Manchester Times Friday 1st August 1890
THE CHESHIRE POLICE INQUIRY. The inquiry into the charges brought against the administration of the Cheshire police by Mr. J. Slater Lewis was resumed at Chester Castle on Saturday, before his Honour, Sir Horatio Lloyd aid the other members of the Special Committee. Mr. Fletcher again appeared for the police, and Mr. Slater Lewis had the legal assistance of Mr. E. Brassey. Further evidence to rebut the charges made against the police was given at considerable length. Sergeant John Gosling deposed that when the police were ordered to go from Runcorn to Norton to intercept a gang of poachers there the town was not left absolutely unprotected, as had been alleged. Four constables in addition to Inspector O'Donnell were left on duty. The gang they were watching were suspected of having stolen a couple of sheep. In cross examination he said he entered the duty in his book as watching for suspicious characters, and he had made the same entry often when watching for prize‐fighters. The Hon. Cecil T. Parker, agent to the Duke of Westminster, appeared before the Committee to contradict the statements that had been made in reference to the police being employed to watch for poachers on the Eaton estate. The police were not there for 13 nights, as alleged. They were not there for more than three nights, and then they were always on the highway, and never on the land. The police and keepers joined forces on only one occasion, and that was never made public, because Police‐Sergeant Morgan was so thoroughly ashamed of not having taken the poachers when they passed close to him, and his comrades and he made a compact with the keepers to keep the affair a secret. If the police and keepers had been watching for poachers to‐ether it had been done without the sanction of the Duke of Westminster, witness, or the head Keeper. The Duke employed three constables for watching the hall and park, and he paid £17. 10s. a quarter for each of them. Henry Garland, the head Gamekeeper, and William Morgan and Robert Youd, assistant keepers, gave evidence in support of this statement. Superintendent Large, in the course of further examination, said ex‐Inspector O'Donnell never spoke to the men without using oaths. ‐Since O'Donnell had left the force the Runcorn Magistrates had convicted on the evidence of two constables, whereas during the time O'Donnell was there they would not convict on the evidence of five or six. Witness denied that there was any undue drunkenness or irregularities among the Runcorn police during the time he was stationed there. In reply to Mr. Slater Lewis, witness said Mr. Ashton (clerk to the Runcorn borough magistrates) told him that the magistrates had lost all confidence in Inspector O'Donnell. Witness denied the allegation that he paid £100 for his promotion. Superintendent John Plant, who has served for 21 years in the Cheshire force, was next called, and he asserted that he was never applied to by the Duke of Westminster or any other gentleman in the Broxton division for men to watch poachers, nor had the gamekeepers asked the police to assist them. The committee, after hearing evidence of a somewhat similar character from Superintendent Leighton, of Altrincham, and Superintendent Hindley, of Wirral, held a private consultation, the outcome of which was that the Chairman announced that they had decided unanimously that they had heard sufficient evidence, but if Mr. Slater Lewis chose to examine the Chief Constable he might do so. Colonel Hamersley was then called, and in reply to Mr. Slater Lewis, he admitted that Inspector O'Donnell poisoned his mind against Superintendent Hollingworth by innuendos, but never absolute charges, to the effect that he was not a sober man. He sent O'Donnell to Runcorn, not because the town was in a disorderly state, but simply because he considered O'Donnell more active officer than the one he succeeded. He looked upon Superintendent Hollingworth as a very good superintendent, and he had now come to the conclusion that all the squab‐bling at Runcorn was caused by ex‐Inspector O'Donnell. Addressing the Committee the Chief Con‐stable said that during the course of the proceedings it had been stated that a letter had been written by a Superintendent who was afraid to come forward as a witness. He had had an assurance from all the Superintendents that none of them had written such a letter. ‐Mr. Lewis had also said he was glad that some of the constables had clean sheets. He had had the records of the whole 387 men examined, and out of that number 212 bad not a single report of any kind against them. That was a very high percentage. The records also showed that in 1887 20 men were reported for being under the influence of drink on or off duty, in 1888 29 were reported and in 1889 the number re‐ported was again 20. These 69 reports were made against 60 constables, and of these 21 had been dis‐charged, which showed that drunkenness was not tolerated in the Cheshire constabulary. At this stage the inquiry was further adjourned till August 26.
Liverpool Mercury Friday, 1 August, 1890
The New Brighton Tragedy
Trial At Chester Assizes
Yesterday, at the Chester Assizes, before Mr. Justice Stephen, who presided in the Crown Court, Felix Spicer, rigger, 60 years of age, was brought up charged with having, at Liscard, on the 25th May, 1890. feloniously, wilfully, and of his malice aforethought, killed and murdered William Spicer; further, with having, at Liscard , on the 25th May, 1890, killed and murdered Henry Spicer; and further, with having, at Liscard, on the 25th May, 1890, attempted to kill and murder Mary Ann Palin.
Mr D.L.V Colt Williams and Mr Malcolm Douglas prosecuted; and Mr Edmund Burke Wood, at the request of his lordship, defended the prisoner.
In his opening statement, Mr Colt Williams said that as the prisoner was arraigned before them on the serious charge of wilful murder he felt sure he might ask the most careful attention of the jury. He needed not to point out that the charge was a grave one, the most grave charge which could be found against any person, but what made it even worse than such cases sometimes were was that the prisoner was charged with murdering his two sons. He (learned counsel) would have to occupy their attention for some time in giving a short account of the family life of the prisoner implicated before going on to the facts of the case upon which the prosecution relied. There was no direct evidence, everything being circumstantial, and it would be his duty, aided by his friend, Mr Douglas, to connect the prisoner step by step with the murder. However averse they must be to find a father guilty of murdering his own child he believed that if the jury considered the case proved they would say so in their verdict. The prisoner was a man about 60 years of age, a seafaring man, be being described as a rigger, and having also gone to sea as a cook. He had lived at New Brighton for about 17 years, and there had lived with him, a woman named Mary Ann Palin, who had always been looked upon as his wife, but who had never really been married to him. They had seven children, the eldest boy, who was about 14, being away at the time of the murder; William, whom prisoner was charged with killing, two little girls, one aged eight and the other six; the little boy Henry, who was also murdered; and a little baby. One of the seven children died some years ago. Prisoner and Palin kept a refreshment room at 3, Bickley Parade, and some time ago, owing to prisoner pecuniary difficulties the tenancy was transferred to Palin at the prisoner's request, but before Easter this year he seemed to be put out about the arrangement. He went to the rooms and kicked up a disturbance, till Palin called in a constable, showed him the agreement, and had the prisoner warned not to interfere with the management. The rooms consisted of a one‐storeyed place containing a restaurant and a kitchen. The house in Richmond Street was an ordinary one, containing a kitchen and bedroom, in which the children and servant slept.
Shortly after Easter week there seemed to have been some quarrel between the prisoner and Palin, as he went to the refreshment rooms during the absence of Mrs Palin in Liverpool, who had gone there to see a Mr Wright. Some money was taken during the absence of Palin, and when she returned words seemed to have taken place with regard to the taking of the money. Palin made use of words to the effect that one was enough to take the money, and then practically told him that he had no business in the place. That appeared to have made the prisoner very uncomfortable, and subsequently he wrote al letter to Mr Wright, agent of the landlord, telling him that Palin was not his wife. Correspondence ensued, in which Palin refused to sleep any longer at Richmond Street, and had her bed taken to the Restaurant, where she afterwards slept. The tenour of the correspondence was that prisoner wished her to return, but she replied upbraiding him for betraying her by saying she was no longer his wife, and for having disgraced her. The letter also mentioned about his promise to marry her before the first child was born. There was, undoubtedly, a desire on the part of the prisoner that they should make up the quarrel, but Palin, feeling that she had been so much injured by the prisoner telling Mr Wright that she was not his wife never went back, but continued to sleep at each night at the rooms. The children repeatedly went to the rooms, but returned to Richmond Street to sleep. Mrs Palin conducted the business of the restaurant, but on Saturday, the 24th, prisoner, suggested he should be allowed to help in the business which would be transacted in the course of the coming Whit Week. Palin sent a message to him saying that she did not require that assistance, and that she would not have him near the rooms. As there was an intimation made that four lodgers were going to Richmond Street, Palin said the children must not be disturbed as to their sleeping accommodation. Why the prisoner wanted all the children to sleep together the learned counsel did not know, and why he should have said that four lodgers were coming when they never did come was a matter of conjecture. As a matter of fact, there was an empty room in the house that night, and yet when a lodger came he was told there was no room to spare. It might be suggested that the stranger who stopped at the house of the neighbour, Mrs Myers, that night, and who had never been found, might by some chance have gone back into Richmond Street and murdered these children, but he (learned counsel) should show that that was perfectly impossible, for Mrs Myers would tell them distinctly that she heard this lodger go to bed, and after he had gone to bed there were two locks upon the door which she herself locked, and that it would be impossible for any one to go in or out without her knowing it. The prisoner never went to bed that night and he said that he was going to stop up in order to wait for this hypothetical lodger who never came. The person who saw him last that night was Mrs Fraser, with whom he had at first some words because she arrived from the prosecutrix's shop so late, but who afterwards at his request rubbed his back, as he complained of rheumatism. She would tell the jury that during the night at about daybreak she heard a cry coming from the little boy Harry, followed by a shuffling noise, as if somebody was going about in slippers. She did not pay much attention, because she knew that the prisoner was in the habit of going to the bedroom of the children and soothing them if they were disturbed. Again the little girl Gertrude, who was sleeping in another room, heard her little brother Harry cry out. She opened the door, and asked what was the matter, whereupon a voice which she supposed to be that of her father, said "go to sleep". The child cried out again, and she then heard the same voice exclaim, "shut up". A lamplighter who was passing heard the pitiful cry of the child proceeding from the house of the prisoner, and he heard a noise as of a man shuffling along the passage. The evidence would show that the accused was in the habit of wearing sandshoes down at the heels, and therefore if he was walking about he would so in a shuffling manner. Mrs Fraser heard someone go out, and shut the scullery door after him, and again she heard the same shuffling noise, as of some one going swiftly up the stairs then down again. It was suggested it was the prisoner. He had gone out of the house after having murdered these children, and having gone down to Bickley Parade, he came back through that scullery door, on the handles of which there were blood stains. It was also suggested that previous to the arrival of the police he drew down the blind in the kitchen.
The theory of the prosecution with regard to what took place after this was that having cut the throats of the children he went into the backyard and took from it a piece of wood which he had been shaping a handle to a day or two previously, and with that went down to the rooms and smashed the windows. Palin would say that she awakened by the hearing of a smash of glass. She then saw the prisoner putting his hand through the window and feeling for the key in the door. He must tell them, however, that prisoner had previously asked from Mrs Fraser how entrance was gained in the morning to the rooms where Palin slept, and Fraser told him that she went down in the mornings and Palin opened the door for her. On the window which prisoner put his hand through and where Palin saw him feeling for the latch there were found smears of blood, and this was material, because when examined immediately after his arrest prisoner's hands were perfectly free from all cuts and scratches. Counsel went on to speak of the assault on Palin, but said but he said he would not specify the particulars of that, as it was not before them, but he must tell them that Mrs Palin jumped out of the window into the street, and there Spicer attacked her. He had got her on the ground, he took a knife from his coat pocket, and the analyst would tell them that the pocket had bloodstains on it, thus bearing out the theory of the prosecution that there must of been blood on the knife before the attack on Palin. The knife he used was one which Palin had seen him handle previously, and he had told her that it would "cut the throats of all New Brighton". After the assault the prisoner went back into the rooms, and one of the witnesses would prove that while he was in there was the sound of running water. There was a lavatory in the rooms, and soon after prisoner's arrest it was noticed by the wash marks on the prisoner's hands and wrists that he had recently washed his hands.
After leaving his wife he went up to Richmond Street, where he was soon followed and arrested by the police for the assault on his wife. After his arrest one of the constables went up to the bedrooms, and in one of them found the two children with their throats cut, and their heads almost severed from their bodies. The learned counsel went on to describe the position in which the children were found, and of a pool of blood on the bed in which some one had evidently been kneeling. There was found on his knee immediately after his arrest wet blood marks, the knee of his trousers being soaked in blood. One of the little boys was lying where he had been sleeping and was dead. That would be shortly after four o'clock and the doctor was of the opinion that the two children had been dead about an hour, and that would coincide with what the prosecution said, that the prisoner, having murdered these children, went down to Bickley Parade. One of the witnesses would state that he remarked that Spicer had murdered his children. Spicer immediately replied "I know nothing at all about it". But he made no secret of the fact that he had made the attack on Palin. When at the Police Station, and charged with the murder, he denied having interfered with the children. There were also marks of blood on the prisoner's coat and shirt sleeves, and from that it would appear he was in his shirt sleeves before he left the house, and afterwards put on his coat. At the request of Spicer the lodger named Short went to see him at Walton Gaol, where he had related a story of what had taken place. He again denied murdering the children, confessed to attacking Palin, and said "I used my clasp knife to her". The prosecution would show that was untrue, because that knife was found upon the prisoner, and that there was no marks of blood on it. That was not the knife that Spicer had murdered the children with, and with which he attacked Palin, but the proper knife that had been used was discovered hidden in the flue of the kitchen range at Bickley Parade. Prisoner admitted having remained in the kitchen up to three o'clock in the morning, his excuse being that he was waiting for a lodger, who never came. Therefore, the only man about the house when the murder was committed was the prisoner. On the 23rd, or the day before the murder was committed, the prisoner was heard by his next door neighbour walking up and down the yard, and he was heard to exclaim in an angry voice, "they shall see they shall not have it all their own way". On the same evening someone was heard sharpening the knife upon the windowsill of the back window of Richmond House. The following morning there were marks upon the sill, and the knife, which would be produced, would show signs of having been recently sharpened but; whether it was sharpened that night or not the prosecution did not know. Those were the facts of the painful case, which would require the strictest proof by the prosecution. Prisoner seemed to have been fond of the children, and on the night of the murder assisted in putting them to bed. Therefore it might appear an extraordinary thing that he, being so attached to his children, should have murdered them in the cold blooded way in which it was alleged that he did.
Mary Ann Palin, after some formal evidence had been given, stated that she was 32 years of age, and had lived with the prisoner since she was 16. She had seven children, of whom four were still alive. On the 24th May last the eldest boy was from home. The next lad was nearly 13, the next was a girl of eight, another girl was six, and there was a boy aged three, and a baby. Witness had resided at Richmond Street with her children up to April last. She took in lodgers at the house, and carried on business as a refreshment house keeper at 3 Bickley Parade. The prisoner had not followed his occupation since she had lived with him. He went one voyage while they lived in Cardiff, and last year he went for a nine months' voyage. Up to September 1888, the tenancy of the Bickley Parade rooms was in the prisoner's name and it was retaken by her 1889 in the name of Mrs Spicer. He came back in September 1889, but did not disprove of her having taken over the rooms. Up to about Easter last she lived on good terms with him at the house at Richmond Street. She and the prisoner slept in the large front bedroom, and the children slept in a double‐bedded back room ‐three in one bed room and two in the other. As a rule the children slept together. This continued till Easter, when the prisoner came down and assisted in the business. On Easter Monday prisoner was locked up for the non‐payment of the poor rate which was owing. Witness paid the rate, and prisoner came back, and she agreed he should stay at the house, as he was owing more money, and was afraid there were more warrants out for him. He stayed a week at the house. She had no disagreement with before Easter. It was after that that the disagreement took place. He stayed away from the refreshment rooms for a week. He came to the rooms on the Monday following Easter week. Witness had been to Liverpool that day, and when she came home she found him a little worse for drink, and asked what money had been taken. He pointed to money lying on the shelf. Witness took a few shillings off the shelf. Prisoner asked her what she was doing, and she replied that she was taken the money. Prisoner said "leave it there; don't be in such a hurry". Witness said "oh, it does not take two to look after the few shillings here". Prisoner then began finding fault with the trades people she dealt with. Witness said she would deal with whom she liked. Prisoner said that he should let her know whether she should or not. Witness said that the prisoner had nothing to do with the business. Prisoner then went home. When witness was preparing the dinner next day, prisoner walked into the shop and took his coat off. He said, "you told me I had nothing to do with this place, but I must give you to understand there is no Mary Spicer". The girl Fraser was present at the time. Up to then she had been known as Mrs Spicer. She then said, "if there is no Mrs Spicer, so much the better for me". She gave him to understand that she would not have him coming there and conducting himself in an unpeaceable manner. In consequence of what she said he became violent, and kicked a chair across the floor. She sent for a constable, and when he arrived she showed him the agreement respecting the shop. She was quite agreeable for Spicer to come to the shop and be master of everything except the money. She had a bed taken down to Bickley Parade, where she slept until the 24th of May.
The children came down to the shop for their food, and she sent the prisoner's meals to Richmond Street, and also what money he sent for. Fraser was in her employ as a waitress, and slept at Richmond Street. Witness did not see Spicer for a week after the letter produced, which was in the prisoner's handwriting. She could not say when she received it. She did not think it would be in Easter week.
The letter was as follows :‐
"Richmond Street, 15/5/90. My dear Polly ‐I trust you will take my lot into consideration and pity me, and by the great God forgive me and in nowise cast me out, with a broken heart. Do forgive me. Have mercy on me. I will make every amends in my power. Have mercy on me; have mercy on me: give me some hope of your friendship. May God turn your heart to forgive me. Yours forever, F.SPICER".
On the back of that letter witness scribbled the following answer, and sent it to him :‐
"you are too late, and you need not try to see me. The door is locked, and once for all I will not be annoyed by you. I shall not see you".
She also received the following letter from the prisoner :‐19/5/90,
"my dear Polly ‐in the name of the heavens, have mercy and pity on me. If you will allow me to see and shake hands with you and make it up. Don't keep me in this desponding state. Forgive me, forgive me, for God's sake and my own. I have not slept these four nights thinking of you. Make it up with me. Let not our wrath go down with this day's sun. Have mercy on me. I will call tonight at nine. Don't refuse me a hand shake in the name of God. I beg you will not be cross with me. I am still for ever yours. F.SPICER". She also received a letter from him which he said ‐"my dear Polly ‐I will call down to‐night. I hope you will consider my feelings and make it up and shake hands with me. I am a broken man. For God's sake, have pity on me. Your's for ever F.SPICER".
In reply she sent the following letter –
"Mr Spicer, this is in answer to yours. You dare to ask me to make it up. You must be mad to think I shall ever speak to you again, much less make it up. You told Mr Wright I was not your wife. You mean, contemptible scrub, did you think of my years when, before Felix was born, I asked you to marry me out of shame. You laughed at me, but I have waited, and the day has come, I can tell everyone my tale now. Don't think it was for a liking of you I waited for. I hated you ever since the day you laughed at me, but I don't regard my name now. Why should I, now everybody knows. There is one thing I want you to know, that is the gallows before another night under the same roof as yourself. I will neither see or be annoyed by you. If you force your presence on me I shall have you removed. You can remain in the house for as long as you keep from me. I will see the rent paid, but I will never change as long as I live" ‐POLLY.
Witness had taken the rooms from Mr Wright. It was in consequence of an interview with Mr Wright that she wrote the letter.
The following letter was put in, and read by Mr Crompton. clerk of the assizes :‐
"18 Richmond Street, New Brighton, 8/5/90. Dear Sir, I am in receipt of your note, and am sorry, after the friendly advice you gave me, that you have thought fit to write as you have. It is a great trial to me, being the founder of the business, and your tenant so long, that you have not given me a more favourable consideration. I am afraid you have been misinformed about my affairs. I beg and trust you will reconsider your decision in my favour by getting Mrs Spicer to allow me to work in the rooms in an amicable way, in which I give you my honest word there shall be peace and love. I am near heart broken by this blow. I trust you will forgive me. With this appeal believe me to be, yours sincerely, F.SPICER. To A. Wright. Esq, 17 Water Street. Liverpool".
On the night of the 24th the prisoner sent the girl to her, saying he expected four lodgers that night, and the children were to be removed to the back room from the front room where they usually slept. She sent back word that they were not to be removed, and he was only to take the one lodger that she had sent up during the evening. She sent up the person she referred to Richmond Street earlier in the evening, and he returned in half an hour saying he had taken a bed. She saw the prisoner at the restaurant windows the night before the murder, when he said, "Good night, Polly" or "Good night, girl" and then walked away. She made up her bed in the restaurant nightly, and removed it for the day time, when Fraser left the premises. She put out the lamps, and subsequently she was awakened by a great noise, caused by the smashing of glass. She afterwards saw prisoner make a desperate smash at the same pane of glass which was near the door. She fell through the window right into his arms, both prisoner and herself falling to the ground, witness being on her back. She shouted out "Murder!" and he said "You shout murder you ‐wretch. You won't shout that when I've done with you". Whilst she was on the ground he kept knocking her head down and making for her throat. He had nothing in his hands then, but she saw the handle of a knife sticking out of his breast pocket. He took this out of his pocket and attacked her with it. It was a knife he had shown her before, saying in a jocular way that "it would cut the throats of all New Brighton". The knife produced was the one in question, and with it prisoner had tried to cut her throat. When he attacked her nose, forehead, and arms were cut, as was also her hand where she tried to hold the knife by grasping the blade. Finally she knocked the knife out of his hand and managed to run away behind the cabmen's shelter, and afterwards she got into the house of a Mr Bailey, just opposite. She thought prisoner had a long tweed overcoat on, and it was in one of the pockets that she saw the knife. She knew prisoner was in the habit of carrying a clasp knife, but the one that was produced was not that with which he attacked her.
In cross examination the witness said she first made the acquaintance of prisoner at Cardiff in 1873. He had made voyages, but did not know that he had ever been a voyage to Calcutta of that he had had a sunstroke while there. In one of the letters she wrote to the prisoner she meant she never had an opportunity of maintaining herself and the children, and "a day would come" when she would do so and have nothing more to do with him. After the manner in which he had treated her she had come to the conclusion she would not under any consideration live with him again. Witness, continuing, said "of course if he had offered to marry me I should have only been too glad". At this point the witness broke down.
Mr Wood : With respect to his appeals to you stating that he was broken hearted and that he was miserable and ruined, you treated those as nothing?
Witness: No sir. I have received those kind of messages before when I left him, and when I went and forgave him and went back to him, he even on the first night attempted to strangle me, and that was after he had pleaded as in this case.
Continuing, witness said she sent a man up to Richmond Street on the night before the murder as he wanted lodgings.
Re‐examined by Mr Colt Williams : It was before the child Felix was born that prisoner promised to marry her. Had he ever promised to marry you?
Witness : Had he ever promised to marry me? Yes, he had repeatedly.
Continuing, witness said it was at Blackpool that prisoner tried to strangle her. She left him for some time after that, and went to live with her sister in London.
Mr Colt William : During the times you lived in New Brighton had you ever serious quarrels?
Witness : Yes. I left him several times, but he always implored me to go back.
John Bailey, grocer, Victoria Road, deposed to be awakened on the night in question by hearing of cries of "murder". He found prisoner and Mrs Spicer struggling on the ground, and told to her to run into his house. She did so, and he followed her and closed the door.
Francis Storey, another neighbour, and Joel Fitton, corroborated.
Police Constable Frederick Potts stated that his attention, and that of Police Constable Jones, was called to a disturbance in Victoria Road. They went to Richmond Street in search of the prisoner, when Police Constable Jones took him to the police office, whilst witness went upstairs and found the two children on the bed with their throats cut.
Police Constable Jones corroborated, and deposed to finding a knife which had been recently sharpened and was covered in blood and concealed in the kitchen range.
The medical evidence of Dr Forbes Ross, as to the nature of the injuries, was taken next. He said that one of the wounds to the throat of the younger victim appeared to have been an abortive attempt at cutting it. After this wound was inflicted, and before the fatal wound was given, the child might have shouted. He saw the prisoner after examining in the children. He wore a black coat, on the breast pocket of which were blood stains, his sandshoes being also spotted with blood. His trousers were saturated, and his hands had been washed, leaving a "watermark" of blood smears on the forearm. Both handles of the back door were stained with blood.
Annie Fraser, waitress at Mrs Spicer's restaurant, who slept at prisoner's house on the night of the murder, said she remembered hearing one of the children make a choking noise, followed by a shuffling of feet and the sound of doors being closed. Somebody then ran upstairs and down quickly. She thought nothing about it at the time
Cross examining by Mr Burke Wood : She had always found prisoner to be most affectionate towards his children.
Martha Fearon, another waitress, corroborated as to the prisoner's kindness to his children, when cross examined by Mr Burke Wood.
Alfred Short, Clerk, of 18 Richmond Street, said that on the 24th of May he went in at ten o'clock in the evening. Spicer, his son, and the waitress were in the house at the time. Witness did not hear anything during the night except an altercation between prisoner and Mrs Fraser at twelve o'clock. He had an interview with the prisoner at Walton Jail on the Saturday following the murder, when he said "I washed Willie and kissed him put him to bed, bless his little soul. I am as innocent as you are"
Cross Examined by Mr Burke Wood : When he said "bless his little soul" he was very much affected and wept.
Witness had never seen a more kind man to his children. He was like mother and father to them. He sent the message to his wife, "Tell her I forgive her all she had done for me, but she has been very cruel".
A lamplighter named Bannng stated that just before daybreak on the morning in question he was performing his duties in Richmond Street when he heard a "pitiful child's cry".
A woman residing next door to prisoner stated that between nine and ten o'clock on the night of 24th May she heard the prisoner say he would "let them know who is master here". Later in the night she heard him sharpening a knife on the window sill.
After consultation with the judge and defending counsel, Mr Colt Williams decided to spare the little girl Gertrude Spicer the painful ordeal of giving evidence against her father.
At this stage the court adjourned, the counsel for the prosecution indicating that their case could be finished that day. The court rose at ten minutes after four.
Liverpool Mercury Saturday, 2 August, 1890
The New Brighton Tragedy
Trial And Sentence
Yesterday, before Mr Justice Stephen, at the Chester Azzises. Felix Spicer appeared again the dock charged with the murder, at Liscard, on the 25th May, of his illiegimate sons, William and Henry, and the attempted murder of Mary Ann Palin, their mother. Mr
D.A.V Colt Williams and Mr Malcolm Douglas, in continuing their case for the Crown, called Police Sergeant Cooper, who gave lengthy evidence as to the examination of the Richmond Street and Victoria houses, the bloodstains and other inculpating traces he found there and on prisoner's clothes and hands. He said that when charged with the offence prisoner said "I know nothing about it. I have done no murder".
Mr William F Lowe, county analyst, was next called, and gave lengthy evidence as to the nature and position bloodstains upon the piece of timber used by prisoner to batter the windows of the Bickley Parade restaurant, upon his clothes, shoes, knife, and in various parts of the house.
Dr Theodore Fendell, medical officer at Knutsford Jail, was next called, and stated that the prisoner had been under his care since his admission to Knutsford Jail on the 11th June. During prisoner's incarceration witness had had constant opportunity of observing him, and had found that his health had been good, there being nothing at all wrong with him mentally.
Cross examined by Mr Burke Wood : Witness had heard that prisoner's sister had been in Colony Hatch, and prisoner had told him that he had had a sunstroke.
That would not modify his statement at all as to the mental condition of prisoner; he could only form an opinion from what he had noticed himself. the prisoner showed no sign of insanity, or even of mental aberration.
This was the case for the prosecution. Mr D.A.V Colt Williams, in summoning up for the Crown, gave a lengthy review of the incriminating evidence. He said he understood that Mr Burke Wood intended to call no witness on behalf of the prisoner, so it became his duty to address the jury in as few words as possible. As he had intimated in his opening address, that case was one of such great gravity that he was sure they would pardon him if he detained them for more then a few minutes in doing so. On that occasion he had also told them that it was a case of completely of circumstantial evidence, and that they would require at his hands a strict proof of every step in the case; he submitted to them with some confidence now that he had so proved the case that there could be no reasonable doubt in their minds that the prisoner at the bar was guilty of the terrible crime with which he is charged. It might be that some attempt should be set up to show that because a sister of prisoner's was said to have been at one time insane, and because it was suggested that prisoner himself had once had a sunstroke, that he was insane at the time he committed that act. On the other hand they had the evidence of Dr Fendell, who had observed prisoner since June the 11th, that he was not a man of unsound mind. Therefore his submission on behalf of the Crown was that this case was made out without any shadow of a doubt, and that he was justified in asking them, after weighing his friend's and his lordship's remarks, to find the man guilty of the offence with which he was now charged.
Mr Burke Wood then rose to address the jury for the defence. He said that in this case a great burden had been laid upon the shoulders of all connected with the trial, and upon no one in a greater degree than upon himself. He was bound to say that Mr Colt Williams had conducted the case for the Crown most fairly, and had not exaggerated in the least degree the importance and solemnity of the inquiry. A great responsibility rested on them, the jury had by their verdict, and he, perhaps, by his conduct of the case, the life of the prisoner at the bar upon their hands. He did not say this with a view to asking them to take a merciful view of the case, but simply to give their verdict according to their oaths and the evidence laid before them. He dared say they noticed that on the previous morning when they came into the box he took the precaution, and used the right he possessed, of challenging several gentlemen, and they went out of the box. He did so not from any doubt that they would not have displayed as great an amount of intelligence and fairness as any in the box, but simply because he thought it better to have twelve strangers than any who came from the neighbourhood where the tragedy occurred. It was hard for any person to divest his mind of impressions that he had formed. Perhaps the result of conversation ‐perhaps the result of reading newspaper reports, and there was no doubt that the press of Birkenhead and its more important neighbour, Liverpool, spread far and wide an account of the tragedy at New Brighton and it was impossible pretty nearly that people should talk about a thing of that kind without forming some impression on their minds as to the guilt or innocence of the prisoner. Therefore, he earnestly asked the jury to try to come with a clean sheet, as it were, of mind to consider the evidence of that day and the day before. His friend, Mr Colt Williams, in opening the case, had told them that the case he had to submit was one entirely of circumstantial evidence, and that he had no direct evidence at all, and that if they did not think this evidence sufficient to satisfy them, they should say so by their verdict. That was just what he should have expected them to do. He was sorry to have to go into particulars of the married life of the prisoner and Palin, but there was no doubt that he had wronged her, and had not done what he owed to her by marrying her. It was possible that he was not in a position to marry her at the time, because he had a wife already. However, they had lived together for a number of years, quarrels frequently occurring, but not with any serious result till in April last, when they finally separated. He must call their attention to the dreadful state of misery under which the prisoner laboured in consequences of this quarrel with his wife, who refused to live in the same house with him any longer. He wrote imploring letters requesting reconciliation; but they were received with scorn. With regard to prisoner's statement that he could not receive a lodger on the night of the 24th because he had four men, and was full up, it had been stated that these four men were all a myth, and that this statement was only a part of his scheme to kill the children. Was it not possible that these men, whom prisoner said he had seen with women on the same night, had gone to some less respectable haunt for the night? At all events it seemed as likely as that the whole story was a myth invented by prisoner. Having pointed out that there was nothing peculiar in prisoner not retiring on the night in question, when he had a sofa prepared downstairs, he said that the testimony as to the prisoner being kind to his children was unanimous. Fearon appeared to have been a new arrival at prisoner's house, but even she had had time to how tenderly he brought them to be washed by her, and afterwards carried them upstairs and put them to bed. There appeared to have been the bright spot in that man's life ‐that was his love and affection for his children, and whatever Mary Ann Palin might have to say about his treatment of her, she had no occasion to make a single complaint of his treatment of her children. Annie Fraser said he was extremely kind to them; Maria Fearon described the way in which he performed those many little functions which a careless man might have relegated to the nursemaid, with the tenderness and kindness of a mother rather than the qualities of a father. The lodger also said he never saw anyone so kind in his life, and confirmed the opinion that he was like a mother rather than a father. He then referred to the evidence as to the discovery of blood stains in the house, and emphasised the fact that though prisoner was said to have done downstairs with the clothes reeking with blood, only one small stain was found on the banister. It would be an insult to deny that prisoner went down to Bickley Parade ‐the evidence was too strong and unanimous on that point ‐but if an assault of the nature described was committed upon Palin by prisoner, it would be a fair and reasonable conclusion to draw that the blood found on his clothing had flowed from her hands as she was on the ground by prisoner. Again, evidence had been given to this effect that the blood stains on the handle of the piece of wood used by prisoner to batter in the windows in Bickley Parade were wet when it was examined after the assault. He contended that if the stains were imprinted at Richmond Street, by the time he had walked to Bickley Parade and assaulted Palin the stains would have had time to dry. At all events this was not improbable solution of the case. He strongly urged upon the jury the fact that the lodger, who came in at seven o'clock on the morning of the crime, had not been examined by the counsel for the prosecution, and said that in view of the widespread newspaper reports he could not have failed to hear about the occurrence. In reference to the interview in Walton Jail he said that sometimes when prisoners made statements there was something or other held out, or it might be supposed that there was something held out; but in that case it was entirely a voluntary statement to a man whom he had sent for, and therefore entitled to more respect at the hands of the jury than many communications of a similar character. He said, "I know nothing, so help me God. I washed little Harry; I put him to bed. I bid him 'Good night', and kissed him ‐bless his little heart. Willie went to bed afterwards; I wished him 'good night' and I didn't go upstairs afterwards. I am as innocent as you are". That was a statement made to an independent man, and he would ask them to attach some importance to it. These children appeared to have been the idols of his life almost these children whom he was charged with killing. A great lawyer, Lord Cope, described murder as being when a man of sound memory and discretion killed a human being. Did they believe for one instant that that man "murdered" his children? He was obliged to say he dared not leave any stone unturned in the duty that he had to perform on behalf of the prisoner; and therefore, though he submitted that the evidence for the prosecution consisted of a chain of evidence that was faulty and undefendable, he must omit no point that told in prisoner's favour. He could not help saying that if that man he said this under his lordship's direction ‐if this man went into the room where those children were sleeping, very likely when he had the intention of going down and attacking the mother, and breaking into her premises, knowing that he was going to do the mother grievous bodily harm or to murder her, and that it would be impossible to escape ‐if he went into their room to take a last look at them, he submitted that if he went back into the room with merely the innocent intention of seeing his children, they would say he was not guilty of the murder of those children if, when his mind was so clouded with the trouble he had been in and the contemptuous replies to his appeals by his wife, this man, maddened with the thought of it, had his mental faculties so obliterated that he put an end to the children by cutting their throats. He asked the jury to ask themselves whether he was at that time a man of sound memory and reasonable sense, and said that if they thought not, he would ask them to say that a verdict of manslaughter would be all that could revert against that man. He was under his lordship's direction when he summed up the case to them, and he had no more to add on behalf of the prisoner. He had done what he thought was his duty, and according to his advice what he could do, and he only asked them to remember one thing ‐that they were not trying prisoner for the attack on Mary Ann Palin, and the savage assault he made on her, but simply for the crime of murder.
His Lordship said it was now his duty to sum up the evidence in the case to which they had listened so long and so patiently, and, before he got to the evidence he would make one or two remarks upon some general topics which had been alluded to by the learned counsel. Mr Colt Williams had told them, and Mr Wood repeated that that was entirely a case of circumstantial evidence. He (the Judge) totally denied that anything popularly called circumstantial evidence was evidence at all, or should be given in evidence, and he should be right at the proper time, and place to show, by going through the various rules of evidence established in that country, that what was generally called circumstantial evidence with no evidence according to the distinctive rules of the country. That, however, was not the place to deliver a lecture upon legal topics, and he would pass over the expression with this single remark that, whether they liked to call the evidence circumstantial or not, the question was simply whether it satisfied them beyond all reasonable doubt that the man was guilty of the crime charged against him or not. He had also one other general remark to make upon the suggestion with which Mr Wood concluded his evidence ‐for it was possible there might be a conviction for manslaughter in that case if they thought that at the time he entered the children's room he had not the intention of cutting their throats. He told them that they could not consistently with law give any such verdict ‐the whole of the evidence in the case either proved that the man voluntarily and wilfully put his children to death by cutting their throats ‐which was murder ‐or that he was not guilty of any crime at all. They would, however. observe that something was said about the phrase "malice aforethought". It was undoubtedly true that to constitute murder there must be malice aforethought; but those were most unlucky words and were almost always misunderstood. Unless one knew how they should be technically interpreted one could not know what they meant. It was generally said that there most be premeditation ‐that was not so; if a man decided upon a sudden temptation to kill a person and did kill that person without provocation, if he did that, it was as much murder as if he had meditated it for a year and made every preparation for it. With regard to the words "malice aforethought" they had been better defined by Lord Chief Justice Holt than any he had ever read, and he had read a great quantity ‐"he that doth a cruel act voluntarily doth it of malice prepense". If the act was a cruel one and it was done voluntarily, that was what was meant by malice aforethought. So the whole matter really came to this ‐whether they thought that this mean voluntarily did the cruel act of cutting the throats of those children. That was the one subject which they had to inquire into, and he should address his summing up entirely to matters which threw light upon it. They had heard the evidence of a day and a half, and he did not think anytime had been wasted upon it. It seemed to have been very fairly given and very properly put before them, and now he would consider how the matter stood. There was no doubt at all that the prisoner and his wife did lead a most unhappy life, and that unhappiness seemed to have lasted for a considerable time. Mr Wood went back as far as 1873, when he said that the prisoner led Palin astray. Mr Wood suggested that he might have been married before and that that was the reason why he did not marry Palin. That might be so, but he could not ask the jury to pay attention to such suggestion. It was entirely strange to the matter they were now trying, and it never could be that a man could excuse, or justify, or extenuate one crime because another hung upon it. He might just make this one remark, though it was more in the nature of a moral observation than anything else, that was, that if prisoner had done that justice to the woman which he certainly owed her, if he had married, she could not have testified against him, and the fact that he did not think proper to marry her had been strangely avenged, and he was there on his trial for his life because he did not do that justice to the woman which he certainly ought to have done. Referring to the evidence as to prisoner's general affection for his children, he said that love for children was in a great measure the reflection for love of wife, and that a loss of affection for the wife would naturally cause a loss of affection for the children. That kind of kindness was quite consistent with something entirely different if a violent passion interfered. The counsel for the defence had impressed very strongly upon the jury that it was a suspicious fact that the lodger who came to the house in Richmond Street early on the morning of the day on which the crime was committed, must have known all about the occurrence from the newspaper. That was quite possible: but, strange as it might appear to lawyers, people hated to be called as witnesses, and he was not quite sure that he should not himself. (A laugh). People would get in their own houses, and say it was the place of the police to find them out, which made it very difficult to procure them as witnesses. Alluding to the evidence with respect to the blood stains, his lordship said that with the exception of the wounds on the woman's arm there was absolutely no accords whatever to be given of the blood which stained every single garment worn by the prisoner. He was speaking in reference to the suggestion with regard to prisoner's insanity, and remarking that the evidence went directly in opposition to the theory that he was of unsound mind.
Mr Burke Wood said it was very late in the case, but he had just learned from Dr Ross that prisoner was a sufferer from insomnia. His Lordship said it was indeed very late in the day, but directed that Dr Ross should be recalled. Dr Ross then stated that Mrs Palin had mentioned to him on one occasion that prisoner could never go to sleep, and bitterly complained of it in the same night. Insomnia, he continued, was sometimes a form of melancholia.
His Lordship : Have you ever observed any signs of melancholia about prisoner?
Dr Ross : No; but I thought it only fair to mention this.
His Lordship, remarking that the evidence did not very materially bear on the prisoner's state of mind, concluded his summing up, and the jury retired at exactly a quarter to two.
At ten minutes to two they returned into court.
The Clerk of Arraigns ‐Gentlemen of the jury, do you find the prisoner, Felix Spicer, guilty or not guilty?
The Foreman (in a low voice) ‐Guilty.
The Clerk ‐You say that he is guilty of murder, and that is the verdict of you all?
The Foreman ‐It is.
The Clerk ‐Felix Spicer, you stand convicted of willful murder. What have you to say why the court should not give you judgment to die according to law?
Prisoner ‐I am not guilty of the murder of the children, my lord. If I had worked on my own evidence I could prove that. I gave Mr Wood some papers as you suggested. He has them now, and if you read them you would exonerate me. There is proof where lodgers have been to the house, and paid an amount on deposit, and every action I have done during the week. If you were to read these papers it would prove you, my lord.
The Judge, assuming the black cap, said ‐Felix Spicer
Prisoner ‐Yes, my lord
The Judge ‐You stand convicted of wilful murder, and that under circumstances as horrible as I ever knew a murder to be accompanied with. As to what you say about Mr Wood. I can only tell you this, that Mr Wood, at very great labour to himself and at the sacrifice of much valuable time, has defended you with admirable skill and judgment.
Prisoner ‐Yes, my lord, I will admit that; but if you had read these papers, or if I had defended myself, I think you would have given me a better verdict.
The Judge ‐I cannot believe that Mr Wood has not read your papers.
Prisoner ‐There is marks of blood on the stones where I cut my hand with the glass.
The Judge ‐That is exactly what Mr Wood tried to persuade the jury, but they did not agree.
Prisoner ‐There is the money the lodgers gave me on deposit to come into the house where I stopped after half‐past twelve to let them in. When I went out in the morning, all the doors were open, and I did not wake until 20 minutes past three.
The Judge ‐You have had the opportunity of saying all that, and you have had a very careful counsel to say it for you. The jury have come to the conclusion that you are guilty of wilful murder, and for my part I entirely share the same opinion. The matter is no longer in my hands in any way. All that remains to me is to pass upon you the sentence of the law.
Sentence of death was then pronounced in the usual way.
The prisoner, who displayed some agitation, was removed from the dock.
Liverpool Mercury Thursday, 14 August, 1890
The New Brighton Murderer
Interview With Spicer
Since the trial and conviction of Felix Spicer for the murder of his two children at New Brighton, circumstances have, it is stated, come to light bearing on the suggestion that the condemned man was insane at the time that he committed the deed. Spicer has a brother living in Birkenhead, and a half‐brother, two sisters, and other relatives living in London. "Some of his London relatives," says a correspondent. "had expected to be called at the trial at Chester to give evidence as to the insanity which has from time to time manifested itself in the family, and the fact that they were not is said to be due to the late hour at which Mr Burke Wood was instructed, and that he was not then in possession of the information, which has now come to light. The important points bearing on the case are that one of Spicer's sisters has been confined in Colony Hatch Lunatic Asylum as an epileptic idiot, suffering from exalted delusions and impressions. She had been in the asylum two or three times. Her son has also been confined both in the Colony Hatch and Hanwell institutions as an epileptic subject to violent outbursts and delusions. Another sister's daughter has been in the asylum, and is at present being watched by Dr Dunlop, of St. Pancras' Workhouse. It is further stated that a half sister of Spicer's lived with him for some time at New Brighton, and was subject to attacks of violent passion. She was of weak intellect, and in that condition of mind generally described as "soft". Spicer's brother's son also lived with him some time ago at New Brighton, and while there he one morning took up the carpet, cut the fringes off all the fire rugs, and trimmed all the rugs in the houses. He subsequently joined the Salvation Army, and became subject to religious mania, his peculiar conduct being on one occasion brought to the notice of the Birkenhead police magistrate. He afterwards went to London, where he one day cut down all the trees in his mother's back garden, because, as he said, they blocked the way to heaven. Yet another sister of the condemned man attempted to hang herself behind a parlour door, and she was cut down only just in time to save her life. She was of weak intellect, being particularly subject to suicidal mania.
Yesterday afternoon the same correspondent had a conversation with Mrs Cannon, a niece of the prisoner, who lives at Kentish Town, London, and who on Tuesday, along with her husband, visited Spicer in the condemned cell at Knutsford. The interview took place in the presence of the governor of the jail and two warders. Her account is as follows : "I noticed, first of all, that he had aged very fast. He asked after every one belonging to him, particularly his eldest son, Felix, who is an apprentice in a newspaper printing office in Cardiff, and whom he expressed a desire to see. He was most pleased to see me, as I was the first to visit him since he was condemned. I did not speak to him about the trial or the murder. I only told him to pray and look to his Maker. His own family all say that he must have been a mad man at the time when did the deed". Asked whether anything in the nature of insanity had ever been noticed in Spicer himself, Mrs Cannon said ‐"There have been fits of aberration at times. While I was there he spoke about his wife, and in order to distinguish her called her by her own name, Mary Ann Palin. He told me to go to New Brighton and see her, and ask her to come and see him. I said I would do so. (Mrs Spicer, otherwise Palin, who was present during the narration, said she intended to see him.) He further said that he could get very sleep. His appetite was pretty fair, and he got all that he wanted. The 20 minutes allowed for the interview had then expired, and they left. Spicer crying bitterly. Mr Cannon confirms hi wife's story as to Spicer's changed appearance, and said he looks like an old man of about 90. He never saw a man alter so in his life.
The North‐Eastern Daily Gazette Friday, 22 August, 1890
The New Brighton Murderer
Execution Of Spicer
The final preparation for the execution of Felix Spicer (60), a rigger by trade, for the murder of his two children at New Brighton, were effected last night. Spicer, since he received sentence of death, had been confined in Knutsford Prison, the county gaol of Cheshire. Berry, the executioner, arrived at Knutsford from Bradford shortly after four o'clock yesterday afternoon, and immediately proceeded to the prison for the purpose of inspecting the necessary apparatus. The scaffold, which is the one used on the two previous occasions, was erected in a small building especially set apart for execution. Mr
J. Cullimore, Under Sheriff, arrived at the prison last night in order to see that perfect arrangements had been carried out, and the executioner, in accordance with his instructions, took up his quarters for the night within the precincts of the prison, where he was supplied with sleeping accommodation. A last effort had been made to restrain the last dread sentence of the law from being carried into effect, but with no result. A telegram was received yesterday by the authorities of the gaol from the Home Office, stating that the Home Secretary, after carefully perusing the evidence, and consulting with the Learned Judge who heard the case, saw no reason for interfering in Spicer's case with the due execution of the sentence of the law. Spicer himself has not denied committing the crime, but asserted at the same time that if he had so he was mad at the time. Up to the last he was exceedingly penitent, and paid marked attention to the ministrations of the prison chaplain, the Rev. W.N Truss, who paid him a visit late last night. Spicer has hardly varied in weight during his incarceration.
On The Scaffold
The chaplain entered the condemned cell shortly after six this morning and administered the Holy Sacrament. Spicer appeared very penitent, though when breakfast was brought Spicer did not touch it, and as the hour of his execution approached he seemed in danger of collapsing altogether. Berry, the executioner, entered the cell shortly before eight, and completed the pinioning process, which was undergone by the doomed man in a somewhat mechanical manner. On the way to the scaffold, which was the same as that which Richard Davies, the Crewe parricide, was executed, Spicer appeared rather faltering, but when he got out of the cell he revived considerably. When he had taken his place on the scaffold and the cap was adjusted on him he said "Good morning" to those present, and added in feeble tones, "I was mad if I perpetrated the crime. My poor dear children, May God bless and keep me, a miserable sinner". The bolt was then pulled, the body disappeared, and death seemed instantaneous. Spicer was 11 stone, 11 lbs, in weight, and 5 feet 4 inches in height, and he received a drop of 5 feet 2 inches. Representatives of the Press were admitted to witness the execution. Instructions were issued for the destruction of the rope with which Spicer was hanged immediately after the execution. The mode in which the rope is now supplied is that the High Sheriff, who is responsible for the carrying out of the execution, purchases the necessary length from the governor of Newgate Prison, who is authorised by the Home Office to sell it. This relieves the hangman of any responsibility as to the rope being unsuited for the purpose.
In accordance with the wish expressed by Spicer during an interview with some of his relatives, Mary Ann Palin, otherwise known as Mrs Spicer. declared her attention to close her refreshment rooms at New Brighton today to show her respect for Spicer, even though he had so cruelly wronged her.
Liverpool Mercury Friday, 1 August, 1890
The New Brighton Tragedy
Trial At Chester Assizes
Yesterday, at the Chester Assizes, before Mr. Justice Stephen, who presided in the Crown Court, Felix Spicer, rigger, 60 years of age, was brought up charged with having, at Liscard, on the 25th May, 1890. feloniously, wilfully, and of his malice aforethought, killed and murdered William Spicer; further, with having, at Liscard , on the 25th May, 1890, killed and murdered Henry Spicer; and further, with having, at Liscard, on the 25th May, 1890, attempted to kill and murder Mary Ann Palin.
Mr D.L.V Colt Williams and Mr Malcolm Douglas prosecuted; and Mr Edmund Burke Wood, at the request of his lordship, defended the prisoner.
In his opening statement, Mr Colt Williams said that as the prisoner was arraigned before them on the serious charge of wilful murder he felt sure he might ask the most careful attention of the jury. He needed not to point out that the charge was a grave one, the most grave charge which could be found against any person, but what made it even worse than such cases sometimes were was that the prisoner was charged with murdering his two sons. He (learned counsel) would have to occupy their attention for some time in giving a short account of the family life of the prisoner implicated before going on to the facts of the case upon which the prosecution relied. There was no direct evidence, everything being circumstantial, and it would be his duty, aided by his friend, Mr Douglas, to connect the prisoner step by step with the murder. However averse they must be to find a father guilty of murdering his own child he believed that if the jury considered the case proved they would say so in their verdict. The prisoner was a man about 60 years of age, a seafaring man, be being described as a rigger, and having also gone to sea as a cook. He had lived at New Brighton for about 17 years, and there had lived with him, a woman named Mary Ann Palin, who had always been looked upon as his wife, but who had never really been married to him. They had seven children, the eldest boy, who was about 14, being away at the time of the murder; William, whom prisoner was charged with killing, two little girls, one aged eight and the other six; the little boy Henry, who was also murdered; and a little baby. One of the seven children died some years ago. Prisoner and Palin kept a refreshment room at 3, Bickley Parade, and some time ago, owing to prisoner pecuniary difficulties the tenancy was transferred to Palin at the prisoner's request, but before Easter this year he seemed to be put out about the arrangement. He went to the rooms and kicked up a disturbance, till Palin called in a constable, showed him the agreement, and had the prisoner warned not to interfere with the management. The rooms consisted of a one‐storeyed place containing a restaurant and a kitchen. The house in Richmond Street was an ordinary one, containing a kitchen and bedroom, in which the children and servant slept.
Shortly after Easter week there seemed to have been some quarrel between the prisoner and Palin, as he went to the refreshment rooms during the absence of Mrs Palin in Liverpool, who had gone there to see a Mr Wright. Some money was taken during the absence of Palin, and when she returned words seemed to have taken place with regard to the taking of the money. Palin made use of words to the effect that one was enough to take the money, and then practically told him that he had no business in the place. That appeared to have made the prisoner very uncomfortable, and subsequently he wrote al letter to Mr Wright, agent of the landlord, telling him that Palin was not his wife. Correspondence ensued, in which Palin refused to sleep any longer at Richmond Street, and had her bed taken to the Restaurant, where she afterwards slept. The tenour of the correspondence was that prisoner wished her to return, but she replied upbraiding him for betraying her by saying she was no longer his wife, and for having disgraced her. The letter also mentioned about his promise to marry her before the first child was born. There was, undoubtedly, a desire on the part of the prisoner that they should make up the quarrel, but Palin, feeling that she had been so much injured by the prisoner telling Mr Wright that she was not his wife never went back, but continued to sleep at each night at the rooms. The children repeatedly went to the rooms, but returned to Richmond Street to sleep. Mrs Palin conducted the business of the restaurant, but on Saturday, the 24th, prisoner, suggested he should be allowed to help in the business which would be transacted in the course of the coming Whit Week. Palin sent a message to him saying that she did not require that assistance, and that she would not have him near the rooms. As there was an intimation made that four lodgers were going to Richmond Street, Palin said the children must not be disturbed as to their sleeping accommodation. Why the prisoner wanted all the children to sleep together the learned counsel did not know, and why he should have said that four lodgers were coming when they never did come was a matter of conjecture. As a matter of fact, there was an empty room in the house that night, and yet when a lodger came he was told there was no room to spare. It might be suggested that the stranger who stopped at the house of the neighbour, Mrs Myers, that night, and who had never been found, might by some chance have gone back into Richmond Street and murdered these children, but he (learned counsel) should show that that was perfectly impossible, for Mrs Myers would tell them distinctly that she heard this lodger go to bed, and after he had gone to bed there were two locks upon the door which she herself locked, and that it would be impossible for any one to go in or out without her knowing it. The prisoner never went to bed that night and he said that he was going to stop up in order to wait for this hypothetical lodger who never came. The person who saw him last that night was Mrs Fraser, with whom he had at first some words because she arrived from the prosecutrix's shop so late, but who afterwards at his request rubbed his back, as he complained of rheumatism. She would tell the jury that during the night at about daybreak she heard a cry coming from the little boy Harry, followed by a shuffling noise, as if somebody was going about in slippers. She did not pay much attention, because she knew that the prisoner was in the habit of going to the bedroom of the children and soothing them if they were disturbed. Again the little girl Gertrude, who was sleeping in another room, heard her little brother Harry cry out. She opened the door, and asked what was the matter, whereupon a voice which she supposed to be that of her father, said "go to sleep". The child cried out again, and she then heard the same voice exclaim, "shut up". A lamplighter who was passing heard the pitiful cry of the child proceeding from the house of the prisoner, and he heard a noise as of a man shuffling along the passage. The evidence would show that the accused was in the habit of wearing sandshoes down at the heels, and therefore if he was walking about he would so in a shuffling manner. Mrs Fraser heard someone go out, and shut the scullery door after him, and again she heard the same shuffling noise, as of some one going swiftly up the stairs then down again. It was suggested it was the prisoner. He had gone out of the house after having murdered these children, and having gone down to Bickley Parade, he came back through that scullery door, on the handles of which there were blood stains. It was also suggested that previous to the arrival of the police he drew down the blind in the kitchen.
The theory of the prosecution with regard to what took place after this was that having cut the throats of the children he went into the backyard and took from it a piece of wood which he had been shaping a handle to a day or two previously, and with that went down to the rooms and smashed the windows. Palin would say that she awakened by the hearing of a smash of glass. She then saw the prisoner putting his hand through the window and feeling for the key in the door. He must tell them, however, that prisoner had previously asked from Mrs Fraser how entrance was gained in the morning to the rooms where Palin slept, and Fraser told him that she went down in the mornings and Palin opened the door for her. On the window which prisoner put his hand through and where Palin saw him feeling for the latch there were found smears of blood, and this was material, because when examined immediately after his arrest prisoner's hands were perfectly free from all cuts and scratches. Counsel went on to speak of the assault on Palin, but said but he said he would not specify the particulars of that, as it was not before them, but he must tell them that Mrs Palin jumped out of the window into the street, and there Spicer attacked her. He had got her on the ground, he took a knife from his coat pocket, and the analyst would tell them that the pocket had bloodstains on it, thus bearing out the theory of the prosecution that there must of been blood on the knife before the attack on Palin. The knife he used was one which Palin had seen him handle previously, and he had told her that it would "cut the throats of all New Brighton". After the assault the prisoner went back into the rooms, and one of the witnesses would prove that while he was in there was the sound of running water. There was a lavatory in the rooms, and soon after prisoner's arrest it was noticed by the wash marks on the prisoner's hands and wrists that he had recently washed his hands.
After leaving his wife he went up to Richmond Street, where he was soon followed and arrested by the police for the assault on his wife. After his arrest one of the constables went up to the bedrooms, and in one of them found the two children with their throats cut, and their heads almost severed from their bodies. The learned counsel went on to describe the position in which the children were found, and of a pool of blood on the bed in which some one had evidently been kneeling. There was found on his knee immediately after his arrest wet blood marks, the knee of his trousers being soaked in blood. One of the little boys was lying where he had been sleeping and was dead. That would be shortly after four o'clock and the doctor was of the opinion that the two children had been dead about an hour, and that would coincide with what the prosecution said, that the prisoner, having murdered these children, went down to Bickley Parade. One of the witnesses would state that he remarked that Spicer had murdered his children. Spicer immediately replied "I know nothing at all about it". But he made no secret of the fact that he had made the attack on Palin. When at the Police Station, and charged with the murder, he denied having interfered with the children. There were also marks of blood on the prisoner's coat and shirt sleeves, and from that it would appear he was in his shirt sleeves before he left the house, and afterwards put on his coat. At the request of Spicer the lodger named Short went to see him at Walton Gaol, where he had related a story of what had taken place. He again denied murdering the children, confessed to attacking Palin, and said "I used my clasp knife to her". The prosecution would show that was untrue, because that knife was found upon the prisoner, and that there was no marks of blood on it. That was not the knife that Spicer had murdered the children with, and with which he attacked Palin, but the proper knife that had been used was discovered hidden in the flue of the kitchen range at Bickley Parade. Prisoner admitted having remained in the kitchen up to three o'clock in the morning, his excuse being that he was waiting for a lodger, who never came. Therefore, the only man about the house when the murder was committed was the prisoner. On the 23rd, or the day before the murder was committed, the prisoner was heard by his next door neighbour walking up and down the yard, and he was heard to exclaim in an angry voice, "they shall see they shall not have it all their own way". On the same evening someone was heard sharpening the knife upon the windowsill of the back window of Richmond House. The following morning there were marks upon the sill, and the knife, which would be produced, would show signs of having been recently sharpened but; whether it was sharpened that night or not the prosecution did not know. Those were the facts of the painful case, which would require the strictest proof by the prosecution. Prisoner seemed to have been fond of the children, and on the night of the murder assisted in putting them to bed. Therefore it might appear an extraordinary thing that he, being so attached to his children, should have murdered them in the cold blooded way in which it was alleged that he did.
Mary Ann Palin, after some formal evidence had been given, stated that she was 32 years of age, and had lived with the prisoner since she was 16. She had seven children, of whom four were still alive. On the 24th May last the eldest boy was from home. The next lad was nearly 13, the next was a girl of eight, another girl was six, and there was a boy aged three, and a baby. Witness had resided at Richmond Street with her children up to April last. She took in lodgers at the house, and carried on business as a refreshment house keeper at 3 Bickley Parade. The prisoner had not followed his occupation since she had lived with him. He went one voyage while they lived in Cardiff, and last year he went for a nine months' voyage. Up to September 1888, the tenancy of the Bickley Parade rooms was in the prisoner's name and it was retaken by her 1889 in the name of Mrs Spicer. He came back in September 1889, but did not disprove of her having taken over the rooms. Up to about Easter last she lived on good terms with him at the house at Richmond Street. She and the prisoner slept in the large front bedroom, and the children slept in a double‐bedded back room ‐three in one bed room and two in the other. As a rule the children slept together. This continued till Easter, when the prisoner came down and assisted in the business. On Easter Monday prisoner was locked up for the non‐payment of the poor rate which was owing. Witness paid the rate, and prisoner came back, and she agreed he should stay at the house, as he was owing more money, and was afraid there were more warrants out for him. He stayed a week at the house. She had no disagreement with before Easter. It was after that that the disagreement took place. He stayed away from the refreshment rooms for a week. He came to the rooms on the Monday following Easter week. Witness had been to Liverpool that day, and when she came home she found him a little worse for drink, and asked what money had been taken. He pointed to money lying on the shelf. Witness took a few shillings off the shelf. Prisoner asked her what she was doing, and she replied that she was taken the money. Prisoner said "leave it there; don't be in such a hurry". Witness said "oh, it does not take two to look after the few shillings here". Prisoner then began finding fault with the trades people she dealt with. Witness said she would deal with whom she liked. Prisoner said that he should let her know whether she should or not. Witness said that the prisoner had nothing to do with the business. Prisoner then went home. When witness was preparing the dinner next day, prisoner walked into the shop and took his coat off. He said, "you told me I had nothing to do with this place, but I must give you to understand there is no Mary Spicer". The girl Fraser was present at the time. Up to then she had been known as Mrs Spicer. She then said, "if there is no Mrs Spicer, so much the better for me". She gave him to understand that she would not have him coming there and conducting himself in an unpeaceable manner. In consequence of what she said he became violent, and kicked a chair across the floor. She sent for a constable, and when he arrived she showed him the agreement respecting the shop. She was quite agreeable for Spicer to come to the shop and be master of everything except the money. She had a bed taken down to Bickley Parade, where she slept until the 24th of May.
The children came down to the shop for their food, and she sent the prisoner's meals to Richmond Street, and also what money he sent for. Fraser was in her employ as a waitress, and slept at Richmond Street. Witness did not see Spicer for a week after the letter produced, which was in the prisoner's handwriting. She could not say when she received it. She did not think it would be in Easter week.
The letter was as follows :‐
"Richmond Street, 15/5/90. My dear Polly ‐I trust you will take my lot into consideration and pity me, and by the great God forgive me and in nowise cast me out, with a broken heart. Do forgive me. Have mercy on me. I will make every amends in my power. Have mercy on me; have mercy on me: give me some hope of your friendship. May God turn your heart to forgive me. Yours forever, F.SPICER".
On the back of that letter witness scribbled the following answer, and sent it to him :‐
"you are too late, and you need not try to see me. The door is locked, and once for all I will not be annoyed by you. I shall not see you".
She also received the following letter from the prisoner :‐19/5/90,
"my dear Polly ‐in the name of the heavens, have mercy and pity on me. If you will allow me to see and shake hands with you and make it up. Don't keep me in this desponding state. Forgive me, forgive me, for God's sake and my own. I have not slept these four nights thinking of you. Make it up with me. Let not our wrath go down with this day's sun. Have mercy on me. I will call tonight at nine. Don't refuse me a hand shake in the name of God. I beg you will not be cross with me. I am still for ever yours. F.SPICER". She also received a letter from him which he said ‐"my dear Polly ‐I will call down to‐night. I hope you will consider my feelings and make it up and shake hands with me. I am a broken man. For God's sake, have pity on me. Your's for ever F.SPICER".
In reply she sent the following letter –
"Mr Spicer, this is in answer to yours. You dare to ask me to make it up. You must be mad to think I shall ever speak to you again, much less make it up. You told Mr Wright I was not your wife. You mean, contemptible scrub, did you think of my years when, before Felix was born, I asked you to marry me out of shame. You laughed at me, but I have waited, and the day has come, I can tell everyone my tale now. Don't think it was for a liking of you I waited for. I hated you ever since the day you laughed at me, but I don't regard my name now. Why should I, now everybody knows. There is one thing I want you to know, that is the gallows before another night under the same roof as yourself. I will neither see or be annoyed by you. If you force your presence on me I shall have you removed. You can remain in the house for as long as you keep from me. I will see the rent paid, but I will never change as long as I live" ‐POLLY.
Witness had taken the rooms from Mr Wright. It was in consequence of an interview with Mr Wright that she wrote the letter.
The following letter was put in, and read by Mr Crompton. clerk of the assizes :‐
"18 Richmond Street, New Brighton, 8/5/90. Dear Sir, I am in receipt of your note, and am sorry, after the friendly advice you gave me, that you have thought fit to write as you have. It is a great trial to me, being the founder of the business, and your tenant so long, that you have not given me a more favourable consideration. I am afraid you have been misinformed about my affairs. I beg and trust you will reconsider your decision in my favour by getting Mrs Spicer to allow me to work in the rooms in an amicable way, in which I give you my honest word there shall be peace and love. I am near heart broken by this blow. I trust you will forgive me. With this appeal believe me to be, yours sincerely, F.SPICER. To A. Wright. Esq, 17 Water Street. Liverpool".
On the night of the 24th the prisoner sent the girl to her, saying he expected four lodgers that night, and the children were to be removed to the back room from the front room where they usually slept. She sent back word that they were not to be removed, and he was only to take the one lodger that she had sent up during the evening. She sent up the person she referred to Richmond Street earlier in the evening, and he returned in half an hour saying he had taken a bed. She saw the prisoner at the restaurant windows the night before the murder, when he said, "Good night, Polly" or "Good night, girl" and then walked away. She made up her bed in the restaurant nightly, and removed it for the day time, when Fraser left the premises. She put out the lamps, and subsequently she was awakened by a great noise, caused by the smashing of glass. She afterwards saw prisoner make a desperate smash at the same pane of glass which was near the door. She fell through the window right into his arms, both prisoner and herself falling to the ground, witness being on her back. She shouted out "Murder!" and he said "You shout murder you ‐wretch. You won't shout that when I've done with you". Whilst she was on the ground he kept knocking her head down and making for her throat. He had nothing in his hands then, but she saw the handle of a knife sticking out of his breast pocket. He took this out of his pocket and attacked her with it. It was a knife he had shown her before, saying in a jocular way that "it would cut the throats of all New Brighton". The knife produced was the one in question, and with it prisoner had tried to cut her throat. When he attacked her nose, forehead, and arms were cut, as was also her hand where she tried to hold the knife by grasping the blade. Finally she knocked the knife out of his hand and managed to run away behind the cabmen's shelter, and afterwards she got into the house of a Mr Bailey, just opposite. She thought prisoner had a long tweed overcoat on, and it was in one of the pockets that she saw the knife. She knew prisoner was in the habit of carrying a clasp knife, but the one that was produced was not that with which he attacked her.
In cross examination the witness said she first made the acquaintance of prisoner at Cardiff in 1873. He had made voyages, but did not know that he had ever been a voyage to Calcutta of that he had had a sunstroke while there. In one of the letters she wrote to the prisoner she meant she never had an opportunity of maintaining herself and the children, and "a day would come" when she would do so and have nothing more to do with him. After the manner in which he had treated her she had come to the conclusion she would not under any consideration live with him again. Witness, continuing, said "of course if he had offered to marry me I should have only been too glad". At this point the witness broke down.
Mr Wood : With respect to his appeals to you stating that he was broken hearted and that he was miserable and ruined, you treated those as nothing?
Witness: No sir. I have received those kind of messages before when I left him, and when I went and forgave him and went back to him, he even on the first night attempted to strangle me, and that was after he had pleaded as in this case.
Continuing, witness said she sent a man up to Richmond Street on the night before the murder as he wanted lodgings.
Re‐examined by Mr Colt Williams : It was before the child Felix was born that prisoner promised to marry her. Had he ever promised to marry you?
Witness : Had he ever promised to marry me? Yes, he had repeatedly.
Continuing, witness said it was at Blackpool that prisoner tried to strangle her. She left him for some time after that, and went to live with her sister in London.
Mr Colt William : During the times you lived in New Brighton had you ever serious quarrels?
Witness : Yes. I left him several times, but he always implored me to go back.
John Bailey, grocer, Victoria Road, deposed to be awakened on the night in question by hearing of cries of "murder". He found prisoner and Mrs Spicer struggling on the ground, and told to her to run into his house. She did so, and he followed her and closed the door.
Francis Storey, another neighbour, and Joel Fitton, corroborated.
Police Constable Frederick Potts stated that his attention, and that of Police Constable Jones, was called to a disturbance in Victoria Road. They went to Richmond Street in search of the prisoner, when Police Constable Jones took him to the police office, whilst witness went upstairs and found the two children on the bed with their throats cut.
Police Constable Jones corroborated, and deposed to finding a knife which had been recently sharpened and was covered in blood and concealed in the kitchen range.
The medical evidence of Dr Forbes Ross, as to the nature of the injuries, was taken next. He said that one of the wounds to the throat of the younger victim appeared to have been an abortive attempt at cutting it. After this wound was inflicted, and before the fatal wound was given, the child might have shouted. He saw the prisoner after examining in the children. He wore a black coat, on the breast pocket of which were blood stains, his sandshoes being also spotted with blood. His trousers were saturated, and his hands had been washed, leaving a "watermark" of blood smears on the forearm. Both handles of the back door were stained with blood.
Annie Fraser, waitress at Mrs Spicer's restaurant, who slept at prisoner's house on the night of the murder, said she remembered hearing one of the children make a choking noise, followed by a shuffling of feet and the sound of doors being closed. Somebody then ran upstairs and down quickly. She thought nothing about it at the time
Cross examining by Mr Burke Wood : She had always found prisoner to be most affectionate towards his children.
Martha Fearon, another waitress, corroborated as to the prisoner's kindness to his children, when cross examined by Mr Burke Wood.
Alfred Short, Clerk, of 18 Richmond Street, said that on the 24th of May he went in at ten o'clock in the evening. Spicer, his son, and the waitress were in the house at the time. Witness did not hear anything during the night except an altercation between prisoner and Mrs Fraser at twelve o'clock. He had an interview with the prisoner at Walton Jail on the Saturday following the murder, when he said "I washed Willie and kissed him put him to bed, bless his little soul. I am as innocent as you are"
Cross Examined by Mr Burke Wood : When he said "bless his little soul" he was very much affected and wept.
Witness had never seen a more kind man to his children. He was like mother and father to them. He sent the message to his wife, "Tell her I forgive her all she had done for me, but she has been very cruel".
A lamplighter named Bannng stated that just before daybreak on the morning in question he was performing his duties in Richmond Street when he heard a "pitiful child's cry".
A woman residing next door to prisoner stated that between nine and ten o'clock on the night of 24th May she heard the prisoner say he would "let them know who is master here". Later in the night she heard him sharpening a knife on the window sill.
After consultation with the judge and defending counsel, Mr Colt Williams decided to spare the little girl Gertrude Spicer the painful ordeal of giving evidence against her father.
At this stage the court adjourned, the counsel for the prosecution indicating that their case could be finished that day. The court rose at ten minutes after four.
Liverpool Mercury Saturday, 2 August, 1890
The New Brighton Tragedy
Trial And Sentence
Yesterday, before Mr Justice Stephen, at the Chester Azzises. Felix Spicer appeared again the dock charged with the murder, at Liscard, on the 25th May, of his illiegimate sons, William and Henry, and the attempted murder of Mary Ann Palin, their mother. Mr
D.A.V Colt Williams and Mr Malcolm Douglas, in continuing their case for the Crown, called Police Sergeant Cooper, who gave lengthy evidence as to the examination of the Richmond Street and Victoria houses, the bloodstains and other inculpating traces he found there and on prisoner's clothes and hands. He said that when charged with the offence prisoner said "I know nothing about it. I have done no murder".
Mr William F Lowe, county analyst, was next called, and gave lengthy evidence as to the nature and position bloodstains upon the piece of timber used by prisoner to batter the windows of the Bickley Parade restaurant, upon his clothes, shoes, knife, and in various parts of the house.
Dr Theodore Fendell, medical officer at Knutsford Jail, was next called, and stated that the prisoner had been under his care since his admission to Knutsford Jail on the 11th June. During prisoner's incarceration witness had had constant opportunity of observing him, and had found that his health had been good, there being nothing at all wrong with him mentally.
Cross examined by Mr Burke Wood : Witness had heard that prisoner's sister had been in Colony Hatch, and prisoner had told him that he had had a sunstroke.
That would not modify his statement at all as to the mental condition of prisoner; he could only form an opinion from what he had noticed himself. the prisoner showed no sign of insanity, or even of mental aberration.
This was the case for the prosecution. Mr D.A.V Colt Williams, in summoning up for the Crown, gave a lengthy review of the incriminating evidence. He said he understood that Mr Burke Wood intended to call no witness on behalf of the prisoner, so it became his duty to address the jury in as few words as possible. As he had intimated in his opening address, that case was one of such great gravity that he was sure they would pardon him if he detained them for more then a few minutes in doing so. On that occasion he had also told them that it was a case of completely of circumstantial evidence, and that they would require at his hands a strict proof of every step in the case; he submitted to them with some confidence now that he had so proved the case that there could be no reasonable doubt in their minds that the prisoner at the bar was guilty of the terrible crime with which he is charged. It might be that some attempt should be set up to show that because a sister of prisoner's was said to have been at one time insane, and because it was suggested that prisoner himself had once had a sunstroke, that he was insane at the time he committed that act. On the other hand they had the evidence of Dr Fendell, who had observed prisoner since June the 11th, that he was not a man of unsound mind. Therefore his submission on behalf of the Crown was that this case was made out without any shadow of a doubt, and that he was justified in asking them, after weighing his friend's and his lordship's remarks, to find the man guilty of the offence with which he was now charged.
Mr Burke Wood then rose to address the jury for the defence. He said that in this case a great burden had been laid upon the shoulders of all connected with the trial, and upon no one in a greater degree than upon himself. He was bound to say that Mr Colt Williams had conducted the case for the Crown most fairly, and had not exaggerated in the least degree the importance and solemnity of the inquiry. A great responsibility rested on them, the jury had by their verdict, and he, perhaps, by his conduct of the case, the life of the prisoner at the bar upon their hands. He did not say this with a view to asking them to take a merciful view of the case, but simply to give their verdict according to their oaths and the evidence laid before them. He dared say they noticed that on the previous morning when they came into the box he took the precaution, and used the right he possessed, of challenging several gentlemen, and they went out of the box. He did so not from any doubt that they would not have displayed as great an amount of intelligence and fairness as any in the box, but simply because he thought it better to have twelve strangers than any who came from the neighbourhood where the tragedy occurred. It was hard for any person to divest his mind of impressions that he had formed. Perhaps the result of conversation ‐perhaps the result of reading newspaper reports, and there was no doubt that the press of Birkenhead and its more important neighbour, Liverpool, spread far and wide an account of the tragedy at New Brighton and it was impossible pretty nearly that people should talk about a thing of that kind without forming some impression on their minds as to the guilt or innocence of the prisoner. Therefore, he earnestly asked the jury to try to come with a clean sheet, as it were, of mind to consider the evidence of that day and the day before. His friend, Mr Colt Williams, in opening the case, had told them that the case he had to submit was one entirely of circumstantial evidence, and that he had no direct evidence at all, and that if they did not think this evidence sufficient to satisfy them, they should say so by their verdict. That was just what he should have expected them to do. He was sorry to have to go into particulars of the married life of the prisoner and Palin, but there was no doubt that he had wronged her, and had not done what he owed to her by marrying her. It was possible that he was not in a position to marry her at the time, because he had a wife already. However, they had lived together for a number of years, quarrels frequently occurring, but not with any serious result till in April last, when they finally separated. He must call their attention to the dreadful state of misery under which the prisoner laboured in consequences of this quarrel with his wife, who refused to live in the same house with him any longer. He wrote imploring letters requesting reconciliation; but they were received with scorn. With regard to prisoner's statement that he could not receive a lodger on the night of the 24th because he had four men, and was full up, it had been stated that these four men were all a myth, and that this statement was only a part of his scheme to kill the children. Was it not possible that these men, whom prisoner said he had seen with women on the same night, had gone to some less respectable haunt for the night? At all events it seemed as likely as that the whole story was a myth invented by prisoner. Having pointed out that there was nothing peculiar in prisoner not retiring on the night in question, when he had a sofa prepared downstairs, he said that the testimony as to the prisoner being kind to his children was unanimous. Fearon appeared to have been a new arrival at prisoner's house, but even she had had time to how tenderly he brought them to be washed by her, and afterwards carried them upstairs and put them to bed. There appeared to have been the bright spot in that man's life ‐that was his love and affection for his children, and whatever Mary Ann Palin might have to say about his treatment of her, she had no occasion to make a single complaint of his treatment of her children. Annie Fraser said he was extremely kind to them; Maria Fearon described the way in which he performed those many little functions which a careless man might have relegated to the nursemaid, with the tenderness and kindness of a mother rather than the qualities of a father. The lodger also said he never saw anyone so kind in his life, and confirmed the opinion that he was like a mother rather than a father. He then referred to the evidence as to the discovery of blood stains in the house, and emphasised the fact that though prisoner was said to have done downstairs with the clothes reeking with blood, only one small stain was found on the banister. It would be an insult to deny that prisoner went down to Bickley Parade ‐the evidence was too strong and unanimous on that point ‐but if an assault of the nature described was committed upon Palin by prisoner, it would be a fair and reasonable conclusion to draw that the blood found on his clothing had flowed from her hands as she was on the ground by prisoner. Again, evidence had been given to this effect that the blood stains on the handle of the piece of wood used by prisoner to batter in the windows in Bickley Parade were wet when it was examined after the assault. He contended that if the stains were imprinted at Richmond Street, by the time he had walked to Bickley Parade and assaulted Palin the stains would have had time to dry. At all events this was not improbable solution of the case. He strongly urged upon the jury the fact that the lodger, who came in at seven o'clock on the morning of the crime, had not been examined by the counsel for the prosecution, and said that in view of the widespread newspaper reports he could not have failed to hear about the occurrence. In reference to the interview in Walton Jail he said that sometimes when prisoners made statements there was something or other held out, or it might be supposed that there was something held out; but in that case it was entirely a voluntary statement to a man whom he had sent for, and therefore entitled to more respect at the hands of the jury than many communications of a similar character. He said, "I know nothing, so help me God. I washed little Harry; I put him to bed. I bid him 'Good night', and kissed him ‐bless his little heart. Willie went to bed afterwards; I wished him 'good night' and I didn't go upstairs afterwards. I am as innocent as you are". That was a statement made to an independent man, and he would ask them to attach some importance to it. These children appeared to have been the idols of his life almost these children whom he was charged with killing. A great lawyer, Lord Cope, described murder as being when a man of sound memory and discretion killed a human being. Did they believe for one instant that that man "murdered" his children? He was obliged to say he dared not leave any stone unturned in the duty that he had to perform on behalf of the prisoner; and therefore, though he submitted that the evidence for the prosecution consisted of a chain of evidence that was faulty and undefendable, he must omit no point that told in prisoner's favour. He could not help saying that if that man he said this under his lordship's direction ‐if this man went into the room where those children were sleeping, very likely when he had the intention of going down and attacking the mother, and breaking into her premises, knowing that he was going to do the mother grievous bodily harm or to murder her, and that it would be impossible to escape ‐if he went into their room to take a last look at them, he submitted that if he went back into the room with merely the innocent intention of seeing his children, they would say he was not guilty of the murder of those children if, when his mind was so clouded with the trouble he had been in and the contemptuous replies to his appeals by his wife, this man, maddened with the thought of it, had his mental faculties so obliterated that he put an end to the children by cutting their throats. He asked the jury to ask themselves whether he was at that time a man of sound memory and reasonable sense, and said that if they thought not, he would ask them to say that a verdict of manslaughter would be all that could revert against that man. He was under his lordship's direction when he summed up the case to them, and he had no more to add on behalf of the prisoner. He had done what he thought was his duty, and according to his advice what he could do, and he only asked them to remember one thing ‐that they were not trying prisoner for the attack on Mary Ann Palin, and the savage assault he made on her, but simply for the crime of murder.
His Lordship said it was now his duty to sum up the evidence in the case to which they had listened so long and so patiently, and, before he got to the evidence he would make one or two remarks upon some general topics which had been alluded to by the learned counsel. Mr Colt Williams had told them, and Mr Wood repeated that that was entirely a case of circumstantial evidence. He (the Judge) totally denied that anything popularly called circumstantial evidence was evidence at all, or should be given in evidence, and he should be right at the proper time, and place to show, by going through the various rules of evidence established in that country, that what was generally called circumstantial evidence with no evidence according to the distinctive rules of the country. That, however, was not the place to deliver a lecture upon legal topics, and he would pass over the expression with this single remark that, whether they liked to call the evidence circumstantial or not, the question was simply whether it satisfied them beyond all reasonable doubt that the man was guilty of the crime charged against him or not. He had also one other general remark to make upon the suggestion with which Mr Wood concluded his evidence ‐for it was possible there might be a conviction for manslaughter in that case if they thought that at the time he entered the children's room he had not the intention of cutting their throats. He told them that they could not consistently with law give any such verdict ‐the whole of the evidence in the case either proved that the man voluntarily and wilfully put his children to death by cutting their throats ‐which was murder ‐or that he was not guilty of any crime at all. They would, however. observe that something was said about the phrase "malice aforethought". It was undoubtedly true that to constitute murder there must be malice aforethought; but those were most unlucky words and were almost always misunderstood. Unless one knew how they should be technically interpreted one could not know what they meant. It was generally said that there most be premeditation ‐that was not so; if a man decided upon a sudden temptation to kill a person and did kill that person without provocation, if he did that, it was as much murder as if he had meditated it for a year and made every preparation for it. With regard to the words "malice aforethought" they had been better defined by Lord Chief Justice Holt than any he had ever read, and he had read a great quantity ‐"he that doth a cruel act voluntarily doth it of malice prepense". If the act was a cruel one and it was done voluntarily, that was what was meant by malice aforethought. So the whole matter really came to this ‐whether they thought that this mean voluntarily did the cruel act of cutting the throats of those children. That was the one subject which they had to inquire into, and he should address his summing up entirely to matters which threw light upon it. They had heard the evidence of a day and a half, and he did not think anytime had been wasted upon it. It seemed to have been very fairly given and very properly put before them, and now he would consider how the matter stood. There was no doubt at all that the prisoner and his wife did lead a most unhappy life, and that unhappiness seemed to have lasted for a considerable time. Mr Wood went back as far as 1873, when he said that the prisoner led Palin astray. Mr Wood suggested that he might have been married before and that that was the reason why he did not marry Palin. That might be so, but he could not ask the jury to pay attention to such suggestion. It was entirely strange to the matter they were now trying, and it never could be that a man could excuse, or justify, or extenuate one crime because another hung upon it. He might just make this one remark, though it was more in the nature of a moral observation than anything else, that was, that if prisoner had done that justice to the woman which he certainly owed her, if he had married, she could not have testified against him, and the fact that he did not think proper to marry her had been strangely avenged, and he was there on his trial for his life because he did not do that justice to the woman which he certainly ought to have done. Referring to the evidence as to prisoner's general affection for his children, he said that love for children was in a great measure the reflection for love of wife, and that a loss of affection for the wife would naturally cause a loss of affection for the children. That kind of kindness was quite consistent with something entirely different if a violent passion interfered. The counsel for the defence had impressed very strongly upon the jury that it was a suspicious fact that the lodger who came to the house in Richmond Street early on the morning of the day on which the crime was committed, must have known all about the occurrence from the newspaper. That was quite possible: but, strange as it might appear to lawyers, people hated to be called as witnesses, and he was not quite sure that he should not himself. (A laugh). People would get in their own houses, and say it was the place of the police to find them out, which made it very difficult to procure them as witnesses. Alluding to the evidence with respect to the blood stains, his lordship said that with the exception of the wounds on the woman's arm there was absolutely no accords whatever to be given of the blood which stained every single garment worn by the prisoner. He was speaking in reference to the suggestion with regard to prisoner's insanity, and remarking that the evidence went directly in opposition to the theory that he was of unsound mind.
Mr Burke Wood said it was very late in the case, but he had just learned from Dr Ross that prisoner was a sufferer from insomnia. His Lordship said it was indeed very late in the day, but directed that Dr Ross should be recalled. Dr Ross then stated that Mrs Palin had mentioned to him on one occasion that prisoner could never go to sleep, and bitterly complained of it in the same night. Insomnia, he continued, was sometimes a form of melancholia.
His Lordship : Have you ever observed any signs of melancholia about prisoner?
Dr Ross : No; but I thought it only fair to mention this.
His Lordship, remarking that the evidence did not very materially bear on the prisoner's state of mind, concluded his summing up, and the jury retired at exactly a quarter to two.
At ten minutes to two they returned into court.
The Clerk of Arraigns ‐Gentlemen of the jury, do you find the prisoner, Felix Spicer, guilty or not guilty?
The Foreman (in a low voice) ‐Guilty.
The Clerk ‐You say that he is guilty of murder, and that is the verdict of you all?
The Foreman ‐It is.
The Clerk ‐Felix Spicer, you stand convicted of willful murder. What have you to say why the court should not give you judgment to die according to law?
Prisoner ‐I am not guilty of the murder of the children, my lord. If I had worked on my own evidence I could prove that. I gave Mr Wood some papers as you suggested. He has them now, and if you read them you would exonerate me. There is proof where lodgers have been to the house, and paid an amount on deposit, and every action I have done during the week. If you were to read these papers it would prove you, my lord.
The Judge, assuming the black cap, said ‐Felix Spicer
Prisoner ‐Yes, my lord
The Judge ‐You stand convicted of wilful murder, and that under circumstances as horrible as I ever knew a murder to be accompanied with. As to what you say about Mr Wood. I can only tell you this, that Mr Wood, at very great labour to himself and at the sacrifice of much valuable time, has defended you with admirable skill and judgment.
Prisoner ‐Yes, my lord, I will admit that; but if you had read these papers, or if I had defended myself, I think you would have given me a better verdict.
The Judge ‐I cannot believe that Mr Wood has not read your papers.
Prisoner ‐There is marks of blood on the stones where I cut my hand with the glass.
The Judge ‐That is exactly what Mr Wood tried to persuade the jury, but they did not agree.
Prisoner ‐There is the money the lodgers gave me on deposit to come into the house where I stopped after half‐past twelve to let them in. When I went out in the morning, all the doors were open, and I did not wake until 20 minutes past three.
The Judge ‐You have had the opportunity of saying all that, and you have had a very careful counsel to say it for you. The jury have come to the conclusion that you are guilty of wilful murder, and for my part I entirely share the same opinion. The matter is no longer in my hands in any way. All that remains to me is to pass upon you the sentence of the law.
Sentence of death was then pronounced in the usual way.
The prisoner, who displayed some agitation, was removed from the dock.
Liverpool Mercury Thursday, 14 August, 1890
The New Brighton Murderer
Interview With Spicer
Since the trial and conviction of Felix Spicer for the murder of his two children at New Brighton, circumstances have, it is stated, come to light bearing on the suggestion that the condemned man was insane at the time that he committed the deed. Spicer has a brother living in Birkenhead, and a half‐brother, two sisters, and other relatives living in London. "Some of his London relatives," says a correspondent. "had expected to be called at the trial at Chester to give evidence as to the insanity which has from time to time manifested itself in the family, and the fact that they were not is said to be due to the late hour at which Mr Burke Wood was instructed, and that he was not then in possession of the information, which has now come to light. The important points bearing on the case are that one of Spicer's sisters has been confined in Colony Hatch Lunatic Asylum as an epileptic idiot, suffering from exalted delusions and impressions. She had been in the asylum two or three times. Her son has also been confined both in the Colony Hatch and Hanwell institutions as an epileptic subject to violent outbursts and delusions. Another sister's daughter has been in the asylum, and is at present being watched by Dr Dunlop, of St. Pancras' Workhouse. It is further stated that a half sister of Spicer's lived with him for some time at New Brighton, and was subject to attacks of violent passion. She was of weak intellect, and in that condition of mind generally described as "soft". Spicer's brother's son also lived with him some time ago at New Brighton, and while there he one morning took up the carpet, cut the fringes off all the fire rugs, and trimmed all the rugs in the houses. He subsequently joined the Salvation Army, and became subject to religious mania, his peculiar conduct being on one occasion brought to the notice of the Birkenhead police magistrate. He afterwards went to London, where he one day cut down all the trees in his mother's back garden, because, as he said, they blocked the way to heaven. Yet another sister of the condemned man attempted to hang herself behind a parlour door, and she was cut down only just in time to save her life. She was of weak intellect, being particularly subject to suicidal mania.
Yesterday afternoon the same correspondent had a conversation with Mrs Cannon, a niece of the prisoner, who lives at Kentish Town, London, and who on Tuesday, along with her husband, visited Spicer in the condemned cell at Knutsford. The interview took place in the presence of the governor of the jail and two warders. Her account is as follows : "I noticed, first of all, that he had aged very fast. He asked after every one belonging to him, particularly his eldest son, Felix, who is an apprentice in a newspaper printing office in Cardiff, and whom he expressed a desire to see. He was most pleased to see me, as I was the first to visit him since he was condemned. I did not speak to him about the trial or the murder. I only told him to pray and look to his Maker. His own family all say that he must have been a mad man at the time when did the deed". Asked whether anything in the nature of insanity had ever been noticed in Spicer himself, Mrs Cannon said ‐"There have been fits of aberration at times. While I was there he spoke about his wife, and in order to distinguish her called her by her own name, Mary Ann Palin. He told me to go to New Brighton and see her, and ask her to come and see him. I said I would do so. (Mrs Spicer, otherwise Palin, who was present during the narration, said she intended to see him.) He further said that he could get very sleep. His appetite was pretty fair, and he got all that he wanted. The 20 minutes allowed for the interview had then expired, and they left. Spicer crying bitterly. Mr Cannon confirms hi wife's story as to Spicer's changed appearance, and said he looks like an old man of about 90. He never saw a man alter so in his life.
The North‐Eastern Daily Gazette Friday, 22 August, 1890
The New Brighton Murderer
Execution Of Spicer
The final preparation for the execution of Felix Spicer (60), a rigger by trade, for the murder of his two children at New Brighton, were effected last night. Spicer, since he received sentence of death, had been confined in Knutsford Prison, the county gaol of Cheshire. Berry, the executioner, arrived at Knutsford from Bradford shortly after four o'clock yesterday afternoon, and immediately proceeded to the prison for the purpose of inspecting the necessary apparatus. The scaffold, which is the one used on the two previous occasions, was erected in a small building especially set apart for execution. Mr
J. Cullimore, Under Sheriff, arrived at the prison last night in order to see that perfect arrangements had been carried out, and the executioner, in accordance with his instructions, took up his quarters for the night within the precincts of the prison, where he was supplied with sleeping accommodation. A last effort had been made to restrain the last dread sentence of the law from being carried into effect, but with no result. A telegram was received yesterday by the authorities of the gaol from the Home Office, stating that the Home Secretary, after carefully perusing the evidence, and consulting with the Learned Judge who heard the case, saw no reason for interfering in Spicer's case with the due execution of the sentence of the law. Spicer himself has not denied committing the crime, but asserted at the same time that if he had so he was mad at the time. Up to the last he was exceedingly penitent, and paid marked attention to the ministrations of the prison chaplain, the Rev. W.N Truss, who paid him a visit late last night. Spicer has hardly varied in weight during his incarceration.
On The Scaffold
The chaplain entered the condemned cell shortly after six this morning and administered the Holy Sacrament. Spicer appeared very penitent, though when breakfast was brought Spicer did not touch it, and as the hour of his execution approached he seemed in danger of collapsing altogether. Berry, the executioner, entered the cell shortly before eight, and completed the pinioning process, which was undergone by the doomed man in a somewhat mechanical manner. On the way to the scaffold, which was the same as that which Richard Davies, the Crewe parricide, was executed, Spicer appeared rather faltering, but when he got out of the cell he revived considerably. When he had taken his place on the scaffold and the cap was adjusted on him he said "Good morning" to those present, and added in feeble tones, "I was mad if I perpetrated the crime. My poor dear children, May God bless and keep me, a miserable sinner". The bolt was then pulled, the body disappeared, and death seemed instantaneous. Spicer was 11 stone, 11 lbs, in weight, and 5 feet 4 inches in height, and he received a drop of 5 feet 2 inches. Representatives of the Press were admitted to witness the execution. Instructions were issued for the destruction of the rope with which Spicer was hanged immediately after the execution. The mode in which the rope is now supplied is that the High Sheriff, who is responsible for the carrying out of the execution, purchases the necessary length from the governor of Newgate Prison, who is authorised by the Home Office to sell it. This relieves the hangman of any responsibility as to the rope being unsuited for the purpose.
In accordance with the wish expressed by Spicer during an interview with some of his relatives, Mary Ann Palin, otherwise known as Mrs Spicer. declared her attention to close her refreshment rooms at New Brighton today to show her respect for Spicer, even though he had so cruelly wronged her.
Manchester Courier and Lancashire General Advertiser
Saturday 30 August 1890
Brutal Assault on a Constable at Northwich.
John Walters, lodging‐house keeper, New‐street, Northwich, was charged on remand, at the fortnightly Petty Sessions of that town, on Wednesday, with several offences. One was that on the 7th inst. be assaulted George Bostock, landlord of the Market Tavern, by throwing glasses at him, because of being ordered to leave the house through his intoxicated condition. Another charge was for being drunk and disorderly on the licensed premises named, and refusing to quit. The third, and most serious offence laid to his charge was one of assault on Police‐constable Jones, and doing damage to his clothing to the extent of £3, on the 8th inst. For the assault on the constable Walters was sent to gaol for month without the option of a fine, and ordered to pay 1s. And £2 for damage done, or, in default, another 'month's imprisonment.
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 28 February 1891
DISGRACEFUL SCENE IN CHESTER.
MILITARY VERSUS ROUGHS.
A large and excited crowd congregated in Foregate‐street on Tuesday night, in con‐sequence of a serious disturbance at the Brewers' Arms public‐house. This week, it appears, a football team representing the South Staffordshire regiment came into the city from Ireland, to compete in the fourth round of the Army Cup. The match took place at Faulkner‐street, Hoole, on Tuesday afternoon, and it was between ten and eleven o'clock the same evening that the row occurred.
Acting upon information received, Police‐Sergeant Roe, accompanied by P.C. Clutton, proceeded to the Brewers' Arms, where they found half‐a‐dozen soldiers belonging to the South Staffordshire Regiment engaged in a fight with a similar number of Chester roughs. The belligerents were not separated without great difficulty, and on reaching the street the military are stated to have acted in a most disgraceful and rowdy manner.
According to the police report, they were eager for a fight, and began pushing people about, and making use of bad language. All of them refused to go away when requested, and one took hold of Roe's stick, and attempted to wrest it from him.
Ultimately the police despatched a messenger to the Castle, summoning the picket, who very shortly afterwards arrived on the scene, and removed five of the soldiers to the guard‐room.
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 24 October 1891
TERRIBLE TRAGEDY IN CHESTER.
MURDER OF A PARAMOUR SUICIDE OF THE MURDERER. A thrilling sensation ran through Chester early yesterday (Friday) morning by the discovery of a horrible crime unparalleled in the recent history of the city. Briefly stated the circumstances seem to be that John James Jagger, residing at No. 28, Lead works‐lane, murdered his paramour, Harriet Butterfield, by stabbing her with a pocket knife, and afterwards hanged himself in the garden.
THE SCENE OF THE CRIME. The house, No. 28, Lead works‐lane, which witnessed the awful crime, stands about mid‐way between Egerton‐street and the £city‐road bridge, a two storeyed building facing the canal, and with nothing between it and the water but a small garden plot. The house has been widely known throughout the country, especially to railway travellers, for the past 30 or 40 years. Over the door hangs the sign, “Evans’s original old house at home; tea and refreshments; beds for travellers." It was familiarly spoken of as "The Old House at Home," and was kept by a Mrs. Roberts, a widow, as an eating house, with occasional accommodation for lodgers over night. Mrs. Roberts had a large circle of acquaintances and patrons, and from her connection with railway porter 3 and other employees she extended her business by frequent recommendations from those rail‐way men to belated travellers to spend the night at her house. In this way she amassed a considerable sum of money, and her daughter, Mrs. Butterfield, the woman now lying dead, succeeded to her business.
MRS. BUTTERFIELD MEETS JAGGER Things went on very much in the same way as during Mrs. Roberts's management, until about nine years ago when Mrs. Butterfield unfortunately made the acquaintance of Jagger, with whom she has lived ever since. At the commencement of their cohabitation Jagger, who had formerly been a keeper at the County Lunatic Asylum at Upton, folio wed the vocation of a stevedore, and worked at Liverpool and Birkenhead, but for the past eighteen months he did not do much work. Latterly he seems to have become madly jealous of his partner, and to have given way to drink. His full name is John James Jagger, 45 years of age, and the woman, Harriet Butterfield, was about the same age.
THE BEGINNING OF THE QUARREL on Thursday evening, after the usual horse fair, "The Old House at Home” was the resort of cattle and horse dealers from the country, who paid their customary call for tea. During the meal Jagger, who had been drinking all day, but was just then recovering his sobriety, showered abuse and threats upon his paramour to such an extent that one or two of the cattle dealers interfered and gave him what they described as a "good hiding." At 11 o'clock at night they left the house to catch their trains for home.
MRS. BUTTERFIELD'S PRECAUTIONS FOR SAFETY. Mrs. Butterfield was so afraid of her partner's violence that she sent for her son‐in‐law, James Thomas Fraser, a railway guard, who lives in Bishopsfields with his wife, who is a daughter of Mrs.Butterfield, to spend the night under her roof. At midnight the whole household retired to rest, Fraser and his wife sleeping in one bed, and Mrs Butterfield occupying another bed in the same room without undressing. The other occupants of the house at the time were a lodger named George Gallimore, a moulder, and Mrs. Butterfield's youngest daughter, both of whom had gone to bed before the others. Before going to bed Fraser fastened the door of the room to prevent the ingress of Jagger, and shortly afterwards the latter came to the door, knocked, was extremely violent, and threatened and shouted that he wanted Mrs Jagger to come out into her own bedroom.
THE MURDERER ENTERS THE BEDROOM. Her reply was that she would not that night, but as the man continued his violent behaviour Fraser, anxious to avoid a further disturbance of the neighbourhood, at length consented to open the door and let him in. Jagger lay down on the bed beside Mrs. Butterfield with‐out, however, undressing. Fraser and his wife, after hearing the man's threats and knowing his feelings towards the woman, not un‐naturally feared a serious development, and under the circumstances it is hardly surprising that they kept awake almost all the night, keeping a pretty strict watch on the other bed. Being a railway man, who requires to be early on duty, Fraser was knocked up at five o'clock, and went out to his work. Jagger was now practically ALONE WITH HIS VICTIM in the bedroom, for Mrs Fraser was powerless to resist his violence or protect her mother. Very soon after Fraser's departure Mrs. Butter‐field rose from her bed, and speaking to her daughter regarding Jagger's objectionable behaviour the previous night said, “I will go to the Town Hall this morning." Jagger, who had also risen and was at the moment doing something with his pen knife to his finger nails, or, as the daughter thinks, was cutting tobacco with a knife, replied " You are to go to the Town Hall this morning are you ?" "Ye 3," she re‐joined, whereupon Jagger PLUNGED HIS KNIFE into her neck just under the left ear, accompanying the thrust with the exclamation” Then take that." The blood instantly spurted all over the room ; the daughter closed with him, and by some means yet unexplained the wounded woman dragged herself into the next room, only a yard or two off, and fell on the floor exhausted. She expired almost immediately after the struggle. Downstairs and the neighbours were under the impression he had got clear away. A story got abroad that immediately after dealing the fatal blow Jagger made his escape by leaping through the bedroom window to the garden beneath — not an uncommon mode of exit for a murderer. Whether it was this belief in the orthodox dramatic style of departure or not that prompted the story remains to be explained; but the idea is certainly strengthened by the act that just below this window, which is 14 feet from the ground, the soft soil of the garden is disturbed, and the footmarks are consistent with a man's leap from the window. The more probable version of the affair, however, is that the criminal in his desperate flight stumbled at the top stair and jumped to the landing beneath at one bound. JAGGER ESCAPED The lodger, George Gallimore, being roused by the disturbance, after discovering the true state of the case, sent for Dr. Lees, and himself went to the Police Station, where he arrived at 6 20. Sergeant Cooper, who was on duty, at once made for the spot, accompanied by Con‐stables McGowan and Stokes. That all these tragic incidents could have occurred without attracting the attention of the police is capable of easy explanation. About ten minutes to six o'clock the city police were changing their beats, the night men going off and the day men going on, and there would consequently have been some difficulty in getting a policeman there at the particular moment, even if the alarm had been raised in sufficient time to prevent the murderer's escape. RAISING THE ALARM. Dr. Lees, who was the first to arrive, reached the house about six o'clock, and found Mrs. Butterfield dead, with the jugular vein severed. The police putting in an appearance a few minutes afterwards, the search for Jagger was commenced. ARRIVAL OF DR. LEES The circumstantial evidence surrounding the case shows that the criminal's first intention was suicide by drowning. Without divesting himself of any of his clothing he plunged into the canal, which has not even a parapet between it and the garden. Being an experienced swimmer, however, Jagger found drowning more difficult than he anticipated, and a few strokes brought him back to the bank. No time was, however, lost in carrying his determination of self‐destruction into effect. At one end of the small garden stands a stout clothes‐pole, some eight or nine feet high, with a pulley attached to the top. Running alongside this is a palisade about six feet in height which separates the garden from a small pig‐sty at the gable of the house. Running a rope through the pulley and climbing on to the paling, the suicide adjusted the noose and swung himself off with fatal effect. The public in the morning were aide to see Jagger's footprints plainly marked beneath the pole, and so near to the canal stands the post that if he had chosen, he could have dangled his legs over the water. The police constables found the criminal suspended from the post, quite dead. His body was removed to the mortuary, and the murdered woman's corpse still lies in the house. THE SUICIDE the interiors of the two rooms which witnessed the fatal struggle, resemble a slaughter house in their gory appearance. Both rooms are bespattered with blood, and the victim lay for some time, where she had fallen and bled to death. She was a stout, fleshy woman, and every drop of blood seems to have been drawn from her body through the terrible wound, the body presenting on a post mortem view a ghastly and pallid hue. GHASTLY SCENE IN THE ROOM. In an interview with our representative early in the morning, Dr. Lees said he was called to the house No. 28, Lead works‐lane, at six o'clock that morning. He found the woman Butterfield lying in an upstairs room quite dead in a pool of blood. From all appearance she had been dead no length of time. On the left side of the neck there was a deep gash about three inches long right across the side of the neck, evidently severing the large blood vessels. On his first visit the doctor saw no other marks of violence. He sent for the police at once, and Constables McGowan and Stokes arrived, and commenced looking for the man Jagger, whom they afterwards found hanging in the garden. Dr. Lees, who assisted in the search, found the instrument of the crime in the garden — a black ‐baited pocket knife of the ordinary size. It is not quite new, but seemingly has not been used for many months. It was the small blade that had been used in the perpetration of the murder. This blade was still open, and there are reddish marks plainly visible on it, but it is difficult at this time to say whether they are the results of corrosion or whether they are the remains of a gory encrustation. THE DOCTOR'S STORY. The wound has a jagged appearance, which would bear out the story which, according to the neighbours, Mrs. Fraser tells. It is said that after driving the weapon home, Jagger moved the blade backwards and forwards in the wound so as to sever the blood vessels completely. The fell speed with which the murderer despatched his victim, with such an insignificant‐cant instrument, and the significant accuracy with which he selected the vulnerable part of the neck for the deadly wound, betoken a better knowledge of anatomy than is to be expected from Jagger's walk of life. If it be true he was formerly a stevedore, it is just possible he may have acquired some knowledge of pig slaughtering on board ship, which he has turned to such lamentable service. FIENDISH BUTCHERY. Some of the neighbours who were annoyed by the disagreement on Thursday evening offered, it is said, to bring a policeman and have Jagger locked up for the night, but Mrs. Buttertield, with that clemency which criminal annals show so abundantly the ill‐treated woman invariably lavishes on her heartless partner, rejected the offer. THURSDAY NIGHT'S ROW It is an open secret in the neighbourhood that the partnership of Jagger and Mrs. Butter‐field has been a long tale of domestic un‐happiness, and recently their differences have become even more accentuated. For some reason best known to himself Jagger wa3 madly jealous of his paramour, and last Wednesday the couple quarrelled In the course of the altercation Jagger forced a sovereign from Mrs. Butterfield, and afterwards remarked that he would buy a revolver with it for the purpose of shooting her. A FORMER QUARREL it is now some years since the customary quietude of Chester has been shocked by murder. The last event of the kind, which was most notable for its mysterious surroundings, occurred at Lumley Place, some three years ago, when an upholsterer's wife was beaten to death by some unknown hand. The next latest crime happened over eight years ago, when the murderer was executed by Marwood at Chester Castle. This was the last execution at Chester. FORMER CHESTER MURDERS Public interests in the gruesome drama increases as the details are passed from mouth to mouth, gaining and varying wonderfully in the process. These matters will be all satisfactorily cleared up at the inquest, which was arranged for three o'clock, at the Town Hall. The scene was visited early by the Chief Constable (Mr. Fenwick) and Detective‐Sergeant Gallagher, who made a full investigation of the case. Ever since the shocking discovery a police officer has guarded the door of the house against the entrance of anyone who is not officially concerned in the affair. THE INQUEST. Another account says: — the deceased man, Jagger, was well known in the neighbourhood of Lead works‐lane, where not the most favourable opinion was entertained as to his character and industry. He enjoyed the reputation of a man who worked only by fits and starts, and spent the intervals in public‐houses. When in drink he was usually very violent, and had frequently been known to threaten his paramour. For the last two years he appears to have been almost constantly out of work, living upon the woman's means. His last employment was at the Birkenhead docks, where he did a spell of a fortnight, terminating last Saturday night. He then returned home, and, it is stated, had been drinking freely ever since. On Wednesday night, in a fit of temper, he demanded a sovereign from the woman, with the threat that he would purchase a revolver to shoot her with, and, after a stormy scene, he appears to have wrung the money from her. The sovereign, however, was found in his possession on the morning of his death by the police, proving that he had not been short of money for drinking purposes. As to his history, little appears to be known in the neighbourhood, except that for some time he acted as an attendant at a lunatic asylum, and began cohabiting with the deceased woman before the death of her husband, a respected man, who died at Rochdale. THE SUICIDE'S ANTECEDENTS At the time of the tragedy, a young moulder, named George Gallimore, and was staying at the house, where he had lodged for the past four months. Interviewed by a representative of the Observer, Gallimore stated that on the day previous to the murder a number of Irish cattle‐drovers, who usually made the “Old House at Home " their resort during fair‐time, had tea in the house. Jagger, who had been on the spree since Saturday, had been absent from home during the preceding night, and as early as breakfast time it was evident that he was under the influence of drink. At tea a quarrel arose between him and two of the Irish‐men, who resented his reflections on one of Mrs. Butterfield's daughters. Blows were freely exchanged, and Jagger got the worst of the fight, his face being slightly cut. He after‐wards went to sleep for several hours, and on awakening had more liquor. The Irishmen left by the eleven o'clock mail, and, after their departure, Jagger renewed the brawl, during which every effort was made to pacify him. One of his complaints was that his bed was occupied, and that he was compelled to sleep on the sofa downstairs, which manifestly aggravated him. Gallimore states that he retired to rest about midnight, and heard nothing more till between five and six in the morning, when he was startled by screams proceeding from an adjoining apartment. Mrs. Butterfield then rushed into his bedroom, blood streaming from a terrible gash in her neck, and exclaimed A LODGER INTERVIEWED “GEORGE, GET UP, I AM STABBED!" At the same time she seized hold of his shirt with her hand, which left indelible stains of blood on the cloth, and shook him. He immediately jumped up, and saw pools of blood on the floor. Mr. Fraser, the eldest daughter, then led her mother back into the room in which she had been stabbed, where she fell on her face on the floor. The youngest daughter had already left the house in search of a doctor, and Gallimore at once proceeded to the police office, where he gave information of what had occurred. From this point he knows nothing of what transpired, and told his story to our reporter, while awaiting a summons to the inquest. From hearsay, he had learned further that during the disturbance on the previous night, a policeman was sent for on account of Jaggers violence, but even then Mrs. Butter‐field refused to give him in charge. It was said that he threatened to take her life in the presence of the officer, but this occurred while Gallimore was in bed and he heard very little of it. The daughter's husband, Fraser, was in the house during the night, and did his best to pacify Jagger, but he left for work about five in the morning, and could say nothing about the tragedy itself. His wife, however, was present at the murder with her child, who screamed loudly through fright as Jagger executed his savage work with the knife. The affair created quite a sensation in the neighbourhood, where people were roused from their sleep in the early morning by piercing shrieks and the barking of a dog. The horrible news spread with astonishing rapidity, and a crowd of people Boon collected in the vicinity of the house, which was guarded during the removal of Jagger's corpse by the police. The neighbours are quite accustomed to domestic brawls at the “Old House at Home and no one was unusually alarmed by the uproar on Thursday night.
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 19 September 1891
TRAGIC DEATH OF A CHESTER POLICEMAN
On Friday evening week, about ten o'clock, P.C. Darlington, while on duty in Newtown, suddenly expired in Wellington‐street. When he was in George‐street some boys began calling him names, whereupon he ran after them. A whistle was heard immediately afterwards and a few people hastened to the spot, where they found the officer breathing his last.
Dr. Harrison and Dr. Roberts were sent for, but on arriving at Mr. Gosmore's house, where deceased was taken, pronounced life extinct. The body was subsequently taken to the mortuary awaiting the inquest. Deceased leaves a widow and child, for whom much sympathy is felt.
An inquest was held on Monday, at the Bull and Stirrup Hotel, before Mr. C. W. Tibbits, deputy coroner. — Ralph Darlington, 9, Lightfoot‐street, father of deceased, stated that his son was 23 years old, and was married, and was always a healthy man. —
P.S. Thomas Leach deposed to seeing Darlington on Cow‐lane Bridge about nine o'clock. Witness then left him to go on his beat. Deceased seemed in good health.
Martha Sands went down George‐street about 9.30 on Friday; night, and saw deceased running some boys round a lamp post with his stick in his hand, and subsequently saw him fall in the channel. On approaching, as she did not hear him breathing, she called for help.
Thomas Pickthall, groom to Mr. Smith, Northgate‐street, who also saw Darlington fall, put deceased's head on his knee. He then took him to Mr. Gosmore's house pending the doctor's arrival.
Dr. George Harrison deposed to finding deceased dead about ten o'clock. He had attended Darlington twice since he was on the force. The post‐mortem examination of the body made it clear that he died from fatty degeneration of the heart.
Detective Crewe searched the body, and found 24s 6d., a pocket‐book, pocket handker‐chief, and other articles.
The jury returned a verdict of " Death from natural causes — fatty degeneration of the heart."
On Tuesday after‐noon the remains were interred at the Chester Cemetery. The cortege left the mortuary about half‐past three, headed by 18 pollce constables, 2 sergeants, and Inspector Farrell.
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 20 June 1891
CHESTER CASTLE PETTY SESSIONS. SATURDAY.
Theft of a Greyhound. — John Jones, a navvy, was charged with stealing at Whitby on the 6th June a greyhound (valued at £10), the property of William Law son. The prisoner pleaded guilty, and P.S. Ennion stated that on the previous Saturday evening, the prisoner was in the company of Lawson at the Canal Tavern, Ellesmere Port. At closing time they crossed the fields towards the new huts, and Lawson, who was in possession of a valuable greyhound, went into No. 27, where he lodged. On his return to the front door, the bitch was gone, and it subsequently appeared that a woman had seen the prisoner take the animal away. On Sunday night, witness apprehended him with the bitch in his possession, and found the collar bearing the owner's name in his pocket. When charged he asked the prosecutor not to appear against him. The magistrates sent him to prison for two months with hard labour.
The Perils of a Policeman's Lot. — Joseph Ellis, labourer, pleaded guilty to being drunk and disorderly on the highway at Ellesmere Port, on the 6th of June, and also to assaulting Police‐constable James Dawson, on the same day. P.C. Dawson stated that he found the prisoner, along with another man , asleep and drunk at mid‐night on the highway on the night in question. The other man went off, and he took the prisoner to the police station, where he became very violent, struck witness in the chest, and tried to drag him down. Witness was obliged to beat prisoner with a stick in order to bring him to the police station. A sum of 15s. 3½d. was found on the prisoner. Other witnesses testified to the assault on the police and the prisoner's violent conduct. The prisoner said he came from Welshpool that day, and only arrived at Ellesmere Port late at night. He supposed he had had a little beer. (Laughter.) The Bench said it was very important that the police should be protected when in the discharge of their duties. For the assault the prisoner was sent to prison for one calendar month with hard labour and for being drunk and disorderly a fine of 10s. and costs was imposed, with the option of seven days' hard labour.
Chief Superintendent Hindley stated that it had become dangerous for any police officer to go into the neighbourhood of Ellesmere Port alone, and only the finest men in the county were employed for duty in that district.
A Night in a Haystack. — John Craggs pleaded guilty to vagrancy. He was found asleep by the side of a haystack at Ince, on the 12th of June, by P.C. Alfred Foster, with a few matches in his possession. His story was that he had come from Runcorn. — The Chairman remarked that it was very important that farmers should be protected from vagrants. They considered they were very lenient in sentencing the prisoner to only seven days' imprisonment with hard labour.
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 24 January 1891
CHESTER CASTLE PETTY SESSIONS.
Saturday.— Before H. Trelawny, Esq., Sir T. O. Frost, Rev. E. A. P. Campbell John Grace,
E. T. Richardson, Esqrs.
Assaulting the Police.— Martin Lyons, navvy, Ellesmere Port, was charged, in custody, with being drunk and disorderly and with assaulting P.C. Proctor while he was in the execution of his duty. On Tuesday Pc Proctor and P.S. Cooke discovered prisoner lying in a drunken sleep inside a pig‐stye at Ellesmere Port. On being disturbed from his slumbers the man became very pugilistic, and struck the constable in the chest. The two officers, with great difficulty, handcuffed him, and conveyed him to the police station.
— The Magistrates being determined to put down these assaults on the police, sentenced prisoner for being drunk and disorderly to seven days hard labour, without the option of a fine ; and for assaulting the police to 21 days' hard labour, the two terms of imprisonment to run consecutively.
Sleeping Out. — John Smith, Eastham, for this offence was, on the information of P.C. Proctor, sentenced to seven days' hard labour.
Monday. — At the office of the Magistrates' Clerk (Mr. W. H. Churton), before Sir T. G. Frost and the Rev. E. A. P. Campbell
Drunken Navvies. — James Murphy was charged, in custody, with being drunk and disorderly at Ellesmere Port on the previous Saturday night, and was fined ls and costs, or seven days' hard labour. — Jas. King, for being intoxicated in Dock‐street, Ellesmere Port, on Saturday night, waa fined se. and costs, with the alternative of seven days' hard labour. P.C. Griffiths laid the information in both cases. —
James O'Kelly, for a similar offence in Mersey‐street, Ellesmere Port, was, at the instance of P.C. Crowe, ordered to pay a fine of 5s. and 5s. costs, with the option of seven days' imprisonment. —
Frederick Bilson, charged by P.C. Stevenson with a like offence in Station‐road, Ellesmere Port, was ordered to pay the same penalty. —
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 14 February 1891
ELLESMERE PORT. Found Dead on the Railway. —
On Wednesday, at the Railway Hotel, Ellesmere Port, Mr. Churton held an enquiry, touching the death of Thomas Grubb, whose body was found on the railway, near the station, about nine o'clock on' Monday night.
P.S. Cooke stated that he was called to the place, and saw the body lying in the six‐foot. He made an examination, and found the deceased’s head was terribly smashed. The wounds were such as would be caused if caught by a passing train.
Harriet Cooper said deceased had lodged at her house at Ince for six months. He was about twenty‐one years of age, and was known as Thomas Griffiths. He left her house about eight o'clock on Monday morning.
A verdict of "Found dead on the Railway" was returned.
From a letter unsigned from Hawarden, found on his body, the Police Sergeant communicated with that place, and during the inquest the young man's father arrived, and identified the body as that of his son, whose real name was Thomas Grubb.
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 5 September 1896
NORTHWICH A Northwich Councillor Fined for Drunkenness.— At the Middlewich Sessions on Wednesday, Robert Dickson Nicholson member of the Northwich Urban Council summoned for being drunk in charges of a horse and trap. He was swaying to and fro in the vehicle when Constable Skilbeck stopped him. He refused to give his name, and the officer had to drive him from Winsford to Northwich. A fine of 10s was imposed The cas aroused considerable interest.
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 25 September 1897
NORTHWICH. A Winsford Man's Escapade.— At Northwich, on Saturday, Samuel Taylor a well‐known Winsford butcher, was charged in custody with being drunk and assaulting the police. Constable Cope stated that at 1 a.m. he found the prisoner lying asleep in Apple Market Street. When roused, he violently struck the officer in the chest, kicked him on the thigh, and threw him to the ground. The officer blew his whistle, help arrived, and Taylor was with difficulty lodged in the cells. A fine of 21s. was imposed.
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 2 December 1893
NORTHWICH Betting Raid. — On the afternoon of the Lancashire Handicap day at Manchester, Inspector Johnson, with two sergeants and five constables raided the Black Bear Inn, Northwich, and arrested Mrs. Alice Gorst, the land‐lady, Herbert Mitchell, John Bigglestone, barman, and four labourers named Thomas Peover, Dominic Kerwain, Martin Finegan, and Joseph Henshall. They were taken before the magistrates and charged; the landlady with using the house for betting purposes, and the other defendants with aiding and abetting. John Swords, a Birkenhead constable, stated that he visited the house in disguise on the 21st, 22nd, 23rd, and 24th ult., saw betting going on and made bets himself with Mitchell. The constables took possession of betting books and other documents and .several sums of money/ including £23 found on Mitchell. All the defendants were remanded on bail.
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 3 October 1891
NORTHWICH. Serious Poaching Affray ‐Assaulting the Police. — At the Northwich Police Court, on Saturday, James Whitaker and Wm. Yarwood, both of Northwich, were charged with being in possession of poaching implements, and with being concerned with unlawfully wounding and assaulting four constables early that morning. Shortly after one o'clock Police‐constable Dutton and three officers whilst on duty at Cogshall came across a gang of nine or ten men, whom they suspected of being in search of game. They stopped them, when Police‐constable Richardson was struck and rendered insensible, and bis injuries were so serious that he was unable to attend the court. Police‐sergeant Dutton on going to his assistance received a blow on the breast with a stone. Police‐constables Mellor and Gibbons were also assaulted. The struggle raged for some time, and stones were thrown at the officers. Sticks also were used. Police‐constables Richardson and Gibbons were so severely handled that they were under medical treatment. The prisoners were remanded, bail being refused, and warrants were issued against other members of the gang known to the police
Cheshire Observer
Saturday 19 December 1891
DARING LEAP FROM A TRAIN.
A PLUCKY CHESHIRE CONSTABLE
At the Chester Castle Petty Sessions on Saturday, John Rushby, who appeared in the dock with his head bandaged was charged on remand with stealing from a tin box at Helsby station on December 8th, one overcoat, value 32s., one serge jacket, one timepiece, value 7s. 6d., and a shawl, value 18s., the property of Hugh and Mary Wilson, of 8, Worcester‐street, Ellesmere Port. He was also charged with assaulting P.C. Thomas Finchett, and also with resisting the police in the execution of their duty. Prosecutor, with his wife, had travelled from Earlam to Helsby on the day in question, and on arrival at Ellesmere Port by the 2.50 train he asked leave to place his tin box in the waiting room for a few hours, when he would return to fetch it. This was accorded and nothing wrong was noticed until prosecutor fetched the box home and noticed the articles were missing. Information was given to the police, which led to the arrest of the prisoner in the Bull public‐house, where he was discovered wearing a topcoat, afterwards identified as the property of Hugh Wilson. Alfred Carpenter, booking clerk at Ellesmere Port, said he saw prisoner in the waiting‐room at 3.15, and also at 4.15. He appeared to be asleep, and he noticed that he was in drink. He said he was waiting for a Manchester train. Witness did not notice anything wrong with the box. Mary Wilson, wife of the prosecutor, identified the missing articles. P.C. Thos. Finchett detailed his Visit, in company with Sergt. Jackson, to the Bull public‐house. When the prosecutor saw the prisoner wearing his overcoat, the latter said he had "swapped it for a joint head." When searched at the police station, a shawl was found in the top pocket of the coat. In reply to the charge of theft, prisoner said, “ I have never been near the railway station to‐day. I swapped a joint head with a chap of a tramp today for this coat." Sergeant Jackson proved finding the time‐piece in the Grosvenor Hotel, Ellesmere Port, the",day after the theft. Prisoner asked witness " Do you think I should have stood in the Bull public‐house, only 300 yards away, wearing the coat if I had stolen it ?" He repeated his story of "swapping" the coat, and added he never knew it was stolen. He was as innocent of stealing it as a babe unborn. He admitted, however, being in the waiting‐room. Prisoner was then formally charged with the assault on P.C. Finchett, and pleaded not guilty. "I am guilty of going out of the train," he remarked. Constable Finchett's evidence was to the effect that he left the Northgate Station, Chester, with prisoner about 12.25 p.m. on Wednesday afternoon, as the prisoner had been remanded from the Magistrates' Clerk's office in the morning. When the train had got about a quarter of a mile past Mickle Trafford Station, prisoner got up as if he was going to spit out of the window, and suddenly leapt out of the compartment. Witness at once jumped after him, and both fell into a ditch. When the prisoner got up he ran at the constable, and struck him. Both fell together between a fence and the hedge, where a violent struggle ensued. Witness pulled his staff out in order to inflict a blow but the strap broke, and the bludgeon flew out of his hand. The prisoner then secured it and told the constable he meant to get away; he would knock his brains out. The constable, not to be overpowered so easily, regained possession of the staff, and another incident occurred before the prisoner was finally captured Prisoner had made an attempt to escape over the hedge, and when he saw he was being hotly pressed he pulled out a belt he was wearing round his waist, doubled it round his wrists, and struck Finchett with it in the face, but several blows from the staff caused the prisoner to fall in some water and to give in. He was picked up and conveyed back to Chester, where Dr. Parry attended to his injuries. Prisoner denied that he ever used a belt, and accused the constable of using his staff all the way to the station, and when he was put into the waiting‐room Finchett said with an oath he would kill him. He also charged Finchett with making him drunk, and said he was very bad at the time. The Chairman, in passing sentence, said it was a very serious case, and he was certainly guilty of breaking into the tin box and stealing the goods, for which he would be imprisoned for two months with hard labour. As for the assault on the police, he ought to be very thankful to the police for taking such care of him. It might have ended very fatally for either of them.
The Bench appreciated the gallant conduct of the policeman, and considered he behaved in a very noble way. It was their duty to punish prisoner for a very gross case of assault, and the sentence would be three months with hard labour —five months in gaol altogether. The third charge, of resisting the police, was not adjudicated upon.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 28 March 1891
THE BURNING TRAGEDY ON THE SHIP CANAL.
THE INQUEST. VERDICT OF MANSLAUGHTER.
On Tuesday Mr. H. Churton, county coroner, held an inquest at the Grosvenor public‐house, Ellesmere Port, upon the body of James Birnie, who died in the hospital on Saturday last from the effects of burns.
Superintendent Walker, of the Eddisbury Division, had charge of the case on behalf of the police, and Mr. F. Cartwright, solicitor, Chester, represented the prisoner, John Sheen, who is alleged to have caused the deceased's death. Mr. R. H. Taylor, sub‐agent, watched the case in the interests of the Ship Canal Company.
The first witness was Thomas King, miner, employed by the Ship Canal Company, who stated that a fortnight lost Thursday night, about nine o'clock, he saw the prisoner throw a quantity of lucigen oil out of a bucket upon an open fire at the works at Ince and run away. The flames blazed up, and almost immediately Sheen returned, and dragged away a man who had been lying near the fire. The man's trousers were completely destroyed, and he was badly burned about the front of the legs. A number of workmen came up to give assistance, and prisoner said "I wonder how he got on fire”? The man exclaimed "You've burned me, you've burned me." He was removed on a locomotive to the hospital, where witness saw him on the following Saturday. He then appeared to be in great pain, and on the previous day witness heard of his death. Cross‐examined by Supt. Walker: When the prisoner said "I wonder how he took fire," witness replled, " You will know about it in the morning. I saw you do it, and I shall have you locked up if no one else will." By a Juror Sheen might have run away to escape being burned himself. The deceased did not point to anyone in particular when he said "You've burned me." Witness saw the whole thing from an embankment some twenty yards away. A Juror: Do you think the prisoner saw the man before he threw the lucigen ? Witness: I can't say. I heard Sheen say, "I told him to go away from the fire, but he would not."
Dr. F. D. Bennett, house surgeon at the Ellesmere Port Hospital, deposed that the deceased, when admitted to the institution, was in a very collapsed state, and suffering from severe burns to the legs, face, and hands. He progressed slowly till Friday night, but died suddenly the following day. Witness ascribed death to general collapse caused by the injuries.
Jessie Birnie, the deceased's wife, last saw her husband allve at Glasgow nine months ago.
Daniel Allsop, lampman, heard deceased call out, "What have you thrown the oil over me for" At this time Birnie and Sheen were together near the fire, and there were other persons in the vicinity. The deceased was lying down, and Sheen was standing up about a yard away from the fire on the other aide. Witness immediately saw the deceased in flames, and said to the prisoner, "What the have you done it for, Jack?" Sheen replied, "I caught my foot against the bucket." Prisoner had twice ordered the deceased away from the fire, as he had no business there, and said he had "better **** off." Witness told him to let the fellow alone; he was doing ho harm.
Mr. John Grace, justice of the peace for the county of Chester, read the following depositions, taken at the deceased's dictation, on the 6th instant, at the Ship Canal hospital : — " I, James Birnie, make this statement, believing that I am in a dying state, that the prisoner cast the oil upon the fire. I live at Frodsham Marsh. I was laid down by the fire and dozed off to sleep and was awoke by something. I saw the prisoner standing by the fire with a pan of oil in his hand. He then threw the oil into the fire and my clothes became ignited. I got up and said, "You might give a fellow a chance." The prisoner replied, "It served you right; you had no business there." A man named Brummy (Allsop) wrapped his jacket round me. An engine was obtained and I was conveyed to the hospital. I had no misunderstanding with the prisoner."
The Coroner, in summing up, explained the reason that the prisoner had not attended the inquest. He was taken to Chester and brought before the County Magistrates, and remanded till Saturday, when he will re‐appear before them, and they will deal with him as they think proper. The dying statement made by the deceased, which was of the utmost importance to the jury, had been corroborated to a certain extent by the other witnesses, leaving no possible doubt as to how he came by his death. He did not mean to say that Sheen threw the oil actually with the intention of killing deceased, because in the absence of sufficient provocation he could not conceive that possible. The provocation was of the most flimsy character, but the prisoner made use of certain vulgar words which showed that he was angry with Birnie. He dared say the man felt provoked, but why he wished deceased away from the fire there was no evidence to show. He advised the jury that the evidence justified them in returning a verdict of manslaughter against the prisoner. After some consideration in private, the jury brought in a verdict of "Manslaughter" against John Sheen, and complimented tie police upon the way in which the case had been worked up by them.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 11 April 1891
CHESTER CASTLE PETTY SESSIONS. Saturday.— Before H. Trelawny, John Thompson, John Grace, B. C. Roberts, and R D. Richardson; Esqrs., the Hon. Cecil Parker, and the Rev. E. A. P. Campbell.
THE ALLEGED MANSLAUGHTER ON THE SHIP CANAL. COMMITTAL TO THE ASSIZES.
John Sheen was brought up on remand accused of the manslaughter of James Birnie on the Ince section of the Manchester Ship Canal on March 5th. Mr. J. P. Cartwright again appeared for the defence.
Thomas King now attended, and repeated his evidence given at the inquest. In cross‐examination he said the borer's fire, near which the deceased was lying when Sheen threw the lucigen oil, was lighted between six and seven o'clock. Geo. Newbolt, surgeon practising at Ellesmere Port, saw the deceased about six o clock in the evening on the 6th March, the day after his admission to the hospital when he was in a dying condition, suffering from collapse produced by the burns. In consequence of what he saw, witness gave a certificate stating that Birnie seemed likely to die, and his depositions had better be taken. He again saw the deceased on the following day and at intervals to the time of his death on the 21st March. Cross‐examined : Birnie rallied after witness's first visit to the hospital, but he never grew much better, and death was sudden. Witness had hopes that he might recover, but the suddenness of death did not come at all as a surprise. The immediate effects of burns were often fatal after five or six days. He agreed with Dr. Bennett, the house surgeon that death resulted from shock and exhaustion. Mr. John Grace, J. P., deposed to taking down the depositions, in which Birnie declared that the prisoner threw the oil on him, and said it served him right as he had no business at the fire. The deceased was in bed and not in a fit condition to sign the statement.
Police‐Sergeant Pettingale, of Ince, stated that from information received, on Thursday, the 5th March, he went to the Ship Canal about midnight, and saw the witness King. They proceeded to a lucigen lamp which was burning, and King pointed out the prisoner. Witness said "What about throwing this oil and burning a man ?" ‐The prisoner replied "I did not throw it," but King declared that he saw him do so. "You hear that," said Pettingale. The prisoner answered "Yes," and the officer then charged him with doing grievous bodily harm to a man then unknown. Sheen said "I accidentally caught my foot against the bucket, and a drop or two went on the fire." The man was then locked up at Bishopsfield where on the previous Saturday witness again saw him and asked if he knew that Birnie was dead He replied “Yes," and witness read over the charge of manslaughter, to which he made no reply. Cross‐examined: Witness had repeated everything Sheen had said at both interviews. The prisoner pleaded not guilty, and said "I did not do it." Mr. Cartwright gathered from the general appearance of the magistrates that they considered there was a case, upon which they would not entertain any observations for the defence. The prisoner was then committed for trial to the Assizes, bail being allowed in his own recognisance’s, of £50, and four sureties of £12 10s. each.
Cheshire Observer
Saturday 3 October 1891
NORTHWICH.
Serious Poaching Affray .
Assaulting the Police.
At the Northwich Police Court, on Saturday, James Whitaker and Wm. Yarwood, both of Northwich, were charged with being in possession of poaching implements, and with being concerned with unlawfully wounding and assaulting four constables early that morning.
Shortly after one o'clock Police‐constable Dutton and three officers whilst on duty at Cogshall came across a gang of nine or ten men, whom they suspected of being in search of game. They stopped them, when Police‐constable Richardson was struck and rendered insensible, and his injuries were so serious that he was unable to attend the court. Police‐sergeant Dutton on going to his assistance received a blow on the breast with a stone. Police‐constables Mellor and Gibbons were also assaulted. The struggle raged for some time, and stones were thrown at the officers. Sticks also were used. Police‐constables Richardson and Gibbons were so severely handled that they were under medical treatment.
The prisoners were remanded, bail being refused, and warrants were issued against other members of the gang known to the police.
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 19 December 1891
TRAGEDY IN CHESHIRE.
A LABOURER SHOT BY HIS MASTER
William Boyle, farmer, of Hollin Edge Farm, Northern Etchells, near Cheadle, Cheshire, is in custody of the police on the charge of murdering one of his labourers, on Tuesday night. It appears that the labourer in question, whose name is Beech and hails from Blackburn, was sent to a smithy at Northenden with a ploughshare about three o'clock on Tuesday afternoon. He returned about half‐past eight, and for some time jokes passed between him, his master, and another man named Joseph Wright, with respect to Beech's unshaven appearance. Joking proceeded, Wright and Boyle placed Beech on a chair, and attempted to shave him with an old knife. Beech retaliated, and advised them to stand back, as he had firearms in his possession, and would let them into them. Royle said, " Oh, have you ? So have I," and immediately took down a gun from the kitchen ceiling, pointed at the head of Beech, and fired, the result being that Beech's brains were blown out, and he died without a groan. Royle was at once taken into custody by P.C. Massey, his explanation of the affair being that it was all in joke, and he did not know that the gun was loaded. Deceased, who had been in the employ of Royle and his family for fourteen years, was on the best of terms with his master up to the time of the occurrence.
Royle was on Wednesday afternoon charged with the manslaughter of Beech. Formal evidence was given, and prisoner was remanded, bail being allowed. An inquest was held on the body of Beech on Thursday, when the jury, after a short deliberation, returned a verdict of "Homicide by misadventure."
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 3 December 1892
SAD DEATH OF A CHESHIRE FARMER. TRAP ACCIDENT AT EATON
A painful sensation was caused in agricultural and business circles in Chester on Thursday morning by the receipt of the intelligence of the sudden death of Mr. Richard Mullock, of Poulton Hall Farm, on the Eaton Estate.
Deceased, who was 64 years of age, was a well known and highly‐respected farmer, being a most successful maker of Cheshire cheese. Mr. Mullock was returning home late on Wednesday night in a trap with his wife. When in the Eaton drive the horse, it is supposed shied, and bolted across the road. The trap, colliding with a tree, was upset, and the deceased gentleman was thrown to the ground. He got on his legs, however, and was unfastening the harness, when a man named James Edwards arrived on the scene and took charge of the horse. Mr. Mullock, who shewed no signs of having been injured, then went to look after his wife. He had not, however, proceeded more than thirty yards when he dropped down dead. The cause of death is at present unknown. Naturally the melancholy affair has completely prostrated Mrs. Mullock, and she is lying in bed in a serious condition. Much sympathy is felt for the deceased's family in the sad bereavement that has befallen them.
The late Mr. Mullock resided for practically his whole life on the Eaton estate, first at Aldford, and for the last twenty years at Poulton. Like some other successful business men, possessed of great perseverance and force of character, he was naturally of a retiring and almost too modest disposition. As an agrarian agitator he would have been a distinct failure, but nature providentially intended him for a more useful role, which he filled with consummate success. Living as a tenant of the Duke of Westminster, and enjoying the many advantages and facilities offered by his Grace for the prosecution of the dairy industry, Mr. Mullock soon made a name for himself among connoisseurs, and his specialty of rich coloured Cheshire cheese rapidly gained a more than local reputation, both at fairs and shows.
Happy in his domestic relations, he was esteemed by a large circle of neighbours, who always found him willing and capable of giving the soundest advice when consulted. Although he had no hankering after public notoriety and never courted publicity, he sat at the Chester Board of Guardians for many years, working with the same quiet effect as in private life, and observing the golden rule of knowing when to keep silence. He is survived by a widow and a large family, one of his sons, a farmer at Waverton, having already given ample promise of following in his father's footsteps as a manufacturer of typical Cheshire.
THE INQUEST. The County Coroner (Mr. H. Churton) held an inquiry into the circumstances attending the death of the deceased gentleman, yesterday (Friday), at Poulton Hall.
James Edwards, under gardener at Eaton, stated that he knew the deceased. About
10.40 on Wednesday night he was on his way home, and when nearly half way between the black and white cottages and Eaton Hall he heard a conveyance coming from the opposite direction. When it was about thirty yards from him he heard a peculiar grinding and rumbling noise, and he saw several flashes of fire from the wheels of the carriage. There were no lights on the vehicle. He hastened on to the carriage, and when he got opposite to it he saw the man and horse and trap on the bank, a few feet off the drive. The man was on his legs trying to unloose the tracings, as the horse was rather restive. Witness got hold of the horse's bridle, leaving the man at liberty. The man was then sharp and active, and gave no signs of being hurt. Soon afterwards he said to witness "This is a bad job," and then witness discovered that it was Mr. Mullock. Deceased was not more than five minutes in unloosing the harness and witness led the horse clear of the trap which was upside down. Deceased then remarked "I will now go back and see after my poor wife, and try to get some help," and witness took charge of the horse. After coaxing the animal till it became quiet, he turned round in the direction of the Hall, and saw an object about thirty yards away lying on the ground. He at first thought that it was somebody else who had been thrown out of the trap, but on approaching it he ascertained that it was the dead body of Mr. Mullock. Almost at the same time Mrs. Mullock arrived on the spot. When witness was within a fen yards of them, she called out “Father, are you hurt?" and as deceased made no answer, she caught hold of his arm and repeatedly asked him to tell her if he was hurt. Witness then raised the deceased, but he made no sound, and he went for assistance to the Hall, whence a conveyance was sent to take deceased home. He also gave information to the police. Mrs. Mullock did not complain of any injury. It was a nice moonlight night.
John Robinson, constable in the service of the Duke of Westminster, said he first heard of the unfortunate affair on Wednesday night about eleven o'clock. On going to the scene of the accident, he found the dead body of Mr. Mullock lying on the grass by the side of the road. There was mud on the side of his face, but witness did not discover any marks of injury. Ho conveyed deceased home in a trap and undressed him. Witness had examined the place where the accident occurred, and he found two marks on the tree where the wheel of the trap had gone up it. The tree was just at the edge of the road, and there was a large projecting root with wheel marks on it, which was sufficient to upset the trap. The tree was on the right hand side of the road, so that the trap must have crossed the road, and it was very remarkable that the accident should have occurred on such a moonlight night. Witness supposed that the horse must have shied at something. On Wednesday night he saw the trap upside down, and rugs scattered all over the road.
Dr. Taylor deposed to seeing the body of deceased on Wednesday evening, when life was extinct. There were no external injuries, and he could not say what the cause of death was.
The Coroner, in summing up, said they had nothing to prove what the actual and specific cause of death was. The case had caused a good deal of excitement in Chester and for some miles surrounding. There had been many rumours about the case which he dared say were some‐what painful. He did not think considering the delicate condition of Mrs. Mullock that they would be justified in going into her bed‐room to take her evidence, and as it would not be satisfactory unless they knew what the cause of death was, he suggested that a post‐mortem examination should be made. Deceased was not a bulky man, and it was impossible to say what he died of. The jury, although they were reluctant for a post mortem examination lo be made, eventually agreed to it, and the inquiry was adjourned till Monday.
THE FUNERAL.
The funeral has been fixed for this (Saturday) afternoon at three o'clock at Aldford church‐yard.
Cheshire Observer
Saturday 6 February 1892
ALTRINCHAM
The Scene in a Cheshire Church.
At Altrincham, on Monday, Peter Dean Sandiway was summoned for violent behaviour in Rostherne Church. The defendant said he was a detective, and after looking round the church seized one of the congregation, named Whitney, by the throat. Great consternation prevailed and the service was stopped. Mr. Hockin, on the defendant's behalf, apologised and offered to pay £10 to a local charity. The Bench fined him £5 and costs, and the defendant paid £20 in addition to a charity.
Chester City Police Force
Charles Price No 4
Joined the Force on 8 February 1864
Retired from the Force on 18 February 1894 after 30 years Service

Nominal Roll CJP20/7/1

Defaults Book p49. 10 February 1870 Leaving his Beat 1½ hours before time – Cautioned and
withdrawn from Special Duty
Watch Committee Resolutions 5 Aug 1869 shows him with Collar No 4.
Watch Committee Meeting dated 1894 Feb 8 The Chief Constable reported that Inspector

Charles Price had resigned the Force after 30 years of Service – entitled to a pension of 2/3rd of

his pay 38/0 equal to £1.5.4 per week ‐Approved.
Watch Committee Meeting dated 2 January 1896 ‐The Chief Constable reported on the death of
Police Pensioner Charles Price on 13 December 1895.

A Post Card from Price’s son which was as follows:
Granville Cottage, Swindon Road, Cheltenham 18 December 1895.
Mr. Beckett.

Sir, I hereby make application for any pension due to my late father Inspector Price up to the time of his death on 13th December 1895. If you would kindly forward on, I will send a receipt for same. Sorry I was unable to call having been obliged to leave Chester this morning. I remain, Yours respectfully. William Price (son).
It was Ordered: that the question of paying over the balance of the pension and to whom be referred to the Town Clerk.
1871 Census records Charles, a police Constable aged 31 living at 3 Gloucester Street, Chester with his wife and their 3 children.
1881 Census records Charles aged 42 years born Chester a Sergeant of Police, living with his wife Mary and 3 children , living at number 2 Steam Mill Street, Chester.
1891 Census records the family still living at no 2 Steam Mill Street. Charles is now an Inspector of Police. He is a widower. He is now living with his two daughters and granddaughter.
Died on 13 December 1895.
Please Note: The Watch Committee Meetings Resolutions for the years 1854 to 1875 have yet to be transcribed.
Cheshire Observer ‐Saturday 12 March 1892
ILLICIT DRINKING IN CHESTER A LICENCE ENDORSED At the Chester City Police Court on Wednesday, before Messrs. L. Gilbert, J. Salmon, F. L. Bagnall, and Dr. Stolterfoth; Harry Foster, the licensee of the Brewers' Arms public‐house, Foregate‐street, was summoned for keeping open his licensed premises for the sale of drink during prohibited hours, and for assaulting Police‐Inspector Price in the execution of his duty. Mr. W. H. Churton appeared for the defence. — Inspector Price deposed that at about 11.40 on Sunday night, the 28th February, he was on duty in Foregate‐street with Sergeant Culliford, when they observed a number of people standing outside the entrance to the Brewers' Arms. Shortly afterwards two of them left, and came down the street, the remainder appearing to enter the house. Witness and Culliford then proceeded to the front door, from which they saw the bar lighted up, and heard people both in the bar and in a back room talking. They also heard corks drawn from bottles, and the jingle of glasses as if someone was handling them. Some person went from the bar towards the back‐room, and in a few minutes returned, dropped some money into a drawer, and closed it. The gas was then lowered, and the parties went towards the back‐room, closing the bar door behind them. Witness sent the sergeant for Police Constable Jones, who opened the passage door, and they walked up to the door of the far room. People were talking inside, and when witness knocked there was a noise of scrambling, and of people walking sharply out of the room. After keeping them waiting four or five minutes, the defendant answered the door and asked who was there. Witness replied "Police," whereupon the door was opened, and they were allowed to enter. Witness enquired where were the parties who were in the room, to which the defendant replied "What parties, where are they?" Witness said .‐"That is what I want to know," and stepped into another inner room, where he found several persons including two men and a woman, who were strangers to him. He asked "What are these people doing here?" Defendant replied "What people? Who are they? Don't you know them?" which he repeated in an excited manner several times. Witness demanded their names and addresses, and instructed the sergeant to take them down. While this was being done, the defendant pushed Culliford and witness in the breast with his hand, and said, "Take the names yourself; you are inspector, aren't you ? " Witness replied, "Yes;' but I am not going to be dictated to by you." Foster then put his fist in witness's face, and threatened to knock his b***** head off, but he was pulled away by his friends. The following names and addresses were then booked : — Charles William Shaw, Belvedere ‐road, Lambeth; Bagnall Holland, 62, Cornwall‐street, Chester; and Flos Cambridge, of the Collingwood Pantomime Company, Widnes. It had since been ascertained that Shaw, who was a cutler from London, was working in Chester, and resided at 7, Deva terrace. The room was afterwards searched, and in the bar they found on the counter three glasses and three bottles, one about three‐parts full of beer. Witness said to the defendant, "What about these?" He repeated several times, " What about them? " Witness said, "Now listen to me. Before coming here we heard corks being pulled and money put into the till." Foster replied, "You are a liar." Witness then informed him that he would be reported for having his house open for the sale of beer during prohibited hours, and for the assault. He said with regard to the first, "I deny it; my house was closed at ten o'clock," and with regard to the second, "You are a liar, I did nothing of the sort." The officers then left, defendant following them to the door and making use of abusive language.—Cross‐examined by Mr. Churton: They had not been watching the house, and he did not notice where the people came from. They were standing in front of the house (five or six of them) when witness and Culliford came up the street. He did not ask the persons found on the premises whether they had been drinking out of the glasses on the counter. The defendant did not actually touch witness's face with his fist. He was very angry, but Culliford did not push him. The lady said she was on her way to Widnes. Witness did not taste the beer, but smelled it. — Sergeant Culliford, in corroborating, stated that the defendant pushed him away, saying, "I am talking to your superior, you are a nondescript, a wastrel." — Cross‐examined: Flos Cambridge was at Chester with the recent pantomime company. He did not know if she was staying that night at the Brewers' Arms. He denied putting a hand on the defendant. — P.C. Jones also gave evidence, to the effect that when stationed at the street door, he heard someone come into the bar and put glasses on the counter, after the inspector had knocked. — Mr. Churton, addressing the Bench, said he had advised his client that what had taken place could not be justified. The men did not intend to commit any offence, but he was afraid the defendant had brought himself within the purview of the law. Now that he had recovered his temper, he felt it his duty to say he had done wrong, and could only leave the case in the magistrates hands. It was perfectly true there were several men collected in the street on the Sunday evening in question at 11.40. They had been to a club, the defendant among the number, and it was suggested that they should go into the house for a parting drink. The result was that two of them did go in, and whether they paid for the drink or not, their presence could not be justified. As to the young lady who was lodging at the house, there had been no attempt on the part of the police to make out a case, while, as to the assault, he asked the magistrates to find that, though the defendant had no right to put his fist in the officer's face, there was no intention to commit an assault. He (Mr. Churton) had advised his client that the constables took a perfectly legal course in entering and searching the house, and he did not in the least complain of the way in which the case had been brought forward.— After retiring, the Bench fined Foster £5 and costs, and endorsed the licence. They also fined him 10s. for the assault on the police, and imposed a penalty of £1 each and costs upon the two men, Shaw and Holland, for being found on the premises during prohibited hours, to which they pleaded guilty.
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 17 December 1892
CITY POLICE COURT. Monday. — Before the Mayor, and Messrs. W. Johnson. L. Gilbert, and Wm. Brown. Assault on the Police.— Robert O'Hara, an Irishman, living at Little Sutton, was charged with being drunk and riotous in Boughton at twenty minutes to eleven on Saturday night. While P.C. Wheatland was locking prisoner up, the man kicked him on the thigh. — P.C. Young deposed to assisting the last officer, and to being assaulted by the prisoner.— Fined 10s. and costs, or in default, seven days' imprisonment, for being drunk and riotous, and 10s. and costs, or fourteen days' imprisonment with hard labour, for the assault upon the police.
Theft by a Married Woman. — Annie Douglas, married woman, living at 26, Seville‐street, was charged with stealing a coat, value 215., the property of Mr. Edwin Dutton, 105, Foregate‐street. The coat was hanging outside Mr. Dutton's shop on Saturday. It was taken from there, and afterwards defendant was found offering it for pledge at the shop of Mr. Dawson, pawnbroker, Foregate‐street. She said a woman named Martin had given it to her to pledge. She could not, how‐ever, find Martin, and to give her an opportunity of finding her, the Chief Constable (Mr. Fenwick) admitted her to bail on Saturday night, but defendant was still unable to find Martin.— Thomas Williamson, assistant to Mr. Dutton, stated that a boy was stationed outside his employer's shop to watch the goods which were hanging outside, but he did not see any one take the coat.— Joshua West, assistant to Mr. Dawson, pawnbroker, stated that defendant offered the coat for 125., stating that it bad cost 30s. He saw what he thought was one of Dutton's tickets on the coat marked 21s, and he thereupon sent to Dutton's to see if they had missed a coat. Dutton's then sent a policeman over. — P.C. Price Wynne deposed to receiving defendant in custody. On being charged with stealing the coat she said "I did not steal it. A woman at the end of Steven‐street promised me two‐pence if I would go and pawn it for her." Witness found 46 pawn tickets, 1½ d., and some old coins in her possession.— The Chief Constable said he believed the pawn tickets were for articles that belonged to defendant. She had been going down rapidly lately. — Defendant pleaded not guilty, repeating that the coat was given her to pawn. In reply to the Bench she said her husband had been working for the Corporation for the last few days. She had eight children, the eldest being 15. — The Mayor said that was the first time defendant had been there, and they would give her the benefit of that to a certain extent!" They had no doubt she stole the coat, but at the same time the owner was decidedly wrong in hanging the coat outside his shop on a dark night, as it was an inducement to crime. Defendant would be fined 20s. and costs, with the alternative of 14 days' imprisonment.
Thomas Tynan, an Irishman of clerical appearance, was summoned by P.C. Shires for being drunk in Foregate‐street on Thursday after‐noon. He was surrounded by a crowd of children, and went about from one public‐house to another getting food and drink without paying.— The Chief Constable (Mr. Fenwick) stated that defendant went to an eating‐house, had some food, but did not pay for it. Defendant when brought in was drunk, but not incapable, and there were a. number of com‐plaints against him. — Defendant : Drunkenness is a relative question. The sea‐sickness had upset me, and I took more than was good for my health. It was very hard to say that I was drunk. — Fined 5s. and costs, or seven days' imprisonment with hard labour.
Cheshire Observer
Saturday 7 May 1892
PRESENTATION TO A CHESTER POLICE INSPECTOR.
On Friday week the members of the Chester city police force presented their old and esteemed comrade, Inspector Farrall, with a handsome timepiece, on the occasion of INS leaving the force, after thirty‐one years service. The presentation was made by Dr. George Harrison in the city police court, in the presence of the Chief Constable (Mr. G.
L. Fenwick), Inspectors Price and Leech, five sergeants, and thirty constables. The Chief Constable, in introducing Dr. Harrison, said: We have met to wish an official good‐bye to an old comrade. He has been in the force for 31 years, and has advanced through every grade, from third‐class constable to first‐class inspector, and now retires upon a well‐earned pension. It is a long time to look back, and one is hardly able to realise it when one tries to look thirty years ahead. Many of you were not born when Inspector Farrell joined the force. A little gathering like this is a bright spot in a policeman's life, not for the value of the memento it is proposed to give him, but because it shows a nice feeling of good comradeship. It is invaluable in that respect. It has been suggested that we should ask Dr. Harrison, the police surgeon, to present this testimonial to Mr. Farrell. Well, I don't like outsiders in such a connection, but I do not look upon the doctor as an outsider. And I have the less hesitation in enlisting his good offices now, because, like many others, I think he has been unfairly treated lately. At least the police have confidence in him, and I look upon the recent event as a blessing in disguise to him. He will, I have no doubt, pursue his profession, I hope, as long as his father did, and in the end be as universally esteemed. In your names I now call upon him to present this hand some testimonial to Mr. Farrell. (Applause.) Dr. Harrison, in making the presentation, said: It was with feelings of very great pleasure that I was asked by Inspector Price, on Wednesday last, to present Mr. Thomas Farrell with this handsome testimonial on behalf of the members of the Chester city police. The name of Thomas Farrell has always been held in the greatest awe by the lower orders and in the highest respect by the upper classes in Chester; but in all grades of society I can confidently say that his retirement after a service of thirty‐one years on the streets will be regretted by every one. Ho had always a kind word for those in distress, and on the other hand, when he gave a command he meant to have it obeyed, both by those under him and the general public. I have been called an outsider to‐day by the Chief Constable, and though I have been police surgeon for more than eleven years, I have always considered myself as much a member of the force as any of you, but I have never felt it so much as I have done at a little gathering here to‐day. It only now remains for me to present you, Mr. Farrell, with this handsome clock, and to hope that you will be spared for many years to have it adorn your house, and to enjoy the pension which you have so worthily earned. (Applause.) The timepiece bore the following inscription: — “Presented to Inspector Thomas Farrell by the members of the Chester City Police Force, on his retirement, as a mark of their esteem. April, 1892." — Inspector Farrell responded in a suitable manner, and on the motion of Inspector Price a vote of thanks was subsequently passed to Dr. Harrison for his services.
Cheshire Observer
Saturday 11 June 1892
CITY POLICE COURT. Wednesday
Before the Mayor and Messrs. H. R. Bowers and F. L. Bagnall.
Serious Assault on an Old Woman.
Emily Greenwood, a young woman, living in Love‐street, was charged by Margaret Donohue, an old woman, with assaulting her. On Tuesday evening the prosecutrix was going down Love‐street when she alleged the defendant struck her in the face with a poker. A friend went for Dr. Archer, who came and stitched up the wound. The prisoner was also charged by John Donohue, the former complainant's son, with striking him in the face with a pair of tongs on the same evening.—Police‐Sergeant Culliford stated from information he received he went to Love‐street and found about 300 persons congregated watching the row. He arrested the prisoner in her house, and found a hatchet, poker, and a bloodstained pair of tongs. Prisoner was sentenced to six weeks' imprisonment in each case — three months in all.— The Chief‐Constable remarked that he adhered to his statement, made a few weeks ago, that this street was the most disorderly in Chester..
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 24 October 1891
TERRIBLE TRAGEDY IN CHESTER.
MURDER OF A PARAMOUR SUICIDE OF THE MURDERER.
A thrilling sensation ran through Chester early yesterday (Friday) morning by the discovery of a horrible crime unparalleled in the recent history of the city. Briefly stated the circumstances seem to be that John James Jagger, residing at No. 28, Leadworkslane, murdered his paramour, Harriet Butterfield, by stabbing her with a pocket knife, and afterwards hanged himself in the garden.
THE SCENE OF THE CRIME. The house, No. 28, Leadworks‐lane, which witnessed the awful crime, stands about mid‐way between Egerton‐street and the £ity‐road bridge, a two storeyed building facing the canal, and with nothing between it and the water but a small garden plot. The house has been widely known throughout the country, especially to railway travellers, for the past 30 or 40 years. Over the door hangs the sign, " Evans's original old house at home ; tea and refreshments ; beds for travellers." It was familiarly spoken of as "The Old House at Home," and was kept by a Mrs. Roberts, a widow, as an eating house, with occasional accommodation for lodgers over night. Mrs. Roberts had a large circle of acquaintances and patrons, and from her connection with railway porter 3 and other employees she extended her business by frequent recommendations from those railway men to belated travellers to spend the night at her house. In this way she amassed a considerable sum of money, and her daughter, Mrs. Butterfield, the woman now lying dead, succeeded to her business.
MRS. BUTTERFIELD MEETS JAGGER. Things went on very much in the same way as during Mrs. Roberts's management, until about nine years ago when Mrs. Butterfield unfortunately made the acquaintance of Jagger, with whom she has lived ever since. At the commencement of their cohabitation Jagger, who had formerly been a keeper at the County Lunatic Asylum at Upton, followed the vocation of a stevedore, and worked at Liverpool and Birkenhead, but for the past eighteen months he did not do much work. Latterly he seems to have become madly jealous of his partner, and to have given way to drink. His full name is John James Jagger, 45 years of age, and the woman, Harriet Butterfield, was about the same age.
THE BEGINNING OF THE QUARREL. On Thursday evening, after the usual horse fair “The Old House at Home " was the resort of cattle and horse dealers from the country, who paid their customary call for tea. During the meal Jagger, who had been drinking all day, but was just then recovering his sobriety, showered abuse and threats upon his paramour to such an extent that one or two of the cattle dealers interfered and gave him what they described as a "good hiding." At 11 o'clock at night they left the house to catch their trains for home.
MRS. BUTTERFIELD'S PRECAUTIONS FOR SAFETY. Mrs. Butterfield was so afraid of her partner's violence that she sent for her son‐in‐law, James Thomas Fraser, a railway guard, who lives in Bishopsfield with his wife, who is a daughter of Mrs. Butterfield, to spend the night under her roof. At midnight the whole household retired to rest, Fraser and his wife sleeping in one bed, and Mrs. Butterfield occupying another bed in the same room without undressing. The other occupants of the house at the time were a lodger named George Gallimore, a moulder, and Mrs. Butterfield's youngest daughter, both of whom had gone to bed before the others. Before going to bed Fraser fastened the door of the room to prevent the ingress of Jagger, and shortly afterwards the latter came to the door, knocked, was extremely violent, and threatened and shouted that he wanted Mrs. Jagger to come out into her own bedroom.
THE MURDERER ENTERS THE BEDROOM. Her reply was that she would not that night, but as the man continued his violent behaviour Fraser, anxious to avoid a further disturbance of the neighbourhood, at length consented to open the door and let him in. Jagger lay down on the bed beside Mrs. Butterfield without, however, undressing. Fraser and his wife, after hearing the man's threats and knowing his feelings towards the woman, not unnaturally feared a serious development, and under the circumstances it is hardly surprising that they kept awake almost all the night, keeping a pretty strict watch on the other bed. Being a railway man, who requires to be early on duty, Fraser was knocked up at five o'clock, and went out to his work. Jagger was now practically ALONE WITH HIS VICTIM in the bedroom, for Mrs. Fraser was powerless to resist his violence or protect her mother. Very soon after Fraser's departure Mrs. Butterfield rose from her bed, and speaking to her daughter regarding Jagger's objectionable behaviour the previous night said, " I will go to the Town Hall this morning." Jagger, who had also risen and was at the moment doing something with his pen knife to his finger nails, or, as the daughter thinks, was cutting tobacco with a knife, replied " You are to go to the Town Hall this morning are you ?" "Yes," she rejoined, whereupon Jagger PLUNGED HIS KNIFE into her neck just under the left ear, accompanying the thrust with the exclamation " Then take that." The blood instantly spurted all over the room ; the daughter closed with him, and by some means yet unexplained the wounded woman dragged herself into the next room, only a yard or two off, and fell on the floor exhausted. She expired almost immediately after the struggle downstairs, and the neighbours were under the impression he had got clear away. A story got abroad that immediately after dealing the fatal blow Jagger made his escape by leaping through the bedroom window to the garden beneath — not an uncommon mode of exit for a murderer. Whether it was this belief in the orthodox dramatic style of departure or not that prompted the story remains to be explained; but the idea is certainly strengthened by the act that just below this window, which is 14 feet from the ground, the soft soil of the garden is disturbed, and the footmarks are consistent with a man's leap from the window. The more probable version of the affair, however, is that the criminal in his desperate flight stumbled at the top stair and jumped to the landing beneath at one bound.
JAGGER ESCAPED The lodger, George Gallimore, being roused by the disturbance, after discovering the true state of the case, sent for Dr. Lees, and himself went to the Police Station, where he arrived at 6 20. Sergeant Cooper, who was on duty, at once made for the spot, accompanied by Constables McGowan and Stokes. That all these tragic incidents could have occurred without attracting the attention of the police is capable of easy explanation. About ten minutes to six o'clock the city police were changing their beats, the night men going off and the day men going on, and there would consequently have been some difficulty in getting a policeman there at the particular moment, even if the alarm had been raised in sufficient time to prevent the murderer's escape.
RAISING THE ALARM. Dr. Lees, who was the first to arrive, reached the house about six o'clock, and found Mrs. Butterfield dead, with the jugular vein severed. The police putting in an appearance a few minutes afterwards, the search for Jagger was commenced.
ARRIVAL OF DR. LEES The circumstantial evidence surrounding the case shows that the criminal's first intention was suicide by drowning. Without divesting himself of any of his clothing he plunged into the canal, which has not even a parapet between it and the garden. Being an experienced swimmer, however, Jagger found drowning more difficult than he anticipated, and a few strokes brought him back to the bank. No time was, however, lost in carrying his determination of self‐destruction into effect. At one end of the small garden stands a stout clothes‐pole, some eight or nine feet high, with a pulley attached to the top. Running alongside this is a palisade about six feet in height which separates the garden from a small pig‐sty at the gable of the house. Running a rope through the pulley and climbing on to the paling, the suicide adjusted the noose and swung himself off with fatal effect. The public in the morning were able to see Jagger's footprints plainly marked beneath the pole, and so near to the canal stands the post that if he had chosen, he could have dangled his legs over the water. The police constables found the criminal suspended from the post, quite dead. His body was removed to the mortuary, and the murdered woman's corpse still lies in the house.
THE SUICIDE The interiors of the two rooms which witnessed the fatal struggle, resemble a slaughter house in their gory appearance. Both rooms are bespattered with blood, and the victim lay for some time, where she had fallen and bled to death. She was a stout, fleshy woman, and every drop of blood seems to have been drawn from her body through the terrible wound, the body presenting on a post mortem view a ghastly and pallid hue.
GHASTLY SCENE IN THE ROOM. In an interview with our representative early in the morning, Dr. Lees said he was called to the house No. 28, Leadworks‐lane, at six o'clock that morning. He found the woman Butterfield lying in an upstairs room quite dead in a pool of blood. From all appearance she had been dead no length of time. On the left side of the neck there was a deep gash about three inches long right across the side of the neck, evidently severing the large blood vessels. On his first visit the doctor saw no other marks of violence. He sent for the police at once, and Constables McGowan and Stokes arrived, and commenced looking for the man Jagger, whom they afterwards found hanging in the garden. Dr. Lees, who assisted in the search, found the instrument of the crime in the garden — a black hafted pocket knife of the ordinary size. It is not quite new, but seemingly has not been used for many months. It was the small blade that had been used in the perpetration of the murder. This blade was still open, and there are reddish marks plainly visible on it, but it is difficult at this time to say whether they are the results of corrosion or whether they are the remains of a gory encrustation.
THE DOCTOR'S STORY. The wound has a jagged appearance, which would bear out the story which, according to the neighbours, Mrs. Fraser tells. It is said that after driving the weapon home, Jagger moved the blade backwards and forwards in the wound so as to sever the blood vessels completely. The fell speed with which the murderer despatched his victim, with such an insignificant instrument, and the significant accuracy with which he selected the vulnerable part of the neck for the deadly wound, betoken a better knowledge of anatomy than is to be expected from Jagger's walk of life. If it be true he was formerly a stevedore, it is just possible he may have acquired some knowledge of pig slaughtering on board ship, which he has turned to such lamentable service.
FIENDISH BUTCHERY. Some of the neighbours who were annoyed by the disagreement on Thursday evening offered, it is said, to bring a policeman and have Jagger locked up for the night, but Mrs. Buttertield, with that clemency which criminal annals shew so abundantly the ill‐treated woman invariably lavishes on her heartless partner, rejected the offer.
THURSDAY NIGHT'S ROW It is an open secret in the neighbourhood that the partnership of Jagger and Mrs. Butterfield has been a long tale of domestic unhappiness, and recently their differences have become even more accentuated. For some reason best known to himself Jagger was madly jealous of his paramour, and last Wednesday the couple quarrelled In the course of the altercation Jagger forced a sovereign from Mrs. Butterfield, and afterwards remarked that he would buy a revolver with it for the purpose of shooting her.
A FORMER QUARREL It is now some years since the customary quietude of Chester has been shocked by murder. The last event of the kind, which was most notable for its mysterious surroundings, occurred at Lumley Place, some three years ago, when an upholsterer's wife was beaten to death by some unknown hand. The next latest crime happened over eight years ago, when the murderer was executed by Marwood at Chester Castle. This was the last execution at Chester.
FORMER CHESTER MURDERS Public interest in the gruesome drama increases as the details are passed from mouth to mouth, gaining and varying wonderfully in the process. These matters will be all satisfactorily cleared up at the inquest, which was arranged for three o'clock, at the Town Hall. The scene was visited early by the Chief Constable (Mr. Fenwick) and Detective Sergeant Gallagher, who made a full investigation of the case. Ever since the shocking discovery a police officer has guarded the door of the house against the entrance of anyone who is not officially concerned in the affair.
THE INQUEST. Another account says : — The deceased man, Jagger, was well known in the neighbourhood of Leadworks‐lane, where not the most favourable opinion was entertained as to his character and industry. He enjoyed the reputation of a man who worked only by fits and starts, and spent the intervals in public‐houses. When in drink he was usually very violent, and had frequently been known to threaten his paramour. For the last two years he appears to have been almost constantly out of work, living upon the woman's means. His last employment was at the Birkenhead docks, where he did a spell of a fortnight, terminating last Saturday night. He then returned home, and, it is stated, had been drinking freely ever since. On Wednesday night, in a fit of temper, he demanded a sovereign from the woman, with the threat that he would purchase a revolver to shoot her with, and, after a stormy scene, he appears to have wrung the money from her. The sovereign, however, was found in his possession on the morning of his death by the police, proving that he had not been short of money for drinking purposes. As to his history, little appears to be known in the neighbourhood, except that for some time he acted as an attendant at a lunatic asylum, and began cohabiting with the deceased woman before the death of her husband, a respected man, who died at Rochdale.
THE SUICIDE'S ANTECEDENTS At the time of the tragedy, a young moulder, named George Gallimore, was staying at the house, where he had lodged for the past four months. Interviewed by a representative of the Observer, Gallimore stated that on the day previous to the murder a number of Irish cattle‐drovers, who usually made the "Old House at Home " their resort during fair‐time, had tea in the house. Jagger, who had been on the spree since Saturday, had been absent from home during the preceding night, and as early as breakfast time it was evident that he was under the influence of drink. At tea a quarrel arose between him and two of the Irish‐men, who resented his reflections on one of Mrs. Butterfield's daughters. Blows were freely exchanged, and Jagger got the worst of the fight, his face being slightly cut. He after‐wards went to sleep for several hours, and on awakening had more liquor. The Irishmen left by the eleven o'clock mail, and, after their departure, Jagger renewed the brawl, during which every effort was made to pacify him. One of his complaints was that his bed was occupied, and that he was compelled to sleep on the sofa downstairs, which manifestly aggravated him. Gallimore states that he retired to rest about midnight, and heard nothing more till between five and six in the morning, when he was startled by screams proceeding from an adjoining apartment. Mrs. Butterfield then rushed into his bedroom, blood streaming from a terrible gash in her neck, and exclaimed " GEORGE, GET UP, I AM STABBED !" At the same time she seized hold of his shirt with her hand, which left indelible stains of blood on the cloth, and shook him. He immediately jumped up, and saw pools of blood on the floor. Mrs. Fraser, the eldest daughter, then led her mother back into the room in which she had been stabbed, where she fell on her face on the floor. The youngest daughter had already left the house in search of a doctor, and Gallimore at once proceeded to the police office, where he gave information of what had occurred. From this point he knows nothing of what transpired, and told his story to our reporter, while awaiting a summons to the inquest. From hearsay, he had learned further that during the disturbance on the previous night, a policeman was sent for on account of Jaggers violence, but even then Mrs. Butter‐field refused to give him in charge. It was said that he threatened to take her life in the presence of the officer, but this occurred while Gallimore was in bed and he heard very little of it.
The daughter's husband, Fraser, was in the house during the night, and did his best to pacify Jagger, but he left for work about five in the morning, and could say nothing about the tragedy itself. His wife, however, was present at the murder with her child, who screamed loudly through fright as Jagger executed his savage work with the knife. The affair created quite a sensation in the neighbourhood, where people were roused from their sleep in the early morning by piercing shrieks and the barking of a dog. The horrible news spread with astonishing rapidity, and a crowd of people soon collected in the vicinity of the house, which was guarded during the removal of Jagger's corpse by the police. The neighbours are quite accustomed to domestic brawls at the " Old House at Home," and no one was unusually alarmed by the uproar on Thursday night.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 26 November 1892
CITY POLICE COURT. Saturday. —
Before the Mayor and Messrs. W. Johnson and L. Gilbert. Disorderly. —
Annie Holmes, Spital‐walk, an old offender, summoned by P.C. Young for being disorderly in Bold‐square on Friday evening, was fined 10s. and costs.
"Dead to all Shame."— Ellen Kilfoil, Canal‐side, described as an "unfortunate," was charged with using bad language in Foregate‐street on Sunday evening. P.C. Dutton laid the information, and the case having been proved, the Mayor, who said she was "dead to all shame," sentenced the prisoner to twenty‐one days' imprisonment with hard labour.
Tuesday.— Before the Mayor, Sir T. G. Frost and Mr. F. L. Bagnall. "A Curse to the City."— Mary Jane Butterfield, an " unfortunate " well known to the police, was charged by P.S. Riley with using foul language in Bridge‐street, on Monday evening.— The Mayor said prisoner had been fined 21 times, and was " a perfect curse to the city."— Sent to Knutsford for 21 days.
Serious Assault on the Police.— Jane Sutton, of Richmond‐court, Spital‐walk was charged by P.C. Hughes (24) with behaving in a disorderly manner in Foregate‐street, on Wednesday evening. Her husband, George Pimm, who was stated to have arrived from Birmingham, was also charged by P.C. Clutton with attempting to rescue his wife. There was also a further charge of assaulting P.C. Clutton by dislocating his right thumb, and a third charge against Pimm waa made by P.C. Samuel Jones for an assault on the 4tb October, 1890. P.C. Hughes stated that about half‐past twelve on Thursday morning he was on the Eastgate and Foregate‐street beat, where he saw the female prisoner with another woman, and he told them to go home. They refused and he took them into custody, when they became violent, and he had to call for assistance. P C Clutton came and took Sutton into custody while Hughes took the other girl.— P.C. Clutton' who gave corroborative evidence, added that when near the King's School the prisoner Pimm came up and asked him what he was taking Sutton up for. Pimm struck him on the neck, and in a scuffle dislocated his right thumb, which had to be attended to by Dr Harrison.— The Chief Constable said the man who assaulted a constable in 1890 ran away, and a warrant was granted for his arrest. He had not been seen until the present occurrence, but he (Mr. Fenwick) did not wish to press that charge. — The Bench thought both prisoners had behaved in a most outrageous manner, and they would mark their sense of it to the full extent. Sutton would have to go to gaol for one month with hard labour, while Pimm would have to undergo one month's imprisonment with hard labour for the attempted rescue, and two months for the assault on the police — three months in all.
A Family Row.— Richard Hall, Margaret Hall, and Jane Owens, of Watergate Row, were summoned by P.C. Smith for committing a breach of the peace on the 17th inst. The three defendants, owing to a family grievance, were shouting and making a great noise in the Row about twelve o'clock at night. They were bound over to keep the peace for three months.
Yesterday (Friday).— Before Messrs. F. L. Bagnall and WUliam Brown. Abusive Language.— Mary Ann Shields, of Newells‐court, was bound over to keep the peace for three months, pay the costs of the case, or undergo seven days' impriaonment, for committing a breach of the peace in Lower Bridge‐street on Saturday evening. P.C. Tutty laid the information.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 20 August 1892
ROMANTIC DEATH AT CHESTER
A PAUPER'S LOVE AFFAIR.
Some men rambling on Sunday afternoon in a plantation between Curzon Park and the river Dee were startled to find the dead body of a man on the grass. Beside the corpse lay a tobacco pipe and an empty pill‐box, labelled "Poison— opium, one grain." The police being immediately communicated with, the body was removed to the Mortuary, where it was identified as that of Owen Jones, about forty years of age, who had for some time been an inmate of Chester Work‐house, and at the time of his death was wearing the pauper dress.
Some letters found in the pockets throw a little light on the tragedy. One missive, addressed to "Owen Jones, Chester Workhouse Hospital," and signed by " Mary Ann," is couched in terms of great endearment, and contains the protestation that Owen is her first love and always in her thoughts. On a sheet of paper, presumably shortly before his death, deceased had pencilled the words "My dearest, I cannot live without you. May God bless you and send you every comfort, and try to forget me‐my own heart's love." Across the face of an envelope also found on the body was inscribed the verse:
Wherever I go love I ne'er forget thee, Though beauties may smile and try to ensnare me; But, believe me, I'll never my heart from thine sever, I'll ever prove constant, my sweet, precious dear”. Another sheet of paper, evidently meant for the Workhouse master, had the following message : — " Master Turner, — Good‐bye. Give my love to poor old Betsy, my best friend."
Subsequent inquiries shew that on Friday night deceased called at the shop of Mr. Kemp, chemist, Bridge‐street, and purchased some opium pills, regarding the use of which he was duly cautioned. Deceased was 44 years of age.
THE INQUEST. An inquiry into the cause of Jones's death was held before Mr. Brassey, city coroner, on Tuesday afternoon, at the Town Hall. The first witness called was Mr. R.
C. Turner, master at the Workhouse, who stated that Owen Jones was an inmate of the Work‐house and he went out on leave on Thursday. He did not return. Deceased, who was formerly a clerk in the employment of the late Mr. John Jones, accountant, had suffered from heart disease, for which he had been medically treated while in the house. The letters produced were in Jones' handwriting. — William Edward Reece, assistant to Mr. G. Kemp, chemist, Bridge‐street, stated that deceased obtained four one‐grain opium pills from his master's shop on Friday night. Before leaving the shop deceased was cautioned regarding the use of the pills. Dr. Harrison said he had made a post‐mortem examination of Jones. On examining the brain he found appearances consistent with opium poisoning. Death was caused by a clot of blood in the pulmonary artery. Four grains of opium was an excessive dose, and he thought it would kill deceased. If deceased had taken the four grains of opium he had no doubt it would have accelerated his death. — Alfred Moore, Olave‐street, stated that he met deceased, whom he had known for many years, on Friday, and Jones then told him that he was going a very long journey the following day. Deceased shewed him four small boxes which he said contained four grains of opium each and he stated that he would take, them the next day. On Saturday, however, deceased told him that ho had thrown the opium into the fire, and that he was going into the workhouse.
Detective Crewe said after receiving information at the Police Office he went to the plantation at Curzon Park, where he found Jones lying dead. An empty pill box, labelled "Poison — opium, one grain," was by his side, and some letters were in his pocket. — The Coroner read the letters referred to above, and also one addressed to deceased signed "Your ever loving Mary Ann." The epistle was couched in the most affectionate terms, and contained the following passage : " You are my first love, and you are always in my thoughts I am never content only when you are near."— The witness Moore stated that deceased told him that Mary Ann had been in the workhouse and used to scour the ward in which he was Jones had a lock of hair in his possession. — The jury returned a verdict of "Suicide while temporarily insane." — A juror said he was informed that deceased was insured in the Victoria Friendly Society, and that there was £S due on a free life policy. — Mr. Turner pointed out that the relieving officer was the proper person to deal with the matter.
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 30 January 1892
SUICIDE OF A CHESTER POLICE OFFICER.
On Thursday morning James Stokes, a police‐constable in the Chester force, committed suicide by hanging himself. It appears that deceased had been ill for a few weeks, and on Wednesday he paid a visit to the police surgeon (Dr. Harrison). The doctor found him suffering from a severe cold, and ordered him to stay in the house for a few days. On arriving at home his wife noticed that he looked very pale and ghastly. And appeared somewhat strange in his manner, but he spoke quite rationally. After supper Mrs. Stokes and the other members of the family retired to rest at eleven o'clock, leaving deceased sitting in an armchair in the kitchen. At about four o'clock the following morning his wife woke up and found her husband had not been to bed. Fearing something was wrong, and being rather of a timid nature herself, she called out to her sister, who was sleeping in an adjoining room, to go downstairs and ask her husband to come to bed. Her sister went down, and found him with a muffler round his neck suspended from a hook in the kitchen ceiling. Assistance was sent for, and the body was cut down by the police, and life found to be extinct. The deceased joined the Chester Police about 16 years ago, and was well liked by his comrades. It will be remembered Stokes in company with another officer, cut the body of Jagger down in the recent murder and suicide in this City, and kept the rope up to a few weeks ago when he disposed of it. He said to a brother officer at the time of the occurrence what a fool the man had been. No cause can be assigned for the rash act.
THE INQUEST. An inquest was held on the body on Thursday evening by Mr C W. Tibbits (deputy coroner), at the Black Lion Inn, Boughton — Martha Stokes, 9, Tarvin‐road. Boughton, wife of deceased, stated that he was 36 years of age. After supper at ten o'clock on Wednesday evening the family went to bed, leaving deceased downstairs. Witness asked him if he was going to bed, but he made no answer. He looked very pale and ghastly, and witness attributed it to his illness. She was not aware that he had anything on his mind, but seemed depressed at times. In reply to the Coroner, witness said that her husband cut the man Jagger down, but did not think that depressed him. Resuming, Mrs. Stokes stated on waking in the morning and finding deceased had not been to bed, she sent her sister to look for him, and the latter came running back and said " Oh, come down, he has got something round his neck." Witness did so, and found him hanging from the ceiling quite dead. She was on very good terms with her husband, and there was no family cause for his conduct. He never expressed his intention of committing suicide. Replying to Detective Gallagher, witness said it was true deceased had a brother in the asylum. Her youngest boy was also a little weak in the head.— Elizabeth Groome, sister‐in‐law to Stokes, stated that she had been living with deceased about a fortnight. Witness never saw anything strange about Stokes. She found him hanging from a hook in the ceiling, with one knee on the chair and one hand on the back of it. He was quite dead. —Sergeant Culliford deposed that from information received, he, in company with P.C. Dutton, proceeded to Stokes' house, and on entering the kitchen he saw deceased hanging by a muffler (produced) from a hook in the ceiling.
His right foot was on the ground, and he was kneeling on a chair with the left, but the greater weight of his body was on the muffler. Dutton lifted him up, and witness took him down. He was quite dead. — Dr. George Harrison deposed attending the deceased as police surgeon on the 20th Jan. for the first time during this illness. He was suffering from a cold, and he prescribed for him. Witness was called in to see deceased at ten o'clock that morning, and examined the body. He found no marks of violence beyond an indentation of the skin at the neck.
The cause of death was strangulation.—
The Coroner having summed up, the jury returned a verdict of "Suicide while temporarily insane."
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 13 August 1892
Death and Funeral of a Chester Policeman.
Yesterday (Friday) afternoon the funeral of Police‐Constable John Hill, who had been a member of the City Police Force for some years, took place at Chester Cemetery.
The deceased, who had been ailing for some time, died on Wednesday.
His remains were followed to the grave by Dr. Harrison (police surgeon). Inspector Price, Ex‐Inspector Farrell, Detective‐Sergt. Gallagher, Detective Crewe, and 19 police‐constables.
The service was conducted by the Rev. B. N. Atkinson (curate of St. Oswald's) and the Rev. J. D. Scott (of Cholmondeley). The coffin was covered with wreaths, sent by the members of the City Police Force, Miss Davies‐Colley, Mrs. Cross, Mr. and Mrs. Watkins, and Sissy Price.
The deceased leaves a widow.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 9 April 1892
CHESHIRE ADJOURNED QUARTER SESSIONS.
These sessions were continued on Thursday at Chester Castle, before his Honour Judge Sir Horatio Lloyd. The following gentlemen were sworn on the GRAND JURY. Mr. Thomas Wood, ironmonger, Little Saughall Michael Ambrose, shipbroker, Liscard Saml. Andersen, gentleman, Lower Bebington Milne Barnsley, merchant, Childer Thornton Frederick Battarbee, wine merchant, Malpas Charles Lee Evans, estate agent, Norton Nicholas Fleming, broker, Bromborough James Hunter, seedsman, Newton‐by‐Chester John Mosford, gentleman, Tattenhall Edward W. Nobbs, architect, Liscard Richard N. Owen, land surveyor, Haughton „ Gilbert Parry, gentleman, Farndon Thomas W. Read, accountant, Poulton‐cum‐Seacombe Geo. Frederick Taylor, merchant, Helsby Thomas Wm. Thompson, hotel proprietor, Eastham. Peter Vickers, gentleman, Beeston Thomas Williams, schoolmaster, Hooton.
A YOUTHFUL JACK SHEPPARD GANG AT CREWE.
George Edwards (17), and three other boys named Ernest Bayley, Henry Judge, and Joshua Archibald Bayley, of Crewe, pleaded guilty to feloniously breaking and entering the offices of John Worthington, of Crewe, and stealing seven pence. Edwards and Joshua Bayley also pleaded guilty to attempting to break into the shop of James German on the 28th Jan., while the two other boys and John William Shearsmith pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting them. W. E. Bayley, Judge, and Shearsmith were further indicted for wounding Police‐Constable J. Roberts on the same day, and Bayley pleaded guilty.
Mr. Marshall, for the prosecution, stated that the lads were employed in various capacities in Crewe, and met together on the evening of the 28th Jan. Joshua Bayley and Edwards were observed to scale a wall and break open with an iron bar the door of Mr. Worthington's coal offices. They afterwards entered another yard, and attempted to break open Mr. German's premises. Police‐Constable Roberts climbed over the wall and arrested them. While conveying them to the police‐station he was attacked by the other prisoners, including William Bayley, who picked up a piece of brick and flung it at his head with great violence. It struck him on the head, inflicting a serious wound. The prisoners were represented by Mr. Colt Williams, Mr. E. H. Lloyd, Mr. Trevor Lloyd, and Mr. Latham. — Mr. Lloyd urged that the case was not one of housebreaking in the ordinary sense of the word, but a foolish escapade arranged by the boys. — The Chairman described the prisoners as a foolish set of boys, who did not deserve the sympathy which their relatives bad bestowed upon them. It was a pity they could not be sentenced to receive a good whipping. A remark had been made that they belonged to some stupid club, of which one of the rules was that they should perpetrate some act of this sort periodically. It was a sad thing that anybody could be so ridiculously foolish to belong to such a band or to utter such nonsense. The magistrates hoped their appearance before them might be a lesson to the prisoners for life, and that the neighbourhood where they lived would never hear of anything of the kind again. The prisoners were released on undertaking in their own recognisance’s of £10 each to appear for judgment whenever called upon. W. E. Bayley was also fined 40s. for having shown violence to the police.
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 8 October 1892
CREWE.
At the Crewe County Petty Sessions, on Monday, James Jones, a fireman at the goods warehouse, Crewe Station, was charged on remand with stealing a bottle of gin, valued 2s. 9d., the property of the London and North‐Western Railway, on the 30th ult. Mr. Chester, of Crewe, appeared for the defence. Inspector Freeborough gave details of the capture of prisoner. Witness said that sin«e prisoner had been arrested, about four dozen wine and spirit bottles had been found at the warehouse where the prisoner had been caught. Prisoner was further remanded until next Monday. Shop Theft by Boys. —
At the Crewe Police Court, on Wednesday, John Deakin, aged thirteen years, Thomas Deakin, aged eleven years, and Thomas Britton, aged ten years, were charged with stealing three pairs of goloshes from the shop of William Cheedle, Market‐street, Crewe, on Tuesday, the 4th inst. Police‐Constable Skillbeck said that he arrested Britton, who was wearing a pair of goloshes, as he had suspicions that they were stolen, and when charged with the theft Britton admitted stealing them from Mr. Cheedle's shop. He also informed on Thomas Deakin and John Deakin, who accordingly were arrested. From further inquiry it was found that Mrs. Deakin had burnt one pair of goloshes, and Inspector Oldham said he thought that she was as bad, or worse, than the boys. Britton had been before the Magistrates once before for robbing a till. — The Magistrates decided to order each boy to have six strokes of the birch rod, and censured Mrs. Deakin for her suspicious action.
Brave Conduct of a Policeman. — An accident which would no doubt have proved fatal but for the brave and prompt conduct of Police Constable Burgess (368), Cheshire Police, stationed in Crewe, took place last Saturday afternoon, at Crewe. A trap, full of people, was coming round the Junction corner, Crewe, when a boy about seven years of age ran in front of the horses. One of the horses knocked him on his back, and be was almost under the wheel of the trap when Police‐constable Burgess, who was on duty at the junction, sprang at the horses' heads, at the danger of his own life, and stopped the horses instantly. A gentleman traveller standing by offered the officer 10s., but the latter refused, saying that he was satisfied with having saved the child's life. The people about heartily congratulated the officer on his brave conduct. This is not the first time Constable Burgess has saved human life, as he saved that of a child at the Crewe Horse Fair about two months ago.
Cheshire Observer
Saturday 13 August 1892
HESWALL
An Appreciated Constable.
Constable Parr, who has been stationed here for about three and a half years, has, in the ordinary course, been removed to a station near Middlewich. No previous officer in this district has more efficiently performed his duty and, at the same time, secured the respect and esteem of all sections of the community, and the testimonial which is being subscribed for by the inhabitants has met with general approval.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 26 November 1892
AN EX‐CHESHIRE POLICEMAN'S COURTSHIP.
At the Manchester Assizes (Nisi Prius Court), before Mr. Justice Grantham, on Wednesday, the cause Warhurst v. Pettingale was heard.
This was an action for alleged breach of promise of marriage. Mr. Sparrow appeared for the plaintiff, Mrs. Warhurst, provision dealer, Hyde, and the defendant, Pettingale, a retired police‐constable, was represented by Mr. C. P. M'Keand.
Mr. Sparrow said that Mrs. Warhurst was a widow, and had carried on her business at 6, Manchester‐road, Hyde, for the last nine or ten years, her husband dying in 1883. She had also helped to support herself and her daughter by taking in lodgers. In April, 1891, the defendant, who was then a police‐constable — he had since retired on a pension — came to lodge at her house, being introduced by Sergeant Harrison, who was also a police‐officer at Hyde, as a single man.
The terms arranged were that he should pay 3s. 6d. a week for his lodgings, and that he should "find" himself. Things went on satisfactorily until the 2nd of February, 1892, when he made Mrs. Warhurst an offer of marriage. Mrs. Warhurst replied that the matter was a serious one, and she must have some time to consider it. The defendant renewed his offer the next day, but Mrs. Warhurst informed him that she had not had time to make up her mind, and she wanted to consult her friends. She went to see a married sister and one or two other people, and talked the matter over, and eventually, on the 4th of February, when the defendant repeated his offer, she accepted him. From that time till the August following they went about as engaged people, and Mrs. Warhurst made purchases in view of her forthcoming marriage.
Before her acceptance of the defendant he pointed out the advantages of a marriage with him, for in June or July he would have completed a sufficient number of years to retire from the force on a pension of something like £50 a year ‐that he had between £200 and £300 invested in the Guide Bridge Spinning Company, that he was insured for £200, and had about £37 in the savings bank. In May the defendant was removed to Runcorn, and at his request. Mrs. Warhurst visited him there, and was introduced to his landlady and his friends as his intended wife.
On the 13th of August, on the invitation of defendant's brother, she went to his house in Ardwick, and there learned for the first time that Pettingale was a married man. It appeared that some nine years ago the defendant had married Mrs. Woolley, a licensed victualler at Compstall, a few miles from Hyde.
According to the regulations of the police force a police‐constable could not marry without the consent of the Chief Constable, and he was not allowed to marry anyone engaged in trade. If he did they had to give up that calling. If he was a married man he must have his wife living with him in the village or town in which he was stationed. Mrs. Woolley was doing fairly well as a licensed victualler, and if the defendant had made his marriage with her public, his wife would have had to give up her business, and this would, of course, have been a great loss to him.
They were, therefore, married privately at the registry office. He never lived with her. She kept up her own name above the licensed victualling business until about a fortnight ago, and he had always been looked upon in the district, even by his most intimate friends, as an unmarried man.
There was no allegation in the pleadings that Mrs. Warhurst knew defendant was a married man at the time of the promise.
The defence was the very simple one of a denial of the promise.
Mrs. Warhurst was called, and bore out the statement of her counsel. She added that she had known the defendant for more than twenty years. When she accepted him she promised she would make him a good and true wife. Before she learned from the defendant's brother that he was married, she had been told by her sister that someone had told her that he was a married man. She confronted him with the charge, but he indignantly denied it. He said he was not married, and never had been married. About a week after she had learned that he was a married man, the defendant made her an offer. He said that he and his wife (Mrs. Woolley) had met together, and had decided to make her some recompense, and give her a present. She said, " Oh, indeed, and what is it?" and he replied, " We have agreed to give you £5." She said "Thank you," and declined. — Cross‐examined by Mr. M'Keand, the plaintiff said she was 48 years old. She had known defendant's wife all her life. She did not know, and not a living creature but defendant's brother knew, that Mrs. Woolley was his wife. She never remembered seeing Mrs. Woolley but once after defendant came to lodge at her house. Defendant's brother took her and got a certificate of defendant's marriage. She did not take it to the Chief Constable, nor was it taken to him with her knowledge or authority, for the purpose of getting him deprived of his pension. The exact date for the marriage was never fixed. The defendant had always said it should take place soon after he had left the force.—Re‐examined by Mr. Sparrow: She had always known the defendant's wife as Mrs. Woolley. She had suffered considerably in health as the result of the defendant's conduct.
Edith Warhurst, daughter of the plaintiff, gave corroborative evidence. She said the defendant promised her to make her mother a good and true husband and to take towards her the place of her father. She had had to give up going to business in order to take her mother's place in the shop.
Mrs. Collin, defendant's landlady at Runcorn, said that when Mrs. Warhurst came to her house they behaved as engaged persona. On one occasion in her kitchen defendant put his arm around Mrs. Warhurst's neck, and, saying "My dear," kissed her. Defendant was introduced to her (the witness) as a single man.
John Rowcroft, draper, Hyde, said he had known the defendant for 25 years, and had always known him as a single man during all that time. He had also known Mrs. Woolley for a long number of years, and had always known her as a single woman. Mrs. Warhurst consulted him as to defendant's offer of marriage.
Mr. M'Keand said that after this evidence he would take a certain course, and his learned friend need only address himself to a question of damages.
John Rowcroft then gave evidence as to certain purchases made by Mrs. Warhurst in view of her marriage.
This closed the case for the plaintiff. Mr. M’Keand then addressed the jury, and said that after the evidence of Mrs. Collin and Mr. Rowcroft he could not contend that a promise had not been made. It would be folly and absolutely wrong in him to put the defendant in the box under circumstances of that kind. The only question the jury had to try was the sum of money this man ought to pay to this woman. He asked them to take his view that Mrs. Warhurst had not suffered to the extent she had represented, and to give her fair and reasonable damages, but not vindictive or excessive ones. The jury, after a short consultation, found for the plaintiff, and awarded her £50 damages. Judgment was entered for that amount with costs.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 3 September 1892
TERRIBLE TRAGEDY NEAR CHESTER.
ALLEGED FRATRICIDE IN A HARVEST FIELD.
A SICKENING SCENE.
The quiet neighbourhood of Little Saughall was thrown into a state of intense excitement on Saturday evening by a tragic occurrence which will long be remembered in the county for its gruesome details. The scene of the lamentable affair is a cornfield on the farm of Mr. Tom Whalley at Little Saughall, situated nearly a quarter of a mile to the north‐ward of the Chester and Saughall road, and about four miles from this city.
On this farm a man named James Griffiths, 76 years of age, had worked for many years as a labourer, and there also his two sons, John and Henry, aged 30 and 26 years respectively, had found more or less intermittent employment as labourers. The younger son, Henry, who is unmarried, seems to have taken umbrage at the fact that some little time ago his father took John, his elder son, who is married, along with his wife and two children to live with him. Henry also lived under the same roof, and the two young men, who were about the same height (5ft. 6in.), and build, could never agree. Their quarrels, it is commonly reported, not infrequently ended in open stand up fights, and their disagreements were the subject of general comment among the neighbours, and all the more because the brothers, when apart and in association with other people, were always regarded as sober, inoffensive, and peaceable men.
On Saturday afternoon the father and sons were engaged mowing a field of oats on their employer's farm, when the fatal disagreement arose. John complained of the style of Henry's cutting, that he was "setting in" too high, and the latter resented this interference and imputation on his skill in wielding the scythe. The father, who was working a few yards off, and only partly heard the dispute, besought them to agree, as the matter was not worth speaking about, but when the brothers had finished their "swath" and were walking down the field to commence afresh, the quarrel was renewed. What passed will perhaps be never accurately known in the absence of more observant witnesses, but, according to the story of the old man, in the course of the argument Henry made a thrust at John with the pole of the scythe, a scuffle ensued in which Henry received a terrible wound in the side, laying the abdomen open and half severing the body. The theory of the police is that this horrible gash with the scythe blade was the deliberate and wilful act of John Griffiths, and that is a question for judicial solution. That Henry was partly disembowelled, and lay on the ground profusely bleeding and mortally injured, is beyond question.
Immediately after the occurrence John seems to have disclaimed any intention of taking his brother's life, assuring his distracted father more than once that it was unintentional. He then ran home to his mother, threw himself on the floor in a paroxysm of excitement and remorse, crying to the terrified old woman, "Lord have mercy upon me! I have killed Harry." "Whatever have you done?" queried the mother, and the son replied, "He was going to hit me, and I put up the scythe to keep him off me and it catched him." Mrs. Griffiths implored her son to accompany her to the spot and render assistance, but he excused himself, saying he "could not go near him," and went away.
Meanwhile, Dr. Gledhill, of Oldham (acting as locum tenens for Dr. Hamilton, of Chester), who fortunately happened to be passing, was called in, and rendered what surgical aid was possible under the circumstances. The wounded man was lying in a pitiable plight, and the scene is described as sickening. The poor fellow, who at the time was wearing only a woollen shirt, corduroy trousers, stockings, and shoes, was covered with blood, and his intestines protruded from the wound. Both his shirt and trousers clearly indicated the extent and direction of the gash.
The doctor's coachman (Alexandra Thomson), rendered assistance in placing the patient on a mattress and in cutting away the clothing to expedite the surgeon's work. Notwithstanding the terrible nature of his injuries Griffiths appeared to be perfectly conscious, and when moved from, the ground piteously implored to be left to die there.
Having despatched his patient to Chester Infirmary, Dr. Gledhill wired to Dr. Taylor and Dr. Wright, apprising them of the occurrence, and requesting their attendance on the arrival of the trap. From the first these practitioners saw it was an absolutely hopeless case, and after sinking gradually the unfortunate man expired at ten minutes past eleven o'clock the same night.
The report reaching the city police that the man was in extremis at the Infirmary, the Chief Constable (Mr. Fenwick) proceeded to the institution, where he found Griffiths in a state of collapse, and utterly unfit to submit to the ordeal of making a deposition. The father, who was present throughout this trying period, gave the Chief Constable an outline of the affair, and Mr. Fenwick communicated with the county police, informing them of what had happened, and that the alleged assailant had stated his intention of giving himself up.
The county police, who received early intimation of the tragedy, at once made a thorough investigation of the case, and their primary object being to secure the missing brother, Superintendent Leah, of Chester, who had charge of the case, wired all the police stations in the district, and soon had a small army of constables scouring the country side for the fugitive. Chief Superintendent Hindley, at the Birkenhead end of the Wirral peninsula, prosecuted the search diligently. All through the night a vigilant watch was maintained on all the roads, and especially in the direction of Chester, towards which it was said the unhappy man had been seen to hurry early in the evening.
A labourer, living at Blacon, saw the much "wanted" individual about six o'clock on Sunday morning, near Blacon. The labourer both knew of the event of the preceding evening, and was acquainted with John Griffiths. He attempted to enter into conversation with Griffiths as to his brother's death, but beyond admitting that he had spent the night in a hut not far off, and requesting to be supplied with a cap to cover his bare head, Griffiths vouchsafed nothing, and appeared both reticent and agitated. He subsequently departed in the direction of Chester, and while walking along the Blacon road was accosted by P.S. Ennion, who charged him with the wilful murder of his brother.
Prisoner admitted his identity, and in reply to the charge of murder said "Not wilful." He accompanied the officer without resistance to the Police Station at Hoole, and on the way, while passing along St Anne‐street, volunteered the statement “My brother was going to strike me. I lifted up the scythe. He ran under it, and then ran back." The scene of the fatal quarrel was visited on Sunday by crowds of sightseers, and the locale of the struggle, clearly indicated by a large patch of blood, was dwelt upon with a sickly and morbid interest. Acting‐Sergeant Bowyer, of Saughall, took possession of the scythe, the blade of which bore marks of bloodstains.
PRISONER BEFORE THE MAGISTRATES. On Monday afternoon the prisoner was conveyed in a cab from the Hoole police station, in charge of Superintendent Leah, to the offices of Mr. W. H. Churton, clerk to the county magistrates. Despite the heavy downfall of rain, a considerable number of people gathered round the Eastgate to catch a glimpse of the accused. Immediately on his arrival at two o'clock, he was conducted up the steps of the Walls into a room in Mr. Churton's office, where he was brought before Mr John Thompson and Sir T. G. Frost. The proceedings were of a semi‐private nature, the only representatives of the public present being half a dozen reporters. The prisoner took his stand at one end of the table, and preserved throughout the hearing a cool and collected demeanour. He is an inoffensive looking man, of medium build, about 5 ft. 6in heights, with fair hair, and fair straggling moustache and whiskers. He was dressed in ordinary labourer's clothes, and was not handcuffed. He was not as yet represented by counsel, and only uttered a few words in a clear and distinct tone in answer to a question by the Magistrates' Clerk.
Superintendent Leah, who had charge of the case on behalf of the police, said: The prisoner's name is John Griffiths, farm labourer, and he has for some time past been residing in Saughall. He and his brother, now deceased, and his father were mowing together in a field of corn at the farm of Mr. Whalley, Saughall, and at 5 30 on Saturday evening an altercation arose between the prisoner and his deceased brother. One thing led to another, and it is alleged that prisoner struck his brother Henry with a scythe, inflicting very serious injuries. The injured man was brought with all possible speed to Chester Infirmary, where he was medically attended to, and died at ten minutes past eleven on Saturday night. I propose to call the evidence of the sergeant who arrested prisoner, and upon that evidence to ask you to be good enough to remand the prisoner until next Saturday at Chester Castle.
Sergt. George Ennion said: I apprehended the prisoner at seven o'clock yesterday morning on the highway in the township of Blacon. I said, "Are you John Griffiths?" and he said "Yes." I then cautioned him. I told him, “Whatever you may say in answer to what I am going to ask you will be taken down in writing, and may be used in evidence against you upon your trial." I said to him, "I charge you with the wilful murder of your brother," and he replied, "Not wilful." Nothing else was said till we got into St. Anne‐street, Chester. I was bringing the prisoner to the Hoole lock‐ups. He then said, "My brother was going to strike me. I lifted up the scythe. He ran under it, and then ran back." Nothing further took place. The Clerk Would you like to ask the witness any questions? — Prisoner: No, sir; everything is correct. The Clerk: That is as far as you propose to go to‐day? Supt. Leah: It is, sir. The Chairman (Mr. Thompson): Then the prisoner will be remanded till half‐past eleven on Saturday next at Chester Castle. The Clerk: I don't know whether you want to express any opinion as to whether he should be brought before the coroner? The Chairman: It is not for us to express any opinion. The Clerk: It is sometimes expressed. The Chairman: My own opinion is that the man ought to be taken before the coroner. Sir Thomas Frost: And it is mine, too. Supt. Leah: The opinion expressed by your worships will be conveyed by me to the Deputy‐Chief Constable. In fact, I may say I have already received instructions to take the prisoner to the inquest. The Chairman: Then the prisoner will be remanded until Saturday next. The accused was afterwards removed to the Town Hall, where he remained till the opening of the inquest, his departure from the East‐gate being witnessed by a large crowd, who blocked the parapet.
CORONER'S INQUIRY. Mr. Ernest Brassey, the city coroner, held an inquiry on the body of the deceased in the police court at four o'clock, the precincts of the Town Hall being besieged by a considerable crowd. The prisoner was brought into court by Sergeant Ennion, and was accommodated with a seat beside the witness‐box. Chief Superintendent Hindley, Superintendent Leah, and Colonel Cope were present representing the County Constabulary, while Mr. G. L. Fenwick, the Chief Constable of Chester, occupied a seat on the Coroner's right.
The first business after the names of the jury had been called over was to view the body, lying in the mortuary at the Infirmary, where the Coroner and jurymen, accompanied by Chief Superintendent Hindley and Superintendent Leah, were conducted by Detective‐Sergeant Gallagher, of the Chester City Police. The corpse lay on a table, and was covered by a white shroud, the face, which was scratched, being alone visible. The journey to the Infirmary and back occupied about ten minutes, during which the prisoner frequently buried his face in his hands, and seemed to fully realise the gravity of his position. The aged father and mother sat together at the back of the witness‐box, and both seemed greatly distressed. The public gallery was crowded. On the jury's return, Mr. E. S. Giles intimated that he had been instructed to watch the case on behalf of the prisoner the father's story.
The first witness called was James Griffiths, father of the deceased, who on entering the box shook hands with prisoner. Witness said: “I am a farmer's labourer, and live at Little Saughall. Henry Griffiths is my son, and his mother tells me he is about 26. He is single. He is a farmer's labourer, and worked for Mr. Whalley. He lived along with me. I was close to when he was hurt on Saturday. I was mowing oats in a field belonging to Mr. Whalley, with John and Henry. We were all mowing with scythes, and about half‐past five o'clock I was a little behind, and John was leading. Henry was "setting in a little too high, and John told him about it, and he could not stand it, and they disagreed over it. I said, "For goodness sake let it drop. It is not worth bothering about." Henry then bobbed John in the breast with the poll — the handle end — of the scythe. I did not hear him say anything at the time he did it. The Coroner: Can you give the jury any idea of the degree of the blow? — No. Was it a gentle bob or a hard knock? — No. He bobbed and they scuffled and he fell, and said "Oh, I am cut." You cannot tell us whether the knock was hard or slight? — I saw the blow, but I cannot tell whether it was hard or not. In reply to further questions from the Coroner, witness said: Henry gave John a bob and that caused the disturbance. They were facing one another at the time, and the back of John was towards me while the face of Henry was towards me. I was about three or four yards away from them. I said "Oh, John, you have cut him." As soon as John had done it he ran a little bit along the field. The Coroner: Do you want us to understand that you did not see any cut given? — Yes, I did see the cut afterwards. I saw the scythe used. It was in John's hands, and I saw it swing, but I cannot tell whether hard or gently. The Coroner: When the scythe began to swing did John say anything? — No, they were quarrelling and I could not hear it. I saw the scythe cutting him in the struggle, and I can't say anything more. There was a struggle between them and I saw him fall and I said, "Oh, John, you have cut him." The struggle between them was after John had had the bob. Neither of them laid hands upon the other. It was done in an instant. When I said "Oh, John, you have cut him." John said, "I did not intend doing it. It is done quite unintended." John then ran away, and after going a short distance he came back again. He said he did not intend doing it, and that he would go and give himself up. I went to Henry and he said, "Oh, father, I should like to go home." Then I went home and fetched something to take him. The Coroner: Before you went could you see the cut? — Yes it was in his side. Was there any blood coming from it? — Oh yes. A small quantity or large? — Well, I can't say that. Proceeding, witness said: — my wife told me that a doctor had gone to Saughall, and while I was at the house looking for a conveyance to fetch Henry, the doctor came up, and when I mentioned it to him he went to Henry. My son had been lying by himself during that time. When I went home, before I spoke to the doctor, John was in the house, and he did not come out with me. I said, "Oh, John, this is a terrible job." He said, "I didn't intend it. It is quite an accident. Lord have mercy upon me!" He put his head between his legs. When I went back to the field Henry did not speak to me. He was removed to the Infirmary in Mr. Nicholls' trap. I went with him to the Infirmary, and he did not say anything to me there except when I asked him if he knew me, and he said, "Yes, father." That was the first time his sons quarrelled that day. The Coroner: Were they always friendly? — Well, they had a word now and then, but at times they were the best of friends. I cannot recollect when was the last time they quarrelled. Proceeding, witness said: Henry was very disagreeable about three months ago, and I told him to get fresh lodgings, and he did so. One of the things he was disagreeable about was that his meat was not right. That is why I told him to go. John came to live with me over two years ago, with his wife. He has been with us up to now; he took a house but it was not quite ready for him. The Coroner: You want the jury to understand that there was no disagreeableness between John and Henry about John living at the house? — Yes, there was. That was a great deal of the disagreeableness. Henry was vexed at John being there. He wanted him to take a house. This has been going on all the time. His wife came to my house simply to look after my wife. The Coroner: Was there much beer on the field that day? — Well, we had the usual allowance—three half ‐pints each in the morning and three half‐pints each in the afternoon. By the Foreman of the Jury: I was a little over three yards from them, but I did not hear anything said between them. There was no blow struck with the fist that I saw. A Juror: Have the two brothers ever had a fight during the last six months? — No, and if there is anyone as can say it, let them say it. I never knew them to have a fight.
THE LINE OF DEFENCE. Examined by Mr. E. S. Giles, the witness said they were allowed no liquor at dinner‐time. Mr. Giles: I understand that as they mowed John found fault with Henry's mowing? — Witness: It was not when they were mowing. They had cut the swath out, and were walking back to start again when the grievance took place. What would be the length of the swath? lt might be a little more than twenty yards. As they walked back the twenty yards did you hear them speaking to each other? — I did not hear anything that I can testify, but they were squabbling. How was it yon judged they were quarrelling? — Because I heard them talking. I am dull of hearing, and could not understand what was said. Did they look angrily at each other? — They must have been angry. How did you know what was the reason of the quarrel? — I knew the quarrel was about "setting in," and I said “For goodness sake, let it drop, it is not worth talking about." During the scuffle did you see if Henry got hold of John's scythe? — I cannot tell you that. Can you say positively he did not get hold of it? — Well, I cannot say whether he got hold of it or not. He might have done, but I did not see it if be did. The struggle was over directly. John did not fall at all — no. Can you say whether Henry fell backwards or forwards? — He fell on his face. The Coroner : Are you quite sure who was the leader down the field ?— I was the leader only I got out of wind and said I would cut a bit at the end. When I was leading John was, next to me. Tell me one thing further. At the time you saw John's scythe swing, had Henry got his own scythe in his hand, or where was it? — Well, I can't tell that. When he bobbed him in the breast I do not know whether he dropped the scythe or not. It was done in an instant. A Juryman: When Henry bobbed John on the breast did it cause John to swerve and turn round, and would that cause John's scythe to come in contact with his side? — I cannot tell you. Or did John wilfully swing his scythe round by way of retaliation? — I cannot answer that question whether it was a wilful swing or not.
THE AGED MOTHER IN THE BOX: TOUCHIN SIGHT. Sarah Griffiths, the mother of the two brothers, said: My husband and sons were home to dinner that day, but they did not have' anything to drink. I was in the back kitchen on the evening in question, and I saw John coming running past the window and he clasped his hands together and nearly fell against the staircase. He then threw himself on the house floor, and I said "Oh dear what is to do? He said "Lord have mercy on me, I have killed Harry." I said whatever have you done? “And he replied” He was going to hit me, and I put the scythe to keep him off me and it catched him." John then fell on his face on the house floor, and then he jumped up and ran upstairs and threw himself on the bed saying, “Oh, Lord, I must go and give myself up." I said "Oh, John, do come and help us with him in the cart?” and he said “I could not go near him, mother." I said “I must go," and I ran as hard as I could. When I turned round John was coming after me, and he said "Oh, father, I never intended doing it. I have not done it wilfully." I never saw anything more of John. He went back with his father into the house. The Coroner: When you saw Henry in the field did he say anything to you? — Henry said, "I didn't say a deal to our John." He asked for a drink of water, but I could not get him any until he was got home. — The witness, in reply to further questions, said the brothers had been the best of friends lately. Henry wanted to get John out of the house, and John said he would go as soon as the house he had taken was ready. By the Foreman: John was sober. They got up straight from their dinners and went straight to their work.
Elizabeth Tickle, wife of John Tickle, Little Saughall, and niece of James Griffiths, stated: that on hearing that deceased was hurt she went to assist her aunt with him. When she got there she heard Henry say that he would die there.
THE DOCTOR OPPOSES THE "ACCIDENTAL" THEORY: A HORBIBLE WOUND. Dr. James Gledhill, Hollinwood, Oldham, deposed: On Saturday afternoon, about twenty minutes to six, I was driving by Little Saughall when the father of the deceased called me to; see Henry Griffiths, who was lying in a field on his face and slightly inclined to the right side. He had on a shirt and a pair of trousers, and there were two women with him. I found he was suffering from a very extensive wound, extending from the right flank across the right lumbar regions to the left. Small intestines were protruding, and there was a considerable amount of haemorrhage. I tried to reduce the bowels, and put the poor man into a position which I thought was most comfortable to him. The cause of death was shock consequent on the injury. The depth of the wound in the right lumbar region was 3¼””inches, and in the left 2¼” inches. In the right flank it had opened the abdomen. To any considerable extent? — The wall of the abdomen was opened almost to the spine. Did he make any statement to you? — No. Did you form any idea as to whether this was one wound or more than one? — I think it was one continuous wound, commencing in the right flank. What amount of force was requisite to produce such a wound? — A considerable amount of force must have been used. Have you formed any opinion as to what kind of instrument produced the wound? — I think it has been produced by a scythe. His back must have been towards his assailant, or the attack must have been from behind or laterally. Could it have been produced if the deceased was in a bending posture? — Very unlikely. I discovered no other signs of violence. The body was healthy with the exception of considerable adhesion of the left lung, but that did not accelerate death. A juryman: Supposing they were wrestling and one had a scythe in his hand, do you think the wound could have been caused in the struggle? — No. Do you think the injury could have been caused by Henry falling on the scythe? — I do not think so. Examined by Mr. Giles, the witness repeated that the character of the wound was inconsistent with any such accident as falling on the blade of the scythe. Did the character of the wound lead you to suppose that the blade had been drawn across the body? — I think it had been drawn in the complete line of the wound. Was there anything to show where the point of the blade had entered the body? — I am inclined to think the entry was in the right flank. It had the appearance of a stab in the right flank, and tailed gradually converging to a point. I went to the Infirmary, and stayed while Dr. Taylor and the house doctor were doing all that was possible for the deceased. I saw the completion of the surgical treatment.
Detective‐Sergeant Gallagher then produced the shirt and trousers worn by the deceased; which were both saturated with blood and cut in such a manner as clearly to indicate the, extent and nature of the terrible wound. The exhibition of the garments, bearing thick clots of blood, produced a sickly sensation in court.
Sergeant Ennion, of the County Constabulary, having repeated his evidence given before the' magistrates a few hours previously.
PRISONER MAKES A STATEMENT. The Coroner pointed out that the case was exceptional in some respects, as there was practically only one witness of what happened on the day in question. There might be questions to be fought out hereafter as to what exactly did take place that day, and it was only fair to the defendant, therefore, to bear that in mind. That was a court at which a man who might be hereafter accused of any crime could give his own explanation on oath as to what happened. He proposed, therefore, to ask John Griffiths if he thought fit to give any explanation of what happened, and at the same time he reserved the protection to him of not being cross‐examined by the jury, by himself, or by prisoner's own solicitor. After consulting Mr. Giles, prisoner, in reply to the Coroner, stated that he wished to say a few words. On being sworn he said. ‐I spoke to him (deceased) about setting in too high. He denied that he was doing so and several words passed between us, but, of course, I can't remember everything. Then he bobbed me with his scythe. As I stepped back he stepped back and threw his scythe down and was coming up to hit me. I held the scythe in my hand, and I was putting it to stop him from coming close to me and he slipped around the point of the scythe and ducked his head under it, and the scythe slipped round his back. I have nothing more to add.
The Coroner, in summing up, said it was scarcely needful to go through the matter at length, because, after all, it was in a nut shell. The question the jury had to decide was whether this poor fellow, Henry Griffiths, was killed by accident or killed on purpose. There was only one witness of the affair, and that was a man who had lost one son and of course they knew had every interest in screening the one who was left to him. As a coroner's jury existed for the protection of society it was their duty to set out with the assumption that every man, who came to a violent end, had been killed by some one else until it had been satisfactorily explained that that did not take place. It was clear in this case that the man was killed, and it was clear he did not kill himself, and that somebody else must have done it. After referring to the evidence of James Griffiths and the doctor, the Coroner explained to the jury what constituted murder and manslaughter, stating that murder was defined to be when a person unlawfully killed another by any means, with malice aforethought, either expressed or implied. The law regarded with an indulgent eye the frailties of human nature, and made allowances in many cases for acts committed in the first paroxysm of passion, which, while the frenzy lasted, rendered the victim of it reckless of the consequence of his acts. When, therefore, death ensued from a sudden transport of passion or heat of blood upon a reasonable provocation, and without malice, it was considered ac solely imputable to human infirmity, and the offence would be manslaughter. The person putting this for‐ward must make out the circumstances of alleviation to the satisfaction of the jury. It was not every trivial provocation, assault, or even blows that would extenuate the act of homicide. Words of menace were not such a provocation as would reduce the offence to manslaughter, unless they were accompanied by some act indicative of actual violence. An assault, accompanied by circumstances of violence, if it were resented immediately, and it appeared that the party acted in the heat of blood upon the provocation, would reduce the crime to manslaughter. If they were of opinion that defendant reasonably thought when he was bobbed with the scythe that he was going to be attacked, and that he was approached with words of menace and of assault, and an attempt to do something more, it would be their duty to return a verdict of manslaughter against him. But if they found that Henry Griffiths gave that bob not intending anything more, and not accompanying it by words or threats of violence, then it would be their duty to find a verdict of "Wilful murder" against John Griffiths.
The verdict. The jury then retired from the court to consider their decision, and after an absence of twenty‐two minutes they returned with a verdict of "Manslaughter." The prisoner was then removed in custody.
THE SCENE IN COURT. The arrangement for holding the coroner's inquiry in the city police court — a commendable practice which has been growing of late — gave a large number of the public an opportunity of tearing all the horrifying details of the narrative, and of seeing the chief actor in the tragedy. The general expectation that the aged father, who is in his seventy ‐seventh year, and wonderfully hale and strong, and who was the only witness of his son's untimely end, would be able to throw ample light on the affair, was in a great measure disappointed, but due allowance must of course be made for the advanced age of the witness, the distressing scenes through which he has just passed, and the painful nature of the task before him. The only sensational part of his story was his description of the scythe blade swinging before it made the fatal gash, but he was unable to furnish a lucid picture of the struggle. The mother's statement that her wounded son, while lying on the ground and almost in a state of collapse, informed her, "I did not say a deal to our John," was the subject of considerable comment, and it was to some a surprise that the deceased in his conscious moments made no further reference to the manner in which he sustained his injuries. To the casual observer it was evident that the jury were inclined to take a merciful view of the case, judging from their examination of several of the witnesses, but in Dr. Gledhill they found rather a tough customer. The worthy doctor took up the position that it would have required considerable force to inflict the wound, and would not admit the argument that it might have been the result of an accidental falling upon the blade of the scythe. The production of the bloody garments worn by the dead man was a spectacle on which only the most depraved minds would care to dwell. Prisoner's self‐possession remained unshaken to the last, and he made his sworn statement to the coroner without the semblance of emotion.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 9 April 1892
CHESHIRE QUARTER SESSIONS
The Easter Quarter Sessions of the Peace for Cheshire
AN EX‐POLICEMAN CONVICTED OF THEFT.
An ex‐member of the Cheshire Constabulary, named John Potta (32), was charged with stealing 28lb. of cheese, the property of Arthur Bailey, at Odd Rode, on 27th January; also with stealing 71 1/4 lb. of copper wire from the National Telephone Company, and two rubber bicycle tyres and a bicycle lamp, the property of John Cooke, at Betchton, between December and February last.
Mr. Latham prosecuted, and prisoner was defended by Mr. Marshall.
In his opening, Mr. Latham said prisoner had for some years been a constable, in the county force, and was stationed at Rode Heath for about a year and a half. On 27th January Mr. Arthur Bailey, grocer, Rode Heath, missed a quantity of cheese, and informed P.C. Johnston, who was stationed at Alsager. This officer, accompanied by P.S. Higgins and the prisoner, went to Bailey's shop, and at the interview prisoner endeavoured to confuse Bailey as to the date on which the cheese had disappeared. When they left the shop Johnson charged prisoner with the theft of the cheese, adding "If you are an honest man you will not object to my searching your house. Your house is a police station, and I will search it." The house was searched, and in the attic 28lb. of cheese was found, which would be identified by Bailey as the missing cheese. When before the magistrates prisoner said he found the cheese, and that he had entered it in his book. He had the book in his possession, and found that it was not the book supplied by the Chief Constable, and there the entry was made on the 26th January, whereas the cheese was not missed until the 27th. Prisoner, in reply to the charge, said he had bought the cheese from Wright and Watson, of Tunstall.
On behalf of the prosecution he might say that prisoner had served the county well, but the prosecution thought it their duty to lay the facts before the jury, and if the charge was not proved the prosecution would have no feeling of regret. Evidence was given in support of this statement by P.C. Johnson, and Arthur Bailey and his brother Francis Bailey, farmer, near Newcastle, Staffordshire. The latter, who made the cheese and sold it to his brother, positively identified it.
P.S. Higgins, of Alsager, said prisoner told him Mr. Bailey had a cheese gone from the warehouse, but that he would make further enquiries about it, as he did not believe it had gone. If it was found, as prisoner alleged, on 26th January, at 2 a.m., it ought to have been reported to witness on that day, but prisoner made no such report. — Cross‐examined : In the matter of a burglary last October prisoner was complimented. Mr. Marshall, for the defence, said prisoner had been in the force for 10 years, and had always behaved very well, and in some instances had earned the commendation of his superiors. Juries were apt to be prejudiced against policemen charged with dishonesty, but they must divest themselves of any such feeling. According to the evidence for the prosecution, ample opportunity was afforded to anyone to steal the cheese from the warehouse on the night in question before it was locked up. It was not till the 30th that Bailey reported the loss of the cheese, and when prisoner proposed to make inquiries, Bailey said "I don't think you need do so; it is very likely eaten by this time." Defendant in his pocket‐book reported the finding of the cheese at two a.m. on the 26th January, near some palings belonging to George Perkins. According to his own statement, on making the discovery he hid himself behind the palings for about a couple of hours, but as nobody came, and as he could not discover the owner or the thief, he carried the cheese home. If any ordinary civilian were to do that it would not be right, but prisoner was a policeman at that time, and was called upon to make a report of the matter to his superior officer. Prisoner admitted the irregularity of not entering the matter in the proper book and sending it on to headquarters, but an irregularity of that kind was very different from theft. Prisoner told Sergeant Higgins that Bailey had informed him of the loss of the cheese. If he was a thief and wanted to convict himself of theft he could not have adopted a surer course than that. As he gave himself so much publicity in the matter, however, it was quite evident that he neither stole nor intended to steal. If he intended to steal he was a great fool to enter the cheese in his memorandum book.
Evidence was given for the defence with the view of showing that it was possible for anybody to have stolen the cheese before the warehouse was locked up for the night. Mr. Latham, recapitulating his evidence, thought it only fair to admit that at the assizes just before Christmas prisoner was complimented by the judge. It was possible prisoner did not take the cheese at the same time it was in his possession, and as he had not accounted for it, it would be the jury's duty to convict him. Supposing the prisoner had, as he said, found the cheese, what should he have done with it? He did what was his duty, carried it home. Where did he put it? An honest policeman would not have put found cheese in a box among old clothes in an attic room, he would have put it somewhere where it could be easily found. Cheese was apt to spoil clothes, and prisoner evidently put it there to conceal it. Although prisoner went on January 30th to Sergeant Higgins and told him Mr. Bailey said he had lost some cheese prisoner never uttered a word about the cheese he had according to his own account found behind the palings on the 26th. It was prisoner's duty to state the actual date on which he found the cheese, but he did not do so. It was his duty to tell the sergeant, I found some cheese on the 26th, but as Bailey did not lose his cheese till the 27th it could not possibly be his. Again, if he found it, why say he bought it from Wright and Watson; or if he bought it from Wright and Watson, why say he found it near the paling ?
The jury, after about twenty minutes' deliberation, found prisoner guilty.
The Chairman, in passing sentence, said prisoner had been convicted on evidence which had satisfied the jury and had abundantly satisfied the court that prisoner stole or had a guilty knowledge of the stealing of that cheese. It was a very sad thing indeed to find a man who had occupied for nine years past the respectable position of a constable in the county now standing in the dock, and there could not be a doubt about it, prisoner had forgotten himself, and he had reason to fear this was not the only case, there were two other charges which possibly could have been proved against him. The Bench were quite aware that the punishment prisoner would receive for this offence was not by any means the whole of what he would probably have to suffer for his misdeeds; he had lost his place and position, and the chance of reinstatement, because it would be obviously improper to entrust to a man like prisoner any similar public duties. That in itself was a serious punishment. Having regard to the fact that this was the first time anything was ever known against prisoner, and as the Chief Constable said his conduct in the force had been very satisfactory he would have the benefit of that good character, and, this being treated as his first offence, he would receive sentence of three months' hard labour.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 23 September 1893
PRESENTATION TO A CHESTER CONSTABLE.
INTERESTING SPEECH BY MR FENWICK.
THE POLICE FORCE FORTY YEARS AGO
The members of the City Police Force met at the Town Hall, yesterday (Friday), to present a testimonial to Ex‐Police Constable Diggory, who is retiring on a pension after the exceptionally long service of nearly forty years. The Chief Constable (Mr. G. L. Fenwick) who had been asked to make the presentation, said: — we have met to‐day to wish good‐bye to an old comrade who is laying aside the official harness, and retiring into private life, after about forty years of faithful and honour‐able service. I very willingly take a small part in the ceremony, and, if I may, would like to notice one or two points which have struck mo in connection with it. Forty years is a large slice of a man's life‐time, even when he reaches three‐score years and ten. (Hear, hear.) When Diggory joined the Chester police I was still in my 'teens and many of you were not born for many years after that time. The police, as we know it, had only been in existence sixteen or seventeen years, and still wore the top hat with the glazed crown, the tail coat, and carried the ancient rattle, with‐out which the authorities of that time thought no constable' 3 outfit complete. (Laughter.) They had succeeded the ancient “Charlie’s," who came into existence in the time of Charles 11., and were nick‐named after that estimable monarch. The principle upon which the Charlie’s " were chosen was, as far as I can make out, old age, unfitness for any‐thing else, whatever may be said of the police work they undertook, and a good storage capacity for — well, mineral waters, or other fashionable beverage of the period. (Laughter.) The new men wore a distinct improvement upon them, one qualification, in particular, being considered essential, namely, that they should be of gigantic proportions, with some knowledge of " bruising " — (laughter) — or the noble art of self ‐defence. All that, you know, is now a thing of the past. (Hear, hear.) I appreciate as much as anybody a young fellow, intelligent, of good physique and with some athletic skill, who likes his work and takes an interest in it. An eminent statesman who died a few years ago, was addressing his constituents, when the clever elector who is usually present on such occasions, made himself a nuisance by asking nonsensical questions. " What do you stand upon ?" he roared out, and the candidate promptly replied " I stand upon my head," at the same time tapping that part of his anatomy with his finger. That silenced his interrupter. Now I like policemen to "stand upon their heads!" If they are to control the public by mere brute force, they will, and must fail, if for no other reason than that they would be overmatched in the proportion of a thousand to one. No; they are the servants of the public, and should never forget almost the first sentence in their book of rules, namely, that they are appointed and paid for "the protection of life and property, and the preservation of public tranquillity." The recent Police Act under which P.C. Diggory retires, has conferred great advantages upon us, and we are fortunate, and always have been fortunate, in the Watch Committee, who has the control of us. While jealous of what the public are entitled to, the wants of the men receive the most careful and even generous consideration at the hands of that body. (Hear, hear.) Coming back to the immediate business in hand, I have no hesitation in saying that Diggory's record is an extremely creditable one. For 27 or 28 years he has been in charge of the police office and lock‐ups at nights, and during that long period, and although the duties have been of a very responsible kind, not a single complaint has been made against him, either by the public, the inspectors, or sergeants, or the prisoners, many thousands of whom he has had in his charge. That I look upon as a most creditable record. At the last annual inspection I took the opportunity to present him to Sir Herbert Croft, H.M. Inspector, who, with a perfect courtesy, complimented Diggory upon his long service and record, and wished him health and happiness to enjoy his well‐earned pension. We all join in that wish to‐day, I am sure— (applause)— and I now in your name present him with the hand‐some timepiece I see on the table. (Applause.) I know he will appreciate it, coming from his comrades with whom he has been so long‐associated, and I can almost fancy I see him, when the Chester Police football team has beaten Liverpool of Preston, or some of those crack clubs— (laughter)— throwing up his hat, and calling upon the inscription on this beautiful clock as a witness that he once belonged to that club. (Laughter and applause.) Diggory I sincerely wish you long life and happiness on your retirement. (Loud applause.) Mr. Diggory having feelingly replied, a vote of thanks was moved to the Chief Constable by Inspector Price, and the interesting ceremony was brought to a close. The timepiece bore the following inscription • "Presented to Thomas Diggory by the members of the Chester City Police Force on his retirement, as a mark of esteem.— September, 1893 "
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 22 April 1893
THE CHIEF CONSTABLE OF CHESTER.
The current number of The Police Review contains an admirable cabinet half‐bust portrait of Mr. G. L. Fenwick, Chief Constable of Chester, together with the following short biographical notice : —
Mr. George Lee Fenwick, the Chief Constable of the famous border city of Chester, is 56 years of age, and of old Northumbrian stock. He was born at Bishopwearmouth in the year before the Queen's accession, and was educated privately. In February, 1860, being then only 23 years of age, he was chosen from upwards of 80 applicants for the responsible appointment of Chief Clerk of the Leeds Constabulary, and in August, 1864, was appointed Chief Constable of Chester, vice Mr. John Hill, who retired on a pension after 44 years' service. He is thus only the second Chief Constable of Chester since the establishment of the police, his service and that of his predecessor covering the long space of 72 years, a fact which speaks volumes for the "ancient and loyal city."
Moreover, it will be seen that in point of service he is almost the senior Chief Constable in Great Britain. Perhaps the most notable event of his official life in Chester was the part he took in frustrating the projected Fenian raid upon Chester Castle in February, 1867. At that time there were a million rounds of cartridge stored there, and 30,000 stands of arms, besides those of the volunteers in an old "Cock‐pit," which numbered 1,000 more. It was arranged by the "men of action" that these should be seized and conveyed to Ireland to be used in the rising which really took place in Kerry and the south a few days biter.
Happily, all this was defeated by the opportune disclosures of the informer Corydon, and although the members of the Brotherhood met in Chester, 1,700 or 1,800 strong, and there was only a small detachment of 60 soldiers in the Castle at the time, preparations had been so promptly completed, that not only was no attempt actually made, but the raiders fled in all directions, scattering ball cartridge, pistols, daggers, &c, as they went.
The two leaders, Captain McCafferty and Captain Flood, were arrested as they entered Dublin Bay in a collier from Whitehaven, and were tried at the Special Commission held at Dublin in the following April and May. McCafferty was sentenced to death for high treason, and Flood to 15 years penal servitude for treason felony. For his share in this matter Mr. Fenwick received the thanks of the Home Secretary and the Irish Government.
Mr. Fenwick was one of the few Chief Constables who were called upon to give evidence before a Select Committee of the House of Commons on the police superannuation question, and has had the satisfaction of seeing some of his suggestions carried out. He also gave evidence before the Lords Committee on intemperance.
Outside his police work, the subject of our sketch has been a frequent correspondent of the Times newspaper during the last quarter of a century on crime, criminals, vagrancy, licensing reform, drunkenness, and kindred topics. In other directions, too, his pen has not been idle; and be has attracted some notice as a linguist, being conversant with four or five modern languages. He is the author of "A German Grammar," "A First Russian Course," and as a member of the Philological Society was one of the readers for the colossal work now being published by the Clarendon Press, and known as “The New Oxford Dictionary."
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 23 December 1893
NORTHWICH. Shebeening. — The Magistrates on Tuesday investigated allegations of shebeening at Lostock Gralam. Benjamin Goodall, refreshment house keeper, was summoned for selling beer without a licence. John Hayes, William Riddle, and Patrick Dolan were charged with aiding and abetting. The case for the prosecution was that on December 9th Constable Daine watched Goodall's shop, which was frequented by working men, and saw a number of men therein with pint cups before them. Two left with a quart can each. Riddle was accosted, and said his can contained ale obtained from Goodall. Goodall declared that the liquid was herb beer, but the analyst pronounced it genuine beer. Subsequently the house was searched, and a beer cask of "Boddington's " found. — The defence was that Goodall procured the beer for the consumption of himself and seven lodgers, who boarded, and that the beer carried by Riddle was a gift by the lodger. — Goodall was fined £10, and Riddle 20s. The others were dismissed.
Cheshire Observer
Saturday 20 May 1893
DISGRACEFUL ASSAULTS ON THE POLICE AT WARRINGTON
At the Warrington Borough Police Court, on Monday, before the Mayor and other Magistrates, Wm. Bradbury and Thomas Bradbury, son and father, were charged with being drunk and disorderly in Old‐road, on Saturday night ; and further with assaulting Constables Leathwood, Bruen, Newy, and Sergeant Smith while acting in the execution of their duty. John Dooley was charged with assaulting Constables Leathwood and Newy, and attempting to rescue the two first prisoners and Cornelius Ward was charged with assaulting the two constables and Sergeant Smith.
All the defendants denied assaulting the officers. A statement made by the Chief Constable, and which was fully borne out by the evidence of the policemen named above and other witnesses, shewed that on Saturday night Constable Leathwood was called to a fight in Bridge Inn‐yard. The men engaged on seeing the officer stopped fighting and went into the public‐house, but presently emerged from the front door. Then the first prisoner, Wlliam Bradbury, and another man commenced to fight again, and on the officer interfering Thomas Bradbury (father of the other prisoner of that name) came up and used abusive language. He next seized Leathwood, and the young man with whom William Bradbury had been fighting then tackled the father.
Police‐constable Leathwood arrested the father, who had violently struck the young man, and then the son rescued him from custody. The son then ran into the Norton Arms Vaults, followed by his father and the officer, and in the vaults a severe struggle occurred, which the barman described as a regular battle.
The first two prisoners, with several other men, covered Leathwood, and were ill‐using him when Police‐constable Newy cama on the scene. Sergeant Smith came up, and was immediately assaulted, and a similar fate befell Police‐constable Bruen, who was struck twice on the neck, then in the mouth, and finally across the back with a poker. He drew his staff, and called on the sergeant to use his stick. After a severe struggle all the prisoners were got to the police‐station.
The two Brad‐burys were fined 40s. and costs each, or in default one month's imprisonment ; Dooley was fined 20s. and costs; and Cornelius Ward, who was proved to have used the poker, was sent to gaol for three months without the option of a fine.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 10 June 1893
TERRIBLE TRAGEDY AT WILMSLOW. THE INQUEST AND VERDICT
The picturesque village of Wilmslow, near Alderley Edge, was the scene of a terrible tragedy on Saturday night It appears that for a considerable time a family, consisting of father, mother, and daughter, the latter aged about 18 years, have occupied a semidetached cottage fronting the old racecourse, lying between Wilmslow and Morley. On Saturday night they seem to have retired to rest as usual, and nothing had transpired to lead anyone to suppose that anything unusual was about to happen. About three o'clock on Sunday morning the father was disturbed by a alight noise in the bedroom, and he spoke to his wife, who was moving towards the door, and she in reply gave him to understand that she was going to her daughter, who was suffering from ticdoloureux. He then fell asleep again. When he got up he was struck by the stillness which prevailed in the house, and on going to an adjoining bedroom he found both mother and daughter with their throats cut, and dead. He was naturally very much horrified, and he at once informed the neighbours of what had taken place.
Subsequent inquiries seem to reveal that the facts are as simple as they are dreadful. No doubt seems to be entertained that the mother first indicted the injuries upon her daughter, which caused her death, and then cut her own throat. That the two had made up their minds to die rather than suffer the disgrace which they feared was about to come upon them would seem to be equally certain. This may be gathered from the fact that the daughter had written a note in which she requested that a silk handkerchief might be given to a young female friend. On another piece of paper she had written instructions as to the way in which she and her mother were to be laid out. They had actually got the things ready in which they were to be buried. The handwriting on the papers which were found in the bedroom was indisputably that of the daughter, as Mrs. Worth could neither read nor write. Nothing strange had been noticed in the conduct of Mrs Worth by the neighbours. She had stated repeatedly to more than one who had become curious on account of not seeing the daughter for several days past that the girl had gone away to see some friends. This, however, was denied by one of the neighbours who saw the girl in the back room a day or two ago. On Saturday, owing to rumours that had obtained currency, a police officer went to the house and closely questioned Mrs. Worth as to the condition of her daughter, and she assured him that there was no ground for the statements which had been made. So calm and collected was she that the officer fully believed her, and left with the firm impression that the rumours had no foundation in fact. It bad been arranged with the knowledge and con‐sent of the mother that her daughter should be examined by a medical gentleman on Monday. The dread of exposure must have been very great on the part of both mother and daughter, and may have affected the mind of one if not of both during the silent hours of Saturday night.
Mrs. Worth could hardly have contemplated such a terrible deed on Saturday afternoon or in the early hours of the evening, as she went to the shops in the village as usual, and purchased her provisions for the ensuing week. That the daughter had been recently confined was proved by the doctor who examined the body on Sunday. What has become of the child is a mystery. It was concluded that it must have been made away with, but despite all their searching they have not been able to discover any trace of the remains. Bloodhounds were employed to assist them in their efforts, but all to no purpose. The husband, William Worth, bears a good character in the district. He is a labourer, and work has frequently taken him long distances from home, and he has many times been away from Monday morning till Saturday afternoon. Much sympathy is felt for him in the village.
The inquest was held at the Swan Hotel Wilmslow, on Monday afternoon, before Mr. H
C. Yates, District Coroner. The first witness called was William Worth, who stated that his wife was 39 and her daughter 19 years of age. They all retired to bed on Saturday night about 10, and Sarah Ann Frost occupied a room at the rear. All three of them were on good terms. Between two and three in the morning he was awakened by his wife getting out of bed. He asked her where she was going, and she replied that Sarah had got the tic and she was going to sleep with her. He believed the story, and gave his consent to her going. She was in her nightdress, and was carrying nothing in her hand. He went to sleep, and did not wake again until about six, when he shouted to his wife to get up. He got no answer, and got up and went downstairs to see if she was there. Not finding her there he went to his daughter's bedroom, and again asked his wife if she was going to get up. Getting no reply this time he entered the room and saw his wife and her daughter lying on the bed on each aide of a bowl. They were both dead, and he went for a neighbour named Mrs. Sands. She did not like to go up with him to the bedroom, and eventually another woman, named Mrs. Hallmark, accompanied him. They then discovered that the throats of both his wife and daughter were cut. A piece of paper, bearing instructions in his step‐daughter's handwriting as to the way in which the women should be laid out, was found in a room along with another paper bearing the request that a silk handkerchief of the daughter's should be given to a female friend named Bradbury. His wife had never stated her intention either to do away with herself or to take the life of her daughter. They were both on good terms. The razor which was found lying beside his wife belonged to him, but he had not used it for some months. Mrs. Worth was a very steady woman. He had suggested to her that Sarah Frost was pregnant, but he was satisfied she was not when she denied the fact.
Mrs. Mary Ann Hallmark, a neighbour of Mr. Worth, said that on Sunday morning she was called to Worth's house. On going upstairs she found in the back bedroom Mrs. Worth and Sarah Ann Frost in bed dead with their throats cut. One of Mrs. Worth's hands was hanging over a bowl, and in it was a razor. There was blood in the bowl. Witness saw Mrs. Worth going across the Common on Saturday night with her husband. There was nothing peculiar in her manner. Witness had noticed that Sarah Ann Frost was enceinte, and spoke to Mrs. Worth about it, and she denied that such was the case Deceased and her daughter seemed to be on very good terms. By a Juror: Witness had known Mrs. Worth many years. She believed Mrs. Worth had had children, but she had not seen any.
Mrs. Hannah Adshead said she was not a professional midwife, but she had attended many women as nurse. She attended Mrs. Worth about Christmas, when she was delivered of a stillborn child. There was no doctor engaged. Witness had previously attended Mrs. Worth in similar circumstances. She did not know that Miss Frost was enceinte. She had more than once spoken to her upon the subject, and received negative replies. In reply to a juror, witness said she attended Mrs. Worth first about twelve years ago, and three or four times since, and the children were stillborn. She had got coffins for three of the children. By the Coroner: Witness said she would swear she was not with Mrs. Worth on Saturday afternoon or evening. She had begged Mrs. Worth to tell if her daughter was enceinte, and she denied that such was the case.
Police Sergeant Griffiths deposed to telling Mrs. Worth on Saturday afternoon that there were rumours going about that a child had been born in her house, and that the birth was being concealed. He asked if her daughter was at home, and she replied that she had gone to Cheadle Hulme, adding that her daughter had not been confined, but expected to be so in six weeks' time. She told him that she would get Dr. Davies to examine her daughter, and he went away satisfied that the rumour had really no foundation. He heard nothing more about the matter until Sunday morning, when he was informed of the tragedy. Witness then gave particulars as to the position of the bodies of the deceased persons in the bedroom, and said there was no sign of any struggle. His opinion was that the daughter held her head over the bowl while her mother cut her throat, afterwards doing the same by herself.
Dr. Davies stated that he saw the dead bodies of Mrs. Worth and her daughter on Sunday morning. Both their throats were cut, most likely by the razor found beside them. They had bled to death into the basin in from three to six minutes. He thought that the mother had cut her daughter's throat, and then cut her own. When he saw them life had been extinct five or six hours. He subsequently made an examination of the daughter, and found that she had been confined within six days. Some weeks previously Mrs. Worth had told him that her daughter had gone to Cheadle to be confined. The Coroner then summed up, remarking that this was certainly one of the worst cases he had ever had before him since he bad held his office.
This was the whole of the evidence. The jury returned a verdict to the effect that Mrs. Worth killed her daughter, and then cut her own throat, while in a state of temporary insanity. The tragedy still creates excitement. Crowds visit the scene on Lindow Common. The child has not been found, although a thorough search has been made by the police, assisted by blood, hounds. It was rumoured on Tuesday night that the remains had been discovered in a wash boiler, but this turned out to be untrue. The dogs refuse to leave the kitchen, and persist in working near the boiler grate. Cinders have been found in the garden, and the dogs shew excitement there. It is supposed the body was burned and the ashes taken out into the garden. The funeral of the two Worths took place on Wednesday afternoon at Wilmslow Church. There was an immense crowd of spectators, order being kept by a force of police. A short service was read by the rector.
Cheshire Observer
Saturday 23 June 1894
EX ‐SUPERINTENDENT JAMES NAYLOR.
AN INTERESTING CAREER.
The Police Review and Parade Gossip contains an interesting sketch of the career of Mr. James Naylor, ex‐superintendent of the Cheshire Constabulary, who retired on a well‐merited pension in the autumn of 1889, having served in that force for thirty‐one years.
He was born at Over Darwen, near Blackburn, on 9th April, 1829, and is a descendant of a noble race of yeomen whose ancestors shed their blood in their country's cause in the Peninsular and other continental wars. During the earlier portion of his life he was so busily engaged on his father's farm that his education was entirely neglected, but he subsequently picked up a little, and improved it as opportunities afforded.
At the age of twenty years he enlisted in the 4th Royal Dragoon Guards, and served in that regiment for a year. Here he detected some petty pilfering among the soldiers, for whom his captain commended him, and re‐marked that he ought to be a policeman, not a soldier.
His mother being taken very ill resulted in him leaving the Army on payment of £30. He remained at home for a short time, and then went to Preston, where he met a sergeant of the Lancashire police force, who persuaded him to join the force. He was sent to Woolton, on the outskirts of Liverpool, as a horse patrol.
While in this force he, one day, met a man driving a cow near Rainhill, and, after chatting with him, apprehended him on suspicion of stealing it. His suspicions proved to be correct, the cow, a very valuable one, having been stolen from Hale Wood.
He resigned from the Lancashire force after a service of one year 101 days. On the 8th March, 1854, he was chosen, out of 19 candidates, to fill a vacancy in the Bolton Constabulary, and was put on duty in Chorley‐road. One morning, about two o'clock, he caught two men in the act of committing a burglary at a gentleman's residence. A severe struggle ensued for twenty minutes, the men at last running away in opposite directions. Constable Naylor followed one and overtook him. Another scuffle ensued, the prisoner kicking the constable very severely, the effects of which he feels to this day. He drew and used his staff to defend himself, and succeeded in apprehending the man. A few hours afterwards he also arrested the other man. Both prisoners had just returned from transportation across the seas, and were sent back again.
Constable Naylor was removed to Deansgate. Here he, unaided, apprehended 14 men for sleeping in a mill without any means of subsistence. He securely fastened them all together, and succeeded in taking them part of the way to the Police Office, and then obtained the assistance of two other constables, and locked them up. The Magistrates highly complimented Constable Naylor for his courage and determination. Shortly afterwards a Mr. Davis, managing clerk to a solicitor, when returning home late one night was garrotted and left insensible near Sweet Green Church, the offenders taking away with them all his jewellery etc. On the case being put into Constable Naylor's hands, he recovered the stolen property, which was concealed up a chimney, and arrested the two thieves, who were tried at the Liverpool Assizes, and sentenced to fourteen years transportation.
His next important case was that of an Irish woman, a servant to a retired painter. During her master's absence she stole £22, hid it, and then hung herself to a bed‐post, where she was found, black in the face, by a washerwoman. Constable Naylor's superior officers were engaged two days searching for the money, but without success. The Chief Constable, Mr. Harrison, then directed Constable Naylor to search, and' after three and a half hours, he recovered the' whole of the money concealed on the premises. In a subsequent robbery of brass he recovered the whole of the stolen property, amounting to several tons, and was rewarded by the owner, and highly complimented.
For a considerable time he was engaged on detective duty, and in 1857 he joined the Cheshire Constabulary.
Some years ago when Northwich was a noted place for poachers and thieves, and as the resident sergeants made no headway in the detection of them the Chief Constable, on the Superintendent's recommendation, promoted Constable Naylor to the rank of acting‐sergeant, and sent him to Comberbach. Soon after his arrival here he, in company with Constable Savage, met eight poachers, loaded. The poachers threatened to kill the sergeant, who had with him a heavy walking‐stick', which he used with such good effect that they ran away, throwing their booty in all directions. Seven out of the eight were arrested and convicted.
A month after the above event, Sergeant Naylor and two constables met five poachers on Red Lion Bridge, Anderton. A pitched battle ensued. Stones rattled one after another against a building close by. One of the constables (Dalziel) was struck down, but his place was taken by Sergt. Naylor, who succeeded in knocking two of the poachers down? The poachers then took to their heels, throwing away in their flight a large quantity of hares, rabbits, and poaching implements. Sergeant Naylor subsequently arrested the men. Two of the ringleaders received sentences of eighteen months' imprisonment each. For his courage on this occasion he was promoted full sergeant, and granted the merit badge with pay.
His most serious engagement with poachers, and one which almost ended fatally, took place on 29th Sept., I 1867. He was on duty at Wincham, with P.Cs Dalziel and Lee, in company with two keepers. When near Tee Bridge they met a gang of thirty‐two poachers, who drew up together, and threatened to kill the police and keepers. Stones began to rain on the police like hailstones. Constable Dalziel was struck on the head, and, seeing this, Lee and the two keepers took to their heels. Sergeant Naylor was struck with a stone and knocked senseless. The gang then set upon him, and abused him in a disgraceful manner. His left arm was cut in five places; he was stabbed through the hand; the top of his head was knocked in; the flesh of both hands stripped to the bone; and his ribs injured on the left side. The poachers, thinking they had finished him, threw him into a pig cote. The neighbours were roused with the noise, and, finding the Sergeant lying unconscious, carried him to a house close to, where he lay unconscious for six days, and was three months recovering from the effects of the encounter.
The whole of the men were arrested, identified and committed for trial at Chester Assizes. The Sergeant was in the witness‐box under examination for two hours and forty minutes, nine barristers being engaged to defend. Three of the offenders received five years penal servitude each, and the rest sentences varying from two years to eighteen months. For his action here he was highly complimented, and received a special reward of £3.
A gang of twenty‐nine men, terming themselves “The Committers," infested Smallwood and Astbury about this time, committing several burglaries and other robberies. In May, 1868, Sergeant Naylor was removed to Astbury and soon succeeded in arresting the ringleaders and breaking up the band.
The thieves and poachers of Mow Cop and district were closely watched. When on duty one Sunday night, he heard the report of gun and on proceeding towards the direction of the sound was informed by a messenger that the policeman Bebbington had been shot. With another constable he cleverly worked up with considerable difficulty, the case, and affected the arrest of the offender, who received ten years' penal servitude.
His success was so marked that interested persons formed a treacherous plot against him, and brought it to such a successful issue that he was reduced to acting‐sergeant, and deprived of his merit badge; but in six months' time he succeeded in establishing his complete innocence to the entire satisfaction of the Chief Constable, who reinstated him in his former position, and discharged the two constables who had plotted against him.
He was removed from Crewe to Hazel Grove, and five and a half years later removed to Hyde, and was made acting‐inspector.
In June, 1878, he was promoted inspector, removed to Northwich, and, in less that twelve months, again removed to Crewe as acting‐superintendent, and two years later to Eddisbury as superintendent of that division, which post he held until his retirement on 31st July, 1889.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 10 November 1894
ATHLETIC NEWS. LOCAL FOOTBALL NOTES. [By "Sphere."]
Local football enthusiasts were on the “qui vivre” on Saturday, the chief interest being centred In the contest at Queen's Park, where the two rival teams, the Police Athletic and " Chester Reserve," met for the first time this season in a Wirral League engagement. The small attendance — there being scarcely more than two hundred present; — was in no small way accounted for by the fact that the Chester Committee had all their first team men billed to play against Tonge, leaving the impression that a purely Reserve team would meet the Police. Had this been so, no doubt it would have been a walk over for the Athletic. It was, therefore, no small surprise when three of the best men from the first eleven stepped on to the field. Perhaps, at the last moment, the committee deemed the reserve incapable of competing against their opponents. The ground was in splendid condition, not‐withstanding the recent heavy rains.
The following were the teams :— Chester Police Athletic : J. Pay, J. Parker, J. Boardman, Snell, F. Porter, F. Parker, Griffiths, R. Browne, J. Meredith, T. Webster, and
H. E. Lipsham. Chester Reserve : J. K. Jones, E. Roberts, H. Jones, Isherwood, Lindop, Barker, Hewitt, Bellis, Astbury, Pickering, and Turner.
The home team kicked down hill, with a strong wind, and immediately put their opponents on the defensive. Several corners proved abortive, after which Jones, the visitors' back, accidentally put the ball through his own goal. The homesters still kept up a perfect bombardment, and Jones saved well repeatedly. Snell put in a long shot, which the goalkeeper just managed to tip over the crossbar. Astbury now obtained, and the forwards worked the ball well up the field, but Pay averted danger. The homesters made a great mistake in dilly‐dallying too much with the ball when near the goal, instead of taking advantage of the wind, and shooting much oftener. Lipsham put in a nice centre, and the forwards not being in their places, what must otherwise have been a sure goal was thrown away. Astbury and Pickering were noticeable for much individual play, the former putting in a terrific shot, which was capitally saved by Pay. Hewitt and Bellis, on the right wing, were frequently dangerous, but were checked by the back division when encroaching too near goal. Time after time the Cestrians' goal was placed in jeopardy, but Jones cleared cleverly. The visitors transferred the ball to the other end, and J. Parker was several times applauded for his clean kicking. Half‐time arrived with the score in favour of the Police by one goal to nil. It was evident from the restart that the Cestrians meant business, for, with the hill and wind in their favour, they swooped down the field, and from a miss kick J. Parker put the ball through his own goal. From a corner kick Pickering nicely headed a second through the corner of the goal. Pay not having any chance to stop it. Once Astbury had the goal at his mercy, but, instead of shooting, was under the delusion that he had been fouled. The referee, however, thought otherwise, and did not allow the free kick which was claimed for. Turner, at times, did good work on the left, but shot wide. Lipsham and Griffiths both had shies at goal, but danger was averted. As a result of some clever passing, the ball hovered dangerously near the Athletics territory, and Pay frustrated some shots which it seemed almost impossible to get away. Once he succeeded in catching a swift ball while on his knees, only about three yards from goal. Although the homesters were repeatedly dangerous, they could make no headway against the strong wind, and their opponents, making another concerted effort, dribbled the ball through, Bellis scoring the third goal. From the kick‐off the Athletic at once attacked, and Jones only partially saving a stinger from Lipsham, Webster rushed it through. Each side made a determined fight, but the score was not further augmented, and Chester were returned victorious by three goals to two. On the whole the game was most evenly contested, but the Cestrians seemed eager to take offence when the least opportunity presented itself. With one exception the tactics of both elevens were most unquestionable. As before mentioned the game throughout was all with the wind, but whereas the Police in the first half did not shoot as often as was expected, the Cestrians kept popping away whenever within reasonable distance of the goal. Too much praise cannot be bestowed upon Pay for his clever defence, in fact both goal‐keepers were in capital form. Parker and Boardman were quite safe at back, while Snell intercepted many a well‐intended move on the part of the forwards. In characterising the play of the visitors —although we will not say the others did not do their best — the game devolved upon the first team men, whose individual play was extensively indulged in throughout the match. The defence was good, and Lindop is a sure kick at half‐back. The result is certainly no disgrace to the Athletic, while it is assuredly no credit to the Reserve with the team they had on the field. Perhaps the Police when they meet the real Reserve in their next encounter they will retrieve their position.
WIRRAL & DISTRICT LEAGUE. FIRST DIVISION.
Results up to Saturday, Nov. 3rd.
Pld. Won. Lost. Drn. For. Agst. Pts. Tranmere Rovers 8 6 2 0 40 7 12 L.N.W. Loco. 6 5 0 1 21 8 11 Chester Police 8 4 2 2 27 15 10 Port Sunlight 6 4 0 2 14 7 10 Chester Reserve 7 3 2 2 21 16 8 Ellesmere Port 6 3 2 1 17 13 7 Melrose 8 3 4 1 24 28 7 Hoylake 6 2 3 1 11 11 5 Bromborough 6 2 4 0 16 21 4 Saltney Borderers 6 2 4 0 13 28 4 Chester Institute 8 1 6 1 10 26 3 West Kirby 7 0 6 1 4 38 1 Cheshire Observer -Saturday 9 June 1894
CHARGE OF ATTEMPTED CHILD MURDER
SAD CASE AT ELLESMERE PORT
On Sunday morning, while three navvies were taking a walk in the fields between Ellesmere Port and Overpool, they came across the body of a male child, covered over with brambles and a shawl tightly wrapped round its face, lying in a deep ditch. Finding that the child was alive, they promptly took it to the Police Station, where it was well nourished and looked after by Mrs. Jackson. The child's clothes were all wet, and bore evidence of having been in a pit from the amount of duckweed about them. Dr. Finney, who was called in, gave it as his opinion that the child was suffering from exposure to cold, and under the motherly care of Mrs. Jackson, who provided a dry outfit, the boy soon came round.
Sergeant Jackson made inquiries, and, having heard that a woman was seen in Ellesmere Port on Saturday, with two children—one in arms and the other walking — his suspicions were aroused. He at once got assistance, and had the pits in the immediate neighbourhood dragged, but found nothing. On making further inquiries he traced a woman with one child, about six years old, going towards Little Sutton. Her name was Elizabeth Cross, a single woman, of Little Sutton, who had lived in service at Netherpool, and was the mother of several illegitimate children.
Sergt. Jackson found the woman at Little Sutton. She said she had left the younger child with a woman in Alexander‐terrace, Ellesmere Port. He took her to Ellesmere Port. On the way prisoner confessed that she had not left the child with anyone, but that she had on the previous evening attempted to drown it by putting it in a pit in one of Mr. Pickering's fields, and that she had then taken it from the pit and left it in a ditch.
The officer took her to the police station, and on Monday morning she was conveyed to Birkenhead, where she was taken before a magistrate charged with attempting to murder her illegitimate son, William Cross, by placing him in a pit in Netherpool. She was remanded until Thursday.
The little boy is a remarkably fine child, and Mrs. Jackson, at the request of the magistrates, is taking care of him until Thursday. The other child the woman had with her was found at the house where she was lodging at Sutton, and it is remarkable that the child was alive after being in the ditch about 16 hours. The affair has caused great excitement in the "Port."
At the adjourned hearing on Thursday prisoner was committed for trial.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 23 June 1894
THE NORTHWICH MURDER TRIAL.
A JEALOUS OLD WOMAN.
A DEATH SENTENCE
The trial of Margaret Deakin, 64 years of age, on a charge of murdering Elizabeth Heald, at Northwich, on the 26th January, commenced in the Crown Court, at Chester Assizes, before Mr. Justice Vaughan Villiams, on Wednesday. There was a crowded attendance throughout the day. Mr. Clement Higgins, Q.C., M.P., with Mr. W. B. Yates was for the prosecution, and by the direction of his Lordship the prisoner was defended by Mr. Trevor Lloyd.
The prisoner, a grey and bent old woman, dressed in black, presented a singular spectacle in the dock, and seemed to follow the proceedings with indifferent attention.
Mr. Higgins said the prisoner was a married woman, and James Deakin was her fourth husband. He was a workman in the employment of Messrs. Brunner Mond, and Co., and lived at 26, Church‐street, Northwich, where he kept a small provision shop and took in lodgers.
The dead woman, Elizabeth Heald, was about 48 years of age, and she had lodged six or seven months with the prisoner and her husband. At first she occupied a separate bedroom on the second floor, but latterly she slept in the same parlour as the prisoner and her husband, the married couple occupying a bed, and the deceased a mattress on the floor. Deceased assisted in the shop work and took charge of children, thus paying only a small sum for her lodgings. No person, so far as was known, saw the death of the deceased, but on the evening of the 26th January she was found dead with her throat cut.
Although the crime was believed to have been perpetrated in the early hours of the morning, none of the other occupants of the house or the neighbours seemed to have heard anything unusual.
Thos. Tudor, a labourer living in the house, got up at a quarter to five o'clock in the morning, and went down stairs to get hot water for breakfast. He then heard nothing extraordinary. He left for work about a quarter to six in the morning, and when he came downstairs he noticed a lamp on the floor of the passage. He also heard the door between the shop and the parlour slammed and locked.
At seven o clock in the morning Mrs. Smith, one of the lodgers, was in the kitchen when prisoner entered to light the fire. An hour afterwards, Mrs. Smith went just inside the parlour door to pay her rent to the prisoner. At that time prisoner was having breakfast but the deceased, who usually had breakfast with her, was absent. Mrs. Smith enquired where Betsy (meaning Heald) was, and prisoner replied, "She has not come home yet."
At that time Mrs. Smith saw what she described as a bundle of clothes near the window.
About nine o'clock Mrs. Tudor, another lodger, was in the kitchen, when prisoner entered with a wild appearance. Being struck by her appearance, witness asked what was amiss, and prisoner replied "Nothing very particular." Mrs. Tudor advised her to go and look at herself in the glass. She did so, and returned laughing. Mrs. Tudor also asked where Betsy had been all that morning, and prisoner, in answer, said she supposed she was at Mary Ann's (a Mrs. Plumb). When about an hour later Mrs. Tudor went to the parlour to ask prisoner for some coal, she found Mrs. Deakin lying on the sofa. The latter got up hurriedly, and pushed Mrs. Tudor out of the parlour, saying “I'll give it you. I'll give it you." Mrs. Tudor noticed that the mattress was on the floor at that time, and not reared against the wall, as was the usual custom. At mid‐day the prisoner locked the door, and her daughter coming up asked whether Betsy was in. The prisoner replied, " No; she has gone out again. You call again this afternoon."
About one o'clock in the afternoon the prisoner left the shop, locking the door and removing the key. She left her ulster with her daughter and disappeared, being arrested the next day in Deansgate, Manchester, and charged with the murder of Heald. When the husband returned home that afternoon he found the door locked and the body of Heald lying on the mattress under a quilt, with the throat terribly cut, and a knife loosely held in the left hand. There were also cuts on the dead woman's hands. The body was dressed in sleeping clothes, and the mattress was soaked with blood. When charged with the murder prisoner replied, "I didn't do it; I tried to stop her." Coming to the question of motive, the prosecution alleged that it was jealousy. Quarrels had '. frequently arisen between the prisoner and Heald regarding the attention paid to the prisoner's husband, and the prisoner threatened Heald with violence. On January 17th the prisoner stated to Mrs. Goulding that she had seen that which she should not have seen between her husband and Betsy. She also told Mrs. Royle she was going to leave Deakin. On Tuesday before the tragedy Heald had to take refuge from prisoner who was following her with a hatchet.
The case for the prosecution was that this murder took place between the departure of the husband at a quarter‐past five o'clock in the morning, and the leaving of Thos. Tudor at a quarter to six. The post‐mortem examination shewed that the stomach of the dead woman contained little or no food, and therefore she probably had not breakfasted. Blood stains were found on the prisoner's clothes. From the fact that Tudor found a lamp in the passage, it was presumed that prisoner had intended to carry the dead body down to the cellar, for removal elsewhere at some convenient time. The allegation was that while Heald was lying on the mattress she was attacked by the prisoner with a knife, that the dead woman resisted, caught hold of the knife, tried to her throat, and hence the cuts on her hands. There was also abundant medical testimony that the wound upon the throat was from left to right, a most material point in the case. From the position in which she lay, she must have been cut from left to right by any one approaching her. Marks of blood were found under the window, also on the wall behind two mattresses, shewing that some one must have placed the mattresses there after the assault on deceased. The body itself was covered with clothes and other things, which could have been put there only by persons with a knowledge of the death of the deceased. Prisoner herself had set up the defence of suicide. Her answer to the police constable shewed that she must at any rate have been present at the time. There was also the fact that the deceased was loosely holding the knife in her left hand, and the suggestion of the prosecution was that prisoner herself put it there to support the case of suicide. The medical witnesses, however, would say that where death resulted from suicide, the knife that inflicted the wound was as firmly held in the hand that it was extremely difficult to remove it. The next point was that the wound was of such magnitude that it would be almost impossible to be self‐inflicted. Moreover, the medical witnesses would say that there were two wounds, the first of which must from its nature have been fatal, and it would have been impossible for the deceased to have inflicted the second wound. His Lordship inquired how they could prove which wound was first inflicted.
Mr. Higgins said the medical witnesses were clear, from its position, which wound was first inflicted, and that the second wound was merely a continuation or extension of the first.
Elizabeth Thomas, wife of Arthur Thomas, now residing at Wigan, but formerly a lodger with the prisoner, described the deceased as a little, slim woman, who was not left‐handed. On the morning of the 20th January, when witness asked prisoner what had become of Betsy, prisoner replied that she had not come home. The witness afterwards described the discovery of the body. Witness shook up the body, saying, "Get up. What are you lying like that there for?" Witness began to stir up the bedclothes, and then discovered that the woman was dead.
The knife (produced) was loosely held in the dead woman's left hand. The knife had been used in the provision shop previously. Cross‐examined: Deceased was often drunk. She had some property which yielded her 3s. 6d. a week and she paid prisoner 2s. 0d. a week for her lodgings. She was paid on Mondays, and generally had a drop of drink and spent her money. When in drink deceased was very quarrelsome. Witness had never quarrelled with prisoner, but she had often told prisoner she ought to be ashamed of herself for quarrelling with Betsy.
Isabella Tudor, wife of Thomas Tudor, gave evidence shewing that deceased was far gone in drink the night before her death. Witness bore out counsel's statement as to the wild appearance of the prisoner on the morning of the tragedy.
After further witnesses had given evidence in support of the opening statement. Mary Newall, a married daughter of the prisoner, in cross‐examination, said she had been on bad terms with the prisoner, and neither witness nor her second Bister had done anything to help their mother in her defence. She believed, however, her eldest sister had done something to help her. Margaret Bates, wife of William Bates, Meadow‐street, Witton, Northwich, another daughter of the prisoner, said that on the 26th January prisoner called and seemed upset. She told witness she had been quarrelling with her husband again, as he was "such a queer old stick, and she could not do any good with him and his other women." Prisoner also complained generally about her husband's intimacy, with the other women lodgers in the house.
Elizabeth Royle, wife of Joseph Royle, Tabley‐street, Witton, deposed that prisoner complained to her about Betsy being "too thick" with her (prisoner's) husband.
Hannah Goulding, an old woman, said prisoner, on 24th January, called on her saying she had come to be out of Deakin's and Betsy's way, and she (prisoner) had fallen out with them. She added that she had seen what she ought not to have seen, and witness rejoined that she would not have Betsy there in that case.
Mary Ann Plumb, wife of William Plumb, 104, Back of London‐road, Northwich, recalled, said that about a fortnight before Christmas it was mentioned that a lodger named Robert was about to leave. Betsy remarked that prisoner would rather have Robert than any other one in the house, whereupon prisoner pursued Betsy and pulled her down, bat afterwards made up the quarrel by making Betsy a present.
P.S. Martin Hunt (Northwich), after describing the position in which be found the dead body, said he traced prisoner to Manchester, and found her in that city next day. He brought her to Northwich the same afternoon.
Sarah Ellen Dawson, wife of William Henry Dawson, 9, Albert‐street, Manchester, a female searcher, deposed to searching the prisoner on her arrest in Manchester Town Hall.
Joseph Carter Bell, county analyst, proved that the prisoner's clothes were bloodstained. Dr. W. Horton Smith (Northwich) said he was called to the scene of the tragedy on 26th January, and found the body of the deceased. She had been dead at least eight hours. The left arm lay across the chest, the hand holding a large knife loosely. There was a wound in the neck reaching almost from ear to ear, six inches in length, and the result of two incisions. One incision had first been made on the left side, and the knife had been introduced into the wound again almost to the bottom of the first incision, and another incision had then been made, passing almost directly upwards to the back of the mouth. The wound was evidently made from left to right. There were indications of other attempts on the throat. On the thumb of the left hand there was a slight wound, a very deep wound, between the thumb and first finger. There were other cuts on the left and right hands. The throat wounds could not have been self‐inflicted. If they had been, he would have expected to find the knife firmly gripped in the right hand, and the wounds transverse, and not tending upwards. Cross‐examined: He did not remember saying at the inquest that it was conceivable the wounds might have been self‐inflicted. When confronted with his written evidence the witness admitted his signature, but he could not remember making that statement. It was a fact that suicidal wounds varied more than any others. Whichever of the throat wounds was first inflicted, unconsciousness would have supervened, and it would have been impossible to inflict a second. At this stage the court adjourned for the day.
SECOND DAY'S PROCEEDINGS. IMPORTANT MEDICAL EVIDENCE.
The court was again crowded when, at ten o'clock on Thursday morning, Mr. Justice Vaughan Williams took his seat on the bench. The prisoner maintained the same quiet demeanour as on the first day, apparently almost indifferent to the proceedings, or unable to fully appreciate her position. The medical testimony for the prosecution being continued, Dr. Marsh (Northwich) deposed to making a post‐mortem examination of the body. The wounds on the throat had been made by two distinct incisions. The first divided all the structures down to the bone, and cut a groove in the bone. The second went in a higher direction, and divided the deep structures up to the root of the tongue. The reason why he said there had been two incisions was that the main artery on the left side had been divided twice. The first incision, which was the lowest, cut the main artery across; the second incision, which was higher, cut the artery across, giving ocular demonstration of two incisions. His Lordship: We all agree there were two incisions. The point is why do you speak on one incision as being prior in time to the other? How do you ascertain which incision was the earlier?— Witness: The first ' incision, which is the lowest of the two, cut through the skin and the windpipe and the gullet. Having been cut through, they would retract, be drawn downwards and upwards, so that these structures were not divided by the second incision. The second incision missed them. There was nothing divided twice but the artery. The division of the windpipe, being in a line with the lowest of the two incisions, and with the groove in the bone, it necessarily follows that the other incision mast have been second to it, otherwise the windpipe must have been divided higher. It is impossible for the wounds in the neck to have been self‐inflicted. Cross‐examined by Mr. Trevor Lloyd : When before the coroner, did you say " I think it is exceedingly probable that both wounds could have been self‐inflicted. I cannot say that they have not been self‐inflicted?"— Witness : Yes, but that is not quite the same thing. You did not cay it was impossible?— I said it was exceedingly improbable. But you said "I cannot say they have not been self inflicted?"— No, I can only say it is improbable. His Lordship: But to‐day you said" "impossible," and you understand "impossible" and "improbable" are not quite the same thing. Is "improbable " right and "impossible" wrong, or vice versa ?— lmpossible, considering the two wounds. Why did you say "improbable" only before the Coroner?— We were mixed up between one and two wounds. The fact was not clearly brought forward that there were two wounds. Then with regard to one wound you say it is improbable, but possible, that one wound was self ‐inflicted ?— Yes, but I said both wounds to‐day. By Mr. Lloyd: I admit the first wound might have been self‐inflicted.
Frank Thomas Paul, fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons, surgeon to the Liverpool Royal Infirmary, and professor of medical jurisprudence at Victoria University, was examined at some length. The throat wounds, he declared, were certainly not self‐inflicted. Either of them would have been rapidly fatal. Many of the deep tissues were divided into two parts. That was quite sufficient to decide that the wounds were made in two cuts. In witness' opinion neither of the wounds was self inflicted. Speaking of the lower cut by itself, if that had been the only cut (which was against reservation), his reasons for saying that such a cut was homicidal rather than suicidal were — (l) the size of the wound, and (2) that the deep tissues were cut further than the skin. These reasons were applicable only to the hypothesis of only one cut on the neck, and without regard to the other wounds on the hands,, etc. His Lordship: How a wound on the hands can affect the view regarding a wound on the neck passes my comprehension. — Witness: All authorities on medical jurisprudence consider them of the utmost importance. We cannot judge a single cat by itself. Medical men, any more than courts, don't come to a conclusion on one point alone. Here is a wound which might have been either homicidal or suicidal if you take one alone. His Lordship: Really I most ask you to bear in mind you have nothing to do with the termination issue of this case. You come here to give scientific evidence, and if a hypothesis is placed before you, you must answer on that hypothesis. Witness: I was trying to answer in such a way as not to mislead you. Examination continued: Witness said it was, in his opinion, impossible for a suicide to inflict the second wound, which was an upper cut, because the second wound commenced in the first cut. The effect of the first cut upon the victim would render her almost immediately unconscious. The wound was so deep upwards as to be almost unknown in cases of suicide. Witness never heard of a wound being in an upward direction in throat wounds of this kind. The throat wounds were unquestionably from left to right. Such a wound, if suicidal, must be cat with the right hand. In suicide, the knife was tightly grasped after death, the grasp being a species of rigor mortis, which would last till decomposition commenced, say, two days in the month of January. It varied according to the weather. The other small cuts and scorings on the neck were quite different from the tentative wounds caused by a suicide in making up his mind to cut his throat. They rather resembled the wounds made when the assailed was trying to escape the assailant's knife. The cuts on the hands shewed several attempts to grasp the blade of the knife. Cross‐examined: Suicidal wounds varied more than any other in direction and extent. It was not a fact that a maniac would often cat upwards, but it was stated in some books that maniacs might cut upwards. It was always regarded as a sign of homicide when the wounds were upwards. A maniac would cut in almost any direction. It was a fact that a suicide sometimes dropped his weapon; he either gripped or dropped it.
By the Judge: Supposing prisoner had inflicted the wounds, considering the fact that deceased was almost lying on the ground, prisoner most have stooped or knelt down in order to use the knife. The assailant must have been more or less recumbent, judging from the blood splashes on the wall.
This was the case for the prosecution, and no evidence was offered for the defence. Mr. Higgins, in concluding his case, said the tendency of the cross‐examination seemed to shew that the defence would be suicide, and that prisoner attempted to prevent her from committing suicide. As to the question of motive, what evidence had the jury that the deceased was a subject likely to commit suicide? Apart from drink and quarrelsome‐ness, there was nothing to shew she was a person likely to resort to suicide. A number of witnesses had spoken to the relations existing between the deceased and the prisoner. It was known that they frequently quarrelled, and several times came to blows, and that on one occasion prisoner pulled deceased downstairs by the hair of the head. Beyond all that there was some very important evidence given with regard to the prisoner's view as to the relations existing between Deakin and Betsy. He (Mr. Higgins) did not say there was any immorality between the two, but he did say prisoner thought such immorality did exist, and that together with the general quarrelling with Betsy might have been the motive for the murder. It was a vital point that prisoner herself admitted being present when the wounds were inflicted. The jury must not overlook the fact how the body was concealed and covered up by prisoner, and the statements she made to several of the witnesses that Betsy was on one of her frolics and had been out all night. If there had been a suicide, and prisoner had tried to prevent it, why did she cover up the body and make statements which were absolutely untrue to her knowledge? Did that point to suicide or murder? Why were the doors, front and back, locked, and why this concealment of the dead body? Deceased's hands were cut, and prisoner's were not. If prisoner's story was true that she endeavoured to prevent deceased from committing suicide, one would expect to find prisoner's hands cut with the blade of the knife.
Mr. Trevor Lloyd, addressing the jury for the defence, said he had two theories to present, and he admitted to a certain extent that they were mutually destructive. This was not a case carefully got up by a solicitor for the defence; prisoner had no means to secure that; but if he could shew a reasonable possibility of doubt in the case it would be the duty of the jury to acquit. Directly this terrible occurrence took place, prisoner seemed to have been absolutely deserted. He could not pass from this part of the case without referring to the conduct of the prisoner's husband. She was arrested in January, and from that time to this the husband had not raised hand or foot in defence of his wife. If the prosecution was right, this was a horrible murder committed with the motive of jealousy. If the motive was jealousy, who was the cause of the crime? If their proposition was correct, that prisoner was jealous of the deceased because of her immorality with Deakin, then the person who was the cause of the crime was the husband, and he was the person who had never been seen since the day of the crime. With the exception of one daughter, prisoner had been deserted even by her own family. The evidence about the quarrels between prisoner and deceased amounted to nothing, because the evidence disclosed quarrels between most persons in the house. He scouted as ridiculous the idea that because there were quarrels between women of that class they most necessarily murder one another. It was evident there was no quarrel when they went to bed that night; because when there was a quarrel it was deceased's habit to go and Bleep upstairs. Did they believe that prisoner could have premeditated the crime to the extent of taking the knife up to the room the night before, and then butchering this woman in her drunken sleep. With reference to the suicide theory he submitted that a woman, who was high spirited when in drink and depressed almost to the point of melancholia, was just the sort of woman who would take her own life. If deceased had been murderously attacked she would doubtless have screamed for help, but not a sound was heard. If she had been trying to cut her own throat it would have been done silently. The two wounds on the throat would be accounted for by the fact that deceased would be frenzied by prisoner's interference, and would gash her throat all the more. The knife was found in the deceased’s left hand, and he did not suggest the wound was inflicted with the left hand. The wound was cut with the right hand, then prisoner rushed at the suicide, a struggle ensued to wrest the knife from her, and the knife again entered her throat. Two doctors had said the first wound could have been self‐inflicted, but if the woman was half mad at the time would not that account for the terrible nature of the wound? Was it impossible that if the struggle with prisoner deceased cut her own hands in her efforts to cut her throat? They might think it improbable, but a case of murder could not be decided upon probabilities and improbabilities. What about the conduct of the prisoner after the death of the other woman? It was very easy for the jury sitting calmly to say what they would have done under such circumstances; but imagine the state of this frenzied woman after her struggle to prevent the suicide. She might have thought, “What will everybody say when they know how we used to quarrel." Then the foolish idea entered her head to hide the evidence that might prove her guilty. It was terror, not guilt that actuated her. She took up the knife and placed it in the dead woman's left hand in her flurry, and having covered up the body she continued her course of deception. The doctors arrived at a different conclusion now from what they did at the inquest but if the defence could have had doctors on their side they could have produced a different surgical theory. The second theory for the defence was that prisoner was goaded to madness by jealousy, and plunged the knife into deceased in a fit of frenzy, in which case the crime should be reduced to manslaughter.
His Lordship having summed up, the jury retired at ten minutes past two o'clock, and after an absence of twenty minutes returned, amid breathless silence, a VERDICT OF GUILTY, with a strong recommendation to mercy. Prisoner, when asked what she had to say, replied faintly, "I am not guilty." The Judge, assuming the black cap, said, “Margaret Deakin, I am afraid the words you have just spoken, that you are not guilty, are not true. You have had a most careful trial, every fact has been investigated most carefully, and I can only say that I agree entirely in the verdict of the jury. The jury have found you guilty, and I should have done the same thing if I had been one of the jury. The jury have strongly recommended you to mercy. That recommendation will be forwarded to the proper quarter, but it is my duty to say to you, do not build your hopes upon that recommendation, but spend your time in preparation for the execution of the sentence which it is my painful duty to pass upon you. The sentence is that you be taken from hence to the place from whence you came, and from thence to the place of execution, and that you be there hanged by the neck until you shall be dead, and that your body be afterwards buried within the precincts of the prison in which you shall have been confined after your conviction, and may the Lord have mercy upon us all.
Prisoner's demeanour throughout the trial was calm and collected almost to the point of indifference, leading the spectators to the conclusion that she was either apathetic as to the result, or did not fully appreciate the gravity of the situation. She sat daring the two days almost without moving, and received her sentence in the same quiet manner, beyond a slight twitching of the mouth.
THE CONVICT'S REMOVAL TO KNUTSFORD. The aged convict, accompanied by several other prisoners and warders, left for Knutsford by the 4.15 train on Thursday. A small crowd collected on the platform of the Northgate Station. Prisoner was assisted from the prison van by a warder, on whose arm she leaned while proceeding to the carriage which had been set apart for the conveyance of the prisoners. No demonstration took place. The blinds of the carriage were drawn.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 3 February 1894
TRAGEDY AT NORTHWICH.
MURDER OR SUICIDE?
An extraordinary case involving suspicious circumstances came to light at Northwich late on Friday night week. It appears that an old woman named Betsy Heald, having small means of her own, lodged with two old people named James and Margaret Deakin who kept a provision shop in Church‐street, Northwich. Deakin was employed as a labourer, and was away all day. Returning home about half‐past six he found the front door locked and the back door also. Bursting open the latter he found Betsy Heald lying dead on a couch with a tremendous gash in her throat, almost from ear to ear, and a large carving knife in her hand. In her mouth was staffed a rag. His wife was missing, and could not be found, although she had been seen in the town during the day. The two women had lately been drinking together and Deakin's account is that that morning, when he left home for work, both women were in the front room next to the shop, and that he made them a cup of tea each before he left, as they were not well. The gash in the woman's throat is such that the head is nearly severed from the body. There are two cuts crosswise, completely severing the windpipe, and one downwards vertically as far as the breast bone. The knife was one used in the shop to cut ham with.
ARREST OF DEAKIN. Superintendent Large and his subordinates were all Friday night endeavouring to trace the woman Margaret Deakin. It was ascertained that she had taken train to Manchester. Sergeant Hunt was despatched there, and put himself in communication with the detective department, with the result that on Saturday the missing woman was arrested on a charge of murder in Deansgate, and taken to Northwich.
The body of Heald was removed to the Work‐house, and a post‐mortem examination made by the direction of the coroner.
PRISONER BEFORE THE MAGISTRATES. The accused woman was brought up at Northwich Police Court on Monday, before Messrs. J. C. Clough and J. Weston, on a charge of wilful murder. Although exceedingly pale, she did not appear much troubled by the gravity of her position. Her husband, on the contrary, who was present in court, was greatly distressed. Mr. J. E. Fletcher' solicitor, was present on behalf of the prisoner.
A woman named Elizabeth Thomas, lodging at prisoner's house, in Church‐street, Northwich, said deceased also lodged there, and slept in the same room as Deakin and his wife. They slept on a sofa, and deceased slept on the floor. On Friday morning witness called at the shop, and asked prisoner, "Where is Betty that we don't see her this morning?" Prisoner replied. "She went out last night." Prisoner came in out of the parlour several times, but closed the door after her each time. Witness was going out about half‐past eleven, when prisoner asked her to take her husband's dinner to Winnington. Witness did so, and on her return heard prisoner lock both middle and outer door about one o'clock, and witness did not see her again. Prisoner's husband returned shortly before six. He found the middle door locked, but burst it open, and went into the parlour. Twenty minutes later he returned to the kitchen, and in consequence of what he said witness and Phoebe Smith, who lodged in the house, accompanied him back to the bedroom. There they saw a pair of feet projecting from under the quilt of Betty's bed. Witness called out "Betty, what are you doing here ?" Obtaining no reply she pulled away a black skirt which covered Betty's head, and she then saw that Heald's throat was cut and that there was a knife in her left hand. She had often heard quarrels between Mrs. Deakin and Heald. On Tuesday, the 23rd inst., she heard the deceased call "Help," and on going to the front door she saw the prisoner holding Heald by the back of the neck. Prisoner afterwards said to witnesss ‐I'll put her from taking things out of the shop." After that row the deceased left the house. When she returned she said she had come for her things. The deceased was wearing a skirt and stockings when she lay in bed with her throat cut.
Mr. W. Horton Smith, a surgeon, practising in Northwich, said that in consequence of a request about a quarter past seven on Friday night he went to the house, 26, Church‐street. He went into the parlour and found the prisoner's husband sitting beside the fire in that room, and saw the body lying on a mattress on the floor. He came to the conclusion that the woman had been dead at least eight hours. In the presence of Police constable Hunt witness further examined the body. It was lying on the back slightly on the right side. The head and body lay on the palliasse and the legs projected on to the floor. The right arm lay on the floor beside the body, the palm being turned upwards and the fingers partially closed. The left arm was thrown across the chest, and the left hand held a knife now produced. The knife was not gripped, but was held loosely with the edge towards the throat. The throat was severely cut. The wound was six inches long and three inches wide. It appeared to have been made by two incisions, the first of which divided the muscles and the blood vessels on each side of the neck, the wind pipe and the gullet, and ended in the bones of the spine, which were notched. The direction was up‐wards and backwards. The second wound commenced a little above the first wound, and passed behind the angle of the jaw, nearly cutting through into the mouth. There was also a slight incised wound on the upper part of the chest. The face was covered by bedding. He removed the covering from the face. On examining the hands of the deceased he found a wound on the front of the left hand, on the ball of the thumb, another wound on the inner side of the thumb, another across the first finger below the first joint, one wound on the second finger under the lower joint, and another on the inner side of the palm near the wrist. On the back of the left hand there was a very deep wound between the thumb and first finger, and another on the back of the thumb. On the front of the right hand there was a transverse wound about the middle of the palm, and a small one near the wrist. All these wounds except two were incised wounds. The wound in the throat might have been self‐inflicted, but that was extremely improbable. When he first saw the body there was a black skirt lying across the trunk. A quilt was lying partly under the right arm, and was soaked with blood. The body was clothed in a dark skirt, black stockings, a corset, and a chemise.
The button‐hole on the neck of the chemise was torn out, apparently recently. All the clothing except the stockings was covered with blood, and there was a large pool of blood under the head and shoulders on the palliasse. The hands and the blade and handle of the knife were covered with blood. The magistrates remanded the prisoner until Monday next.
OPENING OF THE INQUEST THE PRISONER'S HUSBAND IN THE BOX. In the afternoon Mr.
H. C. Yates, coroner, opened the inquest in the Magistrates' Court. The prisoner remained in custody in the dock, and had again the services of Mr. Fletcher, her solicitor. Superintendent Large and Inspector Johnson represented the police authorities. The Coroner said he understood that it would be absolutely impossible to conclude the inquiry on that day, and therefore he proposed to take the evidence principally of the witnesses who had been already before the justices, and then to adjourn to enable the police to have the blood on the prisoner's clothing analysed, as that was a very necessary thing in a case of this kind. There would be no inconvenience to the prisoner or anyone else by the adoption of this course, because it was quite impossible that the case could be prepared for the present Chester Assizes. As the justices had remanded the prisoner until Monday next, he proposed to adjourn until the day after, so that the prisoner could be detained over night in Northwich, and be again present at the inquest. The course proposed was desired by the chief constable of the county.
Heald, of 12, Crown‐street, Northwich, a greengrocer, said the deceased was his sister. She was not married. Her occupation was that of a charwoman, and she was about 50 years of age. Unfortunately she had been more or less addicted to drink, and especially was this so since she had lived with the Deakins. She never made any complaint to him of ill‐treatment received at the house where she lodged.
James Deakin, a white haired old man, the husband of the prisoner, said he was a labourer at the Winnington Chemical Works. He and his wife occupied a bed in the parlour at 26, Church‐street, made up on a sofa and chairs, and Betty Heald slept in the same room in a bed on the floor at the foot of their bed. On Thursday night they all went to bed about ten o'clock. Both women were sober, and there had been no quarrel between them. The fire was burning all night. At five o'clock on Friday morning witness got up, and after getting a cup of tea from the hob he gave the women another cupful between them. He went out leaving the women in their beds, and he did not return until night. When he went into the parlour then he noticed that his bed had been put away. In going to close the shutter he stepped upon the mattress occupied by the deceased. He noticed there was some one on the mattress. He went into the kitchen and fetched Mrs Thomas with a lamp. Then he saw the dead body, but he did not notice that the throat was cut. Deakin was closely cross‐examined by the jury as to whether his wife and Heald were not drunk and quarrelsome on Thursday night, but he adhered to his statement that they were sober and on good terms. Replying to the Coroner, he said the knife produced, which had been identified as the one found in the dead woman's hand, was usually kept in the shop. The women were on good terms when he went to work on Friday morning, and his wife kissed him as she lay in bed.
Dr. F. Marsh, who assisted at the post‐mortem examination of the body, said the cause of death was haemorrhage from one of the main arteries in the neck. He thought it was exceedingly improbable that both wounds in the throat could have been self‐inflicted. The wounds on the hands were such as might have been caused by clutching the blade. Had the fatal wound been self‐inflicted, he thought the knife would have been found so tightly grasped in the left hand that it would have been difficult to remove it. His theory was that the knife was placed in the left hand after death. The direction of the wounds was against the theory of being self‐inflicted. This was all the evidence taken, and the inquiry was adjourned until Monday next.
Cheshire Observer
Saturday 23 June 1894
EX ‐SUPERINTENDENT JAMES NAYLOR.
AN INTERESTING CAREER.
The Police Review and Parade Gossip contains an interesting sketch of the career of Mr. James Naylor, ex‐superintendent of the Cheshire Constabulary, who retired on a well‐merited pension in the autumn of 1889, having served in that force for thirty‐one years.
He was born at Over Darwen, near Blackburn, on 9th April, 1829, and is a descendant of a noble race of yeomen whose ancestors shed their blood in their country's cause in the Peninsular and other continental wars. During the earlier portion of his life he was so busily engaged on his father's farm that his education was entirely neglected, but he subsequently picked up a little, and improved it as opportunities afforded.
At the ago of twenty years he enisted in the 4th Royal Dragoon Guards, and served in that regiment for a year. Here he detected some petty pilfering among the soldiers, for which his captain commended him, and re‐marked that he ought to be a policeman, not a soldier.
His mother being taken very ill resulted in him leaving the Army on payment of £30. He remained at home for a short time, and then went to Preston, where he met a sergeant of the Lancashire police force, who persuaded him to join the force. He was sent to Woolton, on the outskirts of Liverpool, as a horse patrol.
While in this force he, one day, met a man driving a cow near Rainhill, and, after chatting with him, apprehended him on suspicion of stealing it. His suspicions proved to be correct, the cow, a very valuable one, having been stolen from Hale Wood.
He resigned from the Lancashire force after a service of one year 101 days. On the 8th March, 1854, he was chosen, out of 19 candidates, to fill a vacancy in the Bolton Constabulary, and was put on duty in Chorley‐road. One morning, about two o'clock, he caught two men in the act of committing a burglary at a gentleman's residence. A severe struggle ensued for twenty minutes, the men at last running away in opposite directions. Constable Naylor followed one and overtook him. Another scuffle ensued, the prisoner kicking the constable very severely, the effects of which he feels to this day. He drew and used his staff to defend himself, and succeeded in apprehending the man. A few hours afterwards he also arrested the other man. Both prisoners had just returned from transportation across the seas, and were sent back again.
Constable Naylor was removed to Deansgate. Here he, unaided, apprehended 14 men for sleeping in a mill without any means of subsistence. He securely fastened them all together, and succeeded in taking them part of the way to the Police Office, and then obtained the assistance of two other constables, and locked them up. The Magistrates highly complimented Constable Naylor for his courage and determination. Shortly afterwards a Mr. Davis, managing clerk to a solicitor, when returning home late one night was garrotted and left insensible near Sweet Green Church, the offenders taking away with them all his jewellery etc. On the case being put into Constable Naylor's hands, he recovered the stolen property, which was concealed up a chimney, and arrested the two thieves, who were tried at the Liverpool Assizes, and sentenced to fourteen years transportation.
His next important case was that of an Irish woman, a servant to a retired painter. During her master's absence she stole £22, hid it, and then hung herself to a bed‐post, where she was found, black in the face, by a washerwoman. Constable Naylor's superior officers were engaged two days searching for the money, but without success. The Chief Constable, Mr. Harrison, then directed Constable Naylor to search, and' after three and a half hours, he recovered the' whole of the money concealed on the premises. In a subsequent robbery of brass he recovered the whole of the stolen property, amounting to several tons, and was rewarded by the owner, and highly complimented.
For a considerable time he was engaged on detective duty, and in 1857 he joined the Cheshire Constabulary.
Some years ago when Northwich was a noted place for poachers and thieves, and as the resident sergeants made no headway in the detection of them the Chief Constable, on the Superintendent's recommendation, promoted Constable Naylor to the rank of acting‐sergeant, and sent him to Comberbach. Soon after his arrival here he, in company with Constable Savage, met eight poachers, loaded. The poachers threatened to kill the sergeant, who had with him a heavy walking‐stick', which he used with such good effect that they ran away, throwing their booty in all directions. Seven out of the eight were arrested and convicted.
A month after the above event, Sergeant Naylor and two constables met five poachers on Red Lion Bridge, Anderton. A pitched battle ensued. Stones rattled one after another against a building close by. One of the constables (Dalziel) was struck down, but his place was taken by Sergt. Naylor, who succeeded in knocking two of the poachers down. The poachers then took to their heels, throwing away in their flight a large quantity of hares, rabbits, and poaching implements. Sergeant Naylor subsequently arrested the men. Two of the ringleaders received sentences of eighteen months' imprisonment each. For his courage on this occasion he was promoted full sergeant, and granted the merit badge with pay.
His most serious engagement with poachers, and one which almost ended fatally, took place on 29th Sept., I 1867. He was on duty at Wincham, with P.Cs Dalziel and Lee, in company with two keepers. When near tee bridge they met a gang of thirty‐two poachers, who drew up together, and threatened to kill the police and keepers. Stones began to rain on the police like hailstones. Constable Dalziel was struck on the head, and, seeing this, Lee and the two keepers took to their heels. Sergeant Naylor was struck with a stone and knocked senseless. The gang then set upon him, and abused him in a disgraceful manner. His left arm was cut in five places; he was stabbed through the hand ; the top of his head was knocked in; the flesh of both hands stripped to the bone; and his ribs injured on the left side. The poachers, thinking they had finished him, threw him into a pig cote. The neighbours were roused with the noise, and, finding the Sergeant lying unconscious, carried him to a house close to, where he lay unconscious for six days, and was three months recovering from the effects of the encounter.
The whole of the men were arrested, identified and committed for trial at Chester Assizes. The Sergeant was in the witness‐box under examination for two hours and forty minutes, nine barristers being engaged to defend. Three of the offenders received five years penal servitude each, and the rest sentences varying from two years to eighteen months. For his action here he was highly complimented, and received a special reward of £3.
A gang of twenty‐nine men, terming themselves " The Committers," infested Smallwood and Astbury about this time, committing several burglaries and other robberies. In May, 1868, Sergeant Naylor was removed to Astbury and soon succeeded in arresting the ringleaders and breaking up the band.
The thieves and poachers of Mow Cop and district were closely watched. When on duty one Sunday night, he heard the report of gun and on proceeding towards the direction of the sound was informed by a messenger that the policeman Bebbington had been shot. With another constable he cleverly worked up with considerable difficulty, the case, and effected the arrest of the offender, who received ten years' penal servitude.
His success was so marked that interested persons formed a treacherous plot against him, and brought it to such a successful issue that he was reduced to acting‐sergeant, and deprived of his merit badge; but in six months' time he succeeded in establishing his complete innocence to the entire satisfaction of the Chief Constable, who reinstated him in his former position, and discharged the two constables who had plotted against him.
He was removed from Crewe to Hazel Grove, and five and a half years later removed to Hyde, and was made acting‐inspector.
In June, 1878, he was promoted inspector, removed to Northwich, and, in less that twelve months, again removed to Crewe as acting‐superintendent, and two years later to Eddisbury as superintendent of that division, which post he held until his retirement on 31st July, 1889.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 21 September 1895
SAD BOATING FATALITY IN THE DEE.
A YOUNG BRIDE DBOWNED.
AN IMPRUDENT ACT.
It was hoped that the present boating season would have come to an end unmarred by a single fatality. But the sensation caused by the terrible tragedy of a fortnight ago had hardly subsided when news reached the city of the drowning of a young Liverpool lady near Eaten, under very painful circumstances.
On Wednesday morning a newly‐married couple named Matthew and Blanche Wells, residing in Liverpool, came to Chester for a holiday. Both of them appeared to have been fond of boating, and since their marriage, only two months ago, they had spent many pleasant days on the river. Hiring a "sweetheart" boat from Messrs. Cook and Arthur, in the Groves, they proceeded leisurely to the Iron Bridge, where they had lunch, and the husband, who is an amateur photographer, took a number of views of Eaton, and the grounds. The return journey was commenced about three o'clock, and on reaching a spot near the Eaton Stud farm, Wells decided to take another view with his camera, and for that purpose ran the bow of the boat into the bank. Both parties got out safely, but after a time, while the husband was waiting for the wind to drop in order that he might make a successful picture, his wife returned to the boat, remarking playfully that if he did not come she would go without him. Thereupon she pushed the boat into the stream, and rose to her feet, with the result that she unfortunately lost her balance, and the craft capsized. The husband jumped in to her rescue, but she disappeared before he could get near her, and after making every attempt to find her, he was obliged to give up the search in despair, and carry the melancholy news to Eccleston Ferry.
On being apprised of what had happened, Sergeant Martin and Constable Heeson, of Eccleston, commenced dragging operations and about six o'clock the body was recovered, and conveyed to the Duke of Westminster's stud farm. The deceased was only eighteen years of age, her husband being a licensed victualler.
The inquest was opened by Mr. H. Churton, county coroner, at the Grosvenor Arms, Aldford, on Thursday afternoon. The proceedings occupied leas than an hour, the circumstances surrounding the case being of the simplest character. The only witness whom the Coroner thought it necessary to call was the husband himself, who naturally appeared deeply distressed at his sad loss, and was at one stage completely overcome with grief. He said he was a licensed victualler, residing at 33, Berry‐street, Liverpool, and deceased, his wife, was 18 years of age. They left Liverpool at ten o'clock on Wednesday morning, intending to come to Chester for a day's outing, and row up the river as far as the Iron Bridge. They hired a boat in the Groves from Messrs. Cook and Arthur. Since their marriage two months ago they had frequently had trips up the Dee.
The Coroner: When you selected the boat were you asked any questions by Mr. Cook, or any one connected with the establishment?— No. Did you consider yourself safe in the boat? — Yes, lam a fairly expert sculler. Are you a good swimmer?— No, but I can swim. Witness (proceeding) said they started from the Groves a few minutes after 11 o'clock, his wife steering, and reached the Iron Bridge about one. Here they got out, and had lunch, remaining till about three o'clock. Witness, who had his camera with him, had been taking views in the Eaton grounds, and when they reached the crooked Dee on the return journey, he got out to take another photograph. He ran the boat's bow on to the bank, and raised it out of the water. As the wind was shaking the trees, he thought he would wait a while until it moderated before taking the photograph, and, finding a cigar in his pocket, he sat down and lit it. His wife then came out of the boat, and sat down beside him. After a few minutes, however, she became impatient, and rose to her feet, saying she had waited long enough. She returned to the boat, and kneeling in the bow, pushed it off with her hands. She then stood up, turned round, and walked aft. She had not gone very far before the boat completely overturned bottom uppermost. He fancied she fell against the side, and over‐balanced herself. The Coroner: ‐It was a most dangerous thing for her to do. Did you give her any caution? — Witness: No, sir, but as a rule she was very timid and afraid in a boat, although she loved to be on the water. Continuing, witness said his wife went under water immediately, and he at once threw off his coat and cap and plunged in where he stood. He did not know at the time it was such a deep place where they had landed. His wife did not call out. He jumped into the water thinking it was shallow, and when he rose to the surface he found the boat bad drifted endways into the bank, right between him and his wife. By the time he swam round it he could just see the top of his wife's head above the surface about ten yards further down the river. Before he could reach her she sank, and he never saw her again. He dived down as deep as he could twice, but could not find the body. There was no one else in the immediate neighbourhood though two boats bad passed two or three minutes before. He ran along the bank and called three young gentlemen to his assistance. They then searched for the body together, but without avail, and he eventually went down to the Ferry and reported what had happened: In answer to the Coroner, the witness added that he had not seen his wife's body since it had been recovered. He returned to Liverpool the same night.
Sergeant Martin explained that during the dragging operations he persuaded the witness to change his clothes and take some stimulants. In the meantime the body was found, and taken to the Stud farm. The Coroner (to witness). When you hired the boat, you received no intimation as to its being sufficient for you and your wife, or sufficient to hold three or four? — No. Nothing was said to you? — No, but I never hire a boat from anyone else but Messrs. Cook and Arthur, and I had frequently had the same boat out before. The Coroner: I think it is a rule for persons hiring boats to be asked whether they desire a man or otherwise. Mr. Cook, who was present, pointed out that they knew Mr. Wells as a customer. The Coroner: Then as matter of you would consider him quite competent to manage a boat like that? — Mr. Cooke: Yes. Without calling any further evidence, the Coroner said the case had been very clearly stated, and there could be no doubt it was a case of accidental drowning. He must say that what the young woman did was in the highest degree imprudent on her part. There was no doubt whatever she attempted a most dangerous thing. The least thing in the world would upset a boat of that size. The man had scarcely time to see what was the actual cause of the mischief before his wife sank, and there was no doubt he used every possible effort to save her life. He dived after her, and did everything he was capable of doing, but his efforts were unsuccessful, and the poor girl was lost. They all regretted it, and deeply sympathised with him in his sad loss. (Hear, hear.) The jury, who agreed that no further evidence was necessary to enable them to come to a decision, returned a verdict of "Accidentally drowned."
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 28 September 1895
TBIBUTE TO A POLICE OFFICER.
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Sir,
One of the most serious "drunk and disorderly" cases was dealt with at the Castle, Chester, on Saturday last, and, with your permission, a number of residents would like to place on record the ability and kindness manifested by P.C. Radcliffe, who is a new comer in this district. Although surrounded by some five women and the male prisoner during which his face was injured and his lantern smashed , the kindness which marked his actions, and the tact displayed under such trying circumstances, were highly commendable, and stamp this young constable as a credit to our constabulary.
Thanking you in anticipation, yours, etc, A Resident. EUesmere Port, Sept. 23rd, 1895.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 12 October 1895
CHESTER QUARTER SESSIONS. The City Quarter Sessions were held at the Town Hall on Thursday, before the Recorder (His Honour Sir Horatio Lloyd), Mr. John Thompson, and the Sheriff (Mr. John Jones.) the charge.
THE ALLEGED ROBEERIES FROM A PUBLIC‐HOUSE. Frederick Lee (55), labourer and Army pensioner, pleaded "not guilty" to stealing a bottle of brandy, the property of Henry E. Ostle, and one suit of clothes and a silver chain, the property of Robert Roberts, at Chester, on June 26th and 27th last. — Mr. S. Moss, for the prosecution, stated that Robert Roberts was a commercial traveller, and resided at the time of the robbery at the Four‐in‐Hand public‐house, City‐road. On the evening of the 26th June he went to bed at about eleven o'clock and left his clothes hanging up in the passage leading to his bedroom. He left his silver watch and chain in his bedroom, but the door was not locked. In the morning he missed the clothes, and on going downstairs to inform the landlady, he saw prisoner leaving the house dressed in the missing suit. He followed him to Dutton's pawnshop in Foregate‐street, and, while he was in the act of offering the vest, charged him with stealing the clothes. Prisoner asked Roberts if he would look it over, and offered him a bottle of brandy, which prosecutor declined, and then sent for a policeman. Prosecutor, Mrs. Musgrave, formerly landlady of the Four‐in‐Hand, and P.C. George Wakelin gave evidence, and prisoner, in his defence, asked the jury not to convict him. He had been in the Army, had served in India, China, Abyssinia, and while in the East for 16 years had had sunstroke. He was now a pensioner, and should he be convicted he would lose pension, friends, and character. He was 55 years of age, and had been waiting 105 days for his trial. His Honour said it was a lamentable thing that a man and a pensioner who had served in the Queen's Army, and who had perhaps been discharged with credit to himself, should so much forget himself as to become a thief. The case was a pretty clear one. The jury adjourned to the retiring room to consider their verdict. After a long deliberation, the Foreman (Mr. B. Pearson) said they had come to the conclusion that prisoner took the clothes not with the intent of stealing them. They therefore gave him the benefit of the doubt in that case. — A fresh jury was empanelled, and Lee was charged with the theft of the bottle of brandy. — Mr. Moss said on June 26th Miss Ostle, the sister of the licence‐holder of the Yacht Inn, missed a bottle of brandy from the bar. When the bottle was found in prisoner's possession he said he had bought it. — The jury found the prisoner " Not guilty," and he was discharged with a warning from the judge.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 14 September 1895
TERRIBLE TRAGEDY IN THE DEE.
A YOUNG WOMAN DROWNED. EXTRAORDINARY STORY BY A MARRIED MAN.
On Saturday morning the Chester public were startled by the news of one of the most sensational tragedies that have occurred in the city for some years. The only witness of it seems to have been a man named Thomas Henry Griffiths, residing in Love‐street, who had an extraordinary story to communicate to the police.
On Friday night he appears to have met by appointment at the Watergate a young woman named Edith Mary Small, living at 20, Crane‐street. Despite the inclement weather (rain having fallen continuously during the evening) the couple proceeded on to the Cop, where a quarrel ensued, and the girl, who was of a passionate temper rushed into the river. Griffiths followed her, and she clung to him, but feeling himself overtaxed, and as she had slipped from him, he came back to the bank. He then made his way to Sealand‐road, where he was seen knocking at a door, and, on being questioned, stated that a young woman had been drowned on the Cop.
About the same time a boy named Walter Henry Griffiths, of Catherine‐Street, Chester, met Detective Crewe, and informed him of the sad occurrence. Crewe and P.C. Griffiths at once went to the scene of the tragedy, where they found two umbrellas, and a lady's hat and gloves. Dragging operations were at once commenced by the officers, and continued until after midnight, but without avail. The river was again dragged on Saturday, and shortly after twelve o'clock the body which had drifted about 100 yards from the spot indicated, was recovered by a man named Thomas Woodward, and conveyed to the mortuary.
Great public excitement was caused by the tragic news in Chester, and large numbers of people visited the scene of the occurrence. Griffiths is a married man with two children, while Miss Small is the daughter of Mr. James Small, and will be remembered as the young woman who had a narrow escape from drowning in the Dee some time ago through being upset by a steamer. It is reported that she had threatened to drown herself if Griffiths threw her over, and that her box was found packed ready for leaving Chester.
EVIDENCE OF THE DECEASED'S BEOTHER. A POST‐MORTEM ORDERED.
Mr. E. Brassey, city coroner, opened the inquest at the Bull and Stirrup Hotel on Saturday evening. Thomas Henry Griffiths was present. — The Coroner, in opening the inquiry, said although he had summoned the jury early there would have to be an adjournment. The report to the police stated that on Friday night about nine o'clock deceased was met by Mr. T. H. Griffiths, and they went to the river side in Sealand‐road. They had some words on the way, and when they got to the river‐side she said "Goodbye, I shall be gone for ever in a few minutes." She ran and jumped into the river and was drowned. At the present time there was no evidence other then Griffiths' of material value upon that point. He thought it best to take the jury's opinion first as to whether it might not be advisable to have an inspection of the body. A cursory examination had been made as to the marks of violence. He suggested it would be better to have an adjournment and; a post‐mortem examination.
The jury having viewed the body, Trevor Montgomery Small, 20, Crane‐street, cotton brokers' assistant, stated that deceased, who was his sister, was single, and was employed in a drapery establishment in Manchester. She was living temporarily at Chester, being here partly on her holidays and partly for a rest, and was to have returned to Manchester on Monday last. She was staying at witness' house, and had been over about four weeks. She was previously in Chester at the beginning of the year, from January until the end of February, but from that time until July she was at Manchester. Last year deceased was engaged at a shop in Eastgate‐row, and lived at home. Mr. Griffiths was not on terms of acquaintance with witness' family. As far as he was aware, Griffiths knew no one in the family except Edith and himself. He did not visit their house at all. Witness did not know there was any particular acquaintance between deceased and Griffiths until Friday night. On Friday night at ten o'clock he was sitting reading in his house when a knock came to the door, and his youngest brother, Norman, on going to see what was the matter, found two men and Mr. Griffiths standing outside. Some one said that his (witness's) sister was drowned, and he immediately went to the door. He asked "What is this extraordinary tale?" and Griffiths replied "Your sister is drowned; it is quite true. I wish I had been drowned instead of her." Witness said "Are you quite sure? You are making a mistake." Griffiths then handed witness Miss Small's umbrella and he took it in to his mother, who recognised it. Griffiths, as soon as he saw witness, said "Oh, there is Trevor, let me speak to him." Witness turned to the men, and again asked them if they were not making a mistake, adding "Mr. Griffiths is a married man, and has two children; he could not have been down at the river side with my sister." Griffiths then made a rambling statement to the effect that he had been for a walk with his sister, that she had got drowned, and that he wished he had been drowned instead of her. Witness sent the men away, and afterwards went along Crane‐street with Griffiths to the latter's home. On the way Griffiths gave witness an account of the accident. It was a very rambling one. He said he had known witness' sister for the last six months. They had been going together and corresponding with each other. On Friday night Griffiths said he received a letter from her asking him to see her under the Watergate at eight o'clock. He met her at nine o'clock and they walked towards the Cop. On the Cop they had a quarrel, and then she ran away from him while he was on the ground. He got up, rushed into the river after her, and got hold of her, but he was unable to do any more for her, and had to save himself. Witness' sister could not swim. A Juror: Have you any recollection of what kind of evening it was? — lt was very wet at the time, raining continuously from a quarter to nine. It was raining as we walked along to Griffiths' home. Witness observed Griffiths' clothes when he spoke to him in Crane‐street. He was wet, and his shirt front was crumpled up. The Coroner (to witness): It is a painful thing to ask you, Mr. Small, but was your sister a girl of hasty temper? — Yes, very hasty temper. Have you known her to have ungovernable impulses? — Yes. Did you ever know them to take the form of threatening to destroy herself? — No, never. A Juror: Was Mr. Griffiths lying down? — It was a peculiar statement. I said to Griffiths, "It was a very wet night, what were you doing?" but Griffiths replied, "I do not know." Did he tell you whether she jumped into the water? — He said she simply ran away from him, and the next thing he heard was the splash. At that time, I take it, he was lying on the grass, but Griffiths said, in the presence of Detective‐Inspector Gallagher, that when she ran away he fell in a swoon, and that he immediately recovered himself when he heard the splash. What state was he in? — I shook him by the arm, and asked him if he had been drinking. There was not the slightest sign of his having been in drink. Do you think he had been in the water? — l should say he had. I rather doubt that he was lying on the grass, because his clothes were so free from mud. He was in a very wet state: still there was no mud on his clothes. His hat had not been in the water. His boots were wet inside and out. There was no mud on his boots, as far as I could see. It was two hours before tide time. Mr. Brassey: Did Griffiths say anything to indicate the spot? — No, he spoke in such a rambling way. A Juror: Were there any marks on his face or were his clothes torn? — No. What kind of temper was he in? — He spoke in a very incoherent way, and he was quite beside himself with shock and excitement. Did there seem to have been any struggle about the spot when you visited it? — There was such a heavy rain through the night that it would wash away any marks. The Coroner: If you saw the spot, perhaps you can indicate where about it is? — It is that small field — the entrance to the Cop, There are some posts on which you can sit near Mr. Cowap's stables ; about 40 yards from the Cheese Stage.
George Harrison, police surgeon, saw deceased that evening. There were no marks of violence upon the body with the exception of a cut upon the right cheek caused by the drag. The Coroner (to the jury): Dr. Harrison cannot say any more. Mr. Henshaw (one of the jury) asked whether the lacerated wound was caused by the drag or any other instrument. Dr. Harrison: It was undoubtedly caused by the drag.
The Coroner said the question of motive went so far in this case that he thought they should have a further examination of the body. After due consideration it was decided to have another examination, and the inquest was adjourned for that purpose. The Coroner said further enquiries would have to be made by the police. If publicity was given to the present facts, no doubt it would be of some benefit to the friends of the deceased girl and to Mr. Griffiths. There possibly might have been some people in the neighbourhood at the time, who would have heard the screams, if there were any.
FUNERAL OF THE VICTIM. The remains of Miss Small were interred at Chester General Cemetery on Monday afternoon, when a number of deceased's relatives and friends followed the coffin to the grave. There was also a large gathering of the public to witness the ceremony.
THE ADJOURNED INQUEST.
GRIFFITHS IN THE WITNESS BOX. SENSATIONAL DISCLOSURES.

The extraordinary tragedy of Friday last has been throughout the past week the leading topic of public conversation, and the fresh light that was expected to be thrown on the affair at the adjourned inquest has been awaited with the utmost eagerness. Originally the inquiry was adjourned until Thursday afternoon, at the Town Hall, in order to give the police an opportunity of making a full investigation into the circumstances of the case, but, owing to a pressing engagement on the part of the coroner, another postponement was necessitated until yesterday (Friday) afternoon. The proceedings were timed to commence at four o'clock, but long before that hour the Police Court was crowded with the general public, anxious to follow Griffith’s remarkable story as it fell from his own lips.
Before the Coroner put in an appearance, Griffiths arrived, accompanied by his solicitor, Mr. E. S. Giles. The Chief Constable was also present.
Mr. SMALL RE‐CALLED. The Coroner at the outset said he should like to recall Trevor Small, the brother of the deceased. Mr. Giles said he appeared on behalf of Thomas Henry Griffiths, who, as they were aware, was deeply concerned in this matter, and he was desired to say that at an early opportunity Griffiths would like to state what he had to say to the jury himself. The Coroner asked Mr. Small whether he was at home on the Saturday morning after his sister's death. — Witness: Yes. Did Mr. Griffiths call at the house? — He did. I was not present, but I learned that there had been a very painful scene between Mr. Griffiths, his wife, and my mother. They particularly requested that the letters found in my sister's drawer should be burnt. Did you ascertain what was done? — All the letters were destroyed. What letters? — The letters written by him to her up to the day she left Manchester. You ascertained that he called for some letters?
— Yes. Did you know where those letters were? — Yes, they were in my sister's drawer; I read them that morning. Had you gone over your sister's effects, or did you know the contents of those letters? — l knew the contents to a great extent. I read 25 of them. There might have been 30 or 35, together with telegrams. Can you give us any idea over what dates they extended? — I did not look particularly at the dates. How were they signed? — They were all signed “Tom." They were all full of love and affection for my sister. Who was it drew your attention to these particular letters? — I did not go to bed that night till two o'clock. I did not sleep all night. I got up at half‐past six, and went to my sister's room with the idea of looking over some of her things, and the letters were the first thing that drew my attention. Were there other letters? — Yes, there were other letters from friends, including Miss Tomlin, who I knew was an old friend of my sister's. Was your sister FOND OF ATTENTION? EXAMINATION BY M B. GILES, She was. Did she receive a good deal of attention? — I can hardly say that. I do not know. You know she was fond of attention? — I know she was fond of it; She was a very romantic girl. Do you know she was fond of admiration? — She was. In the letters from Miss Tomlin, did you find any romance of any kind? — No. Did you find any letters from a Miss New? — No. Has she ever told you any romantic stories? — No, never. And you did not know what was going on between your sister and this young man? — l had not the slightest idea. You have already told the jury she was of hasty temper and rather excitable? — Yes. Had she been in good health up to this time? —Yes, and in regular employment up to the time she left Manchester in the middle of July. She came home for a rest and a holiday. She was to have returned to her employment last Monday. Did the fact of her being out of employment prey on her mind? — No, not in the slightest. Was she anxious to help at all to the house‐hold expenses? — No, not to any great extent. She had never been asked to contribute. Was she anxious at all events to relieve the household from the expense of maintaining her? She may have been. She was tired of Chester, tired of being at home, and tired of doing nothing. The Coroner: Were your sister's things packed up to go? — Yes, she was employed the whole of that day packing up her things to go to Manchester on Monday. Mr. Giles: Did you find any small presents among her things? — Yes. Were there many or few? — There was a cut glass scent bottle which I had never seen before. The Coroner. ‐Was she returning to her old situation? — She was. By a Juror: My sister COULD NOT BWIM. She did not save her life by swimming. She was run down by a steamer on the river, and picked up by a passenger on board. I think Mr. Griffiths had a particular reason for not letting anyone know the contents of the letters; he was certainly the cause of the letters being burnt. I omitted to make one statement on Saturday night, and that was to the effect that when I went home with Mr. Griffiths, he particularly asked me to get hold of these letters and destroy them. He did not tell me why, and I did not ask him. The Coroner: Did he describe the letters at all? — No, he did not.
The Rev. A. H. Grey Edwards said on Friday night he was going down Crane‐street, over the canal, to Sealand ‐road, which he reached before ten o'clock. He met two persons, a lady and a gentleman, who were standing at the corner of a street. Witness shortly afterwards heard someone following him, and a woman ran past him on to the bridge, where the man caught her up. He saw them afterwards walk along the Cop. The night‐was a very nasty one, being dark and wet.
Thomas Woodward, Greenway‐street, said he found the body on the Saltney side, just by the locks, a little higher up than the Cop Field. The mark on the body would have been caused by the drag.
Thomas Davenport said he was opposite the Cop House with some friends about ten o'clock. They heard a knocking, and one of witness' companions shouted "Halloo, there." The answer was to the effect that there was a lady drowning. Griffiths then showed them the place, which was by the Cheese stage. Witness could see nothing. Griffiths told them the woman had jumped in. Griffith’s trousers were wet, as though he had been in the river, but his coat was only as wet as the rain would make it. The river was low at the time, and it was possible that he could go in and only get wet up to the middle. They found Griffith’s hat, and afterwards two umbrellas and a lady's glove. The umbrellas would be about six yards from the river‐side. Cross‐examined by Mr. Giles, witness said the hat was found about eight yards from the edge of the water and the other articles further away. The companion of witness had hold of Griffith’s arms with the intention of taking him to the police station, but he broke loose when he saw the glove. By a Juror: Were the umbrellas shut when found? Yes. — Was his clothing disarranged? Yes, his collar and tie appeared to have been dragged out. — Another juryman: Would not there have been mud on Griffith’s boots if he had been in the rive? Yes. — Did you see any on Griffith’s boots? No. By another Juror: They saw no marks of a struggle, and Griffiths did not say they had been lying down. By the Coroner: It was impossible to jump from the bank into the water. A Juror: It would not be six inches of a jump into the water. I know the place well The Coroner: Did you go down to the edge of the water? — No. Nor Griffiths? — No, not then. You simply stood on the top of the bank? — Yes, and he pointed out the spot. We could not see any footprints in the mud. Griffiths pleaded so hard that we took him to Mr. Small's house, or we should have brought him to the Police station. He wanted to go to her friends to break the news to them. We went with him.
Thomas Henry Griffiths then stepped into the witness‐box, Mr. Giles interposed that Griffiths saw him he previous day, and made a statement which he had taken down in writing and copied. It might save time if the Coroner read it to the Jury. The Coroner after perusing the document said he was afraid it would be out of the usual course to read it without first asking Griffiths a number of preliminary questions. Mr. Giles: I only thought it might be of assistance. The Coroner, addressing Griffiths, said: Before you are sworn it is my duty to inform you that if you are sworn you will tell the whole truth. You understand that? — Yes. You have, of course, the option of being sworn. I should not have called you except with your option and the advice of your solicitor. You understand that? — Yes. Mr. Griffiths, proceeding with his evidence, said: I reside at 3, Love‐street, Chester, and I am an accountant's clerk. I am married, and have two children, and I have known Miss Small about fifteen months. I have been corresponding with her about twelve months. I signed my letters "Tom." The letter produced I received from Miss Small on Friday night, about nine o'clock. It was addressed to my office. The Coroner said it was rather hard to decipher the letter, as it was wet. It was as follows: — “Crane‐street, Friday morning. My own ever dearest Tom,— l am very sorry I shall be unable to see you on Saturday, owing to Arthur leaving town for Chester tomorrow afternoon instead of the Sunday, as first arranged. If you can, without giving any one pain, come down here this (Friday) evening at eight o'clock, I will come out to you for a short time. Failing this, I don't know that it will be possible for me to see you again before I leave, or if it will be possible at all, but perhaps things may turn out better than I anticipate, and I may then be able to give you an hour on Sunday. I do hope you did not allow my unkindness to you to worry you after you left me yesterday, as I told you I could not account for my mood at the time, unless it is that you, as well as the rest of the world, have spoiled me, and the painful experience of a reverse of your usual loving tenderness cuts me to the heart, and forces me to a frame of mind I would never know.— (Here there were three words the Coroner was unable to decipher)— and as I was not well. After I reached home last night, I could not sleep although I was tired. And now I feel done up, and perhaps I deserve to be so. Good‐bye, your loving —." The Coroner: This is A LOVE LETTEB. How long had you been on these terms with Miss Small? — lt came on gradually when we first knew one another. How did you first know one another? — We met in Queen's Park by accident. The lady dropped her glove. I picked it up and gave it to her. She said she knew me, but I did not know her then. How long ago would that be? — Twelve months this last summer— about fifteen months, I think. She said she knew you? — She said she thought I was my brother who kept a shop in Foregate‐street. From that time your acquaintance ripened? We met one another casually after that for a little while. Were you improperly intimate with her? — Not immorally. Tell us how often these meetings were? — Sometimes we did not see each other for a week, and sometimes we saw each other once or twice a day. Where did the meetings take place? — Usually in Queen's Park and at the Water‐gate. What time in the day was it as a rule? — In the evening. Where did you go? — Generally for walks. If we met in Queen's Park, we went in Queen's Park; if we met at the Watergate, we went through Eaton Park, and came back along Eaton‐road. And this went on till she went to Manchester? — Yes. When she went to Manchester, did you write to her? — Yes. Did you go over to see her? — I have seen her twice in Manchester. On one occasion I went over specially to see her. Have you any of her letters? — No. What has become of them? I destroyed most of them on Saturday morning last; I had destroyed some of them previously. Where did you keep them? — I kept some of them at home. Locked up or open? — Some of the recent letters were in my pocket. Now tell the jury why, if you were not improperly intimate with this girl, you were walking out with her in this fashion? — Because I enjoyed her company. I was fond of her company. BECAUSE SHE WAS SO VIVACIOUS, and had such splendid conversational powers, and always something interesting to talk about. Did you take her to your house at all? — No sir. Did you never make love to this girl? — No, sir. She always knew that I was married from the first time we met. You never did? — No. I am afraid that does not answer my question. You say you never made love to her. How did you address her in your letters? In an affectionate — in various ways according to mood, I suppose. Well, you know; I do not. Did you address her in similar terms to what she addressed you —"My own ever dearest Tom?”— Not so much of that. But how much of it? — I called her ‐dearest" and "darling,’ and sometimes I put in the word "own." How did she know you were a married man? —I picked up the glove, and gave it to her, and the thanked me for it. She then asked me if I was going in her direction, and I said " Yes, but I don't know whether you would care to walk with a married man." She said she knew my name, Griffiths, but thought I was the one that kept the shop in Foregate‐street. If you were not making love to her, I cannot understand why you should write to her as "my dearest," "my darling," and "my own?” —It might have been a very injudicious thing. Do you write to other ladies in this way 9 — No, sir. This was the only one? — Yes. Since she returned from Manchester I have seen her in the evening about twice a week, or oftener. We have been along the river‐side several times. What time in the evening did these walks commence? — About haIf ‐past seven. What time did they end? — About half‐past eight or nine o'clock. You say this girl knew you were A MARRIED MAN? Yes. The Coroner: I have received a letter from a friend of the deceased. She says that this girl wrote to her about 18 months ago, to the effect that " At first he passed himself for some time as a single man, and when she learned to like him he told her it must end, as be was married." Is that true? — No sir; l am positive it is not. The Coroner: The letter goes on— " It was then she wanted me to advise her and to write to her I begged of her to tell her brothers and allow them to settle the matter, and to tell him he was not to see her any more," and that you became worse, and followed her whether she would see you or not. Is that true? — No sir. When you got your last letter you went to meet her '—Yes. What was the meaning of the passage "that you, as well as the rest of the world, have spoiled me?"— I suppose it was because of the friendship that existed between us. But friendship does not spoil anyone like that. Do you really wish the Jury to believe that that expression in the letter meant your friendship simply? — Yes. What does she mean by ‐the painful experience of a reverse of your usual loving attention? It means that on the previous occasion I saw her we were very friendly. On the last occasion I met her I had occasion to rebuke her for telling me an untruth. She told me she had been to Wrexham and had seen a certain person and she had not.” I do not understand that if you were not her lover why this should concern you '—The friendship was so great that‐The Coroner. That you could not bear her to walk out with anyone else? — No sir, she told me of other individuals she had walked out you rebuke her for meeting this other person? — No, the other person was a lady If she was so great a friend of yours, why did not you not INTRODUCE HEB TO YOUR WIFE? She did not want to be introduced to my wife. Why? — Because we knew we were acting judiciously and indiscreetly. She knew our friendship was an injudicious one. You would have put it on a better footing if you had introduced her to your wife‐We wanted to walk outside. I was inattentive to my wife for the purpose o£ going with the other lady. Did not that reverse of your love and tenderness mean something to do with an impending trouble?
— No, sir. I swear it on oath that I did not know she had any trouble, only the trouble of going away. On the night you met Miss Small you were late? — Yes. My wife was ill, and I could not get there earlier. My wife knew I was inattentive to her. She knew you were out at nights? — Yes. Did you tell Miss Small anything else? — I told her we must not meet or correspond again. Was that the first time you broke it to her? No, sir, it was not the first time. When was the first time? — I told her three or four times. The last time was the fortnight previously. I told her that we must part, and I that my wife was unwell because of my inattention. Miss Small told me she would go [away] She was troubled about returning" to Manchester, and she told me if I did not write to her it would make it worse. I told her again I wished it all to end She replied “Well, we must say good‐bye." I said "Yes." She asked me to go a little way with her in the direction of Sealand‐road. We walked along as far as the slate‐yard, when I asked her to turn back, as it was time for me to go home. We turned back, and when we got into New Crane‐street, between the railway bridge and the Watergate, she turned to me, and asked me to say "Goodbye," as she was going. I asked her which way she was going home, as there were then two ways to go home equally near. She said she was not going home, said “Good‐bye," and walked off. I stood there and watched her go as far as the turn to her own home. She did not take that and went straight on. Then I followed her. She ran, and I ran, keeping just about the same distance behind her. She was then nearing the locks, and I ran quickly to over‐take her. Well, after overtaking her, what did you do? — We went into the field, and on the bank she turned to me suddenly and told me to say "Goodbye”; She would be GONE FOR EVER in a few minutes. She looked wild and excited. I felt dazed and fell over. The next thing I heard was a splash in the river. I got up at once, and went in after her. I swam up to her. The current, was taking her in the direction of the Cheese stage. I caught I hold of her, and tried to tread water, but I could not, and had to loose my hold! Then I felt her clutching me. I swam to the side, but I could not tell whether she was clinging to me, or whether it was the weight of my wet clothes. When I got to the side I caught hold of a stone, and felt if she had hold of my coat. We were not sitting down in the field that night; Mr. Small says you told him you quarrelled.
Is that all? — What I referred to was that we had agreed not to correspond. Did you say "she ran away and I was on the ground?" — I should have related it to him. I have related it to you as soon as I could I remember. I don't understand about the dazed condition. Are you subject to fainting fits? — No. What dazed you? — The shock, when she turned round in such an excited manner, and said "Good‐bye." She had not said any thing to me about being in trouble. Did she or did not threaten to drown herself on that account? — No, sir. Are the jury to understand that this girl drowned herself because you were breaking off the acquaintance, the friendship? — She was troubled because she was going back to Manchester and had quarrelled with her mother, and she cried about it. Do you think the breaking off of the acquaintance had partly to do with it? — Yes, but she was depressed and troubled before about going back to Manchester without having a situation. I am bound to put you this question for the last time; you must bear in mind that there has been a post‐mortem examination. You want the jury to understand that you were never improperly intimate with her? — Yes sir. She did not tell you she was in trouble? — No sir. I always treated her as a pure girl. She did not threaten to make away with herself on that account? — No sir. I went to Mrs. Small's house next morning with my sister and my wife. I was not on visiting terms with Mrs. Small, and it was simply a visit of condolence. My object was not to procure my letters. The letters were mentioned by Mrs. Small. She said "There are lots of letters," and I said, "Yes, and I would like them destroyed." Mrs. Small gave me the letters. She said, there were a lot, and she believed most of them were mine. She asked that none of them should be seen. I said I would like to destroy them there if she would let me, so she said "Well, put them in the kitchen fire." I took them and destroyed them. Did it not strike you that you were doing a very improper thing? — No, sir. Was not your object in destroying these letters to CONCEAL THE INTIMACY you had with this girl? — The letters were affectionate; there was nothing else in them. It that was not the object, what was the object? — Because, being a married man, I did not wish affectionate letters to somebody else to be seen. Were the letters so affectionate that people would draw a conclusion of undue intimacy? No, sir; not in the least whatever. A Juror: Did you get much wet? — I did not notice. What time did you receive the last letter? — About nine o'clock from the Post Office. A clerk was working late, and the office was open at nine o'clock. Did you quarrel on the Cop? — No. Was your front crumpled? — lt was wet. I had been in the river. What distance did you walk across the grass after getting out of the river? — I walked across the field in my wet clothes to Cop House, but no one responded. Do you know that a man of your size can walk across the river at that point when the tide is out? — I could not bottom it— l had to swim. When did you tell your wife? — After I had been to Small's house, the same night. Mr. Giles‐About the slush on your boots. How long were you in the water, as far as your recollection goes? — l was in the water for about a minute or two. We were on terms of affection, and at Christmas I made her a present of the scent bottle to which Mr. Small has referred. As the acquaintance ripened I found my wife became uncomfortable about my absence in the evenings, and I mentioned this to Miss Small with a view to breaking off our friendship. When you refused to write to her, she became excited? — Yes, she was an excitable girl. Was she romantic? — She had a very eventful life, and had always something unusual to relate. The reason why I did not tell my wife was because I was ashamed It was clandestine, and of an affectionate nature.
Dr. Geo, Harrison said: I inspected the body of the deceased on the 7th September. I found that the cause of death was drowning. On making a post mortem examination I found that the deceased was pregnant. She must undoubtedly have known her condition when she met Griffiths on Friday evening.
After other evidence, the Coroner, in summing up, said the jury were acting as a criminal court only, and had nothing to do with any civil or moral obligations. It was their duty, in approaching this case, to ask themselves was Miss Small pushed into the water by Mr. Griffiths, or was she frightened into it by any outward and visible signs of violence on his part. If they were in doubt as to how she came into the water, they could return an open verdict, or, if they accepted Griffith’s s story, it would then be their duty, bearing in mind what her brother said about her frame of mind, to return a verdict of suicide while of unsound mind. Griffiths would have them believe that he had no improper intercourse with the girl, but the evidence of Dr. Harrison settled that point, and it would be for the jury to consider whether or not that was the cause of her trouble. The question was whether the probabilities were not that the girl told him at that interview of the trouble she was in or whether they believed Griffiths one that point. One could hardly understand a girl who was on such terms of friendship with him as he described casting herself into the water because he was going to have nothing more to do with her. It was a very important point that Mr. Griffiths went to the house of the girl's relations at once and raised the alarm. If he had thrown her into the water, it would seem to one that the temptation would have been to have gone quietly away and not said a word. It required a great amount of moral courage to go to the house.
THE VERDICT. The jury retired to consider their decision at a quarter to seven, and returned with an open verdict of "Found drowned," stating that there was not sufficient evidence to show how deceased got into the river.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 26 October 1895
AN OLD CHESHIRE CONSTABLE. SKETCH OF HIS CAREER.
The mortal remains of Mr. Arthur Gunning, of Little Neston, a retired member of the Cheshire Constabulary, who died on Saturday in his 78th year, were laid to rest in Neston Parish Churchyard on Wednesday afternoon. As will be seen by the subjoined sketch, the deceased was a very interesting character, and there was a large attendance at the funeral. The remains were enclosed in a casket of polished oak with brass mountings, surmounted by floral tributes, and the local police officers, Sergt. Wilson, and Constables J. Dutton, J. Dawson, and G. Rowlands, attended in uniform and acted as bearers, the body being conveyed from the residence to Neston in a hearse.
The route lay through Millock‐Lane, Bushell‐road, and Hinderton‐road, and owing to the presence of the officers the cortège attracted much attention.
The service at the church was read by the vicar (the Rev. Canon Turner) Among those present were Mr. Alexander Arthur Gunning (son), Henry Gunning (brother), Inspector William Gunning (nephew), Arthur, Alice, Elizabeth, and Nellie Gunning (grandchildren), William Gunning (cousin), Mr. Garrett (brother‐in‐law), Mrs. Garrett, Mrs. Hill, Messrs. J. Parry, S. Scarratt, S. Mealor, J. Mealor, W. Lea, J. Warren, W Mealor, R. Ostle, T. Norman, G. Hunter, J Evans, H. Norman, J. Royden, W. Woodfine Dr. Riddock, &c.
The deceased was an interesting link with the past. In his youth he served an apprentice‐ship to gardening at the gardens attached to Trinity College, Dublin, and though thoroughly proficient in the industry which dates back to the time " when Adam delved and Eve span," he forsook it to join the Cheshire constabulary, over half a century ago. After doing several years' duty at Birkenhead and New Brighton, he was removed over forty years ago to Little Neston. where he remained until his death, by which time the little ivy clad cottage in the centre of the village with its strip of gay garden and its venerable occupant, had become quite a local institution.
When he first came to the district the Neston Police Station was a quaint stuccoed building of one storey, standing in a garden and fenced off from the road with white palings. It was hemmed about with picturesque thatched houses, and bore in local phraseology the name of its humble predecessor the " Round House," which formerly stood opposite the end of the Station‐road, while the older inhabitants still spoke familiarly of the old parish stocks which stood by the church gates, and wherein merrymaking Nestonians sat looking at their uptilted toes, and buried in astonished reflections of their sins of the previous evening. It (the police station) had recently usurped the principal room of the Golden Lion as a hall of justice, and "drunks " were no longer hailed off to his Worship's private residence to be tried. The ponderous iron doors of the cells were not easily opened and closed, and there were grim looking and suggestive iron rings in the walls and floor. Park Gate, with its custom house and sturdy coastguardsmen, still affected a certain amount of contempt in referring to its bloated rival on the Mersey.
Big fights regularly took place in Neston between "the English and the Irish," the offenders incurring penalties of as much as £5 or "two months' hard." The Neston police district then extended several miles further in each direction than several of the present sections combined, and if the force was not on such a military footing as now, there were troubles in the form of gipsies, poachers, and other accompaniments of "truly rural" life such as do not come within the ken of the present local preservers of the peace, who book the convicted prisoner by train, instead of taking a four mile walk with him to Hooton Station, and having occasionally a rough time with him on the way. . Mr. Gunning followed close on the heels of the old parish constables, who are still held in remembrance in Little Neston, and their staff with the lion and unicorn on the tip, which was formerly presented at the nose of an inebriate, with the words " Come on here, my mon," is still occasionally referred to. Like the old constables, he wore plain clothes, and it must have been a noteworthy day in the annals of Little Neston when young " Peeler " Gunning (so termed after Sir Robert Feel, as everyone knows) first donned the glittering buttons, which were destined to overawe successive generations of evildoers. None of tbe local magistrates of that day exist, though in several instances their places are worthily filled by their sons, and nearly all, if not all, of Constable Gunning's comrades have "gone before."
Though always at the post of duty, intelligent and strictly temperate, and punctual in his habits throughout his 33 years of service, none of the successive "chiefs" under whom he served, saw fit to bid him "come up higher" nor did he seek promotion. Like Gold‐smith's ideal clergyman in the "Deserted village," he never wished to "change his place," but was content to live and die among those with whom his lot had been cast. If a villager was locked up, it was because be persisted in his evil courses after repeated cautions, and kindly advice from the local representative of the law, but when thoroughly roused, the peacemaker had a grip that few men could resist. He held office during visitations the like of which it is to be hoped will not be experienced by the present generation. "One of these was the cattle plague, and the other the Asiatic cholera, both of which were exceptionally severe here. The latter swept away forty Protestants alone in a month, and this in an isolated country district where everyone was well known.
With these matters the local police officers had much to do, and they freely shared the risk with tbe two most prominent local heroes of the time, the Rev. Canon Gleadowe and the late Dr. Russell. Mr. Gunning was a staunch Conservative, and as a low Churchman he was strongly opposed to innovations in the services at the parish church. He objected, along with many others, to the surplicing of the choir, on the ground that though harmless in itself it opened the way for more objectionable practices. These predictions were ridiculed by the surplice party. After their introduction he quietly entered a protest by leaving tbe church at which he had been a regular worshipper, though be still attended the Ness Holt services. After about 33 years service of which over a quarter of a century was spent at Little Neston, he retired on a pension and his neighbours shewed their appreciation of his services by giving him a purse of gold. Shortly afterwards the inhabitants elected him assistant overseer of the township and he filled this office too with marked ability for several years, until his fading health
compelled him to resign. A more conscientious and upright official the district never knew. He was a sincere Christian, and was, in the best sense of the word, a gentle man.
Cheshire Observer
Saturday 14 September 1895
FRODSHAM
Alleged Fowl Stealing
On Wednesday, at Runcorn Police Court, a young man named Alexander Jackson, of Frodsham, was charged with stealing a cockerel and two pullets, the property of Hannah Bates, of the Field Farm, Sutton, on the night of the 8th inst. Prisoner was met by Police‐constable Price on the Chester main road, near Frodsham, shortly after one o'clock on the morning of the 9th. He was carrying a fowl under his arm, and the constable not being satisfied with prisoner's explanation as to how he came into possession of the fowl, Jackson was taken to the Frodsham Police Station, and here two more fowls were found concealed under his shirt. The three birds were warm, having been recently killed. Inquiries resulted in the discovery that the fowls were from Mrs. Bates's farm. The prisoner was sent for trial at the Quarter Sessions. There was a second charge against prisoner of stealing three hens from Sutton Hall Farm, Sutton, the property of William Lowe, also on Sunday night, but this was dis‐missed. Bail was refused.
Cheshire Observer
Saturday 19 October 1895
VIOLENT SCENE AT MICKLE TRAFFORD
BITING A POLICE CONSTABLE.
At the County Police Court, on Saturday before Messrs. J. Thompson and J. Pover three young Irishmen named Thomas Mason Jas Gannon, and Patrick Durkin, were charged with being drunk and disorderly and refusing to quit the premises of the Shrewsbury Arms Bridge Trafford, near Chester, on Saturday night. Mason was also charged with assaulting William Bromley, the landlord of the house while the three prisoners were further charged with assaulting P.C. Bennett; and Gannon with assaulting a man named Thomas Coathup who assisted the officer.
William Bromley stated that at half‐past nine on Saturday night prisoners visited the Shrewsbury Arms, and were refused drink. When requested to leave they declined to do so, and Maron assaulted him.
William Lyon, residing at Mickle Trafford, deposed to assisting Bromley in expelling the prisoners from the public‐house. They behaved in an extraordinary manner, kicked, jostled and punched the landlord and the officer, when he came to the rescue, in a most ruthless fashion.
P.C. Bennett stated that as he approached the Shrewsbury Arms he met Mason, who immediately jumped at his throat and tried to strangle him. He kicked at witness, who had to put him on the ground to quieten him. While there he still continued to kick and punch at witness's body. The others then came up and hit witness. He had to call for assistance. On the way to the police station at Hoole they again commenced to attack the officer, and Mason severely bit him on the thumb.
Thomas Coathup, the man who also assisted the constable, stated that while he was doing so he was assaulted by Gannon, who bit one of his bands.
The Chairman said this was a very bad case. Such behaviour as that of defendant's would be put down by the strong power of the law. Those three men went drunk into a public ‐house, were rightly refused by the landlord, but insisted upon having beer. They were not content with assaulting the landlord. They also attacked the constable in the road, and the magistrates were determined to put down such conduct.
Durkin was fined 20s. and costs for refusing to quit licensed premises, or a month's imprisonment in default of payment; 10s. and costs for being drunk and disorderly, or in default another fourteen days' hard labour ; and a month's imprisonment for assaulting the police‐officer, each sentence to run consecutively. Gannon was fined 20s. and costs or a month's imprisonment, for refusing to quit ; 10s. and costs, or 14 days, for the drunkenness; a month for assaulting the constable ; and another month for assaulting the person (Coathup) who assisted him. They were, Mr. Thompson said, not going to allow those persons who were good enough to assist the police to be assaulted in that fashion. — Mason was fined 20s. and costs or a month's imprisonment for refusing to quit, 10s. and costs or 14 days for being drunk and disorderly. 10s. and costs for assaulting the landlord, and two months' hard labour for biting the constable. All the sentences were to run consecutively.
Cheshire Observer
Saturday 9 March 1895
NESTON
A Fowl Stealer Neatly Convicted.
At the Neston Petty Sessions on Monday, before Messrs. D. Graham and R. Bushell, a man named Joseph Oxton, who resides in Golden Lion Yard, Neston, was brought up in custody charged with stealing a fowl value 3s. 6d., the property of Jonathan Phillips, landlord of the Golden Lion Hotel.
Prosecutor stated that he saw the hen safe in the hen cote at ten am. on Saturday, and about ten pm. he discovered that it was missing. Previous to this the police had spoke to him about the theft. Soon after ten o'clock he accompanied Constable Dutton to the prisoner's house, and he saw the officer find the feathers and leg of a fowl (produced).
Sergeant Wilson stated that he went with P.C. Dutton to the prisoner's house. They found the prisoner at the door, and on asking him if he had anything in the house that did not belong to him, he said, "No. You can search the house." When inside, witness said, "There is a fowl missing," and he replied, "I am innocent of that" Witness remained by the door while Constable Dutton searched the house.
Finally witness told the constable to look in the saucepan on the fire. As the officer lifted the lid, he asked the prisoner what it contained, and he replied " A lobscouse." They found it contained the boiled fowls (produced).
The officers took prisoner into custody, and when opposite the Town Hall he ran away, and was caught after a smart chase, in Brook‐street. Certain boot tracks near the hen cote corresponded exactly with the nails and iron plates on the boots worn by the prisoner. — Prisoner (taking off his boot and throwing it on the floor of the court‐room)
‐There's the boot —
The Bench committed him to gaol for fourteen days with hard labour.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 29 February 1896
Accident to an Irishman.
On Monday evening a man who gives his name as McGuff, from Ireland, got a little excited in Lower Bridge‐street, and began to fight "promiscus" His antics were cut short, however, by a slip from the kerb, as a result of which he fell heavily, and broke his thigh. Aid was rendered by a passing gentle‐man, who bound up the injured limb in splints, and the man was conveyed to the Infirmary by Sergeant Steen and P.C.'s Tarran and Abbot.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 22 August 1896
THE BROMBOROUGH BABY‐FARMING CASE. At the Birkenhead County Magistrates' Court, on Monday morning, Richard Joseph Brindley and Louisa Brindley were brought before Messrs. T. R. Lee and Peter Owen, and charged on remand with having abandoned a female child under the age of two years, at Bromborough or elsewhere in the county of Chester, in such a manner as to endanger its life.
Mr. Charles Roberts represented the prisoners, and among those in court were Mr. Longden, deputy chief constable of Staffordshire, and Colonel Cope, deputy chief constable of Cheshire— Mr. Roberts said he understood that the police were anxious to have a remand again, and to that he would offer no objection.
Superintendent Macdonald said prisoners were arrested at Bromborough on the 8th of the present month, on a charge of abandoning a child. In company with Inspector Pearson, he had searched the house where the prisoners lived, and found a large quantity of baby linen, part of which a Mrs. Dawson, of Chester, had identified. Witness had attended an inquest at Liverpool, on the 12th inst., and Mrs. Dawson was also present. She had identified the body of the child and also its clothing. On that the police desired to make further inquiries, and he asked for a remand for a week. Mr. Owen asked if the body or the clothing had been identified. Superintendent Macdonald said Mrs. Dawson identified both the body of the child and some of the clothing it was wearing, which was in her possession in February and March last. She had also identified some of the clothing found at the house. Prisoners were then remanded for a week.
AN ALLEGED CHESTER CASE. The police are continuing their inquiries in Cheshire and Staffordshire, and are now investigating the case of a child found dead in the Wrexham road, near Chester, on August 1. It is stated that the prisoners' defence will be that the children who have been given into their charge have been handed over by them to other people. They give the names of two women to whom they say they have given the children. HOW SUSPICION WAS AROUSED. A new development in this case has transpired, the police inquiries having, it is alleged, resulted in almost conclusively tracing the Bramleys connection with four children. One of the two infants which have already been traced was a child which died at the Liverpool Workhouse, and the Wirral police have now been successful in establishing the identity of another case. It will be remembered that the instigator of the whole proceedings was a Mrs. Ryan, of Worcester, who wrote to Colonel Hamersley, the chief constable of Cheshire, asking if he could inform her of the whereabouts of a couple to whom her sister had confided a baby in February last Detective‐Inspector Pearson and Inspector M'Hale, acting on the information, apprehended the Bramleys. Since then Mrs. Ryan has journeyed to Bromborough, and has there identified some of the clothing belonging to her sister's child, which was about a couple of months' old when the Bramleys took charge of it. The mother has never beard a word of the baby since.
Cheshire Observer Saturday 20th Jun 1896
DEATH OP EX‐SUPERINTENDENT NAYLOR. INTERESTING MEMOIR A TERROR TO POACHERS. Our readers in the Eddisbury district will learn with much regret of the death of ex‐Superintendent James Naylor, late in charge of the Eddisbury Division of the Cheshire Constabulary. The sad event took place on Saturday morning at his residence, 5, Sandbach‐road, Congleton, in his 67th year. Although not actually confined to bed for a long period, he had not been at all well for the past six months, and was attended by Dr. Warrington, of Congleton. The shock was very severe to the members of the deceased's family, especially to his widow. When it was seen that his end was approaching, telegrams were at once sent to his two sons at Chester and Northwich, who, unfortunately, both arrived too late to see their father alive. Mr. Naylor was much respected by the members of the constabulary, and his death will be deeply felt by them. Outside the ranks of the force there are many who will miss and mourn him. He resigned from the police force on the 31st July, 1889, and has thus enjoyed his pension barely seven years. We are indebted to the Police Review for the following interesting memoir of the deceased: — Ex‐Superintendent James Naylor was born at Over Darwen, near Blackburn, on 9th April, 1829, and was a descendant of a noble race of yeomen whose ancestors shed their blood in their country's cause in the Peninsular and other continental wars. During the earlier portion of his life he was so busily engaged on his father's farm that his education was entirely neglected, but he subsequently picked up a little, and improved it as opportunity afforded. At the age of twenty years he enlisted in the 4th Royal Dragoon Guards, and served in that regiment for a year. Here he detected some petty pilfering among the soldiers, for whom his captain commended him, and remarked that he ought to be a policeman, not a soldier. His mother's illness resulted in his leaving the army on payment of £30. He remained at home for a short time, and then went to Preston, where he met a sergeant of the Lancashire police, who persuaded him to join the force. He was sent to Woolton, on the outskirts of Liverpool, as a horse patrol. While in this force he one day met a man driving a cow near Rainhill, and, after chatting with him, apprehended him on suspicion of stealing it. His suspicions proved to be correct, the cow, a very valuable one, having been stolen from Hale Wood. He resigned from the Lancashire force after a service of one year, 101 days. On the 18th March, 1854, he was chosen, out of 19 candidates, to fill a vacancy in the Bolton Constabulary, and was put on duty in Chorley‐road. One morning, about two o'clock, be caught two men in the act of committing a burglary at a gentleman's residence. A severe struggle ensued for twenty minutes, the men at last running away in opposite directions. Constable Naylor followed one and overtook him. Another scuffle en‐sued, the prisoner kicking the constable very severely, the effects of which he felt for many years afterwards. He drew and used his staff to defend himself, and succeeded in apprehending the man. A few hours afterwards he also arrested the other man. Both prisoners had just returned from transportation across the seas, and were sent back again. Constable Naylor was removed to Deansgate. Here he, unaided, apprehended 14 men for sleeping in a mill without any means of subsistence. He securely fastened them all together, and succeeded in taking them part of the way to the police office, and then obtained the assistance of two other constables, and locked them up. The magistrates highly complimented Constable Naylor for his courage and determination. Shortly afterwards a Mr. Davis, managing clerk to a solicitor, when returning home late one night was garrotted and left insensible near Sweet Green Church, the offenders taking away with them all his jewellery, Ac. On the case being put into Constable Naylor’s hands, he recovered the stolen property, which was concealed up a chimney, and arrested the two thieves, who were tried at the Liverpool Assize, and sentenced to 14 years' transportation. His next important case was that of an Irish woman, a servant to a retired painter. During her master's absence she stole £22, hid it, and then hanged herself to a bedpost, where she was found, black in the face, by a washerwoman. Constable Naylor’s superior officers were engaged two days searching for the money, but without success. The Chief Constable (Mr. Harrison) then directed Constable Naylor to search, and after three and a half hours, he recovered the whole of the money concealed on the premises. In a subsequent robbery of brass he recovered the whole of the stolen property, amounting to several tons, and was rewarded by the owner, and highly complimented. For a considerable time he was engaged on detective duty, and in 1857 he joined the Cheshire Constabulary. Some years ago Northwich was a noted place for poachers and thieves, and as the resident sergeants made no headway in the detection of them, the Chief Constable, on the Superintendent’s recommendation, promoted Constable Naylor to the rank of acting‐sergeant, and sent him to Comberbach. Soon after his arrival here he, in company with I Constable Savage, met eight poachers, loaded. | The poachers threatened to kill the sergeant, who had with him a heavy walking‐stick, which he used with such good effect that they ran away, throwing their booty in all directions. Seven out of the eight were arrested and convicted. A month after the above event, Sergeant Naylor and two constables met five poachers on Red Lion Bridge, Anderton. A pitched battle ensued. Stones rattled one after another against a building close by. One of the constables (Dalziel) was struck down, but his place was taken by Sergeant Naylor, who succeeded in knocking two of the poachers down. The poachers then took to their heels, throwing away in their flight a large number of hares, rabbits, and poaching implements. Sergeant Naylor subsequently arrested the men. Two of the ringleaders received sentences of eighteen months' imprisonment each. For his courage on this occasion he was promoted full sergeant, and granted the merit badge with pay. His most serious engagement with poachers, and one which almost ended fatally, took place on 29th September, 1867. He was on duty at Wincham, with P.C's Dalziel and Lee, in company with two keepers. When near the bridge they met a gang of 32 poachers, who drew up together, and threatened to kill the police and keepers. Stones began to rain on the police like hail. Constable Dalziel was struck on the head, and, seeing this, Lee and the two keepers took to their heels. Sergeant Naylor was struck with a stone and knocked senseless. The gang then set upon him, and abused him in a disgraceful manner. His left arm was cut in five places; he was stabbed through the hand; the top of his head was knocked in; the flesh of both hands stripped to the bone and his ribs injured on the left side. The poachers, thinking they had finished him, threw him into a pig cote. The neighbours were roused with the noise, and. finding the sergeant lying unconscious, carried him to a house close to, where he lay unconscious for six days, and was three months recovering from the effects of the encounter. The whole of the men were arrested, identified, and committed for trial at Chester Assize. The sergeant was in the witness‐box under examination for two hours and forty minutes, nine barristers being engaged to defend. Three of the offenders received five years' penal servitude each, and the rest sentences varying from two years to eighteen months. For his action here he was highly complimented, and received a special reward of £3. A gang of twenty‐nine men, terming themselves 'The Committers,' infested Smallwood and Astbury about this time, committing several burglaries and other robberies. In May, 1868, Sergeant Naylor was removed to Astbury', and soon succeeded in arresting the ringleaders' and breaking up the band. The thieves and poachers of Mow Cop and district were closely watched. When on duty one Sunday night, he heard the report of a gun and then proceeding towards the direction of the sound was informed by a messenger that the policeman Bebbington had been shot. With another constable he cleverly worked up with considerable difficulty, the case, and affected the arrest of the offender, who received ten years' penal servitude. His success was so marked that interested persons formed a treacherous plot against him, and brought it to such a successful, issue that he was reduced to acting‐sergeant, and deprived of his merit badge; but in six months' time he succeeded in establishing his complete innocence to the entire satisfaction of the Chief Constable, who reinstated him in his former position, and discharged the two constables who had plotted against him He was removed from Crewe to Hazel Grove, and five and a half years later removed to Hyde and was made acting‐Inspector. In June. 1878 he was promoted inspector, removed to Northwich and in less than twelve months, again removed to Crewe acting as Superintendent, and two years later to Eddisbury as Superintendent of that division which post he held until his retirement on 31st July, 1889.
THE FUNERAL. The funeral took place on Wednesday after‐noon at Astbury Church, the Rev. E. Hayton Congregational minister of Congleton, officiating Col Hamersley Chief Constable very kindly gave permission to any member of the force who wished to attend the funeral to do so, but owing to the wish of the family to have it as quiet as possible only a few police officers were present. Among those were Supt. Large, Inspector Sherwin, Sergeant Naylor (son), ex‐Sergeant Porter, Sergeant Wilson, of the Congleton Borough Police, Sergeants Briggs, Marshall, McLeod, Constables Latham, Hodkinson and Roberts acted as bearers.— There was a large number of beautiful wreaths. The widow and deceased's sons have received numerous letters of condolence and sympathy.
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 6 June 1896
THE POLICEMAN AND THE DRUNKEN LABOURER.
A DUSTY TWENTY MINUTES
A man named Smith, carter and labourer, living at Hoole, was brought up at Chester Castle on Saturday, on a charge of being drunk and disorderly, assaulting the police, and wilfully damaging a pair of tweed trousers of the value of 26s., the property of P.S. G. Farnworth.
Farnworth, in bearing out his evidence given the previous day, said that when he and prisoner bad been struggling on the ground 15 minutes, witness was, with the assistance of two men, able to get up. Prisoner, however, shook himself free, and tripped up witness again, another scuffle of about five minutes in duration taking place on the ground. Carter acted like a madman. Witness’s trousers (produced) were torn and altogether spoiled, and his coat was splashed with blood in places. Prisoner knew witness quite well, having said at the beginning of the affray that he was not going to be taken to the police station.
Mrs. Kate Frearson, a neighbour of prisoner said that at the time stated her little boy and a lady neighbour had gone up Tomkinson‐street, but in a few minutes came running back, Carter following them. Witness locked the door in his face, and he began kicking it, partly smashing the lock. He was very drunk.
P.S. Finchett stated that he was called to Farnworth's assistance. Prisoner was extremely violent, and it took five men to take him to the police‐station. Farnworth was exhausted, and covered with dust.
Mr. F. Turner said defendant was 22 years of age, and had recently come into a little money, which had apparently done him harm, for he had, on going to live in Hoole, got into bad company, speculated on horseflesh, &c. He admitted being drunk, but his reason for assaulting the officer was because he thought the latter, who was in plain clothes, was going to hit him with a stick he was carrying. He did not know the police officer at the time.
The magistrates retired, and on their return the Chairman said prisoner had had a narrow escape of going to gaol for a month. In respect of being drunk and disorderly he would be fined 20s. and costs or 14 days; he would have to pay 20s. for the damage to the trousers, and for assaulting the officer he would have to pay a fine of £3 and costs or go to prison for a month. The total fine and costs amounted to £6 Is. 4d.
Cheshire Observer
Saturday 14 November 1896
THE TEMPERANCE AGENT AND THE BAG OF SOOT.
AMUSING CASE.
On Saturday, at the City Police Court before Mr. H. T. Brown and other magistrates, Richard Grant, sweep, of Trinity‐street, was summoned at the instance of P.C. Evans for obstructing the free passage of the footway in Northgate Street by carrying a bag of soot on the footway on October 30th. Defendant pleaded not guilty to carrying the soot, but admitted carrying his brushes there. — P.C. Evans stated that at five minutes past eleven he saw defendant carrying a bag containing soot and a number of brushes, which were strapped across his back, down the footway of Northgate‐street, near St Peter's Church‐yard. The bag and the implements caused considerable nuisance. Defendant, when near the steps leading to the churchyard, stopped to talk to a fish woman. He stayed on the foot‐path for about five minutes. Witness had cautioned defendant about the same thing three months ago.— For his defence defendant called James William Travis, temperance agent, Chester, with whom he had had a few minutes' conversation on the Market Square just prior to meeting the constable.— Mr. Travis, on going into the box, addressed the magistrates as follows .‐— Your worships, I find that the ease to which our friend has appealed to me to come and speak for him, has removed from the position of which I saw it to somewhere near the Music Hall passage. (Laughter.)— The Chairman: He is charged with obstructing the footway close to the steps leading to St. Peter's Churchyard. —The Chief Constable (Mr. Fenwick): We take the whole of the street; the summons says ' Northgate‐street.'— Mr. Travis (again addressing the Bench): Of course that removes my ability to be able to speak for him at this particular place. He was speaking to me and our friend, Mr. Bowles, the city missionary, opposite the Town Hall. My impression has been that it was for that particular place (opposite the Town Hall) that he was summoned. — The Chief Constable (to the Bench): Do you care to have his impressions? —Mr. Travis: I am only justified in saying why I am here. — Mr. Fenwick: You are not on the Market Square, Mr. Travis. (Laughter.) You are bound to give evidence on what you saw and heard, and not what are your impressions. — Mr. Travis: He had no soot with him. — The Chairman: It happened by Messrs. Okell's shop, and if you did not see it there you cannot give any evidence. — Mr. Travis: I should like to say .The Chairman: You know nothing at all about the circumstances. You cannot speak, because you know nothing about it— Mr. Travis was leaving the box, when Mr. Fenwick said he would like to ask him a few questions. — Mr. Fenwick: What time was this? — Mr. Travis: Between eleven and twelve o'clock. — Mr. Fenwick: Had he a bag? — Witness: I did not see a bag at all. — Mr. Fenwick: Was there any soot in it? Witness : No.— Mr. Fenwick : You saw this constable there, and you think he is able to judge whether it was soot ?— Witness : Yes.— Mr. Fenwick: He is not a 'merit' constable.— Mr. Travis: A 'merit' constable?— Mr. Fenwick : You know what I mean. — Mr. Travis: Yes, I know perfectly what you mean. — Prisoner then pleaded for himself. He said he was the last sweep to settle in the town, and it was very strange that he should be summoned. He did not know there were any bye‐laws objecting to a sweep carrying his machines on the footpath. Other Chester sweeps did it. They paid for their licences to carry on their trade, and there was nothing on those licences referring to the bye‐laws. He was ignorant of the bye‐laws, and this was the first time he had ever been before any Bench. He thought the summons was a faulty one. (Laughter) —Mr. Fenwick: Doubtless. (Laughter.) — The Chairman said the bye‐law distinctly laid down that no person should carry any soot or other offensive matter on the footways of the city except for the purposes of crossing the footway. It might become a great nuisance to the public if men licensed to carry on the trade of sweeps should also carry their instruments and machines on the footway. They ought to be more careful. — Defendant: I will in future. — The Chairman: You come and trade in the town, and you ought to know the bye‐laws. The magistrates hope this will be a warning to you, and you will in the future take care what you do. The case will be dismissed. (The above appeared in our last Saturday Evening Edition.)
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 5 December 1896
CITY POLICE COURT.
Monday.— Before the Mayor, Messrs. H. T. Brown, J. J. Cunnah, and J. G. Frost.
An Audience or 200.—
Elizabeth Ann Burns and Alice Burns, sisters‐in‐law, were charged by P.C. McGowan with committing a breach of the peace on Saturday in Foregate‐street by fighting. The constable said prisoners attracted a crowd of over two hundred persons. — Elizabeth was bound over to keep the peace, and Alice was fined 10s. and costs, or seven days' imprisonment.
He Wanted a Bit of Thieving.—
Luke McLoughlan, of no fixed abode, was charged with begging in Eaton‐road, the previous day. Prisoner denied the charge. P.C. A. Hughes deposed to seeing the man begging from door to door. When witness spoke to him he said, ' Then where am I to get a bit of good thieving." (Laughter.) — Prisoner's record being a very bad one, he was sent to gaol for seven days without the option of a fine.
Cheshire Observer
Saturday 21 November 1896
PRESENTATION TO A RETIRED POLICE INSPECTOR.
THE CHESTER POLICE FORCE PAST AND PRESENT.
Yesterday (Friday) ex‐Inspector Leech, of the Chester Police force was presented with a handsome clock and walking stick by his comrades, as a memento of the esteem they felt for him after his long service with them. The clock, which was of beautiful workmanship, bore the inscription : — ' Presented to Inspector Thomas Leech, by the members of the Chester City Police force, on his retirement after 31 years' service. October, 1896.' — Mr. G. L. Fenwick (Chief Constable), who made the presentation, said those occasions were interesting in more ways than one; they enabled them to instance to halt for a moment and I look back on the way they had come. Much had taken place in Chester during Inspector Leech's service of over 30 years. Since he joined, 250 men had followed him, although their number was only 47 that day. About 200 had disappeared, some had passed away, some had been pensioned off, and many had left to join other forces. Thanks to several things, there was now little disposition to change. When Inspector Leech joined the force was hardly ever full, and there was such a scarcity of candidates, that advertisements week after week hardly brought any reply. It was different now. Two or three years ago there were two vacancies during twelve months and nearly a thousand candidates, and that was still about the proportion. The police force generally was a more popular service. It was the army of peace, and equally with the Royal Navy, Army, and Civil Service was looked upon as a necessary branch of the Government of the country, and notwithstanding what Mr. Gilbert said in his ' Pirates of Penzance,' the policeman's lot, arduous enough, was never quite unhappy, and perhaps that was so now more than ever it was. They were still told, half playfully, no doubt, that ' the policeman was never there when he was wanted, but against that they might put the fact that he was often there when not wanted; (Laughter.) The joke hardly raised a laugh now in a circus, but if he was to believe the newspapers — which on this particular matter he did not — a county court judge appeared to have stepped into the place of the clown. "A police‐man never sees an accident," he was reported to have said, and that had gone the round of the Press. Of course it was a joke, and so was the remark made by a certain professor of logic at Oxford to the effect that the evidence of three classes — women, foreigners, and policemen — should be received with caution. If that was not a joke it was unworthy of one who was a professor by profession. (Laughter.) Then there was their industrious old friend ' Pro Bono Publico,' whose communications would be worth more if less personal and signed by his own name. However, Inspector Leech, with all these little matters to contend with, had come out of the severe ordeal of 31 years' public service with credit to himself, and bad earned the respect of everyone who knew him. He (the speaker) hoped that those whom the inspector left behind would profit by his example, and at the proper time would retire into private life, carrying with them not only the esteem of their comrades and the public, but their clock and pilgrim's staff, such as he had very great pleasure in asking Mr. Leech to accept. (Applause.) Inspector Leech said he felt very proud in accepting the presentation and he hoped they would all live and have health and strength to receive the same some day. The force was far better now than when he joined. Then a constable got 17s. A week with very little chances of promotion. There were eight first‐class constables in the city in those days, who were paid at the rate of £1 a week, and it was very seldom that any other promotion was open. Now, however, there was something for young men in the force to look forward to; he could retire while he was practically a young man. He thanked them all very much for the kind way in which they had signalised his retirement. (Applause.)
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 22 August 1896
ALLEGED THEFT OF A CHILD AT CREWE.
EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE.
At Crewe, on Tuesday, the magistrates were occupied for several hours in hearing a charge of stealing a child, preferred against a young married couple named Thomas and Nellie Green, of Ashton‐under‐Lyne. Mr. Horace Cooke appeared for the prosecution. —
Rhoda Hodges, a single woman, said that on Friday last she was at a lodging‐house in Oak‐street, Crewe, with her four children. That night they were all in one bed. The two prisoners occupied a bed in the same room. There were also married women in two other beds in the same room. Being somewhat crowded in bed with her children, she complained, and the prisoners asked her to hand over to them the baby, aged five months. She did so, and went back to her bed and slept till seven o'clock next morning. On getting up at that hour she missed both the prisoners and the baby. She was told that they had left the house at five o'clock, taking the child with them. She went to the railway station, but could not trace them. She obtained a warrant for their apprehension.—
ln reply to the prisoners, the Prosecutrix denied that she had ill‐treated the baby, and had offered it to several persons. She never gave it to the prisoners. —
Police Constable Richardson said he followed the prisoners to Sandbach on his bicycle, and apprehended them by the roadside near Wheelock Heath. They both said the mother gave them the child, and said they were quite ready to return to Crewe and meet any charge.—
The female prisoner said that the mother had told her she could have the child, and she took it out of pity. She said she would take the baby to Ashton‐under Lyne, get work, and send the mother some money to help to support her and the other children. The mother had said that she would be glad if somebody would take the child.—
Margaret Lee said she was in the bedroom of the lodging‐house about mid‐night on the 14th inst, and heard the conversation. Nellie Green said: "If you are tired of the baby, give it to me," and the prosecutrix got out of bed, took the baby to the female prisoner, and said she could keep it. The next morning the two prisoners got up and took the child downstairs. The female prisoner washed and dressed and fed it. The mother had told them the night before where to find the child's clean clothes. Before the child was taken away a Mrs. Hulse went upstairs and told the mother that the prisoners were going to take the child with them, and the mother said “Let them take it." The female prisoner also went up and asked the mother if she would kiss the child. The mother replied, "No, I want to go to sleep." The week before this the mother had threatened to dash the baby against a wall and knock its brains out—
Sarah Ankers, another witness, said she heard the mother say she wished she could get rid of her children. She saw her give the baby to the female prisoner, and she heard her say that she could keep it.—
John Malone said the prosecutrix bad given the child away twice since she had been staying at the lodging‐house. The prosecutrix had also given another of her children to an organ‐grinder, but he had returned it after keeping it a week.—
The Bench thought that no jury would convict the prisoners of stealing the children, and discharged them. The decision was received with approval by a crowded court.
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 25 April 1896
A CHESHIRE SENSATION 1796
ROBBING THE MAIL AT TRAFFORD.
The following interesting account of a daring highway robbery is taken from this week's "Cheshire Sheaf" column of the Chester Courant : —
A pamphlet lies before me entitled "An Accurate Statement of the Trial of James Price and Thomas Brown, before the Hon. Francis Burton, Esq., at the Assizes holden for the County Palatine of Chester, the 6th day of April 1796, Charged on Oath, with a Strong Suspicion of having on Tuesday the 19th of January last past, between the hours of Eight and Nine in the afternoon of the same day, on the King's Highway, in the Parish of Thornton‐in‐the‐Moors, in the County of Chester, feloniously assaulted Peter Yoxall, who was carrying on Horseback His Majesty's Mail from Warrington, in the County of Lancaster, to the City of Chester, and taking from his Person, the said Mail Bag, with the Letters and other Articles contained therein. (Chester: Printed by E. Monk, 1796.)
This pamphlet contains a fairly detailed account of the trial, from which it appears that Peter Yoxall, a post‐boy, aged 15 years, received at Warrington Post‐Office at 6.20 p.m. on the 19th of January two bags, containing the Manchester and Warrington letters, to take to Chester. He reached Frodsham in safety, and there received a third bag. Continuing his journey, he got about three‐quarters of a mile of the Chester side of Dunham‐on‐the‐Hill, when he saw, in the moonlight, two men riding before him on horseback. On coming up to them, they turned their horses' heads upon him, and one of them seized his, and said “Stop, or I'll blow your brains out.' They then opened a gate and led the horse into a field. Their faces were covered with crepe, so that Yoxall could not see their features. They took him off his horse, tied the three horses to a tree, and fastened the lad's hands behind him, and his hat over his face. Having next set his back towards them, and secured his legs in a portmanteau, they proceeded to rifle the bags, a task which occupied them about half‐an‐hour. At the end of this time, they took their departure, telling Yoxall that if he attempted to more till morning, there were two men watching him, who would cut off his arm. This threat did not deter the boy from seeking to free himself, which he accomplished in an hour and a half. He at once went to the nearest turnpike and called the man in charge, and also the constable of Mickle Trafford. He then set out for Chester, where he arrived about half‐past twelve. Steps were taken without delay to discover the robbers. They were apprehended at a public‐house at Gosta Green, Birmingham, on Friday, 22nd January, and were eventually brought to trial before Mr. Justice Barton, at Chester, on the 6th of April, when their crime was clearly brought home to them by the evidence adduced. The jury found them guilty, and the Judge sentenced them to death. Both the men made a confession of their guilt to the Rev. Peploe Ward, on the 19th of the month. Price owned to having been a professional thief for some five years, and gave a long list of robberies in which he had taken part. With respect to the robbery of the mail, he made the following statement : — " That he in company with Brown had stopped at the Bear Inn in Manchester about a week. That on Monday, Jan. 18, they looked out for horses for the purpose of robbing the Warrington Mail the next evening. That they took their bridles and saddles with them to a field near Manchester, where they caught two horses, one of them a chestnut mare, which Brown rode, and another without shoes, which was turned out again on that account. That two silk hanker‐chiefs were left by them in the field, from whence the mare was stolen; one was tied round the saddle and girths, to hinder the stirrups making a noise, and some corn was in the other. Price's saddle was covered with his top‐coat and Brown's saddle with a bag; Brown's was a little cross‐barred silk handkerchief ; that Price left his saddle and bridle in the ditch, and went and purchased a cropt bay horse for £8 8s and led it to the place where his saddle and bridle were left in an old halter, which he put into his pocket after having cut the noose off, for the purpose of tying the post boy's arms. That Brown put a piece of thin cord for the same use into his pocket, at the Bear Inn. That Brown slept on the 18th about ten miles from Manchester, on the Warrington road, where he got the chestnut mare shod ; the sign Price thinks was the Crown. That Price came about ten o'clock and slept at the same place; that the next morning (the 19th) Brown and Price set off about five o'clock, and rode together to Warrington where Price stopped at an inn, at the foot of the bridge, and breakfasted, and went to enquire for a letter from Brown's wife, ordered to be left at the Post Office till called for. That Brown went forward a few miles, for fear of being seen with the chestnut mare, and break‐fasted. That Price was obliged to stop for some time on account of the letter (the Post Office not being open), which made Brown uneasy, and caused him to set out on foot towards Warrington, from the place where he break‐fasted, to meet Price. That, as soon as Brown saw him, he returned for his mare, and over‐took him about a quarter of a mile from Daresbury, on the Frodsham road. That they sometimes rode together, and sometimes separate, to avoid suspicion, till they came to Parry's [the inn‐keeper of the Nag's Head] at Trafford. That they fixed on the spot where they were to stop the boy on the road that morning. That the evidence given by Parry, his daughter, Nield, the blacksmith, etc, in proof of their pretending to go to Wrexham, is true ; that when they left Parry's house they went to Tarvin, and drank coffee at a house on the left‐hand side ; that the stables were up the yard, on the right‐hand side ; that they remained there till seven o'clock, and then set off to commit the robbery, that he (Price) put on a drab coloured top‐coat over his blue top‐coat, in order to disguise himself ; that they went through a lane called Morley‐lane, into the Warrington road, nearer to Parry's house at Trafford than the field where the post‐boy was robbed. That they opened the gate ready to take the boy and mail to the spot fixed on for opening the letters. That Brown had a handkerchief tied over the bottom of his face, and held a pistol towards the boy, when they stopped him. That Price had a piece of an old rug over the bottom of his face, which was cut from a horse‐cloth belonging to Parry. That Brown had two pistols in his pocket, and Price had three. That they tied the boy's arms behind his back with a thin cord, taken out of Brown's pocket, and slouched his hat over his face. That whey placed him with his back towards them, whilst they opened the mail‐bags, and tied all the horses to a tree. That when they had examined the letters, they took the bridle, saddle, and mail‐pillion from the post‐horse, and turned him loose, and then tied the boy's handkerchief over his face, and put him on his saddle, turned upside down, close to a tree, and passed the piece of an old halter, brought from Manchester, round the tree, and under the boy's arms. That a coat‐strap was buckled under his knees, and round his legs; that his feet were put into the portmanteau. That Brown wished Price to leap over the hedge into Morley‐lane, close to the place of the robbery, and said it would save a mile and half riding, but Price refused not being a good rider. That Price observed to Brown, when they left the boy, that he seemed a knowing jockey always on the listen, and that he never cried; and that he feared a discovery on that account; that they returned round through Morley‐lane to Tarvin, and passed close on the other side of the tree where the boy was tied That Price, soon after they passed through Tarvin, pulled off his drab‐coloured top‐coat and to avoid discovery, threw it, together with the piece of an old rug, into a wet ditch, and put a heavy stone to sink it to the bottom. That the ditch, was close to a hay‐rick, on the right hand side of the road towards Tarporley; That the description given in the evidence respecting them at Tarporley, Nantwich, Wolverhampton, and Birmingham was accurate."
At Tarporley, James Fleet, an innkeeper deposed that about 10.30 p.m. on the 19th the two men stopped at his house, and had two sixpennyworths of gin and water. At Nantwich where they arrived about 11.30 pm John Griffin, Landlord of the Griffin, gave them refreshments. He testified to the rapid rate at which they seemed to have been riding Joseph Darlington, of the Bull's‐head, Nantwich, also deposed to having given their horses corn at midnight. They reached Woore, in Staffordshire, at 3 o'clock on Wednesday morning, and Wolverhampton at 2 in the afternoon. In the evening they took a post‐chaise for Birmingham, where they were apprehended on Friday, the 22nd.] That Brown went the day after their arrival at Birmingham, viz.. January 21, went to Thomas’s livery stables. That a man who keeps a five‐court at Birmingham fetched the horses from thence, and put them to grass near Birmingham. . That the Property taken out of the mail was a bill of £150 which was burnt at Allen's the inn‐keeper of the house where they were arrested by Tart [the constable] when he came in and an £8 bill overdue, which Price attempted to pass without effect at a shop at Wolverhampton where he purchased three handkerchiefs. That there were two half‐guineas in the letters and 1s. 7½ d. taken out of the pouch bag. Thomas Brown, whose real name was Smallman, in his confession acknowledged a large number of robberies, and confirmed the statement made by Price. He declared that had he had his pistols on him at the time of his apprehension, he should certainly have shot the constable.. That he particularly requested letters might be directly written to Nottingham, Derby, Burton‐on‐Trent, etc, containing the descriptions of the horses he and his accomplices had stolen from those places and their neighbourhoods during the last two or three years, and that the owners of them might be desired to come over to Chester without delay that he might have it in his power to inform them where their property might be found. That he was very anxious to see all the farmers who had lost horses out of Cheshire, within the last two or three years. That he particularly requested that it might be made known to the public that he had never been guilty of the least cruelty whatever in the depredations committed by him. That he never stopped a carriage when a woman or child was in it. That he never robbed a poor man, but was ready to relieve the distresses of the indigent. That he liberally supported his accomplices (when in custody); that he had experienced very contrary treatment. That his wife and infant child were greatly in want of common necessaries; his own property having been withheld from them by a man he had formerly assisted when in difficulties, and to whom he had entrusted a large sum of money and other property previous to his commitment.
The two highwaymen were executed on Saturday, 30th April. They both acknowledged the justice of their punishment, and hoped the spectators would take warning by their end. Brown was only 26 years old at the time of his death, and Price about the same age.
During his confinement, Brown figured a coffin with the representation of a body in it on the wall of his cell, and wrote underneath the following lines: —
Behold the corpse within the coffin lies.
With stretched out limbs and closed eyes;
But, ah, poor Brown no coffin thou shalt have,
Nor yet a shroud, nor yet a peaceful grave.
Prisoners all a warning by me take,
Repent in time before it be too late ;
Repent in time, leave off your thieving ways,
Then you shall all see happier days.

The bodies of the men were after the execution hung in chains on Trafford Green, near to the spot of the robbery.
The pamphlet whence the above account is extracted contains a map of the roads round Chester along which the robbers went, in a corner of which is a representation of the gallows with the two bodies suspended. There are also two curious plates, one showing the men robbing the mail, the other their flight after committing the crime. (F.S.)
Cheshire Observer
Saturday 31 October 1896
CHESHIRE POLICE COMMITTEE COUNTY.
POLICE PENSIONS.
On the recommendation of the Chief Constable, the committee granted the following

pensions :—

Sergeant John Oldfield, certified to be of unsound mind, £48 13a. 4d. per annum, after
a service of 19 years 227 days ;
Sergeant George Foden, certified unfit for further police duty, £50 12s. 3d. per annum,

after a service of 23 years 148 days;

Constable Alfred Davies, aged 55 1/3rd years. £56 15s. 6d. per annum, after a service of
27 years 124 days ;
Constable John Latham, aged 53 2/3rd years, £52 16s. per annum, after a service of 25

years 68 days,

Cheshire Observer
Saturday 25 January 1896
From the Chief Constable’s Annual Report
I beg to report that
No. 56 Constable W. G. Wood, Stockport Division, has been certified by Dr. Bale, to be unfit for further police service on account of almost total blindness, which is attributed to an accident that occurred to the constable while in the performance of his duties on the 26th February, 1890, when he was thrown from a cart, through the horse taking fright, and seriously injured about his head, which came in contact with the curbstone rendering him unconscious for a time, and unfit for duty for a month. I therefore beg to recommend that Constable Wood, age 48 4‐12 years, who has served in the force for 17 years 125 days, be granted a pension of £37 9s. 5d. per annum, under Section 1 (D) of Police Act, 1890, and Scale B, Part 1 of First Schedule thereto.
I beg to ask for instructions as to whether Sergeant Woolley should now be pensioned, be having been unfit for duty since 9th Feb., 1895. It will be remembered that in my report to your committee, dated 27th April, 1895. I recommended this sergeant for pension on account of incapacity, but in consequence of his critical condition at the time of the meeting it was decided to postpone the consideration of his case, which has been mentioned at each meeting since, and again adjourned. His age is 51 5‐12 years, and he has served in the constabulary for 19 years, and the amount of pension would be £36 19b. 8d. per annum.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 3 October 1896
TARPORLEY. Police Court.
At Eddisbury Petty Sessions, on Monday. George Lightfoot and John Done, labourers, Tarporley, were fined 5s., on the information of P.C. Bennett, for being drunk in High‐street, Tarporley.— For committing a breach of the peace Joseph Spann, labourer, Tarporley, was bound over to keep the peace for six months. For setting off fireworks in High‐street on Sept. 19th two youths, Jos. Rowlands and Fred Fleet, were lined 5s. each. P.C. Bennett proved the cases.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 17 April 1897
ALLEGED MURDEROUS ATTACK ON A WIFE.
William Edwin Roose, residing in Bishop‐street, Bishopsfield, Cheater, and being a labourer at the Hydraulic Engineering Works, was brought up charged with unlawfully wounding his wife before the magistrates on Saturday, at Chester Castle, Mr. H. D. Trelawny in the chair.
Margaret Roose said her husband was a labourer. On Monday he went out to work, but in the afternoon, about half‐past two o'clock, he came back again, although this was not his usual dinner hour. He was drunk, would have no dinner, and lay down on the sofa, where he went to sleep for about an hour. She asked him again if he would have his dinner when he awoke, and in answer he kicked his feet right through the sofa, which was covered with Morocco leather, and broke a gipsy table standing at the end of the sofa into pieces. She remonstrated, and he said, "I'm master here," and witness, fearing a row, slipped on her jacket and tried to go out. Prisoner, how‐ever, stopped her, said he would knock her brains out, took hold of her with his left hand by the jacket and struck her two heavy blows on the head with the piece of the table he had broken. She screamed out "Oh, you've murdered me." She was streaming with blood, and managed to get out through the door, the neighbours seeing her in the street and sending for Sergeant Finchett. Finchett took her to Dr. Burges, who attended to her wounds. Witness had been Buffering from St. Vitus' dance for about a year and nine months.
Sergeant Finchett said he was called to prisoner's house in Bishop‐street, about four o'clock. Prosecutrix was in the street with a crowd of people around her. She was bleeding very badly from a wound in the back of the head, and was holding her hands to her head. Witness took her to Dr. Burges, who attended to her injuries. Later on he went with Sergt. Farnworth to prisoner's house, and found prisoner lying on the sofa in the kitchen. He was drunk, and when charged he became very violent, although he confessed to the deed. They had to hold him down on the sofa and handcuff him. He was taken to the Police Office.
Dr. Burges, surgeon, Hoole, deposed to examining prosecutrix. She had a wound on the back of tbe head penetrating to the scalp, and about an inch and a half long. It was bleeding, and, to a woman suffering from St. Vitas' dance, as Mrs. Roose was, it was a dangerous one. She was getting on satisfactorily now, however. Prisoner, who stated‐that he was in drink at the time, and was sorry for what had happened, was committed to the sessions. (The above appeared in our last Saturday Evening Edition.)
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 17 July 1897
ATTACK ON A CHESTER CONSTABLE.
ASSAILANT IN THE CANAL.
John Shickle, labourer, Union Terrace, was charged in custody at the Chester City Police Court, on Monday, with assaulting P.C. Rogers on the previous Saturday night The officer said his attention was directed to the prisoner, who was drunk, and running about in a semi‐nude condition along the canal side. Witness tried to persuade him to put his shirt on, and go into his house, but he refused, and kicked the officer violently on the loins. He then ran away, and jumped into the canal.
Witness not knowing whether the prisoner could swim, jumped in after him and brought him out. The prisoner was mad drunk, and very violent, and when brought out of the canal would not be quiet, but jumped in again. He was brought out a second time, but got in a third time, and witness followed him again.
By this time, however, owing to the pain of the kick and his severe exertions, witness was becoming very much exhausted, and had to be assisted out by some bystanders!
He then brought prisoner to the police station —The Chief Constable (Mr. G. L. Fenwick) said prisoner was a Chester lad, and was one of a gang of cornermen. — Prisoner said he had a drop of drink and did not know what he was doing.— The Chairman said the magistrates took a serious view of prisoner's ruffianly conduct, and he must be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for a month.
Cheshire Observer
Saturday 13 November 1897
CITY POLICE COURT
Saturday Before Messrs. H. T. Brown, G.
Dog Stealing at Chester
James McCann, a labourer, of very Irish appearance, was charged with stealing a Pomeranian dog, the property of Private Arthur Topham, of the 22nd Regiment, on Thursday. — A military police sergeant said prisoner, who bad the dog with him, asked him the way into Handbridge. Witness directed him, and he went down Bridge‐street.
— P.C. John Wynne also saw prisoner with the dog. McCann, who was also in custody for alleged drunkenness, was fined 20s. and costs, or 14 days
Tuesday Before Messrs. R. L. Barker, Geo. Dutton, and R. Jackson.
A Bawling Woman
Emily Williams, married woman, living in Chapel‐lane, was charged in custody with committing a breach of the peace in Milton‐street the previous day. P.S. Porter, in proving the case, said prisoner was very drunk, and used abusive language and quarrelled with people the whole of the afternoon. Her husband came to her, and she blackguarded him.
The Bench bound her over in two sureties of £2 10s. each to keep the peace, and in default sent her to prison for seven days.
Cheshire Observer
Saturday 11 March 1871
Charge of being Drunk and Disorderly.
A respectable man named Wm. Weaver was charged with being drunk and disorderly.
P.C. Price, stationed at Christleton, stated that on the evening of the 25th of Feb. last he was on duty on the Chester and Whitchurch turnpike road, in the township of Christleton, when be met the defendant and his wife. The former was drunk and made use of some abusive language, and said he would blow the constable's brains out the first time he got him near his house. The constable asked him why he threatened him thus, and the defendant replied because he had stolen his son out of his house when he had no right to do so. The constable said he did so because he had been given in charge to him, and he was bound to do his duty. The defendant then left, and having gone a distance of about twenty yards took off his coat, and, according to the constasble, wanted to fight him, but was prevented from doing so by his wife In reply to Mr. Churton, the constable stated that when the defendant commented to abuse him he hand‐cuffed and brought him to the Bishopsfield station‐house. Mr. Churton having addressed the Bench on behalf of the defendant, the case was dismissed.
A Constable fined for Assaulting a Woman.
P.C. Price was charged by Mrs. Weaver, the wife of the defendant in the last case, with assaulting her on the occasion in question. Mr. Churton appeared for the complainant in this case, who stated that while going borne along with her husband on the 25th Feb., the latter sat down on the bank of the canal, and while there the defendant came up and placed a pair of hand‐cuffs on him. She immediately told him not to do that, when the constable, without further remark, struck her a blow in the stomach with his hand, and she staggered backwards; be shortly afterwards followed this up by dealing her another blow.— Elisabeth Witter, who was in company with the complainant and her husband at the time, deposed to seeing the defendant strike the complainant two blows, from the effects of one of which she might have fallen into the canal had not she (the witness) caught her. The policeman had been to see her the day before, and having asked her if she had seen him strike the complainant she replied that she did. He then told her if she said anything against him it would be worse for her. The defendant denied the assault. Mr. Churton having addressed the magistrates, and commented strongly on the unwarrantable conduct of the defendant, the Bench fined him 10s. and 9s. 6d. costs, or in default seven days' imprisonment, having previously severely reprimanded him for his conduct.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 31 July 1897
TRAGIC DEATH IN CHESTER‐
YOUNG MAN SHOT :A shocking affair was reported to the police on Wednesday evening, when a young man named Thomas Jarvis, a son of the late clerk of the cemetery, accidentally shot himself. Deceased, who leaves a widow and two children, lived at 4, Old Wrexham‐road, Handbridge, and at half‐past five in the afternoon he was in the house apparently in his usual health and spirits. A woman from a neighbouring street was also in the house washing some clothes, and when she asked him to assist her in removing some article he made no reply, and went into the parlour. Shortly afterwards the woman heard the report of a gun, and on going into the room found Jarvis lying dead on the floor, with the gun by his side. The remains presented a shocking appearance, the top of the skull being blown off.
INQUEST: The City Coroner (Mr. E. Brassey) held an inquest on the body at the Red Lion Inn, Handbridge, on Thursday evening. Annie Jarvis, widow of deceased, said that although her husband had been of intemperate habits, he had lately been steady. She saw him last on the previous afternoon in the Hare and Hounds. He was quite sober, and there was nothing unusual in his manner. He came out and walked home. Witness knew no reason why he should commit suicide, and he had no trouble as far as she knew. The gun was usually kept behind the door. They bad always lived on the best of terms. — Lucy Worsley, charwoman, deposed to seeing deceased in his house the previous day. She heard the report of the gun and on going into the kitchen found him lying near the door quite dead. She did not notice the gun. There were shot marks on the door. — Thomas Jarvis, brother of deceased, deposed to finding the unfortunate man lying on his back in the kitchen. He was quite dead, the brains being scattered about the floor. The gun was by his side, discharged. One barrel was empty, and the other contained an empty cartridge. If the act was intentional, witness could not account for it. — P.C. Dryland saw deceased, and noticed no signs of anything by which the man could set the gun off. The barrel of the gun was pointing towards his head. —
The Coroner remarked that no doubt the act was self‐committed. It was probable that deceased had done it intentionally, and also, on the other hand, ‐equally probable that it was an accident. — The jury gave a verdict of 'Accidental death.'
Cheshire Observer
Saturday 16 January 1897
INTRUDERS AT HESWALL YACHT HOUSE.
THE CONSTABLE COMPLIMENTED BY THE BENCH.
At the Neston Petty Sessions, on Friday, Thomas Ryollt and Michael Duffy were charged in custody, before Colonel Lloyd, with stealing a quantity of wearing apparel, provisions, &c, from the Heswall Yacht Club House. Prisoners, who had been previously remanded, were wearing some of the garments alleged to have been stolen, and appeared to derive a vast amount of amusement from the evidence. At times they were convulsed with laughter, and their levity proved very contagious to the lookers‐on. Superintendent McDonald prosecuted. — John Fletcher Jellicoe, insurance agent, and Thomas Greaves Thompson, general merchant, both of Waterloo, members of the Heswall Yacht Club, appeared to identify the articles produced in court, and stated that they last saw them in the Yacht House on Dec. 6th— Edward Clarke, platelayer on the Hooton and West Kirby branch, stated that he saw the prisoners on the line between Heswall and Thurstaston, about a quarter of a mile from the Yacht House, at 7 a.m. on January Ist. Ryollt, who was about twenty yards in front of Duffy, had his pockets filled with bottles of beer, and asked witness to have a drink. He declined, and Ryollt per‐sisted, " Won't you have a drink with a Liverpool lad ?" Prisoner Duffy then came up, and after remarking that they had walked from Holywell the previous night, asked what time it was. Witness replied, "Just turned seven ;" and Duffy enquired, ‐morning or evening?" Witness afterwards directed the men in the direction of Birkenhead. They were both the worse for drink. — Cross‐examined by Ryollt : He was confident that he (Ryollt) was one of the men. — John Buckley, a local fisherman, stated that he acted as caretaker for the Yacht House on the Heswall shore, and about 11 a.m. on January 1st he found it had been broken into, and the boxes and drawers bad been emptied, and were lying upon the floor. He gave information to the police, and accompanied Constable Bee in his search for the thieves. They saw some broken bottles in a field going in the direction of Thurstaston, and after going through Irby to Pensby, they saw the prisoner Ryollt wearing the singlet, shoes, stockings, silk handkerchief, overcoat, jacket, two vests, produced, which he had last seen in the Yacht House. He had also a tin of corned beef in his possession. — Constable Bee apprehended him, and witness afterwards went on to higher Bebington, where he saw the prisoner Duffy. — Sergeant Higgins described the condition of the Yacht House after the robbery, and repeated a statement made to him by the prisoners at the police station. — Constable Bee detailed the manner in which he traced the prisoner to Pensby, and on seeing RyoUt he recognised him as a prisoner who had been convicted of robbing the same Yacht House in 1895, and called him by name. Ryollt rejoined : " I knew I was copped when I saw the little fellow" (Buckley). He searched him, and finding the stolen property produced in his possession, took him into custody, and handed him over to Sergeant Higgings, at Heswall. Witness afterwards obtained a horse and trap, and drove. to Higher Bebington, where he saw the prisoner Duffy. The witness Buckley was in conversation with Duffy.
Buckley said he could swear to the overcoat which Duffy had on, and which Ryollt was now wearing in the dock, as being the property of Mr. Thompson. Witness then took Duffy into custody, and on searching him at the Neston Police Station found a quantity of the other stolen property on him. When he charged the prisoners Ryollt said "I know nothing about it; my mate gave me these things"; and Duffy replied, "It was early morning when we went in. We intended letting the New Year in. I'd rather do that than beg. It's not like breaking into a poor man's house; they (the Yacht Club) can afford it."
— Ryollt now made a statement to the effect that he found the clothing tied in a bundle in a field about a quarter of a mile from the Yacht House, and put them on. — Duffy stated that he went into the Yacht House for a sleep, and, after rummaging about, found the clothing, put it on, and got drunk on the contents of the bottles he found in the building. He afterwards tied some of the clothing in a bundle, and later threw it away in a field, as the mate he had with him would not put them on. — The prisoners were then committed to the assizes for trial. The formal offer of allowing them to find bail proved a subject of much merriment to the prisoners, Duffy assuring his Worship that there would not be the slightest difficulty in the matter. The Bench afterwards highly complimented Constable Bee on his smart conduct in the matter, and asked Supt. McDonald to forward the opinion expressed by the Bench to the Chief Constable.
Cheshire Observer
Saturday 6 February 1897
NORTHWICH. A Councillor's Escapade. — At Northwich Petty Sessions, on Tuesday, Richard Turner, trades union member of the Northwich Urban Council, was charged with being drunk on the 12th ult. Constable Curry found him lying helpless in Castle‐street, and as the night was bitterly cold he was in imminent danger of being frozen to death. He was carried home.' A fine of 5s. was imposed.
CHESHIRE OBSERVER SATURDAY 23RD OCTOBER 1897
RETIREMENT OF POLICE SUPERINTENDENT BRITTON. The end of the present month will see the retirement from the Cheshire Constabulary of one of its ablest and most popular officers. Today (Saturday) the Standing Joint Committee of the county will be asked to grant Police‐Superintendent
W. Britton a pension of £130.4s per annum, after a service of upwards of 25 years. Superintendent Britton’s removal from the sphere of active work will be universally regretted. Located latterly at Altrincham, he had been stationed previously at New Brighton, Hyde, Birkenhead, Chester and Stockport in each of which places he gained the high respect and esteem of all who came in contact with him. A thorough disciplinarian and a conscientious and thoroughly trustworthy officer, his place in the force will be very hard to fill. His retirement at a comparatively early age, has been brought about by failing health, and means the sacrifice of considerable pecuniary advantages which he would have derived under the present scale of pay by a few more years’ service. Health, however, is the paramount consideration, and Supt. Britton feels that having given a quarter of a century of the best part of his life to the county, the time has come for him to be released from harness. His immediate intention is to spend a little time at Enniskillen, his native in the north of Ireland, but, after having built up his health he hopes to return and pass the remainder of his days in Cheshire. His many friends will wish that he may long‐his only in his fiftieth year‐to enjoy the Pension which he has so richly earned. A VARIED EXPERIENCE William Britton was born at Enniskillen. Ireland, on the 13th June 1848. In August 1868 he joined the Royal Irish Constabulary and for a couple of years served at Waterford, Wicklow, Belfast, and other parts of Ireland. Coming over to this country, he received his appointment as a constable in the" Cheshire Constabulary in May. 1872, at which time Captain Smith was the chief constable. After spending twelve months near New Brighton, PC Britton was removed to Hyde, where he had a prolonged stay of eleven or twelve years, and was advanced to the rank of sergeant. In June 1885, he ascended another rung in the ladder of promotion, being sent to Birkenhead as a detective inspector. The January following saw him transferred to Chester, and here he spent several years, adding greatly to the reputation he had already gained as an astute and well‐trained officer, until his services were further recognised by his appointment to the position of superintendent in charge of the Stockport division, in July, 1891. There he succeeded Mr. Hollingsworth, who was accidentally killed, and there he continued till May 1894, when he was despatched to his present post as superintendent of the Altrincham division. During, his varied experience, Supt Britton has been concerned in many important criminal cases, and his reminiscences would almost fill a book. When engaged in un‐ravelling some particularly perplexing mystery, it is a common saying in the force that he hardly ate or slept. His keen intellect and untiring activity stood him in good stead in many a case of robbery where it was apparently hopeless to find a clue. Many years ago Supt. Britton brought himself into prominence by his pluck and fearlessness. When he was a constable at Hyde a dangerous character whom he was arresting for forgery and embezzlement, and who afterwards was sentenced to ten years penal servitude, drew out a revolver and shot him in the leg. Despite his wound he chased the man for nearly a mile, and though his quarry eluded him in the darkness, he kept on his track the whole of the night, and did not again rest until he had run his man to earth at Oldham, at 5 o'clock the following morning. Alone he there affected the forger’s arrest, and for his gallant conduct was afterwards highly complimented by the magistrates and was awarded a merit badge. A ROBBERY OF £3,000. One of the biggest cases with which Supt. Britton was entrusted, and which, after untold difficulties, he brought to an entirely successful issue, was a robbery of £3,000 at Nantwich over eleven years ago. It was immediately upon taking up his duties as detective inspector at Chester that his attention was directed to this very romantic case. An elderly man named Blud, who had formerly carried on a prosperous business as a fellmonger at Nantwich had stowed away in a safe in his house about £3,000 in gold. One night the house was entered by some persons who climbed on the roof, smashed the front bedroom window, and decamped with nearly the whole of the old man's savings. It was some time before the real culprits were brought to justice. In the first instance the wife of Blud himself was locked up and charged with the robbery, but she was acquitted, and the police were for some time baffled. Detective Inspector Britton however got on to a new scent. He traced a labouring man named William Hesketh to Birmingham, and found that since leaving Nantwich he had married, and apparently come into a handsome windfall, for he was living in a very stylish way, and occupied a lavishly furnished house. On calling here the inspector was informed that the tenant and his wife were away from home. Not to be baffled, he tracked the quondam labourer to Lichfield, and thence to Milford station, where he succeeded in apprehending him with a cashbox in his possession containing £586 10s. In gold and £10 10s. In his pockets. Hesketh's brother and a young man named Astles were also arrested, after being traced to Manchester, Birmingham, Crewe, and Chester, where they spent the stolen money lavishly. The actual perpetrators of the burglary turned out to be William Hesketh and a man who made good his escape with two companions to America with half the spoil, amounting to £1,500. His ill‐gotten gains did not, however, benefit him much, for immediately after landing it is believed he was robbed by his accomplices, and left without a penny. Eventually the two Heskeths, with their father (who was alleged to have received £100 of the money) and Astles were brought before Sir Horatio Lloyd at the Quarter Sessions at Chester Castle in April. The father, Thomas Hesketh, was acquitted, but the others pleaded guilty to the charges against them. William Hesketh was sentenced to twelve months' hard labour, while for helping him to dispose of the proceeds of the burglary his brother Charles and his friend Astles each received sentence of six months' imprisonment. The three thousand sovereigns which had lain stored in Blud's house for an indefinite period, had become tarnished by age, and it was the circulation of these tarnished coins that aided the clever detective in running down the criminals. This case which cost Detective Inspector Britton many weeks of sleepless activity and an amount of travelling, which would have knocked up any man of ordinary physique, earned him a wide reputation, to which be added on many other occasions.
Liverpool Echo - Thursday 13 January 1898
DARING SHEEP STEALING CHESHIRE. ARREST CHESTER.
To‐day, at Chester Castle Petty Sessions Occasional Court, before Mr. George A.Dickenson,
William Minshull Captain, and James Turner, mate of the Shropshire Union Canal boat “Starling” were charged with stealing a sheep from a field at Minshull Vernon, the property Mr. C. B. Davies, Eardwich Hall, and a widow named Ellen Minshull, residing at Ellesmere Port, was charged with receiving portion of the sheep, knowing to have stolen. —
Superintendent Leah, of the headquarters of Cheshire Constabulary Chester, said the sheep was missed from a field on Sunday, and information was given to the police Inspector Beeley of the headquarters at Chester, made investigations, as the result of which arrested the prisoners. With reference to the woman he asked to be allowed to withdraw the case against her. A portion of the stolen sheep was found her house at Elllesmere Port last night by Sergeant Fowler, but although she had got from one of the male prisoners there was no evidence that she knew it to be stolen.—Police‐inspector Beeley said he arrested the male prisoners this morning.
In answer to charge Minshull replied, “Well, we cannot get out of it. We did it, we cannot get out of it." Turner replied, "We did it and both of are bad as one another,"
The case against Ellen Minshull was dismissed and she stated that she met the prisoners at Ellesmere Port on Monday eight last. Turner gave her the piece of mutton produced, saying it would make stew. Minshull was her son‐in‐law. —
Upon this the prisoners were handed over to the custody of Sergeant Hunt, to be dealt with in the Middlewich Petty Sessional Division of Cheshire.
Cheshire Observer
Saturday 20 May 1899
DRUNK OR SOBER?
POLICE VERSUS MEDICAL EVIDENCE.
At Nantwich Petty Sessions on Monday, Mr. H. J. Tollemache, M.P., presiding, John Duddon Plant mineral water manufacturer, Crewe, was charged with being drunk while in charge of a horse and trap at Audlem.
Police Constable Tracey stated that he took charge of defendant and his horse and trap. The defendant and a man who accompanied him were both drunk.
Constable Gogger, who drove the defendant home after being detained at Audlem lockup, said that when they left Audlem the defendant was quite drunk, but he was sober on arrival at Crewe after a drive of two hours and a half.
P.S. Davies, keeper of the lock‐up at Audlem, gave corroborative evidence.
Mr. Kinsey, solicitor, strenuously denied the charge, and informed the magistrates that Mr. Plant suffered from chronic gout and rheumatism, and had an unsteady gait He had been ill from erysipelas, and on the day of the alleged offence he was out for the first time after his recovery.
The defendant gave evidence, and swore that he was sober when the police locked him up. He had only had one glass of whisky during the day.
Dr. Lawrence, Crewe, aaid the defendant came to his surgery a quarter of an hour after arriving home. At the defendant's request he examined him very carefully, and he was quite satisfied that he was not drunk. Further, examining him as he did and finding what he did, he came to the conclusion that he could not have been drunk for at least two or three hours previously.
The magistrates convicted, and a previous conviction being recorded against the defendant, a fine of 10s. and coats was now imposed.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 3 June 1899
SAVAGE ASSAULT AT CHESTER.
A POLICEMAN GETS A BLACK EYE,
At Chester City Police Court on Saturday morning, before Messrs. William Brown and Roger Jackson, A. McDermott and Robert Burns, two soldiers, stationed at the Chester Barracks, were charged with being drunk and disorderly in Castle‐street, and with assaulting P.C. R. Smith while in the execution of his duty on Friday night.
The Chief Constable said the officer had occasion to speak to McDermott, when he turned upon him and assaulted him. But for the intervention of a Mrs. Hunter he might have been seriously injured.
P.C. R. Smith, who appeared in the witness‐box with a much‐swollen eye, said that about a quarter‐past eleven last night he saw the prisoners drunk and creating a great disturbance in Castle‐street. While he was arresting Burns, McDermott came up behind him and struck him several blows in the face. Mrs. Hunter then came to his assistance, and shortly afterwards the guard from the barracks turned out and took prisoners to the Castle.
Catherine Hunter, 22, Castle ‐street, said she saw the prisoners drunk and very violent in front of her house on the night in question. She heard the officer ordering them to go to the barracks, but they refused. They were both cruelly illtreating the officer. McDermott also knocked her brother‐in‐law's hat off, and hit him when he went to the officer's assistance. Witness sent for the guard, who eventually got them to the barracks.
Lieut Stevens said neither of the two prisoners had a good, character. McDermott had been in the Army about four months, and had been in prison two or three times. Burns had been 6 weeks in the Army, and had been in prison once.
The Chief Constable said it was a very bad case indeed, and asked the magistrates to make an example of prisoners. They were sent to prison for a month with hard labour. (The above appeared in our last Saturday Evening Edition).
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 10 June 1899
MURDEROUS ASSAULT AT CHESTER. BREAKING A BOTTLE ON A WOMAN'S HEAD
At the Chester Police Court, on Monday morning, before the Mayor (Dr. Stolterfoth) and other magistrates. Robert Downing, a grey‐haired old man, described as a shoemaker, and living at 5, St. Olave‐street, was charged on remand with an aggravated assault on a woman named Elizabeth Tonks, on Saturday week. —
The Chief Constable (Mr. J. H. Laybourne), stating the facts, said that prisoner had lived with Tonks for nine years, and they had three children. On the Saturday night prisoner, when he returned home, threw a cup at the woman, and told her to clear out of the house. He then got hold of her by the hair of the head, threw her out the floor, and kicked her. When he returned to the house about an hour afterwards, prisoner struck her on the head with a bottle. Tonks was taken to a neighbouring house, and there had her wounds attended to by Dr. King.
The complainant, who said she had been in the Infirmary as an out‐door patient ever since the assault, generally bore out Mr. Laybourne's statement, saying that when she asked prisoner his reason for ordering her out of the house he said she could go where she liked. He then caught hold of her by the hair of the bead, threw her on the ground outside, and kicked her on the head. She was taken into a neighbour's house by her sister, and Dr. King was sent for. Prisoner came home again about a quarter past eleven when she was in bed. He snatched the bandage from her head and said he would give her something to bleed for. He struck her across the head with a bottle and said, "Now I will bang you." She then ran oat of the house.
Annie Williams, wife of John Evan Williams, and sister of the woman Tonks, deposed to witnessing the assault. She said that Downing was given a cup of beer upstairs, when he came down and committed the assault complained of. In consequence of her injuries her sister was taken to the Infirmary.
Elizabeth Jones, 2, St. Olave‐street, also gave evidence, stating that between six and seven o'clock on the Saturday night in question she was standing at the door, and saw the prisoner kick Tonks on the head. She asked Mrs. Williams to bring her to her house. She then Bent her brother for Dr. King.
Sergeant Porter said he found the complainant in a nude state in Lower Bridge‐street about a quarter‐past one on Sunday morning. He went to the house, and found the broken bottle (produced) stained with blood. He charged Downing with unlawful wounding. Prisoner, asked if he had anything to say, denied that he either kicked Tonks, or struck her with a bottle. He said he only pushed her, and that she fell down the steps because she was drunk. Mrs. Williams was also drunk. The Chief Constable remarked that prisoner was rather partial to bottles. A short time ago he threw a bottle which went through the window. The Mayor said prisoner was liable to six months' hard labour, but this time they would only send him to prison for six weeks, with hard labour.
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 25 November 1899
ALLEGED SAVAGE ASSAULT ON THE POLICE.
BEHAVING LIKE A LUNATIC
James Kerr, of no fixed address, appeared in the dock with a much disfigured face at the Chester City Police Court on Thursday morning, before the Mayor (Alderman H. T. Brown) and Mr. George Dutton, on a charge of being drunk and disorderly in Lower Bridge‐street on Wednesday night. He was further charged with assaulting P.C.'s J. Lawrence and Arthur Williams while in the execution of their duty on the same date.
P.C.
Williams said about half‐past eleven on the night mentioned he found the prisoner bleeding from the eye in Lower Bridge‐street. He was drunk, and when arrested commenced to use foul language. He also hit witness in the mouth, kicked him heavily on the leg, and caught hold of his hand with his teeth. The end of witness' whistle, which he used to call for assistance, was bitten off. P.C.
Lawrence, who stated that he went to the assistance of the last‐named constable, found prisoner very violent; in fact he behaved like a lunatic. This witness was also kicked about the leg. The Chief Constable (Mr. J. H. Laybourne) said with reference to the man's nose, which was broken, he would call P.C. Dougherty to account for his present condition.
P.C. Dougherty, on being sworn, stated that he was in charge of the police office on Wednesday night when prisoner was brought in. He behaved like a lunatic at half‐past three o'clock that morning. In consequence of a great noise, which proceeded from the cells, witness went down and found prisoner knocking himself against the door of the cell in which he was locked up. His nose was not in its present bad condition, when first he was brought in. Prisoner had all his clothes off with the exception of his trousers.
Kerr, who pleaded guilty to being drunk, but not to assaulting the policemen, said he was never handled so roughly in all his life. (Laughter.) When requested to be quiet by the Chief Constable, he refused to do so, saying that he had a right to defend himself in the cause of right and justice. (Laughter.)
The case was adjourned for two days.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 17 June 1899
CITY POLICE COURT.
A Missing Chester Policeman.
Joseph Jones, 9, Bed ward‐row, a constable in the City Police Force, was summoned for withdrawing from his duties without giving the Chief Constable one mouth's notice of his intention to do so.
Mr. Laybourne informed the Bench that defendant on Friday night absented himself, and withdrew from his police duties without giving any notice. Last night he returned to the Police Office, and admitted the charge.
The Magistrate's Clerk (Mr. Davison): Is there any excuse ? The Chief Constable “He has had a great deal of trouble at home. If he had come to me at the right time, I think this might have been prevented. He appears to have gone to see a sister in Staffordshire, and he came back on Monday. The Clerk: “Well, that is to be said in his favour. “The Chief Constable: He is dismissed from the force; there is no question about that.
The Bench dismissed the case, the Chairman remarking the offence was a very serious one, as defendant might have caused a great deal of trouble by leaving his duty. It was an important question of discipline.
Cheshire Observer - Saturday 1 July 1899
CHESTER CITY POLICE COURT.
Wednesday.— Before Messrs. Charles Brown and J. G. Frost.
The Affray on the City Walls.—
John Campbell was charged on remand with having been drunk and disorderly, assaulted the police, and damaged a Corporation tree on the City Walls on the 17th inst.
P.C. Arthur Hughes stated that about four o'clock on Saturday afternoon he was informed that a man was damaging one of the trees in Park‐street, which runs parallel with the Walls. He went and saw prisoner on the Walls drunk, and using filthy language to the people in the street. Witness caught hold of him, when Campbell kicked him in the stomach. A severe struggle ensued, and witness had great difficulty in removing him to the police office. He had to obtain assistance.
Mr. Laybourne said the officer had been off duty since the occurrence, and would be for another fortnight to come. His knee was very seriously damaged, and probably his injury would remain for life. In reply to the Bench, prisoner said he lived at Liverpool‐road, Neston, of which place he was a native. — Mr. Laybourne said prisoner had been before the Neston and Birkenhead magistrates six times during the years 1897‐98, and had been convicted twice of assaulting the police, and once of an assault on railway officials.
The police superintendent of the Wirral division stated Campbell was a thorough scoundrel, and thoroughly deserved the maximum penalty.
The Chairman considered the case a most serious one, and remarked that he had never heard of so bad a record of a young man since he sat on the Bench. The officer was perhaps injured for life. Prisoner would go to gaol for six months hard labour, and it was to be hoped the sentence would be a warning to him.
Cheshire Observer ‐Saturday 20 May 1899
RETIREMENT OF AN EX‐CHESTER Prison Governor. —
Mr. J. B. Manning, late governor of Chester Castle Prison, has retired from his position as governor of Pentonville Penal Establishment, [1891 – 1900] upon an annual pension amounting to £501 6s. 8d., of which sum £188 15s. 6d. is payable by the Cheshire County authorities, and the remainder by the Government.
Mr. Manning, who is a native of the district of Chester, has had a distinguished career. He first learned the business of land surveyor, and subsequently joined the Army. He was present at the siege of Sebastopol and at other engagements during the Crimean War, and received the Medal for Distinguished Services. He held the rank of sergeant in the Army. On leaving the Army, he became a member and afterwards superintendent of the Cheshire County Constabulary, and later on a warder at Chester Castle. He was promoted to the deputy‐governorship, and was afterwards elected governor by one vote over influential candidates.
Some years ago he left Chester to become governor of Wakefield Prison, and subsequently he received the important appointment of governor of Pentonville. When in Chester, Mr. Manning was a prominent member of the Chester Natural Science Society, of which he acted as treasurer for some time, and he also identified himself with other institutions in the city.
He will carry with him the best wishes of his numerous friends in his retirement.
[Although J B Manning is technically recorded as the Governor on Pentonville, until 1900, he appears to have been off sick for most of 1899]. When Oscar Wilde spent a short time in Pentonville in 1895 after being convicted of gross indecency, friends tried to bribe the governor, J.B.Manning, by offering him £100,000 to help Wilde escape.
Manchester Evening News - Wednesday 22 November 1899
A CHESHIRE CONSTABLE'S BRAVERY.
This morning, at Middlewich Petty Sessions, the Royal Humane Society's honorary testimonial, in a handsome frame, granted to Constable Fred Robinson, a native of Barnton, near Northwich, for conspicuous bravery, was presented by Colonel France Hayhurst, chairman of the Bench. Robinson distinguished himself recently by gallantly saving a girl from drowning at Middlewich. Though an indifferent swimmer, he plunged into the canal, and effected a rescue at the risk of his own life.
Cheshire Observer -Saturday 25 March 1899
CHESTER CYCLIST'S SHOCKING DEATH.
PIERCED BY A CART SHAFT.
A Chester cyclist named William Gallagher, met with a shocking death on returning on Saturday night from Heswall, where he had been acting as clerk of the works over some road construction. The deceased, who was 25 years of age, was employed by Mr. William Nolan, contractor, Chester, and visited Heswall on Saturday for the purpose of paying salaries to a number of men engaged in the road making. It appears that he was detained longer than he anticipated and did not leave Heswall until after seven o'clock.
As it was approaching lighting‐up time he rode at a considerable speed, and it is supposed he had been leaning well over his machine, which has low‐dropped handle‐bars. Upon arriving at Windle Hill, Hinderton, about half‐past seven, he was observed by a fisherman named Ollerhead, of Neston, to be proceeding at a rapid pace. Ollerhead was driving his pony and cart, and he is said to have had a light and shouted twice to deceased as a warning. At that time a distance of about twenty yards separated them, but Gallagher, who had apparently not heard the warning, dashed with terrific force into the shaft on the right side of the vehicle. Ollerhead at once alighted and found the cyclist lying unconscious on the road. The cycle, which seemed to be only slightly damaged, was in front of the horse. Mr. W. Lawton, Neston, who was riding a tandem machine along the road, assisted Ollerhead in placing deceased into the cart and driving him to Dr. Blundell'a surgery at Neston, where he was attended by that medical gentle‐man and his assistant. Notwithstanding their assiduous attentions, the patient succumbed to his injuries about half‐past eight o'clock, an hour after the accident. The collision must have been of a terrible character, as the shaft had penetrated the middle portion of deceased's right thigh, severing veins, from which blood flowed profusely. The body was removed to the mortuary, near Neston Church.
The sad intelligence was received with feelings of profound regret by the Catholic fraternity of Chester, for deceased was one of their best known and most popular members. He was a prominent member of St. Francis' Amateur Dramatic Society, and on the evening of St. Patrick's Day was one of the actors in the farce, ' Paddy Miles,' performed in Chester Music Hall. At the early mass services in St Werburgh's Church and St. Francis's Church, Canon Lynch and Father Dominic respectively made touching references to the deceased, who was described as one of their most promising workers. Until recently he was secretary or the St. Francis' Men's Society. He was educated at St Werburgh's Schools, and up to four years ago, when he relinquished duties there, was assistant master. He resided at 29, Victor‐street, and was the son of Mr. Wm. Gallagher, coal merchant.
A PATHETIC STORY. Our Neston correspondent sends the following additional particulars :—
lt is long since i any event has created such a painful sensation, here as did the tragic death of William , Gallagher on Saturday evening. He was engaged as timekeeper or clerk of the works on ; the new road which is being made near Heswall Slack for the Wirral District Council, and, although he had only been employed in the district a few days, he had made a number of . acquaintances, and his free and sociable disposition was appreciated by those with whom he came in contact. He rode to and from, Chester for several nights, although he had engaged lodgings at Heswall, and on Saturday he did not reach Heswall until a few minutes I to 12 (noon). He explained that he had been engaged in a farce at the Chester i Music Hall on the previous evening. It is a remarkable fact, and one in accord with the statement made at the inquest in reference to his defective vision, that when running into Heswall on the Saturday morning he came into violent collision with a local cart, and was thrown to the ground, I exclaiming in a tone of alarm " I might have i been killed !" After paying the men engaged on the work he spent several hours in Heswall and left at 6.40, carelessly remarking, as he threw his leg over his bicycle, "I shall be in Chester in an hour. I have an appointment there at 8.30." It appears that the cycle lamp was short of oil, for Constable Thelwell, of Neston, who intelligently and closely investigated the whole of the circumstances, stated the wick had a light red ash on the top proving that it had been burnt while dry. Deceased probably intended to replenish the oil while upon the journey, or to have lighted up after leaving the lonely highways and entering the Chester thorough fares. Ollerhead's cart shaft is worn to a fairly sharp point, and it inflicted frightful injuries, the wound in the thigh alone being four inches: long, in addition to terrible injury to the abdomen. The ghastly stain on the roadside was inspected by hundreds of cyclists and others on the Sunday, and there was a sad tell‐tale track over the distance (nearly two miles) between the scene of the accident and the surgery of Doctors Blunden and Yeoman. A large crowd gathered about the latter place, and expressions of deep sympathy were to be heard on every side. The deceased, although in a dying state, must have been more or less conscious. He ejaculated "Oh, doctor,” murmured a word or two of prayer, and was several times heard to utter a word which it has since been ascertained was a pet name for his mother. Every effort was made by Drs. Blunden and Yeoman to maintain the flickering flame of life, but deceased rapidly sank, and died about 8.30, or about half‐an‐hour after he reached the surgery. No one could identify the deceased, though the opinion was expressed that he came from Heswall, and many were the surmises of the crowd as to whether he was married or whether he had a mother. Ollerhead, who is a quiet, well‐behaved local cockle and mussel gatherer and seller, was interrogated .by our correspondent immediately after the accident, and gave exactly the same version as that he afterwards gave before the coroner. He was perfectly sober, and seemed much grieved about the fatality.
The only clue to the identity of the deceased was a receipt for a bill paid to Mr. Ellison, of Heswall, and the latter referred the messenger to Mr. Nolan, of Chester, and the police telephone afterwards fully established the identity. The mother and sister of the deceased and Mr. Nolan drove to Neston on Sunday morning, and it was only at Neston that the mother was acquainted with her terrible bereavement. The spot where the accident occurred is about 100 yards on the Parkgate side of the bridge which crosses the Hooton and West Kirby railway, opposite Lea Hurst Hall, the residence of Mr T Clarke, J.P.
THE INQUEST. The inquest was held at the Neston Police Court on Tuesday afternoon by the West Cheshire coroner (Mr. J. C. Bate). Wm. Robt. Langford, of 24, Watergate‐street, Chester, stated that the deceased, who was his brother‐in‐law, was a little short‐sighted. Richard Ollerhead said on Saturday night he was in charge of a pony and small cart coming from Chester to Neston. About half‐past seven when he got over the railway bridge at Little Neston, and was trotting slowly, he saw deceased approaching on a bicycle, which was not lighted. Witness shouted "Mind, or you will be into my cart." Deceased, who was sitting with his head over the handles and did not look up, did not reply. Witness pulled on the left side of the road when he shouted, but deceased ran into his off shaft. Deceased was in the middle of the road. The force of the impact stopped the pony. Deceased fell outside the wheel of the cart, and the bicycle fell in front of the pony's feet. Witness saw the blood pouring from deceased and when Mr. Lawton, who was riding a bicycle, came up they put deceased into the cart and drove him to the surgery of Dr. Blunden. Witness had a light on the right‐hand side of his cart. He lighted the lamp at Badger's Rake. William; Lawton, cycle manufacturer, Neston, said on Saturday night he was riding a tandem bicycle with a lady in the Neston township in the direction of Chester. Near the railway bridge he passed the last witness, who was driving a cart with a good light attached to it. As soon as he passed Ollerhead he heard a shout. Witness dismounted and walked back about fifteen yards. He found the cart standing in the middle of the road, and a bicycle in front of the pony's feet. The man was lying on the side of the road by the wheel of the cart. He was unconscious, and witness assisted to move him into the cart. Deceased was bleeding very badly. He did not speak. There was a lamp on deceased's machine, but it was not lighted. Witness had previously passed deceased. It was moonlight and not very dark. Witness, who was going about twelve miles an hour, and had a good light, thought deceased wanted to keep behind him. It would not have been difficult for deceased to keep up with them. Deceased was about fifteen yards behind them. Dr. Blunden said deceased was brought to his surgery about half past seven on Saturday night. He was suffering from a severe lacerated wound in front of his right thigh. He was quite unconscious, and witness saw that he was in considerable danger. Witness and his partner (Dr. Yeoman) tried to revive deceased with stimulants and injections of ether, but he died before regaining consciousness and before they had had time to finish dressing the wound.
The cause of death was shock caused by the collision. Deceased died at eight o'clock. The Coroner in gamming up, said the case appeared to be a very clear one of accident. Deceased was riding behind another cyclist, and no doubt be was bending down as stated and did not see the light. The tandem might have hidden the light from him. The jury returned a verdict of ' Death from accidental causes.'
THE FUNERAL. The interment took place on Wednesday afternoon, the first part of the service being conducted at St. Werburgh's Church by Canon Lynch. Thence the long procession wound its way to the Cemetery, where Canon Lynch took the remainder of the service. The chief, were Mr. and Mrs. Gallagher, Messrs. Joseph 3 Frank, and John Gallagher (brothers), Miss Gallagher (sister), and Mr. and Mrs. Langford. j Among others present were the Rev. Fathers Dominic and Ignatius, Messrs. G.
H. Moore, W. H. Jarvis, W. Nolan, J. Cahill, T. Rafferty, P. Byrne, and W. Jones (bearers), J. McGeever, Clunan. and Owen, with members of the St. Francis' Men's Society, and the Dramatic and Minstrel Societies. Flowers were sent by Mr. and Mrs. Gallagher, Miss Gallagher, Messrs. Jos. F. and John Gallagher, Mr. and Mrs. Langford, Mr. and Miss Morgan, Mrs. Lloyd. Miss McKale, Hugo and Nellie (cousins), Mr. and Mrs. Rose, Mrs. Jones, Mr. and Miss Reynolds, Mr. Flood, Mr. H. Jannion, St. Francis Amateur Dramatic Society, St. Francis Minatrel Troupe, Members of St. Francia Club, St. Francis Boys' Club, St. Werburgh'a School children, Newton Rangers F.C., Mr. J. Calloghan. Messrs. E.
Dutton and Sons, Frodsham‐street, carried out the funeral arrangements.
Manchester Evening News - Wednesday 15 March 1899
A NORTHWICH DROWNING CASE About noon to‐day Mary Wilmington, the wife of a chemical labourer, residing at 21, Warrington Road, Northwich, met her death by drowning in the River Dane at the rear of the Northwich Victoria football ground. She was subject to fits, and it is supposed that during a seizure she fell into the water. No one was near at the time. She was soon missed, and an alarm was raised. Constable Butler obtained grappling appliances, and shortly afterwards the body was recovered.