X

The murder of Police-constable John MATTHEWS, at Oxton, 1854 Page 1 of 4
The murder of Police-constable John
MATTHEWS, at Oxton, 1854

Liverpool Mercury, Sept 5th, 1854
Shocking tragedy at Oxton
Constable murdered
A lamentable and fatal occurrence took place on Monday at Oxton, in the early hours, which has cast a gloom over that usually quiet district, and produced a deep and widespread sympathy for the family of the unfortunate, but worthy man who, without a moment's warning, has been hurried into eternity by the hand , no doubt of a maniac. The murdered man was John MATTHEWS, county constable of Oxton, and the perpetrator of the horrible deed is William KNOWLES, aged 57, a resident of Ball's Rd, Claughton.
KNOWLES, it appears was formerly a gamekeeper in the service of Squire PRICE, lord of the manors of Birkenhead and Claughton. Many years ago Mr PRICE left his favourite keeper a quantity of land near the Birkenhead park, which the latter subsequently sold to great advantage, and with the proceeds purchased or built two cottages in Ball's Rd, in one he and his family had resided in respectable circumstances for many years. He was exceedingly fond of his gun, and of horses and dogs, spending a considerable time in shooting up and down the adjoining districts, in company of his Oxton companions. H appeared to be a quiet inoffensive man, and it is said was on particular terms of intimacy with the man who has become his victim. At two previous periods in his life the mind of KNOWLES has been deranged, and on each of these occasions he had to be confined in a lunatic asylum, but until the recent melancholy event, many years have elapsed since any symptoms of insanity has manifested itself, at times he was very irritable, and when vexed gave rent to considerable passion.
On Friday last KNOWLES went into the country with a friend on a shooting excursion, he had no gun with him. Before they were long out a quarrel ensued between them respecting a dog, and they parted for the forenoon, but the two sportsmen joined together again in the afternoon. Saturday was spent by KNOWLES in a similar manner, but all this time no idea was entertained by his friends that aberration of mind was returning. On Sunday morning he joined a young man Robert LANCASTER, a butcher in Claughton-firs, Oxton, when they both walked as far as Landican, whilst on this ramble LANCASTER discovered that the mind of the aged man was affected, he talked incoherently on trivial subjects. They continued together during the day and at 8pm were at the Talbot Inn, kept by Mr JONES, in Oxton, where KNOWLES had 2d worth of sherry, they remained until 10pm, during which time KNOWLES gave unmistakable proof that insanity had again returned. He talked at a furious rate, and rambled from one subject to another with great rapidity. Upon leaving the inn LANCASTER accompanied the man to his home and on Mrs KNOWLES seeing the state her husband was in, she induced the young man to stay at the house all night. After spending a couple of hours in the back-parlour KNOWLES was taken to his bedroom, where his son William KNOWLES, aged 20, and LANCASTER remained with him at intervals until daylight. Shortly after 2am the deranged man became outrageous, and his son, at the request of his mother, went for the assistance of MATTHEWS, the county constable, who lived at Spring-villas a short distance from the house, and who was known to have considerable influence over the father.
MATTHEWS who had just retired to rest after going his rounds in Oxton, was called at 2.30am, and with that alacrity that always characterised him, immediately dressed, and left his wife and five children
file://C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\My Documents\museum\newspaper\HT... 12/09/2013 The murder of Police-constable John MATTHEWS, at Oxton, 1854 Page 2 of 4
in bed, unconscious, poor fellow, that those poor dear ones who depended upon him for support, and protection, would soon be deprived of a father's care. Having reached the house of KNOWLES, he remained downstairs until about 5am, when he was introduced into the room of the lunatic. MATTHEWS talked kindly to him, and did everything in his power to calm his disturbed mind. At this time William KNOWLES and LANCASTER went into the kitchen to get some refreshment, leaving the constable in charges of KNOWLES, they had not been many minutes downstairs when a noise was heard, and LANCASTER rushed upstairs into the lobby, where he found MATTHEWS holding the outside of the back-parlour door, evidently preventing some party who was inside from getting out, it became evident KNOWLES was in the parlour and MATTHEWS outside. He had allowed KNOWLES to go into the back parlour for the purpose of pacifying him. Upon getting into the parlour KNOWLES appears at once to have thought of his fowling-pieces, five of which were kept there in a closet, a double-barrelled one being always loaded. This he seized and MATTHEWS walked out of the room, pulling the door after him, thinking that once the door was closed he would be safe. MATTHEWS called out, "He [Knowles] has a gun, is it loaded ?" before LANCASTER could answer a discharge of the fowling-piece echoed around the house, the madman had fired from inside through the panel of the door, the contents lodging in the left breast of the constable, and penetrating the heart. A hole the size of a crown-piece was made in the door, and so powerful was the discharge that, wood, shot, portions of the coat, waistcoat, brace and shirt, were carried into the body of the wounded man. MATTHEWS instantly staggered and exclaimed to LANCASTER, "I'm shot, run for Dr GODDEN" a surgeon who lives in the neighbourhood.
LANCASTER promptly left the house for the surgeon, the constable, notwithstanding the fatal wound he had received, managed to walk into the kitchen and seeing the wife of the lunatic, said, "I am a dead man Mrs KNOWLES, send for the doctor." He then made an effort to reach the back door for fresh air, when he drew a deep sigh, and fell to the floor, a corpse. Upon the arrival of Mr GODDEN, surgeon, life was found to be extinct, yet that gentleman deemed it advisable to send for Mr WALKER, surgeon.
The lunatic was found in the parlour, and walked to the bedroom in the company of his son, apparently unconscious of the terrible deed he had perpetrated. Information was speedily conveyed to the Birkenhead police-court, and in a short time Inspector BIRNIE and police-officer THOMPSON arrived at the scene of the dreadful occurrence, and removed the murderer to the bridewell. During the day KNOWLES spoke lightly of the murder, and rambled in his conversation. Two men were kept in constant guard of him.
The family of the insane man were thrown into a state of intense grief by the fearful occurrence. But what must have been the anguish of the bereaved widow, with five children now dependant upon her, the eldest not above seven years of age. The Rev John BLAKENEY of Christ Church and Mr GODDEN, surgeon, undertook to communicate the dreadful tidings to the poor woman. On hearing who was at the door to see her, something occurred at once in her mind that her husband had met with some accident. She hurried downstairs, and before the reverend gentleman could console her she surmised the worst, and upon hearing the dreadful news she gave way to a paroxysm of grief. Her fatherless children joining in with the lamentation, the scene heart rendering in the extreme.
MATTHEWS who was about 40yrs of age was formerly with the Liverpool police force, in which he was much respected. About 10yrs ago he was appointed county-constable for Oxton, a situation he has filled ever since with credit to himself, and with benefit not only to the township, but to the adjoining districts. He was honest, straightforward, and conscientious in the discharge of his duties, strictly sober, and always at his post when wanted. In his official duties he displayed considerable tact and ability, and was kind and obliging to all. Throughout the Hundred of Wirral, no constable stood higher in the estimation of the public and magistracy for his general probity, and for his anxiety to perform his public duties faithfully and satisfactorily. Upon his death being known in Oxton and Birkenhead, high and low,
file://C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\My Documents\museum\newspaper\HT... 12/09/2013 The murder of Police-constable John MATTHEWS, at Oxton, 1854 Page 3 of 4
rich and poor, gave expression to their heartfelt sympathy. Only a few weeks ago, on a Sunday evening the poor fellow heroically grappled with a desperate house-breaker not many yards from the spot where he met his death, and notwithstanding the severe handling he received from the ruffian, he succeeded in holding him until some gentleman came to his assistance. A few hours before he was called to the house of KNOWLES, ever alive to his duty, he had taken a boy to the bridewell for stealing pears from a garden. It is hoped that the residents of Oxton and Claughton will at once show their sympathy for the bereaved family by entering into subscription for their future support. They are left entirely destitute, the deceased man's salary having been only £55 a year.
Examination before the Magistrates
Yesterday the murderer was brought up before the Birkenhead police-courts charged with the murder of John MATTHEWS. There were present on the bench, J. S. JACKSON Esq, William JACKSON Esq, M.P, Major-General Edward CUST, and J. D. CASE Esq, the examination was a private one. The accused on being ushered into court shook hands with Mr TOWNSEND the Magistrates clerk, and then moved in a familiar manner to the bench. His eyes rolled wildly and during the taking of the evidence he frequently rubbed his hands, smiled, and winked to several parties who were in court. He looked healthy, but appeared totally unconscious of the enormity of the crime he had perpetrated.
The first witness called was Robert LANCASTER, butcher, Oxon, who had known the prisoner for 2yrs and lived near him for about 18mths. An gave details [as above] also adding that when he was with the prisoner in the back-parlour he continued to be excited and talked and sang very incoherently, he talked of having been with Captain COOK on his voyage around the world, and proposed to making certain persons kings, and talked about going up into the clouds. Shortly after 4am he fell asleep, witness slept also for a few minutes but was woken up by the prisoner who said, " Bob, where you the devil who came to kill me when I was at Brenny-price ?" He believed he meant when he was ill 26yrs ago. At one time he was occupied half an hour washing his hands, he took a toothpick and said he could draw horses and dogs. His son William came into the room at 5am and the prisoner occupied himself looking through the window. Shortly afterwards John MATTHEWS came into the room, and spoke to the prisoner kindly, the prisoner showed him a pair of cloth breeches. Witness then went to the kitchen and MATTHEWS was left with the prisoner. As he was leaving to go for the doctor, MATTHEWS followed him and was standing at the back door, his breast covered in blood, when he saw MATTHEWS again he was dead.
The next witness called was William KNOWLES the son of the prisoner, he gave evidence [as above] adding that his father is sometimes very passionate and was excited when he came into the house on Sunday night. LANCASTER sat with the prisoner part of the night and the witness went into the room two or three times, the prisoner rambled very much in his talk.
Joseph GODDEN, surgeon was next sworn, and stated he lived at Oxton and was called to see MATTHEWS and found him lying in the kitchen on some chairs. He removed his clothes, he was quite warm and he found a large wound on his left breast, two inches above the nipple. He was bleeding slightly from the wound and from the mouth. He concluded from the flow of blood from the wound that the lungs were injured. It appeared to be a gunshot wound and death resulted from it.
The whole of the evidence given the prisoner was remanded until the holding of the inquest, this forenoon, before Mr CHURTON, coroner at the Talbot Inn, Oxton.
A public meeting will be held this evening in the school-room Christ Church, Claughton for the purpose of organising a committee to solicit subscription on behalf of the wife and 5 children of MATTHEWS. In the meantime we shall be glad to take charge of any sums the kind-hearted may contribute.
file://C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\My Documents\museum\newspaper\HT... 12/09/2013 The murder of Police-constable John MATTHEWS, at Oxton, 1854 Page 4 of 4
Liverpool Mercury, Sept 8th, 1854
Mr CHURTON reached Birkenhead shortly before 2pm, at 3pm the jury were sworn in and proceeded to view the body at the house of the deceased in Spring-villas. A verdict of "Wilful murder" against William KNOWLES, was returned and he was committed to take his trial at Chester Assizes.
At 4.30 pm a large number of people had assembled to witness the funeral
The cortege consisted of a hearse and two mourning coaches containing the widow and her children and relatives. The whole of the constabulary force of the Hundred of Wirral, headed by the special head-constable Mr GWYNNE, the Wallasey constabulary, attended by Mr Superintendent ACAMBLE, and the whole of the Birkenhead police force off duty, under the management of Inspectors BIRNIE and M'NEILE, walked after the hearse including several gentlemen from Oxton and Birkenhead who held the deceased in high esteem. On reaching the Town-hall at Birkenhead the funeral was joined by the following magistrates, Major-General Sir Edward CUST, Bart, William JACKSON Esq, M.P. J.D. CASE Esq, J. S. JACKSON, Esq, The Rev Mr COXON, J. W. HARDEN Esq, judge of the county court. A number of other gentlemen of whom were P. F. CURRY, Esq coroner of the borough of Liverpool, Henry CHURTON Esq, coroner of the southern division of the county of Chester, J. TOWNSEND Esq, William HENDERSON Esq, etc, also followed the remains to their final resting place in St Mary's Churchyard.
As the procession moved along the streets were crowded with spectators, on reaching the churchyard, so large was the assemblage of people that some difficulty was experienced in obtaining access to the church. The funeral service was read by Rev John BLAKENEY of Christ Church, Claughton, after which the body was deposited in a grave fronting Abbey St, amidst the tears and sympathy of all assembled. The magistrates who generally attend the sessions at Birkenhead generously defrayed the whole of the expenses of the funeral. Mr EVANS, car proprietor, kindly furnished the hearse and coaches free of charge.
Liverpool Mercury, Oct 20th, 1854
MATTHEWS, the late Oxton police-officer
At the Cheshire county sessions on Monday Mr W. T. EGERTON, said he had been requested by Sir Edward CUST, to bring forward a motion that Sir Edward CUST had given notice, that, " An annuity of £27-10s be granted to the widow and children of John MATTHEWS, late assistant petty constable of the Hundred of Wirral, who was killed in the execution of his duty on the 4th Sept 1854, for so long as Mrs MATTHEWS shall remain a widow and unmarried." The motion was agreed to.
Liverpool Mercury, April 6th, 1855
William KNOWLES committed on a charge of shooting John MATTHEWS, police-constable, at Oxton on 4th September last, but removed by an order from the secretary of state to the Cheshire Lunatic Asylum on the 27th of the same month, will not be arraigned, an affidavit from Mr BRUSHFIELD the superintendent of the Asylum, having been presented to the court, to the effect that the prisoner is of unsound mind and unfit to be removed from his place of confinement.
MAIN PAGE
© 2011 all rights reserved to date
file://C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\My Documents\museum\newspaper\HT... 12/09/2013
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 22 December 1855
A DESPERATE CHARACTER
At the Town‐hall, Congleton, last week, a most desperate character, named Aaron Hand, was brought before the Mayor and magistrates, charged with being an escaped convict. It appeared that, at the Chester Summer Assizes, 1854, the prisoner and three other men were tried for a highway robbery with violence, and sentenced to transportation for life. Constable Walter Taylor, of the Congleton force, was present at the trial. Hand came to Congleton yesterday week, and as Superintendent Bohanna and Taylor were looking over some lodging‐houses a day or two after, they met him. Taylor thought he recognised him, but he was so disguised that he had some difficulty in doing so. However, he had seen a description of Hand in the “Hue‐and‐Cry”, again referred to it, and finding he was the man there advertised, apprehended him, and charged him with being an escaped convict. Hand replied, “You are mistaken; I never was in a court of justice in my life. I am not the man. My name is George Walker, of Leicester. I am a plasterer on tramp, and am going to Manchester." The above evidence having been given, Hand was remanded, in order that a certificate of his trial and conviction might be procured. Since his apprehension he has attempted to escape from Congleton "lock‐up," but being detected in the attempt, was heavily ironed.
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 22 June 1861
DESPERATE ENCOUNTER WITH A BURGLAR
A diabolical attempt to kill a policeman was perpetrated at an early hour on Saturday morning, in Congleton, and the circumstances that led to the affray are somewhat singular. It appears that police‐constable Walter Taylor of the Congleton borough police force, in company with another officer, named Stanley, fell in with a drunken man, whom they took to a house in Rood Lane. When they reached the man's house, between one and two o'clock on Saturday morning, they found the man's son and his wife awaiting his return. The son went out to fetch a pot of porter, and being absent rather longer than his wife thought necessary, she went in quest of him, As soon as she got out of the house, she saw two men jumping over some rails enclosing a silk factory. She at once drew Taylor's attention to them, and that officer ran up alone and collared one of them. By this time they had got a considerable distance from the house where Stanley was. A desperate struggle ensued between the two burglars and Taylor, unfortunately the latter could not make his staff available, and in attempting to secure one of them, the other approached him with a large open clasp‐knife and stabbed him several times in the body. Stanley came up just in time to hear him say, 'I'm stabbed' I'm dying.” He was caught in his fellow‐officer's arms, and conveyed, bleeding profusely, into Mr. Slater's house. The two thieves made their escape. Several medical gentlemen were called in, and Taylor's case was at once pronounced hopeless. Some of the stabs have penetrated the lungs, whilst others are of such a magnitude and severity as to make it a matter of wonder that he did not die on the spot. There are seven separate wounds, two of them of a very dangerous nature. Five men have since been apprehended on suspicion. Meanwhile it was found that the silk factory of Mr. Barton, in Rood Lane, near the place where the affray took place, had been broken into, and two bundles of silk stolen, one of which was picked up near the spot where poor Taylor received his wounds. The Injured officer has not been able to look at any of the men at present, and such was his precarious condition on Saturday that the town clerk, and a magistrate, deemed it necessary to take his depositions. We are glad to learn that, from inquiries made last evening, his condition was, if anything, more favourable. The five men apprehended on suspicion of being concerned in the robbery of silk and the stabbing of police‐constable Taylor, wore brought up at the Town Hall, Congleton, on Monday. John Snape and William Billington, tramps, were discharged, it being proved that they were at too great a distance from Congleton at the time the robbery and assault took place to admit of their taking any active part in the affair. John Chesters and Levi Davies, two Congleton men, who were apprehended the night of the affray, and John Burns, a returned convict, from Macclesfield, were then brought up on a charge of being concerned in the silk robbery and murderous assault on police‐constable Taylor. Superintendent Bohanna said that the medical gentlemen had pronounced Taylor to be in too low a state to see any of the prisoners. — They were accordingly remanded for a week.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 13 July 1861
CONGLETON THE MURDEROUS STABBING CASE ON TAYLOR THE POLICEMAN AND THE SILK ROBBERY.
Borough Police Court, Monday. (Before H. Hogg (Mayor), E. H. Solly (Ex‐Mayor), J. Dakin,
T. Goode, W. Hadjield, J. Pearson, R. L. Cinders, and E. L. Mallibar, Esqrs )
The great excitement this case has produced in Congleton, caused the court to be densely crowded even before the arrival of the magistrates, and the hearing of the case occupied near five hours. The four prisoners, Burns, Davies, Carpenter, and Chesters, were again placed in the dock charged in the first place, with breaking into the factory of Mr. C. Garside, and stealing there from about 80 lbs. of silk, on the night of the 14th of June.— Mr. Johnson, surgeon, stated that the first charge had better be gone into, as he was afraid the excitement of a cross‐examination on Taylor would be too much for him. The case was then proceeded with. The first witness called was Mr. Charles Garside, who, on being sworn, said,— l am a silk manufacturer, and occupy the top room of the Salford Mill, in Rood Hill. On Friday, the 14th of June, I left the factory about 6 o'clock; my father‐in‐law locked it up. The silk was left in the drawers and cupboards in the warehouse. On Saturday morning I was called up about two o'clock; I went to the mill and found the doors open; in the warehouse I found on the floor a quantity of silk; I afterwards missed two bundles of un‐dyed silk and some dyed ; the silk had gone from the cup‐boards and drawers in the warehouse. I have examined the lots of silk now produced, and I believe them all to be my property ; the bags containing the silk are my property also. Mr. John Taghall sworn, said — l am father‐in‐law to the last witness; I locked up the factory about 6 o'clock on the 14th of June. I can speak to the silk now produced, it is the property of Mr. C. Garside; the tickets on the bundles are in my handwriting; the silk now produced was in the left‐hand cupboard and in the three drawers. — When I came to the mill on Saturday morning, I found the doors open and silk lying on the ware‐house floor. Mr. Harry Cooke sworn — “I am a silk manufacturer and occupy part of the lower room of the Salford Mill. I keep a key of the outer door, and Mr. Barton and Mr. Garside have each one also. — On Friday, the 14th of June, I locked the outside door. Thomas Morris sworn — l am a staff‐man in the employ of Mr. George Kent, silk throwster. I also make up silk for Mr. Lawton, of West Heath Mill. The silk now produced was sold by Mr. Lawton to Mr. Garside ; I wrote the tickets and sold it. — Mr. Cooper cross‐examined the witness but in no way shook his evidence. James Gee sworn — l am a night watchman for Mr. W. Smith, at his factory in Royle‐street, near the Salford Mill. I am allowed to go occasionally to the mill, and on the night of Friday, June 14, I went to the Salford Mill at ten o'clock, and again up to twelve o'clock, and found the doors safe and locked; about half‐past one o'clock I went again, when I found the doors wide open. — I shouted but received no answer. I then came in the road and saw Mr. Barton's son at the bed‐room window. I told him to call his father. I had not seen anybody near the factory, but there were some people about; in a few minutes after I heard a scream up the hill. Cross‐examined by Mr. Cooper — Mr. Smith allows me to go to the Salford Mill. I have found the door open at 10 o'clock, but not on the night of Friday the 14th. I gave an alarm soon after I found the doors open. I saw Chesters that night about 12 o'clock, and spoke to him near the bridge; he went by the river side. I did not see the prisoners. I know two of them, Davies and Carpenter. Elizabeth Smith, wife of James Smith, living up Rood Hill, spoke to seeing two men near the mill, after 11 o'clock, but as she did not identify them her evidence was of no importance. Walter Taylor, who was seated in the jury box, appeared to be much excited, but rose from his seat to be sworn to give evidence. The court, was densely crowded, but an awful stillness prevailed while Taylor very deliberately gave evidence as follows: — On the morning of the 15th of June I was in Rood Hill. At a quarter to two o'clock exactly I was at Mr. Slater's house. I had been taking a drunken man home. I was at the back door of the house. Mr. Slater was out, and I stood at the entrance with Mrs. Slater, at her right hand side; as we stood two men came over the fence; they had bundles. I saw the two bundles with them. Both men started off, the smaller man had the bundle under his right arm, and the taller man had the bundle under his left arm, They ran to Rood Hill, and the taller man threw the bundle away and kicked it near to prisoner Davies's door, he then ran down the Hill. I ran to him and tried to get hold of him, he twisted round and sprang at me with something he held in his right hand, and he stabbed me with it and knocked me down. I then saw his face, it was Carpenter. He walked round me, and took the higher ground; we struggled together, and I received a wound on the arm and another on the breast; I was bleeding very much. I said, "You are a vile villain." He then went away, walking backwards. I followed him. The other man had gone up the hill, and was under the hedge. When I got up to him I found it was Davies. He stooped down with the bundle. They again stabbed me twice. I felt something going into my shoulder. I fell, and cried for mercy to spare my life for my wife and family. I saw but two men. P.C. Stanley corroborated the last witnesses evidence as to being at Mr. Slater's, to following Taylor up the hill, to finding the bundle of silk near the prisoner Davies's house, and assisting Taylor back to Mr. Slater's house. Mary Bayley sworn— I live up Canal‐street. — One the night of Friday, the 14th of June, I was up Lady Warburton Walk; it was about twelve o'clock; I saw two men come up the walk; they had each a bag — like sack bags — on their shoulders; they appeared about half full; I knew one of the men — it was Davies; I did not know the other man. James Cartlidge, a weaver, sworn —I was, on the 15th of June, on West Heath, shooting rabbits in Mr. Smallwood's garden, about 4 o'clock in the morning. The prisoner Davies came to me, and said he had been fishing, and Shakerley's keeper, had run him. He came towards Congleton with me. I saw him again about six o'clock; he said, " Hast heard any more about it?" I said, “ No, not about thy job ; but I hear Taylor is stabbed." He said, "If thou see anything of them or the ' bobbies,' don't say thou has seen me." Henry Davenport, a brickmaker, sworn — Stated that Davies came on the Brickbank on the morning of the 15th; he was very wet, and said he had been fishing and the keeper had run him ; he stayed at the Brickbank till six o'clock. John Chesters (who had been discharged from custody) gave evidence corroborative of the last witness, as to Davies being on the Brickbank, and coming to Congleton with him. William Horton sworn— Said that he lived by the Dane‐side ; that when Davies came in the town on Saturday morning, he asked to come through his house which had the appearance of his avoiding going towards home. James Large sworn ‐Stated that on Saturday morning he saw Davies crossing Mill‐street, and going by the Brook side, which was not in the direction of his own house. John Tittenson, a weaver at the Salford Mill, sworn — Said that on Monday after the robbery of the silk, he and three others went in search of the stolen silk in consequence of £10 being offered as a reward, they dragged the river Dane and searched in other places during the morning; in the after‐noon they went in some gardens near the wood leading to Hulme‐Walfield, and, seeing some earth removed, they searched, and found one bundle of silk, and a few yards further they found the other silk under some leaves and stones, they then took it to the police office and delivered it up to Mr. Bohanna. James Barton, son of Mr. N. Barton, the owner of the mill, corroborated the last witnesses statement, by being in company with him when the silk was found. Robert Illingworth, gamekeeper to Sir C. W. Shakerley, Bart., sworn— On the night of the 14th June he was not out watching, neither was any of the men out; no one had been chased for fishing. Thomas Brayord sworn — Said he was a keeper for Sir C. W. Shakerley, Bart.; he was not out on the night of the I4th June ; he could also state that no watchers were out on that night. Mrs. Jane Slater, wife of Mr. Slater, gave evidence to the constables Taylor and Stanley being at her house, and confirming all the statements made by them. Mr. Bohanna, superintendent of police, sworn — On Saturday, the 15th, from what I had heard, and from suspicions of my own, I went to the house of the prisoner Davies and searched the house. When I was going away I met the prisoner coming in. He said to me, "Well, gaffer." I said, " Davies, I shall take you into custody on suspicion of felony and stabbing Walter Taylor." He said, "Well, I will go with you." He put his jacket on, and I brought him to the lockups. I asked him where he had been, and he said he had been out fishing and had been run. I asked him where, and he said "That is my business." On the same day I took four pairs of boots towards Hulme‐Walfield to trace for footsteps by them. I found traces which corresponded with Davis's boots. I caused a search to be made for the stolen silk, and received it from Tittenson and Barton. The weight of the un‐dyed is 33lbs., that of the dyed and mixed, 38lbs. The bundle received from Stanley is 6½lbs. I received the prisoner Burne from the officers of the Macclesfield police, and these twelve skeleton keys, a knife and screw driver, which were found on his person. On the 19th I took Carpenter into custody. I searched his house, but found nothing. I charged him with robbery, and also with stabbing Walter Taylor.‐He said, ‐You have got the wrong man this time; I was in bed by half past nine that night." James Dale, a shoemaker, living in Rood Lane, sworn — l went with Mr. Bohanna up "Lady Warburton's walk," and I took impressions on sand of footmarks. I measured them to the boots now produced, and they correspond with the boots worn by the prisoner Davies. At this stage of the hearing the case for the prosecution on the silk robbery closed, on Mr. Johnson, surgeon, stating that Taylor was not in a fit state to be further examined that day, the bench at once adjourned the hearing for the defence, also the separate charge of stabbing Taylor to Thursday, at half‐past ten o'clock.
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 9 October 1875
POLICE SUPERANNUATION.
The Police Guardian of the 17th‐ult contains a letter from Mr. Superintendent Gee, an old and able officer of the Manchester force, in reprobation of the fact that P.C. Walter Taylor, of the Congleton Police having become infirm alter 25 years service, has had awarded to him the small superannuation allowance of 15s per week, and that only for the next 12 months. This letter, which has been widely circulated, has called forth the following answer from the Town Clerk, of Congleton
TO THE EDITOR OF THE POLICE GUARDIAN
Sir,
On Saturday last the letter of Mr. Superintendent Gee in the Police Guardian of the 17th instant came in my way, and with your permission, I will, as Town Clerk of this borough, offer some explanation of what, may appear, from the allegations of that letter as harsh and even paltry treatment of a meritorious servant by this Municipality. Our Superannuation Fund has been in existence about five years, and amounts to a capital stock of £203. It’s whole annual income is £40, which about represents the allowance at present voted to P.C. Taylor. For three months, during Taylor's illness, he was allowed leave of absence, during which he was paid his full salary of 27s. 6d per week. On his resignation, the Watch Committee voted the allowance of 15s. per week for one year only, at present. At the year's end the amount of the permanent pension will be fixed; and I believe the fixture will be governed neither by parsimony nor caprice; but I think mainly by medical certificate as to the then condition of recipient. We have, or had, before Taylor's resignation, a staff of five constables, including the superintendent. One of them has been with us about 10 years, one 14, one 18, and the superintendent 24. We are annually complained of by the Government Inspector for having no more men; and our Superannuation Fund certainly suffers from our having so few fines and fees. But we cannot help it. Crime keeps diminishing, and people and police are on very comfortable terms together. If the latter ever wants help in his duty, the former willingly give it. This, I take it, is a credit to both. The contrary is reported of some jurisdictions. Moreover, the people have a pleasant habit of believing any evidence given by any of our men, an advantage not everywhere possessed. To call these worthy fellows a "force" would be a ludicrous perversion of terms; and the Government Inspector is perfectly correct in reporting every year that ; "the establishment is quite inadequate numerically to repress crime and disorder." So it is; and so is every force " in the kingdom ; and so every " force " would still be if it were doubled. To promote public reformation of morals by the domination of police would be like trying to live on bottled moonshine. Our men are merely citizens among neighbours. No one is ever arrested here who might be summoned; no one ever handcuffed who would go along comfortably without. I cannot tell how long it is since we heard of a blow having to be struck by any of our constables at any person, however troublesome. We have no uniform and no drill. One means for the contentment of the people is that there are no private inquiries by the "department" (as it is called) into the conduct by the men. Everything is open. Any aggrieved citizen knows that he could always have a public hearing; and as there is no point of "protecting the police," the police never want protecting. At all events our police duties are not now of excessive or perilous severity. We are unable to return to Government the name of a single habitual juvenile thief; Our boys of the first, second, and third ranks respectively are all served alike when they do amiss, as boys will’ the birch is our panacea. Next to houses of correction we doubt reformatories for children of small towns where everybody knows everybody else. There are some among us, but very few, who speak lightly and airily of ' five years at a reformatory ' for a poor man's child as if it were for his class a sort of presentation to Christ's Hospital, but, on the whole, we prefer home, such as it is, with occasional birch. Hence for many years we have no crop of thieves to come forward and the old ones have chiefly died off. As with crime, so with disorder. Sometimes a man and a brother gets drunk, as from time immemorial in this eccentric land. We never find that he gets drunk less from having been ‘clemmed ' by a fine, or disgraced by a gaol, but in fact rather more and more, until the country wonders what to do with him. Therefore with us 'a small fine,' instead of being a first resource, is a last, and by consequence our streets at ten p.m. are nearly always a silent desert, very rarely a 'howling’ wilderness. All this is no doubt a deviation from the subject. I introduce it merely to explain that our police have not a very hard life, and to apologise for the smallness of our Superannuation Fund, which is certainly some element in the present question; though I admit that what is in itself right ought to be done, irrespectively of existing means. Yet it may not be amiss to remember that no constable here took office on the faith of an existing Superannuation Fund. Your correspondent, Superintendent Gee, is, as everybody knows, a first‐class officer; and every word he says in favour of Walter Taylor, as a devoted and singularly acute and able constable, is quite true. One at least of the several medical men who have examined him is said to be of opinion that his present infirm condition is partly due to the stabs he received in trying to capture the Coventry burglar, Hebburn, in 1858. I should be indeed sorry if a word said here by me should detract from the force of any appeal personal to Taylor. On the contrary I would much rather aid it, as I think he knows; yet, holding the offices I hold, I cannot submit without a protest to the imputation that an appeal on P.C. Taylor's behalf is requisite in consequence of any mean or unfair treatment of him by the authorities here. It is possible you may not think I have proved my case; but much goes to everything; and it is certain that in all these instances it is easier to impugn by those who have not the responsibility than to defend by those who have, and whose business and duty it is to look at everything connected with the subject of their decision.
I am, sir, your obedient servant,
John Wilson,
Town Clerk and Clerk to the Justices. Congleton, Sep. 28, 1875.
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 13 January 1855
CORONER'S INQUEST
MELANCHOLY OCCURENCE NEAR TARVIN. It becomes our painful duty to record the details of a very distressing affair, which took place at Barrow, a small hamlet near Tarvin, on the night of the 24th December, and by which a poor labouring man named George Smith, aged 45 years has been hurried to a premature grave; and we trust a perusal of the evidence taken upon the enquiry before John Hostage, Esq., the city coroner, and a highly respectable jury, at the Chester infirmary, on Tuesday last, may be a means of operating as a lesson to all persons making use of firearms. Indeed, it is really distressing to reflect on the numerous instances which have occurred of late, wherein life has been sacrificed either through passion or timidity; in short, it is our opinion, that none but persons capable of the highest share of control should entrust themselves with the possession of deadly weapons, even in the night time, and when labouring under a presumed attack of burglars. After the jury had been sworn, the coroner briefly detailed the circumstances which occasioned the present enquiry, and at the same time expressed an opinion that the act charged would amount to nothing more than misadventure.
After the jury had taken a view of the body, the following evidence was taken, Mr. Samuel Faulkner on being sworn said, I am a farmer at Barrow, in this county, on Sunday mornday morning, December the 24th, between 1 and 2 o'clock, I heard the yard dog bark, and I thought some one was stealing coals I got up and looked through the room window, and afterwards I went to the servant's room on the other side of the house. After I had got a light, I proceeded down stairs, and afterwards I went all through the house and on going again to the window I thought I heard some‐one throwing at the dog. I then called up George Newport, and told him that he had better go and see what was the matter; I told him to take the gun with him, and then called out who is there, but received no answer. He soon came back and said I cannot see anything. I then told him to go and look at the cows, thinking the noise had been made by the cattle. I went again to my bed, when I heard George call out there is some old b****rin the bing. I immediately afterwards I heard the report of a gun, and I at once went into the yard, where I recognized poor Smith's voice. He was then bleeding and I brought him up into the house and made a fire and sent for a surgeon. Deceased said “Oh, I am shot”; but did not tell me how at first. The coroner: Was Newport present then? Witness: Yes sir, Newport seemed much frightened, and deceased again said, oh George you have shot me, but he appeared to blame himself for not calling out. The coroner: Was your dog loose in the yard? Witness: No sir. By a juror: George Newport is related to me. The coroner: Mr. Faulkner, I wish you to tell me whether the bing door was usually left open? Witness: Yes sir, generally so. By a juror: I did not at first give Newport a light. In answer to further questions: — Mr. Faulkner stated that he heard Newport call out that some one had struck his lantern and put out the light, and then called out, I'll soon be with you; and this was before the gun had been discharged. When I was with the deceased in the yard, I staunched the blood by pressing my hand against the wound. The coroner : Did the deceased at pear as if he had been drunk? Witness: Yes, sir, I thought so because he stag‐gered. Examination continued: Smith was a neighbour of ours, and lived at the adjoining farm. Mr. Ankers, surgeon, of Tarvin, soon arrived, and ordered the poor man's removal to the Chester Infirmary, and we set off about 5 o'clock. Before we left, all partook of tea together, and not the slightest enmity was manifested by the deceased. Newport alleged that the gun went off in his hand quite accidental. A juror: Did you not say just now that the deceased said: " Oh, George you have shot me?" Witness: I did so.
Thomas Jeffs examined: l am a farmer at Barrow, at least I live with my father. The deceased lived at our house, I was called up about 2 o'clock, on the morning of Sunday, the 24th of December, by George Newport, he wished me to come to Mr. Faulkner's immediately, and I said, what for, and he said, Smith has got hurt. I said, “How”. Newport said, “I have shot him”. I said, “you should not have done that”, upon which he said, he hit me with his stick. Newport further told me that he was about 18 yards distant from Smith when the gun was fired, and he did not mention anything about an accident, or that the gun had gone off by such means. I did not go with Newport but followed immediately. This witness was very closely questioned by the coroner, as to what conversation had taken place between the deceased and Newport at Mr. Faulkner's house, but he (the witness) evidently felt that his previous statement had decidedly told against Newport, and he now so grossly prevaricated that the coroner told him there was not the slightest credit to be attached to his testimony, and he might rest assured if he so conducted himself in another court, he would get committed, In answer, however, to further questions, Mr. Jeffs said: Newport further told me when he came to our house, that he had shouted to Mr. Faulkner, “ there is some old b***** r in the bing," and added, " the gun was then reared up by the side of the building, and I called out to the deceased, ' you old b****r, I'll shoot you,' Newport, said, I then took up the gun, and he'd it up in this way (meaning half‐way) to the shoulder, and it then went off accidentally. A juror: Do you know whether Newport knew the deceased? Witness ; Yes, sir, quite well. Examination resumed; Smith told me in Newport's presence, that he was opening the bing door to go home when the gun went off, and the poor fellow added, " I felt the fire and smoke come in my face."
Samuel Brooks examined; I am the constable of Tarvin. I apprehended George Newport on the morning of the 24th of December, at Mr. Faulkner's house, I charged him with shooting John Smith, and he said it was a bad job, and then added, I went into the bing with a lantern and candle, and heard a rustling amongst the straw, and I then lifted it off Smith. I had not, however, given Newport any caution. In answer to a juror, the witness said: I measured last night the distance from the midden to the bing floor, and found it to be eight yards. Newport further stated that he was so much confused that he did not know what he was doing. I took him before Colonel Tomkinson, and he was admitted to bail to Undergo further examination. I now produce the coat worn by the deceased on the night be was shot. The coat has a large hole completely through it by the effect of the discharge.
(Constables details added to appointee’s database 01/2012) Mr. Jones, one of the surgeons of the infirmary, proved that the deceased died on Tuesday night, and that death was occasioned through lock jaw, brought on in consequence of the wound. This being the whole of the evidence, the coroner expressed an opinion that the jury could return no other verdict but misadventure, they were nevertheless the sole judges of the facts, The room was then cleared, and in about fifteen minutes, a verdict of misadventure was re‐turned, We understand that the deceased was a widower, and has left five children to lament his untimely end; All parties from the neighbourhood speak of him as having been an honest and hard working man.
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 5 May 1855
SHOCKING MURDER AND SUICIDE IN CHESHIRE. .
On Friday morning last, at the village of Wheelock, near Sandbach, in Cheshire, a murder and suicide of a most shocking description took place. A respectable joiner and builder, Mr. James Sproston, with his wife, resided at a detached house a little to the south‐east of that village. They were people in easy circumstances, having inherited good property from relatives, besides what Mr. Sproston had amassed in trade. They had been married about 16 or 17 years, and lived together during that period in apparent happiness. The husband was 46 years of age, and his wife, Ann Sproston, was
42. They were both strictly professing Wesleyan Methodists, and the leading people of that religious sect In the neighbourhood. It is easy to conceive, therefore, with what surprise the intelligence was received that Mr. Sproston had murdered his wife and afterwards destroyed himself. Having no family, Mr. Sproston, had recently prevailed upon his sister, Mrs. Gill, a widow, at Sandbach, to go with her son to reside at his house, as a companion for his wife. They kept no female servant in the house, but an apprentice in the timber yard was employed occasionally to assist in some of the heavier household duties. On Friday morning they had risen, as usual, at an early hour, and the nephew had gone to business for the day at a little before six o'clock in the morning. Mrs. Gill, after breakfast, had gone to take a can of barm to Sandbach, to be sold there, and the apprentice, after assisting her to carry the can half way, and doing some errands for his master, had gone to the timber yard. Mr. and Mrs. Sproston were thus left alone. On the return of Mrs. Gill from Sandbach, between nine and ten in the morning, she found the back‐yard door fast inside, and had to climb over the garden fence to get admission to the house. She entered the house by the kitchen door, and then discovered the horrible tragedy which had taken place during her absence. Mrs. Sproston was on her knees before the kitchen fire, with her arms on the floor, and her head resting on her hands. She was lying in a pool of blood. Portions of her scalp and skull had been apparently hacked off, and she had received many other wounds, which had been inflicted with a large cavalry sword that was lying on the kitchen table by her side. The unfortunate woman was not yet dead, and Mrs. Gill, hearing her inquire after "James," her husband, left her for an instant to seek him. Mr. Sproston was seated in his arm chair, in one of the front parlours, before the fire, quite dead, and presented a more horrible spectacle to look upon than his mangled wife. A large cavalry pistol lay between his feet on the floor, and this, loaded with a ball and eight or ten slugs, he had evidently discharged with the muzzle in his mouth, so that the lower and upper jaws had been carried away, and the face was ripped open up to the forehead. The pistol ball had perforated the brain and crown of the head, and was found lodged in the ceiling of the room. Several slugs were also lodged in various parts of the ceiling. Mrs. Gill immediately called in the assistance of the nearest neighbours and friends, and messengers were posted off to Sandbach, for surgical aid. In little more than 20 minutes two surgeons were in attendance, but the earliest of them, Mr. Latham, did not arrive until a few moments after Mrs. Sproston had breathed her last. It is said that she was audibly praying when some of the neighbours entered, but Mrs. Gill, her sister‐in‐law, only recollects the words, uttered in a low, faint voice, "Oh James, don't," and then the inquiry, “Where is he? where is he?" The cause of this dreadful tragedy appears to have been jealousy on the part of the husband, for which there was not the slightest foundation. It seems that he mentioned his suspicions respecting his wife so long as six or seven years ago, but this was only in private. During the last six weeks, however, his conversation was an almost continued manifestation of jealousy regarding her, he imputing familiarity, not with any particular person, but with several persons in the village, and talking freely on the subject with every one with whom he was acquainted. In short, he had become a perfect monomaniac on that subject, but in all other respects his mind was quite sound. The sword and pistol which he used were instruments that it was well known he had long had in his possession. The jealousy which her husband exhibited had prayed much on Mrs. Sproston's mind, and had injuriously affected her health and appearance. It is understood that Mr. Sproston, who, as already stated, was a man of some property, had made a disposition of it by will, in which he made no provision for his wife, which, however, may be explained by the sufficiency of her own private income to maintain her in comfort. In February (says another account) Mr. Sproston gave instructions to his solicitor to prepare a will, and it appears that the fact of his jealously then became known for the first time to his lawyer. On the latter expressing surprise, and observing how happily he and his wife had always been supposed to live together, he (the husband) remarked that she was the best wife that ever lived. The greater part of his property, which consists of houses and land at Wheelock and Crewe, he has bequeathed, not to the more wealthy of his own relatives, but to the poorest. His jealousy, after this will had been made, assumed a more intense form. He mentioned it to persons of all stations, by all of whom it was discouraged, from the great respect in which Mrs. Sproston was held. It appears she was a handsome woman, but of a pious turn of mind, and in all respects leading a most exemplary life, visiting the sick and the poor, and relieving their necessities with her own hand. She was sensible and well‐educated, and kept her husband's books of accounts. Though a tall and powerful woman, there is no reason to believe that she offered any resistance to his attack upon her on Friday morning; but it is more probable that she had sunk upon her knees to ask mercy. The cuts on her arms (before they were broken or cut in two by repeated blows) were in a direction which favoured the supposition that she had raised them only as a protection to her head. Her countenance in death bore a sweet and composed expression, not at all indicative of passion. It is very doubtful if the husband had premeditated the murder at all. The sister was out of the way, at his wife's suggestion. However, in addition to pointing out to the apprentice the wood of which "his coffins" were to be made, he had named to him those of his nephews whom he wished, to be the bearers of his body to the grave, as if he entertained some general idea that he would not live long. Both he and his unfortunate wife were class leaders and teachers in the Wesleyan Methodist Sunday school. She had attended chapel up to Sunday week, but he is said to have kept away for one or two of the last Sundays.
The inquest. An inquest was held on Saturday, at the Golden Lion Inn, Wheelock, betore
T. Ruscoe, Esq., and the following jury :— Mr. Nathan Dumvile, saddler, foreman; Mr.
Matthew Johnson, Wheelock foundry; Mr. Samuel Mole, clerk; Mr. Samuel Harthan, silk master; Mr. Charles Wilkinson, grocer, &c; Mr. William Mosely, gentleman; Mr. E. S. Wolfe, Wheelock brewery; Mr. John Martin, canal agent; Mr. George Rhodes, canal agent; Mr. Randle Wildig, farmer; Mr. John Pedley, Wheelock Hall; and Mr. Samuel Cockbain, builder. John Dixon: ,I was an apprentice to deceased. Yesterday morning I went to my master's house at six o'clock. I saw my master and mistress. My master told me to go with his sister, and carry her a can of barm part of the road to Sandbach. I did so, and returned at half‐past seven o'clock. My master was standing, at the house door; he told me to go to the shop, and get the glue can warmed; and he would there soon ; that was the last time I saw him alive. I have not noticed anything particular in my master's manner. Mary Gill: I am sister to deceased, and am a widow. About three weeks ago, I came to live with my brother and his wife. Yesterday morning I came down stairs a little after six o'clock‐, my brother (James Sproston) was in the kitchen; he had made a fire; he was setting the breakfast pots upon the table. In a few minutes Ann Sproston (my brother's wife) came down stairs; she said to him, have you set me breakfast things? yes, I want my breakfast. I then went to my own room, and on my return to the kitchen, James Sproston was smoking his pipe, and Ann Sproston was washing the tea‐things up. I started along with last witness to go to Sandbach, (by my brother's request) to sell some barm. I re‐turned about half‐past nine o'clock, and found tha yard door fast inside; I got over the hedge, and en‐tered the house by the back door. I found Ann Sproston kneeling upon the kitchen floor, with her head upon her hands; there was a deal of blood upon the floor. She said, “oh Mary, l am dying, where is James? I went into one of the front rooms, and found him sitting upon a chair; he was quite dead. I ran off for assistance. I found a pistol upon tho floor, between my brother's feet. My brother has been very jealous of his wife for the last few weeks. George Walker, Police Officer: I went to deceased's house about half‐past nine o'clock yesterday morning. I found Ann Sproston upon her knees, on the kitchen floor. She was alive, and lived about a quarter of an hour; there was a deal of blood about her. I found a sword upon a table close to her, (which. I now produce); it has blood and hair upon it. By a Juryman; Ann Sproston never spoke after I got there. Mr. Walker also produced a large horse pistol, which he found in the room where James Sproston was found, it was covered with blood. Also 4 pistol balls found in deceased's waistcoat pocket. Mr. Charles Latham, Surgeon : I saw Ann Sproston in 3 or 4 minutes after she died. I afterwards examined her body; I found her left arm cut through, bone and all; the wound was about nine inches in length. Her right arm was also cut through in the same way. She had a scalp wound which laid the brain bare, and her head was nearly cut off from the back of her neck. I afterwards examined James Sproston's body; I found that his head was shattered to pieces, and the ball had penetrated through the crown of the head.
Verdict, temporary insanity.
Wheelock Church.— On Sunday afternoon, tho Rev. T. G. Morgan, preached a very impressive sermon from Deuteronomy, 5 chap. 17 verse, "Thou shalt not kill." The Rev. gentleman adverted to the horrid tragedy which had been enacted in the village on Friday, and admonished his hearers, at considerable length, upon the sin of allowing the evil passions to gain the mastery; and showing how by indulging in evil and wicked ideas, that persons were led on to the perpetrations of such horrid deeds, as the one which had caused so much excitement in the neighbourhood.
Monday.— This morning the funerals of the murdered woman and her guilty husband, took place at Wheelock church. The service was performed by the Rev. T. G. Morgan, and an immense concourse of people were assembled, but the most perfect order was observed; after the service there was a general rush to the grave, as every person was desirous of seeing the last of the unfortunate pair, who during their life had been universally respected by their neighbours.
(Police officers details entered in appointee’s database)
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 24 May 1856
THE POLICE V. THE PRESS.
A meeting of the Chester Watch Committee was held on Tuesday last, at the Exchange, to enquire into a charge brought against Police Officers Joseph Williams, No. 3, John Prince, No. 9, and Mason, No. 10, by Mr. Harker, a reporter for the Daily Post and Liverpool Journal, for refusing to interfere for his protection in an assault which was committed upon him, at the Chester Races.
The affair has caused considerable interest in the city. Alderman Griffith occupied the chair on this occasion. Mr. Hicklin declined to act in the matter, as his newspaper had expressed a decided opinion on the case. The Mayor and several members objected, arguing that it was quite lawful for a man to be tried by his peers— gentlemen of the press by gentlemen of the press. Mr. Harker declared he had not the slightest objection to Mr. Hicklin in acting on the committee. Mr. Harker proceeded with his complaint. He stated that on the 9th instant, the last day of the Races, he came down professionally to take a report of the Races; about 3 o'clock in the afternoon, while he was ascertaining the state of the betting, he was accosted by two females, who demanded payment of a bet which they alleged to have been made by him on the previous day. He protested that there must have been a mistake; but several suspicious looking persons came up, he guessed he was the victim of a speculative ruse, and soon as possible managed to get back to the grand stand. Going down to the ring shortly afterwards, he found the two women had been somehow admitted to the enclosure, and he was soon surrounded by a crowd. He was jostled about for some time, and was struck by the parties round about. Officer 10 saw an assault committed and refused to take the parties into custody, saying, "I can't interfere." He (Mr. H.) endeavoured to get away, but officer 10 seized him, and said, "No, you shan't go until you settle." Officer 9 saw the assault, and when appealed to, said, "I can't interfere." Officer 3 was on the stairs, and saw the whole of the row, and he also refused to interfere. Some gentlemen from Liverpool at length released him.
Afterwards a complaint was made to Mr. Hill, who said, "You have your remedy— summons the parties."He was asked if the police could not interfere if they saw an assault committed, and was answered in the affirmative, adding, "The magistrates do not like to interfere in these matters. I saw a similar outrage myself the other day, and did not interfere."
John Trevor, treasurer of the Chester County Court, corroborated the evidence of the former witness in the main points. He gave it as his opinion that a slight interference on the part of the police would have put an end to the row.— Mr. Platt: Are the police instructed to quell assaults on race‐courses? The Chairman: We will get that from the chief constable. The fact is they are bound to preserve peace everywhere. Mr. Tomlinson alias Parkinson: No, that is not so in the ring! Mr. Jones, a member of the watch committee, was called by Mr. Harker, and he fully corroborated the statements against the officer? He heard officer 9 say, "I have instructions not to interfere in these matters." Mr. Harbord stated that during the disturbance he called on constable No. 3. repeatedly, to assist Mr. Harker, and take the parties into custody who were assaulting him. He also deposed that police‐man No. 10 prevented Mr. Harker from escaping, and refused to take into custody the parties assaulting him. The person calling himself Tomlinson assaulted this witness when attempting to rescue Mr. Harker; and constable No. 10, when requested to take Tomlinson into custody for this assault, refused to do so, urging, like No. 3, that he had no authority to do as Mr. Harbord corroborated Mr. Harker's statement as to the conduct of constable No. 9, and the conversation after the races with Mr. Hill. In cross‐examination by constable 3, the witness said he repeatedly told that constable of the proposition to "strip" Mr. Harker, and requested him to take Tomlinson and the other parties into custody. In cross‐examination by No. 10, the witness said that policeman was in a position to see the assault on Mr. Harker, and did refuse to take any person into custody. In answer to the chairman, Mr. Hill, the superintendent of the Chester police, said that he would not ask Mr. Harbord any questions in reference to the conversation with him (Mr. Hill).
Colonel Ford was called by Mr. Hill, in behalf of the policemen. He said he saw Mr. Harker severely assaulted by two women, and that constable No, 15 (against whom no charge was preferred) rescued that gentleman. He thougbt the police on that day did their duty. He knew No. 15 well. Cross examined by Mr. Harbord: He was on the top of the Grandstand when he saw the row. The policeman who interfered was either 9 or
15. He did not see anything of the row near the steps. By Mr. Harker: All that Mr. Harbord and Mr. Harker had stated might have taken place, because he only saw the first part of the row.
Joseph Williams, policeman No. 3, said he saw no assault at all— not the least. — Examined by Mr. Musgrave (a committee‐man): Was not requested at all to turn any one out of the reporter's box during the afternoon. He saw a great crowd, a riot, a tumult, but not any assault committed. No one was abused that he saw. Mr. Harbord told him that the parties should be taken into custody, but that was after Mr. Parker was liberated; and he said he had no right to interfere. If he saw an assault, he would take the assaulting person in charge.— By Mr. Harker: He (Mr. Harker) told defendant that parties were going to assault him, and demanded his protection if attacked. Mr. Harker did not request him to turn some parties out of the reporter's box, who had come up to assail him. — By Mr. Harbord : You did not grasp me by the arm, and tell me they were strangling Mr. Harker, and request me to take the parties in charge. This defendant denied every assertion that was made against him.
John Prince, policeman No. 9, denied that he had seen any assault committed upon any body, or that any one was given in charge to him, or that he was requested to remove Tomlinson from the reporter's box. — By Mr. Musgrave: He could not say Tomlinson was the man who was in the box. — By the Chairman: The two women are racing characters; he had seen them on other occasions previously, The man in the reporter's box called himself Tomlinson— By Mr. Harbord: I think you told me to remove Tomlinson when he used bad language. I asked him to come away, and he did so. — Mr. Musgrave: Why you have just said quite opposite not a minute ago.
Mason, (officer 10) said he got into the crowd. He tapped Mr. H. on the shoulder, and told him he must pay. Some parties sang out, "Officer don't interfere;" and he walked away. He did not see any assault.— By a member. What were you doing in the crowd?
— l was coming from the water‐closet to the jockey room. My duty was to take care of what was in the jockey room. — Mr. Hill: You had not gone away from there a minute.
Ray, (officer 15) stated that he had assisted to release Mr. Harker from the crowd.
Mr. Cutter, a member of the Town‐Council, stated that be saw a person pulling at the complainant's scarf, and he saw Mr. Tomlinson, alias Parkinson, trying to assist the complainant by pulling the other end of the scarf He thought the conduct of the officer was to be commended rather than otherwise. He knew Mr. Parkinson, the person who took a prominent part in the row; he had had business transactions with him in the way of telegraphing betting. He did not touch the complainant. Mr. Jones. I saw him take hold of Mr. Harker, and Mr. Cutter was there at the time. Mr. Cutter must have had his eyes and ears shut at the time. Let men be straightforward, and tell the honest truth. Mr. Cutter: I think I am as capable of giving an honest opinion as you. Mr. Jones: Gas, gas, gas (laughter).
Mr. Isaac Bolton Taylor, reporter for the Chester Courant, said he saw Mr. Harker grossly ill‐used and some policemen were in the crowd, but he did not know their numbers, Mr. Harker uttered an exclamation, and some person came up and released him. He thought the police did their duty. By Mr. Harbord: He was on the outside of the crowd. He was not very tall, but he thought he could see what was going on.
Sergeant Bateman, of the Manchester detective force, corroborated the statements of the previous witnesses. Cross‐examined: Was at the Chester races professionally. Did not consider himself bound to arrest parties assaulting others in the ring. He knew Mr. Parkinson, or Tomlinson, as he had been called during that day. One of the females and one of the gentlemen who took hold of Mr. Harker and abused him were a lady and gentleman— most respectable people — doing one of the most extensive businesses in Lancashire.— By Mr. Harboard: He would not state the name of the lady. He would not say that it was lady like language to say " Go back to Liverpool, you d— d Irish b — rs, and stop there."
John Parkinson, of 5, Pool‐street, Manchester, said he was the keeper of a chop house and attended races to send information to London and other towns as to the betting, etc. He said Mr. Harker was very ill‐used, and he was sorry he had taken any part in the matter, now that he had found out who the parties were. Cross‐examined by Mr. Harbord: He certainly made use of very bad language in the reporters box, and Mr. Harbord requested policeman 9 to put him out. By Mr. Platt: He interfered because it was the rule of the ring to punish defaulters. On Wednesday a man was stripped for not paying his bets.
Sergeant Bateman stepped forward and said that Mr. Parkinson's statement was correct. He had attended races for the last five years at York, Doncaster, Ascot, Epsom, Manchester, Shrewsbury, &c, and it was the custom to strip defaulters' The jockey club and Tattersall's, however, were going to organize a body of men to traverse the country and find out all defaulters. Mr. Parkinson: Well, it is a complete mistake, and I am as sorry as I can be that I have meddled in it at all. By Mr. Harbord: I beg your pardon for saying I was a reporter of the London Morning Post I am not connected with that paper.
never saw Mr Harker in my life before at any race meeting. Mr. Davenport corroborated Mr. Taylor's statement.
At half‐past seven o'clock the room was cleared, and the committee proceeded to consider the evidence. The following is the decision:—
"That police‐officer No. 3 be dismissed the force; and that No. 9 and No. 10 be reduced tot he lowest grade, and suspended;" the committee also expressing their strong disapproval of the employment of the police at the races, or any other than strictly police duties.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 19 April 1856
Robbery with Violence on the Saltney Road.
As police‐constables Edward Sutton and J. Hughes were walking along the Saltney‐road, about a quarter past two o'clock on Saturday morning, they found a man named Richard Yarley, who is generally employed as a labourer in assisting to discharge vessels at Saltney, and who lives in Hand‐bridge, lying on the side of the footpath, a little on the Chester aide of the new Wesleyan chapel now in course of erection. They assisted him up, and on inquiring how he came there, he stated that he had been attacked by four men, and robbed of 15s or 16s. He was walking in company with a man and woman of his acquaintance, when two men seized hold of his male companion, struck him on the head, and knocked him into the ditch. He went to his assistance, when the fellows turned upon him, struck and kicked him fearfully, and then robbed him of the sum stated. His companion, seizing the opportunity which presented itself, scrawled out of the ditch and got away. The policemen, seeing that Yarley, who was slightly in drink, was suffering severely from the assault, conveyed him to the Chester Infirmary, where be was attended by Mr. Jones, surgeon, who discovered severe bruises about his body, and that the right leg was broken. He is still in the Infirmary, but recovering from the injuries inflicted upon him. The robbers, we regret to say, have not yet been discovered, but the police, we believe, have some clue to them.
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 12 January 1856
SUICIDE IN THE POLICE CELL.
In the course of Sunday last, a very painful interest was occasioned in this City, by its becoming known that a youth named Benjamin Weaver, belonging to the Ist Regt. of Cheshire Militia, now stationed in this town, had been found dead in the lock‐ups, about eight o'clock in the morning.
The circumstances attending this most distressing case will be best gathered from the evidence given at the inquest, which was held at twelve o'clock on Monday, in No. 1 committee, at the Exchange, before John Hostage, Esq., the borough coroner, and a jury composed of highly‐respectable householders. After the usual preliminary proceedings had been completed, the jury proceeded to view the body, which lay in one of the cells in the Town‐Hall. It was generally remarked that so fine a countenance had rarely been presented in death as that of the deceased.
Upon the return of the jury to their room the following evidence was taken:
William Parry examined by the Coroner: I am one of the constables of this city, and was in charge of the lock‐ups on Saturday night last, and it was my duty to take care of all the prisoners. The deceased was brought in about half‐past ten o'clock that night, by Sergeant Speed, upon a charge of obtaining some joints of meat from Mr. Lunt, and Mr. Williams, butchers, under false and fraudulent pretences. I was told that he had been given into custody by Charles Townshend, the master of the mess at the castle. The deceased appeared quite sober when I saw him in the office, and he denied the accusation brought against him. I heard Sergeant Speed ask Mr. Lunt, who was then in the office, whether the deceased was the man who had got the meat from him, and he replied, " Yes he is." Speed then searched the deceased, and took from him 28 in silver, some copper, and a few trifling articles, but a silk handkerchief which he wore was not taken from him. After this I locked him up, when he seemed quite composed and cheerful. I asked him where he came from, he said that does not matter, but almost immediately he answered, I come from Chester. I then asked whether he could read and write, and he replied, yes, a little, and added, my age is 19. When I left deceased no food had been given to him, nor did he ask for any. Neither myself nor any other person went near him during the whole of that night, although I was in the next room awake and reading a considerable portion of the time. On Sunday morning I went to the cell‐door at eight o'clock, which is the usual hour, in order to know whether the deceased would like to purchase his own breakfast, or have that allowed from the gaol, but I found that he was banging from the grating of the window by his handkerchief, and, as far as I could judge, quite dead. Another officer came to my assistance, and the body was cut down, and Dr. Jones sent for. During the night, no other male prisoner was brought in. There were, however, some females confined in the room upstairs over the cell in which the deceased had been confined, and I went to them twice, as they had been making a noise.
The Coroner now said that it would be desirable to ascertain by their evidence whether they bad heard any noise in the room below. Mr. Hill the chief constable, remarked that they had been discharged from custody, but be would endeavour to find all or one of them with as little delay as possible.
Examination of the constable resumed: l am positive that I was awake all night. The Coroner: Was it not your duty to visit prisoners at stated intervals? Parry: “Yes sir, provided they called to me, or in case any disturbance took place.” Mr. Hill now produced a book containing printed regulations on the subject, from which it appeared the officer in charge of the lock‐ups was bound to visit each cell three times an hour. Parry, however, assured the Coroner that he had never seen the regulations, nor had they been placed in the hands of the police. In answer to the Coroner, Mr. Hill, and Mr. Rowe, a member of the watch committee who was present, explained that the books bad not yet been circulated they had only been issued on Friday. The Coroner: But were there no former regulations. Mr. Hill: Certainly, and I have always given orders that the prisoners should be regularly visited.
James Mason, another constable, was examined, but his evidence was wholly unimportant, except as to the deceased having placed a bench near the window, which would enable him to reach the iron bars. Mason further stated that the deceased had tied a knot in the shape of a noose, which he bad placed exactly under his right ear.
Mr. Jones, surgeon, was next called, and stated that on examining the deceased a little after eight o'clock on Sunday morning, he was quite dead, and been so for at least eight hours; the body was quite cold and stiff. The Coroner: Is it your opinion that the deceased died immediately after he threw his feet from the bench? Mr. Jones: Probably not, he might be twenty minutes in expiring, in consequence of the handkerchief being much softer than a cord, besides, criminals who are executed have a much deeper fall, and the neck is often dislocated, which occasions death instantaneously. Coroner: It seems very likely, then, that had this man been visited, he might have been saved.
John Townsend, the mess‐master, was examined, and he proved that the deceased was an exceedingly well conducted young man, and had been placed in the mess by order of the major; but on Saturday evening witness discovered that he had obtained from different tradesmen articles in his name without any authority; he therefore thought it his duty to give him in charge of the police. He had never the slightest reason to consider that the mind of the deceased was affected. Sergeant Moore proved that the deceased joined the regiment last January. He had enlisted in Chester, and was a native of Oldbury. His conduct had been very good — generally sober, and always cheerful. He had never been in the hospital. Ann Holmes, an unfortunate female, was now examined, and she distinctly stated that neither her‐self nor either of her companions who had been confined with her in the lock‐ups during Saturday night had heard any noise in the room below. They had not slept; but they were not brought in until after twelve o'clock.
Mr. J. Lunt proved that the deceased had obtained from him at various times meat on account of the mess‐master, and on Saturday he obtained a kg of mutton, at which time be observed nothing unusual in his manner.
This being the whole of the evidence, the Coroner proceeded to sum up, telling the jury it was quite clear the deceased had destroyed himself, and it was their duty to say, whether he had committedy “felo de se”, or was at the time in a state of temporary insanity, upon this point they must bear in mind that there was not the slightest evidence whatever, and they could only act upon what had been, proved before them. The law of England regarded self‐murder in so serious a light, that those who committed it were to be consigned to the grave at a particular hour in the night, without the rights of Christian burial, and the whole of their property became forfeited to the Crown. However painful it might be to the jury to carry it out, they must nevertheless feel bound by the oaths they had taken, to return a verdict according to the evidence given.
The room was then cleared and after a deliberation of 20 minutes, the foreman announced the jury had decided to return a verdict that the deceased destroyed himself whilst labouring under temporary insanity. The learned Coroner in recording the verdict took occasion to remark that he did not concur in the same. One of the Jury now suggested that measures should be taken without delay, to place a wire guard over the gratings of each cell, so closely woven together, as to prevent the introduction of a finger. The Coroner expressed his concurrence.
The proceeding then terminated.
CHESHIRE OBSERVER Saturday 6th December 1856
RURAL POLICE FOR CHESHIRE. The Committee appointed at the general Quarter Sessions of the peace for this County, in Oct. last, for considering the number of Superintendents and other Constables which it would be desirable to appoint for this county, under the New Rural Police Act, together with the new rates of pay, and other details made their Report of the Adjourned Sessions, at Knutsford, on the 24th ult. Having 'been favoured with a glance at the document, we have been able to prepare the following condensed report: — The Committee recommend that the Police Force should, in addition to the Chief Constable, consist of nine Superintendents two Inspectors, 15 Sergeants, and 143 Constables, to be apportioned amongst the several Police Districts; and that the county should be divided into nine Police Districts, under the provisions of the 27th section of the Act 3rd and 4th Vie. Cap. 88, and which, with a few slight alterations, are the same as are at present established under the Cheshire Constabulary Act, 1852. The Hundreds of Broxton and Bucklow remain as they are. The same with the Hundreds of Eddisbury, with the exception of Winnington, Castle Northwich, and Hartford, which are added to the Northwich Hundred. The same with the Hundreds of Nantwich, with the exception of Alsager, Betchton and Hassal, which are also added to the Northwich hundred, which latter hundred will remain as amended. The Wirral hundred stands unaltered, Birkenhead maintaining its own Police. The Hyde Division also remains the same certain portions of Dukinfield and Stayley maintaining their own Police. The Prestbury Division is altered, Taxall, taken from Stockport, being added to Prestbury and Poynton, Worth, and Lyme Handley being added to the Stockport Division. This latter Division (Stockport), therefore, remains with Taxall taken from it, and Poynton, Worth, and Lyme Handley added. The proposed arrangements as to the salaries of the Superintendents and Inspectors, with the number of each district, we have reduced to a tabular form, as follows, correcting ths populations of Stockport and the Hyde Divisions:—
District Hundred or Division Acreage Population 1851 Supt Ins Sgts Const Salary on Appoint of Superintendents After 5 years After 10 Years 1 Broxton 75550 18334 1 9 £80 £90 £100 2 Bucklow 103537 52456 1 1 4 26 £100 £125 £140 3 Eddisbury 91073 27748 1 13 £100 £110 £120 4 Nantwich 80126 27331 1 1 12 £100 £110 £120 5 Northwich 77489 37055 1 1 13 £100 £110 £120 6 Wirral 123521 34682 1 1 2 25 £110 £125 £140 7 Hyde 26980 46950 1 3 20 £110 £125 £140 8 Prestbury 78486 21613 1 1 11 £110 £125 £140 9 Stockport 36653 28553 1 3 14 £110 £125 £140 Totals 9 2 15 143 For the Bucklow and the Wirral hundreds, it is proposed that an Inspector for each should be appointed, and a salary of £80, to be increased, after 5 years' service to £90, and after ten years to £100. In case any of the Special High constables under the County Constabulary Act, are appointed Superintendents, the Committee recommend that they should be entitled to no less than their present salaries under the said act; and that the length of their services as such Special High Constables be taken into account entitling them to advances of their salaries. That the several Superintendents be allowed £60 a year for a horse and forage, together with the sum paid by each for horse tax; and that Inspectors of districts Numbers 2 and 6 be allowed horse hire when necessary. Those Sergeants on appointment receive 22s a week; after three years‐service, 26s a week, in addition to clothing, directed to be furnished by the Secretary of State rules. And that the pay of ordinary constables, on appointment be 18s a week for the first year; and if approved of by the Chief Constable, to be promoted after the first year, to either a first or second class constable, with increase of pay second class 20s a week, first class, 21s per week, in addition to the clothing, etc. to be provided by the rules of the Secretary of State. Further, that all constables under the Cheshire Constabulary Act who may be appointed Constables under the New Act, may at the discretion of the Chief Constable, be in the first instance appointed first or second class constables at the salaries attached thereto. The Committee recommend that the Chief Constable should be required to reside at or near to Crewe. The Committee observe, from the printed rules, that the Secretary of State prescribes certain regulations no to the age, height, and other qualifications of persons to be appointed Superintendents, Inspectors, Sergeants, or ordinary Constables. The Committee consider it desirable that all deserving officers in the existing Force should be reappointed under the New Act, even though some of (them may not come within the regulations of the Secretary of State and they therefore recommend that he therefore be requested to relax the stringency of such regulations, in favour of any officers of the present Force whom it may be considered desirable to appoint members of the new Force.
Hertford Mercury and Reformer - Saturday 8 November 1856
COMMITTAL OF AN ATTORNEY IN COURT At the Cheshire Quarter Sessions, held at Knutsford, last week, an appeal was heard against a conviction for unlawful possession of stolen silk.
To prove that the silk had been lawfully acquired an invoice was produced in court on the part of the appellant as covering the alleged purchase. The invoice was produced in a mutilated form, a portion which it was suspected would have disqualified it for the part it was to play in the trial being absent.
The attorney for the appellant was Mr. Cooper, and the scene which followed the production of the paper is thus described by the Carnarvon Independent: — The paper was handed down to counsel, and the court was just saying that they should like to look at it, when something happened which led to the following extraordinary scene and committal of Mr. Cooper.
John Scott, constable of Church Lawton, who happened to be sitting on the seat behind counsel, about three persons distant from Mr. Cooper, was observed to say something to Constable Taylor of Congleton, who was standing near the witness box, when Taylor bolted down head foremost anions the people's feet, and presently emerged holding up two small bits of paper, which he had picked up under where Mr Cooper was sitting, and exclaimed, "These are the pieces " Instantly everybody were on their feet, and the whole court was wrapped in breathless and excited attention.
Mr. Joynson, on the bench, fitted the small pieces to the torn paper, and said that they corresponded exactly so far as they went, but that there was yet a small piece missing, Down dived Constable Taylor again, and produced another small piece of paper, asserting that Mr. Cooper had scraped his foot several times backward and forward on the floor over where he found it. Constable Scott then addressed the bench, saying that he had seen Mr. Cooper tear the pieces out of the invoice and throw them down.
Amidst deathlike silence the Chairman said—During sixty years that I have sat upon this bench, I never saw a proceeding so audaciously wicked as this. We must suspend the further hearing of the appeal, while we decide what to do on the extraordinary case which has now arisen, which at least is a scandalous contempt of court. Mr. Beavan, I shall be glad of your advice on behalf of the crown.
Mr. Beavan here stepped up to the bench and conferred with them a short time, after which The Chairman directed the depositions to be taken on oath (and signed) of every person who saw anything of the strange transaction.
Constable Stewartson of Waverton, who sat next Mr. Cooper, deposed that he saw Mr. Cooper double up a piece of paper, and stick his pencil through it, after which he handed it to Mr. Macintyre. He could not say that he actually saw him tear it.
Mr. Cooper protested against the inquiry altogether. The paper was not material evidence in the case, and the torn part had not been intended by him to be used as evidence at all.
Mr. Macintyre arose and said that it was due to his own reputation as (late) counsel for the appellant in the case, which he would of course conduct no longer, to state explicitly the document was handed to him by Mr. Coope, and by him to the witness as evidence, and that of the most material character.
Mr. Cooper cross‐examined Scott at enormous and wearisome length; and at last, on being told by the Chairman that he was exceeding all bounds of patience, he said that he wanted to know what the examination was for. The Chairman—l will tell you. I mean to take evidence now, with a view to your committal for a contempt of court, and I mean to lay the depositions afterwards before the Court of Queen's Bench, to support an application which I shall cause to be made to strike you off the rolls. Mr. Cooper— Then I shall decline to remain further. The Chairman —“You must remain. Officer, take him into custody”. This was done, and the case proceeded.
The depositions of Walter Taylor, Thomas Hampson, A E. J. Macintyre, Esq., and W. Beavan, Esq., were then taken; the two latter gentlemen to the fact that the mutilated evidence was material to the case, and that the mutilation essentially altered the meaning of the invoice as it stood before. In the end,
Mr. Cooper was committed for contempt, and was confined all night in the House of Correction.
On Thursday he was discharged; but an order of court was made, directing the county solicitor to apply to the Court of Queen's Bench to have Mr. Cooper struck off the Rolls.
A rule Nisi has since been obtained in the Court of Queen's Bench.
The murder of police-officer William VAUGHAN at Birkenhead, 1856 Page 1 of 5
The murder of police-officer William
VAUGHAN at Birkenhead, 1856

Liverpool Mercury, Dec 27th 1856
Dreadful murder of a police-officer at Birkenhead
On Tuesday morning the township of Birkenhead was thrown into a state of great excitement in consequence of the fearful murder, at an early hour of one of the small band of police officers who have the protection of that wide-spread district, and who, in the exercise of his duty fell victim to the use of the knife, a practise which of late has prevailed to an alarming extent amongst ruffians of every description.
The name of the deceased was William VAUGHAN, No 8, a native of Ireland, aged 25, a quiet unassuming young man, who stood 6ft 1inch, his murderer, Thomas SMITH aged 21, also an Irishman, who had been once tried at the sessions, and who had for years been connected with a gang of disorderly and disreputable characters who infest Birkenhead.
It appears that shortly before 1am on Tuesday SMITH and a companion named Michael BREEN, aged 20, an Irishman, called at the public house of Mrs SOFTLEY in Chester St, knocked at the door, and in a loud, boisterous manner demanded to be admitted to have some drink. Mrs SOFTLEY refused to open her house at such an unreasonable hour, when the men proceeded to violence and broke one of the panels of the door. The landlady immediately despatched a messenger by the back door in search of the police, information first reached police-officer VAUGHAN, on duty at Hamilton Square, who hurried into Chester St and confronted the BREEN and SMITH.
Police-officer No 5, WHITEHEAD, whose beat was in Chester St and at Woodside Ferry, having also heard of the disturbance reached the house of Mrs SOFTLEY soon after 2am, when VAUGHAN told him the two men to whom he was speaking had been breaking in the panels of the public house door. By this time SMITH and BREEN managed to get out of Chester St into Bridge St, when WHITEHEAD suggested to VAUGHAN they should follow the disturbers and get their names. This was done in answer to WHITHEAD, SMITH said, "We know best, this is quite enough". WHITEHEAD told the men unless they gave their names they would have to go to the bridewell, they still refused to tell who they were, VAUGHAN seized SMITH by the collar, WHITEHEAD got hold of BREEN to take them to the bridewell. The officers had not proceeded many yards with the prisoners when WHITEHEAD saw a scuffle taking place between VAUGHAN and SMITH. PC. VAUGHAN was attempting to keep SMITH at an arms length, while the latter was striking him with some sort of instrument. After receiving a few thrusts from his prisoner VAUGHAN shouted, "He is using a knife to me" The murderer had stabbed the unfortunate officer to the heart and then made his escape.
Police-officer WHITEHEAD at that moment saw officer CLARKE coming towards them from Hamilton Square and shouted, "Stop him, he has stabbed VAUGHAN!" CLARKE saw the murderer coming towards him with the knife in his hand and instantly raised his stick, and with one blow felled him to the ground. In the fall the deadly instrument closed in the hand of SMITH, which received a severe gash between the thumb and forefinger. Police-officer CLARKE then took him to the bridewell.
Perceiving that VAUGHAN was dangerously wounded police-officer WHITHEAD let go of his prisoner and went to render the dying man assistance. VAUGHAN walked a few paces and then said, "WHITHEAD I'm dying, I'm done" these were the last words the poor fellow uttered. Finding his
file://C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\My Documents\museum\newspaper\HT... 12/09/2013 The murder of police-officer William VAUGHAN at Birkenhead, 1856 Page 2 of 5
strength failing the dying officer tried to loosen his belt and overcoat, but in the effort fell upon his knees on the ground. Officer WHITEHEAD caught him by the arm, and sustained him until some men who were passing rendered assistance. The poor fellow was then removed in a shandry to the police station, where he was immediately attended by Mr JENNETTE police surgeon, but surgical or medical aid was to no avail, the wound had penetrated too deep, and the young officer expired in about three quarters of an hour after receiving the deadly thrust.
The body was exposed in the police station during yesterday. The blade of the knife had penetrated the heart immediately below the left breast. The instrument by which the fatal deed was effected was afterwards found by police-officer WHITEHEAD in a pool of blood near where the melancholy event had occurred. It was a large pocket knife, with a blade 3 inches in length, with an exceedingly sharp point, as if intended for murderous work.
So great was the excitement in the township on Tuesday that hundreds congregated around the police station where the body was lying. Several of the members of the lighting and watching committee, including Mr T. B. GOLBORNE, chairman, Mr RAE and Mr BAILIFF, were early in attendance at the police office.
The deceased was a single man, but, had sole support of an aged mother and a sister. The sister viewed the body of her brother in the forenoon, when a most heart rendering scene took place. It has been suggested that a subscription should be made for the aged parent and sister, who have been deprived of their means of support by the melancholy occurrence. The deceased joined the police force in October 1853, and was much respected for his uniform good conduct. It is said that his father was a member of the Irish constabulary, and that he, too, like his son was killed whilst in the exercise of his public duty.
The man BREEN surrendered himself to the police immediately after VAUGHAN was carried to the station, both prisoners were brought up before J. S. JACKSON Esq, the case was remanded until after the holding of an inquest.
The coroner H. CHURTON Esq and a respectable jury held an inquest upon the body on Tuesday in the Town-hall. Amongst those present were Mr T. B. GOLBORNE, chairman of the lighting and watch committee, Mr A. WAIN, law clerk to the commissioners, Mr J. TOWNSEND, clerk to the magistrates, Captain REED, and the Rev M'CARTHY and Rev P. VERNON etc. The gentlemen of the jury were Messers S. BALLIFF [foreman, Thomas KENNING, H. S. BRISTOW, H. ROBINSON, Matthew M'NERNEY, James M'WHIRTER, George BARNETT, Robert BROMLEY, EVANS, Richard HARGREAVES, R. GRAY, T. H. GALLOWAY, Thomas BROWN, J. E. THOMAS, James TAYLOR and Ralph SMITH.
Witnesses called
Jane SOFTLEY wife of William SOFTLEY, who kept a public house in Chester St, who gave evidence [as above] the person she requested to get the officers, was Patrick FOX one of three men who were in the house at the time.
The prisoners were brought into court, and a more villainous-looking couple were scarcely ever in a court of justice, SMITH the murderer is a stout, tall, young man with low forehead and a repulsive look. He was dressed in a blue cloth coat and Guernsey cloth shirt and had a strong Irish accent, he appeared to affect as if partly in liquor. BREEN is about the same height as SMITH, and looks equally as repulsive as the murderer.
file://C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\My Documents\museum\newspaper\HT... 12/09/2013 The murder of police-officer William VAUGHAN at Birkenhead, 1856 Page 3 of 5
Patrick FOX, a groom, gave evidence as to witnessing the disturbance and going to get the officer VAUGHAN, he also stated that the prisoners were drunk. as did Joseph LAWSON, cab driver, who was also in the house at the time. He saw VAUGHAN coming up, but did not see the fatal deed. He afterwards assisted in removing the deceased to the police station.
Police-officer WHITEHEAD, No 5, stated he was at the Woodside Ferry about 2am, and was told by Henry CUNNINGHAM a cab driver that there was a disturbance at the public house of Mrs SOFTLEY. He was on his way up to the disturbance when he met the prisoner BREEN at the corner of the public house of Mr HALLIDAY at the end of Bridge St and said to VAUGHAN, "What has been the row here?" He informed him that the prisoners had been kicking the door of the house of Mrs SOFTLEY and broken one of the panels. He asked VAUGHAN did he know them and he told him, he did, but did not know their names. After describing the stabbing and running for the surgeon and reporting the incident to Inspector THOMPSON etc [as above] witness then got a lantern and went to the place where the scuffle was and found a knife [here the officer produced the deadly instrument] and a thrill of horror spread through the court. The prisoner SMITH hung down his head, and large drops of sweat poured down his forehead and cheeks, showing that he laboured under great mental agony. The knife which was open had blood upon the blade and witness noticed blood on the right hand of SMITH after he was taken to the bridewell. The witness here produced the clothing of the deceased, the overcoat and waistcoat had several cuts in them, one of the cuts had perforated the inner clothing. The poor fellows shirts were saturated in blood. The audience were horror stricken, and the murderer as the bloody garments were passed around the court, heaved deep sighs, the perspiration flowing freely down his cheeks. The was a large fresh cut between the right fore finger and thumb of SMITH when he was taken to the bridewell. The prisoners were under the influence of drink, but not drunk.
Police-officer CLARKE, No 16, deposed to his attention being called by Officer WHITEHEAD, shouting, "Stop him, stop him, he has killed VAUGHAN" Witness met the prisoner in Bridge St, SMITH cried "Look out you --------, " witness then struck him on the head and knocked him down, and he was taken to the bridewell.
Mr Matthew JENNETTE, surgeon to the Birkenhead police, deposed to being called to see the deceased at 2.20am, the officer was then in a dying state. He found a wound on the left side about an inch long under the nipple, there was considerable external haemorrhage. He performed a post mortem examination and found a wound an inch and a half long in the oblique direction, wounding the pericardium of the apex of the heart, with a vast quantity of blood internally. The wound to the heart was the cause of death, the knife produced would cause such a wound.
[Here great sensation was caused in court by the agonising cries of the sister of the deceased, who was trying to make her way amongst the crowd of people]
This being the whole of the evidence.
The Coroner asked SMITH if he wished to make a statement, before he did so it would be necessary for him to caution him as to what he might say.
SMITH asked if Mrs HILTON or her daughter of the Conway Arms were in court, [no answer to the request] SMITH then went on to say that he and his companions had about 6 glasses of whiskey in the house of Mrs CONWAY on Monday night and a quantity of ale at the north end.
Coroner, "Unfortunately even if it were proved to the jury that you had taken too much drink, it is not extenuating circumstances in your case, for the law does not recognise drunkenness, it will not matter to the jury if you were drunk or sober"
file://C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\My Documents\museum\newspaper\HT... 12/09/2013 The murder of police-officer William VAUGHAN at Birkenhead, 1856 Page 4 of 5
The prisoner then made a statement to the effect that he and his companion called at the house of Mrs
SOFTLEY, at 1.30am, seeing a light they knocked at the door, but Mrs SOFTLEY refused to admit
them. He answered "You have cabmen in why not let us in as well as them?" He shoved the door but
Mrs SOFTLEY closed it again on him. When the police were sent for he went to hide at the back wall of
the house, but had no brick in his hand as stated by one of the witnesses. He knocked at the door a
second time when police-officer VAUGHAN came up and said, "What are you kicking up this row for?"
Mrs SOFTLRY then put her head out of the window and charged him to the bridewell. She afterwards
said if he would pay the damage she would let us go. VAUGHAN said, "Go home" and we were going
home when the officer came over and wanted to know my address, and I would not tell him. So I went
into Albion St, when the deceased came up and hit me four or five times very violently on the back. I
then turned round and said, "Mr VAUGHAN, do not ill-use me like that, if you want me to go to the
bridewell I will go without that" He then got his hand twisted in my throat and was striking me on the
back and shoulders, I had no other way of defending myself. I did not do it with the intention of
committing murder.

The Coroner addressed the jury saying the facts were plain and transparent it would not be necessary to
recapitulate the evidence. No provocation was given by the deceased to SMITH, under the
circumstances the jury could not do otherwise than hold him responsible for the murder of the officer.

The jury retired and within a few minutes returned with a verdict of "Wilful murder" against Thomas
SMITH.

The prisoner on hearing the verdict became deathly pale, the perspiration flowed rapidly down his face.

The prisoner was brought up at the Birkenhead police court on Wednesday, Mr J. S. JACKSON took his
seat on the bench and was joined by Sir Edward CUST and Mr J. W. HARDEN, the judge of the county
court. Patrick BREEN the companion of the prisoner was also brought in custody. The whole of the
evidence was taken by Mr W. DREW, assistant clerk to the magistrates. The court was crowded during
the inquiry which lasted about 4 hours. The prisoner assumed a more hardened appearance than when he
was before the coroner and asked the witnesses questions in an impertinent manner. After the whole of
the evidence was taken SMITH was committed to take his trial at the Chester Assizes to be held in
March next, for the wilful murder of William VAUGHAN. His companion BREEN was discharged.

The body of the deceased was removed from the police station to the house of his mother in Market-
buildings on Tuesday night, the coffin being carried by a number of the police force. The interment will
take place tomorrow [Saturday] at St Mary's Church, when the whole of the police at Birkenhead and the
constabulary of the adjoining districts will follow the remains of the deceased to their final resting place.

Subscriptions are being raised on behalf of the aged mother and sister of the deceased, the former of
whom is quite infirm, and the latter lame. Subscriptions will be received by Mr Superintendent BIRNIE
at the police office, Captain REED, manager of the Woodside Ferry. The coroner's jury after the inquest
on Tuesday contributed the shilling to which each was entitled towards the relief of the bereaved mother
and sister of the deceased.

At the Chester Assizes held in March 1857 Thomas SMITH was charged with the manslaughter of
William VAUGHAN, Crown court Friday, sentences passed, Thomas SMITH labourer, convicted of
manslaughter, was sentenced to be transported beyond the seas for 14 years. Prisoner, thanked his
Lordship, and walked away with a firm step.

MAIN PAGE

file://C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\My Documents\museum\newspaper\HT... 12/09/2013 The murder of police-officer William VAUGHAN at Birkenhead, 1856 Page 5 of 5
Copyright 2011 all rights reserved
file://C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\My Documents\museum\newspaper\HT... 12/09/2013
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 3 May 1856
THE LATE ATTEMPTED MURDER AT RUNCORN.
It will be in the recollection of our readers that a fortnight since we gave an account of the attempted murder and suicide at Runcorn. The party charged with the rash act is a boatman, named Richard Francis; the person on whom the attempt was made is his wife. The prisoner has been several times brought up and remanded, his wife not being sufficiently recovered to give evidence. He was finally brought up yesterday week, before Philip Whiteway, Esq., charged with attempting to murder his wife Mary Francis, by cutting her throat. The woman was brought to the Town‐hall in a car, and she appeared to be in a very weak state from loss of blood. Upon the case being proceeded with, Mary Francis stated that on the day in question she was in Runcorn with the prisoner, who is a boatman. She went with him to a public‐house to have a glass of ale, where they met with the captain of his boat and his wife. Prisoner wanted them to have a second glass, which they refused. The Captain said to make it equal, his wife should pay for a noggin of rum, which was called for and drunk, after which, the prisoner and witness quarrelled; she believed it was because he would not pay for another gill. The prisoner struck her, and the captain's wife pulled him off. All of them went to their boats; the captain and his wife went first into the boat; the prisoner then began to abuse witness, and the captain told him if he did not be quiet, he would force him from the boat, but would not turn witness and child out until they got to Manchester, where witness lives. The Captain went away, and left the prisoner in charge of the boat. The prisoner then jumped off the captain's boat on to the boat where witness was. She was afraid of him sticking her. She said "If you do not alter I will not live with you; if you do not be quiet, I will call for help." He said, "Mary, forgive me, and I will quarrel no more." She replied, “I have forgiven you before." He said, "Well, but I won't any more, and give me a kiss." He then drew her to him to give her a kiss. She did not feel the knife go across her throat; nor did she know it was cut until she felt his finger in the wound, and saw blood streaming down; she then screamed out when she saw people coming toward the boat. She got on the top of the boat, when prisoner caught her by the clothes to pull her down, and on looking down, she saw prisoner cutting his own throat. A person named Cox came up at the time to her assistance. She got three of her fingers cut in trying to save herself; the knife now produced is the one with which prisoner cut her throat, she saw it in his hand, and knew it well. The captain corroborated the prisoner's statement with regard to the quarrelling between the prisoner and his wife. Mr. Cooper, surgeon, said he was called in to attend the wounded woman; he found her in a very dangerous state; she was in great danger for two or three days; the wounds in her neck were such as might be caused by the knife produced.
Police‐constable Clayton stated he found a crowd near the Delph Bridge, round the boats. On the top of one boat lay the prisoner with his throat cut and bleeding; on the other side lay his wife, supported by William Cox. Witness took the prisoner into custody.
A boy about ten years of age saw the scuffle, and saw the prisoner cut the woman's throat.
William Cox stated he went to the boats, and assisted the woman, and kept the prisoner from again attacking her. Superintendent Black said that he saw what police‐constable Clayton described, and sent for two surgeons, and assisted to remove prisoner to the police‐office. When there, the prisoner charged his captain with having cut his and his wife's throat. Witness went and brought the captain before the prisoner, when he denied the charge. Witness inspected the captain's clothes, but found no marks of blood on them, and he let him go. Witness produced the knife, covered with blood, which he found on one of the boats. Prisoner denied that it was his property, but his wife declared it to be so, and the one with which he committed the deed.
The prisoner was then committed to take his trial at the next assizes at Chester Castle for attempting to murder his wife. The prisoner appeared much distressed, and said he hoped his wife would soon re‐cover.
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 18 October 1856
CHILD MURDER AT RUNCORN.
Thomas Brennan, a lodging‐house keeper, Elizabeth, his wife, and a lodger named Froyne were last week taken into custody on suspicion of having murdered a child. On Saturday, the 4th inst, Mr. Blake the superintendent of police, received an anonymous letter of which the following is a copy:
"Oct 3, 56. "Your Revs Mrs Blake enquire at tomas branons Nelsyn street runcorn he has had a baby born a week last tuesday night weel & harty & last tuesday night she took it to John Woods herself no one new that child was ill till on friday morning the neibourhood was alarmed and said that branons child was dead & buried. excuse the writing." (sic)
On receipt of the letter the superintendent proceeded to make inquiries, the result of which being communicated to the coroner, the body was exhumed and an inquest held on the 8th inst,, a post mortem examination being deemed necessary, the inquest was adjourned to the next day, when Mr.
H. Wilson, surgeon, by whom the examination had been made, attended and gave evidence which went to prove that death had not been the result of natural causes.
Elizabeth Reece said she had nursed the child the day before it died. In the evening the child was apparently very well, and sucked some toffee. She gave the child to its mother as well as usual. Shortly after six on the Wednesday evening, or little more than two hours after, she went into the house, and the child was on its mother's knee, apparently in great pain; it seemed as if it could not breathe, and was blowing something out of its mouth. The mother asked her to give her a bit of white rag from a rag heap, which she did, and with which the mother wiped the child's mouth. Thomas Brennan was at that time doing something in a cupboard, but when she went near him he went away. The child wore on that night a frock with a white ground and brown spot, and a white pinafore. She had seen all the frocks Mr. Blake had shown her, and was sure none of them was the one the child had on that night.
Mrs. Reece, mother of the last witness, saw the child the night it was said to have been taken ill; it appeared very healthy, and a very fine child of its age. None of the frocks shown was the one the child wore when she saw it that evening. Mr. Blake said he had searched the house for the purpose of finding the frock described by the two last witnesses, but could not find it. He had found two frocks, but neither was the one said to have been worn when the child was ill on the mother's knee He had asked Mrs. Brennan if she chose to say where he could find it, but she denied that the child ever had such a frock, and said the child wore on that night one of the frocks he had found.
John Walsh, apprentice to Mr. George Gorst, grocer, of Runcorn, deposed that on Thursday morning last, Thomas Brennan, in company with another man and a woman, came into his master's shop; they asked for an empty tea chest; the woman said it was for a rabbit court; he showed them one, but it was not large enough; they bought a soap box, and gave sixpence for it; they measured it with a piece of string, and said it would do, and took it away with them; the woman distinctly said it was for a rabbit court.
The Coroner addressed the jury, and thought they could not proceed further until the contents of the jars were analysed. Mr. Wilson undertook to take the jars to Liverpool to Dr. Brett, or some other analytical chemist. The court was again adjourned to the 10th instant, at half‐past one o'clock.
On the court being opened on the 10th inst., the Coroner stated that in the absence of Dr. Brett, Mr. Wilson had delivered the jars to Dr. Edwards, of Birkenhead, who could not be prepared with the analysis until Monday; he would therefore proceed with the examination of witnesses.
John Ward, sexton of the parish church, deposed that he knew Thomas Brennan; he came to his house on the 2nd inst., about nine o'clock in the morning to order a grave; he was alone, and said that he wanted to bury a child; he said it was not a still‐born child, it had lived about four days; wit‐ness asked him if it had been baptized, and be said it had not; he told him he must bring it at half‐past six that evening, and also a note from the registrar; it is the practice in Runcorn to bury unbaptized children without the service, and they are always buried in the evening; Brennan brought the child in the evening; there was a man and woman with him; the woman carried the coffin; after the body had been buried by his son, he asked for the certificate; Brennan said Mr. Coleborne was not in, and his wife said they must bury without, and she would tell her husband and he would let them have one; Brennan brought the certificate on the following morning; unless there is any suspicion, or the child is still‐born, it is customary to bury on the registrar's certificate, without a medical certificate of the cause of death; on Saturday night, Mr. Blake and another constable came to his house and asked him if he had buried a child; Mr. Blake asked for the certificate; witness was ill and did not go downstairs that night; the certificate was given to Mr. Blake the following morning; on the 6th inst., he took up the body and put it in the hearse‐house until the following day; he locked up the hearse‐house himself and kept the key ; on Tuesday afternoon Brennan came with four or five women and asked to see the coffin; he showed it to them; then Brennan lifted up his hands and said that it was the right coffin; witness said to Brennan he was very glad that he had owned it, as it would be all right; he did not ask to look inside; witness carried the coffin to Mr. Wilson's Surgery about half‐past two o'clock on Tuesday afternoon; Brennan called at his house twice afterwards; on one occasion he asked what Mr. Blake said about it; witness told him there would be an inquest; he said he was innocent, and added, " If there has been any foul play let me suffer for it." He said on Monday about ten o'clock that he did not know the body had been taken up; he further said be should like to see it before it was buried again; witness promised him that he should see it; he said that if he was able he would rather give a hundred pounds than it should be taken up; witness re‐interred the body yesterday afternoon; the certificate now produced is the one he received from Brennan.
Henry Coleborne, registrar of births and deaths, stated that the prisoner Brennan had applied to him for the certificate on Friday morning last, which, after receiving replies to sundry questions, he had given him to take to Ward, the sexton.
Elizabeth Reece was then re‐examined. Margaret Magarry, 14 years of age, deposed, that she knew the Brennans; she saw the deceased on the day when it died. She was in the street when the boy Thos. Brennan called her into his father's house when the father and mother were out, and showed her the baby dead upstairs; he unlocked the back kitchen door; the baby was naked, and covered with a white window‐blind; there was a white cloth under its throat and over its mouth; it looked as if it was asleep.
William Blake, Chief‐constable of Runcorn, deposed to having searched Brennan's house for the frock described by Elizabeth Reece, but could not find it.
The Court was adjourned to the 13tb inst. when the inquest was resumed. John Baker Edwards, Ph.D., F. C. S., lecturer on medical jurisprudence and chemistry at the Liverpool Royal Infirmary School of Medicine, deposed that he had received from Mr. Wilson portions of the contents of a stomach. He then carefully analyzed the same He had digested the contents with distilled water, and obtained sulphuric acid by means of baryton. From the black portions and discoloured patches of the stomach and intestines, sulphuric acid had been obtained. It was his opinion that death had been occasioned by the administration of concentrated sulphuric acid known as oil of vitriol.
Mr. Henry Wilson had heard the evidence of Dr. Edwards. His opinion was that death must have resulted from the administration of concentrated sulphuric acid. The appearances could not be ac‐counted for from natural causes or from any known disease. The appearance of the mouth must have been produced either by evacuation or during the administration of the poison. Forty drops of oil of vitriol had been known to destroy the life of a child twelve months old. A much larger quantity in this case must have been administered to have produced the extensive destruction of the stomach. A teaspoon full would produce all the effects; if the stomach was empty, life would be destroyed under twenty‐four hours. Five hours would be required to produce the inflammatory symptoms. The witness explained the result of various other symptoms.
The Coroner summed up the evidence, and the jury brought in a verdict of " Wilful Murder," against Thomas Brennan, Elizabeth Brennan, and Patrick Froyne, who stand committed to take their trial at the Cheshire assizes.
Cheshire Observer
Saturday 29 March 1856
SANDBACH POLICE COURT.
MONDAY, MARCH 24. Before C. J. Ford, R. Wilbraham, j.m., T. J. W. Swettenham, and G.
W. Latham, Esqs.
Thomas Foster, John Breeze, Thomas Breeze, Joseph Plant, James Bower, Thomas Vernon, John Burgess, Joseph Shaw, Robert Guiding, and Thomas Dean, were charged by Police Constable Watson, with being drunk and fighting, at Davenham, on Saturday night the 15th inst.; the case was proved by several witnesses. It appeared that on the night in question, the defendants had been to a club, held at the Bull Head Inn, at Davenham, between 11 and 12 o'clock at night, they all turned out in the street, when a general row took place. They were bound in £20 and one surety in £10 each, to keep the peace for one month, and to pay the costs. Mr. James Whitehead, the township constable of Davenham, had exerted himself very much in quelling the row, and he was complimented by the magistrates, for his praiseworthy conduct.
Edward Heath, publican, of Middlewich, was charged by police constable, Parrott, with an offence against the beer act, on Sunday the 16th inst., by having persons drinking in his house during prohi‐bited hours. Fined £1 including costs.
Francis Kitchen, of Middlewich, for a similar offence on the same day, was fined £2 including costs.
Mary Ann Tilley, the wife of a sweep, was brought up in custody by police constable Faram, charged with being drunk and disorderly at Sandbach, on Saturday; the prisoner is a most notorious drunkard, and has been repeatedly before the magistrates. Committed one month.
James Wood, was charged by police constable Walker, with being drunk and disorderly, at Wheelock on Sunday, the 9th instant. Fined ss. and costs, and in default of payment, six hours in be stocks.
John Rogers, a lad about 15 years of age, was brought up in custody, by P.C. Scott, charged with stealing a handkerchief containing a dinner, from a girl named Harriet Billington, at Odd Rodde. Committed 21 days.
William Hood, sen., William Hood, jun., William Baker, and John Yoxall, were charged by
P.C. Scott, with being drunk and fighting, at Smallwood. Bound to keep the peace for six months, and pay 9s costs.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 14 February 1857
The Cheshire Constabulary.
On Thursday, Captain Smith, the recently appointed chief constable for the county of Chester, attended at the Police Station, Birkenhead, and inspected the constables belonging to the hundred of Wirral, the police force of Wallasey, and the constables of St Paul's district, and of Holt‐hill, Tranmere.
These several bodies of police will, according to the provisions of the new Police Act, be embodied as the county constabulary.
Mr. Hassall, law‐clerk to the Wallasey Board of Health, and Mr. E. W. Coulborn, a member of that board, were in attendance. We believe that the appearance of the men gave satisfaction to the chief constable.
Chester Chronicle - Saturday 21 November 1857
CHESTER WATCH COMMITTEE. MESSRS. ROWE, LITTLER, AND WILCOXON
MARE'S NEST.
On Wednesday morning at ten o'clock the watch committee, met in the Council chamber, to hear certain evidence produced by Messrs. Rowe, Littler, and Wilcoxon, against the statement of police‐officer Edward Dorrity (C 10), that on the night of the 10th October last he had rescued a drunken fellow, named William Maddock, of Ledsbam, from being drowned in the river. The case had been reported to the watch committee, and that body had awarded 10s. to Dorrity for his courageous conduct. The Council meeting the 2nd instant that sum was augmented to 25., and then Mr. Rowe moved that the matter be referred back to the watch committee for further investigation, he was able to prove that the policeman's statement was false, and that the name of Maddock was too respectable to be connected with drunkenness.
The amendment was not seconded, but as the hearsay gossip was so loud and strong, another investigation was agreed to, and on Wednesday morning it commenced at ten o'clock. Mr. R. Frost, the chairman, having explained the reason for the meeting, The Town Clerk suggested that, if Dorrity still adhered to his former statement, the evidence against him should be first taken.
Edward Dorrity was called in, and in reply to the chairman said, that the whole of the previous statement was perfectly correct.
Mr. S. Meacock, jun. was then called to give evidence, but in answer to the Town Clerk, admitted that he knew nothing of the affair personally, all he knew was from hearsay.
So ended the first witness. Mr. Hill suggested that all witnesses or persons likely to be | examined should withdraw, which suggestion was agreed to.
William Maddock, of Ledsham, a half imbecile looking countryman, said—l had taken too much drink, but not know how much. It was chiefly ale. I was walking alone. The last house I remember being was the Grosvenor Arms, by the Northgate. It was dark when left there, but I do not recollect leaving. I can go to Ledsham either by the Parkgate or Liverpool road, and sometimes one, and sometimes the other, going by the sands would be much round. On this night I do not know which way I went, but I recollect falling a great height into the canal. I cannot describe exactly the part of the canal. I recollect being in the water; as I got sober put my elbows on the side, and got out on the clean sandy walk; no one came to assist me. I saw no light, but I found myself fighting amongst the dock gates. I was in the water a few minutes. Where I got out was a walking place for horses. I have not seen the place since until this morning when I recognized the place once. My nephew and Mr. Bowe went with me to see it. I had an idea of the place without Mr. Rowe telling me; I should not wish to swear that I know the place. L am not come to 60 years old to tell a falsehood. When I got out I could see no lights, nor hear any one's voice. I made no word myself, and did not call for help. I can swim a little. I was rambling about until I was starved to death amongst these gates, and got to where I saw light, and I opened a house door. I did not lose my hat. I do not know whose house it was, but a woman came to me. I could point out the house, but I was some hours about, until my teeth shook my head. It was a considerable time between getting out of the water and finding the house. I never saw the woman before, but have seen her this morning. I did not see any man in the house, but I heard him speak. My nephew and Mr. Bowe were with me this morning when I saw the woman. I did not see a man, it might have been a woman, but I believe it was a man. I was not in the house, but stood opposite the door. She went with me to a public‐house close to. I know no thing particular about it, whether she went in with me. No particular conversation took place between us. She wiped me down in the street. I told her I had had misfortune to fall into the dock, and would she let me sit by her fire. I think I asked to sit by the fire. She spoke to some person inside, and he answered her to take me to the public‐house, I do not know whose house it was. I went into the public‐house, and there saw some people. There was a quantity of people, and I said, I had been in the canal and wanted to dry myself. I do not know whether I spoke to the landlord or the servant. All my clothes were taken off. I saw a policeman in the house, but should not know the policeman again. I was in the front place next the street. I cannot tell what the policeman was doing. He was sitting down, but saw very little drink. The men and women were various ways, some standing and some sitting, and all peaceable, with no drink about. At that time I was sobered, but not perfectly sober. I was stripped by the policeman at the fire. I cannot tell how long policeman remained, as I fell asleep. When I awoke the policeman was there still. I cannot tell particular when I left the house, but it was getting light. It was light the 10th October about five o'clock. When I got into the house, the policeman came to me and felt at me and said, yon are very wet, come to the fire. I do not know whether it was the same officer there when I woke as when I went to sleep. I think some part of the night there were two police officers. I do not recollect any other conversation with the policeman, not particular. I did not say to one officer that if had not been for that policeman I should have been drowned. The police‐officer did not ask who got me out. One of the officers did ask who pulled me out, and some one lying on the settle cried out "me," and smiled at him, gentlemen, I did. The policeman was there when I went and when I went out. The police‐officer asked me whether I knew Mr. Maddock that had a fire. I said "yes, I was his brother." I thought one policeman was a captain, as he was dressed differently to the other. That one did not sit down, but he went away in a few minutes. He left the other policeman there, and a policeman was there when I left in the morning. I do not know whether it was the same policeman as I saw first. Perhaps the man was dressed like policeman. The captain called out—"Who pulled him out," and some one said me." and I smiled at his fabulous tale. I made no answer all. I was in the canal and not the river I was in, but do not know whether was the right or left side.
Mary Hearn, living in Kitchen‐street, deposed—l recollect the night the 10th October. Very near 12 o'clock I heard a feeling at my shutters, and I went to the door and I found William Maddock there. I spoke first, and asked him what he wanted. He asked for a bed, and said he had been in the basin. I can't say whether he called it the basin, the canal, or the river. He was so cold he could not hold straight for shaking. I brought him into the house and wiped him down with a towel. My impression was that he said he had been in the basin, but it might have been the canal or the river. I asked him how he got out, and he said “the best manner he could.” He remained in the house five or ten minutes, till I wiped him down, and then I took him to Blackburn's, and left him at the entrance to the kitchen. Mr. Blackburn opened the door. I knocked at the door, and Blackburn said "who's there." I said have brought an old gentleman who had been the water. I asked him to give him bed, and he said I don't think I can, but I will ask mistress. I saw a policeman sitting in the kitchen. That policeman was Dorrity. There were several men there, but I saw no woman present. Rogers and Robert Jones were there. I don’t like to say who else was there. Six or seven were there. I do not know who the others were. I had much rather you should take that answer. I can't say whether there was any drink about. The old gentleman was brought to the house this morning, and I knew him at once. I can't say how far the house is from the basin; I should think it is five minutes walk or more. There are two public‐houses between my house and the basin— the Flint Boathouse and the Carnarvon Castle. I have been examined about this matter only once before coming into this room. I saw Maddock about half an hour before he came to house, and he then fell down under the lamp opposite Kitchen‐street. Blackburn has said nothing to me about this matter, but that if I was called up I was to say I saw the old gentleman walking past, and you brought him to me. On Monday, the 2nd Nov., I said to Rogers, "You must be soft to and take a false oath for that policeman.'' He said what for? I said, "that he got the old gentleman out of the water." Rogers said, "The policeman made me do it, and me some of the money, and I will cut in the morning." He did not say how much he got. Mrs. Lloyd heard what I said to Rogers, but did not hear his reply to me. Dorrity is the policeman I saw Blackburn's, but, I saw no other officer there. I have heard that Rogers and Jones had told my lodger that they had made the thing up, and they must go on with it. I saw Dorrity the in street about a quarter of an hour before Maddock came to my house. The policeman was then going to Blackburn's. He was not going from the direction which Maddock was. I supposed he had come down Middle Crane‐street, and he went into Blackburn's house, and the door was shut after him. It was a quarter of hour after I saw Maddock on his hands and knees when I saw Dorrity.
John Murphy, a shipwright, said—l lodge at Mrs. Hearn's and remember an old gentleman coming very wet to the house. I opened the door and he came in. "I think Mrs. Hearn wiped his hands with a towel; I think it was few minutes before 12 o'clock. Maddock spoke very sensible, and said he had fallen into the basin. I have had no conversation with Rogers, but we had a jeer at him going to public‐house. At the yard some of the men laughed about his pulling the man out of the river, and Rogers said say no more about that, the policeman did pull him out." I did not see whether it was water or mud that Mrs. Hearn wiped off Maddocks' hands. I do not know the basin. L am quite sure Maddock did not call it either the river or the canal. I can't remember whether Mrs. Hearn said there was any one else at Blackburn's besides the policeman.
Elizabeth Rowlands, of Crane‐street, came forward and told a long tale of gossip, and concluded by stating that when she charged Rogers with having taken false oath about getting the old man out of the water he replied “d—n it woman, I was getting drink at the time and the policeman persuaded him to do it, and he got 7s. 6d for 3 half days work, and a share of the policeman's money."
This was the case against Dorrity.
The committee then deliberated for quarter of hour when Edward Dorrity was then called and examined.—He said “On the 10th Oct. I was standing by the turn bridge near the slate yard company with Rogers, when I heard some one screaming in the direction of the Sluice‐house; I said to Rogers “What’s up down there” – I said “I’ll go down and see." I could not exactly say what the cries were, but I ran down to the cheese stage and then heard that a person was in the river was 20 or 30 yards from the stage, and was about 5 minutes in running down and taking off all my clothes and went into the river and seized hold of the man. I saw Rogers on the bank and I called him to assist me as the man had got a hold of me, and Rogers helped me to get him out. I then put on clothes and fetched the man as far as Kitchen‐street. There were no lights in the Carnarvon Castle public‐house, and I told Maddock to wait and I went to the beer‐house at the corner of Kitchen‐street and Middle Crane‐street. I could hear no noise nor see any light, and then went to Blackburn's, and hearing some talking, I rapped at the door and went in. It was about a minute or two when Maddock come in. I cannot say who brought him. We took him into a little back room and stripped him, and asked Blackburn to give him a bed. I think Mrs. Blackburn said she had not a bed to spare. Maddock had 2 1/2d‐in money. He had a glass of rum with that money, and I took him to the fire and left him having got some clothes for him. When I left the house I went on round and met policeman Price. After that met Sergeant Sutton, and he asked I was right, and I told him that had pulled a man out the river and took him to Blackburn's to see him. The sergeant went with me to see him and the Sergeant asked him how he got into the river, and Maddock said he was drunk, and did not know how he got in. The sergeant then asked him how he got out, and said " the policeman got me out." What policeman," said the sergeant, and Maddock turned round and said, this policeman." pointing to me, and he should have been drowned; but for the policeman, and he would reward him for it. The sergeant then came out, and I with him. I did not go to the house again. The night was dark, but I could see Rogers; Maddock was nearer Brewer's Hall Farm than the other side, I was not high tide, but the river was full. I landed Maddock 20 yards this side the of cheese stage where the shore was sandy. When I landed him, he could not speak for some time. He must have been a good swimmer or he would have been drowned before, but he was nearly done when I got hold of him. After I had dressed, Maddock could walk when took hold of his arm. Rogers went home and changed his trousers. Maddock must have gone to Mrs. Hearn's house while I went to Blackburn's. I left him in the street at the corner while I went to get lodgings for him. I left him the corner of Kitchen‐street, where could not see Blackburn's house, but I had not left him more than five minutes when he came into the public‐house. While I dressed myself. Maddock sat on the bank, and then I got him by the arm and fetched him along, My clothes were not wet. I have been accustomed to swim since my youth, and am reckoned a good swimmer. I have swum from Bangor point to Garth point. L am confident it was the river I got Maddock out of. When I met police‐officer Price, I told him of this matter. I left Maddock in the street, because I did not know whether they were at up at Blackburn's". That house was not open, and I rapped at the door with my stick.
Frederick Price (C. 9) stated that between one and two o'clock Sunday morning, the 11th October, he met Dorrity and Rogers near the Watergate. Dorrity then said that he had picked a man out of the river near the sluice‐house, and he was then at Blackburn's.
Sergeant Sutton said that he was on the south and west district on the night of the 10th October. About half‐past two he met Dorrity in Crane‐street, and asked if all was right. He said “Yes," and then said: "Sergeant, I have pulled a man out of the river to‐night, and have taken to the White House. His name is John Maddock, from Ledsham." I went down with Dorrity, and saw the man. I found Maddock in the White House, sitting opposite the fire. I said, “where have you been?" He muttered a bit, and at last said, "I've been the river." I said, who got you out?” He said, "this policeman," pointing to Dorrity. I said, "should you have been drowned but for him?" and he said, "I should." Maddock himself said that Dorrity got him out. I did not suggest it to him. Maddock then said, several times over, "don't kill me," and I said, "my good fellow, no one will hurt you." I then left him in the house, and Dorrity came with me, dressed in his regular night uniform. It was then 3 o'clock. There was no policeman in the house when I left, and I saw no more of Maddock. I told Dorrity to report the case to Mr. Long, the inspector, in the morning. He said he did not know the use of reporting it the man was not dead. I told him be must report it, as if Mr. Hill heard of it without a report he would find fault. He then said he would report it. Dorrity was on morning duty on the Sunday, and on Sunday night asked Mr. Long whether the report had been made, but it had not. [Here the committee adjourned to the top of the room, and adjudicated upon a capital luncheon, which Mr. Bolland had provided at the order of the chairman.
This business having been brought to conclusion]
John Rogers, labourer, said half‐past 12 o'clock on Saturday night the 10th October, “I was coming from my brother's house on the sands, when I met Dorrity on the turn bridge. I spoke to him for few minutes, and heard screams from the direction of the sluice house. The policeman said "what's that? and ran down towards the sluice house. I ran to the river's edge, and in a minute or two I heard two people struggling, and calling for help in the river. The policeman said "loose me," and I went up to my middle in the river, and got hold of the old man." Having got them both on the bank I went home and changed my clothes. After which I came out again, and seeing a light Blackbume's, I went in, and found Dorrity, Maddock, and Blackburne and his wife and son there. Robert Jones was not there when I got hold of some‐one in the river, and when I got them out. I did not notice whether the policeman was naked or not. The old man said, "now I'm all right, God bless you." I never told any one that we had made this tale up. I got 5s. from Dorrity on the Saturday the last examination took place.
Mrs. Rogers, the mother of the last witness, said, that about 1 o'clock on Sunday morning the 11th October she was in bed, and heard her son come in. He was knocking about the house a few minutes, when he went out. In the morning when she went down stairs she found his trowsers [sic] and stockings wet, and covered with sand, in a pan‐mug; and a clean pair of trowsers which were drying on the previous night, were gone. When she saw him in the morning, he said he had been out with the police. She had heard about the man being the river; and after the bother about him she wished he had been drowned. She was the mother of 14 children, and would not tell a lie. The trousers were wet up to the waist.
Thomas Blackburn, son of the landlord of the White House, said that Maddock was taken to his father's house near one o'clock on the morning of the 11th October. He was stripped and some dry clothes put on him. Witness sat with Maddock, who said he did not know whether it was the river he had been in, but he should have been drowned only for the policeman. In the morning Maddock went out, and said he should be back soon, but he did not come back.
Joseph Blackburn, landlord of the White House, said that Maddock was taken to his house, and some woman knocked at the door and asked for a bed. The policeman was there, but witness could not say who was there first. They stripped Maddock, put some dry clothes on him, and left him before good fire. Had never spoken to Mr. Maddock about this matter. There was no‐one drinking in the house at that time.
Mr. Meacock, jun., narrated a long hearsay, and went on to say that Joseph Blackburn told him the less the policeman said the better. The depth of the river had been taken at the spot pointed out as where the policeman went in, 30 yards from the Sluice‐house. One yard from the side the river was 4 feet, two yards 7 feet, three yards 10 feet, four yards feet, five yards 16 feet.
The Committee here deliberated for a quarter of an hour, when the following resolution was announced: That the Committee having carefully taken into consideration the statement of Police‐officer Edward Dorrity, and the evidence in support of it; and having also heard the evidence adduced contradiction of the same, the Committee can see no reason for reversing the previous resolution, that Police officer Dorrity was entitled to the reward. We understand that the votes were taken as follows‐For: The Chairman (Mr. B. Frost), Mr. Aid. Peacock, Mr. Ex‐Sheriff Jones, Mr. T. B. Foulkes, Mr. Hicklin. Against: Mr. (Deputy‐Chairman), Mr. Littler, Mr. Wathew, Mr. Wilcoxon. Mr. Sheriff Musgrave was compelled to leave the meeting half an hour before the votes were taken, but we believe his presence would have increased the majority. The Committee then separated at 5 o'clock, having been engaged seven hours in the investigation.
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 10 January 1857
COUNTY POLICE COURT.— Saturday.
William Higginson, railway porter, Bishops Fields, was brought up on suspicion of being connected with robberies committed at the General Railway Station. K. L. Jones, Esq., manager, said that he heard that a basket had been cut open during the night of the 2nd instant, and a pair of boots extracted there‐from, and knowing that robberies were not unlikely at the station, he requested Mr. Hill, Superintendent of Police, to cause the houses of the men who were on duty the night in question to be searched. Mr. Hill complied, and the second house searched was the prisoner's, where was found a box, containing miscellaneous articles in the shape of hardware, bottles, etc, as well as three silk handkerchiefs, which he felt certain had been abstracted from time to time from parcels passing along the railway. Charles Speed, Sergeant of Police, deposed to searching the prisoner's house on the 3rd instant, and finding the box, containing the hardware, etc which he produced, as well as three spun silk handkerchiefs.
Mr. Bridgman, solicitor, who appeared for the prisoner, said that the handkerchiefs belonged to prisoner's brother, who lived in the same house with prisoner, and with respect to the hardware, he would be able to prove that it was left with prisoner about five years ago by a hawker, as security for 15s., and some provender had by the hawker for his horse, and when he had brought out these facts, he felt confident the Bench would dismiss the case.
John Higginson said he was brother to the prisoner, and lodged in the same house with him. The handkerchiefs produced, he said he bought at a sale in Park Lane Liverpool, about five months ago. About five years ago, he said he lived with his brother at Hornes Mill, near Helsby, and recollected a hawker calling there at two different times. Both times he had provender for his horse, and the last time he called he borrowed 15s. from his brother and left hardware similar to that found in his brother's house as security far the same.
Remanded until Saturday (this day) to enable further inquiries to be made.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 12 January 1861
TOWN COUNCIL MEETING. A special meeting of the council was summoned last Wednesday..................................................
The next business was to consider recommendation, that Police‐Sergeant Charles Speed be granted a superannuation allowance of 12s. per week. Ald. Griffith proposed that the recommendation be adopted. Speed had been in the force 23 years and had been a sergeant for 16 years. Mr. Salisbury wanted to know if Sergeant Speed had not been brought before the Watch Committee several times for drunkenness. He asked the council to maintain their character as honest men, and discountenance men who were not deserving of promotion. He, if he stood alone, would vote against this thing, unless on some good authority he learned that the charge was untrue. Major French knew nothing of the charge against Speed, but he had been 24 years in the force. On a question put by Mr. Parish, the town clerk read from the 22nd and 23rd Vic. section 9, by authority of which this superannuation allowance was made. Two certificates were also read, one from the surgeon stating the cause of Sergeant Speed's being no longer able to be active in the force, and the other from the chief constable. Mr. Parish moved as an amendment that the matter be referred back to the Watch Committee for further consideration. It seamed to him that they were going further than they ought If they gave Speed this pension there were others who might be expected to come for pensions too, and they would have the principal of the fund from which these pensions were to be supplied eaten up. He did not say that Speed should not have a pension, but he wanted the matter to be fully and fairly considered before they decided what that pension should be. After further conversation, in which Major French, Mr. Butt, Ald. Griffith, and Ald. Roy, took part, Mr. Salisbury ascended the motion that it be referred back to the Watch Committee, and he gave notice that at the next council meeting he would ask Ald. Griffith if there were not charges of habitual drunkenness against 10 or 12 of the police officers, and if the men who would go to class one in the new arrangement would not be the drunkards.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 30 March 1861
CITY POLICE COURT. Saturday
Before the Mayor, Dr. P. Jones, Col. Lloyd, and E.C. Walker, Esq.
Ex‐Sergeant Speed. — Charles Speed, late sergeant of police, and to whom the Town Council recently granted 18s. per week, was charged with assaulting his son, Thomaas Speed, a boy of between 15 and 16 years of age. From the boy's statement it appeared that on the 2nd of March, he went to his dinner at the usual time, and after dinner went to wash him when his father began to speak to him about a pair of shoes, which he was to take to be mended. The boy said he would take them that night, and had no sooner got the words out of his mouth than his father pulled off his coat, rolled up his sleeves, and then struck him violently, as well as pulled him about the house. One of the boy's eyes was much blood‐shot and inflamed, and the Mayor asked him if that was the result of the assault. He said it was. The Mayor and other magistrates on the bench commented on the case, and repeated information which had been laid before them on a previous occasion. From that it appeared that Speed had turned the boy out of the house, with the intention of forcing him to maintain himself, though the lad was receiving but 3s 6d per week. Mr. Hill (Chief Constable) said that from what he had heard he should have felt bound to have brought the case before the bench if it had not been brought to notice otherwise. Speed denied the truth of the boy's statements, and asserted that he was unruly and mischievous. The boy said he could produce a witness to testify that he had not done as his father had said. It was further stated that at his work he was a well conducted boy. He was asked if he would return home again. He said that he scarcely durst do, as his father had threatened what he would do if he entered the house again. After some severe strictures on his conduct, and a hint that if he was brought up again his pension might be taken from him, Speed was bound over to keep the peace for 12 months, one surety in ten pounds and himself in £20.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 13 April 1861
TOWN COUNCIL MEETING.
Mr. Farish rose to put a question of which he had given notice, viz.: To ask the Town Clerk whether the Council had the power to rescind the resolution passed on the 19th January last, granting a pension of 12s. weekly, to Charles Speed, ex‐Sergeant in the Chester Police Force. He said he hoped that no one would go away with a wrong impression as to what his motive was in putting this question. His reason was that having seen in tie newspapers a report of a case in which ex‐sergeant Speed was charged with refusing to main‐tan his son, and which report also stated that if he (Speed) was brought before the bench again as he was at that time, the magistrates would see if his pension could not be taken from him. He had asked this question of the Town Clerk before, but thought it would be better to put the thing thus formally, that the town's people might know more of a matter in which be was aware they took considerable interest. Mr. Walker (Town Clerk) said that circumstances might arise which might justify the Council in rescinding the pension, but none such had occurred yet. Mr. Bowers would then ask what circumstances would give the Council that authority. The Mayor thought this second question was one which could not properly be put. Mr. Dowers would be glad if such circumstances would occur as would give the Council the requisite authority. He was sure if facts which were well known to them now, had been known to them when they were asked to grant the pension, they would never have granted it. He had asked Mr. Hill about a statement made before the Council by Mr. Walker, to the effect that Sped had appeared before the bench in a state of intoxication. Mr. Hill had said that this was not the case. Mr. Walker said that what he had before said was true. Speed was drunk, and he (Mr. Walker) spoke to Mr. Hill about it at the time. After a few words from Major French on the same topic, the meeting closed.
Cheshire Observer ‐Saturday 7th February 1863
THE LATE FIRE AT THE CHESTER TOWN BALL. THE COMMITTEE OF INVESTIGATION.
This very lengthy (full page) article relates to a fire in the Chester Town Hall, and which, was supposed, had commenced in the police office. The first witness to give evidence was Charles Speed: (Only his evidence to the Committee has been shown here due to the great length of the report, and is included as it shows Charles was now working again.)
EVIDENCE Charles Speed, a pensioned officer, but now an earthenware dealer in St. Werburgh Street, was the first witness called. He said on the 30th December, about 20 minutes past six o'clock, he was standing opposite to his shop door in St. Werbughstreet, when he perceived stroke issuing from the top of the Exchange. He ran across to the Police Office and saw Snell (pc), and told him the Town Hall was on fire. Snell said it could not. He immediately got the fire bell rung, and a crowd gathered. Police‐constable Diggery rung the bell, and he (witness) used the hose. Saw the fire at the top of the roof. Saw it when he left his own shop door. Saw the flames before he left. The waterman came in a few minutes. There was a good supply of water. Saw Snell and Diggery and a great many other people present. Did not see Mr. Levies, the surveyor. He (witness) stopped below. Did not go up stairs. By Mr. Owen— lt was not five minutes from the time he saw the fire before the reel was in use. By Mr. J. Jones— When the reel was ready there was plenty of water. By Mr. Littler— He saw the fire first on the front side of the building.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 29 October 1864
CHESTER CITY POLICE COURT. SATURDAY; ( Before the Mayor, J. Clemison, Esq., Major French, Aid. Trevor, and J Williams, Esq )
Assault on a Woman.— Charles Speed, an ex‐police sergeant, was charged with assaulting Mary Cullum, wife of a joiner, at Spitalfields' Walks, near the Waterworks. Mr. Churton prosecuted. Mrs. Cullum owed the defendant a small debt, for which she had a set off. Some dispute had arisen and legal proceedings were threatened by the defendant On Saturday evening last he went to Mrs. Cullum's, in a state of intoxication, and asked for some money. Mrs. Cullum would not give it him in consequence of the set off, and he then made an assault upon her. To protect herself from being kicked, Mrs. Cullum got hold of the kettle, when defendant struck it and smashed it. He behaved very violently, and came back three different times, frightening Mrs. Cullum and her five small children. Defendant was ordered to pay 10s. and costs, or fourteen days hard labour.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 3 August 1867
CHESTER CITY POLICE COURT SATURDAY.
Charles Speed, ex‐sergeant of the Chester police, Abbey Buildings, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in the Mug Market on Saturday night.— Fined 5s and costs or 7 days.
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 26 June 1858

Heber Campbell, a drummer in the Cheshire Militia, "apparently about eighteen or nineteen years of age was charged with attempting to destroy himself.
Police Constable Hickey stated that at two o'clock that morning he met the prisoner in Handbridge, and from what he was told he was induced to follow him. The prisoner walked to the river side near the Mills, and jumped in; witness went into the water up to his knees, and called upon him to save himself, and at length the prisoner scrambled out.
Witness took him into custody and he threatened to do it again.
A sergeant in the militia said the prisoner lived at his house, and that he was drinking on the previous day.— Colour Sergeant Etchells said the prisoner did not bear a good character and had been tried by court martial for desertion. The prisoner, whose vacant stare and general manner gave reason to believe that he had not yet come to his right senses, said he was drunk when he tried to drown himself; he had come from Scotland, but had no friends nor relatives. He was remanded for a week.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 24 July 1858
COUNTY POLICE COURT
Saturday. Before C Potts, T. Dixon, P. Ewart, Esqrs., and Captain Glegg.
An Unfounded Charge
A False Accusation
Superintendent Smith stated that Mr. Lowe, of Golburn Bridge; had been taken into custody by Sergeant Ashton in a mistake. The Sergeant had received instruction from the Manchester constabulary to apprehend a person of the name of Lowe, which lead to the unfortunate mistake.
Mr. Bridgman said he appeared on behalf of Mr. Lowe, and was astonished this morning to hear that Mr. Lowe, a respectable man, had been taken in custody while standing at his own door in his shirt sleeves, while a crowd was assembled, and conveyed to Chester Castle; rumours had gone abroad through the neighbourhood that would be very discreditable to Mr. Lowe. Mr. Potts said they were very sorry that the unfortunate circumstance should have occurred, and he hoped the reporter present would give publicity to the case.
Captain Smith said that the officer had expressed his sorrow for committing the rash act but he was so confident at first that he was the man.
Sergeant Ashton stepped forward and also expressed his sorrow.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 20 February 1858
CONCEALMENT OF BIRTH. CREWE POLICE COURT.— Satuday, Feb 13 {Before the Rev. Thomas Brooke.) Ann Hopley alias Annn Smith, Sarah Hopley, William Brockley, and Margaret Brockley, his wife were charged by Sergeant Wilson, with concealing the birth of two children, at Wistaston, on the 22nd January, 1858.
John Wilson being examined deposed: — l am Sergeant of notice for the hundred of Nantwich. On the 4th of February, instant, in consequence of information received, I went in company with Constable Morgan, to the house of William and Margaret Brockley, at Leighton. I asked Margaret Brockley if Ann Hopley were in the family way. She said "I do not know— l never heard so." I went again on the 10th instant in company with Morgan, and apprehended Margaret Brockley. She denied having assisted Ann Hopley or any other woman.— Her husband was present. I then commenced to search the premises for the dead bodies with Morgan, and Wm. Brockley said, “If you will go and sit you down I will fetch them." I said, “No, I will go with you." I then accompanied him to a field about two miles from Brockley's bouse, in Minshull Vernon. He then pointed out a pit. I went into it and saw a sack under the water about three feet deep, about seven yards from the side. On examining it, I found it to contain the dead bodies of two male infant children, and four stones and half a brick. I took Brockley into custody: he said, "You must be as easy with me as you can, as my wife and me have been brought into it innocently.' I took the dead bodies to Constable Morgan's house at Wistaston, and an inquest was held on them on the 12th. After the evidence had been given before the coroner about the wounds, I heard Ann Hopley say, — "The last time I saw the children, when my aunt tied the strings, there were no wounds."
Mary, the wife of Sergeant Wilson, deposed:— Ann Hopley made the following statement to me on Tuesday night the 9th instant whilst in Crewe lock‐up. She said. “On Friday night the 22nd January last, I was taken very poorly at night. I told my mother, and she asked me if I had spoken to any one to come to me. I said, I have not. My mother then said, Who shall I fetch; must I go for the doctor? I said. No, I may go better again; go for my aunt. And she went and on her return my aunt wanted to call on Dr. Lord, and my mother said, We will go straight on home, and see bow she is. They came straight upstairs to me. I had been delivered of twins — two boys. My mother went down stairs. — Aunt said she would take them and get them buried. She took the children away with her They were still‐born. I believe one of them would have lived if it had proper help in time."
John Morgan deposed:— l am a police constable at Wistaston. On the 6th of February instant, I went in company with Sergeant Wilson, to the house of Sarah Hopley, at Wistaston Green. I saw Ann Hopley, the daughter of Sarah Hoply, in I the house. I asked her if she had given birth to a child lately." She said “No." I said, “Are yon sure of that?" and she said “Yes, I am." I apprehended her on a charge of concealing the birth of her child. Witness described the appearance of the house and bedroom; and further said, I afterwards apprehended Sarah Hopley, under a warrant, for aiding and assisting in the concealment She replied, "I never saw the child." After the bodies had been found I had charge of William and Margaret Brockley. William Brockley said, in the presence of his wife. "This is the first lumber we have been in." His wife said, "Yes, we are drawn in this snare quite innocently. I did not think any harm, that girl had drawn us in this." At the inquest I heard the coroner ask Ann Hopley if she wished to say anything to the jury. She said, "I have nothing more to say. What Mrs. Wilson said is quite correct; there might be a word or two different. "
William Barlow, labourer, working for Mr. Perrin, of Wistaston, deposed: — that about three weeks ago he passed Margaret Brockley between her house and Tolle's Hall; she was carrying a bundle on her head.
Mr. John Lord, surgeon, Crewe, said he had examined the bodies, and was of opinion that one of the children was born alive, and the other was still‐born.
All four prisoners were committed to take their trial at the next Chester Assises, on the above charge.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 19 November 1859
DESPERATE ASSAULT ON A WIFE, AND ATTEMPTED SUICIDE.
At the Hyde petty sessions, on Monday, William Brown, a hatter, was charged with assaulting his wife, Sarah Brown, on the 19th ult, with intent to do her serious bodily harm, the chairman telling the prisoner that at first it had been considered that he must have been charged with attempting to murder his wife.
Sarah Brown stated that she had been married to the prisoner nearly three years, but had left him in consequence of his intemperate habits, five weeks before the day he assaulted her. She said that she was going to her work about a quarter to six o'clock on the 19th ult., when she met her husband in Hyde Lane. He asked her for a shirt, and she told him it was ready any time when he sent for it He then passed her, as if he was going away, he then seized hold of her, and struck her with what she believed to be a hammer on the back of the head. He struck her 14 times. She screamed out, and William Higgins rescued has, and took her to her father's. She was confined from her work 14 days.
Jonathan Harrison, druggist, Hyde, brother to the prosecutrix, stated that the prosecutrix was brought to his house a few minutes before six o'clock on the morning of the 19th ult. Her face was covered with blood, and on examining her head he found twelve wounds on the back and two in front, and all penetrated to the skull except two. Her comb was smashed into the wounds, and they had been caused by some blunt instrument. Sergeant Maiden saw the prisoner in George‐street with his throat cut. The prisoner put out his hand, and said, "I wish I had been in your hands instead of here (in bed.) I will tell you the truth about it I struck her with a piece of logwood, which I had brought from the shop, and not with a hammer as they say. I afterwards threw the logwood away." The prisoner then charged his wife with being unkind to him.
The cap, bonnet, and handkerchief of the prosecutrix were produced in court, covered with blood, and her wounds were plainly visible. The prisoner, when charged by Mr. Little with attempting to destroy his own existence by cutting his throat. It seems the prisoner was at the house of Mr. Charles Rowbottom, who keeps the Railway Tavern Beer‐house, Hyde, oh the afternoon of the 19th ult. Some men came in, and one of them observed the police were in search of a man for murdering his wife. The prisoner immediately jumped up and said, "Say no more about it;" and he then went in the backyard. Staying longer than usual, the landlord became apprehensive and went to see where he was. The prisoner had cut his throat with a knife which he held in his hand. The police, and Mr. Payne, surgeon, were sent for, and he was got into the house. Mr. Payne found a series of wounds on the throat, one of them being very extensive. This cut had entered the windpipe, and nearly severed it. Mr. Payne attended the prisoner, and he was fed with a pipe. The prisoner remained at the beer‐house until Thursday week, when he was removed. The result of the examination was that he was committed for trial at the next Chester Assizes on the double charge of unlawfully wounding and attempting to commit suicide.