sure which." Mr. Tofts said he was surprised, for he had not heard of the illness of the child. Heesom then said, "The child had convulsions, and it went off rather suddenly," and then Heesom turned to me and said, " =That's enough to kill anyone."
James Steen, superintendent of police for the Runcorn division, said: I apprehended the two prisoners on the 7th January. In reply to the charge, the female prisoner said, "Oh, dear me, I never did give it anything beside some teething powders." I said, "Have you any of the same powders left?" She replied, "No; I only got one and a small bottle of cough mixture. I got it the day before its death from Mr. Whitley, chemist, of Warrington." She also said, " I have got other powders before from other druggists in Warrington. The bottle of cough mixture is there, pointing to a bottle which I had seen when I was in the house on a previous occasion. I took her away, and on the way I called at Wilderspool Brewery for the male prisoner. I told him I had a warrant charging him and his wife with the murder of their child. He said in reply, "I am too fond of my children to do anything to them." On a former occasion I visited the prisoners' house, and asked the female prisoner if she had any vermin killer and arsenic in the house. Both prisoners were present, and they both said, No ; we never had any arsenic in the house in our lives. You are welcome to look up stairs and down." I did so, but found none.
Mr. Joseph Carter Bell, public analyst for the county of Chester, said: On the 21st December I received from Superintendent Steen four jars. I analysed the stomach and intestines. The result was that I found half a grain of arsenic in the stomach and three quarters of a grain of arsenic in the intestines. In the liver, spleen, and kidneys I found one‐tenth of a grain of arsenic. I also analysed the brain, but found no arsenic in it. In my opinion the quantity of arsenic I found was sufficient to cause the death of an infant child. I noticed two or three yellow patches in the lining membrane of the stomach, which I thought to be attributable to sulphide of arsenic. Arsenic tends to prevent decomposition of a body after death. Had the child died in an ordinary way I should have expected to find greater decomposition.
Mr. T. Starkey Smitb, M.8., F.R.C.S., who had made a post‐mortem examination, said: I have heard the evidence given by Mr. Bell, and in my opinion the cause of the death of the deceased child, Sarah Heesom, was arsenical poison, I should be of opinion that the deceased must have had the arsenic administered some time about noon on the day of its death. I believe it impossible that the child could have taken the arsenic itself. I have heard the evidence as to the quantity of arsenic found, and my opinion is that it must have taken considerably more arsenic than was found by the analyst. The colour of the vomit and purgings mentioned is such as is found in cases of arsenical poisoning. There are no traces whatever of the child having suffered from consumption or acute diarrhoea. r.
John Handkinson Gornall said: I am a duly qualified medical practitioner, residing at Warrington. On the 23d October the male prisoner called at my surgery about half‐past five in the afternoon. He told me his child was in fits, and wanted me to go and see it at once. He appeared much excited. I went immediately, I got to his house between a quarter and half‐past six. I found the child lying on its mother's knee. It was just recovering from a very violent convulsion. I had never seen the child before. I tried to ascertain the previous history of the child, and found that up to dinner time it had been in its usual state of health. I prescribed for it. I had considerable difficulty in assigning any cause for convulsions, but I recommended a steam bath and such other remedies as I deemed best. There was no vomiting or purging then. I heard of the child's death next day. I afterwards gave a certificate of the cause of death, that the child had died of convulsions. I agree with Mr. Starkey Smitb, that if the child had taken arsenic it would have caused convulsions. The appearance of the child was that of a healthy, well‐nourished child. In my opinion the child had net been suffering from consumption. I am of opinion that the cause of the child's death was arsenical poisoning. I should like to add that the child when I saw it was in process of dentition, and was therefore more liable to convulsions. I attributed the convulsions at the time to some indigestible substance taken at its dinner.
Mr. James Swindells Sherratt said: I am a medical practitioner at Warrington. I have heard the evidence of Mr. Thomas Starkey Smith, and I corroborate it in every particular, with the exception of this. He said "it was impossible the child could have taken the arsenic itself." I would like to substitute the words "highly improbable."
Alice Arnold, wife of John Arnold, carter, at Wilderspool, near Warrington, said: I know the prisoners very well. The female prisoner was formerly a neighbour of mine. Some time ago, I believe it was about two years next March I called at the female prisoner's house to see her. She was then living with the male prisoner as his wife. I said, "Well, Ellen, you have made your house very nice and clean." She said, " Yes, but I have had a job with it. I shall have it cleaner soon." She also said, "I have been dressing my beds today with arsenic, and I will give you some, if you have a mind, if you have any bugs." I replied, " No, I dare not have it." She said, " I have got some in that little cupboard, but I must shift it before Edward finds it, or he will be very cross with me." I remember hearing, somewhere about that time, of the death of Lydia Johnson — a week after I paid the visit. By Mr Moore: Edward I mean the female prisoner's husband. Before they went to the house it was very dirty.
James Whittaker, agent to the Prudential Assurance Company, said: The female prisoner instructed me to effect an assurance on the life of her child? Sarah Heesom, who was then under one year old, but could not say exactly how old she was. An assurance was effected. The instructions were given me at the house in Lower Walton. There had been a previous assurance in the same office by the female prisoner of a child of hers named Lydia Johnson, and she had also an assurance on Lydia Sykes, the female prisoner's mother. The witness produced the policy on the life of Sarah Heesom paid. The sum to be received at death ranged from £1 10s. to £10, according to the time the policy had lasted. The female prisoner always paid the premiums. The male prisoner never paid them, though they had been paid in his presence. I collect the premiums fortnightly.They amount to a penny a week. I received notice of death on or about the 14th October last. When the prisoners came they said they had called to tell me of the child's death. They had no certificate, and I told them that they must have the registrar's certificate. About two days afterwards one of the prisoners — I do sot remember whether the male prisoner was alone, or whether the female prisoner was with him— called with the certificate, and upon examining it I found that Dr. Gornall had stated that the deceased had died from convulsions of nine hours duration. I paid them £1 10s.
Levi Bebbington, sergeant of police, stationed at Stockton Heath, said: On the Bth January instant I conveyed the two prisoners to the House of Correction at Knutsford, they having been remanded by the magistrates on this charge of murder. Yesterday I conveyed them from Knutsford to the lock‐up at Stockton Heath. My wife came to me and said the female prisoner wanted to make a statement. I then asked her if she wanted to make a statement, and she said "Yes." I said, " You must be careful what you say; it will all be written down, and may be given in evidence against you." I then wrote down the following statement which she made. She first spoke to me as to the death of her mother, Lydia Sykes, and then proceeded, "My mother was also at our house on the 2nd October, 1877, and nursed the child Sarah Heesom most of the afternoon. I took it from her twice and gave it the breast. I then mixed it some bread and milk in a cup. I asked my mother to give it to me and I would feed it. She replied, ' No, I can feed it as well as you.' I told her to feed it with a spoon, and she replied, No ; learn it to drink it out of the cup.' I said it would not ; she said, 'Leave her to me, and I will learn her to drink then, and go and make your bed.' My mother went away from half‐past seven to eight o'clock. We went to bed about ten or eleven o'clock, and Sarah Heesom rested well up to about twelve o'clock. I then gave her the breast, and she vomited. She was very restless until towards six o'clock next morning. She then took the breast, and rested about a quarter of an hour or twenty minutes. She then commenced to vomit again." The statement contained much more to the same effect, and proceeded: " If she had been walking there was nothing in the house for her to get to, as I had nothing in the house to destroy vermin or anything else. She died at nine o'clock the same night." The male prisoner was not present at the time this statement was made, but it was read over to him afterwards. At this period I said to her, " Is there anything more you want to say ?" and then she added as follows : — " When my mother, Lydia Sykes, came to her funeral she kissed her in her coffin, and said ' Bless you; you are in heaven along with your sister, and I shall be the next to follow you, and I wish there was two more to follow you before me, but I doubt they're too big and too old‐fashioned.' At night, before she went home, she said, I shall be the next and two or three in the company said, ' You must not think about that yet; you must think of meeting all together at a wedding before a death." Again she said, "We shall not, for you will see," and shook hands and said, “Good night to you all," and went home. When the female prisoner had finished this statement I read it over to her. She said, "Will you read it over to Edward?" I then read it over again to the male prisoner in her presence. He said, "That's right," and they both signed it. By Mr. Moore: It was at my request that he signed it.
The Chairman said: From the evidence brought before us we think there is sufficient to commit one or both. Before coming to a determination we are wishful to know whether the police have anything further to bring before us.
Superintendent Steen: I wish to say that I have a further charge to bring against them of the murder of the mother, Lydia Sykes, on the 5th November. I make that charge against them. I told them when they were apprehended that they would be further charged with that murder. The Clerk then formally charged them with the wilful murder of Lydia Sykes on the 5th November. The Chairman : I think it will be better to take the evidence of the analyst now while he is here, and then adjourn the further hearing of the case. Mr. Bell, the analyst, was then sworn. He said : On the 9th November I examined the stomach of the deceased and the contents. After pouring out the con‐tents there was a white sediment at the bottom. I collected it and I applied tests to it, and proved it to be arsenious acid, or white arsenic. The stomach altogether contained about seven grains. That was the entire quantity of arsenic found by me, and would be sufficient to account for the deaths of two or three persons. The further hearing of the case was then adjourned for a week.
Cheshire Observer
Saturday 25 May 1878
KNUTSFORD.
Presentation to a Cheshire Police Constable.
On Tuesday Police‐constable Joseph Lancelotte was presented by the Chief Constable of Cheshire, in front of Knutsford gaol, with a testimonial inscribed on vellum, awarded to him by the Royal Humane Social in appreciation of his gallantry in saving the life of a man named Allen Shaw, who in the darkness of the night of the lst instant fell into the river near Witton Bridge.
The services of Police sergeant Shaw in helping Lancelotte ware also highly spoken of by the Chief Constable. '
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 29 June 1878
RUNCORN.
Amusing‐Chase after a Boatman.—
At Runcorn, on Saturday, William Williams, captain of two narrow boats, was charged with fighting on the canal bank and assaulting Police‐constable Hibbert. On the previous day Dr. Mr. D'Dougall,(sic) medical officer to the Runcorn Union, saw the defendant and another man, stripped to their trousers and fighting on the canal bank at the back of his house. He went to them and warned them to desist, but they would not, and he then went for Sergeant Rhodes and three police officers. As soon as the captain saw the policemen he jumped on his boat, and he managed by running across the various boats close by to keep the four officers, at bay for above an hour.
A great crowd collected to see the chase. At last the prisoner took refuge in the cabin of his boat, where he was secured. Whilst they were securing him be kicked Police‐constables Quinn and Hibbert, the former so seriously that he is now off duty.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 19 January 1878
SANDBACH. Police Coubt—
At Sandbach, on Monday, before F. H. R. Wilbraham, Esq., Wm. Holland, a pensioner, of Alsager, was charged with stealing three hens from the Alsager Arms, the property of Mr. John Burgess Bates, on Friday night, the 11th inst.
From the evidence adduced it appeared that about nine o'clock on the night in question the prisoner was seen to get out of a train at Kidsgrove Railway Station, having something very bulky in his pockets. This attracted the attention of a number of people about the railway station, who followed him until they met a police constable, who upon searching the prisoner found the three hens. He stated he had bought them for 4s. 6d. from a man he had met on the road near Radway Green Station. The constable, not being satisfied with his explanation, detained the prisoner, and gave information to Sergeant Jones, of Scholar Green, Lawtori, who ascertained that the hens belonged to the prosecutor, and they were at once identified by Miss Bates, his daughter. After hearing this evidence the Magistrates committed the prisoner for trial at the adjourned Sessions on the 19th proximo.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 21 September 1878
TATTENHALL.
The late Police Superintendent John Wilson.
We are sorry to have to record the death of Mr. John Wilson, superintendent of the police in the Broxton division of this county, which took place at his residence at Tattenhall, on Saturday afternoon last, in the fifty‐second year of his age. Mr. Wilson had been ailing for some considerable time, and for the last two or three months was unfit for duty, the nature of his complaints— pronounced diabetes and heart disease — forbidding exertion of any kind.
A little over six months ago he was hale and hearty and possessed of a remarkably fine physique, but the diseases which have terminated his life, began at that time to operate on his system, and their severity increase‐so rapidly that in about three months his stalwart form was reduced almost to a shadow.
Mr. Wilson was the type of what the officers of the police service should be. Active, intelligent, and thoroughly well‐grounded in his duties, he was by nature and disposition courteous and kind, even when official firmness had to be shown. On these grounds, as well as for his many admirable private social qualities, will his loss be keenly felt by all with whom he came in contact.
Mr. Wilson, it may be said, was a policeman from his youth. When about 22 years of age he joined the old Lancashire Constabulary, in which he served five years. He subsequently served four years in the old Cheshire Constabulary, and on the formation of the present Constabulary system in 1857 he was appointed a sergeant. In 1863 he was raised to be an inspector, and in December of 1864 he received the appointment of superintendent of the police in the Broxton division, a position which he held until his death.
An application for his superannuation was to have come before the October Quarter Sessions. The remains of the deceased were interred in Tattenhall churchyard on Tuesday afternoon, and the funeral was attended by the Chief Constable of the county (Captain Arrowsmith), the Superintendents and Inspectors of the various divisions of the county, and the coffin was borne by constables of the Broxton division.
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 1 February 1879
Death of City Detective
An inquest was held on Saturday relative to the death of Sergeant John Moss, aged 54, the well‐known city detective. While walking in Shepperton, he fell down in the road and expired immediately. Mr. Thomas, surgeon, stated that death was due to heart disease, and the jury returned a verdict accordingly. Deceased had been 34 years in the police force.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 21 June 1879
THE CHESTER TRAGEDY. THE ADJOURNED INQUEST. T
he adjourned inquest npon the body of Alice Miller, who died at Cheater on Sunday, the 8th inst., from injuries inflicted upon her by her mother, Martha Miller, on the previous Friday, was resumed at the Town Hall on Monday afternoon, before Mr. J. Tatlock, oity coroner.
It will be remembered that at the same time the mother cut the throat of the deceased child, who was only two and a half years old, she cut that of her only other child, aged twelve months, and also her own throat. The infant was sufficiently recovered to allow of her removal on Thursday week to the Infirmary, where she is rapidly recovering, while the mother, who is undoubtedly insane, was removed to the Upton Lunatic Asylum on the same day.
Tbe first witness called was Emma Miller, stepsister of the deceased, who said : There was no other person in the bedroom besides my stepmother, the deceased, and my other stepsister when I heard the scream on Friday night the 6th inst. The room door was locked, for I heard my father break it open when he went upstairs.
Thomas Aspey, coach builder, residing in Princess‐street, said: Last Friday week, the 6th of June, I was in the Yacht Inn, about ten minutes to ten, having a glass of beer in the club room. The landlord was sitting next to me when the last witness, Emma Miller, called him out. I heard him go upstairs, and he came down immediately afterwards screaming. As soon as he did be ran upstairs again and I said, "Go on Miller and I'll follow you" I did so, and I saw the bedroom door open. Mrs. Miller was sitting on the side of the bed with a black dress on her. She appeared very excited, and her eyes were much distended. She said nothing, but I saw that her throat had been cut. The deceased was on another bed, and I saw blood about her neck. Mr. Miller took her up in his arms and sat by the bed while I held Mrs. Miller by the wrists. I saw a knife on the floor, close by the bed where the deceased was, but I cannot say whether the knife produced was it or not. The younger child was lying on the bed where Mrs. Miller was sitting. There was blood also on her neck and on the bed sheet. When we were going upstairs, Mr. Miller asked somebody to go for a doctor, and after holding Mrs. Miller for about three minutes and no medical assistance coming, I ran for Dr. Waters, who referred me to Mr. John Harrison. When I came back I found Dr. Hamilton in the house. Before Emma Miller called her father I heard no screams. I have known Mrs. Miller about three months, but I had not seen her for a fortnight before I saw her in her bedroom. I noticed that she was very weak, but I never saw anything very peculiar in her manner. The knife I saw seemed by the light of the gas to be a round handled instrument. By the foreman of the jury (Mr. Davies, Northgate‐row: When Mr. Miller came down he screamed out, "Oh, good Lord, will some one come up." By a Juror: Mr. Miller was in the clubroom all the time I was there before be was called away by his daughter. By the Foreman: Mr. Miller did not take the child down while I was upstairs.
Police‐Sergeant Plimmer said: On Friday night, June the 6th, about ten minutes to eleven o'clock, I went into the Yacht Inn and saw Inspector Farrell and P.C. Dougherty assisting to carry Mrs. Miller from her own bedroom into a front bedroom. I went into her bedroom about twenty minutes afterwards and saw Mr. Miller nursing the deceased, and found the knife produced (an ordinary table knife covered with blood) between the large bed and the cupboard. There was blood on this bed and also on a small cot at the side of the bed. I did not notice that the door had been forced open, as Inspector Farrell and the other police officer were in the room before me. The knife was about two feet from the bed, nearer the foot than the bead.
Dr. Hamilton was next called, and said: Between ten and half‐past ten o'clock on Friday night, the 6th June, I was called into the Yacht Inn. While I was getting some things out in my house Mr. Miller came to me with his child in his arms, and seeing that her throat was cut I ordered him to take her back into the house and told him I would follow her. I examined the child and found a large deep cut across the throat opening into the windpipe, but none of the large vessels were affected. I stitched it up, dressed it, and afterwards attended her until she died on the Sundry morning following. She died of exhaustion from loss of blood, resulting from the injury to her throat. When I went to the house at first I found Mr. John Harrison attending Mrs. Miller. Her throat was also cut, and the baby was lying on the top of the large bed in the front room, where Mrs. Miller had been removed. Her throat was also cut. December, 1878 was the last time I attended Mrs. Miller, and I noticed nothing peculiar in her mental state. When I saw her last she had had a severe attack of spitting of blood, and was very weak. By the Foreman of the Jury: I knew Mrs. Miller to I have ruptured a blood vessel on two occasions. This I would cause the spitting of blood.
Aspey, recalled, said that when he and Mr. Miller went into the room the company in the house followed them up.
Mrs. Richardson, of the Ship Inn, Handbridge, said: Mr. Miller is my eldest sister's son. He came to Chester about nine or ten months ago, and I was in the habit of visiting him about once or twice a week. I saw Mrs. Miller on Thursday, the 5th June, and had a conversation with her. Myself and husband had dinner with them, but Mrs. Miller would have none as she did not feel well. While she and I were alone she said, "I am worried with trouble," and I said, "Martha, what's your trouble? If you have got any trouble tell it to somebody." I then asked her if her husband was cross with her, and she said, "No, he is too good. I have been nothing but expense and doctor's bills ever since he had me." I told her to keep up her spirits and come to see me, as there was plenty of water and more fresh air there than she was used to. She then said, "My master has only got four children," and I replied, "Martha, he has got six, and he is much kinder to your two than he is to his own four." As I and my husband were going away she said, "Good bye, aunt," and "Good bye, uncle." I did not see her again until the following Friday night, when I was sent for. I attended her during Friday night and Saturday, and while in the room on that day she muttered, "Bronchitis, measles, and whooping cough, and now they say I'm in a decline. We will all four go together."She didn't know I was present. I asked her what was the matter with her, but she only stared at me. I gave her a drink out of a cup, but she did not appear to know me. She said many strange things after that. She left home on the previous Friday morning, and her husband thought she had gone to stop with me. He sent about half‐a‐dozen times to me during that day inquiring about her, and I told him if she came to me I would let him know. By the Foreman: I spoke to her several times between the Friday night when she cut her throat and the Saturday. By a Juror: Her two children were always rather weakly. I never thought her to be all right. By the Coroner: When you spoke to her she seemed to be in a rambling state of mind and went on from one thing to anothe. By a Juror (Mr. O. Bessell): Her husband has been kind to her; too kind I think. She has not been in the habit of taking drink. In reply to a Juror, Dr. Hamilton said that loss of blood from spitting would have a tendency to weaken her mind; but people in her state of health were frequently despondent. Mrs. Richardson, in reply to the foreman of the Jury, said that on the Saturday when Mrs. Miller spoke as she had already stated, she did not appear to know what she had done on the previous night. The Coroner asked Mr. Miller, who was present, if he had any more evidence than had been given as to the state of his wife's mind, and he replied that she had been in a very low state of mind for a fortnight or more previously. The Coroner: Is there anybody besides yourself you can get to give evidence as to the state of her health. Mr. Miller: No ; she kept herself to herself. The Foreman suggested that it would be well to have those statements on the deposition. The Coroner said as the evidence shaped itself so far there was only one conclusion the Jury could come to, unless they thought that the evidence showed that she was in such a state of mind as not to know that the act she did was wrong. He did not think that the evidence of the husband was sufficient for their purposes. Of course it was perfectly competent for them to examine the husband in the Court, and the woman too, if she were there and wished to give evidence.
Dr. Hamilton recalled, in reply to the Coroner, said: On Sunday, the 8th inst., I was sent for to the Yacht Inn and found that Mrs. Miller had released one of her hands from a straight‐jacket, in which she had been placed on the Friday night in consequence of her violent conduct, and had loosened one of the tapes fastening the straight‐jacket around her neck, the two ends of which she tied to the rails of the bed, and bearing her head back with all her force tried to strangle herself. I found her husband holding both her hands to prevent her from tightening the tapes. She was quite livid in the face, and I at once out the tapes. She was put in the straight‐jacket on Friday night because she tried to tear her throat and prevent Dr. John Harrison from dressing it. I never noticed any‐thing peculiar about the woman. Her despondency was only such as is common enough in cases like hers. The Coroner: I should have been very glad if we could have had evidence as to the state of her mind. The Coroner (to Mr. Miller) : Have you any idea where the servant yon had in your employ is gone to? Mr. Miller: I have no idea where she is gone to; but she came from Coedpoeth. A Juror (Mr Roberts Northgate‐row) suggested that the servant should be found. He also asked Mr Miller if her wages had been paid before she left so hurriedly but the Coroner said that Mr Millar was not on his oath, and no answer was therefore retuned. Another Jurer (Mr. George Besell) said appeared to be something at the back of the whole matter, and he should like to have the whole thing investigated and the evidence of the servant given. Another Juror (Mr.
Johnson, Northgate‐street. Was of the same opinion, and urged that the servant should be brought before them. The Coroner: Very well, gentlemen We will have to in adjourn and see if we can get the evidence of this servant.
The enquiry was again adjourned until Monday afternoon next at four o’clock.
Death of Police-constable, James GOODWIN, at Birkenhead, 1879 Page 1 of 3
Death of Police-constable, James GOODWIN, at

Birkenhead, 1879

Liverpool Mercury, Sept 5th, 1876
Birkenhead Police Court, Monday Sept 4th, before Mr HOBACK, Deputy-stipendiary
Violent assault on the police
Two stalwart young men both notorious characters, named Patrick FLYNN and Thomas SMITH, belonging to Egerton St, where brought up on remand charged with unlawfully wounding Police-officer No 1 GOODWIN. Mr MOORE appeared for the prosecution, Mr HANNEN for the defence.
The Complainant stated that on Monday night, the 28th ult, he was on duty in Chester St, when the prisoner FLYNN'S mother came to him and complained of the conduct of her son. He went to Egerton St, where he found FLYNN, who was drunk making a great disturbance. FLYNN'S father told him to take his son away. He accordingly took hold of young FLYNN, who, after walking quietly a short distance, tripped him up and kicked him on both legs whilst he was lying on the ground. A struggle took place and by the time they got to the top of Egerton St, complainant was knocked down four or five times. During this time FLYNN kept striking and kicking him, and once he was kicked in the stomach. Upon getting up to the top of Egerton St, the prisoner SMITH came up, and kicked complainant twice on the right knee. Three or four other officers came up and FLYNN was taken to the bridewell. The complainant added he had been spitting blood for some days and he had not been able to resume duty since the occurrence in consequence of his injuries.
Police-officer No 5, SLATTERY, who gave corroboratory evidence, said he was also kicked by FLYNN, other witnesses having been heard Dr JENNETT was called and stated that Officer GOODWIN bore marks of violence on different parts of the body. He attributed the spitting of blood to the kick which the officer received in the abdomen.
The magistrate remarked that it was necessary the police should be protected in the execution of their duty, and committed both prisoners for trial.
At the Cheshire General Sessions, Chester Castle, Oct 21st 1876
Patrick FLYNN aged 22, and Thomas SMITH aged 24, were sentenced to 18 mths imprisonment with hard labour, for the violent beating and kicking they inflicted on Police-officer James GOODWIN
Patrick FLYNN and Thomas SMITH, after their release from gaol continued their violent career
Liverpool Mercury, June 23rd, 1879
Birkenhead Police Court, Saturday June 21st, before Mr PRESTON
Two ruffians, Patrick FLYNN and Thomas SMITH, both residents of Egerton St, were brought up in custody, the first with being drunk and disorderly and with threatening to take his father's life and the
file://C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\My Documents\museum\newspaper\HT... 12/09/2013 Death of Police-constable, James GOODWIN, at Birkenhead, 1879 Page 2 of 3
latter with attempting to rescue FLYNN from custody. It appeared on Friday afternoon FLYNN went in an intoxicated state to his father's house and seizing a pair of tongs threatened to take his father's life if he was not supplied with drink. The prisoner next "butted" his father in the face. The old man managed to get away, and gave information to the police, who with difficulty took him into custody. Whilst FLYNN was being apprehended the prisoner SMITH came up, and excited the crowd of "roughs" to effect a rescue of his companion. Superintendent CLARKE stated that both prisoners were a terror to the neighbourhood, about 3 years ago they violently assaulted Police-officer GOODWIN, and for this offence were sentenced to 18 mths imprisonment at the sessions. The Superintendent added that Officer GOODWIN was still suffering severely from the effects of the assault committed upon him by the prisoners and had not been able to attend duty for the last six months. SMITH was sentenced to 1 mths gaol with hard labour, FLYNN was remanded
Liverpool Mercury, Oct 28th, 1879
Birkenhead Police Court, Monday Oct 27th, before Mr PRESTON and Alderman ROPER
A dangerous character
A man named Thomas SMITH was charged with being drunk and disorderly and refusing to leave the Castle Hotel, Chester St, and with assaulting the barman and Police-officers, MORRIS [27], CHALONER [24], and PARKER [30]. A Saturday night Constable MORRIS found the prisoner making a disturbance at the hotel from which he had been ejected. Upon seeing the officer he became very violent, and it required the assistance of the other constables to take him to the bridewell. The prisoner was so violent it was found necessary to strap him to a stretcher. The officers in taking the prisoner to the bridewell were assaulted. The accused, in answer to the bench, said he was a little rowdy when he got drunk, but was the quietest fellow in the country when sober. Mr PRESTON remarked that the prisoner had been no fewer than 18 times before the court charged with various offences. Superintendent CLARKE stated that the prisoner was one of the men who was present when Police-officer GOODWIN received kicks, from which he had been suffering for 18 months, and from the effects of which it was thought he would die. The prisoner was committed to gaol for 4 months.
Police-officer James GOODWIN died from his injuries on the 11th, November 1879
Liverpool Mercury, Dec 4th, 1879
At the meeting of the Watch Committee, the committee recommended that a grant of £50-5s, be paid out of the police superannuation fund to the widow of the late Police-officer GOODWIN, who had died in his service to the council
Liverpool Mercury, Nov 22nd, 1880
FLYYN was again brought up at Birkenhead Police Court, charged with using abusive and threatening language, he was a beerseller in Egerton St and had gone to his father's house and threatened him. Police-officers M'CLELLAND and WILLIAMS had a warrant for the prisoner for a previous offence and proceeded to the complainants in order to arrest FLYNN. FLYNN became violent, the latter aimed a blow at the prisoner and his staff struck his head, inflicting a wound which was bleeding profusely. On
file://C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\My Documents\museum\newspaper\HT... 12/09/2013 Death of Police-constable, James GOODWIN, at Birkenhead, 1879 Page 3 of 3
being taken to the bridewell a doctor was called but FLYNN refused to be washed and would not permit the doctor to examine him. Superintendent CARSON, stated that the prisoner was a violent fellow, and that over three years ago the prisoner he was imprisoned for 18 mths for violently assaulting Police-officer GOODWIN, who has since died from his injuries. The prisoner was remanded.
© 2011 all rights reserved
MAIN PAGE
file://C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\My Documents\museum\newspaper\HT... 12/09/2013
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 18 January 1879
SHOCKING DEATH OF A POLICE‐SERGEANT NEAR CHESTER.
Mr. H. Churton, county coroner, held an inquest on Monday at the Royal Oak Inn, Hoole, on the body of Sergeant Nathan Stacey, an old officer of the county constabulary stationed at Mickle Trafford, who met with a very sad death on Saturday last under circum‐stances stated below. The foreman of the jury was Mr. R. Hartshorn, of Hoole. The first witness called was the wife of the deceased, who said her husband was 44 years of age. She last saw him at half‐past eight on Saturday morning in his bedroom. He was then dressing, and she told him she was going to Chester. He was then in perfect health. She went to Chester, as she usually did on a Saturday, at nine o'clock, and while at Mr. Williams's shop, in Eastgate‐street, in the course of the morning, a woman told her that her husband had bean found in a water‐butt nearly dead, and she returned home at once and there found him by the kitchen fire and a number of people rubbing him. He was not dead then.
Mr. Moreton, surgeon, of Tarvin, was there at the time, and Mr. W. C. Watson, surgeon, of Chester, soon afterwards followed. Everything that could be done to save him was done before the doctors arrived by Mr. Reece and his establishment. She was about half an hour in the house before her husband died. The tub at the door of the house contained soft water, and her husband had almost every morning to break the ice with a hammer in order to get at the water to wash himself with.
James Crane, in the service of Mr. Reece, of Trafford, said he knew the deceased very well. On Saturday morning, shortly after nine o'clock, as he was passing his house he saw him with his feet up out of a water tub in the yard. The feet were quite still, and he went in and pulled the deceased out as quick as he could. The legs and the greater part of the body were out of the water, while his head and a portion of his chest were completely submerged. His arms and head were at the bottom of the tub. The deceased was in such a position that he could not possibly have extricated himself. There was a chair standing by the rain tub. When he extricated the deceased from the rain tub his face was as black as coal, and he breathed a little when placed on his side, but was quite unconscious. Witness tried to get into the house, but could not, and he then went for Mr. Reece, and as he was going sent two women to the deceased. On his return from Mr. Reece the two women had carried the deceased into the house, where he was put in to a hot water bath, rubbed with hot flannels, and brandy administered to him. He was put in hot blankets into a bed in front of the fire, and everything that it was possible to do to save him was done. Was not present at his death, but heard of it soon after 12 o'clock.
Mr. W. C. Watson, surgeon, Chester, said he saw the deceased on Saturday morning, at his own house. He was then lying on a bed in front of the kitchen fire, and was quite unconscious, and continued so until the time of his death, which took place in his presence in about three quarters of an hour afterwards. Mr. Moreton, surgeon, of Tarvin, was there when he arrived, and everything was done that could possibly be done to save him. At one time he seemed as if he would rally, but he suddenly lapsed into a comatose state, and went off very rapidly. His opinion was that death resulted from drowning. There was a great amount of evidence of congestion of the lungs and brain, and it was impossible to get his body warm.
Inspector Wood said the deceased was in the habit of attending the County Police Court at Chester Castle, every Saturday, and in his coat pockets were all the papers which he would have had to bring to Chester.
The Coroner, in the course of his summing up to the jury, said the case was one of the most extraordinary that ever came within his experience, but he had no doubt that the deceased in leaning forward and endeavouring to break the ice in the tub, which he succeeded in doing to a certain extent, his feet must have slipped off the chair on which he was standing and he fell head foremost through the hole he had made in the ice, and falling in that particular position his body would be in a sort of vice, and he would not have had the smallest power to extricate himself from that horrible position. Of course insensibility would very soon ensue, and in falling into unusually cold water and in a most unfavourable position his lungs and brain must have become congested almost immediately, and insensibility quickly followed. The Coroner continuing said: When I heard of the case first I felt greatly shocked and very grieved indeed to find that one of the most active, energetic, and faithful police officers that I have had to do with had suddenly lost his life under such painful and distressing circum‐stances. The jury must have all known him, and regarded him very much as I did as a most excellent officer and one who was universally respected. I think it right to make these observations because I have known poor Stacey for many years and have been associated with him some scores of times in connection with my office as coroner, and I never knew a man so anxious to do his duty as he was, and he did everything most satisfactorily and well.
The jury recorded a verdict of "Accidentally drowned.
Cheshire Observer
Saturday 20 September 1879
TWO CHESHIRE CONSTABLES HORSEWHIPPED BY A LADY.
At the Birkenhead County Magistrates' Court, on Thursday, before Messrs. G. B. Kerferd and W. T. Jacob, Mrs. Alice Humphries, a tall, good‐looking lady of about 27 or 30 years of age, who resides in Brixton Road, London, and whose husband, it was said, is connected with a bank in Lombard‐street, was summoned for assaulting a man named Isaac Morrin, and Constable Mavity, of the Wirral constabulary ; and also with wilfully and maliciously injuring Mavity's watch to the extent of 50s.
Mr. Hannan appeared for the prosecution and Mr. Moore for the defence. The case created considerable interest, and the court was crowded with members of the agricultural society and others. The defendant's husband sat alongside his wife in court..
In opening the case, Mr. Hannan said that the assault was committed on the 10th instant, the first day of the show of the Wirral and Birkenhead Agricultural Society. The defendant exhibited two bloodhounds and a terrier, and was awarded prizes. He then explained that for the proper conduct of the exhibition there were certain regulations, one of which was that no stock should be allowed to be taken out of the yard on the first day before seven p.m., and that, in order to have authority for this, a deposit had to be made between twelve and four p.m. to ensure the return of the stock on the following morning. Another regulation was that stock taken out in this way had to be removed by a gate at the upper end of the show yard.
Mr. Hannan then narrated the circumstances of the assault, which are given in the subjoined evidence, and expressed a hope that, whatever the defendant might do in other places, the magistrates would not permit her to commit such an outrage in Birkenhead with impunity. Mr. A. F. Gardiner, secretary to the Agricultural Society, proved that the regulations for the show had been sent to the defendant at the Albion Hotel, Manchester. — In cross‐examination he said that a letter had been received from the defendant expressing her regret at having removed her dogs on the first day contrary to regulations. She had been awarded three prizes. She took her dogs back on the morning of the second day of the show. In her letter the defendant said that she had no desire to break tbe rules of the society, that she hoped to attend the show next year, and that no unpleasantness would occur.
Gilbert Retherford Selby, the deposit clerk of the show, proved that the defendant had made no deposit, as required by the rules. Isaac Morrin said that on the 10th and llth inst. he was a gatekeeper at the show, at the docks station, or at the lower entrance. His instructions from the secretary were to let nothing out in the way of stock at that gate. At six p.m. on the 101b he was at the gate, when the defendant came up with two blood‐hounds and a terrier. She had a whip in her band. Witness told her the dogs were not allowed to go out before seven o'clock. She said if be would favour her she would give him something. She then gave him a push, and struck him on tbe eye with the buttend of the whip. He called the attention of Constable Mavity to the fact that be bad been assaulted. He never touched her. She passed out of the gate, and witness called out to Sergeant Garside to stop the car (into which the defendant and dogs had got) until be bad seen Mr. Gardiner. The officer brought the oar back to the entrance gate. Constable Mavity was inside the gate. The defendant got out of the car with the dogs in the yard, and she then lashed Mavity several times with her whip about the bead and shoulders. The blows were as hard as a person could give with a whip. Witness did not see Mavity raise a hand to tbe defendant, or speak a word to her. The crowd forced the gate open, and she passed out with the dogs.
ln cross‐examination, the witness said there were no other persons with dogs at the gate besides the defendant. Witness did not act roughly to the defendant; he never laid a hand on her, or spoke to her. She did not say she had been waiting at the gate three‐quarters of an hour. He was never struck by a woman before. The defendant deliberately struck witness, and the blow was not accidentally given him whilst she was restraining the dogs. Police‐constable Mavity (296) said on the first day of the show he was stationed at the outer gate, close to the previous witness. At a quarter past six o'olock on the evening of the 10th the defendant came to the gate with two bloodhounds and a terrier. The defendant advanced to the gate, and witness saw her shove Morrin with her left hand, and with tbe other give him a blow with her whip. Morrin had done nothing to her before this.
The handle of the whip was 12 or 14 inches long, and the lash about two feet in length. On seeing that Morrin had been assaulted, witness called to Sergeant Garside to stop the defendant, who bad got into a cab with the dogs. The sergeant brought the cab back, and whilst the vehicle was passing witness, she opened the door, but witness closed it. She then struck witness twice on the back of the left band with the butt‐end of the whip. She then got out of the cab with the dogs. Witness went up to the gate, and as she was passing out he asked her by what authority she was taking the dogs away. She said " Get away," and then commenced to flog him with the whip. She first struck him with the butt‐end of the whip on the breast, smashing the glass, the spring and the works inside, and the case of his watch. She afterwards struck him seven or eight heavy blows with the lash across the face and shoulders. Witness had not previously laid his bands on her, not even on her clothing. The defendant pushed a way through the crowd and got away. —
ln cross examination the witness said he did not take the defendant to the gate and twist her round. Sergeant O'Donnell said he was on the road near the docks station at the time in question. He heard some one shout to "stop those dogs." Afterwards he heard the defendant tell constable Mavity to get out of the way, and he also heard her beat the constable behind the gate. After she bad passed through the gate witness stood in front of her, and tried to get the dogs from her, when she pushed him and struck him a heavy blow with her whip over the head, face, and shoulders. In cross‐examination the witness said he did not get hold of the chains attached to the dogs.
There were a lot of people about laughing and making fun at seeing a woman thrash the police. (Laughter). Sergeant Garside deposed that the defendant, after leaving the yard, got into a cab with the dogs. Morrin called out to stop her, and he took the cab back. When be told her she was not to go away, she said to him, "Mind your own business; how dare you interfere with me and my dogs?" Upon getting back into the yard, without any provocation, sse struck Constable Mavity right and left with her whip about the head, face, and shoulders.
Upon going back through the gate she met Sergeant O'Donnell, and served him in a similar manner, striking him right and left.
Police‐constable Hunt (288) gave corroborative evidence. He said the defendant, in leaving the show yard, fought her way through. (Laughter) No one beat her.
Thomas Walker, licensed victualler, Birkenhead, said that whilst sitting on a bus near to the entrance to the show yard, he saw the defendant beat Constable Mavity about the bead and shoulders with a whip. The officer put up his hands to protect his face. He also saw the defendant strike Sergeant O'Donnell about the head and face.
This being the case for the prosecution, Mr. Moore urged that if the defendant committed a breach of the society's regulations she had rendered her‐self liable to certain forfeitures, which were recoverable by civil process. She was, however, in leaving tbe show yard, met by force, and she was obliged to use such violence as was necessary in order to get away with her dogs. He therefore raised this argument as being fatal to the prosecution. The Bench, after considering the point raised by Mr. Moore, said they did not consider his objection susained. Mr. Moore then commented upon the case for the defence, urging that the defendant was rudely treated by the police, who themselves were the cause of the disturbance. He then called — Martin Kay, coachman to Dr. Miller, of Hamilton‐square, said be had a dog at the show. He passed through the gate with his mastiff, and the defendant followed with two bloodhounds and a terrier. The dogs followed her, and Constable Mavity got bold of her by the arm and pulled her back roughly as if she were a woman on the streets. He had previously seen the defendant at a show at Dublin. — ln cross‐examination, witness said he did not see the defendant strike complainant Morrin with her whip.
Edward Sims, of 146, Rodney‐street, a barman, said be was in charge of a dog at the show. In the evening he went to the gate with the dog, when he was stopped by Constable Mavity. Another man was also stopped from leaving with a dog. The defendant came up at the time and was likewise stopped by the officer, who told her she could not take her dogs away. She persisted in going, when Constable Mavity got hold of her by the breast and the arm and pulled her round, and the dogs with her. The defendant, however, got out of his grasp and went away. John Hoskins, a cab driver, said the defendant got into his cab with her three dogs. Sergeant Garside got bold of the horse's bead and took him back into the show yard. When inside the officer refused to let her go, and she then used her whip. She also used her whip to the officer outside. The officer at the gate and the officer outside both shoved her before she used her whip. Charles Davies, cabman, said he saw two officers take the defendant, who had got into a cab, back into the show yard.
This being the evidence for the defence, Mr. Kerford said that he and his brother magistrate had given the case their most serious consideration, and they bad come to the conclusion that the assaults had been proved. For the assault on Morrin the defendant must pay a fine of 20s. and costs, and for the assault on the police 60s. and costs, and the bench wished to express their regret that a person in the position of Mrs. Humphreys should be guilty of such an outrage. With regard to the watch, the bench did not consider that malicious damage was proved. Mr Moore said the defendant had issued cross summonses against the complainants on the other side for assault, but these he would withdraw and bring an action before a jury.
Cheshire Observer Saturday 12th April 1879
The Widnes Murder— a town's meeting was held at Widnes on Tuesday for the purpose of expressing indignation at the murder of Michael Delaney, and to devise means to assist in bringing to justice the perpetrators of the deed. The Mayor (Mr. Cross) presided, and several officials of trades unions were present by special invitation. They repudiated the assertion that the murder of Delaney was a trade’s union outrage, and the meeting accepted the disclaimer with applause. It was decided to offer a reward of £500 for the apprehension of the murderers, and it was stated that the Government would supplement the amount of the reward.
Cheshire Observer Saturday 12th April 1879
At Widnes, on Sunday night, a poor fellow named Delaney was brutally beaten to death while at work, presumably because he had not done as the "union" wished him. In the worst days of Broadhead at Sheffield nothing like it occurred. Very little pains were taken apparently to avoid detection by the assassins. It is thought they had been detailed for their dreadful work by the union, in some such way as landlords are managed in Ireland. The immunity afforded in Ireland to murderers of this class, would probably account for the daring displayed at Widnes on Sunday night. We observe that an intense feeling of indignation has been aroused in the district, and a subscription set on foot to offer £500 reward for the murderers, the first to come forward being a working man, who put down his £3 amid the applause of those present.
Cheshire Observer Saturday 26th April 1879
The inquest on the body of Michael Delaney, who was recently murdered at Widnes, was resumed on Wednesday. Mr. Kennedy, barrister, Liverpool, represented the police; and Mr. Layton, of Liverpool, the proprietors of the Phoenix Alkali Works. The Coroner said the police were actively investigating the matter, and he thought there were some hopes of detecting the murderer. Dr. O'Keeffe was recalled and cross‐examined by Mr. Kennedy. He said he was of opinion that Delaney could not have run any distance, as was alleged, after receiving the blows. Neither could he have screamed. Julia Delaney, daughter of the deceased, said that on the night of the murder she saw a man look through the window, and she lifted the curtain to look at him. During the previous afternoon two men, one of whom was called Tobin, and had been on strike, called and told her mother that if her husband went to work he might look out for himself. One of the men had been her father's mate. Her mother was much afraid and sent for beer to quiet them. Mrs Delaney was called. She said the watchman at the works had got her husband's old tobacco box. One of the men stated that the first man who went in to work would have to look for his head, and that during the strike at St. Helen's a firer‐up bad been killed, and it had not been found out yet. Peter Keaveney, watchman, was recalled and cross ‐examined at great length; but he adhered to his ‐previous statements.— James Tobin, the man who was said to have warned deceased's wife, was called, but he denied having spoken so.— The inquiry was again adjourned, several witnesses still having to be examined.