Manchester Times Friday 1st August 1890
THE CHESHIRE POLICE INQUIRY. The inquiry into the charges brought against the
administration of the Cheshire police by Mr. J. Slater Lewis was resumed at
Chester Castle on Saturday, before his Honour, Sir Horatio Lloyd aid the other
members of the Special Committee. Mr. Fletcher again appeared for the police,
and Mr. Slater Lewis had the legal assistance of Mr. E. Brassey. Further
evidence to rebut the charges made against the police was given at considerable
length. Sergeant John Gosling deposed that when the police were ordered to go
from Runcorn to Norton to intercept a gang of poachers there the town was not
left absolutely unprotected, as had been alleged. Four constables in addition to
Inspector O'Donnell were left on duty. The gang they were watching were
suspected of having stolen a couple of sheep. In cross examination he said he
entered the duty in his book as watching for suspicious characters, and he had
made the same entry often when watching for prize‐fighters. The Hon. Cecil T.
Parker, agent to the Duke of Westminster, appeared before the Committee to
contradict the statements that had been made in reference to the police being
employed to watch for poachers on the Eaton estate. The police were not there
for 13 nights, as alleged. They were not there for more than three nights, and
then they were always on the highway, and never on the land. The police and
keepers joined forces on only one occasion, and that was never made public,
because Police‐Sergeant Morgan was so thoroughly ashamed of not having taken the
poachers when they passed close to him, and his comrades and he made a compact
with the keepers to keep the affair a secret. If the police and keepers had been
watching for poachers to‐ether it had been done without the sanction of the Duke
of Westminster, witness, or the head Keeper. The Duke employed three constables
for watching the hall and park, and he paid £17. 10s. a quarter for each of
them. Henry Garland, the head Gamekeeper, and William Morgan and Robert Youd,
assistant keepers, gave evidence in support of this statement. Superintendent
Large, in the course of further examination, said ex‐Inspector O'Donnell never
spoke to the men without using oaths. ‐Since O'Donnell had left the force the
Runcorn Magistrates had convicted on the evidence of two constables, whereas
during the time O'Donnell was there they would not convict on the evidence of
five or six. Witness denied that there was any undue drunkenness or
irregularities among the Runcorn police during the time he was stationed there.
In reply to Mr. Slater Lewis, witness said Mr. Ashton (clerk to the Runcorn
borough magistrates) told him that the magistrates had lost all confidence in
Inspector O'Donnell. Witness denied the allegation that he paid £100 for his
promotion. Superintendent John Plant, who has served for 21 years in the
Cheshire force, was next called, and he asserted that he was never applied to by
the Duke of Westminster or any other gentleman in the Broxton division for men
to watch poachers, nor had the gamekeepers asked the police to assist them. The
committee, after hearing evidence of a somewhat similar character from
Superintendent Leighton, of Altrincham, and Superintendent Hindley, of Wirral,
held a private consultation, the outcome of which was that the Chairman
announced that they had decided unanimously that they had heard sufficient
evidence, but if Mr. Slater Lewis chose to examine the Chief Constable he might
do so. Colonel Hamersley was then called, and in reply to Mr. Slater Lewis, he
admitted that Inspector O'Donnell poisoned his mind against Superintendent
Hollingworth by innuendos, but never absolute charges, to the effect that he was
not a sober man. He sent O'Donnell to Runcorn, not because the town was in a
disorderly state, but simply because he considered O'Donnell more active officer
than the one he succeeded. He looked upon Superintendent Hollingworth as a very
good superintendent, and he had now come to the conclusion that all the
squab‐bling at Runcorn was caused by ex‐Inspector O'Donnell. Addressing the
Committee the Chief Con‐stable said that during the course of the proceedings it
had been stated that a letter had been written by a Superintendent who was
afraid to come forward as a witness. He had had an assurance from all the
Superintendents that none of them had written such a letter. ‐Mr. Lewis had also
said he was glad that some of the constables had clean sheets. He had had the
records of the whole 387 men examined, and out of that number 212 bad not a
single report of any kind against them. That was a very high percentage. The
records also showed that in 1887 20 men were reported for being under the
influence of drink on or off duty, in 1888 29 were reported and in 1889 the
number re‐ported was again 20. These 69 reports were made against 60 constables,
and of these 21 had been dis‐charged, which showed that drunkenness was not
tolerated in the Cheshire constabulary. At this stage the inquiry was further
adjourned till August 26.
Liverpool Mercury Friday, 1 August, 1890
The New Brighton Tragedy
Trial At Chester Assizes
Yesterday, at the Chester Assizes, before Mr. Justice Stephen, who presided in
the Crown Court, Felix Spicer, rigger, 60 years of age, was brought up charged
with having, at Liscard, on the 25th May, 1890. feloniously, wilfully, and of
his malice aforethought, killed and murdered William Spicer; further, with
having, at Liscard , on the 25th May, 1890, killed and murdered Henry Spicer;
and further, with having, at Liscard, on the 25th May, 1890, attempted to kill
and murder Mary Ann Palin.
Mr D.L.V Colt Williams and Mr Malcolm Douglas prosecuted; and Mr Edmund Burke
Wood, at the request of his lordship, defended the prisoner.
In his opening statement, Mr Colt Williams said that as the prisoner was
arraigned before them on the serious charge of wilful murder he felt sure he
might ask the most careful attention of the jury. He needed not to point out
that the charge was a grave one, the most grave charge which could be found
against any person, but what made it even worse than such cases sometimes were
was that the prisoner was charged with murdering his two sons. He (learned
counsel) would have to occupy their attention for some time in giving a short
account of the family life of the prisoner implicated before going on to the
facts of the case upon which the prosecution relied. There was no direct
evidence, everything being circumstantial, and it would be his duty, aided by
his friend, Mr Douglas, to connect the prisoner step by step with the murder.
However averse they must be to find a father guilty of murdering his own child
he believed that if the jury considered the case proved they would say so in
their verdict. The prisoner was a man about 60 years of age, a seafaring man, be
being described as a rigger, and having also gone to sea as a cook. He had lived
at New Brighton for about 17 years, and there had lived with him, a woman named
Mary Ann Palin, who had always been looked upon as his wife, but who had never
really been married to him. They had seven children, the eldest boy, who was
about 14, being away at the time of the murder; William, whom prisoner was
charged with killing, two little girls, one aged eight and the other six; the
little boy Henry, who was also murdered; and a little baby. One of the seven
children died some years ago. Prisoner and Palin kept a refreshment room at 3,
Bickley Parade, and some time ago, owing to prisoner pecuniary difficulties the
tenancy was transferred to Palin at the prisoner's request, but before Easter
this year he seemed to be put out about the arrangement. He went to the rooms
and kicked up a disturbance, till Palin called in a constable, showed him the
agreement, and had the prisoner warned not to interfere with the management. The
rooms consisted of a one‐storeyed place containing a restaurant and a kitchen.
The house in Richmond Street was an ordinary one, containing a kitchen and
bedroom, in which the children and servant slept.
Shortly after Easter week there seemed to have been some quarrel between the
prisoner and Palin, as he went to the refreshment rooms during the absence of
Mrs Palin in Liverpool, who had gone there to see a Mr Wright. Some money was
taken during the absence of Palin, and when she returned words seemed to have
taken place with regard to the taking of the money. Palin made use of words to
the effect that one was enough to take the money, and then practically told him
that he had no business in the place. That appeared to have made the prisoner
very uncomfortable, and subsequently he wrote al letter to Mr Wright, agent of
the landlord, telling him that Palin was not his wife. Correspondence ensued, in
which Palin refused to sleep any longer at Richmond Street, and had her bed
taken to the Restaurant, where she afterwards slept. The tenour of the
correspondence was that prisoner wished her to return, but she replied
upbraiding him for betraying her by saying she was no longer his wife, and for
having disgraced her. The letter also mentioned about his promise to marry her
before the first child was born. There was, undoubtedly, a desire on the part of
the prisoner that they should make up the quarrel, but Palin, feeling that she
had been so much injured by the prisoner telling Mr Wright that she was not his
wife never went back, but continued to sleep at each night at the rooms. The
children repeatedly went to the rooms, but returned to Richmond Street to sleep.
Mrs Palin conducted the business of the restaurant, but on Saturday, the 24th,
prisoner, suggested he should be allowed to help in the business which would be
transacted in the course of the coming Whit Week. Palin sent a message to him
saying that she did not require that assistance, and that she would not have him
near the rooms. As there was an intimation made that four lodgers were going to
Richmond Street, Palin said the children must not be disturbed as to their
sleeping accommodation. Why the prisoner wanted all the children to sleep
together the learned counsel did not know, and why he should have said that four
lodgers were coming when they never did come was a matter of conjecture. As a
matter of fact, there was an empty room in the house that night, and yet when a
lodger came he was told there was no room to spare. It might be suggested that
the stranger who stopped at the house of the neighbour, Mrs Myers, that night,
and who had never been found, might by some chance have gone back into Richmond
Street and murdered these children, but he (learned counsel) should show that
that was perfectly impossible, for Mrs Myers would tell them distinctly that she
heard this lodger go to bed, and after he had gone to bed there were two locks
upon the door which she herself locked, and that it would be impossible for any
one to go in or out without her knowing it. The prisoner never went to bed that
night and he said that he was going to stop up in order to wait for this
hypothetical lodger who never came. The person who saw him last that night was
Mrs Fraser, with whom he had at first some words because she arrived from the
prosecutrix's shop so late, but who afterwards at his request rubbed his back,
as he complained of rheumatism. She would tell the jury that during the night at
about daybreak she heard a cry coming from the little boy Harry, followed by a
shuffling noise, as if somebody was going about in slippers. She did not pay
much attention, because she knew that the prisoner was in the habit of going to
the bedroom of the children and soothing them if they were disturbed. Again the
little girl Gertrude, who was sleeping in another room, heard her little brother
Harry cry out. She opened the door, and asked what was the matter, whereupon a
voice which she supposed to be that of her father, said "go to sleep". The child
cried out again, and she then heard the same voice exclaim, "shut up". A
lamplighter who was passing heard the pitiful cry of the child proceeding from
the house of the prisoner, and he heard a noise as of a man shuffling along the
passage. The evidence would show that the accused was in the habit of wearing
sandshoes down at the heels, and therefore if he was walking about he would so
in a shuffling manner. Mrs Fraser heard someone go out, and shut the scullery
door after him, and again she heard the same shuffling noise, as of some one
going swiftly up the stairs then down again. It was suggested it was the
prisoner. He had gone out of the house after having murdered these children, and
having gone down to Bickley Parade, he came back through that scullery door, on
the handles of which there were blood stains. It was also suggested that
previous to the arrival of the police he drew down the blind in the kitchen.
The theory of the prosecution with regard to what took place after this was that
having cut the throats of the children he went into the backyard and took from
it a piece of wood which he had been shaping a handle to a day or two
previously, and with that went down to the rooms and smashed the windows. Palin
would say that she awakened by the hearing of a smash of glass. She then saw the
prisoner putting his hand through the window and feeling for the key in the
door. He must tell them, however, that prisoner had previously asked from Mrs
Fraser how entrance was gained in the morning to the rooms where Palin slept,
and Fraser told him that she went down in the mornings and Palin opened the door
for her. On the window which prisoner put his hand through and where Palin saw
him feeling for the latch there were found smears of blood, and this was
material, because when examined immediately after his arrest prisoner's hands
were perfectly free from all cuts and scratches. Counsel went on to speak of the
assault on Palin, but said but he said he would not specify the particulars of
that, as it was not before them, but he must tell them that Mrs Palin jumped out
of the window into the street, and there Spicer attacked her. He had got her on
the ground, he took a knife from his coat pocket, and the analyst would tell
them that the pocket had bloodstains on it, thus bearing out the theory of the
prosecution that there must of been blood on the knife before the attack on
Palin. The knife he used was one which Palin had seen him handle previously, and
he had told her that it would "cut the throats of all New Brighton". After the
assault the prisoner went back into the rooms, and one of the witnesses would
prove that while he was in there was the sound of running water. There was a
lavatory in the rooms, and soon after prisoner's arrest it was noticed by the
wash marks on the prisoner's hands and wrists that he had recently washed his
hands.
After leaving his wife he went up to Richmond Street, where he was soon followed
and arrested by the police for the assault on his wife. After his arrest one of
the constables went up to the bedrooms, and in one of them found the two
children with their throats cut, and their heads almost severed from their
bodies. The learned counsel went on to describe the position in which the
children were found, and of a pool of blood on the bed in which some one had
evidently been kneeling. There was found on his knee immediately after his
arrest wet blood marks, the knee of his trousers being soaked in blood. One of
the little boys was lying where he had been sleeping and was dead. That would be
shortly after four o'clock and the doctor was of the opinion that the two
children had been dead about an hour, and that would coincide with what the
prosecution said, that the prisoner, having murdered these children, went down
to Bickley Parade. One of the witnesses would state that he remarked that Spicer
had murdered his children. Spicer immediately replied "I know nothing at all
about it". But he made no secret of the fact that he had made the attack on
Palin. When at the Police Station, and charged with the murder, he denied having
interfered with the children. There were also marks of blood on the prisoner's
coat and shirt sleeves, and from that it would appear he was in his shirt
sleeves before he left the house, and afterwards put on his coat. At the request
of Spicer the lodger named Short went to see him at Walton Gaol, where he had
related a story of what had taken place. He again denied murdering the children,
confessed to attacking Palin, and said "I used my clasp knife to her". The
prosecution would show that was untrue, because that knife was found upon the
prisoner, and that there was no marks of blood on it. That was not the knife
that Spicer had murdered the children with, and with which he attacked Palin,
but the proper knife that had been used was discovered hidden in the flue of the
kitchen range at Bickley Parade. Prisoner admitted having remained in the
kitchen up to three o'clock in the morning, his excuse being that he was waiting
for a lodger, who never came. Therefore, the only man about the house when the
murder was committed was the prisoner. On the 23rd, or the day before the murder
was committed, the prisoner was heard by his next door neighbour walking up and
down the yard, and he was heard to exclaim in an angry voice, "they shall see
they shall not have it all their own way". On the same evening someone was heard
sharpening the knife upon the windowsill of the back window of Richmond House.
The following morning there were marks upon the sill, and the knife, which would
be produced, would show signs of having been recently sharpened but; whether it
was sharpened that night or not the prosecution did not know. Those were the
facts of the painful case, which would require the strictest proof by the
prosecution. Prisoner seemed to have been fond of the children, and on the night
of the murder assisted in putting them to bed. Therefore it might appear an
extraordinary thing that he, being so attached to his children, should have
murdered them in the cold blooded way in which it was alleged that he did.
Mary Ann Palin, after some formal evidence had been given, stated that she was
32 years of age, and had lived with the prisoner since she was 16. She had seven
children, of whom four were still alive. On the 24th May last the eldest boy was
from home. The next lad was nearly 13, the next was a girl of eight, another
girl was six, and there was a boy aged three, and a baby. Witness had resided at
Richmond Street with her children up to April last. She took in lodgers at the
house, and carried on business as a refreshment house keeper at 3 Bickley
Parade. The prisoner had not followed his occupation since she had lived with
him. He went one voyage while they lived in Cardiff, and last year he went for a
nine months' voyage. Up to September 1888, the tenancy of the Bickley Parade
rooms was in the prisoner's name and it was retaken by her 1889 in the name of
Mrs Spicer. He came back in September 1889, but did not disprove of her having
taken over the rooms. Up to about Easter last she lived on good terms with him
at the house at Richmond Street. She and the prisoner slept in the large front
bedroom, and the children slept in a double‐bedded back room ‐three in one bed
room and two in the other. As a rule the children slept together. This continued
till Easter, when the prisoner came down and assisted in the business. On Easter
Monday prisoner was locked up for the non‐payment of the poor rate which was
owing. Witness paid the rate, and prisoner came back, and she agreed he should
stay at the house, as he was owing more money, and was afraid there were more
warrants out for him. He stayed a week at the house. She had no disagreement
with before Easter. It was after that that the disagreement took place. He
stayed away from the refreshment rooms for a week. He came to the rooms on the
Monday following Easter week. Witness had been to Liverpool that day, and when
she came home she found him a little worse for drink, and asked what money had
been taken. He pointed to money lying on the shelf. Witness took a few shillings
off the shelf. Prisoner asked her what she was doing, and she replied that she
was taken the money. Prisoner said "leave it there; don't be in such a hurry".
Witness said "oh, it does not take two to look after the few shillings here".
Prisoner then began finding fault with the trades people she dealt with. Witness
said she would deal with whom she liked. Prisoner said that he should let her
know whether she should or not. Witness said that the prisoner had nothing to do
with the business. Prisoner then went home. When witness was preparing the
dinner next day, prisoner walked into the shop and took his coat off. He said,
"you told me I had nothing to do with this place, but I must give you to
understand there is no Mary Spicer". The girl Fraser was present at the time. Up
to then she had been known as Mrs Spicer. She then said, "if there is no Mrs
Spicer, so much the better for me". She gave him to understand that she would
not have him coming there and conducting himself in an unpeaceable manner. In
consequence of what she said he became violent, and kicked a chair across the
floor. She sent for a constable, and when he arrived she showed him the
agreement respecting the shop. She was quite agreeable for Spicer to come to the
shop and be master of everything except the money. She had a bed taken down to
Bickley Parade, where she slept until the 24th of May.
The children came down to the shop for their food, and she sent the prisoner's
meals to Richmond Street, and also what money he sent for. Fraser was in her
employ as a waitress, and slept at Richmond Street. Witness did not see Spicer
for a week after the letter produced, which was in the prisoner's handwriting.
She could not say when she received it. She did not think it would be in Easter
week.
The letter was as follows :‐
"Richmond Street, 15/5/90. My dear Polly ‐I trust you will take my lot into
consideration and pity me, and by the great God forgive me and in nowise cast me
out, with a broken heart. Do forgive me. Have mercy on me. I will make every
amends in my power. Have mercy on me; have mercy on me: give me some hope of
your friendship. May God turn your heart to forgive me. Yours forever,
F.SPICER".
On the back of that letter witness scribbled the following answer, and sent it
to him :‐
"you are too late, and you need not try to see me. The door is locked, and once
for all I will not be annoyed by you. I shall not see you".
She also received the following letter from the prisoner :‐19/5/90,
"my dear Polly ‐in the name of the heavens, have mercy and pity on me. If you
will allow me to see and shake hands with you and make it up. Don't keep me in
this desponding state. Forgive me, forgive me, for God's sake and my own. I have
not slept these four nights thinking of you. Make it up with me. Let not our
wrath go down with this day's sun. Have mercy on me. I will call tonight at
nine. Don't refuse me a hand shake in the name of God. I beg you will not be
cross with me. I am still for ever yours. F.SPICER". She also received a letter
from him which he said ‐"my dear Polly ‐I will call down to‐night. I hope you
will consider my feelings and make it up and shake hands with me. I am a broken
man. For God's sake, have pity on me. Your's for ever F.SPICER".
In reply she sent the following letter –
"Mr Spicer, this is in answer to yours. You dare to ask me to make it up. You
must be mad to think I shall ever speak to you again, much less make it up. You
told Mr Wright I was not your wife. You mean, contemptible scrub, did you think
of my years when, before Felix was born, I asked you to marry me out of shame.
You laughed at me, but I have waited, and the day has come, I can tell everyone
my tale now. Don't think it was for a liking of you I waited for. I hated you
ever since the day you laughed at me, but I don't regard my name now. Why should
I, now everybody knows. There is one thing I want you to know, that is the
gallows before another night under the same roof as yourself. I will neither see
or be annoyed by you. If you force your presence on me I shall have you removed.
You can remain in the house for as long as you keep from me. I will see the rent
paid, but I will never change as long as I live" ‐POLLY.
Witness had taken the rooms from Mr Wright. It was in consequence of an
interview with Mr Wright that she wrote the letter.
The following letter was put in, and read by Mr Crompton. clerk of the assizes
:‐
"18 Richmond Street, New Brighton, 8/5/90. Dear Sir, I am in receipt of your
note, and am sorry, after the friendly advice you gave me, that you have thought
fit to write as you have. It is a great trial to me, being the founder of the
business, and your tenant so long, that you have not given me a more favourable
consideration. I am afraid you have been misinformed about my affairs. I beg and
trust you will reconsider your decision in my favour by getting Mrs Spicer to
allow me to work in the rooms in an amicable way, in which I give you my honest
word there shall be peace and love. I am near heart broken by this blow. I trust
you will forgive me. With this appeal believe me to be, yours sincerely,
F.SPICER. To A. Wright. Esq, 17 Water Street. Liverpool".
On the night of the 24th the prisoner sent the girl to her, saying he expected
four lodgers that night, and the children were to be removed to the back room
from the front room where they usually slept. She sent back word that they were
not to be removed, and he was only to take the one lodger that she had sent up
during the evening. She sent up the person she referred to Richmond Street
earlier in the evening, and he returned in half an hour saying he had taken a
bed. She saw the prisoner at the restaurant windows the night before the murder,
when he said, "Good night, Polly" or "Good night, girl" and then walked away.
She made up her bed in the restaurant nightly, and removed it for the day time,
when Fraser left the premises. She put out the lamps, and subsequently she was
awakened by a great noise, caused by the smashing of glass. She afterwards saw
prisoner make a desperate smash at the same pane of glass which was near the
door. She fell through the window right into his arms, both prisoner and herself
falling to the ground, witness being on her back. She shouted out "Murder!" and
he said "You shout murder you ‐wretch. You won't shout that when I've done with
you". Whilst she was on the ground he kept knocking her head down and making for
her throat. He had nothing in his hands then, but she saw the handle of a knife
sticking out of his breast pocket. He took this out of his pocket and attacked
her with it. It was a knife he had shown her before, saying in a jocular way
that "it would cut the throats of all New Brighton". The knife produced was the
one in question, and with it prisoner had tried to cut her throat. When he
attacked her nose, forehead, and arms were cut, as was also her hand where she
tried to hold the knife by grasping the blade. Finally she knocked the knife out
of his hand and managed to run away behind the cabmen's shelter, and afterwards
she got into the house of a Mr Bailey, just opposite. She thought prisoner had a
long tweed overcoat on, and it was in one of the pockets that she saw the knife.
She knew prisoner was in the habit of carrying a clasp knife, but the one that
was produced was not that with which he attacked her.
In cross examination the witness said she first made the acquaintance of
prisoner at Cardiff in 1873. He had made voyages, but did not know that he had
ever been a voyage to Calcutta of that he had had a sunstroke while there. In
one of the letters she wrote to the prisoner she meant she never had an
opportunity of maintaining herself and the children, and "a day would come" when
she would do so and have nothing more to do with him. After the manner in which
he had treated her she had come to the conclusion she would not under any
consideration live with him again. Witness, continuing, said "of course if he
had offered to marry me I should have only been too glad". At this point the
witness broke down.
Mr Wood : With respect to his appeals to you stating that he was broken hearted
and that he was miserable and ruined, you treated those as nothing?
Witness: No sir. I have received those kind of messages before when I left him,
and when I went and forgave him and went back to him, he even on the first night
attempted to strangle me, and that was after he had pleaded as in this case.
Continuing, witness said she sent a man up to Richmond Street on the night
before the murder as he wanted lodgings.
Re‐examined by Mr Colt Williams : It was before the child Felix was born that
prisoner promised to marry her. Had he ever promised to marry you?
Witness : Had he ever promised to marry me? Yes, he had repeatedly.
Continuing, witness said it was at Blackpool that prisoner tried to strangle
her. She left him for some time after that, and went to live with her sister in
London.
Mr Colt William : During the times you lived in New Brighton had you ever
serious quarrels?
Witness : Yes. I left him several times, but he always implored me to go back.
John Bailey, grocer, Victoria Road, deposed to be awakened on the night in
question by hearing of cries of "murder". He found prisoner and Mrs Spicer
struggling on the ground, and told to her to run into his house. She did so, and
he followed her and closed the door.
Francis Storey, another neighbour, and Joel Fitton, corroborated.
Police Constable Frederick Potts stated that his attention, and that of Police
Constable Jones, was called to a disturbance in Victoria Road. They went to
Richmond Street in search of the prisoner, when Police Constable Jones took him
to the police office, whilst witness went upstairs and found the two children on
the bed with their throats cut.
Police Constable Jones corroborated, and deposed to finding a knife which had
been recently sharpened and was covered in blood and concealed in the kitchen
range.
The medical evidence of Dr Forbes Ross, as to the nature of the injuries, was
taken next. He said that one of the wounds to the throat of the younger victim
appeared to have been an abortive attempt at cutting it. After this wound was
inflicted, and before the fatal wound was given, the child might have shouted.
He saw the prisoner after examining in the children. He wore a black coat, on
the breast pocket of which were blood stains, his sandshoes being also spotted
with blood. His trousers were saturated, and his hands had been washed, leaving
a "watermark" of blood smears on the forearm. Both handles of the back door were
stained with blood.
Annie Fraser, waitress at Mrs Spicer's restaurant, who slept at prisoner's house
on the night of the murder, said she remembered hearing one of the children make
a choking noise, followed by a shuffling of feet and the sound of doors being
closed. Somebody then ran upstairs and down quickly. She thought nothing about
it at the time
Cross examining by Mr Burke Wood : She had always found prisoner to be most
affectionate towards his children.
Martha Fearon, another waitress, corroborated as to the prisoner's kindness to
his children, when cross examined by Mr Burke Wood.
Alfred Short, Clerk, of 18 Richmond Street, said that on the 24th of May he went
in at ten o'clock in the evening. Spicer, his son, and the waitress were in the
house at the time. Witness did not hear anything during the night except an
altercation between prisoner and Mrs Fraser at twelve o'clock. He had an
interview with the prisoner at Walton Jail on the Saturday following the murder,
when he said "I washed Willie and kissed him put him to bed, bless his little
soul. I am as innocent as you are"
Cross Examined by Mr Burke Wood : When he said "bless his little soul" he was
very much affected and wept.
Witness had never seen a more kind man to his children. He was like mother and
father to them. He sent the message to his wife, "Tell her I forgive her all she
had done for me, but she has been very cruel".
A lamplighter named Bannng stated that just before daybreak on the morning in
question he was performing his duties in Richmond Street when he heard a
"pitiful child's cry".
A woman residing next door to prisoner stated that between nine and ten o'clock
on the night of 24th May she heard the prisoner say he would "let them know who
is master here". Later in the night she heard him sharpening a knife on the
window sill.
After consultation with the judge and defending counsel, Mr Colt Williams
decided to spare the little girl Gertrude Spicer the painful ordeal of giving
evidence against her father.
At this stage the court adjourned, the counsel for the prosecution indicating
that their case could be finished that day. The court rose at ten minutes after
four.
Liverpool Mercury Saturday, 2 August, 1890
The New Brighton Tragedy
Trial And Sentence
Yesterday, before Mr Justice Stephen, at the Chester Azzises. Felix Spicer
appeared again the dock charged with the murder, at Liscard, on the 25th May, of
his illiegimate sons, William and Henry, and the attempted murder of Mary Ann
Palin, their mother. Mr
D.A.V Colt Williams and Mr Malcolm Douglas, in continuing their case for the
Crown, called Police Sergeant Cooper, who gave lengthy evidence as to the
examination of the Richmond Street and Victoria houses, the bloodstains and
other inculpating traces he found there and on prisoner's clothes and hands. He
said that when charged with the offence prisoner said "I know nothing about it.
I have done no murder".
Mr William F Lowe, county analyst, was next called, and gave lengthy evidence as
to the nature and position bloodstains upon the piece of timber used by prisoner
to batter the windows of the Bickley Parade restaurant, upon his clothes, shoes,
knife, and in various parts of the house.
Dr Theodore Fendell, medical officer at Knutsford Jail, was next called, and
stated that the prisoner had been under his care since his admission to
Knutsford Jail on the 11th June. During prisoner's incarceration witness had had
constant opportunity of observing him, and had found that his health had been
good, there being nothing at all wrong with him mentally.
Cross examined by Mr Burke Wood : Witness had heard that prisoner's sister had
been in Colony Hatch, and prisoner had told him that he had had a sunstroke.
That would not modify his statement at all as to the mental condition of
prisoner; he could only form an opinion from what he had noticed himself. the
prisoner showed no sign of insanity, or even of mental aberration.
This was the case for the prosecution. Mr D.A.V Colt Williams, in summoning up
for the Crown, gave a lengthy review of the incriminating evidence. He said he
understood that Mr Burke Wood intended to call no witness on behalf of the
prisoner, so it became his duty to address the jury in as few words as possible.
As he had intimated in his opening address, that case was one of such great
gravity that he was sure they would pardon him if he detained them for more then
a few minutes in doing so. On that occasion he had also told them that it was a
case of completely of circumstantial evidence, and that they would require at
his hands a strict proof of every step in the case; he submitted to them with
some confidence now that he had so proved the case that there could be no
reasonable doubt in their minds that the prisoner at the bar was guilty of the
terrible crime with which he is charged. It might be that some attempt should be
set up to show that because a sister of prisoner's was said to have been at one
time insane, and because it was suggested that prisoner himself had once had a
sunstroke, that he was insane at the time he committed that act. On the other
hand they had the evidence of Dr Fendell, who had observed prisoner since June
the 11th, that he was not a man of unsound mind. Therefore his submission on
behalf of the Crown was that this case was made out without any shadow of a
doubt, and that he was justified in asking them, after weighing his friend's and
his lordship's remarks, to find the man guilty of the offence with which he was
now charged.
Mr Burke Wood then rose to address the jury for the defence. He said that in
this case a great burden had been laid upon the shoulders of all connected with
the trial, and upon no one in a greater degree than upon himself. He was bound
to say that Mr Colt Williams had conducted the case for the Crown most fairly,
and had not exaggerated in the least degree the importance and solemnity of the
inquiry. A great responsibility rested on them, the jury had by their verdict,
and he, perhaps, by his conduct of the case, the life of the prisoner at the bar
upon their hands. He did not say this with a view to asking them to take a
merciful view of the case, but simply to give their verdict according to their
oaths and the evidence laid before them. He dared say they noticed that on the
previous morning when they came into the box he took the precaution, and used
the right he possessed, of challenging several gentlemen, and they went out of
the box. He did so not from any doubt that they would not have displayed as
great an amount of intelligence and fairness as any in the box, but simply
because he thought it better to have twelve strangers than any who came from the
neighbourhood where the tragedy occurred. It was hard for any person to divest
his mind of impressions that he had formed. Perhaps the result of
conversation ‐perhaps the result of reading newspaper reports, and there was no
doubt that the press of Birkenhead and its more important neighbour, Liverpool,
spread far and wide an account of the tragedy at New Brighton and it was
impossible pretty nearly that people should talk about a thing of that kind
without forming some impression on their minds as to the guilt or innocence of
the prisoner. Therefore, he earnestly asked the jury to try to come with a clean
sheet, as it were, of mind to consider the evidence of that day and the day
before. His friend, Mr Colt Williams, in opening the case, had told them that
the case he had to submit was one entirely of circumstantial evidence, and that
he had no direct evidence at all, and that if they did not think this evidence
sufficient to satisfy them, they should say so by their verdict. That was just
what he should have expected them to do. He was sorry to have to go into
particulars of the married life of the prisoner and Palin, but there was no
doubt that he had wronged her, and had not done what he owed to her by marrying
her. It was possible that he was not in a position to marry her at the time,
because he had a wife already. However, they had lived together for a number of
years, quarrels frequently occurring, but not with any serious result till in
April last, when they finally separated. He must call their attention to the
dreadful state of misery under which the prisoner laboured in consequences of
this quarrel with his wife, who refused to live in the same house with him any
longer. He wrote imploring letters requesting reconciliation; but they were
received with scorn. With regard to prisoner's statement that he could not
receive a lodger on the night of the 24th because he had four men, and was full
up, it had been stated that these four men were all a myth, and that this
statement was only a part of his scheme to kill the children. Was it not
possible that these men, whom prisoner said he had seen with women on the same
night, had gone to some less respectable haunt for the night? At all events it
seemed as likely as that the whole story was a myth invented by prisoner. Having
pointed out that there was nothing peculiar in prisoner not retiring on the
night in question, when he had a sofa prepared downstairs, he said that the
testimony as to the prisoner being kind to his children was unanimous. Fearon
appeared to have been a new arrival at prisoner's house, but even she had had
time to how tenderly he brought them to be washed by her, and afterwards carried
them upstairs and put them to bed. There appeared to have been the bright spot
in that man's life ‐that was his love and affection for his children, and
whatever Mary Ann Palin might have to say about his treatment of her, she had no
occasion to make a single complaint of his treatment of her children. Annie
Fraser said he was extremely kind to them; Maria Fearon described the way in
which he performed those many little functions which a careless man might have
relegated to the nursemaid, with the tenderness and kindness of a mother rather
than the qualities of a father. The lodger also said he never saw anyone so kind
in his life, and confirmed the opinion that he was like a mother rather than a
father. He then referred to the evidence as to the discovery of blood stains in
the house, and emphasised the fact that though prisoner was said to have done
downstairs with the clothes reeking with blood, only one small stain was found
on the banister. It would be an insult to deny that prisoner went down to
Bickley Parade ‐the evidence was too strong and unanimous on that point ‐but if
an assault of the nature described was committed upon Palin by prisoner, it
would be a fair and reasonable conclusion to draw that the blood found on his
clothing had flowed from her hands as she was on the ground by prisoner. Again,
evidence had been given to this effect that the blood stains on the handle of
the piece of wood used by prisoner to batter in the windows in Bickley Parade
were wet when it was examined after the assault. He contended that if the stains
were imprinted at Richmond Street, by the time he had walked to Bickley Parade
and assaulted Palin the stains would have had time to dry. At all events this
was not improbable solution of the case. He strongly urged upon the jury the
fact that the lodger, who came in at seven o'clock on the morning of the crime,
had not been examined by the counsel for the prosecution, and said that in view
of the widespread newspaper reports he could not have failed to hear about the
occurrence. In reference to the interview in Walton Jail he said that sometimes
when prisoners made statements there was something or other held out, or it
might be supposed that there was something held out; but in that case it was
entirely a voluntary statement to a man whom he had sent for, and therefore
entitled to more respect at the hands of the jury than many communications of a
similar character. He said, "I know nothing, so help me God. I washed little
Harry; I put him to bed. I bid him 'Good night', and kissed him ‐bless his
little heart. Willie went to bed afterwards; I wished him 'good night' and I
didn't go upstairs afterwards. I am as innocent as you are". That was a
statement made to an independent man, and he would ask them to attach some
importance to it. These children appeared to have been the idols of his life
almost these children whom he was charged with killing. A great lawyer, Lord
Cope, described murder as being when a man of sound memory and discretion killed
a human being. Did they believe for one instant that that man "murdered" his
children? He was obliged to say he dared not leave any stone unturned in the
duty that he had to perform on behalf of the prisoner; and therefore, though he
submitted that the evidence for the prosecution consisted of a chain of evidence
that was faulty and undefendable, he must omit no point that told in prisoner's
favour. He could not help saying that if that man he said this under his
lordship's direction ‐if this man went into the room where those children were
sleeping, very likely when he had the intention of going down and attacking the
mother, and breaking into her premises, knowing that he was going to do the
mother grievous bodily harm or to murder her, and that it would be impossible to
escape ‐if he went into their room to take a last look at them, he submitted
that if he went back into the room with merely the innocent intention of seeing
his children, they would say he was not guilty of the murder of those children
if, when his mind was so clouded with the trouble he had been in and the
contemptuous replies to his appeals by his wife, this man, maddened with the
thought of it, had his mental faculties so obliterated that he put an end to the
children by cutting their throats. He asked the jury to ask themselves whether
he was at that time a man of sound memory and reasonable sense, and said that if
they thought not, he would ask them to say that a verdict of manslaughter would
be all that could revert against that man. He was under his lordship's direction
when he summed up the case to them, and he had no more to add on behalf of the
prisoner. He had done what he thought was his duty, and according to his advice
what he could do, and he only asked them to remember one thing ‐that they were
not trying prisoner for the attack on Mary Ann Palin, and the savage assault he
made on her, but simply for the crime of murder.
His Lordship said it was now his duty to sum up the evidence in the case to
which they had listened so long and so patiently, and, before he got to the
evidence he would make one or two remarks upon some general topics which had
been alluded to by the learned counsel. Mr Colt Williams had told them, and Mr
Wood repeated that that was entirely a case of circumstantial evidence. He (the
Judge) totally denied that anything popularly called circumstantial evidence was
evidence at all, or should be given in evidence, and he should be right at the
proper time, and place to show, by going through the various rules of evidence
established in that country, that what was generally called circumstantial
evidence with no evidence according to the distinctive rules of the country.
That, however, was not the place to deliver a lecture upon legal topics, and he
would pass over the expression with this single remark that, whether they liked
to call the evidence circumstantial or not, the question was simply whether it
satisfied them beyond all reasonable doubt that the man was guilty of the crime
charged against him or not. He had also one other general remark to make upon
the suggestion with which Mr Wood concluded his evidence ‐for it was possible
there might be a conviction for manslaughter in that case if they thought that
at the time he entered the children's room he had not the intention of cutting
their throats. He told them that they could not consistently with law give any
such verdict ‐the whole of the evidence in the case either proved that the man
voluntarily and wilfully put his children to death by cutting their
throats ‐which was murder ‐or that he was not guilty of any crime at all. They
would, however. observe that something was said about the phrase "malice
aforethought". It was undoubtedly true that to constitute murder there must be
malice aforethought; but those were most unlucky words and were almost always
misunderstood. Unless one knew how they should be technically interpreted one
could not know what they meant. It was generally said that there most be
premeditation ‐that was not so; if a man decided upon a sudden temptation to
kill a person and did kill that person without provocation, if he did that, it
was as much murder as if he had meditated it for a year and made every
preparation for it. With regard to the words "malice aforethought" they had been
better defined by Lord Chief Justice Holt than any he had ever read, and he had
read a great quantity ‐"he that doth a cruel act voluntarily doth it of malice
prepense". If the act was a cruel one and it was done voluntarily, that was what
was meant by malice aforethought. So the whole matter really came to
this ‐whether they thought that this mean voluntarily did the cruel act of
cutting the throats of those children. That was the one subject which they had
to inquire into, and he should address his summing up entirely to matters which
threw light upon it. They had heard the evidence of a day and a half, and he did
not think anytime had been wasted upon it. It seemed to have been very fairly
given and very properly put before them, and now he would consider how the
matter stood. There was no doubt at all that the prisoner and his wife did lead
a most unhappy life, and that unhappiness seemed to have lasted for a
considerable time. Mr Wood went back as far as 1873, when he said that the
prisoner led Palin astray. Mr Wood suggested that he might have been married
before and that that was the reason why he did not marry Palin. That might be
so, but he could not ask the jury to pay attention to such suggestion. It was
entirely strange to the matter they were now trying, and it never could be that
a man could excuse, or justify, or extenuate one crime because another hung upon
it. He might just make this one remark, though it was more in the nature of a
moral observation than anything else, that was, that if prisoner had done that
justice to the woman which he certainly owed her, if he had married, she could
not have testified against him, and the fact that he did not think proper to
marry her had been strangely avenged, and he was there on his trial for his life
because he did not do that justice to the woman which he certainly ought to have
done. Referring to the evidence as to prisoner's general affection for his
children, he said that love for children was in a great measure the reflection
for love of wife, and that a loss of affection for the wife would naturally
cause a loss of affection for the children. That kind of kindness was quite
consistent with something entirely different if a violent passion interfered.
The counsel for the defence had impressed very strongly upon the jury that it
was a suspicious fact that the lodger who came to the house in Richmond Street
early on the morning of the day on which the crime was committed, must have
known all about the occurrence from the newspaper. That was quite possible: but,
strange as it might appear to lawyers, people hated to be called as witnesses,
and he was not quite sure that he should not himself. (A laugh). People would
get in their own houses, and say it was the place of the police to find them
out, which made it very difficult to procure them as witnesses. Alluding to the
evidence with respect to the blood stains, his lordship said that with the
exception of the wounds on the woman's arm there was absolutely no accords
whatever to be given of the blood which stained every single garment worn by the
prisoner. He was speaking in reference to the suggestion with regard to
prisoner's insanity, and remarking that the evidence went directly in opposition
to the theory that he was of unsound mind.
Mr Burke Wood said it was very late in the case, but he had just learned from Dr
Ross that prisoner was a sufferer from insomnia. His Lordship said it was indeed
very late in the day, but directed that Dr Ross should be recalled. Dr Ross then
stated that Mrs Palin had mentioned to him on one occasion that prisoner could
never go to sleep, and bitterly complained of it in the same night. Insomnia, he
continued, was sometimes a form of melancholia.
His Lordship : Have you ever observed any signs of melancholia about prisoner?
Dr Ross : No; but I thought it only fair to mention this.
His Lordship, remarking that the evidence did not very materially bear on the
prisoner's state of mind, concluded his summing up, and the jury retired at
exactly a quarter to two.
At ten minutes to two they returned into court.
The Clerk of Arraigns ‐Gentlemen of the jury, do you find the prisoner, Felix
Spicer, guilty or not guilty?
The Foreman (in a low voice) ‐Guilty.
The Clerk ‐You say that he is guilty of murder, and that is the verdict of you
all?
The Foreman ‐It is.
The Clerk ‐Felix Spicer, you stand convicted of willful murder. What have you to
say why the court should not give you judgment to die according to law?
Prisoner ‐I am not guilty of the murder of the children, my lord. If I had
worked on my own evidence I could prove that. I gave Mr Wood some papers as you
suggested. He has them now, and if you read them you would exonerate me. There
is proof where lodgers have been to the house, and paid an amount on deposit,
and every action I have done during the week. If you were to read these papers
it would prove you, my lord.
The Judge, assuming the black cap, said ‐Felix Spicer
Prisoner ‐Yes, my lord
The Judge ‐You stand convicted of wilful murder, and that under circumstances as
horrible as I ever knew a murder to be accompanied with. As to what you say
about Mr Wood. I can only tell you this, that Mr Wood, at very great labour to
himself and at the sacrifice of much valuable time, has defended you with
admirable skill and judgment.
Prisoner ‐Yes, my lord, I will admit that; but if you had read these papers, or
if I had defended myself, I think you would have given me a better verdict.
The Judge ‐I cannot believe that Mr Wood has not read your papers.
Prisoner ‐There is marks of blood on the stones where I cut my hand with the
glass.
The Judge ‐That is exactly what Mr Wood tried to persuade the jury, but they did
not agree.
Prisoner ‐There is the money the lodgers gave me on deposit to come into the
house where I stopped after half‐past twelve to let them in. When I went out in
the morning, all the doors were open, and I did not wake until 20 minutes past
three.
The Judge ‐You have had the opportunity of saying all that, and you have had a
very careful counsel to say it for you. The jury have come to the conclusion
that you are guilty of wilful murder, and for my part I entirely share the same
opinion. The matter is no longer in my hands in any way. All that remains to me
is to pass upon you the sentence of the law.
Sentence of death was then pronounced in the usual way.
The prisoner, who displayed some agitation, was removed from the dock.
Liverpool Mercury Thursday, 14 August, 1890
The New Brighton Murderer
Interview With Spicer
Since the trial and conviction of Felix Spicer for the murder of his two
children at New Brighton, circumstances have, it is stated, come to light
bearing on the suggestion that the condemned man was insane at the time that he
committed the deed. Spicer has a brother living in Birkenhead, and a
half‐brother, two sisters, and other relatives living in London. "Some of his
London relatives," says a correspondent. "had expected to be called at the trial
at Chester to give evidence as to the insanity which has from time to time
manifested itself in the family, and the fact that they were not is said to be
due to the late hour at which Mr Burke Wood was instructed, and that he was not
then in possession of the information, which has now come to light. The
important points bearing on the case are that one of Spicer's sisters has been
confined in Colony Hatch Lunatic Asylum as an epileptic idiot, suffering from
exalted delusions and impressions. She had been in the asylum two or three
times. Her son has also been confined both in the Colony Hatch and Hanwell
institutions as an epileptic subject to violent outbursts and delusions. Another
sister's daughter has been in the asylum, and is at present being watched by Dr
Dunlop, of St. Pancras' Workhouse. It is further stated that a half sister of
Spicer's lived with him for some time at New Brighton, and was subject to
attacks of violent passion. She was of weak intellect, and in that condition of
mind generally described as "soft". Spicer's brother's son also lived with him
some time ago at New Brighton, and while there he one morning took up the
carpet, cut the fringes off all the fire rugs, and trimmed all the rugs in the
houses. He subsequently joined the Salvation Army, and became subject to
religious mania, his peculiar conduct being on one occasion brought to the
notice of the Birkenhead police magistrate. He afterwards went to London, where
he one day cut down all the trees in his mother's back garden, because, as he
said, they blocked the way to heaven. Yet another sister of the condemned man
attempted to hang herself behind a parlour door, and she was cut down only just
in time to save her life. She was of weak intellect, being particularly subject
to suicidal mania.
Yesterday afternoon the same correspondent had a conversation with Mrs Cannon, a
niece of the prisoner, who lives at Kentish Town, London, and who on Tuesday,
along with her husband, visited Spicer in the condemned cell at Knutsford. The
interview took place in the presence of the governor of the jail and two
warders. Her account is as follows : "I noticed, first of all, that he had aged
very fast. He asked after every one belonging to him, particularly his eldest
son, Felix, who is an apprentice in a newspaper printing office in Cardiff, and
whom he expressed a desire to see. He was most pleased to see me, as I was the
first to visit him since he was condemned. I did not speak to him about the
trial or the murder. I only told him to pray and look to his Maker. His own
family all say that he must have been a mad man at the time when did the deed".
Asked whether anything in the nature of insanity had ever been noticed in Spicer
himself, Mrs Cannon said ‐"There have been fits of aberration at times. While I
was there he spoke about his wife, and in order to distinguish her called her by
her own name, Mary Ann Palin. He told me to go to New Brighton and see her, and
ask her to come and see him. I said I would do so. (Mrs Spicer, otherwise Palin,
who was present during the narration, said she intended to see him.) He further
said that he could get very sleep. His appetite was pretty fair, and he got all
that he wanted. The 20 minutes allowed for the interview had then expired, and
they left. Spicer crying bitterly. Mr Cannon confirms hi wife's story as to
Spicer's changed appearance, and said he looks like an old man of about 90. He
never saw a man alter so in his life.
The North‐Eastern Daily Gazette Friday, 22 August, 1890
The New Brighton Murderer
Execution Of Spicer
The final preparation for the execution of Felix Spicer (60), a rigger by trade,
for the murder of his two children at New Brighton, were effected last night.
Spicer, since he received sentence of death, had been confined in Knutsford
Prison, the county gaol of Cheshire. Berry, the executioner, arrived at
Knutsford from Bradford shortly after four o'clock yesterday afternoon, and
immediately proceeded to the prison for the purpose of inspecting the necessary
apparatus. The scaffold, which is the one used on the two previous occasions,
was erected in a small building especially set apart for execution. Mr
J. Cullimore, Under Sheriff, arrived at the prison last night in order to see
that perfect arrangements had been carried out, and the executioner, in
accordance with his instructions, took up his quarters for the night within the
precincts of the prison, where he was supplied with sleeping accommodation. A
last effort had been made to restrain the last dread sentence of the law from
being carried into effect, but with no result. A telegram was received yesterday
by the authorities of the gaol from the Home Office, stating that the Home
Secretary, after carefully perusing the evidence, and consulting with the
Learned Judge who heard the case, saw no reason for interfering in Spicer's case
with the due execution of the sentence of the law. Spicer himself has not denied
committing the crime, but asserted at the same time that if he had so he was mad
at the time. Up to the last he was exceedingly penitent, and paid marked
attention to the ministrations of the prison chaplain, the Rev. W.N Truss, who
paid him a visit late last night. Spicer has hardly varied in weight during his
incarceration.
On The Scaffold
The chaplain entered the condemned cell shortly after six this morning and
administered the Holy Sacrament. Spicer appeared very penitent, though when
breakfast was brought Spicer did not touch it, and as the hour of his execution
approached he seemed in danger of collapsing altogether. Berry, the executioner,
entered the cell shortly before eight, and completed the pinioning process,
which was undergone by the doomed man in a somewhat mechanical manner. On the
way to the scaffold, which was the same as that which Richard Davies, the Crewe
parricide, was executed, Spicer appeared rather faltering, but when he got out
of the cell he revived considerably. When he had taken his place on the scaffold
and the cap was adjusted on him he said "Good morning" to those present, and
added in feeble tones, "I was mad if I perpetrated the crime. My poor dear
children, May God bless and keep me, a miserable sinner". The bolt was then
pulled, the body disappeared, and death seemed instantaneous. Spicer was 11
stone, 11 lbs, in weight, and 5 feet 4 inches in height, and he received a drop
of 5 feet 2 inches. Representatives of the Press were admitted to witness the
execution. Instructions were issued for the destruction of the rope with which
Spicer was hanged immediately after the execution. The mode in which the rope is
now supplied is that the High Sheriff, who is responsible for the carrying out
of the execution, purchases the necessary length from the governor of Newgate
Prison, who is authorised by the Home Office to sell it. This relieves the
hangman of any responsibility as to the rope being unsuited for the purpose.
In accordance with the wish expressed by Spicer during an interview with some of
his relatives, Mary Ann Palin, otherwise known as Mrs Spicer. declared her
attention to close her refreshment rooms at New Brighton today to show her
respect for Spicer, even though he had so cruelly wronged her.
Liverpool Mercury Friday, 1 August, 1890
The New Brighton Tragedy
Trial At Chester Assizes
Yesterday, at the Chester Assizes, before Mr. Justice Stephen, who presided in
the Crown Court, Felix Spicer, rigger, 60 years of age, was brought up charged
with having, at Liscard, on the 25th May, 1890. feloniously, wilfully, and of
his malice aforethought, killed and murdered William Spicer; further, with
having, at Liscard , on the 25th May, 1890, killed and murdered Henry Spicer;
and further, with having, at Liscard, on the 25th May, 1890, attempted to kill
and murder Mary Ann Palin.
Mr D.L.V Colt Williams and Mr Malcolm Douglas prosecuted; and Mr Edmund Burke
Wood, at the request of his lordship, defended the prisoner.
In his opening statement, Mr Colt Williams said that as the prisoner was
arraigned before them on the serious charge of wilful murder he felt sure he
might ask the most careful attention of the jury. He needed not to point out
that the charge was a grave one, the most grave charge which could be found
against any person, but what made it even worse than such cases sometimes were
was that the prisoner was charged with murdering his two sons. He (learned
counsel) would have to occupy their attention for some time in giving a short
account of the family life of the prisoner implicated before going on to the
facts of the case upon which the prosecution relied. There was no direct
evidence, everything being circumstantial, and it would be his duty, aided by
his friend, Mr Douglas, to connect the prisoner step by step with the murder.
However averse they must be to find a father guilty of murdering his own child
he believed that if the jury considered the case proved they would say so in
their verdict. The prisoner was a man about 60 years of age, a seafaring man, be
being described as a rigger, and having also gone to sea as a cook. He had lived
at New Brighton for about 17 years, and there had lived with him, a woman named
Mary Ann Palin, who had always been looked upon as his wife, but who had never
really been married to him. They had seven children, the eldest boy, who was
about 14, being away at the time of the murder; William, whom prisoner was
charged with killing, two little girls, one aged eight and the other six; the
little boy Henry, who was also murdered; and a little baby. One of the seven
children died some years ago. Prisoner and Palin kept a refreshment room at 3,
Bickley Parade, and some time ago, owing to prisoner pecuniary difficulties the
tenancy was transferred to Palin at the prisoner's request, but before Easter
this year he seemed to be put out about the arrangement. He went to the rooms
and kicked up a disturbance, till Palin called in a constable, showed him the
agreement, and had the prisoner warned not to interfere with the management. The
rooms consisted of a one‐storeyed place containing a restaurant and a kitchen.
The house in Richmond Street was an ordinary one, containing a kitchen and
bedroom, in which the children and servant slept.
Shortly after Easter week there seemed to have been some quarrel between the
prisoner and Palin, as he went to the refreshment rooms during the absence of
Mrs Palin in Liverpool, who had gone there to see a Mr Wright. Some money was
taken during the absence of Palin, and when she returned words seemed to have
taken place with regard to the taking of the money. Palin made use of words to
the effect that one was enough to take the money, and then practically told him
that he had no business in the place. That appeared to have made the prisoner
very uncomfortable, and subsequently he wrote al letter to Mr Wright, agent of
the landlord, telling him that Palin was not his wife. Correspondence ensued, in
which Palin refused to sleep any longer at Richmond Street, and had her bed
taken to the Restaurant, where she afterwards slept. The tenour of the
correspondence was that prisoner wished her to return, but she replied
upbraiding him for betraying her by saying she was no longer his wife, and for
having disgraced her. The letter also mentioned about his promise to marry her
before the first child was born. There was, undoubtedly, a desire on the part of
the prisoner that they should make up the quarrel, but Palin, feeling that she
had been so much injured by the prisoner telling Mr Wright that she was not his
wife never went back, but continued to sleep at each night at the rooms. The
children repeatedly went to the rooms, but returned to Richmond Street to sleep.
Mrs Palin conducted the business of the restaurant, but on Saturday, the 24th,
prisoner, suggested he should be allowed to help in the business which would be
transacted in the course of the coming Whit Week. Palin sent a message to him
saying that she did not require that assistance, and that she would not have him
near the rooms. As there was an intimation made that four lodgers were going to
Richmond Street, Palin said the children must not be disturbed as to their
sleeping accommodation. Why the prisoner wanted all the children to sleep
together the learned counsel did not know, and why he should have said that four
lodgers were coming when they never did come was a matter of conjecture. As a
matter of fact, there was an empty room in the house that night, and yet when a
lodger came he was told there was no room to spare. It might be suggested that
the stranger who stopped at the house of the neighbour, Mrs Myers, that night,
and who had never been found, might by some chance have gone back into Richmond
Street and murdered these children, but he (learned counsel) should show that
that was perfectly impossible, for Mrs Myers would tell them distinctly that she
heard this lodger go to bed, and after he had gone to bed there were two locks
upon the door which she herself locked, and that it would be impossible for any
one to go in or out without her knowing it. The prisoner never went to bed that
night and he said that he was going to stop up in order to wait for this
hypothetical lodger who never came. The person who saw him last that night was
Mrs Fraser, with whom he had at first some words because she arrived from the
prosecutrix's shop so late, but who afterwards at his request rubbed his back,
as he complained of rheumatism. She would tell the jury that during the night at
about daybreak she heard a cry coming from the little boy Harry, followed by a
shuffling noise, as if somebody was going about in slippers. She did not pay
much attention, because she knew that the prisoner was in the habit of going to
the bedroom of the children and soothing them if they were disturbed. Again the
little girl Gertrude, who was sleeping in another room, heard her little brother
Harry cry out. She opened the door, and asked what was the matter, whereupon a
voice which she supposed to be that of her father, said "go to sleep". The child
cried out again, and she then heard the same voice exclaim, "shut up". A
lamplighter who was passing heard the pitiful cry of the child proceeding from
the house of the prisoner, and he heard a noise as of a man shuffling along the
passage. The evidence would show that the accused was in the habit of wearing
sandshoes down at the heels, and therefore if he was walking about he would so
in a shuffling manner. Mrs Fraser heard someone go out, and shut the scullery
door after him, and again she heard the same shuffling noise, as of some one
going swiftly up the stairs then down again. It was suggested it was the
prisoner. He had gone out of the house after having murdered these children, and
having gone down to Bickley Parade, he came back through that scullery door, on
the handles of which there were blood stains. It was also suggested that
previous to the arrival of the police he drew down the blind in the kitchen.
The theory of the prosecution with regard to what took place after this was that
having cut the throats of the children he went into the backyard and took from
it a piece of wood which he had been shaping a handle to a day or two
previously, and with that went down to the rooms and smashed the windows. Palin
would say that she awakened by the hearing of a smash of glass. She then saw the
prisoner putting his hand through the window and feeling for the key in the
door. He must tell them, however, that prisoner had previously asked from Mrs
Fraser how entrance was gained in the morning to the rooms where Palin slept,
and Fraser told him that she went down in the mornings and Palin opened the door
for her. On the window which prisoner put his hand through and where Palin saw
him feeling for the latch there were found smears of blood, and this was
material, because when examined immediately after his arrest prisoner's hands
were perfectly free from all cuts and scratches. Counsel went on to speak of the
assault on Palin, but said but he said he would not specify the particulars of
that, as it was not before them, but he must tell them that Mrs Palin jumped out
of the window into the street, and there Spicer attacked her. He had got her on
the ground, he took a knife from his coat pocket, and the analyst would tell
them that the pocket had bloodstains on it, thus bearing out the theory of the
prosecution that there must of been blood on the knife before the attack on
Palin. The knife he used was one which Palin had seen him handle previously, and
he had told her that it would "cut the throats of all New Brighton". After the
assault the prisoner went back into the rooms, and one of the witnesses would
prove that while he was in there was the sound of running water. There was a
lavatory in the rooms, and soon after prisoner's arrest it was noticed by the
wash marks on the prisoner's hands and wrists that he had recently washed his
hands.
After leaving his wife he went up to Richmond Street, where he was soon followed
and arrested by the police for the assault on his wife. After his arrest one of
the constables went up to the bedrooms, and in one of them found the two
children with their throats cut, and their heads almost severed from their
bodies. The learned counsel went on to describe the position in which the
children were found, and of a pool of blood on the bed in which some one had
evidently been kneeling. There was found on his knee immediately after his
arrest wet blood marks, the knee of his trousers being soaked in blood. One of
the little boys was lying where he had been sleeping and was dead. That would be
shortly after four o'clock and the doctor was of the opinion that the two
children had been dead about an hour, and that would coincide with what the
prosecution said, that the prisoner, having murdered these children, went down
to Bickley Parade. One of the witnesses would state that he remarked that Spicer
had murdered his children. Spicer immediately replied "I know nothing at all
about it". But he made no secret of the fact that he had made the attack on
Palin. When at the Police Station, and charged with the murder, he denied having
interfered with the children. There were also marks of blood on the prisoner's
coat and shirt sleeves, and from that it would appear he was in his shirt
sleeves before he left the house, and afterwards put on his coat. At the request
of Spicer the lodger named Short went to see him at Walton Gaol, where he had
related a story of what had taken place. He again denied murdering the children,
confessed to attacking Palin, and said "I used my clasp knife to her". The
prosecution would show that was untrue, because that knife was found upon the
prisoner, and that there was no marks of blood on it. That was not the knife
that Spicer had murdered the children with, and with which he attacked Palin,
but the proper knife that had been used was discovered hidden in the flue of the
kitchen range at Bickley Parade. Prisoner admitted having remained in the
kitchen up to three o'clock in the morning, his excuse being that he was waiting
for a lodger, who never came. Therefore, the only man about the house when the
murder was committed was the prisoner. On the 23rd, or the day before the murder
was committed, the prisoner was heard by his next door neighbour walking up and
down the yard, and he was heard to exclaim in an angry voice, "they shall see
they shall not have it all their own way". On the same evening someone was heard
sharpening the knife upon the windowsill of the back window of Richmond House.
The following morning there were marks upon the sill, and the knife, which would
be produced, would show signs of having been recently sharpened but; whether it
was sharpened that night or not the prosecution did not know. Those were the
facts of the painful case, which would require the strictest proof by the
prosecution. Prisoner seemed to have been fond of the children, and on the night
of the murder assisted in putting them to bed. Therefore it might appear an
extraordinary thing that he, being so attached to his children, should have
murdered them in the cold blooded way in which it was alleged that he did.
Mary Ann Palin, after some formal evidence had been given, stated that she was
32 years of age, and had lived with the prisoner since she was 16. She had seven
children, of whom four were still alive. On the 24th May last the eldest boy was
from home. The next lad was nearly 13, the next was a girl of eight, another
girl was six, and there was a boy aged three, and a baby. Witness had resided at
Richmond Street with her children up to April last. She took in lodgers at the
house, and carried on business as a refreshment house keeper at 3 Bickley
Parade. The prisoner had not followed his occupation since she had lived with
him. He went one voyage while they lived in Cardiff, and last year he went for a
nine months' voyage. Up to September 1888, the tenancy of the Bickley Parade
rooms was in the prisoner's name and it was retaken by her 1889 in the name of
Mrs Spicer. He came back in September 1889, but did not disprove of her having
taken over the rooms. Up to about Easter last she lived on good terms with him
at the house at Richmond Street. She and the prisoner slept in the large front
bedroom, and the children slept in a double‐bedded back room ‐three in one bed
room and two in the other. As a rule the children slept together. This continued
till Easter, when the prisoner came down and assisted in the business. On Easter
Monday prisoner was locked up for the non‐payment of the poor rate which was
owing. Witness paid the rate, and prisoner came back, and she agreed he should
stay at the house, as he was owing more money, and was afraid there were more
warrants out for him. He stayed a week at the house. She had no disagreement
with before Easter. It was after that that the disagreement took place. He
stayed away from the refreshment rooms for a week. He came to the rooms on the
Monday following Easter week. Witness had been to Liverpool that day, and when
she came home she found him a little worse for drink, and asked what money had
been taken. He pointed to money lying on the shelf. Witness took a few shillings
off the shelf. Prisoner asked her what she was doing, and she replied that she
was taken the money. Prisoner said "leave it there; don't be in such a hurry".
Witness said "oh, it does not take two to look after the few shillings here".
Prisoner then began finding fault with the trades people she dealt with. Witness
said she would deal with whom she liked. Prisoner said that he should let her
know whether she should or not. Witness said that the prisoner had nothing to do
with the business. Prisoner then went home. When witness was preparing the
dinner next day, prisoner walked into the shop and took his coat off. He said,
"you told me I had nothing to do with this place, but I must give you to
understand there is no Mary Spicer". The girl Fraser was present at the time. Up
to then she had been known as Mrs Spicer. She then said, "if there is no Mrs
Spicer, so much the better for me". She gave him to understand that she would
not have him coming there and conducting himself in an unpeaceable manner. In
consequence of what she said he became violent, and kicked a chair across the
floor. She sent for a constable, and when he arrived she showed him the
agreement respecting the shop. She was quite agreeable for Spicer to come to the
shop and be master of everything except the money. She had a bed taken down to
Bickley Parade, where she slept until the 24th of May.
The children came down to the shop for their food, and she sent the prisoner's
meals to Richmond Street, and also what money he sent for. Fraser was in her
employ as a waitress, and slept at Richmond Street. Witness did not see Spicer
for a week after the letter produced, which was in the prisoner's handwriting.
She could not say when she received it. She did not think it would be in Easter
week.
The letter was as follows :‐
"Richmond Street, 15/5/90. My dear Polly ‐I trust you will take my lot into
consideration and pity me, and by the great God forgive me and in nowise cast me
out, with a broken heart. Do forgive me. Have mercy on me. I will make every
amends in my power. Have mercy on me; have mercy on me: give me some hope of
your friendship. May God turn your heart to forgive me. Yours forever,
F.SPICER".
On the back of that letter witness scribbled the following answer, and sent it
to him :‐
"you are too late, and you need not try to see me. The door is locked, and once
for all I will not be annoyed by you. I shall not see you".
She also received the following letter from the prisoner :‐19/5/90,
"my dear Polly ‐in the name of the heavens, have mercy and pity on me. If you
will allow me to see and shake hands with you and make it up. Don't keep me in
this desponding state. Forgive me, forgive me, for God's sake and my own. I have
not slept these four nights thinking of you. Make it up with me. Let not our
wrath go down with this day's sun. Have mercy on me. I will call tonight at
nine. Don't refuse me a hand shake in the name of God. I beg you will not be
cross with me. I am still for ever yours. F.SPICER". She also received a letter
from him which he said ‐"my dear Polly ‐I will call down to‐night. I hope you
will consider my feelings and make it up and shake hands with me. I am a broken
man. For God's sake, have pity on me. Your's for ever F.SPICER".
In reply she sent the following letter –
"Mr Spicer, this is in answer to yours. You dare to ask me to make it up. You
must be mad to think I shall ever speak to you again, much less make it up. You
told Mr Wright I was not your wife. You mean, contemptible scrub, did you think
of my years when, before Felix was born, I asked you to marry me out of shame.
You laughed at me, but I have waited, and the day has come, I can tell everyone
my tale now. Don't think it was for a liking of you I waited for. I hated you
ever since the day you laughed at me, but I don't regard my name now. Why should
I, now everybody knows. There is one thing I want you to know, that is the
gallows before another night under the same roof as yourself. I will neither see
or be annoyed by you. If you force your presence on me I shall have you removed.
You can remain in the house for as long as you keep from me. I will see the rent
paid, but I will never change as long as I live" ‐POLLY.
Witness had taken the rooms from Mr Wright. It was in consequence of an
interview with Mr Wright that she wrote the letter.
The following letter was put in, and read by Mr Crompton. clerk of the assizes
:‐
"18 Richmond Street, New Brighton, 8/5/90. Dear Sir, I am in receipt of your
note, and am sorry, after the friendly advice you gave me, that you have thought
fit to write as you have. It is a great trial to me, being the founder of the
business, and your tenant so long, that you have not given me a more favourable
consideration. I am afraid you have been misinformed about my affairs. I beg and
trust you will reconsider your decision in my favour by getting Mrs Spicer to
allow me to work in the rooms in an amicable way, in which I give you my honest
word there shall be peace and love. I am near heart broken by this blow. I trust
you will forgive me. With this appeal believe me to be, yours sincerely,
F.SPICER. To A. Wright. Esq, 17 Water Street. Liverpool".
On the night of the 24th the prisoner sent the girl to her, saying he expected
four lodgers that night, and the children were to be removed to the back room
from the front room where they usually slept. She sent back word that they were
not to be removed, and he was only to take the one lodger that she had sent up
during the evening. She sent up the person she referred to Richmond Street
earlier in the evening, and he returned in half an hour saying he had taken a
bed. She saw the prisoner at the restaurant windows the night before the murder,
when he said, "Good night, Polly" or "Good night, girl" and then walked away.
She made up her bed in the restaurant nightly, and removed it for the day time,
when Fraser left the premises. She put out the lamps, and subsequently she was
awakened by a great noise, caused by the smashing of glass. She afterwards saw
prisoner make a desperate smash at the same pane of glass which was near the
door. She fell through the window right into his arms, both prisoner and herself
falling to the ground, witness being on her back. She shouted out "Murder!" and
he said "You shout murder you ‐wretch. You won't shout that when I've done with
you". Whilst she was on the ground he kept knocking her head down and making for
her throat. He had nothing in his hands then, but she saw the handle of a knife
sticking out of his breast pocket. He took this out of his pocket and attacked
her with it. It was a knife he had shown her before, saying in a jocular way
that "it would cut the throats of all New Brighton". The knife produced was the
one in question, and with it prisoner had tried to cut her throat. When he
attacked her nose, forehead, and arms were cut, as was also her hand where she
tried to hold the knife by grasping the blade. Finally she knocked the knife out
of his hand and managed to run away behind the cabmen's shelter, and afterwards
she got into the house of a Mr Bailey, just opposite. She thought prisoner had a
long tweed overcoat on, and it was in one of the pockets that she saw the knife.
She knew prisoner was in the habit of carrying a clasp knife, but the one that
was produced was not that with which he attacked her.
In cross examination the witness said she first made the acquaintance of
prisoner at Cardiff in 1873. He had made voyages, but did not know that he had
ever been a voyage to Calcutta of that he had had a sunstroke while there. In
one of the letters she wrote to the prisoner she meant she never had an
opportunity of maintaining herself and the children, and "a day would come" when
she would do so and have nothing more to do with him. After the manner in which
he had treated her she had come to the conclusion she would not under any
consideration live with him again. Witness, continuing, said "of course if he
had offered to marry me I should have only been too glad". At this point the
witness broke down.
Mr Wood : With respect to his appeals to you stating that he was broken hearted
and that he was miserable and ruined, you treated those as nothing?
Witness: No sir. I have received those kind of messages before when I left him,
and when I went and forgave him and went back to him, he even on the first night
attempted to strangle me, and that was after he had pleaded as in this case.
Continuing, witness said she sent a man up to Richmond Street on the night
before the murder as he wanted lodgings.
Re‐examined by Mr Colt Williams : It was before the child Felix was born that
prisoner promised to marry her. Had he ever promised to marry you?
Witness : Had he ever promised to marry me? Yes, he had repeatedly.
Continuing, witness said it was at Blackpool that prisoner tried to strangle
her. She left him for some time after that, and went to live with her sister in
London.
Mr Colt William : During the times you lived in New Brighton had you ever
serious quarrels?
Witness : Yes. I left him several times, but he always implored me to go back.
John Bailey, grocer, Victoria Road, deposed to be awakened on the night in
question by hearing of cries of "murder". He found prisoner and Mrs Spicer
struggling on the ground, and told to her to run into his house. She did so, and
he followed her and closed the door.
Francis Storey, another neighbour, and Joel Fitton, corroborated.
Police Constable Frederick Potts stated that his attention, and that of Police
Constable Jones, was called to a disturbance in Victoria Road. They went to
Richmond Street in search of the prisoner, when Police Constable Jones took him
to the police office, whilst witness went upstairs and found the two children on
the bed with their throats cut.
Police Constable Jones corroborated, and deposed to finding a knife which had
been recently sharpened and was covered in blood and concealed in the kitchen
range.
The medical evidence of Dr Forbes Ross, as to the nature of the injuries, was
taken next. He said that one of the wounds to the throat of the younger victim
appeared to have been an abortive attempt at cutting it. After this wound was
inflicted, and before the fatal wound was given, the child might have shouted.
He saw the prisoner after examining in the children. He wore a black coat, on
the breast pocket of which were blood stains, his sandshoes being also spotted
with blood. His trousers were saturated, and his hands had been washed, leaving
a "watermark" of blood smears on the forearm. Both handles of the back door were
stained with blood.
Annie Fraser, waitress at Mrs Spicer's restaurant, who slept at prisoner's house
on the night of the murder, said she remembered hearing one of the children make
a choking noise, followed by a shuffling of feet and the sound of doors being
closed. Somebody then ran upstairs and down quickly. She thought nothing about
it at the time
Cross examining by Mr Burke Wood : She had always found prisoner to be most
affectionate towards his children.
Martha Fearon, another waitress, corroborated as to the prisoner's kindness to
his children, when cross examined by Mr Burke Wood.
Alfred Short, Clerk, of 18 Richmond Street, said that on the 24th of May he went
in at ten o'clock in the evening. Spicer, his son, and the waitress were in the
house at the time. Witness did not hear anything during the night except an
altercation between prisoner and Mrs Fraser at twelve o'clock. He had an
interview with the prisoner at Walton Jail on the Saturday following the murder,
when he said "I washed Willie and kissed him put him to bed, bless his little
soul. I am as innocent as you are"
Cross Examined by Mr Burke Wood : When he said "bless his little soul" he was
very much affected and wept.
Witness had never seen a more kind man to his children. He was like mother and
father to them. He sent the message to his wife, "Tell her I forgive her all she
had done for me, but she has been very cruel".
A lamplighter named Bannng stated that just before daybreak on the morning in
question he was performing his duties in Richmond Street when he heard a
"pitiful child's cry".
A woman residing next door to prisoner stated that between nine and ten o'clock
on the night of 24th May she heard the prisoner say he would "let them know who
is master here". Later in the night she heard him sharpening a knife on the
window sill.
After consultation with the judge and defending counsel, Mr Colt Williams
decided to spare the little girl Gertrude Spicer the painful ordeal of giving
evidence against her father.
At this stage the court adjourned, the counsel for the prosecution indicating
that their case could be finished that day. The court rose at ten minutes after
four.
Liverpool Mercury Saturday, 2 August, 1890
The New Brighton Tragedy
Trial And Sentence
Yesterday, before Mr Justice Stephen, at the Chester Azzises. Felix Spicer
appeared again the dock charged with the murder, at Liscard, on the 25th May, of
his illiegimate sons, William and Henry, and the attempted murder of Mary Ann
Palin, their mother. Mr
D.A.V Colt Williams and Mr Malcolm Douglas, in continuing their case for the
Crown, called Police Sergeant Cooper, who gave lengthy evidence as to the
examination of the Richmond Street and Victoria houses, the bloodstains and
other inculpating traces he found there and on prisoner's clothes and hands. He
said that when charged with the offence prisoner said "I know nothing about it.
I have done no murder".
Mr William F Lowe, county analyst, was next called, and gave lengthy evidence as
to the nature and position bloodstains upon the piece of timber used by prisoner
to batter the windows of the Bickley Parade restaurant, upon his clothes, shoes,
knife, and in various parts of the house.
Dr Theodore Fendell, medical officer at Knutsford Jail, was next called, and
stated that the prisoner had been under his care since his admission to
Knutsford Jail on the 11th June. During prisoner's incarceration witness had had
constant opportunity of observing him, and had found that his health had been
good, there being nothing at all wrong with him mentally.
Cross examined by Mr Burke Wood : Witness had heard that prisoner's sister had
been in Colony Hatch, and prisoner had told him that he had had a sunstroke.
That would not modify his statement at all as to the mental condition of
prisoner; he could only form an opinion from what he had noticed himself. the
prisoner showed no sign of insanity, or even of mental aberration.
This was the case for the prosecution. Mr D.A.V Colt Williams, in summoning up
for the Crown, gave a lengthy review of the incriminating evidence. He said he
understood that Mr Burke Wood intended to call no witness on behalf of the
prisoner, so it became his duty to address the jury in as few words as possible.
As he had intimated in his opening address, that case was one of such great
gravity that he was sure they would pardon him if he detained them for more then
a few minutes in doing so. On that occasion he had also told them that it was a
case of completely of circumstantial evidence, and that they would require at
his hands a strict proof of every step in the case; he submitted to them with
some confidence now that he had so proved the case that there could be no
reasonable doubt in their minds that the prisoner at the bar was guilty of the
terrible crime with which he is charged. It might be that some attempt should be
set up to show that because a sister of prisoner's was said to have been at one
time insane, and because it was suggested that prisoner himself had once had a
sunstroke, that he was insane at the time he committed that act. On the other
hand they had the evidence of Dr Fendell, who had observed prisoner since June
the 11th, that he was not a man of unsound mind. Therefore his submission on
behalf of the Crown was that this case was made out without any shadow of a
doubt, and that he was justified in asking them, after weighing his friend's and
his lordship's remarks, to find the man guilty of the offence with which he was
now charged.
Mr Burke Wood then rose to address the jury for the defence. He said that in
this case a great burden had been laid upon the shoulders of all connected with
the trial, and upon no one in a greater degree than upon himself. He was bound
to say that Mr Colt Williams had conducted the case for the Crown most fairly,
and had not exaggerated in the least degree the importance and solemnity of the
inquiry. A great responsibility rested on them, the jury had by their verdict,
and he, perhaps, by his conduct of the case, the life of the prisoner at the bar
upon their hands. He did not say this with a view to asking them to take a
merciful view of the case, but simply to give their verdict according to their
oaths and the evidence laid before them. He dared say they noticed that on the
previous morning when they came into the box he took the precaution, and used
the right he possessed, of challenging several gentlemen, and they went out of
the box. He did so not from any doubt that they would not have displayed as
great an amount of intelligence and fairness as any in the box, but simply
because he thought it better to have twelve strangers than any who came from the
neighbourhood where the tragedy occurred. It was hard for any person to divest
his mind of impressions that he had formed. Perhaps the result of
conversation ‐perhaps the result of reading newspaper reports, and there was no
doubt that the press of Birkenhead and its more important neighbour, Liverpool,
spread far and wide an account of the tragedy at New Brighton and it was
impossible pretty nearly that people should talk about a thing of that kind
without forming some impression on their minds as to the guilt or innocence of
the prisoner. Therefore, he earnestly asked the jury to try to come with a clean
sheet, as it were, of mind to consider the evidence of that day and the day
before. His friend, Mr Colt Williams, in opening the case, had told them that
the case he had to submit was one entirely of circumstantial evidence, and that
he had no direct evidence at all, and that if they did not think this evidence
sufficient to satisfy them, they should say so by their verdict. That was just
what he should have expected them to do. He was sorry to have to go into
particulars of the married life of the prisoner and Palin, but there was no
doubt that he had wronged her, and had not done what he owed to her by marrying
her. It was possible that he was not in a position to marry her at the time,
because he had a wife already. However, they had lived together for a number of
years, quarrels frequently occurring, but not with any serious result till in
April last, when they finally separated. He must call their attention to the
dreadful state of misery under which the prisoner laboured in consequences of
this quarrel with his wife, who refused to live in the same house with him any
longer. He wrote imploring letters requesting reconciliation; but they were
received with scorn. With regard to prisoner's statement that he could not
receive a lodger on the night of the 24th because he had four men, and was full
up, it had been stated that these four men were all a myth, and that this
statement was only a part of his scheme to kill the children. Was it not
possible that these men, whom prisoner said he had seen with women on the same
night, had gone to some less respectable haunt for the night? At all events it
seemed as likely as that the whole story was a myth invented by prisoner. Having
pointed out that there was nothing peculiar in prisoner not retiring on the
night in question, when he had a sofa prepared downstairs, he said that the
testimony as to the prisoner being kind to his children was unanimous. Fearon
appeared to have been a new arrival at prisoner's house, but even she had had
time to how tenderly he brought them to be washed by her, and afterwards carried
them upstairs and put them to bed. There appeared to have been the bright spot
in that man's life ‐that was his love and affection for his children, and
whatever Mary Ann Palin might have to say about his treatment of her, she had no
occasion to make a single complaint of his treatment of her children. Annie
Fraser said he was extremely kind to them; Maria Fearon described the way in
which he performed those many little functions which a careless man might have
relegated to the nursemaid, with the tenderness and kindness of a mother rather
than the qualities of a father. The lodger also said he never saw anyone so kind
in his life, and confirmed the opinion that he was like a mother rather than a
father. He then referred to the evidence as to the discovery of blood stains in
the house, and emphasised the fact that though prisoner was said to have done
downstairs with the clothes reeking with blood, only one small stain was found
on the banister. It would be an insult to deny that prisoner went down to
Bickley Parade ‐the evidence was too strong and unanimous on that point ‐but if
an assault of the nature described was committed upon Palin by prisoner, it
would be a fair and reasonable conclusion to draw that the blood found on his
clothing had flowed from her hands as she was on the ground by prisoner. Again,
evidence had been given to this effect that the blood stains on the handle of
the piece of wood used by prisoner to batter in the windows in Bickley Parade
were wet when it was examined after the assault. He contended that if the stains
were imprinted at Richmond Street, by the time he had walked to Bickley Parade
and assaulted Palin the stains would have had time to dry. At all events this
was not improbable solution of the case. He strongly urged upon the jury the
fact that the lodger, who came in at seven o'clock on the morning of the crime,
had not been examined by the counsel for the prosecution, and said that in view
of the widespread newspaper reports he could not have failed to hear about the
occurrence. In reference to the interview in Walton Jail he said that sometimes
when prisoners made statements there was something or other held out, or it
might be supposed that there was something held out; but in that case it was
entirely a voluntary statement to a man whom he had sent for, and therefore
entitled to more respect at the hands of the jury than many communications of a
similar character. He said, "I know nothing, so help me God. I washed little
Harry; I put him to bed. I bid him 'Good night', and kissed him ‐bless his
little heart. Willie went to bed afterwards; I wished him 'good night' and I
didn't go upstairs afterwards. I am as innocent as you are". That was a
statement made to an independent man, and he would ask them to attach some
importance to it. These children appeared to have been the idols of his life
almost these children whom he was charged with killing. A great lawyer, Lord
Cope, described murder as being when a man of sound memory and discretion killed
a human being. Did they believe for one instant that that man "murdered" his
children? He was obliged to say he dared not leave any stone unturned in the
duty that he had to perform on behalf of the prisoner; and therefore, though he
submitted that the evidence for the prosecution consisted of a chain of evidence
that was faulty and undefendable, he must omit no point that told in prisoner's
favour. He could not help saying that if that man he said this under his
lordship's direction ‐if this man went into the room where those children were
sleeping, very likely when he had the intention of going down and attacking the
mother, and breaking into her premises, knowing that he was going to do the
mother grievous bodily harm or to murder her, and that it would be impossible to
escape ‐if he went into their room to take a last look at them, he submitted
that if he went back into the room with merely the innocent intention of seeing
his children, they would say he was not guilty of the murder of those children
if, when his mind was so clouded with the trouble he had been in and the
contemptuous replies to his appeals by his wife, this man, maddened with the
thought of it, had his mental faculties so obliterated that he put an end to the
children by cutting their throats. He asked the jury to ask themselves whether
he was at that time a man of sound memory and reasonable sense, and said that if
they thought not, he would ask them to say that a verdict of manslaughter would
be all that could revert against that man. He was under his lordship's direction
when he summed up the case to them, and he had no more to add on behalf of the
prisoner. He had done what he thought was his duty, and according to his advice
what he could do, and he only asked them to remember one thing ‐that they were
not trying prisoner for the attack on Mary Ann Palin, and the savage assault he
made on her, but simply for the crime of murder.
His Lordship said it was now his duty to sum up the evidence in the case to
which they had listened so long and so patiently, and, before he got to the
evidence he would make one or two remarks upon some general topics which had
been alluded to by the learned counsel. Mr Colt Williams had told them, and Mr
Wood repeated that that was entirely a case of circumstantial evidence. He (the
Judge) totally denied that anything popularly called circumstantial evidence was
evidence at all, or should be given in evidence, and he should be right at the
proper time, and place to show, by going through the various rules of evidence
established in that country, that what was generally called circumstantial
evidence with no evidence according to the distinctive rules of the country.
That, however, was not the place to deliver a lecture upon legal topics, and he
would pass over the expression with this single remark that, whether they liked
to call the evidence circumstantial or not, the question was simply whether it
satisfied them beyond all reasonable doubt that the man was guilty of the crime
charged against him or not. He had also one other general remark to make upon
the suggestion with which Mr Wood concluded his evidence ‐for it was possible
there might be a conviction for manslaughter in that case if they thought that
at the time he entered the children's room he had not the intention of cutting
their throats. He told them that they could not consistently with law give any
such verdict ‐the whole of the evidence in the case either proved that the man
voluntarily and wilfully put his children to death by cutting their
throats ‐which was murder ‐or that he was not guilty of any crime at all. They
would, however. observe that something was said about the phrase "malice
aforethought". It was undoubtedly true that to constitute murder there must be
malice aforethought; but those were most unlucky words and were almost always
misunderstood. Unless one knew how they should be technically interpreted one
could not know what they meant. It was generally said that there most be
premeditation ‐that was not so; if a man decided upon a sudden temptation to
kill a person and did kill that person without provocation, if he did that, it
was as much murder as if he had meditated it for a year and made every
preparation for it. With regard to the words "malice aforethought" they had been
better defined by Lord Chief Justice Holt than any he had ever read, and he had
read a great quantity ‐"he that doth a cruel act voluntarily doth it of malice
prepense". If the act was a cruel one and it was done voluntarily, that was what
was meant by malice aforethought. So the whole matter really came to
this ‐whether they thought that this mean voluntarily did the cruel act of
cutting the throats of those children. That was the one subject which they had
to inquire into, and he should address his summing up entirely to matters which
threw light upon it. They had heard the evidence of a day and a half, and he did
not think anytime had been wasted upon it. It seemed to have been very fairly
given and very properly put before them, and now he would consider how the
matter stood. There was no doubt at all that the prisoner and his wife did lead
a most unhappy life, and that unhappiness seemed to have lasted for a
considerable time. Mr Wood went back as far as 1873, when he said that the
prisoner led Palin astray. Mr Wood suggested that he might have been married
before and that that was the reason why he did not marry Palin. That might be
so, but he could not ask the jury to pay attention to such suggestion. It was
entirely strange to the matter they were now trying, and it never could be that
a man could excuse, or justify, or extenuate one crime because another hung upon
it. He might just make this one remark, though it was more in the nature of a
moral observation than anything else, that was, that if prisoner had done that
justice to the woman which he certainly owed her, if he had married, she could
not have testified against him, and the fact that he did not think proper to
marry her had been strangely avenged, and he was there on his trial for his life
because he did not do that justice to the woman which he certainly ought to have
done. Referring to the evidence as to prisoner's general affection for his
children, he said that love for children was in a great measure the reflection
for love of wife, and that a loss of affection for the wife would naturally
cause a loss of affection for the children. That kind of kindness was quite
consistent with something entirely different if a violent passion interfered.
The counsel for the defence had impressed very strongly upon the jury that it
was a suspicious fact that the lodger who came to the house in Richmond Street
early on the morning of the day on which the crime was committed, must have
known all about the occurrence from the newspaper. That was quite possible: but,
strange as it might appear to lawyers, people hated to be called as witnesses,
and he was not quite sure that he should not himself. (A laugh). People would
get in their own houses, and say it was the place of the police to find them
out, which made it very difficult to procure them as witnesses. Alluding to the
evidence with respect to the blood stains, his lordship said that with the
exception of the wounds on the woman's arm there was absolutely no accords
whatever to be given of the blood which stained every single garment worn by the
prisoner. He was speaking in reference to the suggestion with regard to
prisoner's insanity, and remarking that the evidence went directly in opposition
to the theory that he was of unsound mind.
Mr Burke Wood said it was very late in the case, but he had just learned from Dr
Ross that prisoner was a sufferer from insomnia. His Lordship said it was indeed
very late in the day, but directed that Dr Ross should be recalled. Dr Ross then
stated that Mrs Palin had mentioned to him on one occasion that prisoner could
never go to sleep, and bitterly complained of it in the same night. Insomnia, he
continued, was sometimes a form of melancholia.
His Lordship : Have you ever observed any signs of melancholia about prisoner?
Dr Ross : No; but I thought it only fair to mention this.
His Lordship, remarking that the evidence did not very materially bear on the
prisoner's state of mind, concluded his summing up, and the jury retired at
exactly a quarter to two.
At ten minutes to two they returned into court.
The Clerk of Arraigns ‐Gentlemen of the jury, do you find the prisoner, Felix
Spicer, guilty or not guilty?
The Foreman (in a low voice) ‐Guilty.
The Clerk ‐You say that he is guilty of murder, and that is the verdict of you
all?
The Foreman ‐It is.
The Clerk ‐Felix Spicer, you stand convicted of willful murder. What have you to
say why the court should not give you judgment to die according to law?
Prisoner ‐I am not guilty of the murder of the children, my lord. If I had
worked on my own evidence I could prove that. I gave Mr Wood some papers as you
suggested. He has them now, and if you read them you would exonerate me. There
is proof where lodgers have been to the house, and paid an amount on deposit,
and every action I have done during the week. If you were to read these papers
it would prove you, my lord.
The Judge, assuming the black cap, said ‐Felix Spicer
Prisoner ‐Yes, my lord
The Judge ‐You stand convicted of wilful murder, and that under circumstances as
horrible as I ever knew a murder to be accompanied with. As to what you say
about Mr Wood. I can only tell you this, that Mr Wood, at very great labour to
himself and at the sacrifice of much valuable time, has defended you with
admirable skill and judgment.
Prisoner ‐Yes, my lord, I will admit that; but if you had read these papers, or
if I had defended myself, I think you would have given me a better verdict.
The Judge ‐I cannot believe that Mr Wood has not read your papers.
Prisoner ‐There is marks of blood on the stones where I cut my hand with the
glass.
The Judge ‐That is exactly what Mr Wood tried to persuade the jury, but they did
not agree.
Prisoner ‐There is the money the lodgers gave me on deposit to come into the
house where I stopped after half‐past twelve to let them in. When I went out in
the morning, all the doors were open, and I did not wake until 20 minutes past
three.
The Judge ‐You have had the opportunity of saying all that, and you have had a
very careful counsel to say it for you. The jury have come to the conclusion
that you are guilty of wilful murder, and for my part I entirely share the same
opinion. The matter is no longer in my hands in any way. All that remains to me
is to pass upon you the sentence of the law.
Sentence of death was then pronounced in the usual way.
The prisoner, who displayed some agitation, was removed from the dock.
Liverpool Mercury Thursday, 14 August, 1890
The New Brighton Murderer
Interview With Spicer
Since the trial and conviction of Felix Spicer for the murder of his two
children at New Brighton, circumstances have, it is stated, come to light
bearing on the suggestion that the condemned man was insane at the time that he
committed the deed. Spicer has a brother living in Birkenhead, and a
half‐brother, two sisters, and other relatives living in London. "Some of his
London relatives," says a correspondent. "had expected to be called at the trial
at Chester to give evidence as to the insanity which has from time to time
manifested itself in the family, and the fact that they were not is said to be
due to the late hour at which Mr Burke Wood was instructed, and that he was not
then in possession of the information, which has now come to light. The
important points bearing on the case are that one of Spicer's sisters has been
confined in Colony Hatch Lunatic Asylum as an epileptic idiot, suffering from
exalted delusions and impressions. She had been in the asylum two or three
times. Her son has also been confined both in the Colony Hatch and Hanwell
institutions as an epileptic subject to violent outbursts and delusions. Another
sister's daughter has been in the asylum, and is at present being watched by Dr
Dunlop, of St. Pancras' Workhouse. It is further stated that a half sister of
Spicer's lived with him for some time at New Brighton, and was subject to
attacks of violent passion. She was of weak intellect, and in that condition of
mind generally described as "soft". Spicer's brother's son also lived with him
some time ago at New Brighton, and while there he one morning took up the
carpet, cut the fringes off all the fire rugs, and trimmed all the rugs in the
houses. He subsequently joined the Salvation Army, and became subject to
religious mania, his peculiar conduct being on one occasion brought to the
notice of the Birkenhead police magistrate. He afterwards went to London, where
he one day cut down all the trees in his mother's back garden, because, as he
said, they blocked the way to heaven. Yet another sister of the condemned man
attempted to hang herself behind a parlour door, and she was cut down only just
in time to save her life. She was of weak intellect, being particularly subject
to suicidal mania.
Yesterday afternoon the same correspondent had a conversation with Mrs Cannon, a
niece of the prisoner, who lives at Kentish Town, London, and who on Tuesday,
along with her husband, visited Spicer in the condemned cell at Knutsford. The
interview took place in the presence of the governor of the jail and two
warders. Her account is as follows : "I noticed, first of all, that he had aged
very fast. He asked after every one belonging to him, particularly his eldest
son, Felix, who is an apprentice in a newspaper printing office in Cardiff, and
whom he expressed a desire to see. He was most pleased to see me, as I was the
first to visit him since he was condemned. I did not speak to him about the
trial or the murder. I only told him to pray and look to his Maker. His own
family all say that he must have been a mad man at the time when did the deed".
Asked whether anything in the nature of insanity had ever been noticed in Spicer
himself, Mrs Cannon said ‐"There have been fits of aberration at times. While I
was there he spoke about his wife, and in order to distinguish her called her by
her own name, Mary Ann Palin. He told me to go to New Brighton and see her, and
ask her to come and see him. I said I would do so. (Mrs Spicer, otherwise Palin,
who was present during the narration, said she intended to see him.) He further
said that he could get very sleep. His appetite was pretty fair, and he got all
that he wanted. The 20 minutes allowed for the interview had then expired, and
they left. Spicer crying bitterly. Mr Cannon confirms hi wife's story as to
Spicer's changed appearance, and said he looks like an old man of about 90. He
never saw a man alter so in his life.
The North‐Eastern Daily Gazette Friday, 22 August, 1890
The New Brighton Murderer
Execution Of Spicer
The final preparation for the execution of Felix Spicer (60), a rigger by trade,
for the murder of his two children at New Brighton, were effected last night.
Spicer, since he received sentence of death, had been confined in Knutsford
Prison, the county gaol of Cheshire. Berry, the executioner, arrived at
Knutsford from Bradford shortly after four o'clock yesterday afternoon, and
immediately proceeded to the prison for the purpose of inspecting the necessary
apparatus. The scaffold, which is the one used on the two previous occasions,
was erected in a small building especially set apart for execution. Mr
J. Cullimore, Under Sheriff, arrived at the prison last night in order to see
that perfect arrangements had been carried out, and the executioner, in
accordance with his instructions, took up his quarters for the night within the
precincts of the prison, where he was supplied with sleeping accommodation. A
last effort had been made to restrain the last dread sentence of the law from
being carried into effect, but with no result. A telegram was received yesterday
by the authorities of the gaol from the Home Office, stating that the Home
Secretary, after carefully perusing the evidence, and consulting with the
Learned Judge who heard the case, saw no reason for interfering in Spicer's case
with the due execution of the sentence of the law. Spicer himself has not denied
committing the crime, but asserted at the same time that if he had so he was mad
at the time. Up to the last he was exceedingly penitent, and paid marked
attention to the ministrations of the prison chaplain, the Rev. W.N Truss, who
paid him a visit late last night. Spicer has hardly varied in weight during his
incarceration.
On The Scaffold
The chaplain entered the condemned cell shortly after six this morning and
administered the Holy Sacrament. Spicer appeared very penitent, though when
breakfast was brought Spicer did not touch it, and as the hour of his execution
approached he seemed in danger of collapsing altogether. Berry, the executioner,
entered the cell shortly before eight, and completed the pinioning process,
which was undergone by the doomed man in a somewhat mechanical manner. On the
way to the scaffold, which was the same as that which Richard Davies, the Crewe
parricide, was executed, Spicer appeared rather faltering, but when he got out
of the cell he revived considerably. When he had taken his place on the scaffold
and the cap was adjusted on him he said "Good morning" to those present, and
added in feeble tones, "I was mad if I perpetrated the crime. My poor dear
children, May God bless and keep me, a miserable sinner". The bolt was then
pulled, the body disappeared, and death seemed instantaneous. Spicer was 11
stone, 11 lbs, in weight, and 5 feet 4 inches in height, and he received a drop
of 5 feet 2 inches. Representatives of the Press were admitted to witness the
execution. Instructions were issued for the destruction of the rope with which
Spicer was hanged immediately after the execution. The mode in which the rope is
now supplied is that the High Sheriff, who is responsible for the carrying out
of the execution, purchases the necessary length from the governor of Newgate
Prison, who is authorised by the Home Office to sell it. This relieves the
hangman of any responsibility as to the rope being unsuited for the purpose.
In accordance with the wish expressed by Spicer during an interview with some of
his relatives, Mary Ann Palin, otherwise known as Mrs Spicer. declared her
attention to close her refreshment rooms at New Brighton today to show her
respect for Spicer, even though he had so cruelly wronged her.
Manchester Courier and Lancashire General Advertiser
Saturday 30 August 1890
Brutal Assault on a Constable at Northwich.
John Walters, lodging‐house keeper, New‐street, Northwich, was charged on
remand, at the fortnightly Petty Sessions of that town, on Wednesday, with
several offences. One was that on the 7th inst. be assaulted George Bostock,
landlord of the Market Tavern, by throwing glasses at him, because of being
ordered to leave the house through his intoxicated condition. Another charge was
for being drunk and disorderly on the licensed premises named, and refusing to
quit. The third, and most serious offence laid to his charge was one of assault
on Police‐constable Jones, and doing damage to his clothing to the extent of £3,
on the 8th inst. For the assault on the constable Walters was sent to gaol for
month without the option of a fine, and ordered to pay 1s. And £2 for damage
done, or, in default, another 'month's imprisonment.
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 28 February 1891
DISGRACEFUL SCENE IN CHESTER.
MILITARY VERSUS ROUGHS.
A large and excited crowd congregated in Foregate‐street on Tuesday night, in
con‐sequence of a serious disturbance at the Brewers' Arms public‐house. This
week, it appears, a football team representing the South Staffordshire regiment
came into the city from Ireland, to compete in the fourth round of the Army Cup.
The match took place at Faulkner‐street, Hoole, on Tuesday afternoon, and it was
between ten and eleven o'clock the same evening that the row occurred.
Acting upon information received, Police‐Sergeant Roe, accompanied by P.C.
Clutton, proceeded to the Brewers' Arms, where they found half‐a‐dozen soldiers
belonging to the South Staffordshire Regiment engaged in a fight with a similar
number of Chester roughs. The belligerents were not separated without great
difficulty, and on reaching the street the military are stated to have acted in
a most disgraceful and rowdy manner.
According to the police report, they were eager for a fight, and began pushing
people about, and making use of bad language. All of them refused to go away
when requested, and one took hold of Roe's stick, and attempted to wrest it from
him.
Ultimately the police despatched a messenger to the Castle, summoning the
picket, who very shortly afterwards arrived on the scene, and removed five of
the soldiers to the guard‐room.
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 24 October 1891
TERRIBLE TRAGEDY IN CHESTER.
MURDER OF A PARAMOUR SUICIDE OF THE MURDERER. A thrilling sensation ran through
Chester early yesterday (Friday) morning by the discovery of a horrible crime
unparalleled in the recent history of the city. Briefly stated the circumstances
seem to be that John James Jagger, residing at No. 28, Lead works‐lane, murdered
his paramour, Harriet Butterfield, by stabbing her with a pocket knife, and
afterwards hanged himself in the garden.
THE SCENE OF THE CRIME. The house, No. 28, Lead works‐lane, which witnessed the
awful crime, stands about mid‐way between Egerton‐street and the £city‐road
bridge, a two storeyed building facing the canal, and with nothing between it
and the water but a small garden plot. The house has been widely known
throughout the country, especially to railway travellers, for the past 30 or 40
years. Over the door hangs the sign, “Evans’s original old house at home; tea
and refreshments; beds for travellers." It was familiarly spoken of as "The Old
House at Home," and was kept by a Mrs. Roberts, a widow, as an eating house,
with occasional accommodation for lodgers over night. Mrs. Roberts had a large
circle of acquaintances and patrons, and from her connection with railway porter
3 and other employees she extended her business by frequent recommendations from
those rail‐way men to belated travellers to spend the night at her house. In
this way she amassed a considerable sum of money, and her daughter, Mrs.
Butterfield, the woman now lying dead, succeeded to her business.
MRS. BUTTERFIELD MEETS JAGGER Things went on very much in the same way as during
Mrs. Roberts's management, until about nine years ago when Mrs. Butterfield
unfortunately made the acquaintance of Jagger, with whom she has lived ever
since. At the commencement of their cohabitation Jagger, who had formerly been a
keeper at the County Lunatic Asylum at Upton, folio wed the vocation of a
stevedore, and worked at Liverpool and Birkenhead, but for the past eighteen
months he did not do much work. Latterly he seems to have become madly jealous
of his partner, and to have given way to drink. His full name is John James
Jagger, 45 years of age, and the woman, Harriet Butterfield, was about the same
age.
THE BEGINNING OF THE QUARREL on Thursday evening, after the usual horse fair,
"The Old House at Home” was the resort of cattle and horse dealers from the
country, who paid their customary call for tea. During the meal Jagger, who had
been drinking all day, but was just then recovering his sobriety, showered abuse
and threats upon his paramour to such an extent that one or two of the cattle
dealers interfered and gave him what they described as a "good hiding." At 11
o'clock at night they left the house to catch their trains for home.
MRS. BUTTERFIELD'S PRECAUTIONS FOR SAFETY. Mrs. Butterfield was so afraid of her
partner's violence that she sent for her son‐in‐law, James Thomas Fraser, a
railway guard, who lives in Bishopsfields with his wife, who is a daughter of
Mrs.Butterfield, to spend the night under her roof. At midnight the whole
household retired to rest, Fraser and his wife sleeping in one bed, and Mrs
Butterfield occupying another bed in the same room without undressing. The other
occupants of the house at the time were a lodger named George Gallimore, a
moulder, and Mrs. Butterfield's youngest daughter, both of whom had gone to bed
before the others. Before going to bed Fraser fastened the door of the room to
prevent the ingress of Jagger, and shortly afterwards the latter came to the
door, knocked, was extremely violent, and threatened and shouted that he wanted
Mrs Jagger to come out into her own bedroom.
THE MURDERER ENTERS THE BEDROOM. Her reply was that she would not that night,
but as the man continued his violent behaviour Fraser, anxious to avoid a
further disturbance of the neighbourhood, at length consented to open the door
and let him in. Jagger lay down on the bed beside Mrs. Butterfield with‐out,
however, undressing. Fraser and his wife, after hearing the man's threats and
knowing his feelings towards the woman, not un‐naturally feared a serious
development, and under the circumstances it is hardly surprising that they kept
awake almost all the night, keeping a pretty strict watch on the other bed.
Being a railway man, who requires to be early on duty, Fraser was knocked up at
five o'clock, and went out to his work. Jagger was now practically ALONE WITH
HIS VICTIM in the bedroom, for Mrs Fraser was powerless to resist his violence
or protect her mother. Very soon after Fraser's departure Mrs. Butter‐field rose
from her bed, and speaking to her daughter regarding Jagger's objectionable
behaviour the previous night said, “I will go to the Town Hall this morning."
Jagger, who had also risen and was at the moment doing something with his pen
knife to his finger nails, or, as the daughter thinks, was cutting tobacco with
a knife, replied " You are to go to the Town Hall this morning are you ?" "Ye
3," she re‐joined, whereupon Jagger PLUNGED HIS KNIFE into her neck just under
the left ear, accompanying the thrust with the exclamation” Then take that." The
blood instantly spurted all over the room ; the daughter closed with him, and by
some means yet unexplained the wounded woman dragged herself into the next room,
only a yard or two off, and fell on the floor exhausted. She expired almost
immediately after the struggle. Downstairs and the neighbours were under the
impression he had got clear away. A story got abroad that immediately after
dealing the fatal blow Jagger made his escape by leaping through the bedroom
window to the garden beneath — not an uncommon mode of exit for a murderer.
Whether it was this belief in the orthodox dramatic style of departure or not
that prompted the story remains to be explained; but the idea is certainly
strengthened by the act that just below this window, which is 14 feet from the
ground, the soft soil of the garden is disturbed, and the footmarks are
consistent with a man's leap from the window. The more probable version of the
affair, however, is that the criminal in his desperate flight stumbled at the
top stair and jumped to the landing beneath at one bound. JAGGER ESCAPED The
lodger, George Gallimore, being roused by the disturbance, after discovering the
true state of the case, sent for Dr. Lees, and himself went to the Police
Station, where he arrived at 6 20. Sergeant Cooper, who was on duty, at once
made for the spot, accompanied by Con‐stables McGowan and Stokes. That all these
tragic incidents could have occurred without attracting the attention of the
police is capable of easy explanation. About ten minutes to six o'clock the city
police were changing their beats, the night men going off and the day men going
on, and there would consequently have been some difficulty in getting a
policeman there at the particular moment, even if the alarm had been raised in
sufficient time to prevent the murderer's escape. RAISING THE ALARM. Dr. Lees,
who was the first to arrive, reached the house about six o'clock, and found Mrs.
Butterfield dead, with the jugular vein severed. The police putting in an
appearance a few minutes afterwards, the search for Jagger was commenced.
ARRIVAL OF DR. LEES The circumstantial evidence surrounding the case shows that
the criminal's first intention was suicide by drowning. Without divesting
himself of any of his clothing he plunged into the canal, which has not even a
parapet between it and the garden. Being an experienced swimmer, however, Jagger
found drowning more difficult than he anticipated, and a few strokes brought him
back to the bank. No time was, however, lost in carrying his determination of
self‐destruction into effect. At one end of the small garden stands a stout
clothes‐pole, some eight or nine feet high, with a pulley attached to the top.
Running alongside this is a palisade about six feet in height which separates
the garden from a small pig‐sty at the gable of the house. Running a rope
through the pulley and climbing on to the paling, the suicide adjusted the noose
and swung himself off with fatal effect. The public in the morning were aide to
see Jagger's footprints plainly marked beneath the pole, and so near to the
canal stands the post that if he had chosen, he could have dangled his legs over
the water. The police constables found the criminal suspended from the post,
quite dead. His body was removed to the mortuary, and the murdered woman's
corpse still lies in the house. THE SUICIDE the interiors of the two rooms which
witnessed the fatal struggle, resemble a slaughter house in their gory
appearance. Both rooms are bespattered with blood, and the victim lay for some
time, where she had fallen and bled to death. She was a stout, fleshy woman, and
every drop of blood seems to have been drawn from her body through the terrible
wound, the body presenting on a post mortem view a ghastly and pallid hue.
GHASTLY SCENE IN THE ROOM. In an interview with our representative early in the
morning, Dr. Lees said he was called to the house No. 28, Lead works‐lane, at
six o'clock that morning. He found the woman Butterfield lying in an upstairs
room quite dead in a pool of blood. From all appearance she had been dead no
length of time. On the left side of the neck there was a deep gash about three
inches long right across the side of the neck, evidently severing the large
blood vessels. On his first visit the doctor saw no other marks of violence. He
sent for the police at once, and Constables McGowan and Stokes arrived, and
commenced looking for the man Jagger, whom they afterwards found hanging in the
garden. Dr. Lees, who assisted in the search, found the instrument of the crime
in the garden — a black ‐baited pocket knife of the ordinary size. It is not
quite new, but seemingly has not been used for many months. It was the small
blade that had been used in the perpetration of the murder. This blade was still
open, and there are reddish marks plainly visible on it, but it is difficult at
this time to say whether they are the results of corrosion or whether they are
the remains of a gory encrustation. THE DOCTOR'S STORY. The wound has a jagged
appearance, which would bear out the story which, according to the neighbours,
Mrs. Fraser tells. It is said that after driving the weapon home, Jagger moved
the blade backwards and forwards in the wound so as to sever the blood vessels
completely. The fell speed with which the murderer despatched his victim, with
such an insignificant‐cant instrument, and the significant accuracy with which
he selected the vulnerable part of the neck for the deadly wound, betoken a
better knowledge of anatomy than is to be expected from Jagger's walk of life.
If it be true he was formerly a stevedore, it is just possible he may have
acquired some knowledge of pig slaughtering on board ship, which he has turned
to such lamentable service. FIENDISH BUTCHERY. Some of the neighbours who were
annoyed by the disagreement on Thursday evening offered, it is said, to bring a
policeman and have Jagger locked up for the night, but Mrs. Buttertield, with
that clemency which criminal annals show so abundantly the ill‐treated woman
invariably lavishes on her heartless partner, rejected the offer. THURSDAY
NIGHT'S ROW It is an open secret in the neighbourhood that the partnership of
Jagger and Mrs. Butter‐field has been a long tale of domestic un‐happiness, and
recently their differences have become even more accentuated. For some reason
best known to himself Jagger wa3 madly jealous of his paramour, and last
Wednesday the couple quarrelled In the course of the altercation Jagger forced a
sovereign from Mrs. Butterfield, and afterwards remarked that he would buy a
revolver with it for the purpose of shooting her. A FORMER QUARREL it is now
some years since the customary quietude of Chester has been shocked by murder.
The last event of the kind, which was most notable for its mysterious
surroundings, occurred at Lumley Place, some three years ago, when an
upholsterer's wife was beaten to death by some unknown hand. The next latest
crime happened over eight years ago, when the murderer was executed by Marwood
at Chester Castle. This was the last execution at Chester. FORMER CHESTER
MURDERS Public interests in the gruesome drama increases as the details are
passed from mouth to mouth, gaining and varying wonderfully in the process.
These matters will be all satisfactorily cleared up at the inquest, which was
arranged for three o'clock, at the Town Hall. The scene was visited early by the
Chief Constable (Mr. Fenwick) and Detective‐Sergeant Gallagher, who made a full
investigation of the case. Ever since the shocking discovery a police officer
has guarded the door of the house against the entrance of anyone who is not
officially concerned in the affair. THE INQUEST. Another account says: — the
deceased man, Jagger, was well known in the neighbourhood of Lead works‐lane,
where not the most favourable opinion was entertained as to his character and
industry. He enjoyed the reputation of a man who worked only by fits and starts,
and spent the intervals in public‐houses. When in drink he was usually very
violent, and had frequently been known to threaten his paramour. For the last
two years he appears to have been almost constantly out of work, living upon the
woman's means. His last employment was at the Birkenhead docks, where he did a
spell of a fortnight, terminating last Saturday night. He then returned home,
and, it is stated, had been drinking freely ever since. On Wednesday night, in a
fit of temper, he demanded a sovereign from the woman, with the threat that he
would purchase a revolver to shoot her with, and, after a stormy scene, he
appears to have wrung the money from her. The sovereign, however, was found in
his possession on the morning of his death by the police, proving that he had
not been short of money for drinking purposes. As to his history, little appears
to be known in the neighbourhood, except that for some time he acted as an
attendant at a lunatic asylum, and began cohabiting with the deceased woman
before the death of her husband, a respected man, who died at Rochdale. THE
SUICIDE'S ANTECEDENTS At the time of the tragedy, a young moulder, named George
Gallimore, and was staying at the house, where he had lodged for the past four
months. Interviewed by a representative of the Observer, Gallimore stated that
on the day previous to the murder a number of Irish cattle‐drovers, who usually
made the “Old House at Home " their resort during fair‐time, had tea in the
house. Jagger, who had been on the spree since Saturday, had been absent from
home during the preceding night, and as early as breakfast time it was evident
that he was under the influence of drink. At tea a quarrel arose between him and
two of the Irish‐men, who resented his reflections on one of Mrs. Butterfield's
daughters. Blows were freely exchanged, and Jagger got the worst of the fight,
his face being slightly cut. He after‐wards went to sleep for several hours, and
on awakening had more liquor. The Irishmen left by the eleven o'clock mail, and,
after their departure, Jagger renewed the brawl, during which every effort was
made to pacify him. One of his complaints was that his bed was occupied, and
that he was compelled to sleep on the sofa downstairs, which manifestly
aggravated him. Gallimore states that he retired to rest about midnight, and
heard nothing more till between five and six in the morning, when he was
startled by screams proceeding from an adjoining apartment. Mrs. Butterfield
then rushed into his bedroom, blood streaming from a terrible gash in her neck,
and exclaimed A LODGER INTERVIEWED “GEORGE, GET UP, I AM STABBED!" At the same
time she seized hold of his shirt with her hand, which left indelible stains of
blood on the cloth, and shook him. He immediately jumped up, and saw pools of
blood on the floor. Mr. Fraser, the eldest daughter, then led her mother back
into the room in which she had been stabbed, where she fell on her face on the
floor. The youngest daughter had already left the house in search of a doctor,
and Gallimore at once proceeded to the police office, where he gave information
of what had occurred. From this point he knows nothing of what transpired, and
told his story to our reporter, while awaiting a summons to the inquest. From
hearsay, he had learned further that during the disturbance on the previous
night, a policeman was sent for on account of Jaggers violence, but even then
Mrs. Butter‐field refused to give him in charge. It was said that he threatened
to take her life in the presence of the officer, but this occurred while
Gallimore was in bed and he heard very little of it. The daughter's husband,
Fraser, was in the house during the night, and did his best to pacify Jagger,
but he left for work about five in the morning, and could say nothing about the
tragedy itself. His wife, however, was present at the murder with her child, who
screamed loudly through fright as Jagger executed his savage work with the
knife. The affair created quite a sensation in the neighbourhood, where people
were roused from their sleep in the early morning by piercing shrieks and the
barking of a dog. The horrible news spread with astonishing rapidity, and a
crowd of people Boon collected in the vicinity of the house, which was guarded
during the removal of Jagger's corpse by the police. The neighbours are quite
accustomed to domestic brawls at the “Old House at Home and no one was unusually
alarmed by the uproar on Thursday night.
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 19 September 1891
TRAGIC DEATH OF A CHESTER POLICEMAN
On Friday evening week, about ten o'clock, P.C. Darlington, while on duty in
Newtown, suddenly expired in Wellington‐street. When he was in George‐street
some boys began calling him names, whereupon he ran after them. A whistle was
heard immediately afterwards and a few people hastened to the spot, where they
found the officer breathing his last.
Dr. Harrison and Dr. Roberts were sent for, but on arriving at Mr. Gosmore's
house, where deceased was taken, pronounced life extinct. The body was
subsequently taken to the mortuary awaiting the inquest. Deceased leaves a widow
and child, for whom much sympathy is felt.
An inquest was held on Monday, at the Bull and Stirrup Hotel, before Mr. C. W.
Tibbits, deputy coroner. — Ralph Darlington, 9, Lightfoot‐street, father of
deceased, stated that his son was 23 years old, and was married, and was always
a healthy man. —
P.S. Thomas Leach deposed to seeing Darlington on Cow‐lane Bridge about nine
o'clock. Witness then left him to go on his beat. Deceased seemed in good
health.
Martha Sands went down George‐street about 9.30 on Friday; night, and saw
deceased running some boys round a lamp post with his stick in his hand, and
subsequently saw him fall in the channel. On approaching, as she did not hear
him breathing, she called for help.
Thomas Pickthall, groom to Mr. Smith, Northgate‐street, who also saw Darlington
fall, put deceased's head on his knee. He then took him to Mr. Gosmore's house
pending the doctor's arrival.
Dr. George Harrison deposed to finding deceased dead about ten o'clock. He had
attended Darlington twice since he was on the force. The post‐mortem examination
of the body made it clear that he died from fatty degeneration of the heart.
Detective Crewe searched the body, and found 24s 6d., a pocket‐book, pocket
handker‐chief, and other articles.
The jury returned a verdict of " Death from natural causes — fatty degeneration
of the heart."
On Tuesday after‐noon the remains were interred at the Chester Cemetery. The
cortege left the mortuary about half‐past three, headed by 18 pollce constables,
2 sergeants, and Inspector Farrell.
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 20 June 1891
CHESTER CASTLE PETTY SESSIONS. SATURDAY.
Theft of a Greyhound. — John Jones, a navvy, was charged with stealing at Whitby
on the 6th June a greyhound (valued at £10), the property of William Law son.
The prisoner pleaded guilty, and P.S. Ennion stated that on the previous
Saturday evening, the prisoner was in the company of Lawson at the Canal Tavern,
Ellesmere Port. At closing time they crossed the fields towards the new huts,
and Lawson, who was in possession of a valuable greyhound, went into No. 27,
where he lodged. On his return to the front door, the bitch was gone, and it
subsequently appeared that a woman had seen the prisoner take the animal away.
On Sunday night, witness apprehended him with the bitch in his possession, and
found the collar bearing the owner's name in his pocket. When charged he asked
the prosecutor not to appear against him. The magistrates sent him to prison for
two months with hard labour.
The Perils of a Policeman's Lot. — Joseph Ellis, labourer, pleaded guilty to
being drunk and disorderly on the highway at Ellesmere Port, on the 6th of June,
and also to assaulting Police‐constable James Dawson, on the same day. P.C.
Dawson stated that he found the prisoner, along with another man , asleep and
drunk at mid‐night on the highway on the night in question. The other man went
off, and he took the prisoner to the police station, where he became very
violent, struck witness in the chest, and tried to drag him down. Witness was
obliged to beat prisoner with a stick in order to bring him to the police
station. A sum of 15s. 3½d. was found on the prisoner. Other witnesses testified
to the assault on the police and the prisoner's violent conduct. The prisoner
said he came from Welshpool that day, and only arrived at Ellesmere Port late at
night. He supposed he had had a little beer. (Laughter.) The Bench said it was
very important that the police should be protected when in the discharge of
their duties. For the assault the prisoner was sent to prison for one calendar
month with hard labour and for being drunk and disorderly a fine of 10s. and
costs was imposed, with the option of seven days' hard labour.
Chief Superintendent Hindley stated that it had become dangerous for any police
officer to go into the neighbourhood of Ellesmere Port alone, and only the
finest men in the county were employed for duty in that district.
A Night in a Haystack. — John Craggs pleaded guilty to vagrancy. He was found
asleep by the side of a haystack at Ince, on the 12th of June, by P.C. Alfred
Foster, with a few matches in his possession. His story was that he had come
from Runcorn. — The Chairman remarked that it was very important that farmers
should be protected from vagrants. They considered they were very lenient in
sentencing the prisoner to only seven days' imprisonment with hard labour.
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 24 January 1891
CHESTER CASTLE PETTY SESSIONS.
Saturday.— Before H. Trelawny, Esq., Sir T. O. Frost, Rev. E. A. P. Campbell
John Grace,
E. T. Richardson, Esqrs.
Assaulting the Police.— Martin Lyons, navvy, Ellesmere Port, was charged, in
custody, with being drunk and disorderly and with assaulting P.C. Proctor while
he was in the execution of his duty. On Tuesday Pc Proctor and P.S. Cooke
discovered prisoner lying in a drunken sleep inside a pig‐stye at Ellesmere
Port. On being disturbed from his slumbers the man became very pugilistic, and
struck the constable in the chest. The two officers, with great difficulty,
handcuffed him, and conveyed him to the police station.
— The Magistrates being determined to put down these assaults on the police,
sentenced prisoner for being drunk and disorderly to seven days hard labour,
without the option of a fine ; and for assaulting the police to 21 days' hard
labour, the two terms of imprisonment to run consecutively.
Sleeping Out. — John Smith, Eastham, for this offence was, on the information of
P.C. Proctor, sentenced to seven days' hard labour.
Monday. — At the office of the Magistrates' Clerk (Mr. W. H. Churton), before
Sir T. G. Frost and the Rev. E. A. P. Campbell
Drunken Navvies. — James Murphy was charged, in custody, with being drunk and
disorderly at Ellesmere Port on the previous Saturday night, and was fined ls
and costs, or seven days' hard labour. — Jas. King, for being intoxicated in
Dock‐street, Ellesmere Port, on Saturday night, waa fined se. and costs, with
the alternative of seven days' hard labour. P.C. Griffiths laid the information
in both cases. —
James O'Kelly, for a similar offence in Mersey‐street, Ellesmere Port, was, at
the instance of P.C. Crowe, ordered to pay a fine of 5s. and 5s. costs, with the
option of seven days' imprisonment. —
Frederick Bilson, charged by P.C. Stevenson with a like offence in Station‐road,
Ellesmere Port, was ordered to pay the same penalty. —
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 14 February 1891
ELLESMERE PORT. Found Dead on the Railway. —
On Wednesday, at the Railway Hotel, Ellesmere Port, Mr. Churton held an enquiry,
touching the death of Thomas Grubb, whose body was found on the railway, near
the station, about nine o'clock on' Monday night.
P.S. Cooke stated that he was called to the place, and saw the body lying in the
six‐foot. He made an examination, and found the deceased’s head was terribly
smashed. The wounds were such as would be caused if caught by a passing train.
Harriet Cooper said deceased had lodged at her house at Ince for six months. He
was about twenty‐one years of age, and was known as Thomas Griffiths. He left
her house about eight o'clock on Monday morning.
A verdict of "Found dead on the Railway" was returned.
From a letter unsigned from Hawarden, found on his body, the Police Sergeant
communicated with that place, and during the inquest the young man's father
arrived, and identified the body as that of his son, whose real name was Thomas
Grubb.
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 5 September 1896
NORTHWICH A Northwich Councillor Fined for Drunkenness.— At the Middlewich
Sessions on Wednesday, Robert Dickson Nicholson member of the Northwich Urban
Council summoned for being drunk in charges of a horse and trap. He was swaying
to and fro in the vehicle when Constable Skilbeck stopped him. He refused to
give his name, and the officer had to drive him from Winsford to Northwich. A
fine of 10s was imposed The cas aroused considerable interest.
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 25 September 1897
NORTHWICH. A Winsford Man's Escapade.— At Northwich, on Saturday, Samuel Taylor
a well‐known Winsford butcher, was charged in custody with being drunk and
assaulting the police. Constable Cope stated that at 1 a.m. he found the
prisoner lying asleep in Apple Market Street. When roused, he violently struck
the officer in the chest, kicked him on the thigh, and threw him to the ground.
The officer blew his whistle, help arrived, and Taylor was with difficulty
lodged in the cells. A fine of 21s. was imposed.
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 2 December 1893
NORTHWICH Betting Raid. — On the afternoon of the Lancashire Handicap day at
Manchester, Inspector Johnson, with two sergeants and five constables raided the
Black Bear Inn, Northwich, and arrested Mrs. Alice Gorst, the land‐lady, Herbert
Mitchell, John Bigglestone, barman, and four labourers named Thomas Peover,
Dominic Kerwain, Martin Finegan, and Joseph Henshall. They were taken before the
magistrates and charged; the landlady with using the house for betting purposes,
and the other defendants with aiding and abetting. John Swords, a Birkenhead
constable, stated that he visited the house in disguise on the 21st, 22nd, 23rd,
and 24th ult., saw betting going on and made bets himself with Mitchell. The
constables took possession of betting books and other documents and .several
sums of money/ including £23 found on Mitchell. All the defendants were remanded
on bail.
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 3 October 1891
NORTHWICH. Serious Poaching Affray ‐Assaulting the Police. — At the Northwich
Police Court, on Saturday, James Whitaker and Wm. Yarwood, both of Northwich,
were charged with being in possession of poaching implements, and with being
concerned with unlawfully wounding and assaulting four constables early that
morning. Shortly after one o'clock Police‐constable Dutton and three officers
whilst on duty at Cogshall came across a gang of nine or ten men, whom they
suspected of being in search of game. They stopped them, when Police‐constable
Richardson was struck and rendered insensible, and bis injuries were so serious
that he was unable to attend the court. Police‐sergeant Dutton on going to his
assistance received a blow on the breast with a stone. Police‐constables Mellor
and Gibbons were also assaulted. The struggle raged for some time, and stones
were thrown at the officers. Sticks also were used. Police‐constables Richardson
and Gibbons were so severely handled that they were under medical treatment. The
prisoners were remanded, bail being refused, and warrants were issued against
other members of the gang known to the police
Cheshire Observer
Saturday 19 December 1891
DARING LEAP FROM A TRAIN.
A PLUCKY CHESHIRE CONSTABLE
At the Chester Castle Petty Sessions on Saturday, John Rushby, who appeared in
the dock with his head bandaged was charged on remand with stealing from a tin
box at Helsby station on December 8th, one overcoat, value 32s., one serge
jacket, one timepiece, value 7s. 6d., and a shawl, value 18s., the property of
Hugh and Mary Wilson, of 8, Worcester‐street, Ellesmere Port. He was also
charged with assaulting P.C. Thomas Finchett, and also with resisting the police
in the execution of their duty. Prosecutor, with his wife, had travelled from
Earlam to Helsby on the day in question, and on arrival at Ellesmere Port by the
2.50 train he asked leave to place his tin box in the waiting room for a few
hours, when he would return to fetch it. This was accorded and nothing wrong was
noticed until prosecutor fetched the box home and noticed the articles were
missing. Information was given to the police, which led to the arrest of the
prisoner in the Bull public‐house, where he was discovered wearing a topcoat,
afterwards identified as the property of Hugh Wilson. Alfred Carpenter, booking
clerk at Ellesmere Port, said he saw prisoner in the waiting‐room at 3.15, and
also at 4.15. He appeared to be asleep, and he noticed that he was in drink. He
said he was waiting for a Manchester train. Witness did not notice anything
wrong with the box. Mary Wilson, wife of the prosecutor, identified the missing
articles. P.C. Thos. Finchett detailed his Visit, in company with Sergt.
Jackson, to the Bull public‐house. When the prosecutor saw the prisoner wearing
his overcoat, the latter said he had "swapped it for a joint head." When
searched at the police station, a shawl was found in the top pocket of the coat.
In reply to the charge of theft, prisoner said, “ I have never been near the
railway station to‐day. I swapped a joint head with a chap of a tramp today for
this coat." Sergeant Jackson proved finding the time‐piece in the Grosvenor
Hotel, Ellesmere Port, the",day after the theft. Prisoner asked witness " Do you
think I should have stood in the Bull public‐house, only 300 yards away, wearing
the coat if I had stolen it ?" He repeated his story of "swapping" the coat, and
added he never knew it was stolen. He was as innocent of stealing it as a babe
unborn. He admitted, however, being in the waiting‐room. Prisoner was then
formally charged with the assault on P.C. Finchett, and pleaded not guilty. "I
am guilty of going out of the train," he remarked. Constable Finchett's evidence
was to the effect that he left the Northgate Station, Chester, with prisoner
about 12.25 p.m. on Wednesday afternoon, as the prisoner had been remanded from
the Magistrates' Clerk's office in the morning. When the train had got about a
quarter of a mile past Mickle Trafford Station, prisoner got up as if he was
going to spit out of the window, and suddenly leapt out of the compartment.
Witness at once jumped after him, and both fell into a ditch. When the prisoner
got up he ran at the constable, and struck him. Both fell together between a
fence and the hedge, where a violent struggle ensued. Witness pulled his staff
out in order to inflict a blow but the strap broke, and the bludgeon flew out of
his hand. The prisoner then secured it and told the constable he meant to get
away; he would knock his brains out. The constable, not to be overpowered so
easily, regained possession of the staff, and another incident occurred before
the prisoner was finally captured Prisoner had made an attempt to escape over
the hedge, and when he saw he was being hotly pressed he pulled out a belt he
was wearing round his waist, doubled it round his wrists, and struck Finchett
with it in the face, but several blows from the staff caused the prisoner to
fall in some water and to give in. He was picked up and conveyed back to
Chester, where Dr. Parry attended to his injuries. Prisoner denied that he ever
used a belt, and accused the constable of using his staff all the way to the
station, and when he was put into the waiting‐room Finchett said with an oath he
would kill him. He also charged Finchett with making him drunk, and said he was
very bad at the time. The Chairman, in passing sentence, said it was a very
serious case, and he was certainly guilty of breaking into the tin box and
stealing the goods, for which he would be imprisoned for two months with hard
labour. As for the assault on the police, he ought to be very thankful to the
police for taking such care of him. It might have ended very fatally for either
of them.
The Bench appreciated the gallant conduct of the policeman, and considered he
behaved in a very noble way. It was their duty to punish prisoner for a very
gross case of assault, and the sentence would be three months with hard labour
—five months in gaol altogether. The third charge, of resisting the police, was
not adjudicated upon.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 28 March 1891
THE BURNING TRAGEDY ON THE SHIP CANAL.
THE INQUEST. VERDICT OF MANSLAUGHTER.
On Tuesday Mr. H. Churton, county coroner, held an inquest at the Grosvenor
public‐house, Ellesmere Port, upon the body of James Birnie, who died in the
hospital on Saturday last from the effects of burns.
Superintendent Walker, of the Eddisbury Division, had charge of the case on
behalf of the police, and Mr. F. Cartwright, solicitor, Chester, represented the
prisoner, John Sheen, who is alleged to have caused the deceased's death. Mr. R.
H. Taylor, sub‐agent, watched the case in the interests of the Ship Canal
Company.
The first witness was Thomas King, miner, employed by the Ship Canal Company,
who stated that a fortnight lost Thursday night, about nine o'clock, he saw the
prisoner throw a quantity of lucigen oil out of a bucket upon an open fire at
the works at Ince and run away. The flames blazed up, and almost immediately
Sheen returned, and dragged away a man who had been lying near the fire. The
man's trousers were completely destroyed, and he was badly burned about the
front of the legs. A number of workmen came up to give assistance, and prisoner
said "I wonder how he got on fire”? The man exclaimed "You've burned me, you've
burned me." He was removed on a locomotive to the hospital, where witness saw
him on the following Saturday. He then appeared to be in great pain, and on the
previous day witness heard of his death. Cross‐examined by Supt. Walker: When
the prisoner said "I wonder how he took fire," witness replled, " You will know
about it in the morning. I saw you do it, and I shall have you locked up if no
one else will." By a Juror Sheen might have run away to escape being burned
himself. The deceased did not point to anyone in particular when he said "You've
burned me." Witness saw the whole thing from an embankment some twenty yards
away. A Juror: Do you think the prisoner saw the man before he threw the lucigen
? Witness: I can't say. I heard Sheen say, "I told him to go away from the fire,
but he would not."
Dr. F. D. Bennett, house surgeon at the Ellesmere Port Hospital, deposed that
the deceased, when admitted to the institution, was in a very collapsed state,
and suffering from severe burns to the legs, face, and hands. He progressed
slowly till Friday night, but died suddenly the following day. Witness ascribed
death to general collapse caused by the injuries.
Jessie Birnie, the deceased's wife, last saw her husband allve at Glasgow nine
months ago.
Daniel Allsop, lampman, heard deceased call out, "What have you thrown the oil
over me for" At this time Birnie and Sheen were together near the fire, and
there were other persons in the vicinity. The deceased was lying down, and Sheen
was standing up about a yard away from the fire on the other aide. Witness
immediately saw the deceased in flames, and said to the prisoner, "What the have
you done it for, Jack?" Sheen replied, "I caught my foot against the bucket."
Prisoner had twice ordered the deceased away from the fire, as he had no
business there, and said he had "better **** off." Witness told him to let the
fellow alone; he was doing ho harm.
Mr. John Grace, justice of the peace for the county of Chester, read the
following depositions, taken at the deceased's dictation, on the 6th instant, at
the Ship Canal hospital : — " I, James Birnie, make this statement, believing
that I am in a dying state, that the prisoner cast the oil upon the fire. I live
at Frodsham Marsh. I was laid down by the fire and dozed off to sleep and was
awoke by something. I saw the prisoner standing by the fire with a pan of oil in
his hand. He then threw the oil into the fire and my clothes became ignited. I
got up and said, "You might give a fellow a chance." The prisoner replied, "It
served you right; you had no business there." A man named Brummy (Allsop)
wrapped his jacket round me. An engine was obtained and I was conveyed to the
hospital. I had no misunderstanding with the prisoner."
The Coroner, in summing up, explained the reason that the prisoner had not
attended the inquest. He was taken to Chester and brought before the County
Magistrates, and remanded till Saturday, when he will re‐appear before them, and
they will deal with him as they think proper. The dying statement made by the
deceased, which was of the utmost importance to the jury, had been corroborated
to a certain extent by the other witnesses, leaving no possible doubt as to how
he came by his death. He did not mean to say that Sheen threw the oil actually
with the intention of killing deceased, because in the absence of sufficient
provocation he could not conceive that possible. The provocation was of the most
flimsy character, but the prisoner made use of certain vulgar words which showed
that he was angry with Birnie. He dared say the man felt provoked, but why he
wished deceased away from the fire there was no evidence to show. He advised the
jury that the evidence justified them in returning a verdict of manslaughter
against the prisoner. After some consideration in private, the jury brought in a
verdict of "Manslaughter" against John Sheen, and complimented tie police upon
the way in which the case had been worked up by them.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 11 April 1891
CHESTER CASTLE PETTY SESSIONS. Saturday.— Before H. Trelawny, John Thompson,
John Grace, B. C. Roberts, and R D. Richardson; Esqrs., the Hon. Cecil Parker,
and the Rev. E. A. P. Campbell.
THE ALLEGED MANSLAUGHTER ON THE SHIP CANAL. COMMITTAL TO THE ASSIZES.
John Sheen was brought up on remand accused of the manslaughter of James Birnie
on the Ince section of the Manchester Ship Canal on March 5th. Mr. J. P.
Cartwright again appeared for the defence.
Thomas King now attended, and repeated his evidence given at the inquest. In
cross‐examination he said the borer's fire, near which the deceased was lying
when Sheen threw the lucigen oil, was lighted between six and seven o'clock.
Geo. Newbolt, surgeon practising at Ellesmere Port, saw the deceased about six o
clock in the evening on the 6th March, the day after his admission to the
hospital when he was in a dying condition, suffering from collapse produced by
the burns. In consequence of what he saw, witness gave a certificate stating
that Birnie seemed likely to die, and his depositions had better be taken. He
again saw the deceased on the following day and at intervals to the time of his
death on the 21st March. Cross‐examined : Birnie rallied after witness's first
visit to the hospital, but he never grew much better, and death was sudden.
Witness had hopes that he might recover, but the suddenness of death did not
come at all as a surprise. The immediate effects of burns were often fatal after
five or six days. He agreed with Dr. Bennett, the house surgeon that death
resulted from shock and exhaustion. Mr. John Grace, J. P., deposed to taking
down the depositions, in which Birnie declared that the prisoner threw the oil
on him, and said it served him right as he had no business at the fire. The
deceased was in bed and not in a fit condition to sign the statement.
Police‐Sergeant Pettingale, of Ince, stated that from information received, on
Thursday, the 5th March, he went to the Ship Canal about midnight, and saw the
witness King. They proceeded to a lucigen lamp which was burning, and King
pointed out the prisoner. Witness said "What about throwing this oil and burning
a man ?" ‐The prisoner replied "I did not throw it," but King declared that he
saw him do so. "You hear that," said Pettingale. The prisoner answered "Yes,"
and the officer then charged him with doing grievous bodily harm to a man then
unknown. Sheen said "I accidentally caught my foot against the bucket, and a
drop or two went on the fire." The man was then locked up at Bishopsfield where
on the previous Saturday witness again saw him and asked if he knew that Birnie
was dead He replied “Yes," and witness read over the charge of manslaughter, to
which he made no reply. Cross‐examined: Witness had repeated everything Sheen
had said at both interviews. The prisoner pleaded not guilty, and said "I did
not do it." Mr. Cartwright gathered from the general appearance of the
magistrates that they considered there was a case, upon which they would not
entertain any observations for the defence. The prisoner was then committed for
trial to the Assizes, bail being allowed in his own recognisance’s, of £50, and
four sureties of £12 10s. each.
Cheshire Observer
Saturday 3 October 1891
NORTHWICH.
Serious Poaching Affray .
Assaulting the Police.
At the Northwich Police Court, on Saturday, James Whitaker and Wm. Yarwood, both
of Northwich, were charged with being in possession of poaching implements, and
with being concerned with unlawfully wounding and assaulting four constables
early that morning.
Shortly after one o'clock Police‐constable Dutton and three officers whilst on
duty at Cogshall came across a gang of nine or ten men, whom they suspected of
being in search of game. They stopped them, when Police‐constable Richardson was
struck and rendered insensible, and his injuries were so serious that he was
unable to attend the court. Police‐sergeant Dutton on going to his assistance
received a blow on the breast with a stone. Police‐constables Mellor and Gibbons
were also assaulted. The struggle raged for some time, and stones were thrown at
the officers. Sticks also were used. Police‐constables Richardson and Gibbons
were so severely handled that they were under medical treatment.
The prisoners were remanded, bail being refused, and warrants were issued
against other members of the gang known to the police.
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 19 December 1891
TRAGEDY IN CHESHIRE.
A LABOURER SHOT BY HIS MASTER
William Boyle, farmer, of Hollin Edge Farm, Northern Etchells, near Cheadle,
Cheshire, is in custody of the police on the charge of murdering one of his
labourers, on Tuesday night. It appears that the labourer in question, whose
name is Beech and hails from Blackburn, was sent to a smithy at Northenden with
a ploughshare about three o'clock on Tuesday afternoon. He returned about
half‐past eight, and for some time jokes passed between him, his master, and
another man named Joseph Wright, with respect to Beech's unshaven appearance.
Joking proceeded, Wright and Boyle placed Beech on a chair, and attempted to
shave him with an old knife. Beech retaliated, and advised them to stand back,
as he had firearms in his possession, and would let them into them. Royle said,
" Oh, have you ? So have I," and immediately took down a gun from the kitchen
ceiling, pointed at the head of Beech, and fired, the result being that Beech's
brains were blown out, and he died without a groan. Royle was at once taken into
custody by P.C. Massey, his explanation of the affair being that it was all in
joke, and he did not know that the gun was loaded. Deceased, who had been in the
employ of Royle and his family for fourteen years, was on the best of terms with
his master up to the time of the occurrence.
Royle was on Wednesday afternoon charged with the manslaughter of Beech. Formal
evidence was given, and prisoner was remanded, bail being allowed. An inquest
was held on the body of Beech on Thursday, when the jury, after a short
deliberation, returned a verdict of "Homicide by misadventure."
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 3 December 1892
SAD DEATH OF A CHESHIRE FARMER. TRAP ACCIDENT AT EATON
A painful sensation was caused in agricultural and business circles in Chester
on Thursday morning by the receipt of the intelligence of the sudden death of
Mr. Richard Mullock, of Poulton Hall Farm, on the Eaton Estate.
Deceased, who was 64 years of age, was a well known and highly‐respected farmer,
being a most successful maker of Cheshire cheese. Mr. Mullock was returning home
late on Wednesday night in a trap with his wife. When in the Eaton drive the
horse, it is supposed shied, and bolted across the road. The trap, colliding
with a tree, was upset, and the deceased gentleman was thrown to the ground. He
got on his legs, however, and was unfastening the harness, when a man named
James Edwards arrived on the scene and took charge of the horse. Mr. Mullock,
who shewed no signs of having been injured, then went to look after his wife. He
had not, however, proceeded more than thirty yards when he dropped down dead.
The cause of death is at present unknown. Naturally the melancholy affair has
completely prostrated Mrs. Mullock, and she is lying in bed in a serious
condition. Much sympathy is felt for the deceased's family in the sad
bereavement that has befallen them.
The late Mr. Mullock resided for practically his whole life on the Eaton estate,
first at Aldford, and for the last twenty years at Poulton. Like some other
successful business men, possessed of great perseverance and force of character,
he was naturally of a retiring and almost too modest disposition. As an agrarian
agitator he would have been a distinct failure, but nature providentially
intended him for a more useful role, which he filled with consummate success.
Living as a tenant of the Duke of Westminster, and enjoying the many advantages
and facilities offered by his Grace for the prosecution of the dairy industry,
Mr. Mullock soon made a name for himself among connoisseurs, and his specialty
of rich coloured Cheshire cheese rapidly gained a more than local reputation,
both at fairs and shows.
Happy in his domestic relations, he was esteemed by a large circle of
neighbours, who always found him willing and capable of giving the soundest
advice when consulted. Although he had no hankering after public notoriety and
never courted publicity, he sat at the Chester Board of Guardians for many
years, working with the same quiet effect as in private life, and observing the
golden rule of knowing when to keep silence. He is survived by a widow and a
large family, one of his sons, a farmer at Waverton, having already given ample
promise of following in his father's footsteps as a manufacturer of typical
Cheshire.
THE INQUEST. The County Coroner (Mr. H. Churton) held an inquiry into the
circumstances attending the death of the deceased gentleman, yesterday (Friday),
at Poulton Hall.
James Edwards, under gardener at Eaton, stated that he knew the deceased. About
10.40 on Wednesday night he was on his way home, and when nearly half way
between the black and white cottages and Eaton Hall he heard a conveyance coming
from the opposite direction. When it was about thirty yards from him he heard a
peculiar grinding and rumbling noise, and he saw several flashes of fire from
the wheels of the carriage. There were no lights on the vehicle. He hastened on
to the carriage, and when he got opposite to it he saw the man and horse and
trap on the bank, a few feet off the drive. The man was on his legs trying to
unloose the tracings, as the horse was rather restive. Witness got hold of the
horse's bridle, leaving the man at liberty. The man was then sharp and active,
and gave no signs of being hurt. Soon afterwards he said to witness "This is a
bad job," and then witness discovered that it was Mr. Mullock. Deceased was not
more than five minutes in unloosing the harness and witness led the horse clear
of the trap which was upside down. Deceased then remarked "I will now go back
and see after my poor wife, and try to get some help," and witness took charge
of the horse. After coaxing the animal till it became quiet, he turned round in
the direction of the Hall, and saw an object about thirty yards away lying on
the ground. He at first thought that it was somebody else who had been thrown
out of the trap, but on approaching it he ascertained that it was the dead body
of Mr. Mullock. Almost at the same time Mrs. Mullock arrived on the spot. When
witness was within a fen yards of them, she called out “Father, are you hurt?"
and as deceased made no answer, she caught hold of his arm and repeatedly asked
him to tell her if he was hurt. Witness then raised the deceased, but he made no
sound, and he went for assistance to the Hall, whence a conveyance was sent to
take deceased home. He also gave information to the police. Mrs. Mullock did not
complain of any injury. It was a nice moonlight night.
John Robinson, constable in the service of the Duke of Westminster, said he
first heard of the unfortunate affair on Wednesday night about eleven o'clock.
On going to the scene of the accident, he found the dead body of Mr. Mullock
lying on the grass by the side of the road. There was mud on the side of his
face, but witness did not discover any marks of injury. Ho conveyed deceased
home in a trap and undressed him. Witness had examined the place where the
accident occurred, and he found two marks on the tree where the wheel of the
trap had gone up it. The tree was just at the edge of the road, and there was a
large projecting root with wheel marks on it, which was sufficient to upset the
trap. The tree was on the right hand side of the road, so that the trap must
have crossed the road, and it was very remarkable that the accident should have
occurred on such a moonlight night. Witness supposed that the horse must have
shied at something. On Wednesday night he saw the trap upside down, and rugs
scattered all over the road.
Dr. Taylor deposed to seeing the body of deceased on Wednesday evening, when
life was extinct. There were no external injuries, and he could not say what the
cause of death was.
The Coroner, in summing up, said they had nothing to prove what the actual and
specific cause of death was. The case had caused a good deal of excitement in
Chester and for some miles surrounding. There had been many rumours about the
case which he dared say were some‐what painful. He did not think considering the
delicate condition of Mrs. Mullock that they would be justified in going into
her bed‐room to take her evidence, and as it would not be satisfactory unless
they knew what the cause of death was, he suggested that a post‐mortem
examination should be made. Deceased was not a bulky man, and it was impossible
to say what he died of. The jury, although they were reluctant for a post mortem
examination lo be made, eventually agreed to it, and the inquiry was adjourned
till Monday.
THE FUNERAL.
The funeral has been fixed for this (Saturday) afternoon at three o'clock at
Aldford church‐yard.
Cheshire Observer
Saturday 6 February 1892
ALTRINCHAM
The Scene in a Cheshire Church.
At Altrincham, on Monday, Peter Dean Sandiway was summoned for violent behaviour
in Rostherne Church. The defendant said he was a detective, and after looking
round the church seized one of the congregation, named Whitney, by the throat.
Great consternation prevailed and the service was stopped. Mr. Hockin, on the
defendant's behalf, apologised and offered to pay £10 to a local charity. The
Bench fined him £5 and costs, and the defendant paid £20 in addition to a
charity.
Chester City Police Force
Charles Price No 4
Joined the Force on 8 February 1864
Retired from the Force on 18 February 1894 after 30 years Service
Nominal Roll CJP20/7/1
Defaults Book p49. 10 February 1870 Leaving his Beat 1½ hours before time –
Cautioned and
withdrawn from Special Duty
Watch Committee Resolutions 5 Aug 1869 shows him with Collar No 4.
Watch Committee Meeting dated 1894 Feb 8 The Chief Constable reported that
Inspector
Charles Price had resigned the Force after 30 years of Service – entitled to a
pension of 2/3rd of
his pay 38/0 equal to £1.5.4 per week ‐Approved.
Watch Committee Meeting dated 2 January 1896 ‐The Chief Constable reported on
the death of
Police Pensioner Charles Price on 13 December 1895.
A Post Card from Price’s son which was as follows:
Granville Cottage, Swindon Road, Cheltenham 18 December 1895.
Mr. Beckett.
Sir, I hereby make application for any pension due to my late father Inspector
Price up to the time of his death on 13th December 1895. If you would kindly
forward on, I will send a receipt for same. Sorry I was unable to call having
been obliged to leave Chester this morning. I remain, Yours respectfully.
William Price (son).
It was Ordered: that the question of paying over the balance of the pension and
to whom be referred to the Town Clerk.
1871 Census records Charles, a police Constable aged 31 living at 3 Gloucester
Street, Chester with his wife and their 3 children.
1881 Census records Charles aged 42 years born Chester a Sergeant of Police,
living with his wife Mary and 3 children , living at number 2 Steam Mill Street,
Chester.
1891 Census records the family still living at no 2 Steam Mill Street. Charles
is now an Inspector of Police. He is a widower. He is now living with his two
daughters and granddaughter.
Died on 13 December 1895.
Please Note: The Watch Committee Meetings Resolutions for the years 1854 to 1875
have yet to be transcribed.
Cheshire Observer ‐Saturday 12 March 1892
ILLICIT DRINKING IN CHESTER A LICENCE ENDORSED At the Chester City Police Court
on Wednesday, before Messrs. L. Gilbert, J. Salmon, F. L. Bagnall, and Dr.
Stolterfoth; Harry Foster, the licensee of the Brewers' Arms public‐house,
Foregate‐street, was summoned for keeping open his licensed premises for the
sale of drink during prohibited hours, and for assaulting Police‐Inspector Price
in the execution of his duty. Mr. W. H. Churton appeared for the defence. —
Inspector Price deposed that at about 11.40 on Sunday night, the 28th February,
he was on duty in Foregate‐street with Sergeant Culliford, when they observed a
number of people standing outside the entrance to the Brewers' Arms. Shortly
afterwards two of them left, and came down the street, the remainder appearing
to enter the house. Witness and Culliford then proceeded to the front door, from
which they saw the bar lighted up, and heard people both in the bar and in a
back room talking. They also heard corks drawn from bottles, and the jingle of
glasses as if someone was handling them. Some person went from the bar towards
the back‐room, and in a few minutes returned, dropped some money into a drawer,
and closed it. The gas was then lowered, and the parties went towards the
back‐room, closing the bar door behind them. Witness sent the sergeant for
Police Constable Jones, who opened the passage door, and they walked up to the
door of the far room. People were talking inside, and when witness knocked there
was a noise of scrambling, and of people walking sharply out of the room. After
keeping them waiting four or five minutes, the defendant answered the door and
asked who was there. Witness replied "Police," whereupon the door was opened,
and they were allowed to enter. Witness enquired where were the parties who were
in the room, to which the defendant replied "What parties, where are they?"
Witness said .‐"That is what I want to know," and stepped into another inner
room, where he found several persons including two men and a woman, who were
strangers to him. He asked "What are these people doing here?" Defendant replied
"What people? Who are they? Don't you know them?" which he repeated in an
excited manner several times. Witness demanded their names and addresses, and
instructed the sergeant to take them down. While this was being done, the
defendant pushed Culliford and witness in the breast with his hand, and said,
"Take the names yourself; you are inspector, aren't you ? " Witness replied,
"Yes;' but I am not going to be dictated to by you." Foster then put his fist in
witness's face, and threatened to knock his b***** head off, but he was pulled
away by his friends. The following names and addresses were then booked : —
Charles William Shaw, Belvedere ‐road, Lambeth; Bagnall Holland, 62,
Cornwall‐street, Chester; and Flos Cambridge, of the Collingwood Pantomime
Company, Widnes. It had since been ascertained that Shaw, who was a cutler from
London, was working in Chester, and resided at 7, Deva terrace. The room was
afterwards searched, and in the bar they found on the counter three glasses and
three bottles, one about three‐parts full of beer. Witness said to the
defendant, "What about these?" He repeated several times, " What about them? "
Witness said, "Now listen to me. Before coming here we heard corks being pulled
and money put into the till." Foster replied, "You are a liar." Witness then
informed him that he would be reported for having his house open for the sale of
beer during prohibited hours, and for the assault. He said with regard to the
first, "I deny it; my house was closed at ten o'clock," and with regard to the
second, "You are a liar, I did nothing of the sort." The officers then left,
defendant following them to the door and making use of abusive
language.—Cross‐examined by Mr. Churton: They had not been watching the house,
and he did not notice where the people came from. They were standing in front of
the house (five or six of them) when witness and Culliford came up the street.
He did not ask the persons found on the premises whether they had been drinking
out of the glasses on the counter. The defendant did not actually touch
witness's face with his fist. He was very angry, but Culliford did not push him.
The lady said she was on her way to Widnes. Witness did not taste the beer, but
smelled it. — Sergeant Culliford, in corroborating, stated that the defendant
pushed him away, saying, "I am talking to your superior, you are a nondescript,
a wastrel." — Cross‐examined: Flos Cambridge was at Chester with the recent
pantomime company. He did not know if she was staying that night at the Brewers'
Arms. He denied putting a hand on the defendant. — P.C. Jones also gave
evidence, to the effect that when stationed at the street door, he heard someone
come into the bar and put glasses on the counter, after the inspector had
knocked. — Mr. Churton, addressing the Bench, said he had advised his client
that what had taken place could not be justified. The men did not intend to
commit any offence, but he was afraid the defendant had brought himself within
the purview of the law. Now that he had recovered his temper, he felt it his
duty to say he had done wrong, and could only leave the case in the magistrates
hands. It was perfectly true there were several men collected in the street on
the Sunday evening in question at 11.40. They had been to a club, the defendant
among the number, and it was suggested that they should go into the house for a
parting drink. The result was that two of them did go in, and whether they paid
for the drink or not, their presence could not be justified. As to the young
lady who was lodging at the house, there had been no attempt on the part of the
police to make out a case, while, as to the assault, he asked the magistrates to
find that, though the defendant had no right to put his fist in the officer's
face, there was no intention to commit an assault. He (Mr. Churton) had advised
his client that the constables took a perfectly legal course in entering and
searching the house, and he did not in the least complain of the way in which
the case had been brought forward.— After retiring, the Bench fined Foster £5
and costs, and endorsed the licence. They also fined him 10s. for the assault on
the police, and imposed a penalty of £1 each and costs upon the two men, Shaw
and Holland, for being found on the premises during prohibited hours, to which
they pleaded guilty.
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 17 December 1892
CITY POLICE COURT. Monday. — Before the Mayor, and Messrs. W. Johnson. L.
Gilbert, and Wm. Brown. Assault on the Police.— Robert O'Hara, an Irishman,
living at Little Sutton, was charged with being drunk and riotous in Boughton at
twenty minutes to eleven on Saturday night. While P.C. Wheatland was locking
prisoner up, the man kicked him on the thigh. — P.C. Young deposed to assisting
the last officer, and to being assaulted by the prisoner.— Fined 10s. and costs,
or in default, seven days' imprisonment, for being drunk and riotous, and 10s.
and costs, or fourteen days' imprisonment with hard labour, for the assault upon
the police.
Theft by a Married Woman. — Annie Douglas, married woman, living at 26,
Seville‐street, was charged with stealing a coat, value 215., the property of
Mr. Edwin Dutton, 105, Foregate‐street. The coat was hanging outside Mr.
Dutton's shop on Saturday. It was taken from there, and afterwards defendant was
found offering it for pledge at the shop of Mr. Dawson, pawnbroker,
Foregate‐street. She said a woman named Martin had given it to her to pledge.
She could not, how‐ever, find Martin, and to give her an opportunity of finding
her, the Chief Constable (Mr. Fenwick) admitted her to bail on Saturday night,
but defendant was still unable to find Martin.— Thomas Williamson, assistant to
Mr. Dutton, stated that a boy was stationed outside his employer's shop to watch
the goods which were hanging outside, but he did not see any one take the coat.—
Joshua West, assistant to Mr. Dawson, pawnbroker, stated that defendant offered
the coat for 125., stating that it bad cost 30s. He saw what he thought was one
of Dutton's tickets on the coat marked 21s, and he thereupon sent to Dutton's to
see if they had missed a coat. Dutton's then sent a policeman over. — P.C. Price
Wynne deposed to receiving defendant in custody. On being charged with stealing
the coat she said "I did not steal it. A woman at the end of Steven‐street
promised me two‐pence if I would go and pawn it for her." Witness found 46 pawn
tickets, 1½ d., and some old coins in her possession.— The Chief Constable said
he believed the pawn tickets were for articles that belonged to defendant. She
had been going down rapidly lately. — Defendant pleaded not guilty, repeating
that the coat was given her to pawn. In reply to the Bench she said her husband
had been working for the Corporation for the last few days. She had eight
children, the eldest being 15. — The Mayor said that was the first time
defendant had been there, and they would give her the benefit of that to a
certain extent!" They had no doubt she stole the coat, but at the same time the
owner was decidedly wrong in hanging the coat outside his shop on a dark night,
as it was an inducement to crime. Defendant would be fined 20s. and costs, with
the alternative of 14 days' imprisonment.
Thomas Tynan, an Irishman of clerical appearance, was summoned by P.C. Shires
for being drunk in Foregate‐street on Thursday after‐noon. He was surrounded by
a crowd of children, and went about from one public‐house to another getting
food and drink without paying.— The Chief Constable (Mr. Fenwick) stated that
defendant went to an eating‐house, had some food, but did not pay for it.
Defendant when brought in was drunk, but not incapable, and there were a. number
of com‐plaints against him. — Defendant : Drunkenness is a relative question.
The sea‐sickness had upset me, and I took more than was good for my health. It
was very hard to say that I was drunk. — Fined 5s. and costs, or seven days'
imprisonment with hard labour.
Cheshire Observer
Saturday 7 May 1892
PRESENTATION TO A CHESTER POLICE INSPECTOR.
On Friday week the members of the Chester city police force presented their old
and esteemed comrade, Inspector Farrall, with a handsome timepiece, on the
occasion of INS leaving the force, after thirty‐one years service. The
presentation was made by Dr. George Harrison in the city police court, in the
presence of the Chief Constable (Mr. G.
L. Fenwick), Inspectors Price and Leech, five sergeants, and thirty constables.
The Chief Constable, in introducing Dr. Harrison, said: We have met to wish an
official good‐bye to an old comrade. He has been in the force for 31 years, and
has advanced through every grade, from third‐class constable to first‐class
inspector, and now retires upon a well‐earned pension. It is a long time to look
back, and one is hardly able to realise it when one tries to look thirty years
ahead. Many of you were not born when Inspector Farrell joined the force. A
little gathering like this is a bright spot in a policeman's life, not for the
value of the memento it is proposed to give him, but because it shows a nice
feeling of good comradeship. It is invaluable in that respect. It has been
suggested that we should ask Dr. Harrison, the police surgeon, to present this
testimonial to Mr. Farrell. Well, I don't like outsiders in such a connection,
but I do not look upon the doctor as an outsider. And I have the less hesitation
in enlisting his good offices now, because, like many others, I think he has
been unfairly treated lately. At least the police have confidence in him, and I
look upon the recent event as a blessing in disguise to him. He will, I have no
doubt, pursue his profession, I hope, as long as his father did, and in the end
be as universally esteemed. In your names I now call upon him to present this
hand some testimonial to Mr. Farrell. (Applause.) Dr. Harrison, in making the
presentation, said: It was with feelings of very great pleasure that I was asked
by Inspector Price, on Wednesday last, to present Mr. Thomas Farrell with this
handsome testimonial on behalf of the members of the Chester city police. The
name of Thomas Farrell has always been held in the greatest awe by the lower
orders and in the highest respect by the upper classes in Chester; but in all
grades of society I can confidently say that his retirement after a service of
thirty‐one years on the streets will be regretted by every one. Ho had always a
kind word for those in distress, and on the other hand, when he gave a command
he meant to have it obeyed, both by those under him and the general public. I
have been called an outsider to‐day by the Chief Constable, and though I have
been police surgeon for more than eleven years, I have always considered myself
as much a member of the force as any of you, but I have never felt it so much as
I have done at a little gathering here to‐day. It only now remains for me to
present you, Mr. Farrell, with this handsome clock, and to hope that you will be
spared for many years to have it adorn your house, and to enjoy the pension
which you have so worthily earned. (Applause.) The timepiece bore the following
inscription: — “Presented to Inspector Thomas Farrell by the members of the
Chester City Police Force, on his retirement, as a mark of their esteem. April,
1892." — Inspector Farrell responded in a suitable manner, and on the motion of
Inspector Price a vote of thanks was subsequently passed to Dr. Harrison for his
services.
Cheshire Observer
Saturday 11 June 1892
CITY POLICE COURT. Wednesday
Before the Mayor and Messrs. H. R. Bowers and F. L. Bagnall.
Serious Assault on an Old Woman.
Emily Greenwood, a young woman, living in Love‐street, was charged by Margaret
Donohue, an old woman, with assaulting her. On Tuesday evening the prosecutrix
was going down Love‐street when she alleged the defendant struck her in the face
with a poker. A friend went for Dr. Archer, who came and stitched up the wound.
The prisoner was also charged by John Donohue, the former complainant's son,
with striking him in the face with a pair of tongs on the same
evening.—Police‐Sergeant Culliford stated from information he received he went
to Love‐street and found about 300 persons congregated watching the row. He
arrested the prisoner in her house, and found a hatchet, poker, and a
bloodstained pair of tongs. Prisoner was sentenced to six weeks' imprisonment in
each case — three months in all.— The Chief‐Constable remarked that he adhered
to his statement, made a few weeks ago, that this street was the most disorderly
in Chester..
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 24 October 1891
TERRIBLE TRAGEDY IN CHESTER.
MURDER OF A PARAMOUR SUICIDE OF THE MURDERER.
A thrilling sensation ran through Chester early yesterday (Friday) morning by
the discovery of a horrible crime unparalleled in the recent history of the
city. Briefly stated the circumstances seem to be that John James Jagger,
residing at No. 28, Leadworkslane, murdered his paramour, Harriet Butterfield,
by stabbing her with a pocket knife, and afterwards hanged himself in the
garden.
THE SCENE OF THE CRIME. The house, No. 28, Leadworks‐lane, which witnessed the
awful crime, stands about mid‐way between Egerton‐street and the £ity‐road
bridge, a two storeyed building facing the canal, and with nothing between it
and the water but a small garden plot. The house has been widely known
throughout the country, especially to railway travellers, for the past 30 or 40
years. Over the door hangs the sign, " Evans's original old house at home ; tea
and refreshments ; beds for travellers." It was familiarly spoken of as "The Old
House at Home," and was kept by a Mrs. Roberts, a widow, as an eating house,
with occasional accommodation for lodgers over night. Mrs. Roberts had a large
circle of acquaintances and patrons, and from her connection with railway porter
3 and other employees she extended her business by frequent recommendations from
those railway men to belated travellers to spend the night at her house. In this
way she amassed a considerable sum of money, and her daughter, Mrs. Butterfield,
the woman now lying dead, succeeded to her business.
MRS. BUTTERFIELD MEETS JAGGER. Things went on very much in the same way as
during Mrs. Roberts's management, until about nine years ago when Mrs.
Butterfield unfortunately made the acquaintance of Jagger, with whom she has
lived ever since. At the commencement of their cohabitation Jagger, who had
formerly been a keeper at the County Lunatic Asylum at Upton, followed the
vocation of a stevedore, and worked at Liverpool and Birkenhead, but for the
past eighteen months he did not do much work. Latterly he seems to have become
madly jealous of his partner, and to have given way to drink. His full name is
John James Jagger, 45 years of age, and the woman, Harriet Butterfield, was
about the same age.
THE BEGINNING OF THE QUARREL. On Thursday evening, after the usual horse fair
“The Old House at Home " was the resort of cattle and horse dealers from the
country, who paid their customary call for tea. During the meal Jagger, who had
been drinking all day, but was just then recovering his sobriety, showered abuse
and threats upon his paramour to such an extent that one or two of the cattle
dealers interfered and gave him what they described as a "good hiding." At 11
o'clock at night they left the house to catch their trains for home.
MRS. BUTTERFIELD'S PRECAUTIONS FOR SAFETY. Mrs. Butterfield was so afraid of her
partner's violence that she sent for her son‐in‐law, James Thomas Fraser, a
railway guard, who lives in Bishopsfield with his wife, who is a daughter of
Mrs. Butterfield, to spend the night under her roof. At midnight the whole
household retired to rest, Fraser and his wife sleeping in one bed, and Mrs.
Butterfield occupying another bed in the same room without undressing. The other
occupants of the house at the time were a lodger named George Gallimore, a
moulder, and Mrs. Butterfield's youngest daughter, both of whom had gone to bed
before the others. Before going to bed Fraser fastened the door of the room to
prevent the ingress of Jagger, and shortly afterwards the latter came to the
door, knocked, was extremely violent, and threatened and shouted that he wanted
Mrs. Jagger to come out into her own bedroom.
THE MURDERER ENTERS THE BEDROOM. Her reply was that she would not that night,
but as the man continued his violent behaviour Fraser, anxious to avoid a
further disturbance of the neighbourhood, at length consented to open the door
and let him in. Jagger lay down on the bed beside Mrs. Butterfield without,
however, undressing. Fraser and his wife, after hearing the man's threats and
knowing his feelings towards the woman, not unnaturally feared a serious
development, and under the circumstances it is hardly surprising that they kept
awake almost all the night, keeping a pretty strict watch on the other bed.
Being a railway man, who requires to be early on duty, Fraser was knocked up at
five o'clock, and went out to his work. Jagger was now practically ALONE WITH
HIS VICTIM in the bedroom, for Mrs. Fraser was powerless to resist his violence
or protect her mother. Very soon after Fraser's departure Mrs. Butterfield rose
from her bed, and speaking to her daughter regarding Jagger's objectionable
behaviour the previous night said, " I will go to the Town Hall this morning."
Jagger, who had also risen and was at the moment doing something with his pen
knife to his finger nails, or, as the daughter thinks, was cutting tobacco with
a knife, replied " You are to go to the Town Hall this morning are you ?" "Yes,"
she rejoined, whereupon Jagger PLUNGED HIS KNIFE into her neck just under the
left ear, accompanying the thrust with the exclamation " Then take that." The
blood instantly spurted all over the room ; the daughter closed with him, and by
some means yet unexplained the wounded woman dragged herself into the next room,
only a yard or two off, and fell on the floor exhausted. She expired almost
immediately after the struggle downstairs, and the neighbours were under the
impression he had got clear away. A story got abroad that immediately after
dealing the fatal blow Jagger made his escape by leaping through the bedroom
window to the garden beneath — not an uncommon mode of exit for a murderer.
Whether it was this belief in the orthodox dramatic style of departure or not
that prompted the story remains to be explained; but the idea is certainly
strengthened by the act that just below this window, which is 14 feet from the
ground, the soft soil of the garden is disturbed, and the footmarks are
consistent with a man's leap from the window. The more probable version of the
affair, however, is that the criminal in his desperate flight stumbled at the
top stair and jumped to the landing beneath at one bound.
JAGGER ESCAPED The lodger, George Gallimore, being roused by the disturbance,
after discovering the true state of the case, sent for Dr. Lees, and himself
went to the Police Station, where he arrived at 6 20. Sergeant Cooper, who was
on duty, at once made for the spot, accompanied by Constables McGowan and
Stokes. That all these tragic incidents could have occurred without attracting
the attention of the police is capable of easy explanation. About ten minutes to
six o'clock the city police were changing their beats, the night men going off
and the day men going on, and there would consequently have been some difficulty
in getting a policeman there at the particular moment, even if the alarm had
been raised in sufficient time to prevent the murderer's escape.
RAISING THE ALARM. Dr. Lees, who was the first to arrive, reached the house
about six o'clock, and found Mrs. Butterfield dead, with the jugular vein
severed. The police putting in an appearance a few minutes afterwards, the
search for Jagger was commenced.
ARRIVAL OF DR. LEES The circumstantial evidence surrounding the case shows that
the criminal's first intention was suicide by drowning. Without divesting
himself of any of his clothing he plunged into the canal, which has not even a
parapet between it and the garden. Being an experienced swimmer, however, Jagger
found drowning more difficult than he anticipated, and a few strokes brought him
back to the bank. No time was, however, lost in carrying his determination of
self‐destruction into effect. At one end of the small garden stands a stout
clothes‐pole, some eight or nine feet high, with a pulley attached to the top.
Running alongside this is a palisade about six feet in height which separates
the garden from a small pig‐sty at the gable of the house. Running a rope
through the pulley and climbing on to the paling, the suicide adjusted the noose
and swung himself off with fatal effect. The public in the morning were able to
see Jagger's footprints plainly marked beneath the pole, and so near to the
canal stands the post that if he had chosen, he could have dangled his legs over
the water. The police constables found the criminal suspended from the post,
quite dead. His body was removed to the mortuary, and the murdered woman's
corpse still lies in the house.
THE SUICIDE The interiors of the two rooms which witnessed the fatal struggle,
resemble a slaughter house in their gory appearance. Both rooms are bespattered
with blood, and the victim lay for some time, where she had fallen and bled to
death. She was a stout, fleshy woman, and every drop of blood seems to have been
drawn from her body through the terrible wound, the body presenting on a post
mortem view a ghastly and pallid hue.
GHASTLY SCENE IN THE ROOM. In an interview with our representative early in the
morning, Dr. Lees said he was called to the house No. 28, Leadworks‐lane, at six
o'clock that morning. He found the woman Butterfield lying in an upstairs room
quite dead in a pool of blood. From all appearance she had been dead no length
of time. On the left side of the neck there was a deep gash about three inches
long right across the side of the neck, evidently severing the large blood
vessels. On his first visit the doctor saw no other marks of violence. He sent
for the police at once, and Constables McGowan and Stokes arrived, and commenced
looking for the man Jagger, whom they afterwards found hanging in the garden.
Dr. Lees, who assisted in the search, found the instrument of the crime in the
garden — a black hafted pocket knife of the ordinary size. It is not quite new,
but seemingly has not been used for many months. It was the small blade that had
been used in the perpetration of the murder. This blade was still open, and
there are reddish marks plainly visible on it, but it is difficult at this time
to say whether they are the results of corrosion or whether they are the remains
of a gory encrustation.
THE DOCTOR'S STORY. The wound has a jagged appearance, which would bear out the
story which, according to the neighbours, Mrs. Fraser tells. It is said that
after driving the weapon home, Jagger moved the blade backwards and forwards in
the wound so as to sever the blood vessels completely. The fell speed with which
the murderer despatched his victim, with such an insignificant instrument, and
the significant accuracy with which he selected the vulnerable part of the neck
for the deadly wound, betoken a better knowledge of anatomy than is to be
expected from Jagger's walk of life. If it be true he was formerly a stevedore,
it is just possible he may have acquired some knowledge of pig slaughtering on
board ship, which he has turned to such lamentable service.
FIENDISH BUTCHERY. Some of the neighbours who were annoyed by the disagreement
on Thursday evening offered, it is said, to bring a policeman and have Jagger
locked up for the night, but Mrs. Buttertield, with that clemency which criminal
annals shew so abundantly the ill‐treated woman invariably lavishes on her
heartless partner, rejected the offer.
THURSDAY NIGHT'S ROW It is an open secret in the neighbourhood that the
partnership of Jagger and Mrs. Butterfield has been a long tale of domestic
unhappiness, and recently their differences have become even more accentuated.
For some reason best known to himself Jagger was madly jealous of his paramour,
and last Wednesday the couple quarrelled In the course of the altercation Jagger
forced a sovereign from Mrs. Butterfield, and afterwards remarked that he would
buy a revolver with it for the purpose of shooting her.
A FORMER QUARREL It is now some years since the customary quietude of Chester
has been shocked by murder. The last event of the kind, which was most notable
for its mysterious surroundings, occurred at Lumley Place, some three years ago,
when an upholsterer's wife was beaten to death by some unknown hand. The next
latest crime happened over eight years ago, when the murderer was executed by
Marwood at Chester Castle. This was the last execution at Chester.
FORMER CHESTER MURDERS Public interest in the gruesome drama increases as the
details are passed from mouth to mouth, gaining and varying wonderfully in the
process. These matters will be all satisfactorily cleared up at the inquest,
which was arranged for three o'clock, at the Town Hall. The scene was visited
early by the Chief Constable (Mr. Fenwick) and Detective Sergeant Gallagher, who
made a full investigation of the case. Ever since the shocking discovery a
police officer has guarded the door of the house against the entrance of anyone
who is not officially concerned in the affair.
THE INQUEST. Another account says : — The deceased man, Jagger, was well known
in the neighbourhood of Leadworks‐lane, where not the most favourable opinion
was entertained as to his character and industry. He enjoyed the reputation of a
man who worked only by fits and starts, and spent the intervals in
public‐houses. When in drink he was usually very violent, and had frequently
been known to threaten his paramour. For the last two years he appears to have
been almost constantly out of work, living upon the woman's means. His last
employment was at the Birkenhead docks, where he did a spell of a fortnight,
terminating last Saturday night. He then returned home, and, it is stated, had
been drinking freely ever since. On Wednesday night, in a fit of temper, he
demanded a sovereign from the woman, with the threat that he would purchase a
revolver to shoot her with, and, after a stormy scene, he appears to have wrung
the money from her. The sovereign, however, was found in his possession on the
morning of his death by the police, proving that he had not been short of money
for drinking purposes. As to his history, little appears to be known in the
neighbourhood, except that for some time he acted as an attendant at a lunatic
asylum, and began cohabiting with the deceased woman before the death of her
husband, a respected man, who died at Rochdale.
THE SUICIDE'S ANTECEDENTS At the time of the tragedy, a young moulder, named
George Gallimore, was staying at the house, where he had lodged for the past
four months. Interviewed by a representative of the Observer, Gallimore stated
that on the day previous to the murder a number of Irish cattle‐drovers, who
usually made the "Old House at Home " their resort during fair‐time, had tea in
the house. Jagger, who had been on the spree since Saturday, had been absent
from home during the preceding night, and as early as breakfast time it was
evident that he was under the influence of drink. At tea a quarrel arose between
him and two of the Irish‐men, who resented his reflections on one of Mrs.
Butterfield's daughters. Blows were freely exchanged, and Jagger got the worst
of the fight, his face being slightly cut. He after‐wards went to sleep for
several hours, and on awakening had more liquor. The Irishmen left by the eleven
o'clock mail, and, after their departure, Jagger renewed the brawl, during which
every effort was made to pacify him. One of his complaints was that his bed was
occupied, and that he was compelled to sleep on the sofa downstairs, which
manifestly aggravated him. Gallimore states that he retired to rest about
midnight, and heard nothing more till between five and six in the morning, when
he was startled by screams proceeding from an adjoining apartment. Mrs.
Butterfield then rushed into his bedroom, blood streaming from a terrible gash
in her neck, and exclaimed " GEORGE, GET UP, I AM STABBED !" At the same time
she seized hold of his shirt with her hand, which left indelible stains of blood
on the cloth, and shook him. He immediately jumped up, and saw pools of blood on
the floor. Mrs. Fraser, the eldest daughter, then led her mother back into the
room in which she had been stabbed, where she fell on her face on the floor. The
youngest daughter had already left the house in search of a doctor, and
Gallimore at once proceeded to the police office, where he gave information of
what had occurred. From this point he knows nothing of what transpired, and told
his story to our reporter, while awaiting a summons to the inquest. From
hearsay, he had learned further that during the disturbance on the previous
night, a policeman was sent for on account of Jaggers violence, but even then
Mrs. Butter‐field refused to give him in charge. It was said that he threatened
to take her life in the presence of the officer, but this occurred while
Gallimore was in bed and he heard very little of it.
The daughter's husband, Fraser, was in the house during the night, and did his
best to pacify Jagger, but he left for work about five in the morning, and could
say nothing about the tragedy itself. His wife, however, was present at the
murder with her child, who screamed loudly through fright as Jagger executed his
savage work with the knife. The affair created quite a sensation in the
neighbourhood, where people were roused from their sleep in the early morning by
piercing shrieks and the barking of a dog. The horrible news spread with
astonishing rapidity, and a crowd of people soon collected in the vicinity of
the house, which was guarded during the removal of Jagger's corpse by the
police. The neighbours are quite accustomed to domestic brawls at the " Old
House at Home," and no one was unusually alarmed by the uproar on Thursday
night.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 26 November 1892
CITY POLICE COURT. Saturday. —
Before the Mayor and Messrs. W. Johnson and L. Gilbert. Disorderly. —
Annie Holmes, Spital‐walk, an old offender, summoned by P.C. Young for being
disorderly in Bold‐square on Friday evening, was fined 10s. and costs.
"Dead to all Shame."— Ellen Kilfoil, Canal‐side, described as an "unfortunate,"
was charged with using bad language in Foregate‐street on Sunday evening. P.C.
Dutton laid the information, and the case having been proved, the Mayor, who
said she was "dead to all shame," sentenced the prisoner to twenty‐one days'
imprisonment with hard labour.
Tuesday.— Before the Mayor, Sir T. G. Frost and Mr. F. L. Bagnall. "A Curse to
the City."— Mary Jane Butterfield, an " unfortunate " well known to the police,
was charged by P.S. Riley with using foul language in Bridge‐street, on Monday
evening.— The Mayor said prisoner had been fined 21 times, and was " a perfect
curse to the city."— Sent to Knutsford for 21 days.
Serious Assault on the Police.— Jane Sutton, of Richmond‐court, Spital‐walk was
charged by P.C. Hughes (24) with behaving in a disorderly manner in
Foregate‐street, on Wednesday evening. Her husband, George Pimm, who was stated
to have arrived from Birmingham, was also charged by P.C. Clutton with
attempting to rescue his wife. There was also a further charge of assaulting
P.C. Clutton by dislocating his right thumb, and a third charge against Pimm waa
made by P.C. Samuel Jones for an assault on the 4tb October, 1890. P.C. Hughes
stated that about half‐past twelve on Thursday morning he was on the Eastgate
and Foregate‐street beat, where he saw the female prisoner with another woman,
and he told them to go home. They refused and he took them into custody, when
they became violent, and he had to call for assistance. P C Clutton came and
took Sutton into custody while Hughes took the other girl.— P.C. Clutton' who
gave corroborative evidence, added that when near the King's School the prisoner
Pimm came up and asked him what he was taking Sutton up for. Pimm struck him on
the neck, and in a scuffle dislocated his right thumb, which had to be attended
to by Dr Harrison.— The Chief Constable said the man who assaulted a constable
in 1890 ran away, and a warrant was granted for his arrest. He had not been seen
until the present occurrence, but he (Mr. Fenwick) did not wish to press that
charge. — The Bench thought both prisoners had behaved in a most outrageous
manner, and they would mark their sense of it to the full extent. Sutton would
have to go to gaol for one month with hard labour, while Pimm would have to
undergo one month's imprisonment with hard labour for the attempted rescue, and
two months for the assault on the police — three months in all.
A Family Row.— Richard Hall, Margaret Hall, and Jane Owens, of Watergate Row,
were summoned by P.C. Smith for committing a breach of the peace on the 17th
inst. The three defendants, owing to a family grievance, were shouting and
making a great noise in the Row about twelve o'clock at night. They were bound
over to keep the peace for three months.
Yesterday (Friday).— Before Messrs. F. L. Bagnall and WUliam Brown. Abusive
Language.— Mary Ann Shields, of Newells‐court, was bound over to keep the peace
for three months, pay the costs of the case, or undergo seven days'
impriaonment, for committing a breach of the peace in Lower Bridge‐street on
Saturday evening. P.C. Tutty laid the information.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 20 August 1892
ROMANTIC DEATH AT CHESTER
A PAUPER'S LOVE AFFAIR.
Some men rambling on Sunday afternoon in a plantation between Curzon Park and
the river Dee were startled to find the dead body of a man on the grass. Beside
the corpse lay a tobacco pipe and an empty pill‐box, labelled "Poison— opium,
one grain." The police being immediately communicated with, the body was removed
to the Mortuary, where it was identified as that of Owen Jones, about forty
years of age, who had for some time been an inmate of Chester Work‐house, and at
the time of his death was wearing the pauper dress.
Some letters found in the pockets throw a little light on the tragedy. One
missive, addressed to "Owen Jones, Chester Workhouse Hospital," and signed by "
Mary Ann," is couched in terms of great endearment, and contains the
protestation that Owen is her first love and always in her thoughts. On a sheet
of paper, presumably shortly before his death, deceased had pencilled the words
"My dearest, I cannot live without you. May God bless you and send you every
comfort, and try to forget me‐my own heart's love." Across the face of an
envelope also found on the body was inscribed the verse:
Wherever I go love I ne'er forget thee, Though beauties may smile and try to
ensnare me; But, believe me, I'll never my heart from thine sever, I'll ever
prove constant, my sweet, precious dear”. Another sheet of paper, evidently
meant for the Workhouse master, had the following message : — " Master Turner, —
Good‐bye. Give my love to poor old Betsy, my best friend."
Subsequent inquiries shew that on Friday night deceased called at the shop of
Mr. Kemp, chemist, Bridge‐street, and purchased some opium pills, regarding the
use of which he was duly cautioned. Deceased was 44 years of age.
THE INQUEST. An inquiry into the cause of Jones's death was held before Mr.
Brassey, city coroner, on Tuesday afternoon, at the Town Hall. The first witness
called was Mr. R.
C. Turner, master at the Workhouse, who stated that Owen Jones was an inmate of
the Work‐house and he went out on leave on Thursday. He did not return.
Deceased, who was formerly a clerk in the employment of the late Mr. John Jones,
accountant, had suffered from heart disease, for which he had been medically
treated while in the house. The letters produced were in Jones' handwriting. —
William Edward Reece, assistant to Mr. G. Kemp, chemist, Bridge‐street, stated
that deceased obtained four one‐grain opium pills from his master's shop on
Friday night. Before leaving the shop deceased was cautioned regarding the use
of the pills. Dr. Harrison said he had made a post‐mortem examination of Jones.
On examining the brain he found appearances consistent with opium poisoning.
Death was caused by a clot of blood in the pulmonary artery. Four grains of
opium was an excessive dose, and he thought it would kill deceased. If deceased
had taken the four grains of opium he had no doubt it would have accelerated his
death. — Alfred Moore, Olave‐street, stated that he met deceased, whom he had
known for many years, on Friday, and Jones then told him that he was going a
very long journey the following day. Deceased shewed him four small boxes which
he said contained four grains of opium each and he stated that he would take,
them the next day. On Saturday, however, deceased told him that ho had thrown
the opium into the fire, and that he was going into the workhouse.
Detective Crewe said after receiving information at the Police Office he went to
the plantation at Curzon Park, where he found Jones lying dead. An empty pill
box, labelled "Poison — opium, one grain," was by his side, and some letters
were in his pocket. — The Coroner read the letters referred to above, and also
one addressed to deceased signed "Your ever loving Mary Ann." The epistle was
couched in the most affectionate terms, and contained the following passage : "
You are my first love, and you are always in my thoughts I am never content only
when you are near."— The witness Moore stated that deceased told him that Mary
Ann had been in the workhouse and used to scour the ward in which he was Jones
had a lock of hair in his possession. — The jury returned a verdict of "Suicide
while temporarily insane." — A juror said he was informed that deceased was
insured in the Victoria Friendly Society, and that there was £S due on a free
life policy. — Mr. Turner pointed out that the relieving officer was the proper
person to deal with the matter.
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 30 January 1892
SUICIDE OF A CHESTER POLICE OFFICER.
On Thursday morning James Stokes, a police‐constable in the Chester force,
committed suicide by hanging himself. It appears that deceased had been ill for
a few weeks, and on Wednesday he paid a visit to the police surgeon (Dr.
Harrison). The doctor found him suffering from a severe cold, and ordered him to
stay in the house for a few days. On arriving at home his wife noticed that he
looked very pale and ghastly. And appeared somewhat strange in his manner, but
he spoke quite rationally. After supper Mrs. Stokes and the other members of the
family retired to rest at eleven o'clock, leaving deceased sitting in an
armchair in the kitchen. At about four o'clock the following morning his wife
woke up and found her husband had not been to bed. Fearing something was wrong,
and being rather of a timid nature herself, she called out to her sister, who
was sleeping in an adjoining room, to go downstairs and ask her husband to come
to bed. Her sister went down, and found him with a muffler round his neck
suspended from a hook in the kitchen ceiling. Assistance was sent for, and the
body was cut down by the police, and life found to be extinct. The deceased
joined the Chester Police about 16 years ago, and was well liked by his
comrades. It will be remembered Stokes in company with another officer, cut the
body of Jagger down in the recent murder and suicide in this City, and kept the
rope up to a few weeks ago when he disposed of it. He said to a brother officer
at the time of the occurrence what a fool the man had been. No cause can be
assigned for the rash act.
THE INQUEST. An inquest was held on the body on Thursday evening by Mr C W.
Tibbits (deputy coroner), at the Black Lion Inn, Boughton — Martha Stokes, 9,
Tarvin‐road. Boughton, wife of deceased, stated that he was 36 years of age.
After supper at ten o'clock on Wednesday evening the family went to bed, leaving
deceased downstairs. Witness asked him if he was going to bed, but he made no
answer. He looked very pale and ghastly, and witness attributed it to his
illness. She was not aware that he had anything on his mind, but seemed
depressed at times. In reply to the Coroner, witness said that her husband cut
the man Jagger down, but did not think that depressed him. Resuming, Mrs. Stokes
stated on waking in the morning and finding deceased had not been to bed, she
sent her sister to look for him, and the latter came running back and said " Oh,
come down, he has got something round his neck." Witness did so, and found him
hanging from the ceiling quite dead. She was on very good terms with her
husband, and there was no family cause for his conduct. He never expressed his
intention of committing suicide. Replying to Detective Gallagher, witness said
it was true deceased had a brother in the asylum. Her youngest boy was also a
little weak in the head.— Elizabeth Groome, sister‐in‐law to Stokes, stated that
she had been living with deceased about a fortnight. Witness never saw anything
strange about Stokes. She found him hanging from a hook in the ceiling, with one
knee on the chair and one hand on the back of it. He was quite dead. —Sergeant
Culliford deposed that from information received, he, in company with P.C.
Dutton, proceeded to Stokes' house, and on entering the kitchen he saw deceased
hanging by a muffler (produced) from a hook in the ceiling.
His right foot was on the ground, and he was kneeling on a chair with the left,
but the greater weight of his body was on the muffler. Dutton lifted him up, and
witness took him down. He was quite dead. — Dr. George Harrison deposed
attending the deceased as police surgeon on the 20th Jan. for the first time
during this illness. He was suffering from a cold, and he prescribed for him.
Witness was called in to see deceased at ten o'clock that morning, and examined
the body. He found no marks of violence beyond an indentation of the skin at the
neck.
The cause of death was strangulation.—
The Coroner having summed up, the jury returned a verdict of "Suicide while
temporarily insane."
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 13 August 1892
Death and Funeral of a Chester Policeman.
Yesterday (Friday) afternoon the funeral of Police‐Constable John Hill, who had
been a member of the City Police Force for some years, took place at Chester
Cemetery.
The deceased, who had been ailing for some time, died on Wednesday.
His remains were followed to the grave by Dr. Harrison (police surgeon).
Inspector Price, Ex‐Inspector Farrell, Detective‐Sergt. Gallagher, Detective
Crewe, and 19 police‐constables.
The service was conducted by the Rev. B. N. Atkinson (curate of St. Oswald's)
and the Rev. J. D. Scott (of Cholmondeley). The coffin was covered with wreaths,
sent by the members of the City Police Force, Miss Davies‐Colley, Mrs. Cross,
Mr. and Mrs. Watkins, and Sissy Price.
The deceased leaves a widow.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 9 April 1892
CHESHIRE ADJOURNED QUARTER SESSIONS.
These sessions were continued on Thursday at Chester Castle, before his Honour
Judge Sir Horatio Lloyd. The following gentlemen were sworn on the GRAND JURY.
Mr. Thomas Wood, ironmonger, Little Saughall Michael Ambrose, shipbroker,
Liscard Saml. Andersen, gentleman, Lower Bebington Milne Barnsley, merchant,
Childer Thornton Frederick Battarbee, wine merchant, Malpas Charles Lee Evans,
estate agent, Norton Nicholas Fleming, broker, Bromborough James Hunter,
seedsman, Newton‐by‐Chester John Mosford, gentleman, Tattenhall Edward W. Nobbs,
architect, Liscard Richard N. Owen, land surveyor, Haughton „ Gilbert Parry,
gentleman, Farndon Thomas W. Read, accountant, Poulton‐cum‐Seacombe Geo.
Frederick Taylor, merchant, Helsby Thomas Wm. Thompson, hotel proprietor,
Eastham. Peter Vickers, gentleman, Beeston Thomas Williams, schoolmaster,
Hooton.
A YOUTHFUL JACK SHEPPARD GANG AT CREWE.
George Edwards (17), and three other boys named Ernest Bayley, Henry Judge, and
Joshua Archibald Bayley, of Crewe, pleaded guilty to feloniously breaking and
entering the offices of John Worthington, of Crewe, and stealing seven pence.
Edwards and Joshua Bayley also pleaded guilty to attempting to break into the
shop of James German on the 28th Jan., while the two other boys and John William
Shearsmith pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting them. W. E. Bayley, Judge, and
Shearsmith were further indicted for wounding Police‐Constable J. Roberts on the
same day, and Bayley pleaded guilty.
Mr. Marshall, for the prosecution, stated that the lads were employed in various
capacities in Crewe, and met together on the evening of the 28th Jan. Joshua
Bayley and Edwards were observed to scale a wall and break open with an iron bar
the door of Mr. Worthington's coal offices. They afterwards entered another
yard, and attempted to break open Mr. German's premises. Police‐Constable
Roberts climbed over the wall and arrested them. While conveying them to the
police‐station he was attacked by the other prisoners, including William Bayley,
who picked up a piece of brick and flung it at his head with great violence. It
struck him on the head, inflicting a serious wound. The prisoners were
represented by Mr. Colt Williams, Mr. E. H. Lloyd, Mr. Trevor Lloyd, and Mr.
Latham. — Mr. Lloyd urged that the case was not one of housebreaking in the
ordinary sense of the word, but a foolish escapade arranged by the boys. — The
Chairman described the prisoners as a foolish set of boys, who did not deserve
the sympathy which their relatives bad bestowed upon them. It was a pity they
could not be sentenced to receive a good whipping. A remark had been made that
they belonged to some stupid club, of which one of the rules was that they
should perpetrate some act of this sort periodically. It was a sad thing that
anybody could be so ridiculously foolish to belong to such a band or to utter
such nonsense. The magistrates hoped their appearance before them might be a
lesson to the prisoners for life, and that the neighbourhood where they lived
would never hear of anything of the kind again. The prisoners were released on
undertaking in their own recognisance’s of £10 each to appear for judgment
whenever called upon. W. E. Bayley was also fined 40s. for having shown violence
to the police.
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 8 October 1892
CREWE.
At the Crewe County Petty Sessions, on Monday, James Jones, a fireman at the
goods warehouse, Crewe Station, was charged on remand with stealing a bottle of
gin, valued 2s. 9d., the property of the London and North‐Western Railway, on
the 30th ult. Mr. Chester, of Crewe, appeared for the defence. Inspector
Freeborough gave details of the capture of prisoner. Witness said that sin«e
prisoner had been arrested, about four dozen wine and spirit bottles had been
found at the warehouse where the prisoner had been caught. Prisoner was further
remanded until next Monday. Shop Theft by Boys. —
At the Crewe Police Court, on Wednesday, John Deakin, aged thirteen years,
Thomas Deakin, aged eleven years, and Thomas Britton, aged ten years, were
charged with stealing three pairs of goloshes from the shop of William Cheedle,
Market‐street, Crewe, on Tuesday, the 4th inst. Police‐Constable Skillbeck said
that he arrested Britton, who was wearing a pair of goloshes, as he had
suspicions that they were stolen, and when charged with the theft Britton
admitted stealing them from Mr. Cheedle's shop. He also informed on Thomas
Deakin and John Deakin, who accordingly were arrested. From further inquiry it
was found that Mrs. Deakin had burnt one pair of goloshes, and Inspector Oldham
said he thought that she was as bad, or worse, than the boys. Britton had been
before the Magistrates once before for robbing a till. — The Magistrates decided
to order each boy to have six strokes of the birch rod, and censured Mrs. Deakin
for her suspicious action.
Brave Conduct of a Policeman. — An accident which would no doubt have proved
fatal but for the brave and prompt conduct of Police Constable Burgess (368),
Cheshire Police, stationed in Crewe, took place last Saturday afternoon, at
Crewe. A trap, full of people, was coming round the Junction corner, Crewe, when
a boy about seven years of age ran in front of the horses. One of the horses
knocked him on his back, and be was almost under the wheel of the trap when
Police‐constable Burgess, who was on duty at the junction, sprang at the horses'
heads, at the danger of his own life, and stopped the horses instantly. A
gentleman traveller standing by offered the officer 10s., but the latter
refused, saying that he was satisfied with having saved the child's life. The
people about heartily congratulated the officer on his brave conduct. This is
not the first time Constable Burgess has saved human life, as he saved that of a
child at the Crewe Horse Fair about two months ago.
Cheshire Observer
Saturday 13 August 1892
HESWALL
An Appreciated Constable.
Constable Parr, who has been stationed here for about three and a half years,
has, in the ordinary course, been removed to a station near Middlewich. No
previous officer in this district has more efficiently performed his duty and,
at the same time, secured the respect and esteem of all sections of the
community, and the testimonial which is being subscribed for by the inhabitants
has met with general approval.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 26 November 1892
AN EX‐CHESHIRE POLICEMAN'S COURTSHIP.
At the Manchester Assizes (Nisi Prius Court), before Mr. Justice Grantham, on
Wednesday, the cause Warhurst v. Pettingale was heard.
This was an action for alleged breach of promise of marriage. Mr. Sparrow
appeared for the plaintiff, Mrs. Warhurst, provision dealer, Hyde, and the
defendant, Pettingale, a retired police‐constable, was represented by Mr. C. P.
M'Keand.
Mr. Sparrow said that Mrs. Warhurst was a widow, and had carried on her business
at 6, Manchester‐road, Hyde, for the last nine or ten years, her husband dying
in 1883. She had also helped to support herself and her daughter by taking in
lodgers. In April, 1891, the defendant, who was then a police‐constable — he had
since retired on a pension — came to lodge at her house, being introduced by
Sergeant Harrison, who was also a police‐officer at Hyde, as a single man.
The terms arranged were that he should pay 3s. 6d. a week for his lodgings, and
that he should "find" himself. Things went on satisfactorily until the 2nd of
February, 1892, when he made Mrs. Warhurst an offer of marriage. Mrs. Warhurst
replied that the matter was a serious one, and she must have some time to
consider it. The defendant renewed his offer the next day, but Mrs. Warhurst
informed him that she had not had time to make up her mind, and she wanted to
consult her friends. She went to see a married sister and one or two other
people, and talked the matter over, and eventually, on the 4th of February, when
the defendant repeated his offer, she accepted him. From that time till the
August following they went about as engaged people, and Mrs. Warhurst made
purchases in view of her forthcoming marriage.
Before her acceptance of the defendant he pointed out the advantages of a
marriage with him, for in June or July he would have completed a sufficient
number of years to retire from the force on a pension of something like £50 a
year ‐that he had between £200 and £300 invested in the Guide Bridge Spinning
Company, that he was insured for £200, and had about £37 in the savings bank. In
May the defendant was removed to Runcorn, and at his request. Mrs. Warhurst
visited him there, and was introduced to his landlady and his friends as his
intended wife.
On the 13th of August, on the invitation of defendant's brother, she went to his
house in Ardwick, and there learned for the first time that Pettingale was a
married man. It appeared that some nine years ago the defendant had married Mrs.
Woolley, a licensed victualler at Compstall, a few miles from Hyde.
According to the regulations of the police force a police‐constable could not
marry without the consent of the Chief Constable, and he was not allowed to
marry anyone engaged in trade. If he did they had to give up that calling. If he
was a married man he must have his wife living with him in the village or town
in which he was stationed. Mrs. Woolley was doing fairly well as a licensed
victualler, and if the defendant had made his marriage with her public, his wife
would have had to give up her business, and this would, of course, have been a
great loss to him.
They were, therefore, married privately at the registry office. He never lived
with her. She kept up her own name above the licensed victualling business until
about a fortnight ago, and he had always been looked upon in the district, even
by his most intimate friends, as an unmarried man.
There was no allegation in the pleadings that Mrs. Warhurst knew defendant was a
married man at the time of the promise.
The defence was the very simple one of a denial of the promise.
Mrs. Warhurst was called, and bore out the statement of her counsel. She added
that she had known the defendant for more than twenty years. When she accepted
him she promised she would make him a good and true wife. Before she learned
from the defendant's brother that he was married, she had been told by her
sister that someone had told her that he was a married man. She confronted him
with the charge, but he indignantly denied it. He said he was not married, and
never had been married. About a week after she had learned that he was a married
man, the defendant made her an offer. He said that he and his wife (Mrs.
Woolley) had met together, and had decided to make her some recompense, and give
her a present. She said, " Oh, indeed, and what is it?" and he replied, " We
have agreed to give you £5." She said "Thank you," and declined. —
Cross‐examined by Mr. M'Keand, the plaintiff said she was 48 years old. She had
known defendant's wife all her life. She did not know, and not a living creature
but defendant's brother knew, that Mrs. Woolley was his wife. She never
remembered seeing Mrs. Woolley but once after defendant came to lodge at her
house. Defendant's brother took her and got a certificate of defendant's
marriage. She did not take it to the Chief Constable, nor was it taken to him
with her knowledge or authority, for the purpose of getting him deprived of his
pension. The exact date for the marriage was never fixed. The defendant had
always said it should take place soon after he had left the force.—Re‐examined
by Mr. Sparrow: She had always known the defendant's wife as Mrs. Woolley. She
had suffered considerably in health as the result of the defendant's conduct.
Edith Warhurst, daughter of the plaintiff, gave corroborative evidence. She said
the defendant promised her to make her mother a good and true husband and to
take towards her the place of her father. She had had to give up going to
business in order to take her mother's place in the shop.
Mrs. Collin, defendant's landlady at Runcorn, said that when Mrs. Warhurst came
to her house they behaved as engaged persona. On one occasion in her kitchen
defendant put his arm around Mrs. Warhurst's neck, and, saying "My dear," kissed
her. Defendant was introduced to her (the witness) as a single man.
John Rowcroft, draper, Hyde, said he had known the defendant for 25 years, and
had always known him as a single man during all that time. He had also known
Mrs. Woolley for a long number of years, and had always known her as a single
woman. Mrs. Warhurst consulted him as to defendant's offer of marriage.
Mr. M'Keand said that after this evidence he would take a certain course, and
his learned friend need only address himself to a question of damages.
John Rowcroft then gave evidence as to certain purchases made by Mrs. Warhurst
in view of her marriage.
This closed the case for the plaintiff. Mr. M’Keand then addressed the jury, and
said that after the evidence of Mrs. Collin and Mr. Rowcroft he could not
contend that a promise had not been made. It would be folly and absolutely wrong
in him to put the defendant in the box under circumstances of that kind. The
only question the jury had to try was the sum of money this man ought to pay to
this woman. He asked them to take his view that Mrs. Warhurst had not suffered
to the extent she had represented, and to give her fair and reasonable damages,
but not vindictive or excessive ones. The jury, after a short consultation,
found for the plaintiff, and awarded her £50 damages. Judgment was entered for
that amount with costs.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 3 September 1892
TERRIBLE TRAGEDY NEAR CHESTER.
ALLEGED FRATRICIDE IN A HARVEST FIELD.
A SICKENING SCENE.
The quiet neighbourhood of Little Saughall was thrown into a state of intense
excitement on Saturday evening by a tragic occurrence which will long be
remembered in the county for its gruesome details. The scene of the lamentable
affair is a cornfield on the farm of Mr. Tom Whalley at Little Saughall,
situated nearly a quarter of a mile to the north‐ward of the Chester and
Saughall road, and about four miles from this city.
On this farm a man named James Griffiths, 76 years of age, had worked for many
years as a labourer, and there also his two sons, John and Henry, aged 30 and 26
years respectively, had found more or less intermittent employment as labourers.
The younger son, Henry, who is unmarried, seems to have taken umbrage at the
fact that some little time ago his father took John, his elder son, who is
married, along with his wife and two children to live with him. Henry also lived
under the same roof, and the two young men, who were about the same height (5ft.
6in.), and build, could never agree. Their quarrels, it is commonly reported,
not infrequently ended in open stand up fights, and their disagreements were the
subject of general comment among the neighbours, and all the more because the
brothers, when apart and in association with other people, were always regarded
as sober, inoffensive, and peaceable men.
On Saturday afternoon the father and sons were engaged mowing a field of oats on
their employer's farm, when the fatal disagreement arose. John complained of the
style of Henry's cutting, that he was "setting in" too high, and the latter
resented this interference and imputation on his skill in wielding the scythe.
The father, who was working a few yards off, and only partly heard the dispute,
besought them to agree, as the matter was not worth speaking about, but when the
brothers had finished their "swath" and were walking down the field to commence
afresh, the quarrel was renewed. What passed will perhaps be never accurately
known in the absence of more observant witnesses, but, according to the story of
the old man, in the course of the argument Henry made a thrust at John with the
pole of the scythe, a scuffle ensued in which Henry received a terrible wound in
the side, laying the abdomen open and half severing the body. The theory of the
police is that this horrible gash with the scythe blade was the deliberate and
wilful act of John Griffiths, and that is a question for judicial solution. That
Henry was partly disembowelled, and lay on the ground profusely bleeding and
mortally injured, is beyond question.
Immediately after the occurrence John seems to have disclaimed any intention of
taking his brother's life, assuring his distracted father more than once that it
was unintentional. He then ran home to his mother, threw himself on the floor in
a paroxysm of excitement and remorse, crying to the terrified old woman, "Lord
have mercy upon me! I have killed Harry." "Whatever have you done?" queried the
mother, and the son replied, "He was going to hit me, and I put up the scythe to
keep him off me and it catched him." Mrs. Griffiths implored her son to
accompany her to the spot and render assistance, but he excused himself, saying
he "could not go near him," and went away.
Meanwhile, Dr. Gledhill, of Oldham (acting as locum tenens for Dr. Hamilton, of
Chester), who fortunately happened to be passing, was called in, and rendered
what surgical aid was possible under the circumstances. The wounded man was
lying in a pitiable plight, and the scene is described as sickening. The poor
fellow, who at the time was wearing only a woollen shirt, corduroy trousers,
stockings, and shoes, was covered with blood, and his intestines protruded from
the wound. Both his shirt and trousers clearly indicated the extent and
direction of the gash.
The doctor's coachman (Alexandra Thomson), rendered assistance in placing the
patient on a mattress and in cutting away the clothing to expedite the surgeon's
work. Notwithstanding the terrible nature of his injuries Griffiths appeared to
be perfectly conscious, and when moved from, the ground piteously implored to be
left to die there.
Having despatched his patient to Chester Infirmary, Dr. Gledhill wired to Dr.
Taylor and Dr. Wright, apprising them of the occurrence, and requesting their
attendance on the arrival of the trap. From the first these practitioners saw it
was an absolutely hopeless case, and after sinking gradually the unfortunate man
expired at ten minutes past eleven o'clock the same night.
The report reaching the city police that the man was in extremis at the
Infirmary, the Chief Constable (Mr. Fenwick) proceeded to the institution, where
he found Griffiths in a state of collapse, and utterly unfit to submit to the
ordeal of making a deposition. The father, who was present throughout this
trying period, gave the Chief Constable an outline of the affair, and Mr.
Fenwick communicated with the county police, informing them of what had
happened, and that the alleged assailant had stated his intention of giving
himself up.
The county police, who received early intimation of the tragedy, at once made a
thorough investigation of the case, and their primary object being to secure the
missing brother, Superintendent Leah, of Chester, who had charge of the case,
wired all the police stations in the district, and soon had a small army of
constables scouring the country side for the fugitive. Chief Superintendent
Hindley, at the Birkenhead end of the Wirral peninsula, prosecuted the search
diligently. All through the night a vigilant watch was maintained on all the
roads, and especially in the direction of Chester, towards which it was said the
unhappy man had been seen to hurry early in the evening.
A labourer, living at Blacon, saw the much "wanted" individual about six o'clock
on Sunday morning, near Blacon. The labourer both knew of the event of the
preceding evening, and was acquainted with John Griffiths. He attempted to enter
into conversation with Griffiths as to his brother's death, but beyond admitting
that he had spent the night in a hut not far off, and requesting to be supplied
with a cap to cover his bare head, Griffiths vouchsafed nothing, and appeared
both reticent and agitated. He subsequently departed in the direction of
Chester, and while walking along the Blacon road was accosted by P.S. Ennion,
who charged him with the wilful murder of his brother.
Prisoner admitted his identity, and in reply to the charge of murder said "Not
wilful." He accompanied the officer without resistance to the Police Station at
Hoole, and on the way, while passing along St Anne‐street, volunteered the
statement “My brother was going to strike me. I lifted up the scythe. He ran
under it, and then ran back." The scene of the fatal quarrel was visited on
Sunday by crowds of sightseers, and the locale of the struggle, clearly
indicated by a large patch of blood, was dwelt upon with a sickly and morbid
interest. Acting‐Sergeant Bowyer, of Saughall, took possession of the scythe,
the blade of which bore marks of bloodstains.
PRISONER BEFORE THE MAGISTRATES. On Monday afternoon the prisoner was conveyed
in a cab from the Hoole police station, in charge of Superintendent Leah, to the
offices of Mr. W. H. Churton, clerk to the county magistrates. Despite the heavy
downfall of rain, a considerable number of people gathered round the Eastgate to
catch a glimpse of the accused. Immediately on his arrival at two o'clock, he
was conducted up the steps of the Walls into a room in Mr. Churton's office,
where he was brought before Mr John Thompson and Sir T. G. Frost. The
proceedings were of a semi‐private nature, the only representatives of the
public present being half a dozen reporters. The prisoner took his stand at one
end of the table, and preserved throughout the hearing a cool and collected
demeanour. He is an inoffensive looking man, of medium build, about 5 ft. 6in
heights, with fair hair, and fair straggling moustache and whiskers. He was
dressed in ordinary labourer's clothes, and was not handcuffed. He was not as
yet represented by counsel, and only uttered a few words in a clear and distinct
tone in answer to a question by the Magistrates' Clerk.
Superintendent Leah, who had charge of the case on behalf of the police, said:
The prisoner's name is John Griffiths, farm labourer, and he has for some time
past been residing in Saughall. He and his brother, now deceased, and his father
were mowing together in a field of corn at the farm of Mr. Whalley, Saughall,
and at 5 30 on Saturday evening an altercation arose between the prisoner and
his deceased brother. One thing led to another, and it is alleged that prisoner
struck his brother Henry with a scythe, inflicting very serious injuries. The
injured man was brought with all possible speed to Chester Infirmary, where he
was medically attended to, and died at ten minutes past eleven on Saturday
night. I propose to call the evidence of the sergeant who arrested prisoner, and
upon that evidence to ask you to be good enough to remand the prisoner until
next Saturday at Chester Castle.
Sergt. George Ennion said: I apprehended the prisoner at seven o'clock yesterday
morning on the highway in the township of Blacon. I said, "Are you John
Griffiths?" and he said "Yes." I then cautioned him. I told him, “Whatever you
may say in answer to what I am going to ask you will be taken down in writing,
and may be used in evidence against you upon your trial." I said to him, "I
charge you with the wilful murder of your brother," and he replied, "Not
wilful." Nothing else was said till we got into St. Anne‐street, Chester. I was
bringing the prisoner to the Hoole lock‐ups. He then said, "My brother was going
to strike me. I lifted up the scythe. He ran under it, and then ran back."
Nothing further took place. The Clerk Would you like to ask the witness any
questions? — Prisoner: No, sir; everything is correct. The Clerk: That is as far
as you propose to go to‐day? Supt. Leah: It is, sir. The Chairman (Mr.
Thompson): Then the prisoner will be remanded till half‐past eleven on Saturday
next at Chester Castle. The Clerk: I don't know whether you want to express any
opinion as to whether he should be brought before the coroner? The Chairman: It
is not for us to express any opinion. The Clerk: It is sometimes expressed. The
Chairman: My own opinion is that the man ought to be taken before the coroner.
Sir Thomas Frost: And it is mine, too. Supt. Leah: The opinion expressed by your
worships will be conveyed by me to the Deputy‐Chief Constable. In fact, I may
say I have already received instructions to take the prisoner to the inquest.
The Chairman: Then the prisoner will be remanded until Saturday next. The
accused was afterwards removed to the Town Hall, where he remained till the
opening of the inquest, his departure from the East‐gate being witnessed by a
large crowd, who blocked the parapet.
CORONER'S INQUIRY. Mr. Ernest Brassey, the city coroner, held an inquiry on the
body of the deceased in the police court at four o'clock, the precincts of the
Town Hall being besieged by a considerable crowd. The prisoner was brought into
court by Sergeant Ennion, and was accommodated with a seat beside the
witness‐box. Chief Superintendent Hindley, Superintendent Leah, and Colonel Cope
were present representing the County Constabulary, while Mr. G. L. Fenwick, the
Chief Constable of Chester, occupied a seat on the Coroner's right.
The first business after the names of the jury had been called over was to view
the body, lying in the mortuary at the Infirmary, where the Coroner and jurymen,
accompanied by Chief Superintendent Hindley and Superintendent Leah, were
conducted by Detective‐Sergeant Gallagher, of the Chester City Police. The
corpse lay on a table, and was covered by a white shroud, the face, which was
scratched, being alone visible. The journey to the Infirmary and back occupied
about ten minutes, during which the prisoner frequently buried his face in his
hands, and seemed to fully realise the gravity of his position. The aged father
and mother sat together at the back of the witness‐box, and both seemed greatly
distressed. The public gallery was crowded. On the jury's return, Mr. E. S.
Giles intimated that he had been instructed to watch the case on behalf of the
prisoner the father's story.
The first witness called was James Griffiths, father of the deceased, who on
entering the box shook hands with prisoner. Witness said: “I am a farmer's
labourer, and live at Little Saughall. Henry Griffiths is my son, and his mother
tells me he is about 26. He is single. He is a farmer's labourer, and worked for
Mr. Whalley. He lived along with me. I was close to when he was hurt on
Saturday. I was mowing oats in a field belonging to Mr. Whalley, with John and
Henry. We were all mowing with scythes, and about half‐past five o'clock I was a
little behind, and John was leading. Henry was "setting in a little too high,
and John told him about it, and he could not stand it, and they disagreed over
it. I said, "For goodness sake let it drop. It is not worth bothering about."
Henry then bobbed John in the breast with the poll — the handle end — of the
scythe. I did not hear him say anything at the time he did it. The Coroner: Can
you give the jury any idea of the degree of the blow? — No. Was it a gentle bob
or a hard knock? — No. He bobbed and they scuffled and he fell, and said "Oh, I
am cut." You cannot tell us whether the knock was hard or slight? — I saw the
blow, but I cannot tell whether it was hard or not. In reply to further
questions from the Coroner, witness said: Henry gave John a bob and that caused
the disturbance. They were facing one another at the time, and the back of John
was towards me while the face of Henry was towards me. I was about three or four
yards away from them. I said "Oh, John, you have cut him." As soon as John had
done it he ran a little bit along the field. The Coroner: Do you want us to
understand that you did not see any cut given? — Yes, I did see the cut
afterwards. I saw the scythe used. It was in John's hands, and I saw it swing,
but I cannot tell whether hard or gently. The Coroner: When the scythe began to
swing did John say anything? — No, they were quarrelling and I could not hear
it. I saw the scythe cutting him in the struggle, and I can't say anything more.
There was a struggle between them and I saw him fall and I said, "Oh, John, you
have cut him." The struggle between them was after John had had the bob. Neither
of them laid hands upon the other. It was done in an instant. When I said "Oh,
John, you have cut him." John said, "I did not intend doing it. It is done quite
unintended." John then ran away, and after going a short distance he came back
again. He said he did not intend doing it, and that he would go and give himself
up. I went to Henry and he said, "Oh, father, I should like to go home." Then I
went home and fetched something to take him. The Coroner: Before you went could
you see the cut? — Yes it was in his side. Was there any blood coming from it? —
Oh yes. A small quantity or large? — Well, I can't say that. Proceeding, witness
said: — my wife told me that a doctor had gone to Saughall, and while I was at
the house looking for a conveyance to fetch Henry, the doctor came up, and when
I mentioned it to him he went to Henry. My son had been lying by himself during
that time. When I went home, before I spoke to the doctor, John was in the
house, and he did not come out with me. I said, "Oh, John, this is a terrible
job." He said, "I didn't intend it. It is quite an accident. Lord have mercy
upon me!" He put his head between his legs. When I went back to the field Henry
did not speak to me. He was removed to the Infirmary in Mr. Nicholls' trap. I
went with him to the Infirmary, and he did not say anything to me there except
when I asked him if he knew me, and he said, "Yes, father." That was the first
time his sons quarrelled that day. The Coroner: Were they always friendly? —
Well, they had a word now and then, but at times they were the best of friends.
I cannot recollect when was the last time they quarrelled. Proceeding, witness
said: Henry was very disagreeable about three months ago, and I told him to get
fresh lodgings, and he did so. One of the things he was disagreeable about was
that his meat was not right. That is why I told him to go. John came to live
with me over two years ago, with his wife. He has been with us up to now; he
took a house but it was not quite ready for him. The Coroner: You want the jury
to understand that there was no disagreeableness between John and Henry about
John living at the house? — Yes, there was. That was a great deal of the
disagreeableness. Henry was vexed at John being there. He wanted him to take a
house. This has been going on all the time. His wife came to my house simply to
look after my wife. The Coroner: Was there much beer on the field that day? —
Well, we had the usual allowance—three half ‐pints each in the morning and three
half‐pints each in the afternoon. By the Foreman of the Jury: I was a little
over three yards from them, but I did not hear anything said between them. There
was no blow struck with the fist that I saw. A Juror: Have the two brothers ever
had a fight during the last six months? — No, and if there is anyone as can say
it, let them say it. I never knew them to have a fight.
THE LINE OF DEFENCE. Examined by Mr. E. S. Giles, the witness said they were
allowed no liquor at dinner‐time. Mr. Giles: I understand that as they mowed
John found fault with Henry's mowing? — Witness: It was not when they were
mowing. They had cut the swath out, and were walking back to start again when
the grievance took place. What would be the length of the swath? lt might be a
little more than twenty yards. As they walked back the twenty yards did you hear
them speaking to each other? — I did not hear anything that I can testify, but
they were squabbling. How was it yon judged they were quarrelling? — Because I
heard them talking. I am dull of hearing, and could not understand what was
said. Did they look angrily at each other? — They must have been angry. How did
you know what was the reason of the quarrel? — I knew the quarrel was about
"setting in," and I said “For goodness sake, let it drop, it is not worth
talking about." During the scuffle did you see if Henry got hold of John's
scythe? — I cannot tell you that. Can you say positively he did not get hold of
it? — Well, I cannot say whether he got hold of it or not. He might have done,
but I did not see it if be did. The struggle was over directly. John did not
fall at all — no. Can you say whether Henry fell backwards or forwards? — He
fell on his face. The Coroner : Are you quite sure who was the leader down the
field ?— I was the leader only I got out of wind and said I would cut a bit at
the end. When I was leading John was, next to me. Tell me one thing further. At
the time you saw John's scythe swing, had Henry got his own scythe in his hand,
or where was it? — Well, I can't tell that. When he bobbed him in the breast I
do not know whether he dropped the scythe or not. It was done in an instant. A
Juryman: When Henry bobbed John on the breast did it cause John to swerve and
turn round, and would that cause John's scythe to come in contact with his side?
— I cannot tell you. Or did John wilfully swing his scythe round by way of
retaliation? — I cannot answer that question whether it was a wilful swing or
not.
THE AGED MOTHER IN THE BOX: TOUCHIN SIGHT. Sarah Griffiths, the mother of the
two brothers, said: My husband and sons were home to dinner that day, but they
did not have' anything to drink. I was in the back kitchen on the evening in
question, and I saw John coming running past the window and he clasped his hands
together and nearly fell against the staircase. He then threw himself on the
house floor, and I said "Oh dear what is to do? He said "Lord have mercy on me,
I have killed Harry." I said whatever have you done? “And he replied” He was
going to hit me, and I put the scythe to keep him off me and it catched him."
John then fell on his face on the house floor, and then he jumped up and ran
upstairs and threw himself on the bed saying, “Oh, Lord, I must go and give
myself up." I said "Oh, John, do come and help us with him in the cart?” and he
said “I could not go near him, mother." I said “I must go," and I ran as hard as
I could. When I turned round John was coming after me, and he said "Oh, father,
I never intended doing it. I have not done it wilfully." I never saw anything
more of John. He went back with his father into the house. The Coroner: When you
saw Henry in the field did he say anything to you? — Henry said, "I didn't say a
deal to our John." He asked for a drink of water, but I could not get him any
until he was got home. — The witness, in reply to further questions, said the
brothers had been the best of friends lately. Henry wanted to get John out of
the house, and John said he would go as soon as the house he had taken was
ready. By the Foreman: John was sober. They got up straight from their dinners
and went straight to their work.
Elizabeth Tickle, wife of John Tickle, Little Saughall, and niece of James
Griffiths, stated: that on hearing that deceased was hurt she went to assist her
aunt with him. When she got there she heard Henry say that he would die there.
THE DOCTOR OPPOSES THE "ACCIDENTAL" THEORY: A HORBIBLE WOUND. Dr. James
Gledhill, Hollinwood, Oldham, deposed: On Saturday afternoon, about twenty
minutes to six, I was driving by Little Saughall when the father of the deceased
called me to; see Henry Griffiths, who was lying in a field on his face and
slightly inclined to the right side. He had on a shirt and a pair of trousers,
and there were two women with him. I found he was suffering from a very
extensive wound, extending from the right flank across the right lumbar regions
to the left. Small intestines were protruding, and there was a considerable
amount of haemorrhage. I tried to reduce the bowels, and put the poor man into a
position which I thought was most comfortable to him. The cause of death was
shock consequent on the injury. The depth of the wound in the right lumbar
region was 3¼””inches, and in the left 2¼” inches. In the right flank it had
opened the abdomen. To any considerable extent? — The wall of the abdomen was
opened almost to the spine. Did he make any statement to you? — No. Did you form
any idea as to whether this was one wound or more than one? — I think it was one
continuous wound, commencing in the right flank. What amount of force was
requisite to produce such a wound? — A considerable amount of force must have
been used. Have you formed any opinion as to what kind of instrument produced
the wound? — I think it has been produced by a scythe. His back must have been
towards his assailant, or the attack must have been from behind or laterally.
Could it have been produced if the deceased was in a bending posture? — Very
unlikely. I discovered no other signs of violence. The body was healthy with the
exception of considerable adhesion of the left lung, but that did not accelerate
death. A juryman: Supposing they were wrestling and one had a scythe in his
hand, do you think the wound could have been caused in the struggle? — No. Do
you think the injury could have been caused by Henry falling on the scythe? — I
do not think so. Examined by Mr. Giles, the witness repeated that the character
of the wound was inconsistent with any such accident as falling on the blade of
the scythe. Did the character of the wound lead you to suppose that the blade
had been drawn across the body? — I think it had been drawn in the complete line
of the wound. Was there anything to show where the point of the blade had
entered the body? — I am inclined to think the entry was in the right flank. It
had the appearance of a stab in the right flank, and tailed gradually converging
to a point. I went to the Infirmary, and stayed while Dr. Taylor and the house
doctor were doing all that was possible for the deceased. I saw the completion
of the surgical treatment.
Detective‐Sergeant Gallagher then produced the shirt and trousers worn by the
deceased; which were both saturated with blood and cut in such a manner as
clearly to indicate the, extent and nature of the terrible wound. The exhibition
of the garments, bearing thick clots of blood, produced a sickly sensation in
court.
Sergeant Ennion, of the County Constabulary, having repeated his evidence given
before the' magistrates a few hours previously.
PRISONER MAKES A STATEMENT. The Coroner pointed out that the case was
exceptional in some respects, as there was practically only one witness of what
happened on the day in question. There might be questions to be fought out
hereafter as to what exactly did take place that day, and it was only fair to
the defendant, therefore, to bear that in mind. That was a court at which a man
who might be hereafter accused of any crime could give his own explanation on
oath as to what happened. He proposed, therefore, to ask John Griffiths if he
thought fit to give any explanation of what happened, and at the same time he
reserved the protection to him of not being cross‐examined by the jury, by
himself, or by prisoner's own solicitor. After consulting Mr. Giles, prisoner,
in reply to the Coroner, stated that he wished to say a few words. On being
sworn he said. ‐I spoke to him (deceased) about setting in too high. He denied
that he was doing so and several words passed between us, but, of course, I
can't remember everything. Then he bobbed me with his scythe. As I stepped back
he stepped back and threw his scythe down and was coming up to hit me. I held
the scythe in my hand, and I was putting it to stop him from coming close to me
and he slipped around the point of the scythe and ducked his head under it, and
the scythe slipped round his back. I have nothing more to add.
The Coroner, in summing up, said it was scarcely needful to go through the
matter at length, because, after all, it was in a nut shell. The question the
jury had to decide was whether this poor fellow, Henry Griffiths, was killed by
accident or killed on purpose. There was only one witness of the affair, and
that was a man who had lost one son and of course they knew had every interest
in screening the one who was left to him. As a coroner's jury existed for the
protection of society it was their duty to set out with the assumption that
every man, who came to a violent end, had been killed by some one else until it
had been satisfactorily explained that that did not take place. It was clear in
this case that the man was killed, and it was clear he did not kill himself, and
that somebody else must have done it. After referring to the evidence of James
Griffiths and the doctor, the Coroner explained to the jury what constituted
murder and manslaughter, stating that murder was defined to be when a person
unlawfully killed another by any means, with malice aforethought, either
expressed or implied. The law regarded with an indulgent eye the frailties of
human nature, and made allowances in many cases for acts committed in the first
paroxysm of passion, which, while the frenzy lasted, rendered the victim of it
reckless of the consequence of his acts. When, therefore, death ensued from a
sudden transport of passion or heat of blood upon a reasonable provocation, and
without malice, it was considered ac solely imputable to human infirmity, and
the offence would be manslaughter. The person putting this for‐ward must make
out the circumstances of alleviation to the satisfaction of the jury. It was not
every trivial provocation, assault, or even blows that would extenuate the act
of homicide. Words of menace were not such a provocation as would reduce the
offence to manslaughter, unless they were accompanied by some act indicative of
actual violence. An assault, accompanied by circumstances of violence, if it
were resented immediately, and it appeared that the party acted in the heat of
blood upon the provocation, would reduce the crime to manslaughter. If they were
of opinion that defendant reasonably thought when he was bobbed with the scythe
that he was going to be attacked, and that he was approached with words of
menace and of assault, and an attempt to do something more, it would be their
duty to return a verdict of manslaughter against him. But if they found that
Henry Griffiths gave that bob not intending anything more, and not accompanying
it by words or threats of violence, then it would be their duty to find a
verdict of "Wilful murder" against John Griffiths.
The verdict. The jury then retired from the court to consider their decision,
and after an absence of twenty‐two minutes they returned with a verdict of
"Manslaughter." The prisoner was then removed in custody.
THE SCENE IN COURT. The arrangement for holding the coroner's inquiry in the
city police court — a commendable practice which has been growing of late — gave
a large number of the public an opportunity of tearing all the horrifying
details of the narrative, and of seeing the chief actor in the tragedy. The
general expectation that the aged father, who is in his seventy ‐seventh year,
and wonderfully hale and strong, and who was the only witness of his son's
untimely end, would be able to throw ample light on the affair, was in a great
measure disappointed, but due allowance must of course be made for the advanced
age of the witness, the distressing scenes through which he has just passed, and
the painful nature of the task before him. The only sensational part of his
story was his description of the scythe blade swinging before it made the fatal
gash, but he was unable to furnish a lucid picture of the struggle. The mother's
statement that her wounded son, while lying on the ground and almost in a state
of collapse, informed her, "I did not say a deal to our John," was the subject
of considerable comment, and it was to some a surprise that the deceased in his
conscious moments made no further reference to the manner in which he sustained
his injuries. To the casual observer it was evident that the jury were inclined
to take a merciful view of the case, judging from their examination of several
of the witnesses, but in Dr. Gledhill they found rather a tough customer. The
worthy doctor took up the position that it would have required considerable
force to inflict the wound, and would not admit the argument that it might have
been the result of an accidental falling upon the blade of the scythe. The
production of the bloody garments worn by the dead man was a spectacle on which
only the most depraved minds would care to dwell. Prisoner's self‐possession
remained unshaken to the last, and he made his sworn statement to the coroner
without the semblance of emotion.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 9 April 1892
CHESHIRE QUARTER SESSIONS
The Easter Quarter Sessions of the Peace for Cheshire
AN EX‐POLICEMAN CONVICTED OF THEFT.
An ex‐member of the Cheshire Constabulary, named John Potta (32), was charged
with stealing 28lb. of cheese, the property of Arthur Bailey, at Odd Rode, on
27th January; also with stealing 71 1/4 lb. of copper wire from the National
Telephone Company, and two rubber bicycle tyres and a bicycle lamp, the property
of John Cooke, at Betchton, between December and February last.
Mr. Latham prosecuted, and prisoner was defended by Mr. Marshall.
In his opening, Mr. Latham said prisoner had for some years been a constable, in
the county force, and was stationed at Rode Heath for about a year and a half.
On 27th January Mr. Arthur Bailey, grocer, Rode Heath, missed a quantity of
cheese, and informed P.C. Johnston, who was stationed at Alsager. This officer,
accompanied by P.S. Higgins and the prisoner, went to Bailey's shop, and at the
interview prisoner endeavoured to confuse Bailey as to the date on which the
cheese had disappeared. When they left the shop Johnson charged prisoner with
the theft of the cheese, adding "If you are an honest man you will not object to
my searching your house. Your house is a police station, and I will search it."
The house was searched, and in the attic 28lb. of cheese was found, which would
be identified by Bailey as the missing cheese. When before the magistrates
prisoner said he found the cheese, and that he had entered it in his book. He
had the book in his possession, and found that it was not the book supplied by
the Chief Constable, and there the entry was made on the 26th January, whereas
the cheese was not missed until the 27th. Prisoner, in reply to the charge, said
he had bought the cheese from Wright and Watson, of Tunstall.
On behalf of the prosecution he might say that prisoner had served the county
well, but the prosecution thought it their duty to lay the facts before the
jury, and if the charge was not proved the prosecution would have no feeling of
regret. Evidence was given in support of this statement by P.C. Johnson, and
Arthur Bailey and his brother Francis Bailey, farmer, near Newcastle,
Staffordshire. The latter, who made the cheese and sold it to his brother,
positively identified it.
P.S. Higgins, of Alsager, said prisoner told him Mr. Bailey had a cheese gone
from the warehouse, but that he would make further enquiries about it, as he did
not believe it had gone. If it was found, as prisoner alleged, on 26th January,
at 2 a.m., it ought to have been reported to witness on that day, but prisoner
made no such report. — Cross‐examined : In the matter of a burglary last October
prisoner was complimented. Mr. Marshall, for the defence, said prisoner had been
in the force for 10 years, and had always behaved very well, and in some
instances had earned the commendation of his superiors. Juries were apt to be
prejudiced against policemen charged with dishonesty, but they must divest
themselves of any such feeling. According to the evidence for the prosecution,
ample opportunity was afforded to anyone to steal the cheese from the warehouse
on the night in question before it was locked up. It was not till the 30th that
Bailey reported the loss of the cheese, and when prisoner proposed to make
inquiries, Bailey said "I don't think you need do so; it is very likely eaten by
this time." Defendant in his pocket‐book reported the finding of the cheese at
two a.m. on the 26th January, near some palings belonging to George Perkins.
According to his own statement, on making the discovery he hid himself behind
the palings for about a couple of hours, but as nobody came, and as he could not
discover the owner or the thief, he carried the cheese home. If any ordinary
civilian were to do that it would not be right, but prisoner was a policeman at
that time, and was called upon to make a report of the matter to his superior
officer. Prisoner admitted the irregularity of not entering the matter in the
proper book and sending it on to headquarters, but an irregularity of that kind
was very different from theft. Prisoner told Sergeant Higgins that Bailey had
informed him of the loss of the cheese. If he was a thief and wanted to convict
himself of theft he could not have adopted a surer course than that. As he gave
himself so much publicity in the matter, however, it was quite evident that he
neither stole nor intended to steal. If he intended to steal he was a great fool
to enter the cheese in his memorandum book.
Evidence was given for the defence with the view of showing that it was possible
for anybody to have stolen the cheese before the warehouse was locked up for the
night. Mr. Latham, recapitulating his evidence, thought it only fair to admit
that at the assizes just before Christmas prisoner was complimented by the
judge. It was possible prisoner did not take the cheese at the same time it was
in his possession, and as he had not accounted for it, it would be the jury's
duty to convict him. Supposing the prisoner had, as he said, found the cheese,
what should he have done with it? He did what was his duty, carried it home.
Where did he put it? An honest policeman would not have put found cheese in a
box among old clothes in an attic room, he would have put it somewhere where it
could be easily found. Cheese was apt to spoil clothes, and prisoner evidently
put it there to conceal it. Although prisoner went on January 30th to Sergeant
Higgins and told him Mr. Bailey said he had lost some cheese prisoner never
uttered a word about the cheese he had according to his own account found behind
the palings on the 26th. It was prisoner's duty to state the actual date on
which he found the cheese, but he did not do so. It was his duty to tell the
sergeant, I found some cheese on the 26th, but as Bailey did not lose his cheese
till the 27th it could not possibly be his. Again, if he found it, why say he
bought it from Wright and Watson; or if he bought it from Wright and Watson, why
say he found it near the paling ?
The jury, after about twenty minutes' deliberation, found prisoner guilty.
The Chairman, in passing sentence, said prisoner had been convicted on evidence
which had satisfied the jury and had abundantly satisfied the court that
prisoner stole or had a guilty knowledge of the stealing of that cheese. It was
a very sad thing indeed to find a man who had occupied for nine years past the
respectable position of a constable in the county now standing in the dock, and
there could not be a doubt about it, prisoner had forgotten himself, and he had
reason to fear this was not the only case, there were two other charges which
possibly could have been proved against him. The Bench were quite aware that the
punishment prisoner would receive for this offence was not by any means the
whole of what he would probably have to suffer for his misdeeds; he had lost his
place and position, and the chance of reinstatement, because it would be
obviously improper to entrust to a man like prisoner any similar public duties.
That in itself was a serious punishment. Having regard to the fact that this was
the first time anything was ever known against prisoner, and as the Chief
Constable said his conduct in the force had been very satisfactory he would have
the benefit of that good character, and, this being treated as his first
offence, he would receive sentence of three months' hard labour.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 23 September 1893
PRESENTATION TO A CHESTER CONSTABLE.
INTERESTING SPEECH BY MR FENWICK.
THE POLICE FORCE FORTY YEARS AGO
The members of the City Police Force met at the Town Hall, yesterday (Friday),
to present a testimonial to Ex‐Police Constable Diggory, who is retiring on a
pension after the exceptionally long service of nearly forty years. The Chief
Constable (Mr. G. L. Fenwick) who had been asked to make the presentation, said:
— we have met to‐day to wish good‐bye to an old comrade who is laying aside the
official harness, and retiring into private life, after about forty years of
faithful and honour‐able service. I very willingly take a small part in the
ceremony, and, if I may, would like to notice one or two points which have
struck mo in connection with it. Forty years is a large slice of a man's
life‐time, even when he reaches three‐score years and ten. (Hear, hear.) When
Diggory joined the Chester police I was still in my 'teens and many of you were
not born for many years after that time. The police, as we know it, had only
been in existence sixteen or seventeen years, and still wore the top hat with
the glazed crown, the tail coat, and carried the ancient rattle, with‐out which
the authorities of that time thought no constable' 3 outfit complete.
(Laughter.) They had succeeded the ancient “Charlie’s," who came into existence
in the time of Charles 11., and were nick‐named after that estimable monarch.
The principle upon which the Charlie’s " were chosen was, as far as I can make
out, old age, unfitness for any‐thing else, whatever may be said of the police
work they undertook, and a good storage capacity for — well, mineral waters, or
other fashionable beverage of the period. (Laughter.) The new men wore a
distinct improvement upon them, one qualification, in particular, being
considered essential, namely, that they should be of gigantic proportions, with
some knowledge of " bruising " — (laughter) — or the noble art of self ‐defence.
All that, you know, is now a thing of the past. (Hear, hear.) I appreciate as
much as anybody a young fellow, intelligent, of good physique and with some
athletic skill, who likes his work and takes an interest in it. An eminent
statesman who died a few years ago, was addressing his constituents, when the
clever elector who is usually present on such occasions, made himself a nuisance
by asking nonsensical questions. " What do you stand upon ?" he roared out, and
the candidate promptly replied " I stand upon my head," at the same time tapping
that part of his anatomy with his finger. That silenced his interrupter. Now I
like policemen to "stand upon their heads!" If they are to control the public by
mere brute force, they will, and must fail, if for no other reason than that
they would be overmatched in the proportion of a thousand to one. No; they are
the servants of the public, and should never forget almost the first sentence in
their book of rules, namely, that they are appointed and paid for "the
protection of life and property, and the preservation of public tranquillity."
The recent Police Act under which P.C. Diggory retires, has conferred great
advantages upon us, and we are fortunate, and always have been fortunate, in the
Watch Committee, who has the control of us. While jealous of what the public are
entitled to, the wants of the men receive the most careful and even generous
consideration at the hands of that body. (Hear, hear.) Coming back to the
immediate business in hand, I have no hesitation in saying that Diggory's record
is an extremely creditable one. For 27 or 28 years he has been in charge of the
police office and lock‐ups at nights, and during that long period, and although
the duties have been of a very responsible kind, not a single complaint has been
made against him, either by the public, the inspectors, or sergeants, or the
prisoners, many thousands of whom he has had in his charge. That I look upon as
a most creditable record. At the last annual inspection I took the opportunity
to present him to Sir Herbert Croft, H.M. Inspector, who, with a perfect
courtesy, complimented Diggory upon his long service and record, and wished him
health and happiness to enjoy his well‐earned pension. We all join in that wish
to‐day, I am sure— (applause)— and I now in your name present him with the
hand‐some timepiece I see on the table. (Applause.) I know he will appreciate
it, coming from his comrades with whom he has been so long‐associated, and I can
almost fancy I see him, when the Chester Police football team has beaten
Liverpool of Preston, or some of those crack clubs— (laughter)— throwing up his
hat, and calling upon the inscription on this beautiful clock as a witness that
he once belonged to that club. (Laughter and applause.) Diggory I sincerely wish
you long life and happiness on your retirement. (Loud applause.) Mr. Diggory
having feelingly replied, a vote of thanks was moved to the Chief Constable by
Inspector Price, and the interesting ceremony was brought to a close. The
timepiece bore the following inscription • "Presented to Thomas Diggory by the
members of the Chester City Police Force on his retirement, as a mark of
esteem.— September, 1893 "
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 22 April 1893
THE CHIEF CONSTABLE OF CHESTER.
The current number of The Police Review contains an admirable cabinet half‐bust
portrait of Mr. G. L. Fenwick, Chief Constable of Chester, together with the
following short biographical notice : —
Mr. George Lee Fenwick, the Chief Constable of the famous border city of
Chester, is 56 years of age, and of old Northumbrian stock. He was born at
Bishopwearmouth in the year before the Queen's accession, and was educated
privately. In February, 1860, being then only 23 years of age, he was chosen
from upwards of 80 applicants for the responsible appointment of Chief Clerk of
the Leeds Constabulary, and in August, 1864, was appointed Chief Constable of
Chester, vice Mr. John Hill, who retired on a pension after 44 years' service.
He is thus only the second Chief Constable of Chester since the establishment of
the police, his service and that of his predecessor covering the long space of
72 years, a fact which speaks volumes for the "ancient and loyal city."
Moreover, it will be seen that in point of service he is almost the senior Chief
Constable in Great Britain. Perhaps the most notable event of his official life
in Chester was the part he took in frustrating the projected Fenian raid upon
Chester Castle in February, 1867. At that time there were a million rounds of
cartridge stored there, and 30,000 stands of arms, besides those of the
volunteers in an old "Cock‐pit," which numbered 1,000 more. It was arranged by
the "men of action" that these should be seized and conveyed to Ireland to be
used in the rising which really took place in Kerry and the south a few days
biter.
Happily, all this was defeated by the opportune disclosures of the informer
Corydon, and although the members of the Brotherhood met in Chester, 1,700 or
1,800 strong, and there was only a small detachment of 60 soldiers in the Castle
at the time, preparations had been so promptly completed, that not only was no
attempt actually made, but the raiders fled in all directions, scattering ball
cartridge, pistols, daggers, &c, as they went.
The two leaders, Captain McCafferty and Captain Flood, were arrested as they
entered Dublin Bay in a collier from Whitehaven, and were tried at the Special
Commission held at Dublin in the following April and May. McCafferty was
sentenced to death for high treason, and Flood to 15 years penal servitude for
treason felony. For his share in this matter Mr. Fenwick received the thanks of
the Home Secretary and the Irish Government.
Mr. Fenwick was one of the few Chief Constables who were called upon to give
evidence before a Select Committee of the House of Commons on the police
superannuation question, and has had the satisfaction of seeing some of his
suggestions carried out. He also gave evidence before the Lords Committee on
intemperance.
Outside his police work, the subject of our sketch has been a frequent
correspondent of the Times newspaper during the last quarter of a century on
crime, criminals, vagrancy, licensing reform, drunkenness, and kindred topics.
In other directions, too, his pen has not been idle; and be has attracted some
notice as a linguist, being conversant with four or five modern languages. He is
the author of "A German Grammar," "A First Russian Course," and as a member of
the Philological Society was one of the readers for the colossal work now being
published by the Clarendon Press, and known as “The New Oxford Dictionary."
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 23 December 1893
NORTHWICH. Shebeening. — The Magistrates on Tuesday investigated allegations of
shebeening at Lostock Gralam. Benjamin Goodall, refreshment house keeper, was
summoned for selling beer without a licence. John Hayes, William Riddle, and
Patrick Dolan were charged with aiding and abetting. The case for the
prosecution was that on December 9th Constable Daine watched Goodall's shop,
which was frequented by working men, and saw a number of men therein with pint
cups before them. Two left with a quart can each. Riddle was accosted, and said
his can contained ale obtained from Goodall. Goodall declared that the liquid
was herb beer, but the analyst pronounced it genuine beer. Subsequently the
house was searched, and a beer cask of "Boddington's " found. — The defence was
that Goodall procured the beer for the consumption of himself and seven lodgers,
who boarded, and that the beer carried by Riddle was a gift by the lodger. —
Goodall was fined £10, and Riddle 20s. The others were dismissed.
Cheshire Observer
Saturday 20 May 1893
DISGRACEFUL ASSAULTS ON THE POLICE AT WARRINGTON
At the Warrington Borough Police Court, on Monday, before the Mayor and other
Magistrates, Wm. Bradbury and Thomas Bradbury, son and father, were charged with
being drunk and disorderly in Old‐road, on Saturday night ; and further with
assaulting Constables Leathwood, Bruen, Newy, and Sergeant Smith while acting in
the execution of their duty. John Dooley was charged with assaulting Constables
Leathwood and Newy, and attempting to rescue the two first prisoners and
Cornelius Ward was charged with assaulting the two constables and Sergeant
Smith.
All the defendants denied assaulting the officers. A statement made by the Chief
Constable, and which was fully borne out by the evidence of the policemen named
above and other witnesses, shewed that on Saturday night Constable Leathwood was
called to a fight in Bridge Inn‐yard. The men engaged on seeing the officer
stopped fighting and went into the public‐house, but presently emerged from the
front door. Then the first prisoner, Wlliam Bradbury, and another man commenced
to fight again, and on the officer interfering Thomas Bradbury (father of the
other prisoner of that name) came up and used abusive language. He next seized
Leathwood, and the young man with whom William Bradbury had been fighting then
tackled the father.
Police‐constable Leathwood arrested the father, who had violently struck the
young man, and then the son rescued him from custody. The son then ran into the
Norton Arms Vaults, followed by his father and the officer, and in the vaults a
severe struggle occurred, which the barman described as a regular battle.
The first two prisoners, with several other men, covered Leathwood, and were
ill‐using him when Police‐constable Newy cama on the scene. Sergeant Smith came
up, and was immediately assaulted, and a similar fate befell Police‐constable
Bruen, who was struck twice on the neck, then in the mouth, and finally across
the back with a poker. He drew his staff, and called on the sergeant to use his
stick. After a severe struggle all the prisoners were got to the police‐station.
The two Brad‐burys were fined 40s. and costs each, or in default one month's
imprisonment ; Dooley was fined 20s. and costs; and Cornelius Ward, who was
proved to have used the poker, was sent to gaol for three months without the
option of a fine.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 10 June 1893
TERRIBLE TRAGEDY AT WILMSLOW. THE INQUEST AND VERDICT
The picturesque village of Wilmslow, near Alderley Edge, was the scene of a
terrible tragedy on Saturday night It appears that for a considerable time a
family, consisting of father, mother, and daughter, the latter aged about 18
years, have occupied a semidetached cottage fronting the old racecourse, lying
between Wilmslow and Morley. On Saturday night they seem to have retired to rest
as usual, and nothing had transpired to lead anyone to suppose that anything
unusual was about to happen. About three o'clock on Sunday morning the father
was disturbed by a alight noise in the bedroom, and he spoke to his wife, who
was moving towards the door, and she in reply gave him to understand that she
was going to her daughter, who was suffering from ticdoloureux. He then fell
asleep again. When he got up he was struck by the stillness which prevailed in
the house, and on going to an adjoining bedroom he found both mother and
daughter with their throats cut, and dead. He was naturally very much horrified,
and he at once informed the neighbours of what had taken place.
Subsequent inquiries seem to reveal that the facts are as simple as they are
dreadful. No doubt seems to be entertained that the mother first indicted the
injuries upon her daughter, which caused her death, and then cut her own throat.
That the two had made up their minds to die rather than suffer the disgrace
which they feared was about to come upon them would seem to be equally certain.
This may be gathered from the fact that the daughter had written a note in which
she requested that a silk handkerchief might be given to a young female friend.
On another piece of paper she had written instructions as to the way in which
she and her mother were to be laid out. They had actually got the things ready
in which they were to be buried. The handwriting on the papers which were found
in the bedroom was indisputably that of the daughter, as Mrs. Worth could
neither read nor write. Nothing strange had been noticed in the conduct of Mrs
Worth by the neighbours. She had stated repeatedly to more than one who had
become curious on account of not seeing the daughter for several days past that
the girl had gone away to see some friends. This, however, was denied by one of
the neighbours who saw the girl in the back room a day or two ago. On Saturday,
owing to rumours that had obtained currency, a police officer went to the house
and closely questioned Mrs. Worth as to the condition of her daughter, and she
assured him that there was no ground for the statements which had been made. So
calm and collected was she that the officer fully believed her, and left with
the firm impression that the rumours had no foundation in fact. It bad been
arranged with the knowledge and con‐sent of the mother that her daughter should
be examined by a medical gentleman on Monday. The dread of exposure must have
been very great on the part of both mother and daughter, and may have affected
the mind of one if not of both during the silent hours of Saturday night.
Mrs. Worth could hardly have contemplated such a terrible deed on Saturday
afternoon or in the early hours of the evening, as she went to the shops in the
village as usual, and purchased her provisions for the ensuing week. That the
daughter had been recently confined was proved by the doctor who examined the
body on Sunday. What has become of the child is a mystery. It was concluded that
it must have been made away with, but despite all their searching they have not
been able to discover any trace of the remains. Bloodhounds were employed to
assist them in their efforts, but all to no purpose. The husband, William Worth,
bears a good character in the district. He is a labourer, and work has
frequently taken him long distances from home, and he has many times been away
from Monday morning till Saturday afternoon. Much sympathy is felt for him in
the village.
The inquest was held at the Swan Hotel Wilmslow, on Monday afternoon, before Mr.
H
C. Yates, District Coroner. The first witness called was William Worth, who
stated that his wife was 39 and her daughter 19 years of age. They all retired
to bed on Saturday night about 10, and Sarah Ann Frost occupied a room at the
rear. All three of them were on good terms. Between two and three in the morning
he was awakened by his wife getting out of bed. He asked her where she was
going, and she replied that Sarah had got the tic and she was going to sleep
with her. He believed the story, and gave his consent to her going. She was in
her nightdress, and was carrying nothing in her hand. He went to sleep, and did
not wake again until about six, when he shouted to his wife to get up. He got no
answer, and got up and went downstairs to see if she was there. Not finding her
there he went to his daughter's bedroom, and again asked his wife if she was
going to get up. Getting no reply this time he entered the room and saw his wife
and her daughter lying on the bed on each aide of a bowl. They were both dead,
and he went for a neighbour named Mrs. Sands. She did not like to go up with him
to the bedroom, and eventually another woman, named Mrs. Hallmark, accompanied
him. They then discovered that the throats of both his wife and daughter were
cut. A piece of paper, bearing instructions in his step‐daughter's handwriting
as to the way in which the women should be laid out, was found in a room along
with another paper bearing the request that a silk handkerchief of the
daughter's should be given to a female friend named Bradbury. His wife had never
stated her intention either to do away with herself or to take the life of her
daughter. They were both on good terms. The razor which was found lying beside
his wife belonged to him, but he had not used it for some months. Mrs. Worth was
a very steady woman. He had suggested to her that Sarah Frost was pregnant, but
he was satisfied she was not when she denied the fact.
Mrs. Mary Ann Hallmark, a neighbour of Mr. Worth, said that on Sunday morning
she was called to Worth's house. On going upstairs she found in the back bedroom
Mrs. Worth and Sarah Ann Frost in bed dead with their throats cut. One of Mrs.
Worth's hands was hanging over a bowl, and in it was a razor. There was blood in
the bowl. Witness saw Mrs. Worth going across the Common on Saturday night with
her husband. There was nothing peculiar in her manner. Witness had noticed that
Sarah Ann Frost was enceinte, and spoke to Mrs. Worth about it, and she denied
that such was the case Deceased and her daughter seemed to be on very good
terms. By a Juror: Witness had known Mrs. Worth many years. She believed Mrs.
Worth had had children, but she had not seen any.
Mrs. Hannah Adshead said she was not a professional midwife, but she had
attended many women as nurse. She attended Mrs. Worth about Christmas, when she
was delivered of a stillborn child. There was no doctor engaged. Witness had
previously attended Mrs. Worth in similar circumstances. She did not know that
Miss Frost was enceinte. She had more than once spoken to her upon the subject,
and received negative replies. In reply to a juror, witness said she attended
Mrs. Worth first about twelve years ago, and three or four times since, and the
children were stillborn. She had got coffins for three of the children. By the
Coroner: Witness said she would swear she was not with Mrs. Worth on Saturday
afternoon or evening. She had begged Mrs. Worth to tell if her daughter was
enceinte, and she denied that such was the case.
Police Sergeant Griffiths deposed to telling Mrs. Worth on Saturday afternoon
that there were rumours going about that a child had been born in her house, and
that the birth was being concealed. He asked if her daughter was at home, and
she replied that she had gone to Cheadle Hulme, adding that her daughter had not
been confined, but expected to be so in six weeks' time. She told him that she
would get Dr. Davies to examine her daughter, and he went away satisfied that
the rumour had really no foundation. He heard nothing more about the matter
until Sunday morning, when he was informed of the tragedy. Witness then gave
particulars as to the position of the bodies of the deceased persons in the
bedroom, and said there was no sign of any struggle. His opinion was that the
daughter held her head over the bowl while her mother cut her throat, afterwards
doing the same by herself.
Dr. Davies stated that he saw the dead bodies of Mrs. Worth and her daughter on
Sunday morning. Both their throats were cut, most likely by the razor found
beside them. They had bled to death into the basin in from three to six minutes.
He thought that the mother had cut her daughter's throat, and then cut her own.
When he saw them life had been extinct five or six hours. He subsequently made
an examination of the daughter, and found that she had been confined within six
days. Some weeks previously Mrs. Worth had told him that her daughter had gone
to Cheadle to be confined. The Coroner then summed up, remarking that this was
certainly one of the worst cases he had ever had before him since he bad held
his office.
This was the whole of the evidence. The jury returned a verdict to the effect
that Mrs. Worth killed her daughter, and then cut her own throat, while in a
state of temporary insanity. The tragedy still creates excitement. Crowds visit
the scene on Lindow Common. The child has not been found, although a thorough
search has been made by the police, assisted by blood, hounds. It was rumoured
on Tuesday night that the remains had been discovered in a wash boiler, but this
turned out to be untrue. The dogs refuse to leave the kitchen, and persist in
working near the boiler grate. Cinders have been found in the garden, and the
dogs shew excitement there. It is supposed the body was burned and the ashes
taken out into the garden. The funeral of the two Worths took place on Wednesday
afternoon at Wilmslow Church. There was an immense crowd of spectators, order
being kept by a force of police. A short service was read by the rector.
Cheshire Observer
Saturday 23 June 1894
EX ‐SUPERINTENDENT JAMES NAYLOR.
AN INTERESTING CAREER.
The Police Review and Parade Gossip contains an interesting sketch of the career
of Mr. James Naylor, ex‐superintendent of the Cheshire Constabulary, who retired
on a well‐merited pension in the autumn of 1889, having served in that force for
thirty‐one years.
He was born at Over Darwen, near Blackburn, on 9th April, 1829, and is a
descendant of a noble race of yeomen whose ancestors shed their blood in their
country's cause in the Peninsular and other continental wars. During the earlier
portion of his life he was so busily engaged on his father's farm that his
education was entirely neglected, but he subsequently picked up a little, and
improved it as opportunities afforded.
At the age of twenty years he enlisted in the 4th Royal Dragoon Guards, and
served in that regiment for a year. Here he detected some petty pilfering among
the soldiers, for whom his captain commended him, and re‐marked that he ought to
be a policeman, not a soldier.
His mother being taken very ill resulted in him leaving the Army on payment of
£30. He remained at home for a short time, and then went to Preston, where he
met a sergeant of the Lancashire police force, who persuaded him to join the
force. He was sent to Woolton, on the outskirts of Liverpool, as a horse patrol.
While in this force he, one day, met a man driving a cow near Rainhill, and,
after chatting with him, apprehended him on suspicion of stealing it. His
suspicions proved to be correct, the cow, a very valuable one, having been
stolen from Hale Wood.
He resigned from the Lancashire force after a service of one year 101 days. On
the 8th March, 1854, he was chosen, out of 19 candidates, to fill a vacancy in
the Bolton Constabulary, and was put on duty in Chorley‐road. One morning, about
two o'clock, he caught two men in the act of committing a burglary at a
gentleman's residence. A severe struggle ensued for twenty minutes, the men at
last running away in opposite directions. Constable Naylor followed one and
overtook him. Another scuffle ensued, the prisoner kicking the constable very
severely, the effects of which he feels to this day. He drew and used his staff
to defend himself, and succeeded in apprehending the man. A few hours afterwards
he also arrested the other man. Both prisoners had just returned from
transportation across the seas, and were sent back again.
Constable Naylor was removed to Deansgate. Here he, unaided, apprehended 14 men
for sleeping in a mill without any means of subsistence. He securely fastened
them all together, and succeeded in taking them part of the way to the Police
Office, and then obtained the assistance of two other constables, and locked
them up. The Magistrates highly complimented Constable Naylor for his courage
and determination. Shortly afterwards a Mr. Davis, managing clerk to a
solicitor, when returning home late one night was garrotted and left insensible
near Sweet Green Church, the offenders taking away with them all his jewellery
etc. On the case being put into Constable Naylor's hands, he recovered the
stolen property, which was concealed up a chimney, and arrested the two thieves,
who were tried at the Liverpool Assizes, and sentenced to fourteen years
transportation.
His next important case was that of an Irish woman, a servant to a retired
painter. During her master's absence she stole £22, hid it, and then hung
herself to a bed‐post, where she was found, black in the face, by a washerwoman.
Constable Naylor's superior officers were engaged two days searching for the
money, but without success. The Chief Constable, Mr. Harrison, then directed
Constable Naylor to search, and' after three and a half hours, he recovered the'
whole of the money concealed on the premises. In a subsequent robbery of brass
he recovered the whole of the stolen property, amounting to several tons, and
was rewarded by the owner, and highly complimented.
For a considerable time he was engaged on detective duty, and in 1857 he joined
the Cheshire Constabulary.
Some years ago when Northwich was a noted place for poachers and thieves, and as
the resident sergeants made no headway in the detection of them the Chief
Constable, on the Superintendent's recommendation, promoted Constable Naylor to
the rank of acting‐sergeant, and sent him to Comberbach. Soon after his arrival
here he, in company with Constable Savage, met eight poachers, loaded. The
poachers threatened to kill the sergeant, who had with him a heavy
walking‐stick', which he used with such good effect that they ran away, throwing
their booty in all directions. Seven out of the eight were arrested and
convicted.
A month after the above event, Sergeant Naylor and two constables met five
poachers on Red Lion Bridge, Anderton. A pitched battle ensued. Stones rattled
one after another against a building close by. One of the constables (Dalziel)
was struck down, but his place was taken by Sergt. Naylor, who succeeded in
knocking two of the poachers down? The poachers then took to their heels,
throwing away in their flight a large quantity of hares, rabbits, and poaching
implements. Sergeant Naylor subsequently arrested the men. Two of the
ringleaders received sentences of eighteen months' imprisonment each. For his
courage on this occasion he was promoted full sergeant, and granted the merit
badge with pay.
His most serious engagement with poachers, and one which almost ended fatally,
took place on 29th Sept., I 1867. He was on duty at Wincham, with P.Cs Dalziel
and Lee, in company with two keepers. When near Tee Bridge they met a gang of
thirty‐two poachers, who drew up together, and threatened to kill the police and
keepers. Stones began to rain on the police like hailstones. Constable Dalziel
was struck on the head, and, seeing this, Lee and the two keepers took to their
heels. Sergeant Naylor was struck with a stone and knocked senseless. The gang
then set upon him, and abused him in a disgraceful manner. His left arm was cut
in five places; he was stabbed through the hand; the top of his head was knocked
in; the flesh of both hands stripped to the bone; and his ribs injured on the
left side. The poachers, thinking they had finished him, threw him into a pig
cote. The neighbours were roused with the noise, and, finding the Sergeant lying
unconscious, carried him to a house close to, where he lay unconscious for six
days, and was three months recovering from the effects of the encounter.
The whole of the men were arrested, identified and committed for trial at
Chester Assizes. The Sergeant was in the witness‐box under examination for two
hours and forty minutes, nine barristers being engaged to defend. Three of the
offenders received five years penal servitude each, and the rest sentences
varying from two years to eighteen months. For his action here he was highly
complimented, and received a special reward of £3.
A gang of twenty‐nine men, terming themselves “The Committers," infested
Smallwood and Astbury about this time, committing several burglaries and other
robberies. In May, 1868, Sergeant Naylor was removed to Astbury and soon
succeeded in arresting the ringleaders and breaking up the band.
The thieves and poachers of Mow Cop and district were closely watched. When on
duty one Sunday night, he heard the report of gun and on proceeding towards the
direction of the sound was informed by a messenger that the policeman Bebbington
had been shot. With another constable he cleverly worked up with considerable
difficulty, the case, and affected the arrest of the offender, who received ten
years' penal servitude.
His success was so marked that interested persons formed a treacherous plot
against him, and brought it to such a successful issue that he was reduced to
acting‐sergeant, and deprived of his merit badge; but in six months' time he
succeeded in establishing his complete innocence to the entire satisfaction of
the Chief Constable, who reinstated him in his former position, and discharged
the two constables who had plotted against him.
He was removed from Crewe to Hazel Grove, and five and a half years later
removed to Hyde, and was made acting‐inspector.
In June, 1878, he was promoted inspector, removed to Northwich, and, in less
that twelve months, again removed to Crewe as acting‐superintendent, and two
years later to Eddisbury as superintendent of that division, which post he held
until his retirement on 31st July, 1889.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 10 November 1894
ATHLETIC NEWS. LOCAL FOOTBALL NOTES. [By "Sphere."]
Local football enthusiasts were on the “qui vivre” on Saturday, the chief
interest being centred In the contest at Queen's Park, where the two rival
teams, the Police Athletic and " Chester Reserve," met for the first time this
season in a Wirral League engagement. The small attendance — there being
scarcely more than two hundred present; — was in no small way accounted for by
the fact that the Chester Committee had all their first team men billed to play
against Tonge, leaving the impression that a purely Reserve team would meet the
Police. Had this been so, no doubt it would have been a walk over for the
Athletic. It was, therefore, no small surprise when three of the best men from
the first eleven stepped on to the field. Perhaps, at the last moment, the
committee deemed the reserve incapable of competing against their opponents. The
ground was in splendid condition, not‐withstanding the recent heavy rains.
The following were the teams :— Chester Police Athletic : J. Pay, J. Parker, J.
Boardman, Snell, F. Porter, F. Parker, Griffiths, R. Browne, J. Meredith, T.
Webster, and
H. E. Lipsham. Chester Reserve : J. K. Jones, E. Roberts, H. Jones, Isherwood,
Lindop, Barker, Hewitt, Bellis, Astbury, Pickering, and Turner.
The home team kicked down hill, with a strong wind, and immediately put their
opponents on the defensive. Several corners proved abortive, after which Jones,
the visitors' back, accidentally put the ball through his own goal. The
homesters still kept up a perfect bombardment, and Jones saved well repeatedly.
Snell put in a long shot, which the goalkeeper just managed to tip over the
crossbar. Astbury now obtained, and the forwards worked the ball well up the
field, but Pay averted danger. The homesters made a great mistake in
dilly‐dallying too much with the ball when near the goal, instead of taking
advantage of the wind, and shooting much oftener. Lipsham put in a nice centre,
and the forwards not being in their places, what must otherwise have been a sure
goal was thrown away. Astbury and Pickering were noticeable for much individual
play, the former putting in a terrific shot, which was capitally saved by Pay.
Hewitt and Bellis, on the right wing, were frequently dangerous, but were
checked by the back division when encroaching too near goal. Time after time the
Cestrians' goal was placed in jeopardy, but Jones cleared cleverly. The visitors
transferred the ball to the other end, and J. Parker was several times applauded
for his clean kicking. Half‐time arrived with the score in favour of the Police
by one goal to nil. It was evident from the restart that the Cestrians meant
business, for, with the hill and wind in their favour, they swooped down the
field, and from a miss kick J. Parker put the ball through his own goal. From a
corner kick Pickering nicely headed a second through the corner of the goal. Pay
not having any chance to stop it. Once Astbury had the goal at his mercy, but,
instead of shooting, was under the delusion that he had been fouled. The
referee, however, thought otherwise, and did not allow the free kick which was
claimed for. Turner, at times, did good work on the left, but shot wide. Lipsham
and Griffiths both had shies at goal, but danger was averted. As a result of
some clever passing, the ball hovered dangerously near the Athletics territory,
and Pay frustrated some shots which it seemed almost impossible to get away.
Once he succeeded in catching a swift ball while on his knees, only about three
yards from goal. Although the homesters were repeatedly dangerous, they could
make no headway against the strong wind, and their opponents, making another
concerted effort, dribbled the ball through, Bellis scoring the third goal. From
the kick‐off the Athletic at once attacked, and Jones only partially saving a
stinger from Lipsham, Webster rushed it through. Each side made a determined
fight, but the score was not further augmented, and Chester were returned
victorious by three goals to two. On the whole the game was most evenly
contested, but the Cestrians seemed eager to take offence when the least
opportunity presented itself. With one exception the tactics of both elevens
were most unquestionable. As before mentioned the game throughout was all with
the wind, but whereas the Police in the first half did not shoot as often as was
expected, the Cestrians kept popping away whenever within reasonable distance of
the goal. Too much praise cannot be bestowed upon Pay for his clever defence, in
fact both goal‐keepers were in capital form. Parker and Boardman were quite safe
at back, while Snell intercepted many a well‐intended move on the part of the
forwards. In characterising the play of the visitors —although we will not say
the others did not do their best — the game devolved upon the first team men,
whose individual play was extensively indulged in throughout the match. The
defence was good, and Lindop is a sure kick at half‐back. The result is
certainly no disgrace to the Athletic, while it is assuredly no credit to the
Reserve with the team they had on the field. Perhaps the Police when they meet
the real Reserve in their next encounter they will retrieve their position.
WIRRAL & DISTRICT LEAGUE. FIRST DIVISION.
Results up to Saturday, Nov. 3rd.
Pld. Won. Lost. Drn. For. Agst. Pts. Tranmere Rovers 8 6 2 0 40 7 12 L.N.W.
Loco. 6 5 0 1 21 8 11 Chester Police 8 4 2 2 27 15 10 Port Sunlight 6 4 0 2 14 7
10 Chester Reserve 7 3 2 2 21 16 8 Ellesmere Port 6 3 2 1 17 13 7 Melrose 8 3 4
1 24 28 7 Hoylake 6 2 3 1 11 11 5 Bromborough 6 2 4 0 16 21 4 Saltney Borderers
6 2 4 0 13 28 4 Chester Institute 8 1 6 1 10 26 3 West Kirby 7 0 6 1 4 38 1
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 9 June 1894
CHARGE OF ATTEMPTED CHILD MURDER
SAD CASE AT ELLESMERE PORT
On Sunday morning, while three navvies were taking a walk in the fields between
Ellesmere Port and Overpool, they came across the body of a male child, covered
over with brambles and a shawl tightly wrapped round its face, lying in a deep
ditch. Finding that the child was alive, they promptly took it to the Police
Station, where it was well nourished and looked after by Mrs. Jackson. The
child's clothes were all wet, and bore evidence of having been in a pit from the
amount of duckweed about them. Dr. Finney, who was called in, gave it as his
opinion that the child was suffering from exposure to cold, and under the
motherly care of Mrs. Jackson, who provided a dry outfit, the boy soon came
round.
Sergeant Jackson made inquiries, and, having heard that a woman was seen in
Ellesmere Port on Saturday, with two children—one in arms and the other walking
— his suspicions were aroused. He at once got assistance, and had the pits in
the immediate neighbourhood dragged, but found nothing. On making further
inquiries he traced a woman with one child, about six years old, going towards
Little Sutton. Her name was Elizabeth Cross, a single woman, of Little Sutton,
who had lived in service at Netherpool, and was the mother of several
illegitimate children.
Sergt. Jackson found the woman at Little Sutton. She said she had left the
younger child with a woman in Alexander‐terrace, Ellesmere Port. He took her to
Ellesmere Port. On the way prisoner confessed that she had not left the child
with anyone, but that she had on the previous evening attempted to drown it by
putting it in a pit in one of Mr. Pickering's fields, and that she had then
taken it from the pit and left it in a ditch.
The officer took her to the police station, and on Monday morning she was
conveyed to Birkenhead, where she was taken before a magistrate charged with
attempting to murder her illegitimate son, William Cross, by placing him in a
pit in Netherpool. She was remanded until Thursday.
The little boy is a remarkably fine child, and Mrs. Jackson, at the request of
the magistrates, is taking care of him until Thursday. The other child the woman
had with her was found at the house where she was lodging at Sutton, and it is
remarkable that the child was alive after being in the ditch about 16 hours. The
affair has caused great excitement in the "Port."
At the adjourned hearing on Thursday prisoner was committed for trial.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 23 June 1894
THE NORTHWICH MURDER TRIAL.
A JEALOUS OLD WOMAN.
A DEATH SENTENCE
The trial of Margaret Deakin, 64 years of age, on a charge of murdering
Elizabeth Heald, at Northwich, on the 26th January, commenced in the Crown
Court, at Chester Assizes, before Mr. Justice Vaughan Villiams, on Wednesday.
There was a crowded attendance throughout the day. Mr. Clement Higgins, Q.C.,
M.P., with Mr. W. B. Yates was for the prosecution, and by the direction of his
Lordship the prisoner was defended by Mr. Trevor Lloyd.
The prisoner, a grey and bent old woman, dressed in black, presented a singular
spectacle in the dock, and seemed to follow the proceedings with indifferent
attention.
Mr. Higgins said the prisoner was a married woman, and James Deakin was her
fourth husband. He was a workman in the employment of Messrs. Brunner Mond, and
Co., and lived at 26, Church‐street, Northwich, where he kept a small provision
shop and took in lodgers.
The dead woman, Elizabeth Heald, was about 48 years of age, and she had lodged
six or seven months with the prisoner and her husband. At first she occupied a
separate bedroom on the second floor, but latterly she slept in the same parlour
as the prisoner and her husband, the married couple occupying a bed, and the
deceased a mattress on the floor. Deceased assisted in the shop work and took
charge of children, thus paying only a small sum for her lodgings. No person, so
far as was known, saw the death of the deceased, but on the evening of the 26th
January she was found dead with her throat cut.
Although the crime was believed to have been perpetrated in the early hours of
the morning, none of the other occupants of the house or the neighbours seemed
to have heard anything unusual.
Thos. Tudor, a labourer living in the house, got up at a quarter to five o'clock
in the morning, and went down stairs to get hot water for breakfast. He then
heard nothing extraordinary. He left for work about a quarter to six in the
morning, and when he came downstairs he noticed a lamp on the floor of the
passage. He also heard the door between the shop and the parlour slammed and
locked.
At seven o clock in the morning Mrs. Smith, one of the lodgers, was in the
kitchen when prisoner entered to light the fire. An hour afterwards, Mrs. Smith
went just inside the parlour door to pay her rent to the prisoner. At that time
prisoner was having breakfast but the deceased, who usually had breakfast with
her, was absent. Mrs. Smith enquired where Betsy (meaning Heald) was, and
prisoner replied, "She has not come home yet."
At that time Mrs. Smith saw what she described as a bundle of clothes near the
window.
About nine o'clock Mrs. Tudor, another lodger, was in the kitchen, when prisoner
entered with a wild appearance. Being struck by her appearance, witness asked
what was amiss, and prisoner replied "Nothing very particular." Mrs. Tudor
advised her to go and look at herself in the glass. She did so, and returned
laughing. Mrs. Tudor also asked where Betsy had been all that morning, and
prisoner, in answer, said she supposed she was at Mary Ann's (a Mrs. Plumb).
When about an hour later Mrs. Tudor went to the parlour to ask prisoner for some
coal, she found Mrs. Deakin lying on the sofa. The latter got up hurriedly, and
pushed Mrs. Tudor out of the parlour, saying “I'll give it you. I'll give it
you." Mrs. Tudor noticed that the mattress was on the floor at that time, and
not reared against the wall, as was the usual custom. At mid‐day the prisoner
locked the door, and her daughter coming up asked whether Betsy was in. The
prisoner replied, " No; she has gone out again. You call again this afternoon."
About one o'clock in the afternoon the prisoner left the shop, locking the door
and removing the key. She left her ulster with her daughter and disappeared,
being arrested the next day in Deansgate, Manchester, and charged with the
murder of Heald. When the husband returned home that afternoon he found the door
locked and the body of Heald lying on the mattress under a quilt, with the
throat terribly cut, and a knife loosely held in the left hand. There were also
cuts on the dead woman's hands. The body was dressed in sleeping clothes, and
the mattress was soaked with blood. When charged with the murder prisoner
replied, "I didn't do it; I tried to stop her." Coming to the question of
motive, the prosecution alleged that it was jealousy. Quarrels had '. frequently
arisen between the prisoner and Heald regarding the attention paid to the
prisoner's husband, and the prisoner threatened Heald with violence. On January
17th the prisoner stated to Mrs. Goulding that she had seen that which she
should not have seen between her husband and Betsy. She also told Mrs. Royle she
was going to leave Deakin. On Tuesday before the tragedy Heald had to take
refuge from prisoner who was following her with a hatchet.
The case for the prosecution was that this murder took place between the
departure of the husband at a quarter‐past five o'clock in the morning, and the
leaving of Thos. Tudor at a quarter to six. The post‐mortem examination shewed
that the stomach of the dead woman contained little or no food, and therefore
she probably had not breakfasted. Blood stains were found on the prisoner's
clothes. From the fact that Tudor found a lamp in the passage, it was presumed
that prisoner had intended to carry the dead body down to the cellar, for
removal elsewhere at some convenient time. The allegation was that while Heald
was lying on the mattress she was attacked by the prisoner with a knife, that
the dead woman resisted, caught hold of the knife, tried to her throat, and
hence the cuts on her hands. There was also abundant medical testimony that the
wound upon the throat was from left to right, a most material point in the case.
From the position in which she lay, she must have been cut from left to right by
any one approaching her. Marks of blood were found under the window, also on the
wall behind two mattresses, shewing that some one must have placed the
mattresses there after the assault on deceased. The body itself was covered with
clothes and other things, which could have been put there only by persons with a
knowledge of the death of the deceased. Prisoner herself had set up the defence
of suicide. Her answer to the police constable shewed that she must at any rate
have been present at the time. There was also the fact that the deceased was
loosely holding the knife in her left hand, and the suggestion of the
prosecution was that prisoner herself put it there to support the case of
suicide. The medical witnesses, however, would say that where death resulted
from suicide, the knife that inflicted the wound was as firmly held in the hand
that it was extremely difficult to remove it. The next point was that the wound
was of such magnitude that it would be almost impossible to be self‐inflicted.
Moreover, the medical witnesses would say that there were two wounds, the first
of which must from its nature have been fatal, and it would have been impossible
for the deceased to have inflicted the second wound. His Lordship inquired how
they could prove which wound was first inflicted.
Mr. Higgins said the medical witnesses were clear, from its position, which
wound was first inflicted, and that the second wound was merely a continuation
or extension of the first.
Elizabeth Thomas, wife of Arthur Thomas, now residing at Wigan, but formerly a
lodger with the prisoner, described the deceased as a little, slim woman, who
was not left‐handed. On the morning of the 20th January, when witness asked
prisoner what had become of Betsy, prisoner replied that she had not come home.
The witness afterwards described the discovery of the body. Witness shook up the
body, saying, "Get up. What are you lying like that there for?" Witness began to
stir up the bedclothes, and then discovered that the woman was dead.
The knife (produced) was loosely held in the dead woman's left hand. The knife
had been used in the provision shop previously. Cross‐examined: Deceased was
often drunk. She had some property which yielded her 3s. 6d. a week and she paid
prisoner 2s. 0d. a week for her lodgings. She was paid on Mondays, and generally
had a drop of drink and spent her money. When in drink deceased was very
quarrelsome. Witness had never quarrelled with prisoner, but she had often told
prisoner she ought to be ashamed of herself for quarrelling with Betsy.
Isabella Tudor, wife of Thomas Tudor, gave evidence shewing that deceased was
far gone in drink the night before her death. Witness bore out counsel's
statement as to the wild appearance of the prisoner on the morning of the
tragedy.
After further witnesses had given evidence in support of the opening statement.
Mary Newall, a married daughter of the prisoner, in cross‐examination, said she
had been on bad terms with the prisoner, and neither witness nor her second
Bister had done anything to help their mother in her defence. She believed,
however, her eldest sister had done something to help her. Margaret Bates, wife
of William Bates, Meadow‐street, Witton, Northwich, another daughter of the
prisoner, said that on the 26th January prisoner called and seemed upset. She
told witness she had been quarrelling with her husband again, as he was "such a
queer old stick, and she could not do any good with him and his other women."
Prisoner also complained generally about her husband's intimacy, with the other
women lodgers in the house.
Elizabeth Royle, wife of Joseph Royle, Tabley‐street, Witton, deposed that
prisoner complained to her about Betsy being "too thick" with her (prisoner's)
husband.
Hannah Goulding, an old woman, said prisoner, on 24th January, called on her
saying she had come to be out of Deakin's and Betsy's way, and she (prisoner)
had fallen out with them. She added that she had seen what she ought not to have
seen, and witness rejoined that she would not have Betsy there in that case.
Mary Ann Plumb, wife of William Plumb, 104, Back of London‐road, Northwich,
recalled, said that about a fortnight before Christmas it was mentioned that a
lodger named Robert was about to leave. Betsy remarked that prisoner would
rather have Robert than any other one in the house, whereupon prisoner pursued
Betsy and pulled her down, bat afterwards made up the quarrel by making Betsy a
present.
P.S. Martin Hunt (Northwich), after describing the position in which be found
the dead body, said he traced prisoner to Manchester, and found her in that city
next day. He brought her to Northwich the same afternoon.
Sarah Ellen Dawson, wife of William Henry Dawson, 9, Albert‐street, Manchester,
a female searcher, deposed to searching the prisoner on her arrest in Manchester
Town Hall.
Joseph Carter Bell, county analyst, proved that the prisoner's clothes were
bloodstained. Dr. W. Horton Smith (Northwich) said he was called to the scene of
the tragedy on 26th January, and found the body of the deceased. She had been
dead at least eight hours. The left arm lay across the chest, the hand holding a
large knife loosely. There was a wound in the neck reaching almost from ear to
ear, six inches in length, and the result of two incisions. One incision had
first been made on the left side, and the knife had been introduced into the
wound again almost to the bottom of the first incision, and another incision had
then been made, passing almost directly upwards to the back of the mouth. The
wound was evidently made from left to right. There were indications of other
attempts on the throat. On the thumb of the left hand there was a slight wound,
a very deep wound, between the thumb and first finger. There were other cuts on
the left and right hands. The throat wounds could not have been self‐inflicted.
If they had been, he would have expected to find the knife firmly gripped in the
right hand, and the wounds transverse, and not tending upwards. Cross‐examined:
He did not remember saying at the inquest that it was conceivable the wounds
might have been self‐inflicted. When confronted with his written evidence the
witness admitted his signature, but he could not remember making that statement.
It was a fact that suicidal wounds varied more than any others. Whichever of the
throat wounds was first inflicted, unconsciousness would have supervened, and it
would have been impossible to inflict a second. At this stage the court
adjourned for the day.
SECOND DAY'S PROCEEDINGS. IMPORTANT MEDICAL EVIDENCE.
The court was again crowded when, at ten o'clock on Thursday morning, Mr.
Justice Vaughan Williams took his seat on the bench. The prisoner maintained the
same quiet demeanour as on the first day, apparently almost indifferent to the
proceedings, or unable to fully appreciate her position. The medical testimony
for the prosecution being continued, Dr. Marsh (Northwich) deposed to making a
post‐mortem examination of the body. The wounds on the throat had been made by
two distinct incisions. The first divided all the structures down to the bone,
and cut a groove in the bone. The second went in a higher direction, and divided
the deep structures up to the root of the tongue. The reason why he said there
had been two incisions was that the main artery on the left side had been
divided twice. The first incision, which was the lowest, cut the main artery
across; the second incision, which was higher, cut the artery across, giving
ocular demonstration of two incisions. His Lordship: We all agree there were two
incisions. The point is why do you speak on one incision as being prior in time
to the other? How do you ascertain which incision was the earlier?— Witness: The
first ' incision, which is the lowest of the two, cut through the skin and the
windpipe and the gullet. Having been cut through, they would retract, be drawn
downwards and upwards, so that these structures were not divided by the second
incision. The second incision missed them. There was nothing divided twice but
the artery. The division of the windpipe, being in a line with the lowest of the
two incisions, and with the groove in the bone, it necessarily follows that the
other incision mast have been second to it, otherwise the windpipe must have
been divided higher. It is impossible for the wounds in the neck to have been
self‐inflicted. Cross‐examined by Mr. Trevor Lloyd : When before the coroner,
did you say " I think it is exceedingly probable that both wounds could have
been self‐inflicted. I cannot say that they have not been self‐inflicted?"—
Witness : Yes, but that is not quite the same thing. You did not cay it was
impossible?— I said it was exceedingly improbable. But you said "I cannot say
they have not been self inflicted?"— No, I can only say it is improbable. His
Lordship: But to‐day you said" "impossible," and you understand "impossible" and
"improbable" are not quite the same thing. Is "improbable " right and
"impossible" wrong, or vice versa ?— lmpossible, considering the two wounds. Why
did you say "improbable" only before the Coroner?— We were mixed up between one
and two wounds. The fact was not clearly brought forward that there were two
wounds. Then with regard to one wound you say it is improbable, but possible,
that one wound was self ‐inflicted ?— Yes, but I said both wounds to‐day. By Mr.
Lloyd: I admit the first wound might have been self‐inflicted.
Frank Thomas Paul, fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons, surgeon to the
Liverpool Royal Infirmary, and professor of medical jurisprudence at Victoria
University, was examined at some length. The throat wounds, he declared, were
certainly not self‐inflicted. Either of them would have been rapidly fatal. Many
of the deep tissues were divided into two parts. That was quite sufficient to
decide that the wounds were made in two cuts. In witness' opinion neither of the
wounds was self inflicted. Speaking of the lower cut by itself, if that had been
the only cut (which was against reservation), his reasons for saying that such a
cut was homicidal rather than suicidal were — (l) the size of the wound, and (2)
that the deep tissues were cut further than the skin. These reasons were
applicable only to the hypothesis of only one cut on the neck, and without
regard to the other wounds on the hands,, etc. His Lordship: How a wound on the
hands can affect the view regarding a wound on the neck passes my comprehension.
— Witness: All authorities on medical jurisprudence consider them of the utmost
importance. We cannot judge a single cat by itself. Medical men, any more than
courts, don't come to a conclusion on one point alone. Here is a wound which
might have been either homicidal or suicidal if you take one alone. His
Lordship: Really I most ask you to bear in mind you have nothing to do with the
termination issue of this case. You come here to give scientific evidence, and
if a hypothesis is placed before you, you must answer on that hypothesis.
Witness: I was trying to answer in such a way as not to mislead you. Examination
continued: Witness said it was, in his opinion, impossible for a suicide to
inflict the second wound, which was an upper cut, because the second wound
commenced in the first cut. The effect of the first cut upon the victim would
render her almost immediately unconscious. The wound was so deep upwards as to
be almost unknown in cases of suicide. Witness never heard of a wound being in
an upward direction in throat wounds of this kind. The throat wounds were
unquestionably from left to right. Such a wound, if suicidal, must be cat with
the right hand. In suicide, the knife was tightly grasped after death, the grasp
being a species of rigor mortis, which would last till decomposition commenced,
say, two days in the month of January. It varied according to the weather. The
other small cuts and scorings on the neck were quite different from the
tentative wounds caused by a suicide in making up his mind to cut his throat.
They rather resembled the wounds made when the assailed was trying to escape the
assailant's knife. The cuts on the hands shewed several attempts to grasp the
blade of the knife. Cross‐examined: Suicidal wounds varied more than any other
in direction and extent. It was not a fact that a maniac would often cat
upwards, but it was stated in some books that maniacs might cut upwards. It was
always regarded as a sign of homicide when the wounds were upwards. A maniac
would cut in almost any direction. It was a fact that a suicide sometimes
dropped his weapon; he either gripped or dropped it.
By the Judge: Supposing prisoner had inflicted the wounds, considering the fact
that deceased was almost lying on the ground, prisoner most have stooped or
knelt down in order to use the knife. The assailant must have been more or less
recumbent, judging from the blood splashes on the wall.
This was the case for the prosecution, and no evidence was offered for the
defence. Mr. Higgins, in concluding his case, said the tendency of the
cross‐examination seemed to shew that the defence would be suicide, and that
prisoner attempted to prevent her from committing suicide. As to the question of
motive, what evidence had the jury that the deceased was a subject likely to
commit suicide? Apart from drink and quarrelsome‐ness, there was nothing to shew
she was a person likely to resort to suicide. A number of witnesses had spoken
to the relations existing between the deceased and the prisoner. It was known
that they frequently quarrelled, and several times came to blows, and that on
one occasion prisoner pulled deceased downstairs by the hair of the head. Beyond
all that there was some very important evidence given with regard to the
prisoner's view as to the relations existing between Deakin and Betsy. He (Mr.
Higgins) did not say there was any immorality between the two, but he did say
prisoner thought such immorality did exist, and that together with the general
quarrelling with Betsy might have been the motive for the murder. It was a vital
point that prisoner herself admitted being present when the wounds were
inflicted. The jury must not overlook the fact how the body was concealed and
covered up by prisoner, and the statements she made to several of the witnesses
that Betsy was on one of her frolics and had been out all night. If there had
been a suicide, and prisoner had tried to prevent it, why did she cover up the
body and make statements which were absolutely untrue to her knowledge? Did that
point to suicide or murder? Why were the doors, front and back, locked, and why
this concealment of the dead body? Deceased's hands were cut, and prisoner's
were not. If prisoner's story was true that she endeavoured to prevent deceased
from committing suicide, one would expect to find prisoner's hands cut with the
blade of the knife.
Mr. Trevor Lloyd, addressing the jury for the defence, said he had two theories
to present, and he admitted to a certain extent that they were mutually
destructive. This was not a case carefully got up by a solicitor for the
defence; prisoner had no means to secure that; but if he could shew a reasonable
possibility of doubt in the case it would be the duty of the jury to acquit.
Directly this terrible occurrence took place, prisoner seemed to have been
absolutely deserted. He could not pass from this part of the case without
referring to the conduct of the prisoner's husband. She was arrested in January,
and from that time to this the husband had not raised hand or foot in defence of
his wife. If the prosecution was right, this was a horrible murder committed
with the motive of jealousy. If the motive was jealousy, who was the cause of
the crime? If their proposition was correct, that prisoner was jealous of the
deceased because of her immorality with Deakin, then the person who was the
cause of the crime was the husband, and he was the person who had never been
seen since the day of the crime. With the exception of one daughter, prisoner
had been deserted even by her own family. The evidence about the quarrels
between prisoner and deceased amounted to nothing, because the evidence
disclosed quarrels between most persons in the house. He scouted as ridiculous
the idea that because there were quarrels between women of that class they most
necessarily murder one another. It was evident there was no quarrel when they
went to bed that night; because when there was a quarrel it was deceased's habit
to go and Bleep upstairs. Did they believe that prisoner could have premeditated
the crime to the extent of taking the knife up to the room the night before, and
then butchering this woman in her drunken sleep. With reference to the suicide
theory he submitted that a woman, who was high spirited when in drink and
depressed almost to the point of melancholia, was just the sort of woman who
would take her own life. If deceased had been murderously attacked she would
doubtless have screamed for help, but not a sound was heard. If she had been
trying to cut her own throat it would have been done silently. The two wounds on
the throat would be accounted for by the fact that deceased would be frenzied by
prisoner's interference, and would gash her throat all the more. The knife was
found in the deceased’s left hand, and he did not suggest the wound was
inflicted with the left hand. The wound was cut with the right hand, then
prisoner rushed at the suicide, a struggle ensued to wrest the knife from her,
and the knife again entered her throat. Two doctors had said the first wound
could have been self‐inflicted, but if the woman was half mad at the time would
not that account for the terrible nature of the wound? Was it impossible that if
the struggle with prisoner deceased cut her own hands in her efforts to cut her
throat? They might think it improbable, but a case of murder could not be
decided upon probabilities and improbabilities. What about the conduct of the
prisoner after the death of the other woman? It was very easy for the jury
sitting calmly to say what they would have done under such circumstances; but
imagine the state of this frenzied woman after her struggle to prevent the
suicide. She might have thought, “What will everybody say when they know how we
used to quarrel." Then the foolish idea entered her head to hide the evidence
that might prove her guilty. It was terror, not guilt that actuated her. She
took up the knife and placed it in the dead woman's left hand in her flurry, and
having covered up the body she continued her course of deception. The doctors
arrived at a different conclusion now from what they did at the inquest but if
the defence could have had doctors on their side they could have produced a
different surgical theory. The second theory for the defence was that prisoner
was goaded to madness by jealousy, and plunged the knife into deceased in a fit
of frenzy, in which case the crime should be reduced to manslaughter.
His Lordship having summed up, the jury retired at ten minutes past two o'clock,
and after an absence of twenty minutes returned, amid breathless silence, a
VERDICT OF GUILTY, with a strong recommendation to mercy. Prisoner, when asked
what she had to say, replied faintly, "I am not guilty." The Judge, assuming the
black cap, said, “Margaret Deakin, I am afraid the words you have just spoken,
that you are not guilty, are not true. You have had a most careful trial, every
fact has been investigated most carefully, and I can only say that I agree
entirely in the verdict of the jury. The jury have found you guilty, and I
should have done the same thing if I had been one of the jury. The jury have
strongly recommended you to mercy. That recommendation will be forwarded to the
proper quarter, but it is my duty to say to you, do not build your hopes upon
that recommendation, but spend your time in preparation for the execution of the
sentence which it is my painful duty to pass upon you. The sentence is that you
be taken from hence to the place from whence you came, and from thence to the
place of execution, and that you be there hanged by the neck until you shall be
dead, and that your body be afterwards buried within the precincts of the prison
in which you shall have been confined after your conviction, and may the Lord
have mercy upon us all.
Prisoner's demeanour throughout the trial was calm and collected almost to the
point of indifference, leading the spectators to the conclusion that she was
either apathetic as to the result, or did not fully appreciate the gravity of
the situation. She sat daring the two days almost without moving, and received
her sentence in the same quiet manner, beyond a slight twitching of the mouth.
THE CONVICT'S REMOVAL TO KNUTSFORD. The aged convict, accompanied by several
other prisoners and warders, left for Knutsford by the 4.15 train on Thursday. A
small crowd collected on the platform of the Northgate Station. Prisoner was
assisted from the prison van by a warder, on whose arm she leaned while
proceeding to the carriage which had been set apart for the conveyance of the
prisoners. No demonstration took place. The blinds of the carriage were drawn.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 3 February 1894
TRAGEDY AT NORTHWICH.
MURDER OR SUICIDE?
An extraordinary case involving suspicious circumstances came to light at
Northwich late on Friday night week. It appears that an old woman named Betsy
Heald, having small means of her own, lodged with two old people named James and
Margaret Deakin who kept a provision shop in Church‐street, Northwich. Deakin
was employed as a labourer, and was away all day. Returning home about half‐past
six he found the front door locked and the back door also. Bursting open the
latter he found Betsy Heald lying dead on a couch with a tremendous gash in her
throat, almost from ear to ear, and a large carving knife in her hand. In her
mouth was staffed a rag. His wife was missing, and could not be found, although
she had been seen in the town during the day. The two women had lately been
drinking together and Deakin's account is that that morning, when he left home
for work, both women were in the front room next to the shop, and that he made
them a cup of tea each before he left, as they were not well. The gash in the
woman's throat is such that the head is nearly severed from the body. There are
two cuts crosswise, completely severing the windpipe, and one downwards
vertically as far as the breast bone. The knife was one used in the shop to cut
ham with.
ARREST OF DEAKIN. Superintendent Large and his subordinates were all Friday
night endeavouring to trace the woman Margaret Deakin. It was ascertained that
she had taken train to Manchester. Sergeant Hunt was despatched there, and put
himself in communication with the detective department, with the result that on
Saturday the missing woman was arrested on a charge of murder in Deansgate, and
taken to Northwich.
The body of Heald was removed to the Work‐house, and a post‐mortem examination
made by the direction of the coroner.
PRISONER BEFORE THE MAGISTRATES. The accused woman was brought up at Northwich
Police Court on Monday, before Messrs. J. C. Clough and J. Weston, on a charge
of wilful murder. Although exceedingly pale, she did not appear much troubled by
the gravity of her position. Her husband, on the contrary, who was present in
court, was greatly distressed. Mr. J. E. Fletcher' solicitor, was present on
behalf of the prisoner.
A woman named Elizabeth Thomas, lodging at prisoner's house, in Church‐street,
Northwich, said deceased also lodged there, and slept in the same room as Deakin
and his wife. They slept on a sofa, and deceased slept on the floor. On Friday
morning witness called at the shop, and asked prisoner, "Where is Betty that we
don't see her this morning?" Prisoner replied. "She went out last night."
Prisoner came in out of the parlour several times, but closed the door after her
each time. Witness was going out about half‐past eleven, when prisoner asked her
to take her husband's dinner to Winnington. Witness did so, and on her return
heard prisoner lock both middle and outer door about one o'clock, and witness
did not see her again. Prisoner's husband returned shortly before six. He found
the middle door locked, but burst it open, and went into the parlour. Twenty
minutes later he returned to the kitchen, and in consequence of what he said
witness and Phoebe Smith, who lodged in the house, accompanied him back to the
bedroom. There they saw a pair of feet projecting from under the quilt of
Betty's bed. Witness called out "Betty, what are you doing here ?" Obtaining no
reply she pulled away a black skirt which covered Betty's head, and she then saw
that Heald's throat was cut and that there was a knife in her left hand. She had
often heard quarrels between Mrs. Deakin and Heald. On Tuesday, the 23rd inst.,
she heard the deceased call "Help," and on going to the front door she saw the
prisoner holding Heald by the back of the neck. Prisoner afterwards said to
witnesss ‐I'll put her from taking things out of the shop." After that row the
deceased left the house. When she returned she said she had come for her things.
The deceased was wearing a skirt and stockings when she lay in bed with her
throat cut.
Mr. W. Horton Smith, a surgeon, practising in Northwich, said that in
consequence of a request about a quarter past seven on Friday night he went to
the house, 26, Church‐street. He went into the parlour and found the prisoner's
husband sitting beside the fire in that room, and saw the body lying on a
mattress on the floor. He came to the conclusion that the woman had been dead at
least eight hours. In the presence of Police constable Hunt witness further
examined the body. It was lying on the back slightly on the right side. The head
and body lay on the palliasse and the legs projected on to the floor. The right
arm lay on the floor beside the body, the palm being turned upwards and the
fingers partially closed. The left arm was thrown across the chest, and the left
hand held a knife now produced. The knife was not gripped, but was held loosely
with the edge towards the throat. The throat was severely cut. The wound was six
inches long and three inches wide. It appeared to have been made by two
incisions, the first of which divided the muscles and the blood vessels on each
side of the neck, the wind pipe and the gullet, and ended in the bones of the
spine, which were notched. The direction was up‐wards and backwards. The second
wound commenced a little above the first wound, and passed behind the angle of
the jaw, nearly cutting through into the mouth. There was also a slight incised
wound on the upper part of the chest. The face was covered by bedding. He
removed the covering from the face. On examining the hands of the deceased he
found a wound on the front of the left hand, on the ball of the thumb, another
wound on the inner side of the thumb, another across the first finger below the
first joint, one wound on the second finger under the lower joint, and another
on the inner side of the palm near the wrist. On the back of the left hand there
was a very deep wound between the thumb and first finger, and another on the
back of the thumb. On the front of the right hand there was a transverse wound
about the middle of the palm, and a small one near the wrist. All these wounds
except two were incised wounds. The wound in the throat might have been
self‐inflicted, but that was extremely improbable. When he first saw the body
there was a black skirt lying across the trunk. A quilt was lying partly under
the right arm, and was soaked with blood. The body was clothed in a dark skirt,
black stockings, a corset, and a chemise.
The button‐hole on the neck of the chemise was torn out, apparently recently.
All the clothing except the stockings was covered with blood, and there was a
large pool of blood under the head and shoulders on the palliasse. The hands and
the blade and handle of the knife were covered with blood. The magistrates
remanded the prisoner until Monday next.
OPENING OF THE INQUEST THE PRISONER'S HUSBAND IN THE BOX. In the afternoon Mr.
H. C. Yates, coroner, opened the inquest in the Magistrates' Court. The prisoner
remained in custody in the dock, and had again the services of Mr. Fletcher, her
solicitor. Superintendent Large and Inspector Johnson represented the police
authorities. The Coroner said he understood that it would be absolutely
impossible to conclude the inquiry on that day, and therefore he proposed to
take the evidence principally of the witnesses who had been already before the
justices, and then to adjourn to enable the police to have the blood on the
prisoner's clothing analysed, as that was a very necessary thing in a case of
this kind. There would be no inconvenience to the prisoner or anyone else by the
adoption of this course, because it was quite impossible that the case could be
prepared for the present Chester Assizes. As the justices had remanded the
prisoner until Monday next, he proposed to adjourn until the day after, so that
the prisoner could be detained over night in Northwich, and be again present at
the inquest. The course proposed was desired by the chief constable of the
county.
Heald, of 12, Crown‐street, Northwich, a greengrocer, said the deceased was his
sister. She was not married. Her occupation was that of a charwoman, and she was
about 50 years of age. Unfortunately she had been more or less addicted to
drink, and especially was this so since she had lived with the Deakins. She
never made any complaint to him of ill‐treatment received at the house where she
lodged.
James Deakin, a white haired old man, the husband of the prisoner, said he was a
labourer at the Winnington Chemical Works. He and his wife occupied a bed in the
parlour at 26, Church‐street, made up on a sofa and chairs, and Betty Heald
slept in the same room in a bed on the floor at the foot of their bed. On
Thursday night they all went to bed about ten o'clock. Both women were sober,
and there had been no quarrel between them. The fire was burning all night. At
five o'clock on Friday morning witness got up, and after getting a cup of tea
from the hob he gave the women another cupful between them. He went out leaving
the women in their beds, and he did not return until night. When he went into
the parlour then he noticed that his bed had been put away. In going to close
the shutter he stepped upon the mattress occupied by the deceased. He noticed
there was some one on the mattress. He went into the kitchen and fetched Mrs
Thomas with a lamp. Then he saw the dead body, but he did not notice that the
throat was cut. Deakin was closely cross‐examined by the jury as to whether his
wife and Heald were not drunk and quarrelsome on Thursday night, but he adhered
to his statement that they were sober and on good terms. Replying to the
Coroner, he said the knife produced, which had been identified as the one found
in the dead woman's hand, was usually kept in the shop. The women were on good
terms when he went to work on Friday morning, and his wife kissed him as she lay
in bed.
Dr. F. Marsh, who assisted at the post‐mortem examination of the body, said the
cause of death was haemorrhage from one of the main arteries in the neck. He
thought it was exceedingly improbable that both wounds in the throat could have
been self‐inflicted. The wounds on the hands were such as might have been caused
by clutching the blade. Had the fatal wound been self‐inflicted, he thought the
knife would have been found so tightly grasped in the left hand that it would
have been difficult to remove it. His theory was that the knife was placed in
the left hand after death. The direction of the wounds was against the theory of
being self‐inflicted. This was all the evidence taken, and the inquiry was
adjourned until Monday next.
Cheshire Observer
Saturday 23 June 1894
EX ‐SUPERINTENDENT JAMES NAYLOR.
AN INTERESTING CAREER.
The Police Review and Parade Gossip contains an interesting sketch of the career
of Mr. James Naylor, ex‐superintendent of the Cheshire Constabulary, who retired
on a well‐merited pension in the autumn of 1889, having served in that force for
thirty‐one years.
He was born at Over Darwen, near Blackburn, on 9th April, 1829, and is a
descendant of a noble race of yeomen whose ancestors shed their blood in their
country's cause in the Peninsular and other continental wars. During the earlier
portion of his life he was so busily engaged on his father's farm that his
education was entirely neglected, but he subsequently picked up a little, and
improved it as opportunities afforded.
At the ago of twenty years he enisted in the 4th Royal Dragoon Guards, and
served in that regiment for a year. Here he detected some petty pilfering among
the soldiers, for which his captain commended him, and re‐marked that he ought
to be a policeman, not a soldier.
His mother being taken very ill resulted in him leaving the Army on payment of
£30. He remained at home for a short time, and then went to Preston, where he
met a sergeant of the Lancashire police force, who persuaded him to join the
force. He was sent to Woolton, on the outskirts of Liverpool, as a horse patrol.
While in this force he, one day, met a man driving a cow near Rainhill, and,
after chatting with him, apprehended him on suspicion of stealing it. His
suspicions proved to be correct, the cow, a very valuable one, having been
stolen from Hale Wood.
He resigned from the Lancashire force after a service of one year 101 days. On
the 8th March, 1854, he was chosen, out of 19 candidates, to fill a vacancy in
the Bolton Constabulary, and was put on duty in Chorley‐road. One morning, about
two o'clock, he caught two men in the act of committing a burglary at a
gentleman's residence. A severe struggle ensued for twenty minutes, the men at
last running away in opposite directions. Constable Naylor followed one and
overtook him. Another scuffle ensued, the prisoner kicking the constable very
severely, the effects of which he feels to this day. He drew and used his staff
to defend himself, and succeeded in apprehending the man. A few hours afterwards
he also arrested the other man. Both prisoners had just returned from
transportation across the seas, and were sent back again.
Constable Naylor was removed to Deansgate. Here he, unaided, apprehended 14 men
for sleeping in a mill without any means of subsistence. He securely fastened
them all together, and succeeded in taking them part of the way to the Police
Office, and then obtained the assistance of two other constables, and locked
them up. The Magistrates highly complimented Constable Naylor for his courage
and determination. Shortly afterwards a Mr. Davis, managing clerk to a
solicitor, when returning home late one night was garrotted and left insensible
near Sweet Green Church, the offenders taking away with them all his jewellery
etc. On the case being put into Constable Naylor's hands, he recovered the
stolen property, which was concealed up a chimney, and arrested the two thieves,
who were tried at the Liverpool Assizes, and sentenced to fourteen years
transportation.
His next important case was that of an Irish woman, a servant to a retired
painter. During her master's absence she stole £22, hid it, and then hung
herself to a bed‐post, where she was found, black in the face, by a washerwoman.
Constable Naylor's superior officers were engaged two days searching for the
money, but without success. The Chief Constable, Mr. Harrison, then directed
Constable Naylor to search, and' after three and a half hours, he recovered the'
whole of the money concealed on the premises. In a subsequent robbery of brass
he recovered the whole of the stolen property, amounting to several tons, and
was rewarded by the owner, and highly complimented.
For a considerable time he was engaged on detective duty, and in 1857 he joined
the Cheshire Constabulary.
Some years ago when Northwich was a noted place for poachers and thieves, and as
the resident sergeants made no headway in the detection of them the Chief
Constable, on the Superintendent's recommendation, promoted Constable Naylor to
the rank of acting‐sergeant, and sent him to Comberbach. Soon after his arrival
here he, in company with Constable Savage, met eight poachers, loaded. The
poachers threatened to kill the sergeant, who had with him a heavy
walking‐stick', which he used with such good effect that they ran away, throwing
their booty in all directions. Seven out of the eight were arrested and
convicted.
A month after the above event, Sergeant Naylor and two constables met five
poachers on Red Lion Bridge, Anderton. A pitched battle ensued. Stones rattled
one after another against a building close by. One of the constables (Dalziel)
was struck down, but his place was taken by Sergt. Naylor, who succeeded in
knocking two of the poachers down. The poachers then took to their heels,
throwing away in their flight a large quantity of hares, rabbits, and poaching
implements. Sergeant Naylor subsequently arrested the men. Two of the
ringleaders received sentences of eighteen months' imprisonment each. For his
courage on this occasion he was promoted full sergeant, and granted the merit
badge with pay.
His most serious engagement with poachers, and one which almost ended fatally,
took place on 29th Sept., I 1867. He was on duty at Wincham, with P.Cs Dalziel
and Lee, in company with two keepers. When near tee bridge they met a gang of
thirty‐two poachers, who drew up together, and threatened to kill the police and
keepers. Stones began to rain on the police like hailstones. Constable Dalziel
was struck on the head, and, seeing this, Lee and the two keepers took to their
heels. Sergeant Naylor was struck with a stone and knocked senseless. The gang
then set upon him, and abused him in a disgraceful manner. His left arm was cut
in five places; he was stabbed through the hand ; the top of his head was
knocked in; the flesh of both hands stripped to the bone; and his ribs injured
on the left side. The poachers, thinking they had finished him, threw him into a
pig cote. The neighbours were roused with the noise, and, finding the Sergeant
lying unconscious, carried him to a house close to, where he lay unconscious for
six days, and was three months recovering from the effects of the encounter.
The whole of the men were arrested, identified and committed for trial at
Chester Assizes. The Sergeant was in the witness‐box under examination for two
hours and forty minutes, nine barristers being engaged to defend. Three of the
offenders received five years penal servitude each, and the rest sentences
varying from two years to eighteen months. For his action here he was highly
complimented, and received a special reward of £3.
A gang of twenty‐nine men, terming themselves " The Committers," infested
Smallwood and Astbury about this time, committing several burglaries and other
robberies. In May, 1868, Sergeant Naylor was removed to Astbury and soon
succeeded in arresting the ringleaders and breaking up the band.
The thieves and poachers of Mow Cop and district were closely watched. When on
duty one Sunday night, he heard the report of gun and on proceeding towards the
direction of the sound was informed by a messenger that the policeman Bebbington
had been shot. With another constable he cleverly worked up with considerable
difficulty, the case, and effected the arrest of the offender, who received ten
years' penal servitude.
His success was so marked that interested persons formed a treacherous plot
against him, and brought it to such a successful issue that he was reduced to
acting‐sergeant, and deprived of his merit badge; but in six months' time he
succeeded in establishing his complete innocence to the entire satisfaction of
the Chief Constable, who reinstated him in his former position, and discharged
the two constables who had plotted against him.
He was removed from Crewe to Hazel Grove, and five and a half years later
removed to Hyde, and was made acting‐inspector.
In June, 1878, he was promoted inspector, removed to Northwich, and, in less
that twelve months, again removed to Crewe as acting‐superintendent, and two
years later to Eddisbury as superintendent of that division, which post he held
until his retirement on 31st July, 1889.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 21 September 1895
SAD BOATING FATALITY IN THE DEE.
A YOUNG BRIDE DBOWNED.
AN IMPRUDENT ACT.
It was hoped that the present boating season would have come to an end unmarred
by a single fatality. But the sensation caused by the terrible tragedy of a
fortnight ago had hardly subsided when news reached the city of the drowning of
a young Liverpool lady near Eaten, under very painful circumstances.
On Wednesday morning a newly‐married couple named Matthew and Blanche Wells,
residing in Liverpool, came to Chester for a holiday. Both of them appeared to
have been fond of boating, and since their marriage, only two months ago, they
had spent many pleasant days on the river. Hiring a "sweetheart" boat from
Messrs. Cook and Arthur, in the Groves, they proceeded leisurely to the Iron
Bridge, where they had lunch, and the husband, who is an amateur photographer,
took a number of views of Eaton, and the grounds. The return journey was
commenced about three o'clock, and on reaching a spot near the Eaton Stud farm,
Wells decided to take another view with his camera, and for that purpose ran the
bow of the boat into the bank. Both parties got out safely, but after a time,
while the husband was waiting for the wind to drop in order that he might make a
successful picture, his wife returned to the boat, remarking playfully that if
he did not come she would go without him. Thereupon she pushed the boat into the
stream, and rose to her feet, with the result that she unfortunately lost her
balance, and the craft capsized. The husband jumped in to her rescue, but she
disappeared before he could get near her, and after making every attempt to find
her, he was obliged to give up the search in despair, and carry the melancholy
news to Eccleston Ferry.
On being apprised of what had happened, Sergeant Martin and Constable Heeson, of
Eccleston, commenced dragging operations and about six o'clock the body was
recovered, and conveyed to the Duke of Westminster's stud farm. The deceased was
only eighteen years of age, her husband being a licensed victualler.
The inquest was opened by Mr. H. Churton, county coroner, at the Grosvenor Arms,
Aldford, on Thursday afternoon. The proceedings occupied leas than an hour, the
circumstances surrounding the case being of the simplest character. The only
witness whom the Coroner thought it necessary to call was the husband himself,
who naturally appeared deeply distressed at his sad loss, and was at one stage
completely overcome with grief. He said he was a licensed victualler, residing
at 33, Berry‐street, Liverpool, and deceased, his wife, was 18 years of age.
They left Liverpool at ten o'clock on Wednesday morning, intending to come to
Chester for a day's outing, and row up the river as far as the Iron Bridge. They
hired a boat in the Groves from Messrs. Cook and Arthur. Since their marriage
two months ago they had frequently had trips up the Dee.
The Coroner: When you selected the boat were you asked any questions by Mr.
Cook, or any one connected with the establishment?— No. Did you consider
yourself safe in the boat? — Yes, lam a fairly expert sculler. Are you a good
swimmer?— No, but I can swim. Witness (proceeding) said they started from the
Groves a few minutes after 11 o'clock, his wife steering, and reached the Iron
Bridge about one. Here they got out, and had lunch, remaining till about three
o'clock. Witness, who had his camera with him, had been taking views in the
Eaton grounds, and when they reached the crooked Dee on the return journey, he
got out to take another photograph. He ran the boat's bow on to the bank, and
raised it out of the water. As the wind was shaking the trees, he thought he
would wait a while until it moderated before taking the photograph, and, finding
a cigar in his pocket, he sat down and lit it. His wife then came out of the
boat, and sat down beside him. After a few minutes, however, she became
impatient, and rose to her feet, saying she had waited long enough. She returned
to the boat, and kneeling in the bow, pushed it off with her hands. She then
stood up, turned round, and walked aft. She had not gone very far before the
boat completely overturned bottom uppermost. He fancied she fell against the
side, and over‐balanced herself. The Coroner: ‐It was a most dangerous thing for
her to do. Did you give her any caution? — Witness: No, sir, but as a rule she
was very timid and afraid in a boat, although she loved to be on the water.
Continuing, witness said his wife went under water immediately, and he at once
threw off his coat and cap and plunged in where he stood. He did not know at the
time it was such a deep place where they had landed. His wife did not call out.
He jumped into the water thinking it was shallow, and when he rose to the
surface he found the boat bad drifted endways into the bank, right between him
and his wife. By the time he swam round it he could just see the top of his
wife's head above the surface about ten yards further down the river. Before he
could reach her she sank, and he never saw her again. He dived down as deep as
he could twice, but could not find the body. There was no one else in the
immediate neighbourhood though two boats bad passed two or three minutes before.
He ran along the bank and called three young gentlemen to his assistance. They
then searched for the body together, but without avail, and he eventually went
down to the Ferry and reported what had happened: In answer to the Coroner, the
witness added that he had not seen his wife's body since it had been recovered.
He returned to Liverpool the same night.
Sergeant Martin explained that during the dragging operations he persuaded the
witness to change his clothes and take some stimulants. In the meantime the body
was found, and taken to the Stud farm. The Coroner (to witness). When you hired
the boat, you received no intimation as to its being sufficient for you and your
wife, or sufficient to hold three or four? — No. Nothing was said to you? — No,
but I never hire a boat from anyone else but Messrs. Cook and Arthur, and I had
frequently had the same boat out before. The Coroner: I think it is a rule for
persons hiring boats to be asked whether they desire a man or otherwise. Mr.
Cook, who was present, pointed out that they knew Mr. Wells as a customer. The
Coroner: Then as matter of you would consider him quite competent to manage a
boat like that? — Mr. Cooke: Yes. Without calling any further evidence, the
Coroner said the case had been very clearly stated, and there could be no doubt
it was a case of accidental drowning. He must say that what the young woman did
was in the highest degree imprudent on her part. There was no doubt whatever she
attempted a most dangerous thing. The least thing in the world would upset a
boat of that size. The man had scarcely time to see what was the actual cause of
the mischief before his wife sank, and there was no doubt he used every possible
effort to save her life. He dived after her, and did everything he was capable
of doing, but his efforts were unsuccessful, and the poor girl was lost. They
all regretted it, and deeply sympathised with him in his sad loss. (Hear, hear.)
The jury, who agreed that no further evidence was necessary to enable them to
come to a decision, returned a verdict of "Accidentally drowned."
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 28 September 1895
TBIBUTE TO A POLICE OFFICER.
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Sir,
One of the most serious "drunk and disorderly" cases was dealt with at the
Castle, Chester, on Saturday last, and, with your permission, a number of
residents would like to place on record the ability and kindness manifested by
P.C. Radcliffe, who is a new comer in this district. Although surrounded by some
five women and the male prisoner during which his face was injured and his
lantern smashed , the kindness which marked his actions, and the tact displayed
under such trying circumstances, were highly commendable, and stamp this young
constable as a credit to our constabulary.
Thanking you in anticipation, yours, etc, A Resident. EUesmere Port, Sept. 23rd,
1895.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 12 October 1895
CHESTER QUARTER SESSIONS. The City Quarter Sessions were held at the Town Hall
on Thursday, before the Recorder (His Honour Sir Horatio Lloyd), Mr. John
Thompson, and the Sheriff (Mr. John Jones.) the charge.
THE ALLEGED ROBEERIES FROM A PUBLIC‐HOUSE. Frederick Lee (55), labourer and Army
pensioner, pleaded "not guilty" to stealing a bottle of brandy, the property of
Henry E. Ostle, and one suit of clothes and a silver chain, the property of
Robert Roberts, at Chester, on June 26th and 27th last. — Mr. S. Moss, for the
prosecution, stated that Robert Roberts was a commercial traveller, and resided
at the time of the robbery at the Four‐in‐Hand public‐house, City‐road. On the
evening of the 26th June he went to bed at about eleven o'clock and left his
clothes hanging up in the passage leading to his bedroom. He left his silver
watch and chain in his bedroom, but the door was not locked. In the morning he
missed the clothes, and on going downstairs to inform the landlady, he saw
prisoner leaving the house dressed in the missing suit. He followed him to
Dutton's pawnshop in Foregate‐street, and, while he was in the act of offering
the vest, charged him with stealing the clothes. Prisoner asked Roberts if he
would look it over, and offered him a bottle of brandy, which prosecutor
declined, and then sent for a policeman. Prosecutor, Mrs. Musgrave, formerly
landlady of the Four‐in‐Hand, and P.C. George Wakelin gave evidence, and
prisoner, in his defence, asked the jury not to convict him. He had been in the
Army, had served in India, China, Abyssinia, and while in the East for 16 years
had had sunstroke. He was now a pensioner, and should he be convicted he would
lose pension, friends, and character. He was 55 years of age, and had been
waiting 105 days for his trial. His Honour said it was a lamentable thing that a
man and a pensioner who had served in the Queen's Army, and who had perhaps been
discharged with credit to himself, should so much forget himself as to become a
thief. The case was a pretty clear one. The jury adjourned to the retiring room
to consider their verdict. After a long deliberation, the Foreman (Mr. B.
Pearson) said they had come to the conclusion that prisoner took the clothes not
with the intent of stealing them. They therefore gave him the benefit of the
doubt in that case. — A fresh jury was empanelled, and Lee was charged with the
theft of the bottle of brandy. — Mr. Moss said on June 26th Miss Ostle, the
sister of the licence‐holder of the Yacht Inn, missed a bottle of brandy from
the bar. When the bottle was found in prisoner's possession he said he had
bought it. — The jury found the prisoner " Not guilty," and he was discharged
with a warning from the judge.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 14 September 1895
TERRIBLE TRAGEDY IN THE DEE.
A YOUNG WOMAN DROWNED. EXTRAORDINARY STORY BY A MARRIED MAN.
On Saturday morning the Chester public were startled by the news of one of the
most sensational tragedies that have occurred in the city for some years. The
only witness of it seems to have been a man named Thomas Henry Griffiths,
residing in Love‐street, who had an extraordinary story to communicate to the
police.
On Friday night he appears to have met by appointment at the Watergate a young
woman named Edith Mary Small, living at 20, Crane‐street. Despite the inclement
weather (rain having fallen continuously during the evening) the couple
proceeded on to the Cop, where a quarrel ensued, and the girl, who was of a
passionate temper rushed into the river. Griffiths followed her, and she clung
to him, but feeling himself overtaxed, and as she had slipped from him, he came
back to the bank. He then made his way to Sealand‐road, where he was seen
knocking at a door, and, on being questioned, stated that a young woman had been
drowned on the Cop.
About the same time a boy named Walter Henry Griffiths, of Catherine‐Street,
Chester, met Detective Crewe, and informed him of the sad occurrence. Crewe and
P.C. Griffiths at once went to the scene of the tragedy, where they found two
umbrellas, and a lady's hat and gloves. Dragging operations were at once
commenced by the officers, and continued until after midnight, but without
avail. The river was again dragged on Saturday, and shortly after twelve o'clock
the body which had drifted about 100 yards from the spot indicated, was
recovered by a man named Thomas Woodward, and conveyed to the mortuary.
Great public excitement was caused by the tragic news in Chester, and large
numbers of people visited the scene of the occurrence. Griffiths is a married
man with two children, while Miss Small is the daughter of Mr. James Small, and
will be remembered as the young woman who had a narrow escape from drowning in
the Dee some time ago through being upset by a steamer. It is reported that she
had threatened to drown herself if Griffiths threw her over, and that her box
was found packed ready for leaving Chester.
EVIDENCE OF THE DECEASED'S BEOTHER. A POST‐MORTEM ORDERED.
Mr. E. Brassey, city coroner, opened the inquest at the Bull and Stirrup Hotel
on Saturday evening. Thomas Henry Griffiths was present. — The Coroner, in
opening the inquiry, said although he had summoned the jury early there would
have to be an adjournment. The report to the police stated that on Friday night
about nine o'clock deceased was met by Mr. T. H. Griffiths, and they went to the
river side in Sealand‐road. They had some words on the way, and when they got to
the river‐side she said "Goodbye, I shall be gone for ever in a few minutes."
She ran and jumped into the river and was drowned. At the present time there was
no evidence other then Griffiths' of material value upon that point. He thought
it best to take the jury's opinion first as to whether it might not be advisable
to have an inspection of the body. A cursory examination had been made as to the
marks of violence. He suggested it would be better to have an adjournment and; a
post‐mortem examination.
The jury having viewed the body, Trevor Montgomery Small, 20, Crane‐street,
cotton brokers' assistant, stated that deceased, who was his sister, was single,
and was employed in a drapery establishment in Manchester. She was living
temporarily at Chester, being here partly on her holidays and partly for a rest,
and was to have returned to Manchester on Monday last. She was staying at
witness' house, and had been over about four weeks. She was previously in
Chester at the beginning of the year, from January until the end of February,
but from that time until July she was at Manchester. Last year deceased was
engaged at a shop in Eastgate‐row, and lived at home. Mr. Griffiths was not on
terms of acquaintance with witness' family. As far as he was aware, Griffiths
knew no one in the family except Edith and himself. He did not visit their house
at all. Witness did not know there was any particular acquaintance between
deceased and Griffiths until Friday night. On Friday night at ten o'clock he was
sitting reading in his house when a knock came to the door, and his youngest
brother, Norman, on going to see what was the matter, found two men and Mr.
Griffiths standing outside. Some one said that his (witness's) sister was
drowned, and he immediately went to the door. He asked "What is this
extraordinary tale?" and Griffiths replied "Your sister is drowned; it is quite
true. I wish I had been drowned instead of her." Witness said "Are you quite
sure? You are making a mistake." Griffiths then handed witness Miss Small's
umbrella and he took it in to his mother, who recognised it. Griffiths, as soon
as he saw witness, said "Oh, there is Trevor, let me speak to him." Witness
turned to the men, and again asked them if they were not making a mistake,
adding "Mr. Griffiths is a married man, and has two children; he could not have
been down at the river side with my sister." Griffiths then made a rambling
statement to the effect that he had been for a walk with his sister, that she
had got drowned, and that he wished he had been drowned instead of her. Witness
sent the men away, and afterwards went along Crane‐street with Griffiths to the
latter's home. On the way Griffiths gave witness an account of the accident. It
was a very rambling one. He said he had known witness' sister for the last six
months. They had been going together and corresponding with each other. On
Friday night Griffiths said he received a letter from her asking him to see her
under the Watergate at eight o'clock. He met her at nine o'clock and they walked
towards the Cop. On the Cop they had a quarrel, and then she ran away from him
while he was on the ground. He got up, rushed into the river after her, and got
hold of her, but he was unable to do any more for her, and had to save himself.
Witness' sister could not swim. A Juror: Have you any recollection of what kind
of evening it was? — lt was very wet at the time, raining continuously from a
quarter to nine. It was raining as we walked along to Griffiths' home. Witness
observed Griffiths' clothes when he spoke to him in Crane‐street. He was wet,
and his shirt front was crumpled up. The Coroner (to witness): It is a painful
thing to ask you, Mr. Small, but was your sister a girl of hasty temper? — Yes,
very hasty temper. Have you known her to have ungovernable impulses? — Yes. Did
you ever know them to take the form of threatening to destroy herself? — No,
never. A Juror: Was Mr. Griffiths lying down? — It was a peculiar statement. I
said to Griffiths, "It was a very wet night, what were you doing?" but Griffiths
replied, "I do not know." Did he tell you whether she jumped into the water? —
He said she simply ran away from him, and the next thing he heard was the
splash. At that time, I take it, he was lying on the grass, but Griffiths said,
in the presence of Detective‐Inspector Gallagher, that when she ran away he fell
in a swoon, and that he immediately recovered himself when he heard the splash.
What state was he in? — I shook him by the arm, and asked him if he had been
drinking. There was not the slightest sign of his having been in drink. Do you
think he had been in the water? — l should say he had. I rather doubt that he
was lying on the grass, because his clothes were so free from mud. He was in a
very wet state: still there was no mud on his clothes. His hat had not been in
the water. His boots were wet inside and out. There was no mud on his boots, as
far as I could see. It was two hours before tide time. Mr. Brassey: Did
Griffiths say anything to indicate the spot? — No, he spoke in such a rambling
way. A Juror: Were there any marks on his face or were his clothes torn? — No.
What kind of temper was he in? — He spoke in a very incoherent way, and he was
quite beside himself with shock and excitement. Did there seem to have been any
struggle about the spot when you visited it? — There was such a heavy rain
through the night that it would wash away any marks. The Coroner: If you saw the
spot, perhaps you can indicate where about it is? — It is that small field — the
entrance to the Cop, There are some posts on which you can sit near Mr. Cowap's
stables ; about 40 yards from the Cheese Stage.
George Harrison, police surgeon, saw deceased that evening. There were no marks
of violence upon the body with the exception of a cut upon the right cheek
caused by the drag. The Coroner (to the jury): Dr. Harrison cannot say any more.
Mr. Henshaw (one of the jury) asked whether the lacerated wound was caused by
the drag or any other instrument. Dr. Harrison: It was undoubtedly caused by the
drag.
The Coroner said the question of motive went so far in this case that he thought
they should have a further examination of the body. After due consideration it
was decided to have another examination, and the inquest was adjourned for that
purpose. The Coroner said further enquiries would have to be made by the police.
If publicity was given to the present facts, no doubt it would be of some
benefit to the friends of the deceased girl and to Mr. Griffiths. There possibly
might have been some people in the neighbourhood at the time, who would have
heard the screams, if there were any.
FUNERAL OF THE VICTIM. The remains of Miss Small were interred at Chester
General Cemetery on Monday afternoon, when a number of deceased's relatives and
friends followed the coffin to the grave. There was also a large gathering of
the public to witness the ceremony.
THE ADJOURNED INQUEST.
GRIFFITHS IN THE WITNESS BOX. SENSATIONAL DISCLOSURES.
The extraordinary tragedy of Friday last has been throughout the past week the
leading topic of public conversation, and the fresh light that was expected to
be thrown on the affair at the adjourned inquest has been awaited with the
utmost eagerness. Originally the inquiry was adjourned until Thursday afternoon,
at the Town Hall, in order to give the police an opportunity of making a full
investigation into the circumstances of the case, but, owing to a pressing
engagement on the part of the coroner, another postponement was necessitated
until yesterday (Friday) afternoon. The proceedings were timed to commence at
four o'clock, but long before that hour the Police Court was crowded with the
general public, anxious to follow Griffith’s remarkable story as it fell from
his own lips.
Before the Coroner put in an appearance, Griffiths arrived, accompanied by his
solicitor, Mr. E. S. Giles. The Chief Constable was also present.
Mr. SMALL RE‐CALLED. The Coroner at the outset said he should like to recall
Trevor Small, the brother of the deceased. Mr. Giles said he appeared on behalf
of Thomas Henry Griffiths, who, as they were aware, was deeply concerned in this
matter, and he was desired to say that at an early opportunity Griffiths would
like to state what he had to say to the jury himself. The Coroner asked Mr.
Small whether he was at home on the Saturday morning after his sister's death. —
Witness: Yes. Did Mr. Griffiths call at the house? — He did. I was not present,
but I learned that there had been a very painful scene between Mr. Griffiths,
his wife, and my mother. They particularly requested that the letters found in
my sister's drawer should be burnt. Did you ascertain what was done? — All the
letters were destroyed. What letters? — The letters written by him to her up to
the day she left Manchester. You ascertained that he called for some letters?
— Yes. Did you know where those letters were? — Yes, they were in my sister's
drawer; I read them that morning. Had you gone over your sister's effects, or
did you know the contents of those letters? — l knew the contents to a great
extent. I read 25 of them. There might have been 30 or 35, together with
telegrams. Can you give us any idea over what dates they extended? — I did not
look particularly at the dates. How were they signed? — They were all signed
“Tom." They were all full of love and affection for my sister. Who was it drew
your attention to these particular letters? — I did not go to bed that night
till two o'clock. I did not sleep all night. I got up at half‐past six, and went
to my sister's room with the idea of looking over some of her things, and the
letters were the first thing that drew my attention. Were there other letters? —
Yes, there were other letters from friends, including Miss Tomlin, who I knew
was an old friend of my sister's. Was your sister FOND OF ATTENTION? EXAMINATION
BY M B. GILES, She was. Did she receive a good deal of attention? — I can hardly
say that. I do not know. You know she was fond of attention? — I know she was
fond of it; She was a very romantic girl. Do you know she was fond of
admiration? — She was. In the letters from Miss Tomlin, did you find any romance
of any kind? — No. Did you find any letters from a Miss New? — No. Has she ever
told you any romantic stories? — No, never. And you did not know what was going
on between your sister and this young man? — l had not the slightest idea. You
have already told the jury she was of hasty temper and rather excitable? — Yes.
Had she been in good health up to this time? —Yes, and in regular employment up
to the time she left Manchester in the middle of July. She came home for a rest
and a holiday. She was to have returned to her employment last Monday. Did the
fact of her being out of employment prey on her mind? — No, not in the
slightest. Was she anxious to help at all to the house‐hold expenses? — No, not
to any great extent. She had never been asked to contribute. Was she anxious at
all events to relieve the household from the expense of maintaining her? She may
have been. She was tired of Chester, tired of being at home, and tired of doing
nothing. The Coroner: Were your sister's things packed up to go? — Yes, she was
employed the whole of that day packing up her things to go to Manchester on
Monday. Mr. Giles: Did you find any small presents among her things? — Yes. Were
there many or few? — There was a cut glass scent bottle which I had never seen
before. The Coroner. ‐Was she returning to her old situation? — She was. By a
Juror: My sister COULD NOT BWIM. She did not save her life by swimming. She was
run down by a steamer on the river, and picked up by a passenger on board. I
think Mr. Griffiths had a particular reason for not letting anyone know the
contents of the letters; he was certainly the cause of the letters being burnt.
I omitted to make one statement on Saturday night, and that was to the effect
that when I went home with Mr. Griffiths, he particularly asked me to get hold
of these letters and destroy them. He did not tell me why, and I did not ask
him. The Coroner: Did he describe the letters at all? — No, he did not.
The Rev. A. H. Grey Edwards said on Friday night he was going down Crane‐street,
over the canal, to Sealand ‐road, which he reached before ten o'clock. He met
two persons, a lady and a gentleman, who were standing at the corner of a
street. Witness shortly afterwards heard someone following him, and a woman ran
past him on to the bridge, where the man caught her up. He saw them afterwards
walk along the Cop. The night‐was a very nasty one, being dark and wet.
Thomas Woodward, Greenway‐street, said he found the body on the Saltney side,
just by the locks, a little higher up than the Cop Field. The mark on the body
would have been caused by the drag.
Thomas Davenport said he was opposite the Cop House with some friends about ten
o'clock. They heard a knocking, and one of witness' companions shouted "Halloo,
there." The answer was to the effect that there was a lady drowning. Griffiths
then showed them the place, which was by the Cheese stage. Witness could see
nothing. Griffiths told them the woman had jumped in. Griffith’s trousers were
wet, as though he had been in the river, but his coat was only as wet as the
rain would make it. The river was low at the time, and it was possible that he
could go in and only get wet up to the middle. They found Griffith’s hat, and
afterwards two umbrellas and a lady's glove. The umbrellas would be about six
yards from the river‐side. Cross‐examined by Mr. Giles, witness said the hat was
found about eight yards from the edge of the water and the other articles
further away. The companion of witness had hold of Griffith’s arms with the
intention of taking him to the police station, but he broke loose when he saw
the glove. By a Juror: Were the umbrellas shut when found? Yes. — Was his
clothing disarranged? Yes, his collar and tie appeared to have been dragged out.
— Another juryman: Would not there have been mud on Griffith’s boots if he had
been in the rive? Yes. — Did you see any on Griffith’s boots? No. By another
Juror: They saw no marks of a struggle, and Griffiths did not say they had been
lying down. By the Coroner: It was impossible to jump from the bank into the
water. A Juror: It would not be six inches of a jump into the water. I know the
place well The Coroner: Did you go down to the edge of the water? — No. Nor
Griffiths? — No, not then. You simply stood on the top of the bank? — Yes, and
he pointed out the spot. We could not see any footprints in the mud. Griffiths
pleaded so hard that we took him to Mr. Small's house, or we should have brought
him to the Police station. He wanted to go to her friends to break the news to
them. We went with him.
Thomas Henry Griffiths then stepped into the witness‐box, Mr. Giles interposed
that Griffiths saw him he previous day, and made a statement which he had taken
down in writing and copied. It might save time if the Coroner read it to the
Jury. The Coroner after perusing the document said he was afraid it would be out
of the usual course to read it without first asking Griffiths a number of
preliminary questions. Mr. Giles: I only thought it might be of assistance. The
Coroner, addressing Griffiths, said: Before you are sworn it is my duty to
inform you that if you are sworn you will tell the whole truth. You understand
that? — Yes. You have, of course, the option of being sworn. I should not have
called you except with your option and the advice of your solicitor. You
understand that? — Yes. Mr. Griffiths, proceeding with his evidence, said: I
reside at 3, Love‐street, Chester, and I am an accountant's clerk. I am married,
and have two children, and I have known Miss Small about fifteen months. I have
been corresponding with her about twelve months. I signed my letters "Tom." The
letter produced I received from Miss Small on Friday night, about nine o'clock.
It was addressed to my office. The Coroner said it was rather hard to decipher
the letter, as it was wet. It was as follows: — “Crane‐street, Friday morning.
My own ever dearest Tom,— l am very sorry I shall be unable to see you on
Saturday, owing to Arthur leaving town for Chester tomorrow afternoon instead of
the Sunday, as first arranged. If you can, without giving any one pain, come
down here this (Friday) evening at eight o'clock, I will come out to you for a
short time. Failing this, I don't know that it will be possible for me to see
you again before I leave, or if it will be possible at all, but perhaps things
may turn out better than I anticipate, and I may then be able to give you an
hour on Sunday. I do hope you did not allow my unkindness to you to worry you
after you left me yesterday, as I told you I could not account for my mood at
the time, unless it is that you, as well as the rest of the world, have spoiled
me, and the painful experience of a reverse of your usual loving tenderness cuts
me to the heart, and forces me to a frame of mind I would never know.— (Here
there were three words the Coroner was unable to decipher)— and as I was not
well. After I reached home last night, I could not sleep although I was tired.
And now I feel done up, and perhaps I deserve to be so. Good‐bye, your loving
—." The Coroner: This is A LOVE LETTEB. How long had you been on these terms
with Miss Small? — lt came on gradually when we first knew one another. How did
you first know one another? — We met in Queen's Park by accident. The lady
dropped her glove. I picked it up and gave it to her. She said she knew me, but
I did not know her then. How long ago would that be? — Twelve months this last
summer— about fifteen months, I think. She said she knew you? — She said she
thought I was my brother who kept a shop in Foregate‐street. From that time your
acquaintance ripened? We met one another casually after that for a little while.
Were you improperly intimate with her? — Not immorally. Tell us how often these
meetings were? — Sometimes we did not see each other for a week, and sometimes
we saw each other once or twice a day. Where did the meetings take place? —
Usually in Queen's Park and at the Water‐gate. What time in the day was it as a
rule? — In the evening. Where did you go? — Generally for walks. If we met in
Queen's Park, we went in Queen's Park; if we met at the Watergate, we went
through Eaton Park, and came back along Eaton‐road. And this went on till she
went to Manchester? — Yes. When she went to Manchester, did you write to her? —
Yes. Did you go over to see her? — I have seen her twice in Manchester. On one
occasion I went over specially to see her. Have you any of her letters? — No.
What has become of them? I destroyed most of them on Saturday morning last; I
had destroyed some of them previously. Where did you keep them? — I kept some of
them at home. Locked up or open? — Some of the recent letters were in my pocket.
Now tell the jury why, if you were not improperly intimate with this girl, you
were walking out with her in this fashion? — Because I enjoyed her company. I
was fond of her company. BECAUSE SHE WAS SO VIVACIOUS, and had such splendid
conversational powers, and always something interesting to talk about. Did you
take her to your house at all? — No sir. Did you never make love to this girl? —
No, sir. She always knew that I was married from the first time we met. You
never did? — No. I am afraid that does not answer my question. You say you never
made love to her. How did you address her in your letters? In an affectionate —
in various ways according to mood, I suppose. Well, you know; I do not. Did you
address her in similar terms to what she addressed you —"My own ever dearest
Tom?”— Not so much of that. But how much of it? — I called her ‐dearest" and
"darling,’ and sometimes I put in the word "own." How did she know you were a
married man? —I picked up the glove, and gave it to her, and the thanked me for
it. She then asked me if I was going in her direction, and I said " Yes, but I
don't know whether you would care to walk with a married man." She said she knew
my name, Griffiths, but thought I was the one that kept the shop in
Foregate‐street. If you were not making love to her, I cannot understand why you
should write to her as "my dearest," "my darling," and "my own?” —It might have
been a very injudicious thing. Do you write to other ladies in this way 9 — No,
sir. This was the only one? — Yes. Since she returned from Manchester I have
seen her in the evening about twice a week, or oftener. We have been along the
river‐side several times. What time in the evening did these walks commence? —
About haIf ‐past seven. What time did they end? — About half‐past eight or nine
o'clock. You say this girl knew you were A MARRIED MAN? Yes. The Coroner: I have
received a letter from a friend of the deceased. She says that this girl wrote
to her about 18 months ago, to the effect that " At first he passed himself for
some time as a single man, and when she learned to like him he told her it must
end, as be was married." Is that true? — No sir; l am positive it is not. The
Coroner: The letter goes on— " It was then she wanted me to advise her and to
write to her I begged of her to tell her brothers and allow them to settle the
matter, and to tell him he was not to see her any more," and that you became
worse, and followed her whether she would see you or not. Is that true? — No
sir. When you got your last letter you went to meet her '—Yes. What was the
meaning of the passage "that you, as well as the rest of the world, have spoiled
me?"— I suppose it was because of the friendship that existed between us. But
friendship does not spoil anyone like that. Do you really wish the Jury to
believe that that expression in the letter meant your friendship simply? — Yes.
What does she mean by ‐the painful experience of a reverse of your usual loving
attention? It means that on the previous occasion I saw her we were very
friendly. On the last occasion I met her I had occasion to rebuke her for
telling me an untruth. She told me she had been to Wrexham and had seen a
certain person and she had not.” I do not understand that if you were not her
lover why this should concern you '—The friendship was so great that‐The
Coroner. That you could not bear her to walk out with anyone else? — No sir, she
told me of other individuals she had walked out you rebuke her for meeting this
other person? — No, the other person was a lady If she was so great a friend of
yours, why did not you not INTRODUCE HEB TO YOUR WIFE? She did not want to be
introduced to my wife. Why? — Because we knew we were acting judiciously and
indiscreetly. She knew our friendship was an injudicious one. You would have put
it on a better footing if you had introduced her to your wife‐We wanted to walk
outside. I was inattentive to my wife for the purpose o£ going with the other
lady. Did not that reverse of your love and tenderness mean something to do with
an impending trouble?
— No, sir. I swear it on oath that I did not know she had any trouble, only the
trouble of going away. On the night you met Miss Small you were late? — Yes. My
wife was ill, and I could not get there earlier. My wife knew I was inattentive
to her. She knew you were out at nights? — Yes. Did you tell Miss Small anything
else? — I told her we must not meet or correspond again. Was that the first time
you broke it to her? No, sir, it was not the first time. When was the first
time? — I told her three or four times. The last time was the fortnight
previously. I told her that we must part, and I that my wife was unwell because
of my inattention. Miss Small told me she would go [away] She was troubled about
returning" to Manchester, and she told me if I did not write to her it would
make it worse. I told her again I wished it all to end She replied “Well, we
must say good‐bye." I said "Yes." She asked me to go a little way with her in
the direction of Sealand‐road. We walked along as far as the slate‐yard, when I
asked her to turn back, as it was time for me to go home. We turned back, and
when we got into New Crane‐street, between the railway bridge and the Watergate,
she turned to me, and asked me to say "Goodbye," as she was going. I asked her
which way she was going home, as there were then two ways to go home equally
near. She said she was not going home, said “Good‐bye," and walked off. I stood
there and watched her go as far as the turn to her own home. She did not take
that and went straight on. Then I followed her. She ran, and I ran, keeping just
about the same distance behind her. She was then nearing the locks, and I ran
quickly to over‐take her. Well, after overtaking her, what did you do? — We went
into the field, and on the bank she turned to me suddenly and told me to say
"Goodbye”; She would be GONE FOR EVER in a few minutes. She looked wild and
excited. I felt dazed and fell over. The next thing I heard was a splash in the
river. I got up at once, and went in after her. I swam up to her. The current,
was taking her in the direction of the Cheese stage. I caught I hold of her, and
tried to tread water, but I could not, and had to loose my hold! Then I felt her
clutching me. I swam to the side, but I could not tell whether she was clinging
to me, or whether it was the weight of my wet clothes. When I got to the side I
caught hold of a stone, and felt if she had hold of my coat. We were not sitting
down in the field that night; Mr. Small says you told him you quarrelled.
Is that all? — What I referred to was that we had agreed not to correspond. Did
you say "she ran away and I was on the ground?" — I should have related it to
him. I have related it to you as soon as I could I remember. I don't understand
about the dazed condition. Are you subject to fainting fits? — No. What dazed
you? — The shock, when she turned round in such an excited manner, and said
"Good‐bye." She had not said any thing to me about being in trouble. Did she or
did not threaten to drown herself on that account? — No, sir. Are the jury to
understand that this girl drowned herself because you were breaking off the
acquaintance, the friendship? — She was troubled because she was going back to
Manchester and had quarrelled with her mother, and she cried about it. Do you
think the breaking off of the acquaintance had partly to do with it? — Yes, but
she was depressed and troubled before about going back to Manchester without
having a situation. I am bound to put you this question for the last time; you
must bear in mind that there has been a post‐mortem examination. You want the
jury to understand that you were never improperly intimate with her? — Yes sir.
She did not tell you she was in trouble? — No sir. I always treated her as a
pure girl. She did not threaten to make away with herself on that account? — No
sir. I went to Mrs. Small's house next morning with my sister and my wife. I was
not on visiting terms with Mrs. Small, and it was simply a visit of condolence.
My object was not to procure my letters. The letters were mentioned by Mrs.
Small. She said "There are lots of letters," and I said, "Yes, and I would like
them destroyed." Mrs. Small gave me the letters. She said, there were a lot, and
she believed most of them were mine. She asked that none of them should be seen.
I said I would like to destroy them there if she would let me, so she said
"Well, put them in the kitchen fire." I took them and destroyed them. Did it not
strike you that you were doing a very improper thing? — No, sir. Was not your
object in destroying these letters to CONCEAL THE INTIMACY you had with this
girl? — The letters were affectionate; there was nothing else in them. It that
was not the object, what was the object? — Because, being a married man, I did
not wish affectionate letters to somebody else to be seen. Were the letters so
affectionate that people would draw a conclusion of undue intimacy? No, sir; not
in the least whatever. A Juror: Did you get much wet? — I did not notice. What
time did you receive the last letter? — About nine o'clock from the Post Office.
A clerk was working late, and the office was open at nine o'clock. Did you
quarrel on the Cop? — No. Was your front crumpled? — lt was wet. I had been in
the river. What distance did you walk across the grass after getting out of the
river? — I walked across the field in my wet clothes to Cop House, but no one
responded. Do you know that a man of your size can walk across the river at that
point when the tide is out? — I could not bottom it— l had to swim. When did you
tell your wife? — After I had been to Small's house, the same night. Mr.
Giles‐About the slush on your boots. How long were you in the water, as far as
your recollection goes? — l was in the water for about a minute or two. We were
on terms of affection, and at Christmas I made her a present of the scent bottle
to which Mr. Small has referred. As the acquaintance ripened I found my wife
became uncomfortable about my absence in the evenings, and I mentioned this to
Miss Small with a view to breaking off our friendship. When you refused to write
to her, she became excited? — Yes, she was an excitable girl. Was she romantic?
— She had a very eventful life, and had always something unusual to relate. The
reason why I did not tell my wife was because I was ashamed It was clandestine,
and of an affectionate nature.
Dr. Geo, Harrison said: I inspected the body of the deceased on the 7th
September. I found that the cause of death was drowning. On making a post mortem
examination I found that the deceased was pregnant. She must undoubtedly have
known her condition when she met Griffiths on Friday evening.
After other evidence, the Coroner, in summing up, said the jury were acting as a
criminal court only, and had nothing to do with any civil or moral obligations.
It was their duty, in approaching this case, to ask themselves was Miss Small
pushed into the water by Mr. Griffiths, or was she frightened into it by any
outward and visible signs of violence on his part. If they were in doubt as to
how she came into the water, they could return an open verdict, or, if they
accepted Griffith’s s story, it would then be their duty, bearing in mind what
her brother said about her frame of mind, to return a verdict of suicide while
of unsound mind. Griffiths would have them believe that he had no improper
intercourse with the girl, but the evidence of Dr. Harrison settled that point,
and it would be for the jury to consider whether or not that was the cause of
her trouble. The question was whether the probabilities were not that the girl
told him at that interview of the trouble she was in or whether they believed
Griffiths one that point. One could hardly understand a girl who was on such
terms of friendship with him as he described casting herself into the water
because he was going to have nothing more to do with her. It was a very
important point that Mr. Griffiths went to the house of the girl's relations at
once and raised the alarm. If he had thrown her into the water, it would seem to
one that the temptation would have been to have gone quietly away and not said a
word. It required a great amount of moral courage to go to the house.
THE VERDICT. The jury retired to consider their decision at a quarter to seven,
and returned with an open verdict of "Found drowned," stating that there was not
sufficient evidence to show how deceased got into the river.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 26 October 1895
AN OLD CHESHIRE CONSTABLE. SKETCH OF HIS CAREER.
The mortal remains of Mr. Arthur Gunning, of Little Neston, a retired member of
the Cheshire Constabulary, who died on Saturday in his 78th year, were laid to
rest in Neston Parish Churchyard on Wednesday afternoon. As will be seen by the
subjoined sketch, the deceased was a very interesting character, and there was a
large attendance at the funeral. The remains were enclosed in a casket of
polished oak with brass mountings, surmounted by floral tributes, and the local
police officers, Sergt. Wilson, and Constables J. Dutton, J. Dawson, and G.
Rowlands, attended in uniform and acted as bearers, the body being conveyed from
the residence to Neston in a hearse.
The route lay through Millock‐Lane, Bushell‐road, and Hinderton‐road, and owing
to the presence of the officers the cortège attracted much attention.
The service at the church was read by the vicar (the Rev. Canon Turner) Among
those present were Mr. Alexander Arthur Gunning (son), Henry Gunning (brother),
Inspector William Gunning (nephew), Arthur, Alice, Elizabeth, and Nellie Gunning
(grandchildren), William Gunning (cousin), Mr. Garrett (brother‐in‐law), Mrs.
Garrett, Mrs. Hill, Messrs. J. Parry, S. Scarratt, S. Mealor, J. Mealor, W. Lea,
J. Warren, W Mealor, R. Ostle, T. Norman, G. Hunter, J Evans, H. Norman, J.
Royden, W. Woodfine Dr. Riddock, &c.
The deceased was an interesting link with the past. In his youth he served an
apprentice‐ship to gardening at the gardens attached to Trinity College, Dublin,
and though thoroughly proficient in the industry which dates back to the time "
when Adam delved and Eve span," he forsook it to join the Cheshire constabulary,
over half a century ago. After doing several years' duty at Birkenhead and New
Brighton, he was removed over forty years ago to Little Neston. where he
remained until his death, by which time the little ivy clad cottage in the
centre of the village with its strip of gay garden and its venerable occupant,
had become quite a local institution.
When he first came to the district the Neston Police Station was a quaint
stuccoed building of one storey, standing in a garden and fenced off from the
road with white palings. It was hemmed about with picturesque thatched houses,
and bore in local phraseology the name of its humble predecessor the " Round
House," which formerly stood opposite the end of the Station‐road, while the
older inhabitants still spoke familiarly of the old parish stocks which stood by
the church gates, and wherein merrymaking Nestonians sat looking at their
uptilted toes, and buried in astonished reflections of their sins of the
previous evening. It (the police station) had recently usurped the principal
room of the Golden Lion as a hall of justice, and "drunks " were no longer
hailed off to his Worship's private residence to be tried. The ponderous iron
doors of the cells were not easily opened and closed, and there were grim
looking and suggestive iron rings in the walls and floor. Park Gate, with its
custom house and sturdy coastguardsmen, still affected a certain amount of
contempt in referring to its bloated rival on the Mersey.
Big fights regularly took place in Neston between "the English and the Irish,"
the offenders incurring penalties of as much as £5 or "two months' hard." The
Neston police district then extended several miles further in each direction
than several of the present sections combined, and if the force was not on such
a military footing as now, there were troubles in the form of gipsies, poachers,
and other accompaniments of "truly rural" life such as do not come within the
ken of the present local preservers of the peace, who book the convicted
prisoner by train, instead of taking a four mile walk with him to Hooton
Station, and having occasionally a rough time with him on the way. . Mr. Gunning
followed close on the heels of the old parish constables, who are still held in
remembrance in Little Neston, and their staff with the lion and unicorn on the
tip, which was formerly presented at the nose of an inebriate, with the words "
Come on here, my mon," is still occasionally referred to. Like the old
constables, he wore plain clothes, and it must have been a noteworthy day in the
annals of Little Neston when young " Peeler " Gunning (so termed after Sir
Robert Feel, as everyone knows) first donned the glittering buttons, which were
destined to overawe successive generations of evildoers. None of tbe local
magistrates of that day exist, though in several instances their places are
worthily filled by their sons, and nearly all, if not all, of Constable
Gunning's comrades have "gone before."
Though always at the post of duty, intelligent and strictly temperate, and
punctual in his habits throughout his 33 years of service, none of the
successive "chiefs" under whom he served, saw fit to bid him "come up higher"
nor did he seek promotion. Like Gold‐smith's ideal clergyman in the "Deserted
village," he never wished to "change his place," but was content to live and die
among those with whom his lot had been cast. If a villager was locked up, it was
because be persisted in his evil courses after repeated cautions, and kindly
advice from the local representative of the law, but when thoroughly roused, the
peacemaker had a grip that few men could resist. He held office during
visitations the like of which it is to be hoped will not be experienced by the
present generation. "One of these was the cattle plague, and the other the
Asiatic cholera, both of which were exceptionally severe here. The latter swept
away forty Protestants alone in a month, and this in an isolated country
district where everyone was well known.
With these matters the local police officers had much to do, and they freely
shared the risk with tbe two most prominent local heroes of the time, the Rev.
Canon Gleadowe and the late Dr. Russell. Mr. Gunning was a staunch Conservative,
and as a low Churchman he was strongly opposed to innovations in the services at
the parish church. He objected, along with many others, to the surplicing of the
choir, on the ground that though harmless in itself it opened the way for more
objectionable practices. These predictions were ridiculed by the surplice party.
After their introduction he quietly entered a protest by leaving tbe church at
which he had been a regular worshipper, though be still attended the Ness Holt
services. After about 33 years service of which over a quarter of a century was
spent at Little Neston, he retired on a pension and his neighbours shewed their
appreciation of his services by giving him a purse of gold. Shortly afterwards
the inhabitants elected him assistant overseer of the township and he filled
this office too with marked ability for several years, until his fading health
compelled him to resign. A more conscientious and upright official the district
never knew. He was a sincere Christian, and was, in the best sense of the word,
a gentle man.
Cheshire Observer
Saturday 14 September 1895
FRODSHAM
Alleged Fowl Stealing
On Wednesday, at Runcorn Police Court, a young man named Alexander Jackson, of
Frodsham, was charged with stealing a cockerel and two pullets, the property of
Hannah Bates, of the Field Farm, Sutton, on the night of the 8th inst. Prisoner
was met by Police‐constable Price on the Chester main road, near Frodsham,
shortly after one o'clock on the morning of the 9th. He was carrying a fowl
under his arm, and the constable not being satisfied with prisoner's explanation
as to how he came into possession of the fowl, Jackson was taken to the Frodsham
Police Station, and here two more fowls were found concealed under his shirt.
The three birds were warm, having been recently killed. Inquiries resulted in
the discovery that the fowls were from Mrs. Bates's farm. The prisoner was sent
for trial at the Quarter Sessions. There was a second charge against prisoner of
stealing three hens from Sutton Hall Farm, Sutton, the property of William Lowe,
also on Sunday night, but this was dis‐missed. Bail was refused.
Cheshire Observer
Saturday 19 October 1895
VIOLENT SCENE AT MICKLE TRAFFORD
BITING A POLICE CONSTABLE.
At the County Police Court, on Saturday before Messrs. J. Thompson and J. Pover
three young Irishmen named Thomas Mason Jas Gannon, and Patrick Durkin, were
charged with being drunk and disorderly and refusing to quit the premises of the
Shrewsbury Arms Bridge Trafford, near Chester, on Saturday night. Mason was also
charged with assaulting William Bromley, the landlord of the house while the
three prisoners were further charged with assaulting P.C. Bennett; and Gannon
with assaulting a man named Thomas Coathup who assisted the officer.
William Bromley stated that at half‐past nine on Saturday night prisoners
visited the Shrewsbury Arms, and were refused drink. When requested to leave
they declined to do so, and Maron assaulted him.
William Lyon, residing at Mickle Trafford, deposed to assisting Bromley in
expelling the prisoners from the public‐house. They behaved in an extraordinary
manner, kicked, jostled and punched the landlord and the officer, when he came
to the rescue, in a most ruthless fashion.
P.C. Bennett stated that as he approached the Shrewsbury Arms he met Mason, who
immediately jumped at his throat and tried to strangle him. He kicked at
witness, who had to put him on the ground to quieten him. While there he still
continued to kick and punch at witness's body. The others then came up and hit
witness. He had to call for assistance. On the way to the police station at
Hoole they again commenced to attack the officer, and Mason severely bit him on
the thumb.
Thomas Coathup, the man who also assisted the constable, stated that while he
was doing so he was assaulted by Gannon, who bit one of his bands.
The Chairman said this was a very bad case. Such behaviour as that of
defendant's would be put down by the strong power of the law. Those three men
went drunk into a public ‐house, were rightly refused by the landlord, but
insisted upon having beer. They were not content with assaulting the landlord.
They also attacked the constable in the road, and the magistrates were
determined to put down such conduct.
Durkin was fined 20s. and costs for refusing to quit licensed premises, or a
month's imprisonment in default of payment; 10s. and costs for being drunk and
disorderly, or in default another fourteen days' hard labour ; and a month's
imprisonment for assaulting the police‐officer, each sentence to run
consecutively. Gannon was fined 20s. and costs or a month's imprisonment, for
refusing to quit ; 10s. and costs, or 14 days, for the drunkenness; a month for
assaulting the constable ; and another month for assaulting the person (Coathup)
who assisted him. They were, Mr. Thompson said, not going to allow those persons
who were good enough to assist the police to be assaulted in that fashion. —
Mason was fined 20s. and costs or a month's imprisonment for refusing to quit,
10s. and costs or 14 days for being drunk and disorderly. 10s. and costs for
assaulting the landlord, and two months' hard labour for biting the constable.
All the sentences were to run consecutively.
Cheshire Observer
Saturday 9 March 1895
NESTON
A Fowl Stealer Neatly Convicted.
At the Neston Petty Sessions on Monday, before Messrs. D. Graham and R. Bushell,
a man named Joseph Oxton, who resides in Golden Lion Yard, Neston, was brought
up in custody charged with stealing a fowl value 3s. 6d., the property of
Jonathan Phillips, landlord of the Golden Lion Hotel.
Prosecutor stated that he saw the hen safe in the hen cote at ten am. on
Saturday, and about ten pm. he discovered that it was missing. Previous to this
the police had spoke to him about the theft. Soon after ten o'clock he
accompanied Constable Dutton to the prisoner's house, and he saw the officer
find the feathers and leg of a fowl (produced).
Sergeant Wilson stated that he went with P.C. Dutton to the prisoner's house.
They found the prisoner at the door, and on asking him if he had anything in the
house that did not belong to him, he said, "No. You can search the house." When
inside, witness said, "There is a fowl missing," and he replied, "I am innocent
of that" Witness remained by the door while Constable Dutton searched the house.
Finally witness told the constable to look in the saucepan on the fire. As the
officer lifted the lid, he asked the prisoner what it contained, and he replied
" A lobscouse." They found it contained the boiled fowls (produced).
The officers took prisoner into custody, and when opposite the Town Hall he ran
away, and was caught after a smart chase, in Brook‐street. Certain boot tracks
near the hen cote corresponded exactly with the nails and iron plates on the
boots worn by the prisoner. — Prisoner (taking off his boot and throwing it on
the floor of the court‐room)
‐There's the boot —
The Bench committed him to gaol for fourteen days with hard labour.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 29 February 1896
Accident to an Irishman.
On Monday evening a man who gives his name as McGuff, from Ireland, got a little
excited in Lower Bridge‐street, and began to fight "promiscus" His antics were
cut short, however, by a slip from the kerb, as a result of which he fell
heavily, and broke his thigh. Aid was rendered by a passing gentle‐man, who
bound up the injured limb in splints, and the man was conveyed to the Infirmary
by Sergeant Steen and P.C.'s Tarran and Abbot.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 22 August 1896
THE BROMBOROUGH BABY‐FARMING CASE. At the Birkenhead County Magistrates' Court,
on Monday morning, Richard Joseph Brindley and Louisa Brindley were brought
before Messrs. T. R. Lee and Peter Owen, and charged on remand with having
abandoned a female child under the age of two years, at Bromborough or elsewhere
in the county of Chester, in such a manner as to endanger its life.
Mr. Charles Roberts represented the prisoners, and among those in court were Mr.
Longden, deputy chief constable of Staffordshire, and Colonel Cope, deputy chief
constable of Cheshire— Mr. Roberts said he understood that the police were
anxious to have a remand again, and to that he would offer no objection.
Superintendent Macdonald said prisoners were arrested at Bromborough on the 8th
of the present month, on a charge of abandoning a child. In company with
Inspector Pearson, he had searched the house where the prisoners lived, and
found a large quantity of baby linen, part of which a Mrs. Dawson, of Chester,
had identified. Witness had attended an inquest at Liverpool, on the 12th inst.,
and Mrs. Dawson was also present. She had identified the body of the child and
also its clothing. On that the police desired to make further inquiries, and he
asked for a remand for a week. Mr. Owen asked if the body or the clothing had
been identified. Superintendent Macdonald said Mrs. Dawson identified both the
body of the child and some of the clothing it was wearing, which was in her
possession in February and March last. She had also identified some of the
clothing found at the house. Prisoners were then remanded for a week.
AN ALLEGED CHESTER CASE. The police are continuing their inquiries in Cheshire
and Staffordshire, and are now investigating the case of a child found dead in
the Wrexham road, near Chester, on August 1. It is stated that the prisoners'
defence will be that the children who have been given into their charge have
been handed over by them to other people. They give the names of two women to
whom they say they have given the children. HOW SUSPICION WAS AROUSED. A new
development in this case has transpired, the police inquiries having, it is
alleged, resulted in almost conclusively tracing the Bramleys connection with
four children. One of the two infants which have already been traced was a child
which died at the Liverpool Workhouse, and the Wirral police have now been
successful in establishing the identity of another case. It will be remembered
that the instigator of the whole proceedings was a Mrs. Ryan, of Worcester, who
wrote to Colonel Hamersley, the chief constable of Cheshire, asking if he could
inform her of the whereabouts of a couple to whom her sister had confided a baby
in February last Detective‐Inspector Pearson and Inspector M'Hale, acting on the
information, apprehended the Bramleys. Since then Mrs. Ryan has journeyed to
Bromborough, and has there identified some of the clothing belonging to her
sister's child, which was about a couple of months' old when the Bramleys took
charge of it. The mother has never beard a word of the baby since.
Cheshire Observer Saturday 20th Jun 1896
DEATH OP EX‐SUPERINTENDENT NAYLOR. INTERESTING MEMOIR A TERROR TO POACHERS. Our
readers in the Eddisbury district will learn with much regret of the death of
ex‐Superintendent James Naylor, late in charge of the Eddisbury Division of the
Cheshire Constabulary. The sad event took place on Saturday morning at his
residence, 5, Sandbach‐road, Congleton, in his 67th year. Although not actually
confined to bed for a long period, he had not been at all well for the past six
months, and was attended by Dr. Warrington, of Congleton. The shock was very
severe to the members of the deceased's family, especially to his widow. When it
was seen that his end was approaching, telegrams were at once sent to his two
sons at Chester and Northwich, who, unfortunately, both arrived too late to see
their father alive. Mr. Naylor was much respected by the members of the
constabulary, and his death will be deeply felt by them. Outside the ranks of
the force there are many who will miss and mourn him. He resigned from the
police force on the 31st July, 1889, and has thus enjoyed his pension barely
seven years. We are indebted to the Police Review for the following interesting
memoir of the deceased: — Ex‐Superintendent James Naylor was born at Over
Darwen, near Blackburn, on 9th April, 1829, and was a descendant of a noble race
of yeomen whose ancestors shed their blood in their country's cause in the
Peninsular and other continental wars. During the earlier portion of his life he
was so busily engaged on his father's farm that his education was entirely
neglected, but he subsequently picked up a little, and improved it as
opportunity afforded. At the age of twenty years he enlisted in the 4th Royal
Dragoon Guards, and served in that regiment for a year. Here he detected some
petty pilfering among the soldiers, for whom his captain commended him, and
remarked that he ought to be a policeman, not a soldier. His mother's illness
resulted in his leaving the army on payment of £30. He remained at home for a
short time, and then went to Preston, where he met a sergeant of the Lancashire
police, who persuaded him to join the force. He was sent to Woolton, on the
outskirts of Liverpool, as a horse patrol. While in this force he one day met a
man driving a cow near Rainhill, and, after chatting with him, apprehended him
on suspicion of stealing it. His suspicions proved to be correct, the cow, a
very valuable one, having been stolen from Hale Wood. He resigned from the
Lancashire force after a service of one year, 101 days. On the 18th March, 1854,
he was chosen, out of 19 candidates, to fill a vacancy in the Bolton
Constabulary, and was put on duty in Chorley‐road. One morning, about two
o'clock, be caught two men in the act of committing a burglary at a gentleman's
residence. A severe struggle ensued for twenty minutes, the men at last running
away in opposite directions. Constable Naylor followed one and overtook him.
Another scuffle en‐sued, the prisoner kicking the constable very severely, the
effects of which he felt for many years afterwards. He drew and used his staff
to defend himself, and succeeded in apprehending the man. A few hours afterwards
he also arrested the other man. Both prisoners had just returned from
transportation across the seas, and were sent back again. Constable Naylor was
removed to Deansgate. Here he, unaided, apprehended 14 men for sleeping in a
mill without any means of subsistence. He securely fastened them all together,
and succeeded in taking them part of the way to the police office, and then
obtained the assistance of two other constables, and locked them up. The
magistrates highly complimented Constable Naylor for his courage and
determination. Shortly afterwards a Mr. Davis, managing clerk to a solicitor,
when returning home late one night was garrotted and left insensible near Sweet
Green Church, the offenders taking away with them all his jewellery, Ac. On the
case being put into Constable Naylor’s hands, he recovered the stolen property,
which was concealed up a chimney, and arrested the two thieves, who were tried
at the Liverpool Assize, and sentenced to 14 years' transportation. His next
important case was that of an Irish woman, a servant to a retired painter.
During her master's absence she stole £22, hid it, and then hanged herself to a
bedpost, where she was found, black in the face, by a washerwoman. Constable
Naylor’s superior officers were engaged two days searching for the money, but
without success. The Chief Constable (Mr. Harrison) then directed Constable
Naylor to search, and after three and a half hours, he recovered the whole of
the money concealed on the premises. In a subsequent robbery of brass he
recovered the whole of the stolen property, amounting to several tons, and was
rewarded by the owner, and highly complimented. For a considerable time he was
engaged on detective duty, and in 1857 he joined the Cheshire Constabulary. Some
years ago Northwich was a noted place for poachers and thieves, and as the
resident sergeants made no headway in the detection of them, the Chief
Constable, on the Superintendent’s recommendation, promoted Constable Naylor to
the rank of acting‐sergeant, and sent him to Comberbach. Soon after his arrival
here he, in company with I Constable Savage, met eight poachers, loaded. | The
poachers threatened to kill the sergeant, who had with him a heavy
walking‐stick, which he used with such good effect that they ran away, throwing
their booty in all directions. Seven out of the eight were arrested and
convicted. A month after the above event, Sergeant Naylor and two constables met
five poachers on Red Lion Bridge, Anderton. A pitched battle ensued. Stones
rattled one after another against a building close by. One of the constables
(Dalziel) was struck down, but his place was taken by Sergeant Naylor, who
succeeded in knocking two of the poachers down. The poachers then took to their
heels, throwing away in their flight a large number of hares, rabbits, and
poaching implements. Sergeant Naylor subsequently arrested the men. Two of the
ringleaders received sentences of eighteen months' imprisonment each. For his
courage on this occasion he was promoted full sergeant, and granted the merit
badge with pay. His most serious engagement with poachers, and one which almost
ended fatally, took place on 29th September, 1867. He was on duty at Wincham,
with P.C's Dalziel and Lee, in company with two keepers. When near the bridge
they met a gang of 32 poachers, who drew up together, and threatened to kill the
police and keepers. Stones began to rain on the police like hail. Constable
Dalziel was struck on the head, and, seeing this, Lee and the two keepers took
to their heels. Sergeant Naylor was struck with a stone and knocked senseless.
The gang then set upon him, and abused him in a disgraceful manner. His left arm
was cut in five places; he was stabbed through the hand; the top of his head was
knocked in; the flesh of both hands stripped to the bone and his ribs injured on
the left side. The poachers, thinking they had finished him, threw him into a
pig cote. The neighbours were roused with the noise, and. finding the sergeant
lying unconscious, carried him to a house close to, where he lay unconscious for
six days, and was three months recovering from the effects of the encounter. The
whole of the men were arrested, identified, and committed for trial at Chester
Assize. The sergeant was in the witness‐box under examination for two hours and
forty minutes, nine barristers being engaged to defend. Three of the offenders
received five years' penal servitude each, and the rest sentences varying from
two years to eighteen months. For his action here he was highly complimented,
and received a special reward of £3. A gang of twenty‐nine men, terming
themselves 'The Committers,' infested Smallwood and Astbury about this time,
committing several burglaries and other robberies. In May, 1868, Sergeant Naylor
was removed to Astbury', and soon succeeded in arresting the ringleaders' and
breaking up the band. The thieves and poachers of Mow Cop and district were
closely watched. When on duty one Sunday night, he heard the report of a gun and
then proceeding towards the direction of the sound was informed by a messenger
that the policeman Bebbington had been shot. With another constable he cleverly
worked up with considerable difficulty, the case, and affected the arrest of the
offender, who received ten years' penal servitude. His success was so marked
that interested persons formed a treacherous plot against him, and brought it to
such a successful, issue that he was reduced to acting‐sergeant, and deprived of
his merit badge; but in six months' time he succeeded in establishing his
complete innocence to the entire satisfaction of the Chief Constable, who
reinstated him in his former position, and discharged the two constables who had
plotted against him He was removed from Crewe to Hazel Grove, and five and a
half years later removed to Hyde and was made acting‐Inspector. In June. 1878 he
was promoted inspector, removed to Northwich and in less than twelve months,
again removed to Crewe acting as Superintendent, and two years later to
Eddisbury as Superintendent of that division which post he held until his
retirement on 31st July, 1889.
THE FUNERAL. The funeral took place on Wednesday after‐noon at Astbury Church,
the Rev. E. Hayton Congregational minister of Congleton, officiating Col
Hamersley Chief Constable very kindly gave permission to any member of the force
who wished to attend the funeral to do so, but owing to the wish of the family
to have it as quiet as possible only a few police officers were present. Among
those were Supt. Large, Inspector Sherwin, Sergeant Naylor (son), ex‐Sergeant
Porter, Sergeant Wilson, of the Congleton Borough Police, Sergeants Briggs,
Marshall, McLeod, Constables Latham, Hodkinson and Roberts acted as bearers.—
There was a large number of beautiful wreaths. The widow and deceased's sons
have received numerous letters of condolence and sympathy.
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 6 June 1896
THE POLICEMAN AND THE DRUNKEN LABOURER.
A DUSTY TWENTY MINUTES
A man named Smith, carter and labourer, living at Hoole, was brought up at
Chester Castle on Saturday, on a charge of being drunk and disorderly,
assaulting the police, and wilfully damaging a pair of tweed trousers of the
value of 26s., the property of P.S. G. Farnworth.
Farnworth, in bearing out his evidence given the previous day, said that when he
and prisoner bad been struggling on the ground 15 minutes, witness was, with the
assistance of two men, able to get up. Prisoner, however, shook himself free,
and tripped up witness again, another scuffle of about five minutes in duration
taking place on the ground. Carter acted like a madman. Witness’s trousers
(produced) were torn and altogether spoiled, and his coat was splashed with
blood in places. Prisoner knew witness quite well, having said at the beginning
of the affray that he was not going to be taken to the police station.
Mrs. Kate Frearson, a neighbour of prisoner said that at the time stated her
little boy and a lady neighbour had gone up Tomkinson‐street, but in a few
minutes came running back, Carter following them. Witness locked the door in his
face, and he began kicking it, partly smashing the lock. He was very drunk.
P.S. Finchett stated that he was called to Farnworth's assistance. Prisoner was
extremely violent, and it took five men to take him to the police‐station.
Farnworth was exhausted, and covered with dust.
Mr. F. Turner said defendant was 22 years of age, and had recently come into a
little money, which had apparently done him harm, for he had, on going to live
in Hoole, got into bad company, speculated on horseflesh, &c. He admitted being
drunk, but his reason for assaulting the officer was because he thought the
latter, who was in plain clothes, was going to hit him with a stick he was
carrying. He did not know the police officer at the time.
The magistrates retired, and on their return the Chairman said prisoner had had
a narrow escape of going to gaol for a month. In respect of being drunk and
disorderly he would be fined 20s. and costs or 14 days; he would have to pay
20s. for the damage to the trousers, and for assaulting the officer he would
have to pay a fine of £3 and costs or go to prison for a month. The total fine
and costs amounted to £6 Is. 4d.
Cheshire Observer
Saturday 14 November 1896
THE TEMPERANCE AGENT AND THE BAG OF SOOT.
AMUSING CASE.
On Saturday, at the City Police Court before Mr. H. T. Brown and other
magistrates, Richard Grant, sweep, of Trinity‐street, was summoned at the
instance of P.C. Evans for obstructing the free passage of the footway in
Northgate Street by carrying a bag of soot on the footway on October 30th.
Defendant pleaded not guilty to carrying the soot, but admitted carrying his
brushes there. — P.C. Evans stated that at five minutes past eleven he saw
defendant carrying a bag containing soot and a number of brushes, which were
strapped across his back, down the footway of Northgate‐street, near St Peter's
Church‐yard. The bag and the implements caused considerable nuisance. Defendant,
when near the steps leading to the churchyard, stopped to talk to a fish woman.
He stayed on the foot‐path for about five minutes. Witness had cautioned
defendant about the same thing three months ago.— For his defence defendant
called James William Travis, temperance agent, Chester, with whom he had had a
few minutes' conversation on the Market Square just prior to meeting the
constable.— Mr. Travis, on going into the box, addressed the magistrates as
follows .‐— Your worships, I find that the ease to which our friend has appealed
to me to come and speak for him, has removed from the position of which I saw it
to somewhere near the Music Hall passage. (Laughter.)— The Chairman: He is
charged with obstructing the footway close to the steps leading to St. Peter's
Churchyard. —The Chief Constable (Mr. Fenwick): We take the whole of the street;
the summons says ' Northgate‐street.'— Mr. Travis (again addressing the Bench):
Of course that removes my ability to be able to speak for him at this particular
place. He was speaking to me and our friend, Mr. Bowles, the city missionary,
opposite the Town Hall. My impression has been that it was for that particular
place (opposite the Town Hall) that he was summoned. — The Chief Constable (to
the Bench): Do you care to have his impressions? —Mr. Travis: I am only
justified in saying why I am here. — Mr. Fenwick: You are not on the Market
Square, Mr. Travis. (Laughter.) You are bound to give evidence on what you saw
and heard, and not what are your impressions. — Mr. Travis: He had no soot with
him. — The Chairman: It happened by Messrs. Okell's shop, and if you did not see
it there you cannot give any evidence. — Mr. Travis: I should like to say .The
Chairman: You know nothing at all about the circumstances. You cannot speak,
because you know nothing about it— Mr. Travis was leaving the box, when Mr.
Fenwick said he would like to ask him a few questions. — Mr. Fenwick: What time
was this? — Mr. Travis: Between eleven and twelve o'clock. — Mr. Fenwick: Had he
a bag? — Witness: I did not see a bag at all. — Mr. Fenwick: Was there any soot
in it? Witness : No.— Mr. Fenwick : You saw this constable there, and you think
he is able to judge whether it was soot ?— Witness : Yes.— Mr. Fenwick: He is
not a 'merit' constable.— Mr. Travis: A 'merit' constable?— Mr. Fenwick : You
know what I mean. — Mr. Travis: Yes, I know perfectly what you mean. — Prisoner
then pleaded for himself. He said he was the last sweep to settle in the town,
and it was very strange that he should be summoned. He did not know there were
any bye‐laws objecting to a sweep carrying his machines on the footpath. Other
Chester sweeps did it. They paid for their licences to carry on their trade, and
there was nothing on those licences referring to the bye‐laws. He was ignorant
of the bye‐laws, and this was the first time he had ever been before any Bench.
He thought the summons was a faulty one. (Laughter) —Mr. Fenwick: Doubtless.
(Laughter.) — The Chairman said the bye‐law distinctly laid down that no person
should carry any soot or other offensive matter on the footways of the city
except for the purposes of crossing the footway. It might become a great
nuisance to the public if men licensed to carry on the trade of sweeps should
also carry their instruments and machines on the footway. They ought to be more
careful. — Defendant: I will in future. — The Chairman: You come and trade in
the town, and you ought to know the bye‐laws. The magistrates hope this will be
a warning to you, and you will in the future take care what you do. The case
will be dismissed. (The above appeared in our last Saturday Evening Edition.)
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 5 December 1896
CITY POLICE COURT.
Monday.— Before the Mayor, Messrs. H. T. Brown, J. J. Cunnah, and J. G. Frost.
An Audience or 200.—
Elizabeth Ann Burns and Alice Burns, sisters‐in‐law, were charged by P.C.
McGowan with committing a breach of the peace on Saturday in Foregate‐street by
fighting. The constable said prisoners attracted a crowd of over two hundred
persons. — Elizabeth was bound over to keep the peace, and Alice was fined 10s.
and costs, or seven days' imprisonment.
He Wanted a Bit of Thieving.—
Luke McLoughlan, of no fixed abode, was charged with begging in Eaton‐road, the
previous day. Prisoner denied the charge. P.C. A. Hughes deposed to seeing the
man begging from door to door. When witness spoke to him he said, ' Then where
am I to get a bit of good thieving." (Laughter.) — Prisoner's record being a
very bad one, he was sent to gaol for seven days without the option of a fine.
Cheshire Observer
Saturday 21 November 1896
PRESENTATION TO A RETIRED POLICE INSPECTOR.
THE CHESTER POLICE FORCE PAST AND PRESENT.
Yesterday (Friday) ex‐Inspector Leech, of the Chester Police force was presented
with a handsome clock and walking stick by his comrades, as a memento of the
esteem they felt for him after his long service with them. The clock, which was
of beautiful workmanship, bore the inscription : — ' Presented to Inspector
Thomas Leech, by the members of the Chester City Police force, on his retirement
after 31 years' service. October, 1896.' — Mr. G. L. Fenwick (Chief Constable),
who made the presentation, said those occasions were interesting in more ways
than one; they enabled them to instance to halt for a moment and I look back on
the way they had come. Much had taken place in Chester during Inspector Leech's
service of over 30 years. Since he joined, 250 men had followed him, although
their number was only 47 that day. About 200 had disappeared, some had passed
away, some had been pensioned off, and many had left to join other forces.
Thanks to several things, there was now little disposition to change. When
Inspector Leech joined the force was hardly ever full, and there was such a
scarcity of candidates, that advertisements week after week hardly brought any
reply. It was different now. Two or three years ago there were two vacancies
during twelve months and nearly a thousand candidates, and that was still about
the proportion. The police force generally was a more popular service. It was
the army of peace, and equally with the Royal Navy, Army, and Civil Service was
looked upon as a necessary branch of the Government of the country, and
notwithstanding what Mr. Gilbert said in his ' Pirates of Penzance,' the
policeman's lot, arduous enough, was never quite unhappy, and perhaps that was
so now more than ever it was. They were still told, half playfully, no doubt,
that ' the policeman was never there when he was wanted, but against that they
might put the fact that he was often there when not wanted; (Laughter.) The joke
hardly raised a laugh now in a circus, but if he was to believe the newspapers —
which on this particular matter he did not — a county court judge appeared to
have stepped into the place of the clown. "A police‐man never sees an accident,"
he was reported to have said, and that had gone the round of the Press. Of
course it was a joke, and so was the remark made by a certain professor of logic
at Oxford to the effect that the evidence of three classes — women, foreigners,
and policemen — should be received with caution. If that was not a joke it was
unworthy of one who was a professor by profession. (Laughter.) Then there was
their industrious old friend ' Pro Bono Publico,' whose communications would be
worth more if less personal and signed by his own name. However, Inspector
Leech, with all these little matters to contend with, had come out of the severe
ordeal of 31 years' public service with credit to himself, and bad earned the
respect of everyone who knew him. He (the speaker) hoped that those whom the
inspector left behind would profit by his example, and at the proper time would
retire into private life, carrying with them not only the esteem of their
comrades and the public, but their clock and pilgrim's staff, such as he had
very great pleasure in asking Mr. Leech to accept. (Applause.) Inspector Leech
said he felt very proud in accepting the presentation and he hoped they would
all live and have health and strength to receive the same some day. The force
was far better now than when he joined. Then a constable got 17s. A week with
very little chances of promotion. There were eight first‐class constables in the
city in those days, who were paid at the rate of £1 a week, and it was very
seldom that any other promotion was open. Now, however, there was something for
young men in the force to look forward to; he could retire while he was
practically a young man. He thanked them all very much for the kind way in which
they had signalised his retirement. (Applause.)
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 22 August 1896
ALLEGED THEFT OF A CHILD AT CREWE.
EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE.
At Crewe, on Tuesday, the magistrates were occupied for several hours in hearing
a charge of stealing a child, preferred against a young married couple named
Thomas and Nellie Green, of Ashton‐under‐Lyne. Mr. Horace Cooke appeared for the
prosecution. —
Rhoda Hodges, a single woman, said that on Friday last she was at a
lodging‐house in Oak‐street, Crewe, with her four children. That night they were
all in one bed. The two prisoners occupied a bed in the same room. There were
also married women in two other beds in the same room. Being somewhat crowded in
bed with her children, she complained, and the prisoners asked her to hand over
to them the baby, aged five months. She did so, and went back to her bed and
slept till seven o'clock next morning. On getting up at that hour she missed
both the prisoners and the baby. She was told that they had left the house at
five o'clock, taking the child with them. She went to the railway station, but
could not trace them. She obtained a warrant for their apprehension.—
ln reply to the prisoners, the Prosecutrix denied that she had ill‐treated the
baby, and had offered it to several persons. She never gave it to the prisoners.
—
Police Constable Richardson said he followed the prisoners to Sandbach on his
bicycle, and apprehended them by the roadside near Wheelock Heath. They both
said the mother gave them the child, and said they were quite ready to return to
Crewe and meet any charge.—
The female prisoner said that the mother had told her she could have the child,
and she took it out of pity. She said she would take the baby to Ashton‐under
Lyne, get work, and send the mother some money to help to support her and the
other children. The mother had said that she would be glad if somebody would
take the child.—
Margaret Lee said she was in the bedroom of the lodging‐house about mid‐night on
the 14th inst, and heard the conversation. Nellie Green said: "If you are tired
of the baby, give it to me," and the prosecutrix got out of bed, took the baby
to the female prisoner, and said she could keep it. The next morning the two
prisoners got up and took the child downstairs. The female prisoner washed and
dressed and fed it. The mother had told them the night before where to find the
child's clean clothes. Before the child was taken away a Mrs. Hulse went
upstairs and told the mother that the prisoners were going to take the child
with them, and the mother said “Let them take it." The female prisoner also went
up and asked the mother if she would kiss the child. The mother replied, "No, I
want to go to sleep." The week before this the mother had threatened to dash the
baby against a wall and knock its brains out—
Sarah Ankers, another witness, said she heard the mother say she wished she
could get rid of her children. She saw her give the baby to the female prisoner,
and she heard her say that she could keep it.—
John Malone said the prosecutrix bad given the child away twice since she had
been staying at the lodging‐house. The prosecutrix had also given another of her
children to an organ‐grinder, but he had returned it after keeping it a week.—
The Bench thought that no jury would convict the prisoners of stealing the
children, and discharged them. The decision was received with approval by a
crowded court.
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 25 April 1896
A CHESHIRE SENSATION 1796
ROBBING THE MAIL AT TRAFFORD.
The following interesting account of a daring highway robbery is taken from this
week's "Cheshire Sheaf" column of the Chester Courant : —
A pamphlet lies before me entitled "An Accurate Statement of the Trial of James
Price and Thomas Brown, before the Hon. Francis Burton, Esq., at the Assizes
holden for the County Palatine of Chester, the 6th day of April 1796, Charged on
Oath, with a Strong Suspicion of having on Tuesday the 19th of January last
past, between the hours of Eight and Nine in the afternoon of the same day, on
the King's Highway, in the Parish of Thornton‐in‐the‐Moors, in the County of
Chester, feloniously assaulted Peter Yoxall, who was carrying on Horseback His
Majesty's Mail from Warrington, in the County of Lancaster, to the City of
Chester, and taking from his Person, the said Mail Bag, with the Letters and
other Articles contained therein. (Chester: Printed by E. Monk, 1796.)
This pamphlet contains a fairly detailed account of the trial, from which it
appears that Peter Yoxall, a post‐boy, aged 15 years, received at Warrington
Post‐Office at 6.20 p.m. on the 19th of January two bags, containing the
Manchester and Warrington letters, to take to Chester. He reached Frodsham in
safety, and there received a third bag. Continuing his journey, he got about
three‐quarters of a mile of the Chester side of Dunham‐on‐the‐Hill, when he saw,
in the moonlight, two men riding before him on horseback. On coming up to them,
they turned their horses' heads upon him, and one of them seized his, and said
“Stop, or I'll blow your brains out.' They then opened a gate and led the horse
into a field. Their faces were covered with crepe, so that Yoxall could not see
their features. They took him off his horse, tied the three horses to a tree,
and fastened the lad's hands behind him, and his hat over his face. Having next
set his back towards them, and secured his legs in a portmanteau, they proceeded
to rifle the bags, a task which occupied them about half‐an‐hour. At the end of
this time, they took their departure, telling Yoxall that if he attempted to
more till morning, there were two men watching him, who would cut off his arm.
This threat did not deter the boy from seeking to free himself, which he
accomplished in an hour and a half. He at once went to the nearest turnpike and
called the man in charge, and also the constable of Mickle Trafford. He then set
out for Chester, where he arrived about half‐past twelve. Steps were taken
without delay to discover the robbers. They were apprehended at a public‐house
at Gosta Green, Birmingham, on Friday, 22nd January, and were eventually brought
to trial before Mr. Justice Barton, at Chester, on the 6th of April, when their
crime was clearly brought home to them by the evidence adduced. The jury found
them guilty, and the Judge sentenced them to death. Both the men made a
confession of their guilt to the Rev. Peploe Ward, on the 19th of the month.
Price owned to having been a professional thief for some five years, and gave a
long list of robberies in which he had taken part. With respect to the robbery
of the mail, he made the following statement : — " That he in company with Brown
had stopped at the Bear Inn in Manchester about a week. That on Monday, Jan. 18,
they looked out for horses for the purpose of robbing the Warrington Mail the
next evening. That they took their bridles and saddles with them to a field near
Manchester, where they caught two horses, one of them a chestnut mare, which
Brown rode, and another without shoes, which was turned out again on that
account. That two silk hanker‐chiefs were left by them in the field, from whence
the mare was stolen; one was tied round the saddle and girths, to hinder the
stirrups making a noise, and some corn was in the other. Price's saddle was
covered with his top‐coat and Brown's saddle with a bag; Brown's was a little
cross‐barred silk handkerchief ; that Price left his saddle and bridle in the
ditch, and went and purchased a cropt bay horse for £8 8s and led it to the
place where his saddle and bridle were left in an old halter, which he put into
his pocket after having cut the noose off, for the purpose of tying the post
boy's arms. That Brown put a piece of thin cord for the same use into his
pocket, at the Bear Inn. That Brown slept on the 18th about ten miles from
Manchester, on the Warrington road, where he got the chestnut mare shod ; the
sign Price thinks was the Crown. That Price came about ten o'clock and slept at
the same place; that the next morning (the 19th) Brown and Price set off about
five o'clock, and rode together to Warrington where Price stopped at an inn, at
the foot of the bridge, and breakfasted, and went to enquire for a letter from
Brown's wife, ordered to be left at the Post Office till called for. That Brown
went forward a few miles, for fear of being seen with the chestnut mare, and
break‐fasted. That Price was obliged to stop for some time on account of the
letter (the Post Office not being open), which made Brown uneasy, and caused him
to set out on foot towards Warrington, from the place where he break‐fasted, to
meet Price. That, as soon as Brown saw him, he returned for his mare, and
over‐took him about a quarter of a mile from Daresbury, on the Frodsham road.
That they sometimes rode together, and sometimes separate, to avoid suspicion,
till they came to Parry's [the inn‐keeper of the Nag's Head] at Trafford. That
they fixed on the spot where they were to stop the boy on the road that morning.
That the evidence given by Parry, his daughter, Nield, the blacksmith, etc, in
proof of their pretending to go to Wrexham, is true ; that when they left
Parry's house they went to Tarvin, and drank coffee at a house on the left‐hand
side ; that the stables were up the yard, on the right‐hand side ; that they
remained there till seven o'clock, and then set off to commit the robbery, that
he (Price) put on a drab coloured top‐coat over his blue top‐coat, in order to
disguise himself ; that they went through a lane called Morley‐lane, into the
Warrington road, nearer to Parry's house at Trafford than the field where the
post‐boy was robbed. That they opened the gate ready to take the boy and mail to
the spot fixed on for opening the letters. That Brown had a handkerchief tied
over the bottom of his face, and held a pistol towards the boy, when they
stopped him. That Price had a piece of an old rug over the bottom of his face,
which was cut from a horse‐cloth belonging to Parry. That Brown had two pistols
in his pocket, and Price had three. That they tied the boy's arms behind his
back with a thin cord, taken out of Brown's pocket, and slouched his hat over
his face. That whey placed him with his back towards them, whilst they opened
the mail‐bags, and tied all the horses to a tree. That when they had examined
the letters, they took the bridle, saddle, and mail‐pillion from the post‐horse,
and turned him loose, and then tied the boy's handkerchief over his face, and
put him on his saddle, turned upside down, close to a tree, and passed the piece
of an old halter, brought from Manchester, round the tree, and under the boy's
arms. That a coat‐strap was buckled under his knees, and round his legs; that
his feet were put into the portmanteau. That Brown wished Price to leap over the
hedge into Morley‐lane, close to the place of the robbery, and said it would
save a mile and half riding, but Price refused not being a good rider. That
Price observed to Brown, when they left the boy, that he seemed a knowing jockey
always on the listen, and that he never cried; and that he feared a discovery on
that account; that they returned round through Morley‐lane to Tarvin, and passed
close on the other side of the tree where the boy was tied That Price, soon
after they passed through Tarvin, pulled off his drab‐coloured top‐coat and to
avoid discovery, threw it, together with the piece of an old rug, into a wet
ditch, and put a heavy stone to sink it to the bottom. That the ditch, was close
to a hay‐rick, on the right hand side of the road towards Tarporley; That the
description given in the evidence respecting them at Tarporley, Nantwich,
Wolverhampton, and Birmingham was accurate."
At Tarporley, James Fleet, an innkeeper deposed that about 10.30 p.m. on the
19th the two men stopped at his house, and had two sixpennyworths of gin and
water. At Nantwich where they arrived about 11.30 pm John Griffin, Landlord of
the Griffin, gave them refreshments. He testified to the rapid rate at which
they seemed to have been riding Joseph Darlington, of the Bull's‐head, Nantwich,
also deposed to having given their horses corn at midnight. They reached Woore,
in Staffordshire, at 3 o'clock on Wednesday morning, and Wolverhampton at 2 in
the afternoon. In the evening they took a post‐chaise for Birmingham, where they
were apprehended on Friday, the 22nd.] That Brown went the day after their
arrival at Birmingham, viz.. January 21, went to Thomas’s livery stables. That a
man who keeps a five‐court at Birmingham fetched the horses from thence, and put
them to grass near Birmingham. . That the Property taken out of the mail was a
bill of £150 which was burnt at Allen's the inn‐keeper of the house where they
were arrested by Tart [the constable] when he came in and an £8 bill overdue,
which Price attempted to pass without effect at a shop at Wolverhampton where he
purchased three handkerchiefs. That there were two half‐guineas in the letters
and 1s. 7½ d. taken out of the pouch bag. Thomas Brown, whose real name was
Smallman, in his confession acknowledged a large number of robberies, and
confirmed the statement made by Price. He declared that had he had his pistols
on him at the time of his apprehension, he should certainly have shot the
constable.. That he particularly requested letters might be directly written to
Nottingham, Derby, Burton‐on‐Trent, etc, containing the descriptions of the
horses he and his accomplices had stolen from those places and their
neighbourhoods during the last two or three years, and that the owners of them
might be desired to come over to Chester without delay that he might have it in
his power to inform them where their property might be found. That he was very
anxious to see all the farmers who had lost horses out of Cheshire, within the
last two or three years. That he particularly requested that it might be made
known to the public that he had never been guilty of the least cruelty whatever
in the depredations committed by him. That he never stopped a carriage when a
woman or child was in it. That he never robbed a poor man, but was ready to
relieve the distresses of the indigent. That he liberally supported his
accomplices (when in custody); that he had experienced very contrary treatment.
That his wife and infant child were greatly in want of common necessaries; his
own property having been withheld from them by a man he had formerly assisted
when in difficulties, and to whom he had entrusted a large sum of money and
other property previous to his commitment.
The two highwaymen were executed on Saturday, 30th April. They both acknowledged
the justice of their punishment, and hoped the spectators would take warning by
their end. Brown was only 26 years old at the time of his death, and Price about
the same age.
During his confinement, Brown figured a coffin with the representation of a body
in it on the wall of his cell, and wrote underneath the following lines: —
Behold the corpse within the coffin lies.
With stretched out limbs and closed eyes;
But, ah, poor Brown no coffin thou shalt have,
Nor yet a shroud, nor yet a peaceful grave.
Prisoners all a warning by me take,
Repent in time before it be too late ;
Repent in time, leave off your thieving ways,
Then you shall all see happier days.
The bodies of the men were after the execution hung in chains on Trafford Green,
near to the spot of the robbery.
The pamphlet whence the above account is extracted contains a map of the roads
round Chester along which the robbers went, in a corner of which is a
representation of the gallows with the two bodies suspended. There are also two
curious plates, one showing the men robbing the mail, the other their flight
after committing the crime. (F.S.)
Cheshire Observer
Saturday 31 October 1896
CHESHIRE POLICE COMMITTEE COUNTY.
POLICE PENSIONS.
On the recommendation of the Chief Constable, the committee granted the
following
pensions :—
Sergeant John Oldfield, certified to be of unsound mind, £48 13a. 4d. per annum,
after
a service of 19 years 227 days ;
Sergeant George Foden, certified unfit for further police duty, £50 12s. 3d. per
annum,
after a service of 23 years 148 days;
Constable Alfred Davies, aged 55 1/3rd years. £56 15s. 6d. per annum, after a
service of
27 years 124 days ;
Constable John Latham, aged 53 2/3rd years, £52 16s. per annum, after a service
of 25
years 68 days,
Cheshire Observer
Saturday 25 January 1896
From the Chief Constable’s Annual Report
I beg to report that
No. 56 Constable W. G. Wood, Stockport Division, has been certified by Dr. Bale,
to be unfit for further police service on account of almost total blindness,
which is attributed to an accident that occurred to the constable while in the
performance of his duties on the 26th February, 1890, when he was thrown from a
cart, through the horse taking fright, and seriously injured about his head,
which came in contact with the curbstone rendering him unconscious for a time,
and unfit for duty for a month. I therefore beg to recommend that Constable
Wood, age 48 4‐12 years, who has served in the force for 17 years 125 days, be
granted a pension of £37 9s. 5d. per annum, under Section 1 (D) of Police Act,
1890, and Scale B, Part 1 of First Schedule thereto.
I beg to ask for instructions as to whether Sergeant Woolley should now be
pensioned, be having been unfit for duty since 9th Feb., 1895. It will be
remembered that in my report to your committee, dated 27th April, 1895. I
recommended this sergeant for pension on account of incapacity, but in
consequence of his critical condition at the time of the meeting it was decided
to postpone the consideration of his case, which has been mentioned at each
meeting since, and again adjourned. His age is 51 5‐12 years, and he has served
in the constabulary for 19 years, and the amount of pension would be £36 19b.
8d. per annum.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 3 October 1896
TARPORLEY. Police Court.
At Eddisbury Petty Sessions, on Monday. George Lightfoot and John Done,
labourers, Tarporley, were fined 5s., on the information of P.C. Bennett, for
being drunk in High‐street, Tarporley.— For committing a breach of the peace
Joseph Spann, labourer, Tarporley, was bound over to keep the peace for six
months. For setting off fireworks in High‐street on Sept. 19th two youths, Jos.
Rowlands and Fred Fleet, were lined 5s. each. P.C. Bennett proved the cases.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 17 April 1897
ALLEGED MURDEROUS ATTACK ON A WIFE.
William Edwin Roose, residing in Bishop‐street, Bishopsfield, Cheater, and being
a labourer at the Hydraulic Engineering Works, was brought up charged with
unlawfully wounding his wife before the magistrates on Saturday, at Chester
Castle, Mr. H. D. Trelawny in the chair.
Margaret Roose said her husband was a labourer. On Monday he went out to work,
but in the afternoon, about half‐past two o'clock, he came back again, although
this was not his usual dinner hour. He was drunk, would have no dinner, and lay
down on the sofa, where he went to sleep for about an hour. She asked him again
if he would have his dinner when he awoke, and in answer he kicked his feet
right through the sofa, which was covered with Morocco leather, and broke a
gipsy table standing at the end of the sofa into pieces. She remonstrated, and
he said, "I'm master here," and witness, fearing a row, slipped on her jacket
and tried to go out. Prisoner, how‐ever, stopped her, said he would knock her
brains out, took hold of her with his left hand by the jacket and struck her two
heavy blows on the head with the piece of the table he had broken. She screamed
out "Oh, you've murdered me." She was streaming with blood, and managed to get
out through the door, the neighbours seeing her in the street and sending for
Sergeant Finchett. Finchett took her to Dr. Burges, who attended to her wounds.
Witness had been Buffering from St. Vitus' dance for about a year and nine
months.
Sergeant Finchett said he was called to prisoner's house in Bishop‐street, about
four o'clock. Prosecutrix was in the street with a crowd of people around her.
She was bleeding very badly from a wound in the back of the head, and was
holding her hands to her head. Witness took her to Dr. Burges, who attended to
her injuries. Later on he went with Sergt. Farnworth to prisoner's house, and
found prisoner lying on the sofa in the kitchen. He was drunk, and when charged
he became very violent, although he confessed to the deed. They had to hold him
down on the sofa and handcuff him. He was taken to the Police Office.
Dr. Burges, surgeon, Hoole, deposed to examining prosecutrix. She had a wound on
the back of tbe head penetrating to the scalp, and about an inch and a half
long. It was bleeding, and, to a woman suffering from St. Vitas' dance, as Mrs.
Roose was, it was a dangerous one. She was getting on satisfactorily now,
however. Prisoner, who stated‐that he was in drink at the time, and was sorry
for what had happened, was committed to the sessions. (The above appeared in our
last Saturday Evening Edition.)
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 17 July 1897
ATTACK ON A CHESTER CONSTABLE.
ASSAILANT IN THE CANAL.
John Shickle, labourer, Union Terrace, was charged in custody at the Chester
City Police Court, on Monday, with assaulting P.C. Rogers on the previous
Saturday night The officer said his attention was directed to the prisoner, who
was drunk, and running about in a semi‐nude condition along the canal side.
Witness tried to persuade him to put his shirt on, and go into his house, but he
refused, and kicked the officer violently on the loins. He then ran away, and
jumped into the canal.
Witness not knowing whether the prisoner could swim, jumped in after him and
brought him out. The prisoner was mad drunk, and very violent, and when brought
out of the canal would not be quiet, but jumped in again. He was brought out a
second time, but got in a third time, and witness followed him again.
By this time, however, owing to the pain of the kick and his severe exertions,
witness was becoming very much exhausted, and had to be assisted out by some
bystanders!
He then brought prisoner to the police station —The Chief Constable (Mr. G. L.
Fenwick) said prisoner was a Chester lad, and was one of a gang of cornermen. —
Prisoner said he had a drop of drink and did not know what he was doing.— The
Chairman said the magistrates took a serious view of prisoner's ruffianly
conduct, and he must be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for a month.
Cheshire Observer
Saturday 13 November 1897
CITY POLICE COURT
Saturday Before Messrs. H. T. Brown, G.
Dog Stealing at Chester
James McCann, a labourer, of very Irish appearance, was charged with stealing a
Pomeranian dog, the property of Private Arthur Topham, of the 22nd Regiment, on
Thursday. — A military police sergeant said prisoner, who bad the dog with him,
asked him the way into Handbridge. Witness directed him, and he went down
Bridge‐street.
— P.C. John Wynne also saw prisoner with the dog. McCann, who was also in
custody for alleged drunkenness, was fined 20s. and costs, or 14 days
Tuesday Before Messrs. R. L. Barker, Geo. Dutton, and R. Jackson.
A Bawling Woman
Emily Williams, married woman, living in Chapel‐lane, was charged in custody
with committing a breach of the peace in Milton‐street the previous day. P.S.
Porter, in proving the case, said prisoner was very drunk, and used abusive
language and quarrelled with people the whole of the afternoon. Her husband came
to her, and she blackguarded him.
The Bench bound her over in two sureties of £2 10s. each to keep the peace, and
in default sent her to prison for seven days.
Cheshire Observer
Saturday 11 March 1871
Charge of being Drunk and Disorderly.
A respectable man named Wm. Weaver was charged with being drunk and disorderly.
P.C. Price, stationed at Christleton, stated that on the evening of the 25th of
Feb. last he was on duty on the Chester and Whitchurch turnpike road, in the
township of Christleton, when be met the defendant and his wife. The former was
drunk and made use of some abusive language, and said he would blow the
constable's brains out the first time he got him near his house. The constable
asked him why he threatened him thus, and the defendant replied because he had
stolen his son out of his house when he had no right to do so. The constable
said he did so because he had been given in charge to him, and he was bound to
do his duty. The defendant then left, and having gone a distance of about twenty
yards took off his coat, and, according to the constasble, wanted to fight him,
but was prevented from doing so by his wife In reply to Mr. Churton, the
constable stated that when the defendant commented to abuse him he hand‐cuffed
and brought him to the Bishopsfield station‐house. Mr. Churton having addressed
the Bench on behalf of the defendant, the case was dismissed.
A Constable fined for Assaulting a Woman.
P.C. Price was charged by Mrs. Weaver, the wife of the defendant in the last
case, with assaulting her on the occasion in question. Mr. Churton appeared for
the complainant in this case, who stated that while going borne along with her
husband on the 25th Feb., the latter sat down on the bank of the canal, and
while there the defendant came up and placed a pair of hand‐cuffs on him. She
immediately told him not to do that, when the constable, without further remark,
struck her a blow in the stomach with his hand, and she staggered backwards; be
shortly afterwards followed this up by dealing her another blow.— Elisabeth
Witter, who was in company with the complainant and her husband at the time,
deposed to seeing the defendant strike the complainant two blows, from the
effects of one of which she might have fallen into the canal had not she (the
witness) caught her. The policeman had been to see her the day before, and
having asked her if she had seen him strike the complainant she replied that she
did. He then told her if she said anything against him it would be worse for
her. The defendant denied the assault. Mr. Churton having addressed the
magistrates, and commented strongly on the unwarrantable conduct of the
defendant, the Bench fined him 10s. and 9s. 6d. costs, or in default seven days'
imprisonment, having previously severely reprimanded him for his conduct.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 31 July 1897
TRAGIC DEATH IN CHESTER‐
YOUNG MAN SHOT :A shocking affair was reported to the police on Wednesday
evening, when a young man named Thomas Jarvis, a son of the late clerk of the
cemetery, accidentally shot himself. Deceased, who leaves a widow and two
children, lived at 4, Old Wrexham‐road, Handbridge, and at half‐past five in the
afternoon he was in the house apparently in his usual health and spirits. A
woman from a neighbouring street was also in the house washing some clothes, and
when she asked him to assist her in removing some article he made no reply, and
went into the parlour. Shortly afterwards the woman heard the report of a gun,
and on going into the room found Jarvis lying dead on the floor, with the gun by
his side. The remains presented a shocking appearance, the top of the skull
being blown off.
INQUEST: The City Coroner (Mr. E. Brassey) held an inquest on the body at the
Red Lion Inn, Handbridge, on Thursday evening. Annie Jarvis, widow of deceased,
said that although her husband had been of intemperate habits, he had lately
been steady. She saw him last on the previous afternoon in the Hare and Hounds.
He was quite sober, and there was nothing unusual in his manner. He came out and
walked home. Witness knew no reason why he should commit suicide, and he had no
trouble as far as she knew. The gun was usually kept behind the door. They bad
always lived on the best of terms. — Lucy Worsley, charwoman, deposed to seeing
deceased in his house the previous day. She heard the report of the gun and on
going into the kitchen found him lying near the door quite dead. She did not
notice the gun. There were shot marks on the door. — Thomas Jarvis, brother of
deceased, deposed to finding the unfortunate man lying on his back in the
kitchen. He was quite dead, the brains being scattered about the floor. The gun
was by his side, discharged. One barrel was empty, and the other contained an
empty cartridge. If the act was intentional, witness could not account for it. —
P.C. Dryland saw deceased, and noticed no signs of anything by which the man
could set the gun off. The barrel of the gun was pointing towards his head. —
The Coroner remarked that no doubt the act was self‐committed. It was probable
that deceased had done it intentionally, and also, on the other hand, ‐equally
probable that it was an accident. — The jury gave a verdict of 'Accidental
death.'
Cheshire Observer
Saturday 16 January 1897
INTRUDERS AT HESWALL YACHT HOUSE.
THE CONSTABLE COMPLIMENTED BY THE BENCH.
At the Neston Petty Sessions, on Friday, Thomas Ryollt and Michael Duffy were
charged in custody, before Colonel Lloyd, with stealing a quantity of wearing
apparel, provisions, &c, from the Heswall Yacht Club House. Prisoners, who had
been previously remanded, were wearing some of the garments alleged to have been
stolen, and appeared to derive a vast amount of amusement from the evidence. At
times they were convulsed with laughter, and their levity proved very contagious
to the lookers‐on. Superintendent McDonald prosecuted. — John Fletcher Jellicoe,
insurance agent, and Thomas Greaves Thompson, general merchant, both of
Waterloo, members of the Heswall Yacht Club, appeared to identify the articles
produced in court, and stated that they last saw them in the Yacht House on Dec.
6th— Edward Clarke, platelayer on the Hooton and West Kirby branch, stated that
he saw the prisoners on the line between Heswall and Thurstaston, about a
quarter of a mile from the Yacht House, at 7 a.m. on January Ist. Ryollt, who
was about twenty yards in front of Duffy, had his pockets filled with bottles of
beer, and asked witness to have a drink. He declined, and Ryollt per‐sisted, "
Won't you have a drink with a Liverpool lad ?" Prisoner Duffy then came up, and
after remarking that they had walked from Holywell the previous night, asked
what time it was. Witness replied, "Just turned seven ;" and Duffy
enquired, ‐morning or evening?" Witness afterwards directed the men in the
direction of Birkenhead. They were both the worse for drink. — Cross‐examined by
Ryollt : He was confident that he (Ryollt) was one of the men. — John Buckley, a
local fisherman, stated that he acted as caretaker for the Yacht House on the
Heswall shore, and about 11 a.m. on January 1st he found it had been broken
into, and the boxes and drawers bad been emptied, and were lying upon the floor.
He gave information to the police, and accompanied Constable Bee in his search
for the thieves. They saw some broken bottles in a field going in the direction
of Thurstaston, and after going through Irby to Pensby, they saw the prisoner
Ryollt wearing the singlet, shoes, stockings, silk handkerchief, overcoat,
jacket, two vests, produced, which he had last seen in the Yacht House. He had
also a tin of corned beef in his possession. — Constable Bee apprehended him,
and witness afterwards went on to higher Bebington, where he saw the prisoner
Duffy. — Sergeant Higgins described the condition of the Yacht House after the
robbery, and repeated a statement made to him by the prisoners at the police
station. — Constable Bee detailed the manner in which he traced the prisoner to
Pensby, and on seeing RyoUt he recognised him as a prisoner who had been
convicted of robbing the same Yacht House in 1895, and called him by name.
Ryollt rejoined : " I knew I was copped when I saw the little fellow" (Buckley).
He searched him, and finding the stolen property produced in his possession,
took him into custody, and handed him over to Sergeant Higgings, at Heswall.
Witness afterwards obtained a horse and trap, and drove. to Higher Bebington,
where he saw the prisoner Duffy. The witness Buckley was in conversation with
Duffy.
Buckley said he could swear to the overcoat which Duffy had on, and which Ryollt
was now wearing in the dock, as being the property of Mr. Thompson. Witness then
took Duffy into custody, and on searching him at the Neston Police Station found
a quantity of the other stolen property on him. When he charged the prisoners
Ryollt said "I know nothing about it; my mate gave me these things"; and Duffy
replied, "It was early morning when we went in. We intended letting the New Year
in. I'd rather do that than beg. It's not like breaking into a poor man's house;
they (the Yacht Club) can afford it."
— Ryollt now made a statement to the effect that he found the clothing tied in a
bundle in a field about a quarter of a mile from the Yacht House, and put them
on. — Duffy stated that he went into the Yacht House for a sleep, and, after
rummaging about, found the clothing, put it on, and got drunk on the contents of
the bottles he found in the building. He afterwards tied some of the clothing in
a bundle, and later threw it away in a field, as the mate he had with him would
not put them on. — The prisoners were then committed to the assizes for trial.
The formal offer of allowing them to find bail proved a subject of much
merriment to the prisoners, Duffy assuring his Worship that there would not be
the slightest difficulty in the matter. The Bench afterwards highly complimented
Constable Bee on his smart conduct in the matter, and asked Supt. McDonald to
forward the opinion expressed by the Bench to the Chief Constable.
Cheshire Observer
Saturday 6 February 1897
NORTHWICH. A Councillor's Escapade. — At Northwich Petty Sessions, on Tuesday,
Richard Turner, trades union member of the Northwich Urban Council, was charged
with being drunk on the 12th ult. Constable Curry found him lying helpless in
Castle‐street, and as the night was bitterly cold he was in imminent danger of
being frozen to death. He was carried home.' A fine of 5s. was imposed.
CHESHIRE OBSERVER SATURDAY 23RD OCTOBER 1897
RETIREMENT OF POLICE SUPERINTENDENT BRITTON. The end of the present month will
see the retirement from the Cheshire Constabulary of one of its ablest and most
popular officers. Today (Saturday) the Standing Joint Committee of the county
will be asked to grant Police‐Superintendent
W. Britton a pension of £130.4s per annum, after a service of upwards of 25
years. Superintendent Britton’s removal from the sphere of active work will be
universally regretted. Located latterly at Altrincham, he had been stationed
previously at New Brighton, Hyde, Birkenhead, Chester and Stockport in each of
which places he gained the high respect and esteem of all who came in contact
with him. A thorough disciplinarian and a conscientious and thoroughly
trustworthy officer, his place in the force will be very hard to fill. His
retirement at a comparatively early age, has been brought about by failing
health, and means the sacrifice of considerable pecuniary advantages which he
would have derived under the present scale of pay by a few more years’ service.
Health, however, is the paramount consideration, and Supt. Britton feels that
having given a quarter of a century of the best part of his life to the county,
the time has come for him to be released from harness. His immediate intention
is to spend a little time at Enniskillen, his native in the north of Ireland,
but, after having built up his health he hopes to return and pass the remainder
of his days in Cheshire. His many friends will wish that he may long‐his only in
his fiftieth year‐to enjoy the Pension which he has so richly earned. A VARIED
EXPERIENCE William Britton was born at Enniskillen. Ireland, on the 13th June
1848. In August 1868 he joined the Royal Irish Constabulary and for a couple of
years served at Waterford, Wicklow, Belfast, and other parts of Ireland. Coming
over to this country, he received his appointment as a constable in the"
Cheshire Constabulary in May. 1872, at which time Captain Smith was the chief
constable. After spending twelve months near New Brighton, PC Britton was
removed to Hyde, where he had a prolonged stay of eleven or twelve years, and
was advanced to the rank of sergeant. In June 1885, he ascended another rung in
the ladder of promotion, being sent to Birkenhead as a detective inspector. The
January following saw him transferred to Chester, and here he spent several
years, adding greatly to the reputation he had already gained as an astute and
well‐trained officer, until his services were further recognised by his
appointment to the position of superintendent in charge of the Stockport
division, in July, 1891. There he succeeded Mr. Hollingsworth, who was
accidentally killed, and there he continued till May 1894, when he was
despatched to his present post as superintendent of the Altrincham division.
During, his varied experience, Supt Britton has been concerned in many important
criminal cases, and his reminiscences would almost fill a book. When engaged in
un‐ravelling some particularly perplexing mystery, it is a common saying in the
force that he hardly ate or slept. His keen intellect and untiring activity
stood him in good stead in many a case of robbery where it was apparently
hopeless to find a clue. Many years ago Supt. Britton brought himself into
prominence by his pluck and fearlessness. When he was a constable at Hyde a
dangerous character whom he was arresting for forgery and embezzlement, and who
afterwards was sentenced to ten years penal servitude, drew out a revolver and
shot him in the leg. Despite his wound he chased the man for nearly a mile, and
though his quarry eluded him in the darkness, he kept on his track the whole of
the night, and did not again rest until he had run his man to earth at Oldham,
at 5 o'clock the following morning. Alone he there affected the forger’s arrest,
and for his gallant conduct was afterwards highly complimented by the
magistrates and was awarded a merit badge. A ROBBERY OF £3,000. One of the
biggest cases with which Supt. Britton was entrusted, and which, after untold
difficulties, he brought to an entirely successful issue, was a robbery of
£3,000 at Nantwich over eleven years ago. It was immediately upon taking up his
duties as detective inspector at Chester that his attention was directed to this
very romantic case. An elderly man named Blud, who had formerly carried on a
prosperous business as a fellmonger at Nantwich had stowed away in a safe in his
house about £3,000 in gold. One night the house was entered by some persons who
climbed on the roof, smashed the front bedroom window, and decamped with nearly
the whole of the old man's savings. It was some time before the real culprits
were brought to justice. In the first instance the wife of Blud himself was
locked up and charged with the robbery, but she was acquitted, and the police
were for some time baffled. Detective Inspector Britton however got on to a new
scent. He traced a labouring man named William Hesketh to Birmingham, and found
that since leaving Nantwich he had married, and apparently come into a handsome
windfall, for he was living in a very stylish way, and occupied a lavishly
furnished house. On calling here the inspector was informed that the tenant and
his wife were away from home. Not to be baffled, he tracked the quondam labourer
to Lichfield, and thence to Milford station, where he succeeded in apprehending
him with a cashbox in his possession containing £586 10s. In gold and £10 10s.
In his pockets. Hesketh's brother and a young man named Astles were also
arrested, after being traced to Manchester, Birmingham, Crewe, and Chester,
where they spent the stolen money lavishly. The actual perpetrators of the
burglary turned out to be William Hesketh and a man who made good his escape
with two companions to America with half the spoil, amounting to £1,500. His
ill‐gotten gains did not, however, benefit him much, for immediately after
landing it is believed he was robbed by his accomplices, and left without a
penny. Eventually the two Heskeths, with their father (who was alleged to have
received £100 of the money) and Astles were brought before Sir Horatio Lloyd at
the Quarter Sessions at Chester Castle in April. The father, Thomas Hesketh, was
acquitted, but the others pleaded guilty to the charges against them. William
Hesketh was sentenced to twelve months' hard labour, while for helping him to
dispose of the proceeds of the burglary his brother Charles and his friend
Astles each received sentence of six months' imprisonment. The three thousand
sovereigns which had lain stored in Blud's house for an indefinite period, had
become tarnished by age, and it was the circulation of these tarnished coins
that aided the clever detective in running down the criminals. This case which
cost Detective Inspector Britton many weeks of sleepless activity and an amount
of travelling, which would have knocked up any man of ordinary physique, earned
him a wide reputation, to which be added on many other occasions.
Liverpool Echo - Thursday 13 January 1898
DARING SHEEP STEALING CHESHIRE. ARREST CHESTER.
To‐day, at Chester Castle Petty Sessions Occasional Court, before Mr. George
A.Dickenson,
William Minshull Captain, and James Turner, mate of the Shropshire Union Canal
boat “Starling” were charged with stealing a sheep from a field at Minshull
Vernon, the property Mr. C. B. Davies, Eardwich Hall, and a widow named Ellen
Minshull, residing at Ellesmere Port, was charged with receiving portion of the
sheep, knowing to have stolen. —
Superintendent Leah, of the headquarters of Cheshire Constabulary Chester, said
the sheep was missed from a field on Sunday, and information was given to the
police Inspector Beeley of the headquarters at Chester, made investigations, as
the result of which arrested the prisoners. With reference to the woman he asked
to be allowed to withdraw the case against her. A portion of the stolen sheep
was found her house at Elllesmere Port last night by Sergeant Fowler, but
although she had got from one of the male prisoners there was no evidence that
she knew it to be stolen.—Police‐inspector Beeley said he arrested the male
prisoners this morning.
In answer to charge Minshull replied, “Well, we cannot get out of it. We did it,
we cannot get out of it." Turner replied, "We did it and both of are bad as one
another,"
The case against Ellen Minshull was dismissed and she stated that she met the
prisoners at Ellesmere Port on Monday eight last. Turner gave her the piece of
mutton produced, saying it would make stew. Minshull was her son‐in‐law. —
Upon this the prisoners were handed over to the custody of Sergeant Hunt, to be
dealt with in the Middlewich Petty Sessional Division of Cheshire.
Cheshire Observer
Saturday 20 May 1899
DRUNK OR SOBER?
POLICE VERSUS MEDICAL EVIDENCE.
At Nantwich Petty Sessions on Monday, Mr. H. J. Tollemache, M.P., presiding,
John Duddon Plant mineral water manufacturer, Crewe, was charged with being
drunk while in charge of a horse and trap at Audlem.
Police Constable Tracey stated that he took charge of defendant and his horse
and trap. The defendant and a man who accompanied him were both drunk.
Constable Gogger, who drove the defendant home after being detained at Audlem
lockup, said that when they left Audlem the defendant was quite drunk, but he
was sober on arrival at Crewe after a drive of two hours and a half.
P.S. Davies, keeper of the lock‐up at Audlem, gave corroborative evidence.
Mr. Kinsey, solicitor, strenuously denied the charge, and informed the
magistrates that Mr. Plant suffered from chronic gout and rheumatism, and had an
unsteady gait He had been ill from erysipelas, and on the day of the alleged
offence he was out for the first time after his recovery.
The defendant gave evidence, and swore that he was sober when the police locked
him up. He had only had one glass of whisky during the day.
Dr. Lawrence, Crewe, aaid the defendant came to his surgery a quarter of an hour
after arriving home. At the defendant's request he examined him very carefully,
and he was quite satisfied that he was not drunk. Further, examining him as he
did and finding what he did, he came to the conclusion that he could not have
been drunk for at least two or three hours previously.
The magistrates convicted, and a previous conviction being recorded against the
defendant, a fine of 10s. and coats was now imposed.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 3 June 1899
SAVAGE ASSAULT AT CHESTER.
A POLICEMAN GETS A BLACK EYE,
At Chester City Police Court on Saturday morning, before Messrs. William Brown
and Roger Jackson, A. McDermott and Robert Burns, two soldiers, stationed at the
Chester Barracks, were charged with being drunk and disorderly in Castle‐street,
and with assaulting P.C. R. Smith while in the execution of his duty on Friday
night.
The Chief Constable said the officer had occasion to speak to McDermott, when he
turned upon him and assaulted him. But for the intervention of a Mrs. Hunter he
might have been seriously injured.
P.C. R. Smith, who appeared in the witness‐box with a much‐swollen eye, said
that about a quarter‐past eleven last night he saw the prisoners drunk and
creating a great disturbance in Castle‐street. While he was arresting Burns,
McDermott came up behind him and struck him several blows in the face. Mrs.
Hunter then came to his assistance, and shortly afterwards the guard from the
barracks turned out and took prisoners to the Castle.
Catherine Hunter, 22, Castle ‐street, said she saw the prisoners drunk and very
violent in front of her house on the night in question. She heard the officer
ordering them to go to the barracks, but they refused. They were both cruelly
illtreating the officer. McDermott also knocked her brother‐in‐law's hat off,
and hit him when he went to the officer's assistance. Witness sent for the
guard, who eventually got them to the barracks.
Lieut Stevens said neither of the two prisoners had a good, character. McDermott
had been in the Army about four months, and had been in prison two or three
times. Burns had been 6 weeks in the Army, and had been in prison once.
The Chief Constable said it was a very bad case indeed, and asked the
magistrates to make an example of prisoners. They were sent to prison for a
month with hard labour. (The above appeared in our last Saturday Evening
Edition).
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 10 June 1899
MURDEROUS ASSAULT AT CHESTER. BREAKING A BOTTLE ON A WOMAN'S HEAD
At the Chester Police Court, on Monday morning, before the Mayor (Dr.
Stolterfoth) and other magistrates. Robert Downing, a grey‐haired old man,
described as a shoemaker, and living at 5, St. Olave‐street, was charged on
remand with an aggravated assault on a woman named Elizabeth Tonks, on Saturday
week. —
The Chief Constable (Mr. J. H. Laybourne), stating the facts, said that prisoner
had lived with Tonks for nine years, and they had three children. On the
Saturday night prisoner, when he returned home, threw a cup at the woman, and
told her to clear out of the house. He then got hold of her by the hair of the
head, threw her out the floor, and kicked her. When he returned to the house
about an hour afterwards, prisoner struck her on the head with a bottle. Tonks
was taken to a neighbouring house, and there had her wounds attended to by Dr.
King.
The complainant, who said she had been in the Infirmary as an out‐door patient
ever since the assault, generally bore out Mr. Laybourne's statement, saying
that when she asked prisoner his reason for ordering her out of the house he
said she could go where she liked. He then caught hold of her by the hair of the
bead, threw her on the ground outside, and kicked her on the head. She was taken
into a neighbour's house by her sister, and Dr. King was sent for. Prisoner came
home again about a quarter past eleven when she was in bed. He snatched the
bandage from her head and said he would give her something to bleed for. He
struck her across the head with a bottle and said, "Now I will bang you." She
then ran oat of the house.
Annie Williams, wife of John Evan Williams, and sister of the woman Tonks,
deposed to witnessing the assault. She said that Downing was given a cup of beer
upstairs, when he came down and committed the assault complained of. In
consequence of her injuries her sister was taken to the Infirmary.
Elizabeth Jones, 2, St. Olave‐street, also gave evidence, stating that between
six and seven o'clock on the Saturday night in question she was standing at the
door, and saw the prisoner kick Tonks on the head. She asked Mrs. Williams to
bring her to her house. She then Bent her brother for Dr. King.
Sergeant Porter said he found the complainant in a nude state in Lower
Bridge‐street about a quarter‐past one on Sunday morning. He went to the house,
and found the broken bottle (produced) stained with blood. He charged Downing
with unlawful wounding. Prisoner, asked if he had anything to say, denied that
he either kicked Tonks, or struck her with a bottle. He said he only pushed her,
and that she fell down the steps because she was drunk. Mrs. Williams was also
drunk. The Chief Constable remarked that prisoner was rather partial to bottles.
A short time ago he threw a bottle which went through the window. The Mayor said
prisoner was liable to six months' hard labour, but this time they would only
send him to prison for six weeks, with hard labour.
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 25 November 1899
ALLEGED SAVAGE ASSAULT ON THE POLICE.
BEHAVING LIKE A LUNATIC
James Kerr, of no fixed address, appeared in the dock with a much disfigured
face at the Chester City Police Court on Thursday morning, before the Mayor
(Alderman H. T. Brown) and Mr. George Dutton, on a charge of being drunk and
disorderly in Lower Bridge‐street on Wednesday night. He was further charged
with assaulting P.C.'s J. Lawrence and Arthur Williams while in the execution of
their duty on the same date.
P.C.
Williams said about half‐past eleven on the night mentioned he found the
prisoner bleeding from the eye in Lower Bridge‐street. He was drunk, and when
arrested commenced to use foul language. He also hit witness in the mouth,
kicked him heavily on the leg, and caught hold of his hand with his teeth. The
end of witness' whistle, which he used to call for assistance, was bitten off.
P.C.
Lawrence, who stated that he went to the assistance of the last‐named constable,
found prisoner very violent; in fact he behaved like a lunatic. This witness was
also kicked about the leg. The Chief Constable (Mr. J. H. Laybourne) said with
reference to the man's nose, which was broken, he would call P.C. Dougherty to
account for his present condition.
P.C. Dougherty, on being sworn, stated that he was in charge of the police
office on Wednesday night when prisoner was brought in. He behaved like a
lunatic at half‐past three o'clock that morning. In consequence of a great
noise, which proceeded from the cells, witness went down and found prisoner
knocking himself against the door of the cell in which he was locked up. His
nose was not in its present bad condition, when first he was brought in.
Prisoner had all his clothes off with the exception of his trousers.
Kerr, who pleaded guilty to being drunk, but not to assaulting the policemen,
said he was never handled so roughly in all his life. (Laughter.) When requested
to be quiet by the Chief Constable, he refused to do so, saying that he had a
right to defend himself in the cause of right and justice. (Laughter.)
The case was adjourned for two days.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 17 June 1899
CITY POLICE COURT.
A Missing Chester Policeman.
Joseph Jones, 9, Bed ward‐row, a constable in the City Police Force, was
summoned for withdrawing from his duties without giving the Chief Constable one
mouth's notice of his intention to do so.
Mr. Laybourne informed the Bench that defendant on Friday night absented
himself, and withdrew from his police duties without giving any notice. Last
night he returned to the Police Office, and admitted the charge.
The Magistrate's Clerk (Mr. Davison): Is there any excuse ? The Chief Constable
“He has had a great deal of trouble at home. If he had come to me at the right
time, I think this might have been prevented. He appears to have gone to see a
sister in Staffordshire, and he came back on Monday. The Clerk: “Well, that is
to be said in his favour. “The Chief Constable: He is dismissed from the force;
there is no question about that.
The Bench dismissed the case, the Chairman remarking the offence was a very
serious one, as defendant might have caused a great deal of trouble by leaving
his duty. It was an important question of discipline.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 1 July 1899
CHESTER CITY POLICE COURT.
Wednesday.— Before Messrs. Charles Brown and J. G. Frost.
The Affray on the City Walls.—
John Campbell was charged on remand with having been drunk and disorderly,
assaulted the police, and damaged a Corporation tree on the City Walls on the
17th inst.
P.C. Arthur Hughes stated that about four o'clock on Saturday afternoon he was
informed that a man was damaging one of the trees in Park‐street, which runs
parallel with the Walls. He went and saw prisoner on the Walls drunk, and using
filthy language to the people in the street. Witness caught hold of him, when
Campbell kicked him in the stomach. A severe struggle ensued, and witness had
great difficulty in removing him to the police office. He had to obtain
assistance.
Mr. Laybourne said the officer had been off duty since the occurrence, and would
be for another fortnight to come. His knee was very seriously damaged, and
probably his injury would remain for life. In reply to the Bench, prisoner said
he lived at Liverpool‐road, Neston, of which place he was a native. — Mr.
Laybourne said prisoner had been before the Neston and Birkenhead magistrates
six times during the years 1897‐98, and had been convicted twice of assaulting
the police, and once of an assault on railway officials.
The police superintendent of the Wirral division stated Campbell was a thorough
scoundrel, and thoroughly deserved the maximum penalty.
The Chairman considered the case a most serious one, and remarked that he had
never heard of so bad a record of a young man since he sat on the Bench. The
officer was perhaps injured for life. Prisoner would go to gaol for six months
hard labour, and it was to be hoped the sentence would be a warning to him.
Cheshire Observer ‐Saturday 20 May 1899
RETIREMENT OF AN EX‐CHESTER Prison Governor. —
Mr. J. B. Manning, late governor of Chester Castle Prison, has retired from his
position as governor of Pentonville Penal Establishment, [1891 – 1900] upon an
annual pension amounting to £501 6s. 8d., of which sum £188 15s. 6d. is payable
by the Cheshire County authorities, and the remainder by the Government.
Mr. Manning, who is a native of the district of Chester, has had a distinguished
career. He first learned the business of land surveyor, and subsequently joined
the Army. He was present at the siege of Sebastopol and at other engagements
during the Crimean War, and received the Medal for Distinguished Services. He
held the rank of sergeant in the Army. On leaving the Army, he became a member
and afterwards superintendent of the Cheshire County Constabulary, and later on
a warder at Chester Castle. He was promoted to the deputy‐governorship, and was
afterwards elected governor by one vote over influential candidates.
Some years ago he left Chester to become governor of Wakefield Prison, and
subsequently he received the important appointment of governor of Pentonville.
When in Chester, Mr. Manning was a prominent member of the Chester Natural
Science Society, of which he acted as treasurer for some time, and he also
identified himself with other institutions in the city.
He will carry with him the best wishes of his numerous friends in his
retirement.
[Although J B Manning is technically recorded as the Governor on Pentonville,
until 1900, he appears to have been off sick for most of 1899]. When Oscar Wilde
spent a short time in Pentonville in 1895 after being convicted of gross
indecency, friends tried to bribe the governor, J.B.Manning, by offering him
£100,000 to help Wilde escape.
Manchester Evening News - Wednesday 22 November 1899
A CHESHIRE CONSTABLE'S BRAVERY.
This morning, at Middlewich Petty Sessions, the Royal Humane Society's honorary
testimonial, in a handsome frame, granted to Constable Fred Robinson, a native
of Barnton, near Northwich, for conspicuous bravery, was presented by Colonel
France Hayhurst, chairman of the Bench. Robinson distinguished himself recently
by gallantly saving a girl from drowning at Middlewich. Though an indifferent
swimmer, he plunged into the canal, and effected a rescue at the risk of his own
life.
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 25 March 1899
CHESTER CYCLIST'S SHOCKING DEATH.
PIERCED BY A CART SHAFT.
A Chester cyclist named William Gallagher, met with a shocking death on
returning on Saturday night from Heswall, where he had been acting as clerk of
the works over some road construction. The deceased, who was 25 years of age,
was employed by Mr. William Nolan, contractor, Chester, and visited Heswall on
Saturday for the purpose of paying salaries to a number of men engaged in the
road making. It appears that he was detained longer than he anticipated and did
not leave Heswall until after seven o'clock.
As it was approaching lighting‐up time he rode at a considerable speed, and it
is supposed he had been leaning well over his machine, which has low‐dropped
handle‐bars. Upon arriving at Windle Hill, Hinderton, about half‐past seven, he
was observed by a fisherman named Ollerhead, of Neston, to be proceeding at a
rapid pace. Ollerhead was driving his pony and cart, and he is said to have had
a light and shouted twice to deceased as a warning. At that time a distance of
about twenty yards separated them, but Gallagher, who had apparently not heard
the warning, dashed with terrific force into the shaft on the right side of the
vehicle. Ollerhead at once alighted and found the cyclist lying unconscious on
the road. The cycle, which seemed to be only slightly damaged, was in front of
the horse. Mr. W. Lawton, Neston, who was riding a tandem machine along the
road, assisted Ollerhead in placing deceased into the cart and driving him to
Dr. Blundell'a surgery at Neston, where he was attended by that medical
gentle‐man and his assistant. Notwithstanding their assiduous attentions, the
patient succumbed to his injuries about half‐past eight o'clock, an hour after
the accident. The collision must have been of a terrible character, as the shaft
had penetrated the middle portion of deceased's right thigh, severing veins,
from which blood flowed profusely. The body was removed to the mortuary, near
Neston Church.
The sad intelligence was received with feelings of profound regret by the
Catholic fraternity of Chester, for deceased was one of their best known and
most popular members. He was a prominent member of St. Francis' Amateur Dramatic
Society, and on the evening of St. Patrick's Day was one of the actors in the
farce, ' Paddy Miles,' performed in Chester Music Hall. At the early mass
services in St Werburgh's Church and St. Francis's Church, Canon Lynch and
Father Dominic respectively made touching references to the deceased, who was
described as one of their most promising workers. Until recently he was
secretary or the St. Francis' Men's Society. He was educated at St Werburgh's
Schools, and up to four years ago, when he relinquished duties there, was
assistant master. He resided at 29, Victor‐street, and was the son of Mr. Wm.
Gallagher, coal merchant.
A PATHETIC STORY. Our Neston correspondent sends the following additional
particulars :—
lt is long since i any event has created such a painful sensation, here as did
the tragic death of William , Gallagher on Saturday evening. He was engaged as
timekeeper or clerk of the works on ; the new road which is being made near
Heswall Slack for the Wirral District Council, and, although he had only been
employed in the district a few days, he had made a number of . acquaintances,
and his free and sociable disposition was appreciated by those with whom he came
in contact. He rode to and from, Chester for several nights, although he had
engaged lodgings at Heswall, and on Saturday he did not reach Heswall until a
few minutes I to 12 (noon). He explained that he had been engaged in a farce at
the Chester i Music Hall on the previous evening. It is a remarkable fact, and
one in accord with the statement made at the inquest in reference to his
defective vision, that when running into Heswall on the Saturday morning he came
into violent collision with a local cart, and was thrown to the ground, I
exclaiming in a tone of alarm " I might have i been killed !" After paying the
men engaged on the work he spent several hours in Heswall and left at 6.40,
carelessly remarking, as he threw his leg over his bicycle, "I shall be in
Chester in an hour. I have an appointment there at 8.30." It appears that the
cycle lamp was short of oil, for Constable Thelwell, of Neston, who
intelligently and closely investigated the whole of the circumstances, stated
the wick had a light red ash on the top proving that it had been burnt while
dry. Deceased probably intended to replenish the oil while upon the journey, or
to have lighted up after leaving the lonely highways and entering the Chester
thorough fares. Ollerhead's cart shaft is worn to a fairly sharp point, and it
inflicted frightful injuries, the wound in the thigh alone being four inches:
long, in addition to terrible injury to the abdomen. The ghastly stain on the
roadside was inspected by hundreds of cyclists and others on the Sunday, and
there was a sad tell‐tale track over the distance (nearly two miles) between the
scene of the accident and the surgery of Doctors Blunden and Yeoman. A large
crowd gathered about the latter place, and expressions of deep sympathy were to
be heard on every side. The deceased, although in a dying state, must have been
more or less conscious. He ejaculated "Oh, doctor,” murmured a word or two of
prayer, and was several times heard to utter a word which it has since been
ascertained was a pet name for his mother. Every effort was made by Drs. Blunden
and Yeoman to maintain the flickering flame of life, but deceased rapidly sank,
and died about 8.30, or about half‐an‐hour after he reached the surgery. No one
could identify the deceased, though the opinion was expressed that he came from
Heswall, and many were the surmises of the crowd as to whether he was married or
whether he had a mother. Ollerhead, who is a quiet, well‐behaved local cockle
and mussel gatherer and seller, was interrogated .by our correspondent
immediately after the accident, and gave exactly the same version as that he
afterwards gave before the coroner. He was perfectly sober, and seemed much
grieved about the fatality.
The only clue to the identity of the deceased was a receipt for a bill paid to
Mr. Ellison, of Heswall, and the latter referred the messenger to Mr. Nolan, of
Chester, and the police telephone afterwards fully established the identity. The
mother and sister of the deceased and Mr. Nolan drove to Neston on Sunday
morning, and it was only at Neston that the mother was acquainted with her
terrible bereavement. The spot where the accident occurred is about 100 yards on
the Parkgate side of the bridge which crosses the Hooton and West Kirby railway,
opposite Lea Hurst Hall, the residence of Mr T Clarke, J.P.
THE INQUEST. The inquest was held at the Neston Police Court on Tuesday
afternoon by the West Cheshire coroner (Mr. J. C. Bate). Wm. Robt. Langford, of
24, Watergate‐street, Chester, stated that the deceased, who was his
brother‐in‐law, was a little short‐sighted. Richard Ollerhead said on Saturday
night he was in charge of a pony and small cart coming from Chester to Neston.
About half‐past seven when he got over the railway bridge at Little Neston, and
was trotting slowly, he saw deceased approaching on a bicycle, which was not
lighted. Witness shouted "Mind, or you will be into my cart." Deceased, who was
sitting with his head over the handles and did not look up, did not reply.
Witness pulled on the left side of the road when he shouted, but deceased ran
into his off shaft. Deceased was in the middle of the road. The force of the
impact stopped the pony. Deceased fell outside the wheel of the cart, and the
bicycle fell in front of the pony's feet. Witness saw the blood pouring from
deceased and when Mr. Lawton, who was riding a bicycle, came up they put
deceased into the cart and drove him to the surgery of Dr. Blunden. Witness had
a light on the right‐hand side of his cart. He lighted the lamp at Badger's
Rake. William; Lawton, cycle manufacturer, Neston, said on Saturday night he was
riding a tandem bicycle with a lady in the Neston township in the direction of
Chester. Near the railway bridge he passed the last witness, who was driving a
cart with a good light attached to it. As soon as he passed Ollerhead he heard a
shout. Witness dismounted and walked back about fifteen yards. He found the cart
standing in the middle of the road, and a bicycle in front of the pony's feet.
The man was lying on the side of the road by the wheel of the cart. He was
unconscious, and witness assisted to move him into the cart. Deceased was
bleeding very badly. He did not speak. There was a lamp on deceased's machine,
but it was not lighted. Witness had previously passed deceased. It was moonlight
and not very dark. Witness, who was going about twelve miles an hour, and had a
good light, thought deceased wanted to keep behind him. It would not have been
difficult for deceased to keep up with them. Deceased was about fifteen yards
behind them. Dr. Blunden said deceased was brought to his surgery about
half past seven on Saturday night. He was suffering from a severe lacerated
wound in front of his right thigh. He was quite unconscious, and witness saw
that he was in considerable danger. Witness and his partner (Dr. Yeoman) tried
to revive deceased with stimulants and injections of ether, but he died before
regaining consciousness and before they had had time to finish dressing the
wound.
The cause of death was shock caused by the collision. Deceased died at eight
o'clock. The Coroner in gamming up, said the case appeared to be a very clear
one of accident. Deceased was riding behind another cyclist, and no doubt be was
bending down as stated and did not see the light. The tandem might have hidden
the light from him. The jury returned a verdict of ' Death from accidental
causes.'
THE FUNERAL. The interment took place on Wednesday afternoon, the first part of
the service being conducted at St. Werburgh's Church by Canon Lynch. Thence the
long procession wound its way to the Cemetery, where Canon Lynch took the
remainder of the service. The chief, were Mr. and Mrs. Gallagher, Messrs. Joseph
3 Frank, and John Gallagher (brothers), Miss Gallagher (sister), and Mr. and
Mrs. Langford. j Among others present were the Rev. Fathers Dominic and
Ignatius, Messrs. G.
H. Moore, W. H. Jarvis, W. Nolan, J. Cahill, T. Rafferty, P. Byrne, and W. Jones
(bearers), J. McGeever, Clunan. and Owen, with members of the St. Francis' Men's
Society, and the Dramatic and Minstrel Societies. Flowers were sent by Mr. and
Mrs. Gallagher, Miss Gallagher, Messrs. Jos. F. and John Gallagher, Mr. and Mrs.
Langford, Mr. and Miss Morgan, Mrs. Lloyd. Miss McKale, Hugo and Nellie
(cousins), Mr. and Mrs. Rose, Mrs. Jones, Mr. and Miss Reynolds, Mr. Flood, Mr.
H. Jannion, St. Francis Amateur Dramatic Society, St. Francis Minatrel Troupe,
Members of St. Francia Club, St. Francis Boys' Club, St. Werburgh'a School
children, Newton Rangers F.C., Mr. J. Calloghan. Messrs. E.
Dutton and Sons, Frodsham‐street, carried out the funeral arrangements.
Manchester Evening News - Wednesday 15 March 1899
A NORTHWICH DROWNING CASE About noon to‐day Mary Wilmington, the wife of a
chemical labourer, residing at 21, Warrington Road, Northwich, met her death by
drowning in the River Dane at the rear of the Northwich Victoria football
ground. She was subject to fits, and it is supposed that during a seizure she
fell into the water. No one was near at the time. She was soon missed, and an
alarm was raised. Constable Butler obtained grappling appliances, and shortly
afterwards the body was recovered.