Cheshire Observer – Saturday 1 January 1870 CITY QUARTER SESSIONS.  The Quarter Sessions for the city and borough of Chester took place yesterday, before Horatio Lloyd, Esq., the Recorder, who was accompanied on the bench by the Mayor and Sheriff, wearing their chains of office, and J. Rogers, Esq. The following gentlemen were sworn on the Grand Jury : — John Jones, Newgate-street, accountant, foreman William Collinson, Eastgate-row, boot manufacturer John Douglas, Abbey Square, architect William Henry Gorst, Queen-street, corn factor William Henderson, The Cross, grocer Richard Jones, Bridge-street, manufacturer Charles Leet, Hough Green, merchant Joseph B. Miller, Northgate-street, gentleman George Pritchard, Queen's Park, bookseller James Rogers, White Friars, accountant James Salmon, Foregate-street, wine merchant Alfred Sumner, Pepper-street, artist Thomas Edwards, Bridge-street, chemist John Owens, Pepper-street, professor of music. THE TOBACCO ROBBERY. John McGrath, [inset] 19, labourer, and Robert Jones, 15, were arraigned on a charge of having feloniously broken and entered the tobacco warehouse or manufactory of Thomas Nicholls and others, situate in Mall-lane, in the city and borough of Chester, on the 10th day of December, 1869, and therein feloniously stolen, taken, and carried away eighty pounds of tobacco, of the value of £15, the property and chattels of the said Thomas Nicholls and others. Mr. Brandt appeared for the prosecution and Mr Swetenham for the defence. — Wm. Brown stated that he worked at Nicholl's tobacco mill On Friday morning, the 10th Dec, be went to work at 10 minutes past seven in the morning and found the door half-open and the window broken. He afterwards found tobacco strewn about the floor. When he left on the previous night all was safe. — Cross-examined by Mr. Swetenham : The apprentice locked the door on the night previous to the robbery, and witness took the key to the master's house. McGrath worked at the snuff mill next to Messrs. Nicholl’s manufactory about five years ago. — George Frederick Nicholls stated that he was in the service of his mother, who was the proprietor of the mill. He was sent for on the morning in question and found the window and door open. He missed about 70lbs of "Chester cut" and about I2lbs of "pigtail." He afterwards saw the detectives pick up tobacco in the meadows. — Detective William Wallace stated that he went to the mill on the morning in question about half-past nine o'clock. He examined the mill and found the window broken and found tobacco lying about, and afterwards traced the tobacco to the bottom of Love-street. On the same afternoon about four o'clock he was going down Boughton, and when opposite Steam Mill-street he saw McGrath and another boy coming down the street towards him. When McGrath, who had a bundle, saw him he turned back and went into Chapel-street, and he followed and caught him. A scuffle ensued, and McGrath dropped the bundle, and witness was knocked down, a crowd having assembled. Whilst he was scuffling he saw Jones kicking him, and he said "Pitch into him, Bucket," McGrath was known by the name of "Bucket". A woman named Sarah Price came up to witness, and he told her to pick up the bundle, which contained tobacco, and his hat, and ran into her house. He afterwards was enabled to take McGrath into custody. He charged him at the police station, and he replied that he knew nothing about it He arrested Jones a few day afterwards.— Sarah Price, living in Steam Mill-street, said she saw McGrath and Jones scuffling with Wallace. She took a bundle of tobacco into her house. She pulled Jones from Wallace. After she took the tobacco into her house, she went out again, and on returning she met Jones coming out again with the bundle of tobacco. He said "That tobacco is not yours," and she replied that it was not his, and took it from him.— P.C. Rowe said that on the morning of the 10th. December he saw McGrath about five o'clock coming from the direction of Steam Mill Street. Has trousers were very wet and dirty. He said he had been staying with his brother all night. Mr. Nicholls identified, the tobacco in the bundle as belonging to the firm. — Mr. Swetenham then addressed the jury for the defence, and argued that McGrath might have picked the tobacco found in the bundle up in the meadows early in the morning, before the police began to make a search. As regarded Jones there was not a ‘tittle’ of evidence to show that he was implicated in the robbery. — After the learned Recorder had summed up the evidence, the jury returned a verdict of "Guilty" against McGrath, and "Not Guilty" against Jones. McGrath pleaded guilty to former convictions, and was committed to prison for twelve calendar months.
Cheshire Observer – Saturday 12 February 1870
Alleged Abuse by Police Officers. — Frederick Lloyd, John Jones and Elizabeth Jones, Spital Walk, were charged with being drunk and disorderly. — P.C. Wright deposed that at half past 12 o'clock on Sunday morning last, the defendants, who were in drink, were creating a disturbance at the end of Sandy Lane. — Lloyd denied that he was drunk, and said he was walking along the parapet, the other defendants being in front of him, when the officer shoved against the female, and she said "Don't shove me down," and he (Lloyd) never spoke. The constable with another officer afterwards came to his house and knocked him at the back of the head with their staffs, knocking him down, and otherwise abused him. He had not been able to get out of bed until Tuesday morning at eleven o'clock, and if the court was cleared he would show how he had been beaten. One of his teeth had been knocked out. He called a witness named Niele, (sic) who stated that between eleven and twelve o'clock on Saturday night, he saw the policemen follow Lloyd down Spital Walk, and shortly afterwards he heard someone screaming. He went in the direction of the place from which the sound proceeded, and met P.C. Davies and another officer laughing and talking about what they had done. — A boy named Spencer said he saw the policemen knock Lloyd down with their "sticks," and immediately afterwards he heard him moaning. — The case was then adjourned until tomorrow. Thursday. — Before the Mayor, J. Rogers, and Maysmor Williams, Esqrs. The Charge of ill-usage by the Policemen. — The evidence in this case, which had been adjourned from yesterday, was again tendered, and, in addition, the defendants (Lloyd and the two Joneses) called another witness, who denied the charge of the police in toto, and supported the statements made by the defendants. — The case was dismissed. After the magistrates' decision, the Chief Constable asserted that the last witness' evidence was a tissue of false-hoods. The utmost lawlessness prevailed in the locality, and because the officer (P.C. Davies), who had recently been stationed there, had looked well after them they had entered into a conspiracy to procure his removal.
Cheshire Observer – Saturday 16 April 1870
CHESTER QUARTER SESSIONS. The City Quarter Sessions were held at the Town Hall, on Thursday, before Horatio Lloyd, Esq., the Recorder. The Mayor and Sheriff, Sir T. G. Frost, W. Maysmor Williams, Esq., and W. Johnson, Esq., likewise took their seats on the bench.
Stealing a watch. Henry Jones, [inset] 21, sawyer, Chester, was indicted for stealing, on the 26th of March, 1870, a watch, from the person of John Hughes, of the value of thirty shillings. Mr. Parkins prosecuted, and the prisoner was un-defended. John Hughes, labourer, lodging in Bridge-street, said that on the night of Saturday, the 26th of March, he was in Brittain's Entry, about twelve o'clock, going to his aunt's house. He saw Henry Jones and two other boys, and they asked him for a penny. He replied he had no money, and the prisoner then came to him, caught hold of the collar of his coat, and took his watch and two brass chains from him, part' of one chain being left behind. He stated that he had never seen the prisoner before, and the entry was not well lighted, but he was certain about the prisoner's identity. Francis Gilbert, watchmaker, Frodsham-street, said on Tuesday afternoon, the 29th of March, the prisoner came to his shop and brought the watch (produced) to have a glass put on it. He told the prisoner that it was out of repair, and would cost him a shilling extra to have it put right. Prisoner said he would come again, and called the following afternoon. He called for it again at 20 minutes past seven, when Detective Bray took him into custody. Detective Sergeant William Bray said: On Wednesday evening, the 30th March, he arrested the prisoner, and charged him with stealing the watch. Jones replied that he had found it in Commonhall lane at one o'clock on the previous Sunday morning. The prosecutor identified the prisoner in the police office. The prisoner's defence was that he had found the watch. The jury returned a verdict of "Guilty," and the prisoner was sentenced to four calendar months imprisonment with hard labour.
Wrexham Advertiser – Saturday 30 April 1870
PONTBLYDDYN PETTY SESSIONS, Friday.— Before Major Roper. An ex-Policeman charged with Assault. — William Bradshaw (an ex-policeman of the Chester City Police Force) was charged by Jonas Neild of Higher Kinnerton, farmer, with assaulting him on the 2oth of March. The evidence of the complainant went to show that on the evening in question he was at a public-house in Kinnerton, and a row took place. The defendant knocked a glass out of his hand, and, raising his arm, threatened to strike him. He kept "agate" of him for nearly two hours, and when complainant got out of doors in company with his wife defendant followed them, and struck Neild a blow. He also made of violent language, suggesting that he would cut the complainant's liver out. He had struck him and cut him of the lip on a former occasion, of which he now bore marks, but he had forgiven him for those assaults. Complainant believed, however, that if it were not for the timely interference of his uncle the mob, which joined the defendant, would have murdered both him and his wife. As it was, they stole a loaf, a pocket handkerchief, and a dozen buns out of his basket, but he did not know who in the crowd did it. — The defendant here cross-examined the witness as to whether he had not given some aggravation, but the complainant made no variations from his original statement. — Noah Lewis was called, and proved that there was a row in the house, and that he had taken the complainant's part; which had the effect of arousing the ire of those who were siding with the defendant. — Mrs Neild was then called and she corroborated her husband's statement, in a very clear and judicial manner. She said: We were returning from market and had a large market basket with us. When we arrived at the "Millstone," which was the nearest public-house from the station — (laughter) — we called inside and left the basket there, in charge of Mr Parry; after which I went with my husband to the door of the kitchen when this here blackguard (the defendant) came pushing backwards and forwards and struck my husband's glass down; he also struck my husband. The witness then went on to say in a speech of much animation how her husband was ill-used with the "rascal" who appeared as the defendant, and suggested that had the landlord and landlady of the public-house been called, their worships would have been satisfied with the evidence which she and her husband had given.— The defendant then requested an adjournment to allow the landlord to be summoned, and after a short consultation between the magistrates' clerk and complainant, this was agreed to.
Cheshire Observer – Saturday 4 March 1871
City of Chester. The printed reports of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary, just presented to Parliament, are more than ordinarily interesting.     Establishment of the Force, 36 -  area in acres, 8,518; population in 1861, 31,101; population to each constable, as per census 1861, 864. Yearly pay in pounds and shillings: — l head constable, £200; 1 inspector, £78, and 1 inspector, £72 16s. Weekly pay in shillings and pence: 1 detective sergeant, 27s. ; 2 sergeants, 26s., and 2 at 24s. each; 1 detective constable, 24s.; 4 constables at 22s; 8 at 21s., 3 at 20s., and 12 at 19s. each. Force inspected on the 14th March. On parade: One head constable, one inspector, two sergeants, two detective officers, 24 constables. On duty one inspector, two constables. Sick: Two sergeants, one constable. No alteration has been made in the strength and composition of the establishment since last inspection. The Town Hall was opened in October, 1869, in which commodious accommodation has been provided for the police, consisting of nine cells for prisoner, two double, and one used as a sick-room; a muster room, drying room, charge room, and convenient offices. The two inspectors, four sergeants, and two detective officers act as inspectors of common lodging-houses. The inspector or sergeant in charge at the office from six to ten o'clock p.m. relieves casual poor. Fifty-six indictable offences were reported to the police, and 36 persons apprehended, against 78 offences and 53 apprehensions in the year 1869. The men are a well selected and efficient body, and their clothing and appointments were complete and in good order. The books and returns were kept in a satisfactory manner, and the police duties appeared to be well provided for. The Inspector regretted to observe that the superannuation fund had become nearly exhausted, showing a balance of only £26; the demands upon the fund were like wise considerably in excess of the income. The Inspector is of opinion the establishment has been maintained in a satisfactory state of efficiency. From a return furnished by the Chief Constable we learn that the average of the men in the force is 33 yean and six months; th2 average height 5 feet 10½ inches; average service, 6 years and 149 days; average term of previous police service, 1 year and 183 days, so that each man has on an average about eight years service altogether.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 29 April 1871
CITY POLICE COURT. Friday – Before the Mayor, J Smith Esq., Major French, F A Dixkson and J Rogers Esqrs.  SERIOUS CHARGE AGAINST POLICE OFFICERS. Police Constable George Gordon (No 25) and Police Constable James Bowers (No 16) were charged with having assaulting Thomas Jackson, a Militiaman, on the previous Friday night. [To enable the complainant to identify the alleged aggressors, the police had been paraded, and Gordon and Bowers were picked out by him. Lieutenant-Colonel Cholmondeley was present on the Bench to watch the case, and directed the prosecution. Jackson, having been sworn, said: lam a militiaman —a private in the Cheshire Militia. I was going home between twelve and one o'clock on last Friday night. I was passing along the Row which runs from the Cross to the Roodee (Watergate-street Row). Two policemen came out of an entry. I was passing by and they ran out just as I was passing. These two defendants are the policemen in question— to the best of my belief; I cannot swear they were the two. A policeman said, "Here's one of them that has been shouting a bit since." He alluded to me. I said, "Shouting what?" He said, "You have been shouting them prostitutes that went up a bit since." I said: "I have seen no prostitutes’ to-night before." He says, "Do you call me one?" At the same time he shoved me in the neck with his open hand. He shoved me away, and my cap fell off. I stooped to pick up my cap, and Bowers (The other defendant) caught me on the head with his staff. He pulled the staff out of a case of some sort. I don't recollect anything after. I was stunned, and do not recollect anything until four o’clock in the morning. When I came to my senses I was in the Chester Infirmary. The mark on my head is the effect of the blow. I was carried to the Infirmary there yesterday (Thursday). By Bowers: I swear to you to the best of my opinion. I am not quite sure you are the man who struck me. By Mr. Fenwick: “I live in Poppet-Show Entry. I am billeted there.” Mr. Fenwick asked for a remand in consequence of want of notice. The Bench said Mr. Fenwick could ask any question he thought proper. By Mr. Fenwick: Poppet-Show Entry is close to where I was knocked down. To the best of my opinion it was between twelve and one o'clock. I had not a pass that night. I should have been in my billet by ten o'clock. I have not said since I was in the Infirmary that No. 23 struck me. I know a militiaman named Joseph Davies. I never told him it was No. 23 who struck me. I never spoke to him in my life. I believe it was Bowers who struck me with his staff. It was not Gordon. I am speaking to the best of my opinion. The staff is a black turned one, which will be about a couple of feet long. He had both case and staff in his hand. The case was not attached to the belt. He had one in one band, and I think one in the other. I do not know that be had a stick in his hand at all, I saw no stick in his hand excepting the staff. I was going home after taking a drunken man — a militiaman — to Crook-street. He was drunk, and said he could not find his way. I took him off the Row, near where I am billeted. I had not been with him. I went into a public-house at the bottom of Bridge-street when I came off parade between four and five o'clock. I went into no public-house after that. I do not know the Leeswood Arms or Uncle Tom's Cabin by name. Edward Davies said: On Saturday morning last about twenty minutes past one o'clock I was in Watergate-street Row. I was going to my work. I was standing in the Row and saw a row in the street. It was between the police, some militiamen, a civilian, and a woman. There were two or more policemen. The civilian was the worse for drink. There might be two or three militiamen, but I saw one. The woman might have been a prostitute. The civilian and militiaman and woman quarrelled. There was a fight between them. I saw the civilian on the ground. The police cleared the street, and then the picket came. I cannot say who those policemen were. I heard the picket officer tell the policeman to take any of the militia whom they might find out, and keep them until the picket came back. He said, any of his men, either drunk or sober. The picket then went towards the Cross. A few minutes afterwards three militiamen came up the row, from the direction of the Race Course. Before that there were four policemen, and one said to another, as if making it up together, "I will go up this way," and two then went up an entry a little lower down. Three militiamen then came up, and subsequently the other two policemen came and sounded their sticks on the ground at the end of the entry where the policemen had gone up. They then took hold of the militiamen to take them in charge. One of the policemen took hold of a militiaman and said, "You will have to come along with me." The militiaman said that he would not go; what did they want. The two policemen— not those who had gone up the entry— had hold of a militiaman each and the third militiaman went away. The first policeman kept dragging the militiaman he had hold of, and took him a very little way. The militiaman stopped, and I saw the policeman up with his stick and catch him across the head. I should know that policeman if I saw him. Gordon was one of the policemen who was there at the time. When the policeman had struck the militiaman the latter got hold of him and tipped him over. The policeman fell on to the ground. The militiaman was then on the top of the policeman. Gordon was the policeman who had hold of the other man— not the policeman who fell. I know the policeman who was tripped, but I could not swear to him. He shouted for help to Gordon. Gordon was too far away to render assistance until he pulled his prisoner close to them. Gordon then up with his stick and struck the militiaman several times on the head and body. He kept on hitting until the militiaman rolled over, apparently senseless. I should know the militiaman; that is the man (pointing to the complainant). The policeman got up, and he struck the same militiaman with his stick several times. That was after the man was senseless on the ground. A militiaman then shouted "Picket," and the picket came down at the double. The picket then carried the militiaman away. He could not walk, and appeared to everybody to be dead. I saw no more, as I had to go to my work. I told the sergeant of the picket that if anything happened I would appear against the policeman. By Mr. Fenwick: Gordon struck Jackson several times, but not at first. Gordon did not strike him until he was on the ground. I will swear that it was neither of the defendants who first struck the complainant on the head. I saw Bowers there, but I did not see him strike a blow. He might have done so. I know Bowers well by sight. I cannot say whether Jackson was one of the militiamen who made the row in the street. The civilian would hear and see all if he was not too drunk. Dr. Haining, house surgeon at the Infirmary said: This man (the complainant) was brought into the Infirmary shortly before two o'clock on Saturday morning. He was apparently senseless at the time. He was suffering from a cut at the side of the head. It seemed to be an incised wound about an inch and three quarters in length and akin deep. The bone was not touched. Then as a slight graze on the ear on the same side, the left side. I should say that the wound had been made with a blunt instrument. In the absence of any other cause I should infer that the wound was the result of a blow. I stripped him sad examined the whole body. He seemed to have received a bruise on the right shoulder. That might arise from a fall. Moving the arm was the first thing that aroused him from his insensible condition. By Mr. Fenwick: The wound was on the left side and perpendicular. It might be caused by any blunt instrument. Falling against a corner or hard substance might have caused the wound. It was not a dangerous wound. The circumstances must be rather peculiar to produce such a wound by a fall. I know Watergate-street Row. It might have been done against the angle pf the wall by the steps. My impression was that the wound more likely arose from a blow than a fall, but that impression was formed without knowing anything of facts I could find no dirt in the wound. Captain Louche was the next witness. He said: I was on picket duty on Friday night in Watergate-street. I was called then about half-past one. I believe it was Bowers who called for me when I was at the Cross. He went down the Row with me. I believe Bowes to be the man. I then found Jackson lying in the Wow, supported by a Policeman and, I think, one of our men, who was in shirt sleeves. Complainant was then perfectly insensible. I brought out the picket because I heard there was a disturbance. We had been to the came spot before. I know nothing about the alleged assault.  I believe when l was there before, that the militia had been using their belts against the police. I told the police to hold any militiaman – drunk or sober - till I came. They were out without leave at that time of night. . James Lee, a private in the militia, said, Last Friday night I had been to Saltney to see some friends and stayed rather late. I met Captain Louche, who questioned me. He tried me by facings, and, seeing I was sober, sent me to my billet. A little after twelve I got to the bottom of Watergate row, and met two of our men. I asked them whether they were going home, and we walked on together into the row. A little up the row the police rushed out of an entry and took hold of Jackson, who was one. I said, "What are they taking him for? and another policeman took hold of me by the waist-belt behind, and said, “You will have to go.” I asked what I had been doing wrong. He said: “Come along, I will take you to the picket.” I said, “What are you taking me for.” He said, “You will have to come.” I saw a scuffle in front, and saw Jackson go down, and that the policeman was striking him when down. I cannot say who that policeman was. I should not know any of them. I said, “Look how they are abusing that man.” I wanted to get away, and my captor said, “If you move an inch I will break your head. He took hold of me my stock. He put his thumb under my ear and was throttling me. I had to undo my waist-belt to get my breath. I the told him I would go quietly if he would let me go. He then pulled me up the where this man (complainant) lay. I then, ”saw the man lying with his eyes open, as if he was dying.” The picket then came up and carried him to the Infirmary. I could not swear to any blow bring struck. I was given over to the picket, who took me to the guard-room. By Mr. Fenwick: I cannot swear who apprehended me. The man who apprehended me did not strike the complainant Jackson. I was charged before Colonel Cholmondeley with having my belt off, on the following morning. My name James Lee, not Reece Lear. I have been convicted, in 1869, for wounding with intent to murder, and was imprisoned for eighteen months. By Col. Cholmondeley: I was charged with unlawfully wounding. By Mr. Fenwick: I was charged as Elias Reece Lear. That was not my mistake.     Edward Welsh deposed: I am a private in the Cheshire Militia. I was about twenty or thirty yards behind them this night week, between twelve and one o'clock. It would be on Saturday morning. I was in Watergate-street Row. I was alone. I saw two policemen come out of an entry. One of them caught hold of Jackson. Gordon was one of the men — l cannot identify the other. I cannot say who it was that took hold of Jackson, but whoever it was knocked Jackson down did so by shoving him. I then went away.    Mr. Fenwick said there was a charge against Jackson for assaulting P.C. Holland, and as the witnesses would be identical perhaps the cases would be taken together. This being assented to, Thomas Jackson was charged with assaulting P.C. Holland, it being understood that the witnesses for the complaint would be taken as for the defence in the other ease.    Thomas Holland, No. 15 Chester police force, said: “I was on duty in Watergate-street on Friday night and Saturday morning with P.C. Gordon. About a quarter to one, I saw a disturbance. There were seven or eight militiamen in the street (not the Row), and three or four prostitutes. Some of the militiamen were chasing the prostitutes up and down the street. Very beastly language was used as hard as they could bawl. I requested them to go away and not to make such a noise in the street at that time of the morning. I spoke to all of them.” Jackson said: "We shall do just as the b***** h*** we like for you." We drove the prostitutes away. The militiamen stood still, and one of them asked what we had to do with them. I said, "Nothing." We went towards the Cross, and they threatened us and hooted us. As we were going away, they said: "If you interfere with us we will cut your b***** heads off." We went to the Cross to try to get a picket. As we were going they hooted us. We found a picket at the Cross, with Captain Louche in charge. The picket went down Watergate-street, and the militiamen ran away. I did not see where they went, but there are entries in Watergate-street. The right section went down Watergate-street and the left went up the street. There were two police-officers— Myatt (No 2) (Mayatt) and Rowe (No 23) — who went to Britain's Entry. Captain Louche asked them to search the entries, but I am not sure he told them to detain the men. I heard Captain Louche order them to look through the entries. The order was given to Myatt and Rowe. He said they were to report to him. The picket went away, and about ten minutes afterwards Jackson and another militiaman came out of some of the entries. Just before they got to Gordon and me, as we stood in the Row, one of the militiamen — not Jackson— pulled off his belt. Lear is the man. As soon as he did so I knocked my stick on the top of Brittain's Entry. That is the mode of signalling for help from the police. I had no sooner done that than Jackson came and tripped me up. I was turning round at the time. He kicked my heels from under me. I fell. While I was on the ground he commenced kicking me, and Myatt came running up Brittain's Entry. He caught bold of Jackson by the collar and pulled him off me. In the struggle to get away he fell over me on the stairs. He apparently cut head. He rolled over on to the flags and lay there. The picket came in two or three minutes. I ran up to the Cross and called them. No one struck Jackson with a staff or stick. He did not receive the wound with staff or stick. I believe Lear is the man who took his belt off. He is to the best of my knowledge and belief. I swear that.” By Col. Cholmondeley: “I did not disturb the first row; the picket did. There were only two policemen at first, and four afterwards.”    James Crockett said: “I have been summoned to appear, and refused to come. I was in Watergate-street on Saturday morning between one and two o'clock. There was a group of militiamen standing nearly opposite Uncle Tom's Cabin. I should not know any of them if I saw them now. Then were some prostitutes. The whole of them were making a great disturbance, and using very beastly language. The police ordered them away. I believe one was No. 15— Holland. I believe No. 25 — Gordon— was the other. The militia said that they would go away when it pleased themselves. I don't know which way the women went I was with the policemen then, and went with them until we met the picket. We went back with the picket and drove them away. I suppose some of them went into the Row, because they were there afterwards. They ran away. The picket divided into two parties, who went opposite ways along the street. P.C. Myatt went into Brittain's Entry, and I went with him. When we were at the other end 20 or 30 yards distant— we heard No. 15 knock with his stick. Myatt then quickened, and ran to his assistance. We found No. 15— Holland -rising from the ground on his knees, and the militiaman Jackson just kicking him. No. 2— Myatt -went to the assistance of Holland, and shortly afterwards— not above a minute —I saw Jackson fall on the ground. Myatt was straggling with Jackson. Jackson fell on the broad of his back. His head was on the ground, but I believe it struck the stall as he fell. He was not bleeding before he fell, but he was bleeding when he was on the ground. The blood came from the side of his head. The picket came up almost directly. When Jackson was on the ground he was struck by no one; but I could not swear that he was not struck before he fell. I did not we see any blow, and most have seen him if struck. The constable had a stick, but not a truncheon,” By Col. Cholmondeley: “l am a son of Sergt. Crockett late of the Cheshire Militia. I was passing Watergate street when the first row occurred. I was not in the middle of the parties, and was not drunk. I cannot say whether there was a civilian in the middle of the row. I did not attach myself particularly to any one policeman. I went up the entry with No. 2, and assisted the police in the execution of their duty.”  By the Bench: I am a plumber’s apprentice and work for Mr Washington of St Peter’s Churchyard. I was with the crowd before the row began. P.c. Myatt (No 2) said: “On Saturday morning, shortly between one-12.40 or 12.45—I was in Watergate-street, and saw from eight to ten militiamen in the street. I ordered them away and told them to get to their billets out of sight. They returned awkward talk and threatened me in very beastly terms. They were going away and the picket put in their appearance. Upon seeing the picket they ran away. Some ran down Brittain's Entry and others elsewhere. Captain Louche, who was in charge of the picket, gave orders to me to hold all militiamen whom I found out of their billets, until the picket got hold of them. I went and searched down Brittain's Entry. I got to Commonhall street when I heard the police signal with a stick. I returned as quickly as I could. When I got to the top of the entry I found a militiaman, who was subsequently taken to the Infirmary, and P.C. Holland. The militiamen had got Holland down and was kicking him fearfully. Holland was the undermost to the best of my recollection. I ran to Holland’s assistance and took the militiaman by the collar of his tunic. I pulled him up. In the struggle of the militiamen to get away both fell again. Presently the picket came up. That is all I know. The militiaman was carried to the Infirmary. When he fell after I picked them up I saw no blow struck. I saw blood after the fall. Jackson fell with his head towards the stall.” By Col Cholmondeley: Crockett went up the entry with me – upon my invitation. I invited him with a view to having his assistance, if necessary. I have not known Crockett long. I joined this force in March. I took his as a stranger. I first met him at the Cross on that night. By Jackson: “You were not on your feet when I came up. You were kicking him.”. By Mr Fenwick: “I did not notice whether Jackson had regimental boots or clogs on.” Mr Michael Shone, jun., said: I live at 86, Watergate street, and I am an assistant tax collector.  My home would be 20 yards from Uncle Tom's Cabin on the opposite side. Between 12 and 2 on Saturday morning I was attempting to read, but was prevented by the general riot in the street. The first thing I noticed particularly was the picket coming down Watergate-street and a number of men in red coats ran away in all directions. I had previously heard the police on the spot, but could not say whether they ordered them away. After the Picket departed I sat down, and then heard a rush of feet.  I heard a policeman's stick strike the ground in a manner to show he was in urgent need of assistance. It was a stick, not a truncheon.  I looked out of the window and saw a number of men— l should say four men in red coats. They were Pritchard's Entry. They were scuffing with some one. In consequence of the Row overhanging and my being higher, I could only see them to about their waists. They were struggling with some one. I heard a policeman’s signal in the direction, and therefore presumed they were struggling with the police. The view of the men which I had was varied; I could see the red coats. I could see a gas by a gas light at the end of the entry. I heard blows being exchanged there. I could see where Brittain's Entry was. I saw a policeman making from Brittain's Entry towards where the scuffle was He had his lamp on has waist— turned on. Just at that time I saw a man in a red coat reel back. He fell inclined towards his left side, but on his back. After he fell be heaved a deep groan; then another, which was fainter, and gradually died away. After that I heard no voices. I heard voices inciting somebody "to pitch in " before the policeman came out of Brittain's Entry. After the militiaman fell I do not believe he was struck by anybody. I should say he fell in consequence of a blow. By Colonel Cholmondeley: I could not see as plainly as if I had been standing by. P.C. Bowers (No 16) said: Last Friday night and Saturday morning I was on duty in Eastgate-street. About one o'clock P.C. Holland came to the Cross, and asked me if I had seen the picket, as some militiamen and prostitutes were noising in the street I told him to avoid the militiamen as much as possible, until the arrival of the picket. I then went down Eastgate-street to St. John -street. Not seeing the picket I returned. When I got beck to the Cross I saw the picket coming up Bridge-street. I waited for them for the purpose of turning them into Watergate-street. When they got near me P.C. Holland came along the row to Mr. Blelock's stall and I said to him: "They are coming up here." He got on to the stall and called to them to hasten as they were badly wanted in Watergate-street. Captain Louche ordered them to double— one half taking the street and the other half the Row. I went along the Row with Captain Louche. I went down as far as Bishop Lloyd's entry. I saw then that there were several civilians and the militia mixed up together. The man Jackson was there. He was being supported by the picket. He was in a sitting position. There was another militiaman in the charge of P.C. Gordon. They were eight or 10 yards from where Jackson was.” By Col. Cholmondeley: When I got there Jackson had been raised. By Mr. Fenwick: I struck no blow and saw no blow struck.     P.C. Gordon said : I was on duty with Holland on the morning of Saturday last. We were coming up Watergate-street between twelve and one o'clock. I have not been long here, and did not know the character of some women whom the militia were pulling about. Holland asked them to give up that conduct at that hour of the morning. Before he spoke they were making use of very bad language. When he asked them to go away they used insulting and obscene language to him, and also threatened us. We went in the direction of the Cross, and met the picket at the corner of the Cross. The picket were standing there at the time. P.C. Holland informed the officer in charge of the picket of the state of things. The officer ordered the men to double, and they went down Watergate-street. The militiamen had then run away. The picket went away, and the militiamen came out. Lear tried to strike me with his belt, and I saved myself by catching hold of the belt. Jackson was there at the time. I took the belt from Lear. I looked towards P.C. Holland, and saw a militiaman tripping him up. They were ten or twelve yards away. The militiaman who tripped Holland was the man Jackson. Jackson was also the ringleader in the first disturbance. When Jackson had thrown Holland he fell after him. I was then at the same distance from them. I did not strike Jackson, and I believe that nobody struck him after he was down. I believe that Jackson's head came against the edge of the stall as he fell. Jackson: I don't think it any use asking questions of "sike" a man as that.”     P.C. Charles Bowen (No. 28), said: “I was on duty on Friday night and Saturday morning in Bridge-street. About one o'clock I saw Holland, who said he wanted the picket. I found the picket by St. Michael's Church, and went with it up to the Cross, where they were ordered to double. I followed down with the Captain— Captain Louche. When I got down I found a militiaman lying bleeding in the row. The picket then had him. I have been charged with striking the man — indeed, with killing him— but I never touched him. I saw nobody strike him.      Jackson (in defence) said that it was all lies that the policemen had said. He denied their statements in toto. The magistrates then retired and after a brief absence returned, when the Mayor said: “We consider the cases so conflicting that it is impossible to come to a right decision; therefore we dismiss both the cases.”
Cheshire Observer – Saturday 28 October 1871
Increased Remuneration to the Police The Watch Committee, at their meeting on the 15th instant, took into consideration the following memorial from the City Police Constables :— Chester, 4th 0ctober, 1871. Gentlemen, — We, the undersigned, being officers of the city police force, respectfully request you will be pleased to grant us an increase of wages under circumstances which we have felt very much for some time past in the way of our duties, etc. The county constabulary men in their capacity receive much more pay for their duty than we do at the present time, they having the privilege of low rents and ground attached to their houses, which is, of course, advantage. Hoping to meet with your favourable consideration, (here follows the signature of 28 police constables.) The Committee recommended that the following scale of pay be allowed the constables, in lieu of  that at present in operation, vis.:— 3rd class constable, on joining and during six months, 19s. per week; 2nd class ditto, after six months and during the next twelve months, 20s; Ist class ditto, after eighteen months and during the next three years 21s; merit class ditto, after four and a half years and during the next three years, 22s; service pay ditto, after seven and a half years and during the next four years 23s service pay after eleven and a half years, 24s. ‘Good Conduct’ to be an invariable condition of promotion, and each constable to be allowed seven days’ leave of absence during one year.
Cheshire Observer – Saturday 10 February 1872
Charge against Young Soldiers. — Charles Hawk[e]s (inset) and William Johnson, two young drummers belonging to the 14th Regiment stationed at the Castle, were charged with stealing a silver lever watch belonging to Mr. Moreland, watchmaker, Northgate-street. — Mr. Brown stated that on the previous day, a few minutes before twelve, the two came into Mr. Moreland's shop for the purpose of buying a key for a musical box. After buying one, Johnson asked to see some silver chains, and after looking at some said he would call again tomorrow. Hawkes stood against the counter where the watch was. As soon as they left the shop the witness missed the watch. He saw the watch (produced) while the prisoners were in the shop, and no other customers had called between the time of the prisoners leaving and his missing the watch. —     James McGill, watchmaker, in the employ of Mrs. Prescott, Grosvenor -street, stated that Hawkes called at the shop in the afternoon and asked witness to put a hand on it, and knowing that he had a new watch upon him a few days before, asked him where he got this watch from, and he said he bought it of a drunken man, who said to him, "Come here young soldier, I can let you have a watch for 15s." The watch was left with him, and subsequently taken away by Detective-Sergeant Wallace. Wallace proved apprehending the prisoners at the Castle. Both of them denied the charge of stealing the watch.- The Sergeant-Major of the Regiment said the kits must be searched, whereupon Hawkes admitted having taken the watch, and took witness to Mrs. Prescott's. The Sergeant-Major had given him every assistance in this case.— Both prisoners now pleaded guilty, and the Sergeant-Major, in reply to a question from the clerk, said the lads bore bad characters. They were taken from a reformatory in London about eighteen months ago, when the regiment came home from New Zealand.— The Magistrates sentenced each to ten days imprisonment, and then to a reformatory for three years.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 17 February 1872
THE CITY POLICE AND THEIR RECENT INCREASE OF PAY. The following letter was received from Senior Inspector Alexander Lindsay, on behalf of the city police, thanking the Council for increasing the pay of the force : — "The members of the City Police Force wish to thank you sincerely for the favourable consideration you gave to their memorial. They wish me to say, by way of appreciation of the boon you recently granted, that they will endeavour to discharge their respective duties with diligence and fidelity and entirely to your satisfaction." The reading of this communication was received with applause.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 11 May 1872
CITY POLICE COURT. Friday. — Before Major French (chairman), Dr. Davies-Colley, and J. Oakes, Esq. Assaulting a Police Officer.— Edward Blackburn was charged with being drunk and with assaulting P.C. Potter. — P.C. Potter stated that he was ordered to turn the prisoner out of a tent on the Roodee, because he was making a great disturbance. He removed the prisoner, and after he had got him out he struck witness several times on the face and kicked him on the leg, and also tore his cape. — A special constable was called and said the prisoner was very disorderly and kicked him. — The Magistrates fined the prisoner 5s or seven days for being drunk, and for the assault on the officers they fined him 20s. and costs and 2s. damage, or 21 days with hard labour in default of immediate payment.
The Hundred and Second Time.— Hannah Payne was placed in the dock for the 102nd time, in this instance, on the charge of drunkenness. — P.C. 12 Higginson proved that the prisoner was drunk and incapable in Foregate- Street last night. — Fined 5s and costs or seven days.
Chester 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, but saw nothing. 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.
Wrexham Advertiser –Saturday 23 July 1870
This article refers to the County Force, but is included due to it’s extraordinary use of Cutlasses by the Police to quell a riot in Hoole. - 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 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 has 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 Platt): 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 Chairman (to the defendants): Have you any statement to make? Defendant Platt: We were both in drink, and we were aggravated by the man on Cow-Lane 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 he 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 he was doing. Mr. Salisbury - 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? Platt: It is useless now. Walker: There is one witness who never heard me say anything, and another who could not swear to me. Mr. Salisbury: 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 Cow Lane 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? Walker:  "Well pretty tight; the same as many other men are. The Magistrates then consulted together for a few minutes, after which the 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 12 April 1873
CITY POLICE COURT. Saturday.— Before Sir T. G. Frost (chairman), E. F. French, and T. Finchett-Maddock, Esqrs. A Lesson to Drivers. — John Mountfield, a labourer, of Guilden Sutton, was charged with being drunk while in charge of a horse and carriage in Brook- street, and also with striking P.C. Burgess with his whip on telling him to be careful how he drove the horse. The defendant denied being drunk or that he struck the constable with the whip. The evidence of the police officer was, however, corroborated by the testimony of another witness, and the defendant was fined 40s. and costs, or one month's imprisonment.
Cheshire Observer – Saturday 16 August 1873
CITY POLICE COURT Friday.— Before the Mayor (R. Gregg, Esq.) and J. Oakes, Esq, The Use of the Knife.— Thomas Spelman, of Brittain's-entry, was charged by P.C. 18 Beatty with threatening to run his wife through with a knife. The case was remanded for the attendance of witnesses, who would depose that they saw the defendant follow his wife with an open knife in his hand. Before the rising of the Court, however, the witnesses appeared. The prisoner's wife, who gave her evidence very reluctantly, said the prisoner was drunk on the previous day. He ran her across Watergate-street, and threatened to rip her up. She ran to the Police Office for protection. — A witness, named Joseph Speed, a coal dealer, said he saw the prisoner standing in the row threatening his wife, who was in the street. He then took a knife out of his vest pocket and ran after his wife threatening her. — Prisoner: I never had a knife in my life.— P.C Beatty proved apprehending the prisoner, who was drunk at the time, and finding in his pocket a large clasp knife (produced). — Mayor (to prisoner): You say you never had a knife; do you own that?— Prisoner: Yes, it's mine; I was in drink, and I won't do the like again. — The Mayor (after conferring with Mr. Oakes): There is a black list against you, and you are here on a most serious charge. People cannot be allowed to use knives. You will be sent to prison for three months with hard labour.
North Devon Journal - Thursday 18 December 1873 Creditable state or things is Chester.—At the opening of the late Chester Assizes, Mr. G. L. Fenwick, the Chief constable of the city, presented his annual report says, " There is, l am afraid, a widely-spread feeling that, as there always have been criminals in society, so there always must be. I am not entirely of that opinion. Given the power, I really see no great difficulty, if not in stamping out professional criminals, at least in reducing their numbers very materially, especially in a comparatively small place such as Chester. There is not at this moment in this city a single person, known to be living by or following dishonest practices. In 1864 the number falling within 'known thieves and depredators' was returned the Home Office as 47. I felt this to be somewhat of a reproach to the police, and shaped my course accordingly. The numbers have gradually dwindled down until that part of the annual return is for the first time blank, and has so been forwarded to the Home Secretary; and there are now working in Chester some of those men, whose conduct and regular habits far to disturb the theory, ' Once a thief, always thief.' The chief constable also reports that there is not now a single brothel, as legally defined, in the city of Chester."
 
Cheshire Observer – Saturday 18 April 1874
SUDDEN DEATH OF HANNAH PAYNE. Mr. Tatlock, city coroner, held an inquiry at the Town Hall on Thursday afternoon into the cause of death of the well-known Hannah Payne. The first witness called was Louisa Rollison, waitress at the Market Inn, who said she had seen the deceased several times in the house. On the previous day she visited the Inn twice, the first time at about eleven o'clock in the morning, when she had three halfpenny worth of rum. She was then sober, and stayed about a quarter of an hour, but had no more to drink. She visited the house again about a quarter past three in the afternoon. She was then sober, and asked some men who were present to treat her to a glass of something, but they did not do so. She stood by the counter, and afterwards asked the men to give her some bread and cheese (of which they had been partaking). This they did. The men then went out, and witness left her by herself in the vaults and went into the next room. After she had been there between five or ten minutes she heard deceased making a noise as if coughing. On coming out of the room she called to her by her name, but the deceased did not answer. Witness then went up to her, found her lying on a bench, and saw her turning blue in the face. She at once called Mr. Smith, stepfather to Mr. Whitefoot, who sent her for a police officer. She met one by the Town Hall and brought him into the house. The deceased was still on the bench, and the policeman on seeing her went for a doctor. Did not notice the mark on the forehead when deceased first visited the house in the morning, nor did she notice it in the afternoon until she saw the deceased lying on the form. If deceased had fallen on the floor witness would have heard it in the adjoining room. Deceased did not complain of anything particular the previous day, but she said, as she often said before, "Poor Hannah is nearly dead." Witness did not see her at any time on the floor.— P.C. Beatty (18) said he was on duty in Northgate-street about half-past three in the afternoon of the previous day, when the last witness told him that Hannah Payne was in the Market Inn, and appeared to be very ill. On going there he found the deceased lying with her head and body on a bench, and her feet on the floor. Her lips and eyes were quite black at the time. There was a spot of blood on the right side of her forehead. She did not breathe. Witness reported the matter to the Chief Constable, who told him to procure the services of a doctor as quickly as possible. He met Dr. Taylor driving past, stopped him, and asked him to see the deceased, which he did. — Mary Dunne, daughter of the deceased, living in White Lion Yard, Crook-street, said her mother was a widow, and 66 years of age at the time of her death, and used to go backwards and forwards to witness's house, although of late she was an inmate of the Workhouse. Witness saw her in her house on the previous day. Deceased brought in some tea and asked to have it wet. This was done, but she afterwards refused to take it. She was afterwards offered some bacon, and this she also declined to eat. The deceased, who then left the house, complained a great deal lately of a pain at her heart, and frequently said she thought she was nearly dead. She complained of nothing else. There was nothing the matter with her forehead when she was in the house on the previous day. That was the last time witness saw her alive. — By a Juror: It was between twelve and one o'clock on the previous day when deceased was at her house. She did not tell witness where she had slept the night before. — By Dr. Taylor: Deceased's breathing had been rather short for some time. About a fortnight previously, when she slept in witness's house, she could hardly walk upstairs to bed on account of her breathing. She had also a slight cough, and experienced some difficulty in swallowing. About a month since, when she was having dinner at witness's house, she said she thought she would choke. Deceased was in the habit of drinking, and had taken some before witness saw her on the previous day. — Mr. J. Taylor, surgeon, said he saw the deceased about half-past three on the previous afternoon. She was in the exact position described by the police officer and was quite dead. She had been dead but a very short time. Noticed a small wound on the right side of the forehead, from which a small quantity of blood was oozing. Deceased's face was livid. Noticed nothing else particularly at the time. Had since examined her personally and found no mark of external violence beyond the wound on the forehead, which appeared to be very slight. Could form no opinion as to the immediate cause of death: it lay between choking while eating the bread and cheese and disease of the heart. The appearance of deceased was consistent with either cause. — By a Juror: Did not think the mark on the forehead had anything to do with the cause of death. — By the Coroner : It appeared to him as if deceased had fallen on the floor. The wound was a recent one; it was a contused wound. — Miss Rollison, by Mr. Taylor: When the deceased coughed it was as though she were trying to get something up. She made a similar noise before eating the bread and cheese. — Mr. Taylor said he was inclined to believe that disease of the heart was the cause of death. — The Jury returned a verdict of "Died by the Visitation of God from disease of the heart." In the sudden death of Hannah Payne, the city has been relieved of the presence of one who for many years figured conspicuously in our Police Court — in fact so frequently that when she was in the dock for the hundredth time she expressed an opinion that the Bench had a right to pension her off— and who for the last seventeen years has been a not inconsiderable charge upon the rates of the city. There is no doubt Hannah, as she familiarly called herself in addressing others, was a confirmed dipsomaniac, and would do almost any thing to gratify her insatiable craving for drink. She has been in Chester about 17 years, and during that time has been 113 times before the Magistrates for being drunk and drunk and riotous, and we do not at all exaggerate when we say that during that period, between convictions, keep in the Workhouse, conveyance to and support in the City Gaol and House of Correction, Knutsford, she has cost the ratepayers in round numbers between £500 and £600. It was always a boast of Hannah, when before the Court, that no one could accuse her of dishonesty, and on one occasion she said, accompanying the remark by snapping her fingers, "No one can accuse me of stealing that much." The Chief Constable, however, reminded her of having been on one occasion sent to prison for a month for "walking away" with a pair of boots from the Workhouse but Hannah's perceptions as to the meaning of meum and teum with respect to Workhouse property were such that she did not look upon the transaction in the light of a robbery, and considered she had a moral, if not a legal, right to them, probably as she had worn them while in the House. During the early portion of Hannah's career in Chester she seemed almost to court the attentions of the police to lock her up, for as she said herself, "I lived like clover when in prison, and when Mr. Long was Governor, “God bless him." When the City Prison, however, was done away with, and the city female prisoners were relegated to Knutsford House of Correction, a very perceptible change came over Hannah's experience of prison life: a change which she was not slow to mention and comment upon. She had a mortal dread of Mr. Gallop, the Governor of the House of Correction, and of the rigid dietary and discipline to which she was subjected, in accordance with the rules of the Prison, and when charged with being drunk and riotous she would say to the Magistrates, with grim humour, " Ah, Major French (if he happened to be on the Bench), don't send Hannah to Knutsford; I will be kilt if you do. Oh, Mr. Williams, dear, dear, if you send Hannah to Knutsford, you will Gallop her to death." Notwithstanding this dread of Knutsford and the treatment she received there, Hannah's weakness for the bottle was so much greater than her apprehensions on the score of her treatment in Knutsford that she could not resist the temptation, and again and again found herself before the Magistrates only to be sent to that House of Correction of which she professed to have such an utter dislike. Hannah was convicted for the last time on the 28th October, 1873. Since then she has been living more or less at the Workhouse, occasionally discharging herself in order that she might visit her old haunts once more and obtain the means of gratifying her passion for drink. On one occasion Hannah was more communicative than usual previous to appearing before the "beaks," as she rather profanely termed those who dispensed justice and sent her "to that man Gallop" whom she avowed "clemmed" her, and gave a short account of her life, which we subjoin as nearly as possible as she delivered it: — " Hannah, yer honour, was born in the city of Limerick, God bless it, in a place called Bohabee. My maiden name is Smith and my mother's maiden name was O'Brien, and shure, alanna, Hannah recollects the time when Smith O'Brien was sintenced to be hanged and quarthered, and drawn on hurdles. Payne, my husband, was an officer's servant. I married him in 1831, and the regiment he was in went out to India in 1832. Hannah then went to Pilaloo Bridge, and afterwards went back to the swate city of Limerick and worked in a gentleman's family that I worked for before I got married. I worked in a Scotch family, and shure when they asked me why I came back I tould them I was a soldier's wife and was left behind. While there I got a letter saying that I had leave to go to India after Payne. I wint as far as Cork, my mother wid me, but I would go no farther. Ah! I didn't like to go, and I returned agin to the ould city of Limerick and wint to work in the family I left ; and, mind you,  Hannah could sow well then, and can now, Well, Payne was away eight years, and then came back wid a shilling a day pension. We wint to Somersetshire, for you must know Payne was a Somersetshire man. He died a sudden, and I having, only one girl wint to London. Ah, asthore, my daughter met a handsome man in London, Begorra, he was a Chester man, too, and I heard him say he came after her. Well, aoushla, Hannah remained twelve years in London, and I got my living by needlework. I lived in the Borough wid a man and his wife who was afterwards hung for shooting a man named Connell. I then came to Chester, and that is the cursed day I did. I walked 20 miles. I came here in April, '55, and my misfortune and trouble commenced then. I was married to Payne in 1831, and the regiment went out in. Well, as I was saying, I come to Chester to my sad misfortune, and here I used to make shirts. After awhile I got locked up. I dreamt the other night that it was on the Tarvin road, and I awoke and I thought I was at home in the city again. I spent my time in the City Gaol sewing old habits and other things. God bless the magistrates. Mr. Bage was a great frind of mine— the ould docthor, God bless him, he was a great frind of mine. He used to give me a pinch of snuff. He was a darlint man. The other doctor — Harrison — who has his teeth clean — l asked him for tea, and the magistrates gave me tea the next day; they bid me ask the docthor.  Mr. Long, God bless him, is a decent gossoon. Ah! it is a bad job for me they closed the City Gaol. As God is to judge me, I speak honestly the sintimints of my heart and mind when I say that when the officials saw me going to Knutsford the second time I thought they were going to ate me — they looked at me so. They ‘clem' you at Knutsford, and oh! as for that man Gallop, God deliver me from seeing him or his jail agin. I have been to Knutsford twice, and I don't wish for the honour of going the third time. When I came out the first time they paid my fare to Helsby Station ; but, wirra asthrue, they gave me nothing the last time, and poor Hannah had to walk 17 miles, every divil a step of the way. Ah! if you were at Knutsford you wouldn't recognise some of the Chester girls there. As for Jane Gough, she is as altered as possible, and as thin as a wafer. Kelsall got a letter from her mother, and she, poor thing, looked bad too. The raison is, asthore, they're too clemmed wid hunger. I'll tell you: I have tied my petticoats up three times in the day, and I got so little to eat in that starving hole that they have fallen off three times in the same day. I tell you, I don't want to go any more, and I hope the magistrates won't send me. I would rather be taken down to the Rooday, and there be shot, rather than be galloped to death in that way. God bless me, what is to become of Hannah at all, at all?" So ended Hannah's narrative of her life. What became of her is now well known.
Cheshire Observer – Saturday 11 July 1874
The Charge of Burglary. — Edward Jones, of Goss-street, was charged on remand with burglariously breaking into the dwelling-house of Elizabeth Hooley, and stealing there from a clock. There was also a charge against the prisoner of maliciously wounding a pony, but it was not proceeded with. — Prosecutrix deposed: I live at 18, Water Tower Street. On Saturday night last, at 11-45, I fastened the house up. The clock (produced) was hanging against the wall. I came down stairs on Sunday morning to see what time it was, but the clock was gone. The window and door were open. A bar had been taken off the window. I don't know the prisoner. — Police-Constable Gillard deposed : I was on duty on the City Walls at 3 o'clock on Sunday morning last. I saw the prisoner standing inside a stable door. I said "Hulloa!" and he said "Is it half-past three?" I said "It is just three," and he replied "It will be time to go to work very soon." I said "Yes, I suppose so, if you work on Sunday ; where do you work ? " He replied "at the boats." We were standing about twelve yards from Mrs. Hooley's house. — Detective-Sergeant Wallace deposed : I arrested the prisoner on Sunday afternoon last at his house in Goss-street. He was then in bed. I charged him with breaking into the house of Elizabeth Hooley and stealing a clock. He replied "I bought it from a man and woman whom I do not know, along with two black jackets and a coarse apron. I paid 23. 6d. for the clock and a shilling for the jackets. I was drunk and found myself at Stone Bridge this morning." I said to him, "Where did you sleep last night? " He said "At a stable near the" Northgate." I found the cloak (produced) hanging up in the prisoner's house. — On being called upon for his defence, prisoner made the following statement: — I was very drunk on Saturday night and I met a man and woman near Northgate-street with a clock and two jackets and a white apron. The man asked me if I would buy a clock, and I said " I don't know, let me look at it." He showed me the face and I asked him what he wanted for it. He said he would take what I gave, and I said I would give him 2s. He replied that he would kick it about the street before I should have it for 2s. I said I would give him 2s. 6d, and the woman said "let him have it; we've got to go to Birkenhead."—The Bench committed the prisoner for trial at the Assizes,' and declined to accept bail.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 24 October 1874
Police Promotion.— At the monthly meeting of the Watch Committee, on Thursday, P.C. A. Lindsay, No. 26, was promoted to the rank of sergeant in the City Police. Sergeant Lindsay has served nine years in the city force, and twenty-one years in the 42nd Highlanders (The Black Watch). He has a pension from his regiment, and is in possession of four medals and three clasps, viz., the Crimean, Turkish, Indian, and good conduct medals, with clasps for "Alma,' "Balaclava," and " Sebastopol.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 16 January 1875
THE LATE POLICE SERGEANT TOWELL. Alderman Williams moved, in accordance with the recommendation of the Watch Committee, "That a gratuity of £72 16s., to be paid out of the Police Superannuation Fund, be granted to the widow of Police Sergeant Patrick Towell." He said the City had lost the services of a valuable officer, and the Watch Committee now asked the Council to grant his widow a sum equal to one year's salary. PS Towell had been in the force 15 years and 137 days. Mr. S. Davies seconded the proposition, which was carried unanimously.
Cheshire Observer – Saturday 12 June 1875
CITY POLICE COURT. Sir T. G. Frost, and W. Johnson, Esq Saturday.— Before the Mayor (Mr. Aid. Roberts), A Careless Policeman. — George Heyward, a police- constable on trial, was charged by Sergeant Lindsay with neglect of duty. It appeared that defendant, on Friday night last, was on a beat in Handbridge, from which he had absented himself without leave. — Defendant said that he fell asleep, but the Bench convicted him of the offence, and he was fined 20s. and costs, with the usual alternative. The defendant was also dismissed from the Police Force.
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 witness (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 6 November 1875
THE SHOCKING SUICIDE IN CHESTER. On Thursday, the 28th ult., about ten o'clock in the evening, an elderly man named David Henry Thomson, commuted suicide by throwing himself from a four storey window of Mr. Robertson's Temperance Hotel, City Road, on to the Canal bank. The circumstances were briefly stated in our last issue. On Friday evening an Inquest was  held by Mr. J. Tatlock the city coroner, at the Crown Vaults, Seller-street, when some curious facts as to the deceased man's past, life and conduct were revealed, as will be seen by the following evidence. -  The first witness called was George T. Price, son of Mr. Price, living at Egerton-street, Chester. He said he identified the body of the deceased as that of his uncle, David Henry Hughes Thomson. Deceased was 56 years of age had been an American broker, and had retired from business. The last time he saw him alive was on Wednesday morning. Deceased, who was then staying at Mr. Robertson's temperance hotel, City Road asked him on Tuesday night last to sleep with him, and he did do, leaving him on Wednesday morning to go to his work. Deceased then seemed to be in good health. He had been staying with witness's parents in Egerton street for about a month previous. Witness could not account for deceased throwing himself from himself from the window; he did not threaten to do away with himself so far as witness was aware, and he appeared in a sensible frame of mind when he left him on Wednesday morning.  He believed his uncle had a small sum which would enable him to live in a poor way. There was some talk about sending him off to America, but witness didn’t know that his passage had been paid to go there though be was aware he was going some time or other. He had relations in England, and his wife lived in America. The reason why he went to live at the hotel was because witnesses father’s father's house was not large enough to accommodate him.
By a Juror : Deceased was in the habit of drinking a little brandy, but was perfectly sober on Tuesday night,
By Mr. Henry Charles Clarke, solicitor, coroner of Shrewsbury (who represented the deceased's relatives) : Went with his sister Ada to Mr. Robertson's hotel on Thursday night, about a quarter past nine o’clock to see deceased. Deceased was then in bed, but got up when witness's sister said she wanted to see him. He did not open the door, but said, “I don't know who you are; I don't want to see you." Deceased knew Miss Price well; there was nothing unusual in his voice when be said he did not know her nor wish to see her. Witness then said, "Ada, we won't bother with him; we will let him take his chance; and you can call again in the morning." Their object in going to the hotel was to deliver a message from their mother to the deceased.
By the Coroner: Didn't know why he used the expression about him taking his chance, and did not know what he might have meant by it. At a subsequent stage of the proceedings Price intimated to the Coroner that be did not use the words "we will let him take his chance." What be said was: " Ada, we'll not bother with him; let us go; and you can call again in the morning." He was sure these were the words he used.
By the Coroner: He left his (witness's) father's house because there was not sufficient accommodation; there had been no quarrel
Mr. J. Robertson, proprietor of the Temperance Hotel, City-road, said he was informed the deceased came to his hotel on Tuesday night along with the last witness. He saw deceased for the first time about half past six o'clock on Thursday evening. He was then paying for some things he had had. Witness did not speak to him. After paying the money he went up stairs and that was all witness saw of him until he was called to him as he lay on the canal side. He was then lying on his back in the middle of the cartway, his skull was fractured and his brain protruded, and he was quite dead Witness thought it a strange thing that a man should go to bed at half past six o'clock, and recognising the body as that of the man he had seen go upstairs at the time, he looked at once up to the window of the room he occupied, and saw it was wide open. Some one of his family went up to the room that night, but the door was locked, and witness let it remain so until the police should come. That (Friday) morning he and Detective Sergeant Wallace went to the door, and by forcing the key out of the lock and then drawing it outside under the door, they managed to unlock it. After this, however, they had some difficulty in forcing the door open, as two chairs had been placed against it and up against the mantelpiece. On getting into the room they found that deceased had occupied the bed; his clothes were lying in the ordinary way, and he had lifted the dressing table a little on one side from the window to give himself room to pass to the window as it were; and the window was wide open. Witness saw marks on the sill of the window as if the deceased's fingers had scraped along it.
By a Juror: Deceased appeared perfectly sober on Thursday night.
By Mr. Clarke: Considered it strange that deceased went to bed at six o'clock. Was told he had done so on the two previous evenings, and on Wednesday evening witness, on returning borne about nine o'clock, saw a light burning in the room occupied by deceased. Came to the conclusion at once, when he saw the body on the roadway, that it was the man who had been staying at his house. Should not have thought so much of his going to bed so early if he had had drink, but the man was quite sober.
Mary Parry, living at 41, Russell-street, wife of Henry Parry, a boatman, said she and her husband were coming along the canal side about a quarter to ten o'clock on Thursday night, and when opposite Mr. Robertson's hotel her husband nearly stumbled over something in the roadway. On looking it was found to be the dead body of a man, with the face to the ground, and with only a singlet, a pair of drawers, and a pair of socks on. Her husband immediately went for a policeman, and she stayed there while he was gone. On his return with a policeman the deceased was turned on his back, and they then saw clearly that he was dead.
Edward Johnson, constable No. 20 in the borough police force, said he was called to the canal side, where the deceased lay, by the husband of the last witness, about ten o'clock on Thursday night. On turning deceased over witness saw that his skull was fractured and that his brains protruded. The left wrist was also broken. Witness at once called Dr. Taylor, and when he arrived he pronounced life to be extinct, and the body was moved to the Crown Vaults. The window of the room occupied by the deceased was open, but there was no light. The height from the roadway was about 35 or 36 feet.
Detective-Sergeant Wallace deposed to having, on Friday morning, along with Mr. Robertson, entered the room of the deceased, and having found it in the condition described by that, witness. The marks on the window sill indicated to witness that deceased had slipped forward. He found in deceased's clothes 2s. 1d in money, a small gold chain and locket, with the likeness of a lady. On the dressing-table was a large parcel containing papers, and in his top coat, which was hanging up in the room and  another parcel containing papers, both parcels being sealed. He also found some letters in his pockets.
Mr. George Lee Fenwick, chief constable of Chester, said that on Wednesday evening last, a little before seven o'clock, he found the deceased at his office at the Town Hall waiting to see him. He asked what he wanted, and he replied that he wanted protection from his brother-in-law, Mr. Price. Witness asked what Mr. Price had done, or what had he threatened to do. Deceased replied that he had done nothing beyond being disagreeable, and added, "I'm afraid he will sperrit me away." Witness suspected his mind was affected, and he purposely drew him into a long conversation, in the course of which deceased gave him his history. He said he had been in America for 25 years, that his wife was living there now, somewhere near New York and that he had been sent to this country to float a mining concern, and to introduce some patent tramway rail. The mine scheme bad been a failure, and he found that the tramway rail was not entirely novel, and he advised his principals accordingly. They then cancelled his power of attorney, and left him "high and dry" without money or employment. He had been staying for a short time in Chester with Mr. Price, his brother-in- law. Witness could not gather, from him that his brother-in-law had ever threatened him or committed any overt act, but, after pressing him several times, he said he was afraid his brother-in-law would "chloroform" him and so have him removed. Witness explained to him there was no such thing possible if he were awake and resisted the operation. The conversation lasted half-an-hour, and the effect of it on witness's mind was that speculations bad affected the deceased mentally; but beyond the use of the expression of being afraid that he would be "sperrited away" or “chloroformed”, he was quite rational and intelligent. Witness asked if he took drink, and he apparently knowing the purpose of the question, said emphatically he did not; that, in fact, he was an abstemious man, and be also said he did not hold strong religious views. When going away deceased expressed his thanks to witness for the half-hour's cheerful conversation he had had, saying it had done him good, and that be would call again on the following morning. Witness offered to send Sergeant Wallace with him to Mr. Price's, but he declined the offer, saying it "might only sour his temper." He did not call upon witness on the following morning as he promised, but witness was told called during the afternoon or evening. Haying heard about chairs being placed at the back of his bedroom door, witness recollected, when he told deceased that they could not put him under chloroform while awake and if he resisted, that he said they might do it while he was asleep, but he would take care of that, and would blockade his door with chairs. Witness was of opinion that deceased was under the impression that Mr. Price had some sort of indefinable Influence over him.
By Mr. Clarke: Was not in the least surprised when he heard that deceased bad committed suicide.
By the Coroner: Did not see anything in him that would justify his being put under restraint, but believed his mind to be affected by speculations.
Sergeant Wallace here said he wished to add to his statement that he saw deceased on Wednesday evening in the inspectors office, and Inspector Farrell made the remark to him that be did not think deceased was "right”.
 Mr- Henry Charles Clarke, of Shrewsbury, was then sworn, and stated that the deceased was his uncle, and that for the last 26 years he had lived more or less in America, and had made 17 voyages backwards and forwards between this country and America. He returned in the month of June the last time to England for the purpose mentioned by Mr. Fenwick, and went to the Queen's Hotel, St. Martin's-le-Grand, at which place he (witness) knew deceased owed a bill, and the hotel people at present held what goods he was possessed of as a lien for the bill. Being turned out of that place he went to his brother's at Penge, and remained there some weeks, but from the course of conduct he pursued his brother ordered him away. He then either went to Manchester or Chester, and ultimately came to Shrewsbury, where he visited witness's father's house; he believed about a fortnight ago. Not having been friendly with him since 1870, he was not received with any amount of warmth, but money was given him the night he came, and he was sent to an hotel. On the following morning, about seven o'clock, before the inmates were up, he returned to the house, when he was told he would not be allowed to stay there, but that if be liked to return to his wife in America his passage would be provided, and witness believed his passage had actually been taken. Whilst in Shrewsbury he was very desperate. Witness did not think he ever drank in his life; but he was very violent, and threatened all manner of things to witness's mother and sister. Witness could not say whether he was suffering from any delusion, but if his opinion were to be asked he would say that he did not think the man had ever been sane. His life would fill a volume. Witness was not in the least surprised to learn by telegram that morning that he had committed suicide. When he left Shrewsbury he again went to Manchester, and thence to Chester. Witness then read two letters found on the deceased, from some of his relatives near Manchester, with respect to his return to America, reproaching him with misconducting himself, and protesting against being annoyed by him.
The Coroner then briefly summed up the evidence to the jury, and pointed out their course in arriving at a decision, and, after a short deliberation, the foreman announced that they had come to the conclusion that the deceased committed suicide whilst in an unsound state of mind.
 
 
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 had 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. (Thomas Cheers was a Stay-maker and Draper at Shoe-makers Row, Northgate Street) 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 undertake 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 he 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. He 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 prisoner being brought in. In a moment after 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, 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 out and Inspector 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 of the occurrence, said when stooping down to pick up her boots her cotton petticoat caught fire. Dr 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, but superficial, but they were very extensive. She was treated and went to sleep after having some anodynes which were given to her to ease the pain. She became much easier towards the morning, but died about a quarter to none that (Thursday) morning from shock. She gave to this witness a similar account of 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 he 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 up 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 ward was about half an hour. A Juryman remarked that it appeared the police out of humanity had provided prisoner with a fire, and that by some means her clothes caught fire and she was burnt. The Coroner, referred to one of the rules of the Police Station, read, “That prisoners in custody in the lockups 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 “It was a cold night”. The Coroner, “It was a very proper thing to do.” In summing up the case to the Jury, the Coroner described it as a very melancholy occurrence, but from the statements made by the deceased as to how the injuries were received, it appeared that it was an accident. A Juryman said it might have been otherwise if the fire had been guarded. Though he thought this was a misadventure, he could not help thinking if there had been a guard, the accident might not have occurred.  The Chief Constable said he would 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 future to erect a sort of bar which might be a fixture. The fire-place was specially built into the wall, and he could not very well understand not the accident happened. The Jury found a verdict to the effect that deceased did from shock caused a burn accidentally received.
 
Pall Mall Gazette – Tuesday 25 July 1876
A case involving a point of considerable importance to the police and the public came before the magistrates at the Chester city police-court on Saturday. A policeman was charged with assaulting an old woman, who appeared in court with her head enveloped in bandages. It appeared from the evidence for the complainant that on the evening of Saturday week she was going quietly on her way to fetch some flour, when she saw a fight between two policemen and a man whom they were endeavouring to take into custody. She got close to a wall at the back of the crowd just as the man effected his escape, when the defendant walked deliberately up to her and dealt her a blow with a knobbed stick which rendered her senseless, and she had to be carried off to the infirmary. Several witnesses were called, who swore that there was not the slightest provocation given to the defendant, who, upon being asked why he struck the old woman, said, "They were all a bad lot in that street." On behalf of the defendant it was urged that he was hitting at a man who had struck him, and the blow fell upon the complainant. After a long deliberation in private the magistrates said they were at variance on the subject and could not come to a decision. Here the case ended. The clerk, however, held out a hope that it would be reheard.
 
Manchester Evening News – Saturday 19 August 1876
 
A CHESTER POLICEMAN FINED FOR ASSAULT - The Chester city magistrates were occupied nine hours yesterday hearing a charge of assault preferred by Mary Cavanagh, an old woman, against Thomas Leech, an old member of the city police force. The case had acquired some notoriety from the fact that it had been previously brought before four of the city magistrates, who, after a long hearing, were equally divided in opinion, and because of a discussion which ensued on the case at the last Council meeting. The defendant was conveying a prisoner named Martin through the streets on the night of the 15th of July when Martin escaped and got clean away. The complainant was at the time passing quietly down the street to a shop to make some purchases, when she came face to face with Leech, who (as was alleged) lifted his stick and struck her such a violent blow on the head that she was knocked senseless and had to be carried away to the Infirmary.-      The defence was that while endeavouring to defend himself from a man who was kicking him, and at whom he aimed a blow, defendant accidentally struck the complainant.—The magistrates found the charge proved, and fined defendant 20s. and costs.
 
Cheshire Observer – Saturday 6 January 1877
A Constable Rewarded.— At the monthly meeting of the City Watch Committee, held on Thursday last, P.C. Snaith, No. 1, was awarded the badge of "merit' for bravery, and granted two guineas, as compensation for the injuries he received in the encounter on the Walls, between himself and a prisoner now awaiting trial at the Assizes.
 
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 subsequent police supervision.
Wrexham Advertiser - Saturday 09 June 1877
Wrexham Men Assaulting Chester Police. —At the Chester Police Court, on Friday week, Richard Roberts, shoemaker, and William Jones, labourer, both Wrexhamites, were charged with assaulting PC Kelly, nn Thursday night, and Thomas Jones, another labourer, from Wrexham, was charged with attempting to rescue. — Mr Greenwood, of the Axe Tavern, said the two first prisoners were billetted at his house for the first night, and asked to have the other with them. He agreed, and they went upstairs, but kicked up such a row that he had to get a policeman to turn them out P.C. Kelly deposed to expelling them from the house, and when he told them to go to the Barracks and get lodgings there, William Jones hit him back and knocked him down. One of the others came up and attempted to strike him, but witness served him in a like manner to his predecessor. When taking the two to the lockup, Thomas Jones attempted a rescue. — The magistrates fined each of them 20s and costs, or in default 14 days' imprisonment.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 08 December 1877
Police Promotion – Sergeant Lindsay, of the Chester Police Force, has been promoted to the rank of Inspector Dann, deceased. Inspector a has served in the City Police Force about twelve and a half years, previous to which he held the rank of non-commissioned officer in the 42 Regiment (The Black Watch), and retired with a pension, having been decorated with four medals and clasps for his distinguished service during the Crimean War and Indian Mutiny.
Aldershot Military Gazette – Saturday 24 August 1878
RIOTOUS PROCEEDINGS AT CHESTER. The Chester magistrates were occupied for some hours on Saturday last hearing charges of and assault against three men, arising out of a curious case. Tuesday and Wednesday evenings Spital-walk, Boughton, was invaded by a noisy crowd, numbering about 600 persons on the first night and 1,000 on the second, which proceeded, by effigy-burning, to mark their reprobation of the conduct of an elderly woman, the wife of a very respectable man and the mother of six children, who stole all his earnings and eloped to America with a young man oft twenty. Her partner in the flight spent all her money and then deserted her. She returned on Tuesday, and the riots commenced immediately. When intelligence was conveyed to the police-station some five or six constables went to the scene of the disturbance, and endeavoured to appease the mob, and seized a number of effigies. The crowd was a good-natured one, but despite this fact Police-Constable, named Lough, belaboured them with his stick until in directed by his Serjeant not to do so. Lough now swore that he did not use his stick, and Serjeant Good was called from his bed to give evidence against him. In the result all the defendants were bound to keep the peace, whilst the Mayor said they had decided to suspend the policeman, and in the meantime they would consider what other step they should take in regard to him.
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 hearing 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. Williams, F. A. Dickson, W. McEwen, J. Oakes, and H. Churton, 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 he 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 him 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 Act 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 that 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 back 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 back, 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 Railway 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 after- wards 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 house 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 had 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 had stayed there about half an hour. He was about three-quarters of an hour in the crowd. He bad 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. — Re-examined: The effigy was about 5ft. 10in. long, including the stick. It was simply a "bag." Luther Maddocks, Spital Walk, stoker at the Water-works, said he 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 there among the crowd. He was "raking the fire" when he was taken in charge by defendant, who laid hold of him by the back of the neck. Saw defendant strike him on the 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 the crowd. The 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 Saturday, the 17th instant. He heard defendant give his evidence, and heard him deny that he had struck anyone. — Cross-examined: He was in the crowd till about eleven o'clock. He could not say when defendant struck Mitchell. No one could say who lighted the images, or where they came from. Was sure that Mitchell was raking a fire when defendant came up he was not hoisting the effigy. The crowd 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 the effigies were burnt. He was there from the commencement. Saw Mitchell there between nine and ten o'clock. There was a great crowd about at the time. Mitchell was stirring the fire up, when defendant laid hold of him by the collar. The crowd then closed in towards them. Saw him struck on the hat by the defendant after the crowd crushed towards them. Sergeant Good afterwards came up, and told the constables to desist using their sticks, which they did. Did not hear Mitchell complain to Good.—Cross-examined: Mitchell refused at first to give his name, but eventually did so. Inspector Lindsay came up before Sergeant Good, P.C. 9, 28, and 26 used their sticks. He was about four yards from defendant at the time he struck Mitchell. Mitchell was stirring the fire when defendant struck him with what appeared to be a black walking stick. William Cooper, joiner, 14, Tarvin-road, said he was in Spital Walk on the 14th August. Saw Mitchell there, and a policeman take hold of him. 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 Mitchell there, opposite to where he stood. Saw him struck by a police officer, but could not say who the officer was. Sergeant Good was there and told the 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 there. 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 complained to him of having been struck, and one of them (Steen) had his helmet knocked off. David Roberts, gardener to Mr. John Thompson, Boughton Hall, said he was in Spital-walk on the night of the effigy burning. He saw two fires, and saw three policemen there in conversation together, but he would not say who they were. Saw them using their 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 them. William Calder Grant said: I am a professional reporter, and was in the police court, reporting, on Saturday, the 17th instant, when a charge 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 him asked in cross-examination whether he had struck anyone. I produce my shorthand notes taken on that occasion, and find from them that 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 also called his attention to what Maddocks had said. In reference to that part I have only on my notes, "P.C. Lough denied using his stick." By Mr. Marshall: 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 the general use of the stick. Re-examined by Mr. Churton: I have on my notes of Lough's evidence the words in reference to Mitchell, " I arrested him." Arthur Smith: l am 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 notes 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 witness named Maddocks had given his 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 me the whole time is here. I arrested this man. The crowd were trying to crush us into the fire." Mr. Sharp, the magistrate's clerk, swore to the defendant giving his evidence on oath on Saturday, the 17th. He remembered Lough being recalled, but he could not speak as to the words used in reply to the Mayor. He had not taken a note. This concluded the case for the prosecution. Mr. Marshall submitted that the evidence as laid before them 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 practically made by the prosecution in this matter was that a rap given by a policeman with a cane was material towards determining that question. He submitted that from the evidence that was by no means so. The question was whether the defendants had the intention to incite the mob to burn effigies and so create a disturbance of the peace. The blow inflicted on Mitchell had nothing whatever to do with the disturbance, and therefore the alleged perjury 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. Marshall, in opening the case for the defence, said he was under considerable difficulty in appearing, in consequence of the decision of the magistrates to prosecute. He presumed from the intimation given at the last sitting that this prosecution was undertaken in order to give defendant facilities for clearing his character 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 disapproval of the peccadillo’s of a wife who had run away from her 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 object 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 interference did not take place until three quarters of an hour after the disturbance began. A number of persons from the neighbourhood, men who had left their work, and who did not mind having a bit of fun congregated together to put the neighbourhood in uproar, which had led first to the complaint which had been made in that court, and then to this unfortunate prosecution for perjury. When the first witness got into Spital-walk the fun had just begun. There was what they called an image or an effigy, really a bale of straw soaked in paraffin, for the purpose of a moral demonstration. Now it was clear that if the police had not interfered a thousand people collected together with that mischievous intention might have put the whole neighbourhood in flames. This was what was called a moral demonstration! The police go down into the neighbourhood to save the people from having their houses pulled over their ears, and the people about there who were attempting to amuse themselves at their neighbours' expense turn round upon them, and, thinking they have caught one of them tripping, determine that he 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 the top of his head he did not know, but he should think not. When he complained to Inspector Lindsay he complained of a blow on his forehead, but when his forehead was examined there was no mark there. Sergeant Good was called 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 the evidence given by Mr. Smith that 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 had completely broken down. The prosecution was clearly an afterthought, and it would be a great gratification to the defendant to show that in this matter he had been libelled, and that the charge was wholly untrue. He hoped to have his dismissal at the hands of their worships 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 them. None of them had staves. He had a cane. The defendant also had 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 then been brought out. Steen and he, when they saw the other constables being jostled in the crowd, went to their 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 him, 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 he 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 him 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 he was there. Heard him tell the police to "Keep the sticks quiet, boys." He would swear positively he 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 the time, and continued to be so the rest of the evening. He was there about half an hour before Mitchell was arrested. He was close 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 head. He had no hat on. He did not see the defendant strike Mitchell. He should have seen him if he had done so. He (witness) was struck with a lump of something on the back, 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 that blow was accidental. He gave no other "accidental, friendly taps." Never heard Mitchell complain of the blow.      Inspector Lindsay said it was shortly after seven when he went to Spital Walk, and he remained there until eleven o'clock. It was about eight o'clock 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. The first he saw of Mitchell was in the custody of defendant, who had a cane. P.C. Lloyd was behind defendant at the time, and had another man in custody. Both had their sticks "elevated." He told them to take them down, and they did so. The crowd were hooting, jostling, and shoving them about as much as they could. He considered 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 had 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 when he came up, and he did not see it anywhere. He complained of being struck, but did not say where. He told him he had not been struck since 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 occasion 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 defendant strike anyone. If he had struck anyone he would have seen 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) Mitchell 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 Mayor: 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 anybody. 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 about a quarter to eleven near the vaults. By Mr. Churton: Could not say whether it was a comic 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. Churton: What made you ask if you had struck Mitchell? Witness: I don't know. He might think I did it. Mr. Churton: 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 that. (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 the 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 crowd. They were very disorderly, and were pushing and jostling towards the police. Mr. Churton did not cross-examine. James McDonell was in Spital-walk on the night of the 14th. He saw Mitchell in the custody of Lough before Murphy came up. Inspector Lindsay was there at this time, and he asked Mitchell 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 struck, and Sergt. Good asked him who it was, and he made a reply that he didn't know. Witness was struck with gravel or mud in the face. Cross-examined: Heard Sergeant Good say "Put down them sticks." Mr. Churton: 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 anyway and they put down their sticks. This was the case for the defence. Mr. Churton then replied on the evidence for the Magistrates then retired, the time being ten minutes after seven o'clock. After an absence of about 20 minutes they returned to Court. The Mayor then said : — Mr. Marshall, the Magistrates, 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 of very strange swearing on both sides. But under the circumstances, believing we would be perfectly justified in giving the young man the benefit of any doubt we had, the Magistrates have come to the decision to ask me to tell you that they 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. The hearing 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 proceedings. When the decision was given there were some applause and hisses, which were however at once suppressed.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 15 December 1877
CHESTER TOWN COUNCIL.      A monthly meeting of the Town Council was held at the Town Hall on Wednesday.      The Watch Committee also recommended that a gratuity of £88 8 0 be paid out of the Police Superannuation fund to the widow of Police Inspector Edward Dann, recently deceased. Alderman Williams, in moving the adoption of the recommendation, said this was a painful subject he had to deal with in giving expression to the regret, he was sure, of the whole Council and the whole town at the great loss the police force had sustained in the death of Inspector Dann. He (the speaker) felt perfectly confident that every gentleman around that table would have noticed the smart and intelligent manner in which Inspector Dann always performed his duties, and his death was a very serious loss indeed to the Chief Constable. (Hear, hear.) He was sure they might offer the sympathy of the Council to his widow and her family, and he asked them with all proper feeling of condolence and respect to enlarge their sympathy by this action, and hand over to Mrs. Dann for herself and her family the sum of £88 8 0 which was the sum allowed from the superannuation fund. (Hear, hear.) Mr. Hughes, in seconding the motion, said he shared the feelings of Alderman Williams, and he never saw any resolution passed with so great unanimity, nor so large an amount of sympathy in that committee, as was expressed for the family of Inspector Dann. (Hear, hear.) The Mayor, in putting the motion, heartily agreed with the remarks of Alderman Williams. The death of an able man like Inspector Dann was a great loss to the city, and they sympathised with the widow in her bereavement. (Hear, hear.) The recommendation was then passed, the Deputy Clerk stating that it would have to come up at the next meeting for confirmation.
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 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 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 have 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 hearing 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. Willams, F. A. Dickson, W. McEwen, J. Oakes, and H. Churton, 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 he 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 occasion (sic) 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 him 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 Act 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 hearing 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 being 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 that 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 back 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 back, 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 house 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 had 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 had 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. — Re-examined: The effigy was about 5ft. 10in. 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 there among the crowd. He was "raking the fire" when he was taken in charge by defendant, who laid hold of him by the back of the neck. Saw defendant strike him on the 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 the crowd. The 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 Saturday, the 17th instant. He heard defendant give his evidence, and heard him deny that he bad struck anyone. — Cross-examined: He was in the crowd till about eleven o'clock. He could not say when defendant struck Mitchell. No one could say who lighted the images, or where they came from. Was sure that Mitchell was raking a fire when defendant came up; he was not hoisting the effigy. The crowd 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 the effigies were burnt. He was there from the commencement. Saw Mitchell there between nine and ten o'clock. There was a great crowd about at the time. Mitchell was stirring the fire up, when defendant laid hold of him by the collar. The crowd then closed in towards them. Saw him struck on the hat by the defendant after the crowd crushed towards them. Sergeant Good afterwards came up, and told the constables to desist using their sticks, which they did. Did not hear Mitchell complain to Good.—Cross-examined: Mitchell refused at first to give his name, but eventually did so. Inspector Lindsay came up before Sergeant Good, P.C. 9, 28, and 26 used their sticks. He was about four yards from defendant at the time he struck Mitchell. Mitchell was stirring the fire when defendant struck him with what appeared to be a black walking stick. William Cooper, joiner, 14, Tarvin-road, said he was in Spital Walk on the 14th August. Saw Mitchell there, and a policeman take hold of him. 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 Mitchell there, opposite to where he stood. Saw him struck by a police officer, but could not say who the officer was. Sergeant Good was there and told the 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 there. 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 complained to him of having been struck, and one of them (Steen) had his helmet knocked off. David Roberts, gardener to Mr. John Thompson, Boughton Hall, said he was in Spital-walk on the night of the effigy burning. He saw two fires, and saw three policemen there in conversation together, but he would not say who they were. Saw them using their 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 them. William Calder Grant said: I am a professional reporter, and was in the police court, reporting, on Saturday, the 17th instant, when a charge 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 him asked in cross-examination whether he had struck anyone. I produce my shorthand notes taken on that occasion, and find from them that 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 also called his attention to what Maddocks bad said. In reference to that part I have only on my notes, "P.C. Lough denied using his stick." By Mr. Marshall: 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 the general use of the stick. Re-examined by Mr. Churton: 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 notes 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 witness named Maddocks had given his 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 me the whole time is here. I arrested this man. The crowd were trying to crush us into the fire." Mr. Sharp, the magistrate's clerk, swore to the defendant giving his evidence on oath on Saturday, the 17th. He remembered Lough being recalled, but he could not speak as to the words used in reply to the Mayor. He had not taken a note. This concluded the case for tbe prosecution. Mr. Marshall submitted that the evidence as laid before them 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 practically made by the prosecution in this matter was that a rap given by a policeman with a cane was material towards determining that question. He submitted that from the evidence that was by no means so. The question was whether the defendants had the intention to incite the mob to burn effigies and so create a disturbance of the peace. The blow inflicted on Mitchell had nothing whatever to do with the disturbance, and therefore the alleged perjury 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. Marshall, in opening the case for the defence, said he was under considerable difficulty in appearing, in consequence of the decision of the magistrates to prosecute. He presumed from the intimation given at the last sitting that this prosecution was undertaken in order to give defendant facilities for clearing his character 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 disapproval of the ‘peccadillos’ of a wife who had run away from her 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 object 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 interference did not take place until three quarters of an hour after the disturbance began. A number of persons from the neighbourhood, men who had left their work, and who did not mind having a bit of fun congregated together to put the neighbourhood in uproar, which had led first to the complaint which had been made in that court, and then to this unfortunate prosecution for perjury. When the 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 the purpose of a moral demonstration. Now it was clear that if the police had not interfered a thousand people collected together with that mischievous intention might have put the whole neighbourhood in flames. This was what was called a moral demonstration! The police go down into the neighbourhood to save the people from having their houses pulled over their ears, and the people about there who were attempting to amuse themselves at their neighbours expense turn round upon them, and, thinking they have caught one of them tripping, determine that he 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 htop of his head he did not know, but he should think not. When he complained to Inspector Lindsay be complained of a blow on his forehead, but when his forehead was examined there was no mark there. Sergeant Good was called 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 the evidence given by Mr. Smith that 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 completely broken down. The prosecution was clearly an afterthought, and it would be a great gratification to the defendant to show that in this matter he had been libelled, and that the charge was wholly untrue. He hoped to have his dismissal at the hands of their worships 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 them. None of them had staves. He had a cane. The defendant also had 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 then been brought out. Steen and he, when they saw the other constables being jostled in the crowd, went to their 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 him, 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 he 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 him 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 he was there. Heard him tell the police to "Keep the sticks quiet, boys." He would swear positively he 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 the time, and continued to be so the rest of the evening. He was there about half an hour before Mitchell was arrested. He was close 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 head. He had no hat on. He did not see the defendant strike Mitchell. He should have seen him if he had done so. He (witness) was struck with a lump ff something on the back, 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 that blow was accidental. He gave no other "accidental, friendly taps." Never heard Mitchell complain of the blow. Inspector Lindsay said it was shortly after seven when he went to Spital Walk, and he remained there until eleven o'clock. It was about eight o'clock 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. The first he saw of Mitchell was in the custody of defendant, who had a cane. P.C. Lloyd was behind defendant at the time, and had another man in custody. Both had their sticks "elevated." He told them to take them down, and they did so. The crowd were hooting, jostling, and shoving them about as much as they could. He considered 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 had 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 when he came up, and he did not see it anywhere. He complained of being struck, but did not say where. He told him he had not been struck since 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 occasion 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 defendant 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.) Mitchell 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 Mayor: 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 about a quarter to eleven near the vaults. By Mr. Churton: Could not say whether it was a comic 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. Churton: What made you ask if you had struck Mitchell? Witness: I don't know. He might think I did it. Mr. Churton: 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 that. (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 the 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 crowd They were very disorderly, and were pushing and jostling towards the police. Mr. Churton did not cross-examine. PC James McDonell was in Spital-walk on the night of the 14th. He saw Mitchell in the custody of Lough before Murphy came up. Inspector Lindsay was there at this time, and he asked Mitchell 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 struck, and Sergt. Good asked him who it was, and he made a reply that he didn't know. Witness was struck with gravel or mud in the face. Cross-examined: Heard Sergeant Good say "Put down them sticks." Mr. Churton: 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 anyway and they put down their sticks. This was the case for the defence. Mr. Churton then replied on the evidence for the Magistrates then retired, the time being ten minutes after seven o'clock. After an absence of about 20 minutes they returned to Court. The Mayor then said: — Mr. Marshall, the Magistrates, 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 of very strange swearing on both sides. But under the circumstances, believing we would be perfectly justified in giving the young man the benefit of any doubt we had, the Magistrates have come to the decision to ask me to tell you that they 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. The 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 proceedings. When the decision was given there were some applause and hisses, which were however at once suppressed.
Wrexham Advertiser – Saturday 26 October 1878
THREATENING TO MURDER A SWEETHEART At the Chester Police Court, Joseph Coleclough and John Evans have been charged with threatening to murder Mary Hughes. It appeared that Coleclough, meeting Miss Hughes a short time ago, paid his addresses to her, representing himself to be the son of a London tradesman. They became engaged, when Miss Hughes found out that Coleclough was a bugler in the Cheshire Militia, and at once broke off the intimacy. This so disappointed Coleclough that he threatened to take her life, and on one occasion actually struck her in the mouth. She summoned him, but afterwards withdrew the charge on his promising not further to interfere with her. On Thursday morning one of the young ladies at the shop where she was engaged handed her a letter containing a sheet of mourning note-paper. On it was clumsily drawn a coffin, and beneath it the word, printed in large letters, "Prepare!" The sheet further contained objectionable language and a threat that she had not long to live, and six crosses, with the words, "The kisses of death." From investigations made by Detective Wallace, it appeared that Evans, another bugler, wrote the letter, at the barracks, at Coleclough's dictation. The magistrates remanded the prisoners for the production of further evidence.
Observer - Saturday 8 February
A Gallant Policeman Rewarded. — At the monthly meeting of the Chester Watch Committee, held on Thursday last, the conduct of Police Constable James Murphy was brought under their notice. About half-past ten on the night of the 17th January, when pasting along Frodsham-street, Murphy heard cries for help near the canal bridge. He ran to the spot, and found a number of people on the bridge, who said there was a man in the water. Murphy, though he saw a man's head disappearing on the opposite side of the canal, at once plunged in near Mr. Hughes' shops, and succeeded in getting hold of him, and held his head and chest over the water for about ten minutes, when a boat arrived. The man was attended to, but died a few days afterwards in the Infirmary from inflammation of the lungs, the effect of the immersion. Murphy was highly complimented by the chairman, and awarded a gratuity of £3.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 21 June 1879
THE CHESTER TRAGEDY. THE ADJOURNED INQUEST.
The adjourned inquest upon 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, City 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.      The 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.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 12 July 1879
SERIOUS STABBING CASE IN CHESTER. COMMITTAL OF ACCUSED TO THE ASSIZES. Thomas Williams, labourer, Charles-Street, was charged at the City Police Court, yesterday (Friday), before the Mayor (L. Gilbert, Esq ), J. Oakes, T. Q. Roberts, and W. Farish, Esqrs., on remand from Tuesday last, with wounding William Smith, brick-setter, Pitt-Street, with intent to do bodily harm. Mr. Cartwright prosecuted, and Mr. Churton defended. The following evidence was led :— James Brown, labourer, Higginson 's-Court, Brook- Street, repeated the testimony he gave on the occasion the prisoner was first before the magistrates to justify a remand. He was in company with the prosecutor on the night of Saturday, the 28th June, and as they entered the Kaleyards they met the prisoner and his wife and Mrs. Beech, her sister, the prisoner being a little in advance. Smith stopped to speak to Mrs. Beech, and Mrs. Williams said to her, "What do you want stopping talking to these scamps for?" and then turning to witness said, "You would not lend our Tommy’s shovel in the coal yard." Witness said to her, "Go to; what's that to do with you." She came back and bit him in the face, and he then went to ask her husband what she had bit him for. He did not see the husband, and came back when he saw Smith and the prisoner fighting. They were both on the ground, and witness picked Smith up. They got fighting again and he again parted them, put on Smith's coat, and took him to Cow-lane Bridge, leaving him there while he returned to the Kaleyards to look for his hat. He could not find the hat, and when be returned to Smith he found him opposite the way to Botany Bay, and heard him say, "The knife; I'm stuck." He saw the prisoner close to Smith, and as he came away from him he stooped as if to pick up something, and then ran away along Botany Bay. Cross-examined -. Didn't hear what passed between Mrs. Beech and Smith, nor Mrs. Williams complain, about an expression that Smith had used to her sister, nor Smith ask him to strike her. John Davies, labourer, 36, Williams-street, said he was in company with James Handles coming down Frodsham Street on the night in question, and when opposite the Kaleyards heard the prisoner's wife say, " If you tell me to go to I'll smash your face." She said this as she was leaving Brown and Smith, who were talking to Mrs. Beech. Witness then saw the prisoner come from the direction of Cow Lane Bridge and hit Smith in the face, and they fought for about a quarter of an hour. They were separated, and Smith went with another man across the bridge. Witness went after them over the Bridge, and heard the prosecutor say, "Oh, the coward ! I'm stabbed." Witness opened his vest and saw blood running down. He subsequently went with Smith to the Infirmary. James Randles, 5, Pitt-street, said he was in company with the last witness on the night in question, and corroborated his evidence He added that at the conclusion of the fight at the Kaleyards he heard the prisoner say he had had enough. Prosecutor then said, "You’ll knife me, will you ?" Prisoner and his party went towards the bridge first, being followed by Smith and his party. Witness followed, and when be got up to the prosecutor, just over the bridge, he saw he was bleeding. Prosecutor said, "Look here, the coward has stabbed me." William Henry Johnson, baker, 7, Gloucester-street, said he saw the fight in the Kaleyards, and the prisoner and his party go away towards the bridge, followed by the prosecutor a few yards behind on the other side. He came up a few minutes later and heard Smith call out, "Oh ! here's a wound, I'm stabbed. Prosecutor then fell into witness's arms. John Hughes, shunter, living at 50, Faulkner -Street, Bishopsfield, corroborated, and added that when Smith and the prisoner were separated, but during the squabble, he heard the prisoner say to his wife, "Where's the knife? I'll knife him." He saw the prisoner subsequently, when he got over the bridge, run away from the prosecutor, who told witness that he had been stabbed. He ran after the prisoner some distance, but he disappeared, and witness could not follow him. Cross-examined : Was perfectly sober. Did not think either Smith or Williams was sober. Robert McCaughie, mattress maker, 49 George-street, said he saw a scuffle between the two men on the top of the Cow-lane Bridge about the time in question. Did not at the time recognise them, but saw one man run at the other, knock him down, and then run away down Union-terrace, and immediately after he heard one of them say, " I'm stuck," or " I'm struck." Did not think it was the man who ran away. Alfred Leonard, butcher, 51 Gloucester-street, said he saw a row going on, on the opposite side of the bridge to Botany Bay on this night. He went close to, and saw something like a knife drop near to a man who was stabbed, whose coat and waistcoat were open. This man said, "See what the b....y coward has done; he's stabbed me." He then went across the road and leaned on the railing at the end of Botany Bay, and two men came and took him away. Witness did not identify any of these present at the time. P.C. Salmon said he got to the place of the fight about twenty minutes to twelve, and saw the prosecutor coming up Frodsham Street. He took him to the Infirmary. Detective-Sergeant Nixon deposed to arresting the prisoner in Milton-street on Sunday morning, about one o'clock in the company of Sergeant Price. The latter said, “ You're the man we want." The prisoner did not reply. When they had taken him a few yards he said, "Oh, I may as well face it out now." When charged at the Police Office by Price he said, " Oh, its all right, I live in the town, No. 30, Charles-street." Witness examined the prisoner’s hands and found some moist blood on them. There was a spot of blood on his waistcoat, and one or two on his shirt. The prisoner's top lip was swollen as if he had been struck in the mouth. This was all the evidence for the prosecution, and the prisoner was then formally charged. Mr. Churton said the prisoner reserved his defence, and would call no witnesses at this stage. The prisoner was then committed to take his trial at the ensuing Assizes, bail being refused.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 13 September 1879
The below is extracted from the Monthly Meeting of the Council held at the Town Hall on Wednesday last
The Watch Committee recommended that the police force of the city be increased by two men from October next, subject to the approval of the Home Secretary. Alderman Williams, in moving the adoption of the recommendation, said it was Colonel Elgee, Inspector of Police, who suggested that in consequence of the increase of building accommodation in the city and of the population, that they should increase their force by two. Mr. Salisbury said his impression was that they wanted a great deal more than two. Things were not in a very satisfactory state, and the police could not be everywhere. He did not wish to find fault with the way in which they were managed, but the ratepayers were not at all happy iv their minds. (Laughter) There were all sorts of people going about Chester at all sorts of times, and he was not sure that it would not be better — and he said so the other day to a friend of him — that he should give notice to abolish the police force altogether and get in its place a volunteer force — (laughter), — for he had himself been troubled within the last three weeks by about fifty men and boys knocking about his place, pulling everything to pieces, and stealing everything on which they could lay their hands. He was afraid to do what most people would do under the circumstances— take hold of those people and shut them up. He was afraid he would get into trouble if he did so. The other day, after considerable difficulty and a good deal of running, several of the boys were captured, and they sent for the Saltney police officer, and were informed that he had left at ten o'clock that morning and would not be back until about ten o'clock at night, as he was  engaged at the cattle show. On another day several more were caught, and on the Saltney officer being sent for, he said he was very sorry he could not attend, as he had to be at the horse fair. There was no use whatever in their asking for additional police, unless they got a sufficient number to attend to the city. If it was necessary that the police should attend the fairs, all right; but don't take a policeman from the place where he was permanently stationed. What was the use of putting the sign "Saltney police force" over the policeman's house at Saltney, when he was not there? There was nothing there but the sign, and yet they were paying for a police force there. Now the sign was of no earthly use. Either take it away, or make some arrangement by which they could keep a policeman in the place. There were a great number of widow ladies living in Hough Green. (Mr. Cartwright: (And spinsters.) He didn't know about spinsters; but there were widows living there, and the other night one of these was disturbed, and on getting up she saw by the light of the moon, three men in her garden. Of course, she was frightened out of her wits, but the same thing occurred at other places in that neighbourhood, and when they proposed to add two men only to their police force, why it was quite absurd. They wanted a great many more. The population of Chester must now be about 40,000, and how many policemen were there at present on the force? (Alderman Williams: Thirty-eight) And they wanted to increase it to forty, he supposed, on the principle of having one officer to every thousand of the population. Did that forty embrace the superior officers of the force? Alderman Williams: It embraces the sergeants and inspectors, but not the Chief Constable. Mr. Salisbury said there ought to be forty men apart from the officers. There must be something in the matter that Alderman Williams did not like to tell them, and when Colonel Elgee told them they should have two more men, he (Mr. Salisbury) undertook to say that they should apply for more than that number. Alderman Williams said if they applied for more they would not get their Government allowance back. Mr. Salisbury: Ob, hang the Government! (Hear, hear, and loud laughter.) He should like to put a question to Alderman Williams. Don't you want more than two men? Alderman Williams: Certainly. Mr. Salisbury: You should have told us what you had got to say in the matter; but, as a rule, when chairmen of committees in this Corporation get up and ask you to approve of a particular thing they take care not to tell you why you should approve of it without having a long discussion. So it is in this case. Alderman Williams proposes that the recommendation of the committee should be confirmed, but now suggests that, in the opinion of the committee, we should have more than the number proposed to be added to the force. Now they are answerable not only for the peace and well-being of this place, but we blame them if the police force do not fulfil their duties to the citizens of Chester ; and unless there's an absolute necessity to have the present motion carried at once, I would refer the matter back to the Watch Committee to ascertain how many additional policemen the ratepayers should appoint. (Hear, hear.) Mark my words, no sooner are these men employed than you will want an extra superintendent or something of that sort— (laughter) — and it is far better before we are committed to any scheme of this kind, that we should know what we had to provide for next year's expenditure. I want the whole matter complete, and unless Alderman Williams tells me it is absolutely necessary that the resolution should pass as it stands, I will propose as an amendment that the matter be referred back to the Watch Committee to report as to what they consider should be the strength of the force for the protection of life and property in the city. Alderman Williams said he should be very glad to be able to say that the committee would take the suggestion of Mr. Salisbury into consideration. Colonel Elgee had suggested that they should add two to the force, and if the Corporation would only grant them more money, which he thought was most desirable, they should be only too glad to take the subject of a greater increase in the police force into their consideration. Alderman Roberts seconded the proposal of Mr. Salisbury, and said they were in this dilemma, that if they went before "this imperial Colonel Elgee" he would say, "I can't grant more than 1 in 1000." Now, he (Alderman Roberts) thought they were very inadequately protected, and the Watch Committee were aware of this. We were not sufficiently protected because we were under Government inspection centralization and red tape he should call it — (laughter) — and he should be glad if they would appoint as many men as they required. If the Government would not pay, the ratepayers would, he thought, be very willing to pay for the proper protection of life and property. If "this paternal Government " took the police into their own hands where would the citizens be P Mr. Salisbury: Better by far. Ald. Roberts: Worse by far. If we want additional policemen let us put our hands into our own pockets. Mr. Churton, as a member of the Watch Committee, was bound to say that that was the first time he had heard of any outrage being committed, or of persons being frightened out of their wits. He always thought Saltney was one of the most enlightened portions of the city, and he was sorry to find that that was not true. If they wanted an additional policeman in Saltney, they must let them have one, and Mr. Salisbury and Alderman Roberts ought to be sworn in as special constables. Why it would be the finest thing out. (Laughter.) But, joking apart, be thought it was very desirable that their police force should be increased.  Mr. Salisbury said he would be sworn in on this clear understanding, that they should not have any person like Mr. Churton in the force, for his (Mr. Salisbury's) experience was that he was always ready to swear, but whenever he was wanted he was never to be found. (Laughter) Mr. Hughes suggested that it would be desirable to divide the resolution, and to bring in Mr. Salisbury's amendment as a rider which the Committee would be very glad to consider. For the last few years half the expense of the police force, in common with other places, had been paid by the nation, and, therefore, before the committee made any change unquestionably they must have the sanction of those who paid half the expense. As a committee, they had acted entirely on the recommendation of Colonel Elgee, who, knowing the requirements of the police force in other parts of the kingdom, thought that there should be an addition of two officers to their force. Mr. Salisbury thought if the matter were referred back to the committee he had no doubt the Government would fall iv with any suggestion the Corporation might make in the matter. On the other hand, if the Council were to have only two additional officers now the chances were that they would find it very difficult to get four hereafter, and on the whole he thought they had better adhere to the amendment. Mr. Cartwright said he believed it was a fact that there was not at present a sufficient number of police- officers in the city, and he thought it was desirable that the matter should be referred back to the committee for consideration, and if they thought more than two men should be appointed, why, let them have them at once. Alderman Williams said it was pressing that the two additional officers should be appointed at once, for if they were not appointed now they would be unable to get the Government grant. Mr. Churton suggested that the recommendation should be passed, but that the committee don't take any action until they have taken Mr. Salisbury's suggestion into consideration. Alderman Williams said the committee were quite willing to consider Mr. Salisbury's amendment, and they would have a special meeting of the Watch Committee next week to consider the matter, with the Chief Constable. The present application was pressing; but, at the same time, he thought it was very desirable that they should have more men, if they could only obtain the sanction of the Government. Alderman R. Frost thought they ought to secure the two additional men now, and let the committee bring forward another scheme. He cordially endorsed all that Mr. Salisbury had said as to the desirability of having a larger force ; but, at the same time, he did not think they should altogether place too much reliance upon the statement as to people being seen about houses with a bad intent. Sometimes Cupid assisted them with his wings in flying, about the house. (Laughter) Mr. Salisbury spoke about widows; but there were also some pretty maids about there. (Laughter) Mr. Salisbury: You see he knows. (Loud laughter) Alderman Williams: We want these two men now, and we will hold over the application to the Government for the two until the suggestion of Mr. Salisbury is considered. On this understanding the recommendation of the committee was unanimously adopted.
Cheshire Observer – Saturday 27 December 1879
FUNERAL OF THE LATE MR. JOHN HILL — The interment of the late Mr. John Hill took place on Saturday last, the funeral cortege leaving his late residence soon after eleven o'clock for the Cemetery, where it was joined by the Mayor of Chester (C. J. Blalock, Esq,), the Chairman of the Watch Committee (Alderman W. M. Williams), the Chief Constable of the City (Mr. G. L. Fenwick), Inspector Farrell, and Sergeant Lindsay. At the conclusion of the first portion of the sublime burial service in the chapel, which was most impressively read by the Rev. Canon Bowen, rector of St. Mary's, the mournful procession proceeded to the grave, where the remainder of the service was similarly rendered, and the body was lowered to its last resting place, adjoining the grave of the late Alderman Griffith, who for many years was his old and esteemed associate and friend. [Writer’s note – only 3 Police Officers at the Funeral]