Mary and James Ashworth were both in their early thirties when they lived on Cresswell Road, Mexborough. On Saturday 1 August of 1906 around 10.10 pm an argument broke out just as the couple had been enjoying a late supper in the kitchen. Also there was a friend, Henry Johnson who, saw James reached over the table and smack his wife in the mouth. As Mary (who was known locally as Polly) put out her hands to save herself, she accidentally knocked over a parrafin lamp which had been standing in the middle of the table. It broke against the surface and within an instant, parrafin was spreading everywhere. To their horror the paraffin blazed up spread across the remains of the meal and poured into James lap.

Suddenly it ignited and set James’s clothes alight as Mary screamed at the top of her voice. James got up from the table, still ablaze and ran out of the house also screaming. A neighbour called Emma Smith saw the man ablaze, but all he said was ‘Polly’s thrown a lamp at me!’ Neighbours quickly came rushing to his rescue and managed to put out James clothes using a hearthrug to extinguish the flames. He was immediately removed to the Mexborough Montague Hospital where medical staff treated his terrible burns. The Rotherham Police were informed and the next day he was visited by Inspector Watson and Sergeant Matthews.

He told them that the matter had been ‘a pure accident’ however, six weeks later on Thursday 13 September James Ashworth succumbed to his injuries and died. The Deputy Coroner, Mr J Kenyon Parker arranged for an inquest to be held on Tuesday 18 September at the Primitive Methodist Institute, Mexborough. Also in attendance was Superintendent Hicks of the West Riding Constabulary. The witness Henry Johnson was the first witness, and he stated that Mary Ashworth had deliberately picked up the lamp and thrown it across the table at her husband. In view of this grave allegation, Mr Kenyon Parker had no option but to adjourn the inquest to Friday 21 September 1906 so that the man’s story could be looked into. As a result Mary Ashworth was taken into custody.

At the adjourned inquest, the prisoner questioned Johnson, but he managed to stick to his story. However he admitted that he had left the house for around five minutes, so had no idea how the argument had started. He had only just entered the house as James attacked his wife. One of the surgeons at the Montague Hospital, Frank Harvey gave evidence that he had seen the deceased man shortly after he had been admitted. However he claimed that James’s burns were extensive, but all were superficial. His burns were mostly from the middle of his waist to his toes. For the first few days there were hopes that he might survive, but nevertheless James Ashworth died.

Frank Harvey stated that the cause of his death had been from exhaustion, as James had been unable to sleep due to the great pain he was constantly in. A sister at the hospital called Clara Wesley confirmed the surgeon’s account and said that the patient had always maintained that the matter was an accident. However in reply to Sergeant Hicks, Clara said that she was present on the morning that her patient died. She also stated that James had made a statement to the sergeant ‘but that it was different to the one he had made to her.’ Another witness was a woman called Eliza Winter who lived at the South Yorkshire Hotel, Mexborough.

It seems that around a quarter to midnight, having heard about the incident, she went to the house on Cresswell Road and saw the prisoner. She said that her husband James had already been removed to the hospital, but she was standing outside the house with her little boy. Eliza asked her ‘Polly what have you done?’ to which she replied ‘I have thrown a lamp at him. Well he shouldn’t be jealous of me!’ The witness claimed that on this occasion that the prisoner was talking wildly and not like her normal, quiet self. The coroner asked her if she was quite sure those were the words used by the prisoner, to which she replied that she said it in such a loud voice, so other people must have heard it too.

Another woman called Mary Ann Lockwood, who had accompanied the previous witness corroborated her evidence. Then Mr Kenyon Parker addressed the prisoner and told her that she could make a statement if she wished, but as she was not represented by a defence counsel he advised her to say nothing, to which she agreed. The coroner summed up for the jury and reminded them that they had a two fold issue to decide. They had first to find the cause of death of the deceased man and secondly to decide who was responsible for it. He said that the fact that the lamp had struck the table, did not alter the legal consequences of the prisoners actions in the slightest degree.

He reminded the jury that several witnesses had heard the deceased man say that his wife had thrown the lamp at him as well as that it had fallen over. They had also heard Mary Ashworth had said much the same thing. The jury retired to consider their verdict and brought back a charge of manslaughter against Mary Ashworth. The prisoner was sentenced to take her trial on the Coroners warrant and was immediately removed from the inquest. Thankfully by the time that Mary was brought before Mr Justice Bigham at the West Riding Assizes in Leeds on Friday 14 December 1906 she was represented by counsel, Mr Yarborough.

Mr Fleming, the prosecution opened the case and related the events of the night of 1 August for the jury. He stated that at the time the deceased man was sober, but the prisoner was drunk as he described the events. The same inquest witnesses gave their evidence as Police Sergeant Matthews related how he had been called to the house with Inspector Watson. He opened his notebook and related how the prisoner had indeed been drinking, but nevertheless he said that she seemed to know what she was doing. She had told him:

‘Jim and me have been having words. He struck at me across the table. I put my hands out and knocked the lamp over. It fell over onto the table and broke and burned him. Some of them say I threw the lamp at him, but that is not true.’

Inspector Watson said that from what Mary Ashworth had said to him, he thought that the incident had been a complete accident. Mr Justice Bigham pointed out to the jury that although the witnesses evidence differed, the last two witnesses were men specially trained to listen to evidence. He also reminded them that Ashworth himself, before he had died had stated that the incident had been an accident. The judge added that in her distress, the prisoner herself might easily have thrown the lamp at her husband. Nevertheless in his opinion the lamp had simply been knocked over. He therefore directed the jury to find the prisoner ‘not guilty’ and Mary Ashworth was thankfully discharged.

In September of 1843 a woman called Jane Marsden of Waingate Sheffield found herself a widow when her husband Jeffrey died. Before he died, they had lived in a large house on Waingate which they rented out to lodgers. However now with her husband gone, Jane had no way of running such a large establishment by herself. Sadly she was now in a position where she had no option but to sell the house. Thankfully she was able to put what effects she had in a garret of the house of her sister, Phoebe Pepper in Arundel Street, Sheffield. Jane was now in a position where she was forced to find herself a job as a housekeeper for an elderly couple.

However matters soon took a downward turn when, towards the end of January her sister Phoebe was taken ill and needed a domestic servant to take care of her. Accordingly, Jane applied to the Sheffield Workhouse for the services of one of the inmates who had nursing experience. Soon a forty-eight year old woman called Mary Hobson was recommended by the matron of the workhouse and the two women returned back to Arundel Street. However shortly afterwards Phoebe’s condition so deteriorated that she was bedridden. Mary Hobson took this in her stride and at first things went well as she attended to her patient assiduously.

Jane visited frequently to make sure that matters were progressing satisfactorily. However on Tuesday 26 March 1844 she needed to get back some of her blankets, and going up to the attic, opened the chest containing her stored drapery. Jane immediately noticed that the pile of blankets was a lot smaller than it had been and to her horror noticed that some other goods were also missing. Emptying the chest onto the floor, Jane saw that some sheets, pillowcase and towels were no longer in the chest. Making a quick inventory, Jane found that five blankets, a suit of clothes, a feather pillow, three small pieces of carpet and a shirt amongst other things had gone.

Going back downstairs she asked Mary where her blankets were and the servant told her ‘Oh I knew where they are, I can fetch them back for you tomorrow morning.’ The next morning however she left the house without saying where she was going. A search was made for Mary Hobson and she was soon found in Sheffield and taken into custody. Consequently she was brought before the Sheffield Magistrates at the Town Hall on Friday 29 March 1844. The first witness was a widow called Elizabeth Kirk, who told the court that she had known the prisoner for some time. She reported how on Monday 25 March, Mary had arrived at her house in Waingate.

The prisoner had asked Elizabeth if she would do her a favour and asked her to pledge a boys shirt for her at a pawnshop run by a man called Beet. Elizabeth did as requested and got 6d for the article which she duly gave to Mary. The next witness was the pawnbroker himself and he proudly introduced himself as Mr William Champion Beet. He stated that on 14 March the prisoner came into his shop with a blanket that she said that she wanted to pawn. He asked Mary if it was her own property to which she stated that it was. As a consequence he gave her a shilling for the blanket. Since that time the prisoner had returned back to his shop on Saturday 23 March where she pawned another blanket for the same amount.

The pawnbroker said that Mary had also returned on Monday 25 March when she pledged a cotton shirt for sixpence. The next witness was Police Constable Potton who produced the stolen items in the courtroom. They were readily identified by Jane Marsden as being her property. The prisoner was found guilty and ordered to take her trial. As a result Mary Hobson was brought before the Spring Quarter Sessions at Pontefract on Monday 8 April 1844. She pleaded guilty to stealing the articles from the house of Phoebe Pepper and was sentenced to three calendar months imprisonment.

When I write about such cases, I cant help but wonder what happened to women finding themselves in such a position. Any woman coming out of prison would not have the help and support that ex convicts have today. Just the fact that Mary Hobson had served, even a short a sentence as this, would have guaranteed that even if she returned back to Sheffield, her life would never be the same. ‘Once a jail bird, always a jail bird’ was the thinking of the time. At a guess I would suppose that the only door open to her would be to return to the Sheffield Workhouse as a pauper inmate. As a forty-eight year old woman, it was to be hoped that she found some joy in the few years left to her.

At 2 am on the morning of Monday 27 February 1871 two people, a man and a boy were working in Carr House Colliery, situated about a mile from the town of Rotherham. The man was called William Hague and the boy (who was not a relation) was called Thomas Hague aged just twelve. Although William had worked at the colliery for many years, he had just a week earlier been appointed as deputy and one of his first jobs was as a ‘fire trier.’ As unbelievable as this may sound, it involved testing for fire damp with a naked flame instead of using a safety lamp.

That morning the pair had covered much of the colliery workings quite safely, until they arrived at a place which was about 1,100 yards from the shaft bottom. That was where the flame of the candle came in contact with the fire damp resulting in a great explosion, which was so fierce that both man and boy were dashed to the ground. William, himself badly burned, took one look at the boy and knew immediately that he was dead. Despite his own terrible terrible injuries, he managed to crawl to the shaft bottom and climbed inside the cage before signalling for it to be raised. When William reached the top, his dreadfully scorched and burnt condition spoke for itself.

He told a colliery steward and two other miners about Thomas’s injuries and they accompanied him below to look for the body. When they arrived at the place where the explosion had occurred they found Thomas. Thankfully his body bore distinctive evidence that he had died instantly. He was conveyed to the surface and a surgeon, Mr Bernard Walker of Masborough was instantly dispatched to the scene. He ordered the injured man and the deceased boy to be conveyed to Greasborough where an inquest had been quickly arranged. It was held at the Prince of Wales Hotel the following day at 5 pm. Coroner Mr J Webster opened the inquest before the jury went to view the body of the young boy.

When they returned, the coroner told the inquest that it would be at least six weeks before William Hague would be well enough to give his own account of the accident. Accordingly, he adjourned the enquiry until Tuesday 11 April. When the inquest reconvened, also in attendance was Mr Wardell, the Government Inspector of Mines. The first witness was the surgeon Mr Walker and he told the inquest that Thomas’s remains indicated that although there was no external injuries to his body, the inside of his mouth was badly burned. He therefore concluded that the child had died from suffocation.

The surgeon also told the inquest that William Hague was thankfully now out of danger and could give his own testimony. Mr Webster reminded William that he had been charged with causing the death of Thomas Hague by his neglect of the colliery rules and regulations. So if he chose to give evidence it might be used against him if he was found guilty of manslaughter by the magistrates enquiry which was to follow. Nevertheless William chose to give his evidence. It was very clear that the poor man was still very weak from his injuries and was allowed a chair to sit in whilst he described what had happened.

William told the inquest that he had initially gone down the mine with a safety lamp, but had left it at some place before going forward with a naked candle. When Mr Wardell, asked him why he had taken a candle into the pit, the witness told him that it gave a better light than the safety lamps in the air holes. He said that the area where the explosion occurred had been for a long time unused and it had consequently been standing empty for some time. However William added, that he had been there scores of times before with a candle and nothing had ever happened before. He claimed that it had always been safe and concluded:

‘I knew I was doing wrong, but I went into the heading thinking it was as safe as this room. I have been there scores of times with a naked light. There was not much gas in the pit, I knew as I had worked there for thirteen years.’

The underground manager of the colliery, Mr John Mort next gave his testimony and told the coroner that on the morning of the 27 February the prisoner informed him of the death of young Thomas. He said that William had openly told him about his use of the naked flame and added that ‘it was a bad job’. The witness said that he had cautioned the prisoner just the night before to ‘be careful and to mind what he was doing.’ George Milner, an engine tenter stated that he had let two miners James Bonser and Joseph Sanderson go down the pit in the cage to the shaft bottom which he operated. Almost unbelievably he admitted that two women also went down with them on that occasion.

At this, Mr Wardell asked Milner if he knew that it was against the colliery rules to allow women into the pit, but the witness simply prevaricated and said that he let them go down sometimes! Mr Webster shook his head in disbelief, as he then called for James Bonser to give his evidence. This witness readily admitted that on the Sunday before the explosion occurred, he had indeed gone down in the cage with his wife and another woman he did not know. When Mr Wardell challenged him as to the rules of the colliery, Bonser told him that he did not know the rules as he had never learned to read.

After some desultory conversation between the coroner, the Government Inspector and Mr Mort the jury returned the following verdict:

‘We find that Thomas Hague was killed by an explosion of gas in the Carr House Colliery on 27 February 1871, and we are of the opinion that there is gross mismanagement in that colliery’.

As a sequel to this tragedy, on Thursday 27 April 1871, five men were brought back before the Rotherham Magistrates. William Hague was fined 40s for violating the rules about the use of a naked flame. James Bonser and Joseph Sanderson were each fined 20s for taking females into the pit and George Milner was fined 40s and costs. William Needham, who had not worked at the pit for as long as the others was fined just 1s and costs and all the prisoners were warned as to their future behaviour.

This dreadful accident happened as the family had all assembled in the family dining room around 6 pm on the evening of Saturday 28 June 1845. The house, which was situated in Occupation Road near Grimesthorpe, was a respectable middle class dwelling in which lived a family of independent means. Both Harriet and her husband Thomas were then in their seventies and with them lived their son James. On the night in question, a visitor to the family was also in the room, a woman called Elizabeth Stones of Hall Carr Lane, Sheffield. At the time Harriet was sat in her usual place, in a chair in front of the fire when her son came into the room carrying his shotgun, which he laid on the table.

She asked him what he was doing and he told her that he had seen a large hare at the bottom of the garden. He had fired at it once, but it had got away and run into the hedge and he was determined to finish it off if he could. Harriet didn’t like the gun being in the dining room and in particular did not like to see it on the table, so she asked James to get rid of it as it made her nervous. He agreed that he would after he had cleaned it, before going into the kitchen to get some oil and a rag. One of the house servants, a man called William Hibberd, had just brought in some coal with which to tend the dining room fire. He too noticed that the weapon on the table needed cleaning as the barrel was getting rusty.

James quickly returned back clutching some oil, and whilst standing at the table went to pick up the weapon. His father Thomas meanwhile, who had previously seen his son shoot at the hare, entered the dining room. He sat down on the sofa on the opposite side of the fire from his wife. Suddenly there was a loud explosion as the gun went off. The recoil from the weapon resulted in it flying out of James’s hands and onto the floor about a couple of yards behind him. At the same time Harriet got to her feet and clutching her breast screamed out ‘I am shot’ before dropping to the floor. Her husband Thomas was stunned as when Harriet started to get to her feet, he just thought his wife was coming to sit with him.

Suddenly a large red patch of blood was visible on the front of her apron. The servant William, seeing that his mistress had been shot, shouted for his wife, who was the cook and was still in the kitchen. She came into the room at a rush and she started to cry as she saw Harriet on the floor. Together with her husband, they gently lifted the dying woman back into her chair as James rushed to his mothers side. He could immediately see that she was dying and was heartbroken. Holding Harriet’s hand he urged her to ‘cling on’ until they got some help. Despite his urgent appeals Harriet Hounsfield died in his arms.

On the morning of 30 June1845, Coroner Mr Joseph Badger held an inquest at the family home on Occupation Road. Thomas was the first to give evidence and he described how he had been in the garden when James shot at, and missed the hare. The witness showed great signs of distress as he spoke about the accident to his wife. When Mr Badger asked him what he thought had happened he replied that his son much have forgotten to let the cock down. He said the weapon would not have gone off if it had been at half cock. He stressed that the incident had simply been an accident and that James was not to blame.

The visitor to the house Elizabeth Stones was the next witness and she said the gun went off just as James was lifting it from the table. She too stated that after it had happened James was most distressed as he held his dying mother. The servant William Hibberd also confirmed hearing the shot and rushing into the room and James shouting at him to fetch a doctor. He told the inquest that James had always shown much affection towards his mother and father and that he too believed that it had been a most unfortunate accident. Then it was time for James himself to give his own account.

He described what had happened and admitted that he had never let the cock down after shooting at the hare. Therefore the weapon must have still been at full cock as he placed the gun on the table. Concluding his evidence he told the jury:

‘my mother and I were on the best of terms; and I wish she was here to tell you for herself. If I could bring her back again, I would willingly give up my life for that purpose.’

Surgeon Mr Haxworth stated how he had not been at home, when the call came for him to attend the deceased, so another surgeon, Mr Henry Jackson attended in his place. However, upon his return, and knowing the family well, he went straight to the house on Occupation Road.

The surgeon said that the patient was already dead when he arrived and he described the poor woman’s wounds. She had been injured in several places by the scattered shot which were mainly her right arm and her breast. He stated that death would have quickly ensued from the great loss of blood. He too, tried to absolve James from any blame. He said:

‘I have never seen people more attached to each other than the deceased and her son James were. The old people have had much illness, and his kindness and attention to them were beyond all praise.’

After hearing all the evidence, Mr Badger summed up for the jury, pointing out the great affection between Harriet and her son. The jury were in consultation with each other for just a short time before returning with a verdict of ‘accidental death.’ There is little doubt that James Hounsfield would have left the inquest a sadder and wiser man.

Henry Hutchinson was aged thirty-four years and worked as a miner at Wath. On the afternoon of Monday 22 September 1873, around 3.30 pm he was drinking at the Gate Inn at Swinton, when an argument broke out between himself and a thirty-six year old man named William Naylor. Hutchinson challenged Naylor, who was from Swinton to take the argument outside and fight, and the two men went outside and commenced to scrap. After two rounds Hutchinson was struck under the left ear which left him insensible on the ground, where sadly he died a few minutes later. Needless to say the police were informed and William Taylor was taken into custody.

An inquest was held at the Kings Head Inn, Swinton on Wednesday 24 September by Coroner Mr Dossey Wightman to which the prisoner attended. The first witness was Mrs Ann Hutchinson and she told the inquest that she had last seen her husband when he went to work on the Monday. Only later in the day was she told her husband had died at the Gate Inn and she saw his dead body. A witness, William Firth told the jury that he had seen the argument break out and Hutchinson take off his coat as he challenged Naylor to fight him. Firth said that it was clear that the prisoner did not wish to fight and told Hutchinson to put his coat back on. Mr Wightman asked him if both the men appeared to be sober, to which he replied that they did.

The witness described the fight as ‘not taking long’ and added that at that point the two men were ready to call it off, but another man called Mick Oldfield persuaded them to have another round. It became quickly obvious that Naylor appeared to have the upper hand and within a matter of minutes Hutchinson lay on the ground, before his body was carried into a nearby garden. Another witness John Emery confirmed this version of the fight and said he had tried to reason with the two men, but in vain. He said there had been a previous argument between them which had never been resolved and they both wanted to finally ‘have it out.’

He had witnessed Naylor striking Hutchinson on the left side of his head, before he fell to the ground landing on his left side which made a ‘loud smack’ as he hit the ground. However in his version he maintained that Hutchinson appeared to be not too sober and that Naylor had been seen crying after Hutchinson was declared dead. A man called Thomas Pearce told the inquest that the deceased man’s body lay in the garden for about half an hour before he was removed back inside the Gate Inn. Mr Edward Dibb, surgeon of Mexborough said he had been called out around 4.15 pm on the Monday when he found Hutchinson in the garden.

The man was unconscious at first, but died after around 20 minutes. That was when he ordered Hutchinson to be taken back into the public house. Dibb stated that he had completed the post mortem and found that death was due to apoplexy, caused by a fracture of the skull. He found a swelling just under the jugular vein on the deceased man’s left side. He said internally all his organs were healthy apart from the lungs which were congested. At this point the coroner stated that was all the evidence he intended to call and in his summing up emphasised the fact that men engaged in fighting were committing an illegal act. He therefore told the jury they had no option but to return a verdict of manslaughter.

However Mr Wightman said that he had seriously questioned whether or not Naylor should be the only person charged with the offence. The coroner pointed out that according to Emery the fight might have ended if not for the urging by the man called Mick Oldfield to continue. He also pointed to the guilt of all three men, Naylor who acted as principal and the two others who appeared to second the fight, William Oldfield and William Botwood. He questioned whether they too should also be implicated in the deceased man’s death. However after a short consultation the jury returned a verdict that William Naylor only should be sent for trial for manslaughter.

However when the case came before the Rotherham magistrates on Monday 29 September all three men, Oldfield, Botwood and Naylor were placed in the dock and charged with the death of Henry Hutchinson. The prosecution Mr Taylor outlined the case and stated that this was a case of a clear violation of the law and therefore all three prisoners should be sent to take their trial at the Assizes. However, after hearing the evidence from the same witnesses as at the inquest, the prisoners defence, Mr Rhodes claimed the court had nothing new to offer, therefore he would reserve his defence until the Assizes.

The three prisoners were then ordered to take their trial at the next Assizes although they were allowed bail. Accordingly they appeared in a subsidiary court at Leeds before judge Baron Pollock on Saturday 4 April 1874. However by this time an account of the crime had changed somewhat. The reporter claimed that after Hutchinson had been struck on the jugular vein ‘he immediately turned dizzy and fell, his skull being fractured by the fall. He claimed that apoplexy had set in and he died in less than ten minutes.’ The prisoners defence claimed that when the deceased attempted to strike Naylor he missed his aim and in staggering backwards, fell onto his head and thats when he received the fatal injuries. After hearing all the evidence the jury retired for a short while to consider their verdict. When they returned that gave a not guilty verdict for all three prisoners.

These kind of cases made such an impact on the Rotherham legal authorities, that two months later the Mayor of Rotherham called a public meeting in the Mechanics Hall in the town. He wanted to ban pubs from opening on a Sunday at all. However local men took exception to his trying to stop the enjoyment of a Sunday pint, that the meeting was very poorly attended. It was reported that it was due to start at 7pm, but so few people arrived that it was actually 7.15 pm before the proceedings commenced. In the end a simple resolution on the matter was sent to the local MP and the Sunday openings continued.

In March of 1782 a man called Nathan Andrews had a jewellers shop at the top of the High Street, Sheffield. Among those who lingered in front to the jewellers window ogling the contents, was a young apprentice called Frank Fearne. He lived at Bradfield along with several members of his own family. He was a young man with an eye to the easy life and that month he came up with a plan to enrich himself. Going inside the shop, he convinced Andrews that he had started a ‘watch club’ in Bradfield and was looking for someone to supply the watches. These clubs was for people who could not pay the full cost of an expensive watch outright, but would instead be supplied with the item and pay a small sum every week, until it was paid for.

Fearne told Andrews that he himself was a member of such a club and there were at least twenty more interested customers. Andrews, with an eye to a bargain, quickly agreed to supply the watches that were needed. The area around the village of Bradfield in those days was far more wild and lonely that it is in the present day, but Andrews had no concerns as the pair set off. Around 4 pm they had almost reached the area known as Kirk Ridge when Fearne saw and greeted an acquaintance of his, a young fellow named Wood. Shortly afterwards, he complained of having a pain in his side and fell behind his companion. Consequently Andrews did not see as Fearne pulled out a pistol and shot him in the back.

He fell to the ground and in order to make sure his victim was dead, his companion stabbed him several times before taking up a heavy hedge stick and beating out his brains. Once Fearne had assured himself that Andrews was dead, he rifled his pockets and took possession of all the watches the jeweller had in his pockets. Then the apprentice left Sheffield altogether. However what the murderer had not anticipated was that Andrews should be found as quickly as he was. Within a couple of hours the body had been recovered and taken to the mortuary of a neighbouring workhouse.

So when Wood read the description of the murdered man in the local newspapers a day or so later, he immediately recognised him as the same companion he had last seen with Frank Fearne. He gave this information to the Sheffield police and was invited to identify the remains. Only when he reached the workhouse did Wood see clearly the man he had seen with Fearne a few hours earlier. Needless to say, the Coroner was informed and an inquest was held on the body. After hearing all the evidence, the jury brought in a verdict of manslaughter. Meanwhile Fearne, thinking he was now safe had since returned back to Bradfield to visit his relatives.

He did not know that Wood had given his description to the Sheffield police. Consequently he was shocked a night or two later when he was visited by two constables and taken into custody for the murder. However his fate was sealed when they made a search of his rooms and found some of the missing, stolen watches. Fearne had been in bed and was still in his bedclothes, so he was ordered to dress and handcuffed before being marched off to the old Sheffield Town Hall. This building, which was pulled down in 1808, stood slightly within the Parish Churchyard and partly projected out into the middle of the road.

A description of the building was given in the newspapers of the time. It seems that the ground floor held three cells and in one of them Fearne was placed:

The cell itself was one of the largest, which was still only eight feet, six inches in diameter and had little light, even at noon-day penetrated inside. These cells were so dark that gaolers were obliged to take a candle in with them when inspecting the prisoners or taking them food.’

The same description also states that the present Town Hall (1782) was reached by a set of steps and it was common for local people to make, or listen to, speeches made from the top of these stairs. It was known that William Wilberforce had made a speech condemning slavery from those very steps. Also adjoining the Town Hall and facing down the High Street were a set of stocks. These were put into use regularly by the Vicar of Sheffield as Justice of the Peace to punish those who had been guilty of minor offences against the law. These same stocks were later removed and erected in Paradise Square.

Frank Fearne remained locked up in this cell at the Town Hall, until he was removed to York Castle to take his trial. At his trial, Judge Eyre listened to all the evidence, which was mostly circumstantial (as no one had actually witnessed the murder) before sentencing the prisoner to death. Frank Fearne was hanged on the gallows at York, the judge ordering that after his execution had been carried out that his body should be handed over to the anatomists for dissection. However as a deterrent to others, before he died the same judge changed the sentence to:

‘After death, his body should be hanged in chains inside a gibbet which was to be erected in some conspicuous spot on Loxley Common in the parish of Ecclesfield, in the county of York, at a convenient distance from the highway.’

Consequently Frank Fearne was kept at the Town Hall for another week whilst his gibbet was made. On the day of his execution he was told that three other felons would be hanged at the same time. Just before the executioner placed the white cap over his head, Fearne held held up his hands before taking off his shoes and tossing them amongst the crowd, waiting to see him hung. He told them ‘my master often said I would die with my shoes on, so I have pulled them off to make him a liar.’

After hanging, Fearne’s body was brought from York already fastened up in the iron gibbet. This ghastly cavalcade journeyed through the town of Sheffield, before arriving at Loxley Common. This cage and its grisly contents was then erected ‘swinging and creaking in the rough winds that almost always blow in that exposed and dreary region.’ It hung there until Christmas Day of 1797 when the gibbet finally disintegrated and it and the remains fell to the ground.

To read about Spence Broughton’s equally grisly death, check out the post on my website dated 11 January 2025.

The White Hart Inn in Rotherham is only of the oldest licensed houses in the town, as it stands in between the church steps leading into College Street and Church Street itself. It has long been a favoured and well patronised watering hole by both locals and visitors to the town. On Saturday 13 November 1886 the town of Rotherham was mostly quiet and the only people around were those visiting the local pubs in the town centre. Needless to say, the White Hart Inn was doing a good trade as landlord Mr Harry Smith and his wife Harriet, along with the barmen were kept busy filling pots of ale and dispensing spirits to thirsty customers.

As well as the patrons in the bar there was also a party going on upstairs, so as well as serving in the bar room downstairs, staff and customers were also kept busy going upstairs to the clubroom. It was around 9.30 pm when Harriet had occasion to go to her bedroom. As she climbed the stairs she could not help but notice that her bedroom door was around six inches ajar. Pushing the door fully open and entering the darkened room, she saw a man standing there. Harriet immediately asked him what he was doing and told him he had no business in that room. The man muttered something about ‘going into the wrong room by mistake’ but as he was talking he suddenly pushed against the landlady.

Harriet was having none of it and held onto him tightly clasping her arms around his waist. She screamed and shouted for help at the same time as the man struggled to free himself. Thankfully Harry heard his wife’s cries and soon rescued her. The burglar was captured and held by one of the barmen. Only when he was detained, did the landlady go inside the room to see what was missing. Thankfully she knew that was the only room in which Smith could have entered, as all the other bedrooms were secure. Inside, she found two of her locked drawers had been forced open with some kind of implement, and a gold watch and chain taken from the stand on top of the chest of drawers.

By this time news of the plucky actions of the landlady had been circulated and, as a result quite a crowd had collected along Church Street. They were just in time to see the prisoner being marched to the Rotherham police station by two officers, Police Constables Stainsby and Hepburn. The crowd followed and shouted and jeered at the prisoner all the way to the station. Once there, he gave his name as William Smith. A description of the prisoner was issued to all the local police stations in the area. He was described as being around thirty five years of age and about 5 feet 5 inches in height. It was reported that there was a cut mark in the centre of his chin and appeared to be well built and of respectable appearance.

Once at the station, the prisoner was searched and the inside pocket of his jacket a jemmy was found and in the other pocket was the landlady’s gold watch and chain. A spare pair of socks were also found, which many burglars of the period would fit over their shoes to muffle their footsteps if required. In his absence a leather satchel which contained £3 or £4 was later found hidden on the landing where the prisoner had been captured. That same evening Detective Inspector William Smith arrived from Sheffield and identified the prisoner as being his namesake. He told his colleagues that the man had only been released from Wakefield prison the previous July where he had been incarcerated for twelve months for a similar offence.

Consequently, burglar William Smith appeared before the magistrates at the Rotherham Borough Police Court on Monday 15 November, simply giving his address as ‘living in Sheffield.’ He was charged with burglary and it was reported that in total he had stolen goods up to the amount of £23.
When asked if he had anything to say in his own defence, the prisoner pointed out to the court that he had not used any violence towards the landlady when he had been captured. Witnesses confirmed how Mrs Smith had held onto the burglar until help arrived. As a result, Smith was remanded until Thursday 18 November 1886. When he next appeared, the prosecution, Mr F Marsh brought forward the same witnesses who gave same evidence.

However just as Mrs Harriet Smith was about to be called upon, the prisoner asked for an adjournment in order that he could change his plea to guilty and to appoint a counsel to defend him. However his request was denied, as if the prisoner might be found guilty and sent to take his trial, a defence counsel would be appointed for him anyway. Smith also claimed in mitigation that he had only used the jemmy on two of the drawers. However the bench were having none of it and he was committed to take his trial at the next Sheffield Sessions. The chair to the magistrates, Mr Neill also complimented Mrs Harriet Smith on her brave capture and the courage which she had displayed.

The Sheffield Weekly Telegraph picked up the theme of the same surnames in its edition published on Saturday 27 November 1886. Some clever reporter stated that instead of the well known saying ‘Set a Thief to catch a Thief’ it should now be quoted as ‘Set a Smith to Catch a Smith.’ He pointed out that:

‘Landlady, Mrs Harriet Smith found burglar William Smith in the bedroom of the White hart at Rotherham. Landlord Mr Henry Smith caught fast hold of William Smith and prevented him from escaping as his wife called in the local police. Detective Inspector Smith (also called William) of the Sheffield Police force immediately recognised William Smith, a well known local burglar.’

However the matter came to an end on Saturday 4 March 1886 at the Sheffield Sessions when burglar William Smith was sentenced to twelve months imprisonment with hard labour at the Wakefield House of Correction.

On the morning of Sunday 7 October 1883 a forty five year old man called William Ratcliffe was found lying in the gutter of his house in a court off Boden Lane, Sheffield. Local newspapers described the yard as being ‘one of those miserable looking courts off Rockingham Street and one of the worst of its class in the town.’ The man was unconscious and multiple bruises were found about his head, so it was suspected that he had been attacked. Ratcliffe had also earned a reputation in the area as being a bit of a performer. He claimed to be a fortune teller and had also appeared as a ‘bearded lady’ travelling the country and appearing in various theatres and music halls under the name Poll Ratcliffe.

However because of his disreputable lifestyle, the deceased man had developed a reputation as being a bit of a wastrel. It was known that in his youth his doting father had given him £10 in order to forward his prospects. At first Ratcliffe had worked assiduously until he married a woman with some money of her own, and that was when he took up more idle pursuits. He squandered the money and, as a result his wife had left him years earlier. According to local gossip she was now living in America. Local newspapers also pointed out that Ratcliffe had a very effeminate appearance with his small face, thin long hands and an effeminate mode of speech.

This also added to the way in which he was successful by earning a living as a female impersonator. It was also rumoured that at one time Ratcliffe had walked about the streets of Sheffield dressed as a woman. At the same time he was known to eke out an existence by gathering herbs which he sold when telling fortunes in the public houses of the town. It was also reported at the time that:

‘Ratcliffe’s vaunted powers as a herbalist and a fortune teller do not appear to have caused him to be feared like the witches of old were by the lower classes. However he has been an object of scorn and banter to many “roughs” on account of his womanish ways. Altogether he was an extraordinary character and just as his career was singular, so is his death shocking.’

It was also known that Ratcliffe’s usual habits were to go to a public house called Wallace’s Vaults in Campo Lane, Sheffield. Sometimes, if he had no money to purchase beer, the landlord would often allow him to sit down and ‘hold court’ at one of the tables in the bar area.

On Saturday night, 6 October Ratcliffe had gone there and the landlord had served him a free glass of liquor. He seemed to be in a lively mood and it was reported that he stayed there for some time, having a couple of glasses of beer paid for by his friend Thomas Parkin. Around 9.30 the pair left for another public house called the Paradise Vaults where they both had more to drink. Eventually the pair left around 9.30 pm as Ratcliffe was known to not like to stay out late. As the Sheffield Independent stated once more ‘lest he should be set upon by some of the “rough’s” that infest that neighbourhood.’

Much later a neighbour, Mrs Darwent had heard a cry of ‘Oh, poor Poll’ at some time around midnight, but as she heard no more, forgot about it till the next day. Her husband Mr Frederick Darwent had been engaged to clean out the engine and boiler at Askhams Works, so he left the house around 6 am. Suddenly he saw his neighbour lying in the doorway face downwards in a pool of blood. Calling out to others they managed to bring the unconscious man inside and lay him out on the settle. Medical help was sought for him, but nevertheless he died shortly afterwards. Needless to say the death was reported at the police station and the Borough Coroner Mr. D Wightman was asked to arrange an inquest on the body.

Accordingly, it was held at the George and Dragon Inn, on Broad Lane, Sheffield on the afternoon of Wednesday 10 October 1883. However before the coroner arrived at the inquest, the jury was taken to view the body which lay on some boards, still at the house on Boden Lane. The members of the jury also noticed that there were large crowds of people collecting in the streets around the courtyard, all curious to see what had taken place. Police officers soon arrived to attempt to keep the crowd back and to stop them from trying to enter the house where the dead man had lived. As the inquest opened, it was noted that also present were Detective Inspector Thompson and Inspector Bird to watch the enquiry on behalf of the police.

Surgeon, Mr W Skinner of Brookhill was the first witness and he told the inquest that on the night in question he had received a parish order from the Workhouse Guardians requesting a visit. When he arrived at the house, he found Ratcliffe still alive, but in a dying condition. He stated that shortly after 8 am on Monday morning he visited again. He said that he found Ratcliffe still unconscious although, sadly he died around 9.30 am. The surgeon stated that he had also undertaken the post mortem on the man’s body. He made an external examination of the man’s body and described the severe bruise over his left eye.

Internally he found a fractured skull over the roof of the eye, under the bruised area. Mr Skinner reported that the skull was flooded with blood and his membranes very extended. He suggested that Ratcliffe’s fracture had been so severe, that he could not have moved after receiving that death blow. The coroner asked the surgeon if the fracture could have been caused by the man simply falling onto the ground, but Mr Skinner shook his head. The neighbour, Frederick Darwent stated that he had known the deceased man ever since he went to live at the house in Boden Lane about eighteen weeks previously.

The witness described finding him around 6 am the previous Sunday lying against his own, open front door. He described Ratcliffe as being fully dressed with his legs still inside the house, but his head and shoulders outside. Darwent was asked by Inspector Bird whether or not he had noticed any implements around the body, such as a poker, a brick or anything of that kind? However Darwent made it clear that there was nothing of that sort anywhere near the body. The witness said that he heard Ratcliffe earlier call out ‘poor Poll, oh poor Poll’ around half past midnight. The witness explained the fact that the deceased man had gone by the name of ‘Poll’ Ratcliffe.

At this point the coroner stated that the police were still continuing in their enquiries, so therefore he would adjourn the inquest for a week until Friday 19 October. On the afternoon of Friday12 October the funeral of William Ratcliffe took place at the Sheffield Township Burial Ground on Intake Road, Sheffield. In order not to encourage crowds of people at the house on Boden Road, the body had been removed the night before and taken to the home of his sister, Mrs Siddons on Milton Street. Thankfully there was only a small group of about forty women and children in attendance at the graveside. Indeed the funeral would have passed off without incident, apart from one strange occurrence.

During the graveside ceremony an unnamed young man, who it was reported had been a companion to the deceased, fell backwards into a fit. Thankfully someone nearby grabbed him quickly in order to prevent him from falling into the empty grave. When the inquest was resumed once again at the George and Dragon, another neighbour called George Richardson was the first witness. He described being called to help after the body had been found. He stated that he had not seen the deceased on the Saturday night, but had been called upon by Darwent around 6 am on Sunday morning. He confirmed that Ratcliffe was not dead then, as he had helped to carry him inside, although he could offer no explanation as to how he had come by his injuries.

In his summing up the coroner told the jury ‘that was all the evidence that could be produced and the only difficulty about the case was the evidence of the surgeon Mr Skinner.’ He had made it clear that the deceased man had not died from natural causes, but had been unable to state what had actually killed him. He said ‘if that were so, it was equally certain he did not inflict his injuries on himself. Therefore they must have been caused by another party.’ As the jury were considering this statement, one of the jury told the inquest about something which had happened earlier in the week, which threw a spanner into the work.

This unnamed juror said that a woman had approached him and asked him if he had been part of the jury in the inquest, and the man admitted that he was. She told him that she had spoken to William Ratcliffe on the Saturday night and he had told her that someone had threatened to kill him ‘between that night and the morning following’ and that he was in great fear. The juror stated that he had informed Sergeant Thompson about this conversation. The sergeant confirmed this and told Mr Wightman that he knew about the man’s statement, but had not been able to find anything else out about it all.

It seems that this unknown woman had met Ratcliffe by the Grapes Inn in Portobello around 11.15 pm as she was going home. The woman, knowing his aversion to being out late, asked him what he was doing out at that time of night. He replied that a man with the nickname of ‘Pork Pie’ had threatened him and he was anxious to get home. However the Mr Wightman dismissed this statement and told the jury that the police had enough time to make all their enquiries which had all come to nothing. Therefore the jury must arrive at a verdict or he would have to adjourn the inquest once again.

Sergeant McManus told the inquest that he had three officers who had devoted the whole of their time to the case, yet had come up with nothing. The matter of a reward was brought up for the name of the person who had killed William Ratcliffe, but once again the coroner stated that there was not sufficient evidence to show that the deceased had indeed been killed. If it had been proved to be a murder or an aggravated case of manslaughter, Mr Whiteman would be glad to have a reward issued, but he could not order a reward in a case of mere supposition. Finally the coroner once again requested the jury to decide on a verdict according to the evidence and the evidence alone.

The jury then retired before returning back around twenty minutes later. The verdict which they had decided on was that: ‘the deceased man, William Ratcliffe had died on the sixth instance from a fractured skull. But as to how the injury was inflicted, there is no evidence to show.’ Finally the coroner thanked the jury for their effort before terminating the inquest on William Ratcliffe – the bearded lady!

Local newspapers dated Monday 27 April 1925 reported the death of twenty three year old Nora Beeby of Oxford Street, East Dene, Rotherham. She had died in the hospital the day before from alleged poisoning given to her by twenty-eight year old Patrick Galvin, who was soon arrested and charged. The poison was to intended to be used as an abortion inducing drug. Although both parties were married to other people, for the past five weeks they had been living together in lodgings in Oxford Street. Galvin, who was originally from Denaby, was employed in Rotherham by a local firm of refrigerator manufacturers as a joiner.

On Wednesday 22 April 1925 Nora had been taken ill, but because of the dubious substance she had taken, it was not until Saturday that a surgeon was sent for. Dr Core attended her and he could see that her condition was fatal and immediately ordered her to be removed to the hospital. Her dying state was also reported to the police authorities and Detective Sergeant Emsley of the local police force was dispatched to the Rotherham hospital without delay. He arrived around 5.13 p.m. and found Galvin at Nora’s bedside. The man agreed to make a statement, and after being cautioned by the sergeant, he said:

‘I have been living with her for five weeks, but I have been keeping company with her for some time before that. She has been taking rat poison. I know she has been taking that, for I bought it for her a fortnight ago today. She has taken several lots, sometimes in tea and sometimes in water. The last time she took any was last Wednesday, and she had a miscarriage later that night. I was responsible for her condition. We came into town on Saturday and I bought the poison for her.

After Nora confirmed these events, Galvin was arrested and brought before the Rotherham magistrates on Monday 27 April 1925. The Chief Constable of Rotherham, Mr E Weatherhogg told the court that the prisoner was charged with ‘obtaining a poison knowing that it was to be used for an unlawful purpose’. The poison in question contained phosphorous which was a vermin killer. The prisoner admitted to the arresting officer that Nora had told him that she was ‘expecting their child’ a few weeks previously. Consequently Galvin had told her that to get ‘rid of it’ he would buy something for her to take.

The poison was manufactured under the name ‘Rodine’ and Nora had taken some on the Wednesday and had died on the Sunday. Mr Weatherhogg told the bench that as the police were continuing with their enquiries, he asked for a remand until the following Wednesday and this was granted. Accordingly the Coroner, Mr W J Bradford held an inquest on the remains of Nora Beeby on Tuesday 28 April 1925. Patrick Galvin was defended by Mr W J Clarke and he pleaded ‘not guilty’ to the charge. The first witness was Nora’s father, Thomas White, who gave his address as Norwood Street, Dalton Brook.

He told the inquest that in September 1923 his daughter had been married to a man called Edward Beeby. However, White said that the marriage had failed after only six months and the couple parted. He was asked by the coroner if he was aware that his daughter had been living with the prisoner for the last five weeks and Thomas admitted that he had. He told the inquest that he had last seen his daughter alive on Tuesday 21 April. At that point Mr Bradford announced that he would adjourn the inquest until the police had finished their enquiries. Accordingly the inquest reconvened on Wednesday 29 April, and the first witness was Dr James Hagan, a house surgeon at the hospital.

He gave evidence to the effect that Galvin had admitted to him that Nora had been taking rat poison before she died. The prisoner had also added that she had taken it in the form of a paste. The surgeon told the coroner that on Monday 27 April he had undertaken a post mortem on the body and found there were clear signs the woman’s death was due to having ingested an acute, irritative poison. Needless to say Patrick Galvin was found guilty of manslaughter and ordered to take his trial at the Yorkshire Assizes to be held at Leeds and bail was refused. The prisoner was brought before the judge on Monday 18 May 1925.

Although Galvin found himself in a most serious position, it seems that his honesty about supplying the rat poison had given him a slight advantage in the grand jury’s eyes. This was mitigated in Dr Hagan’s evidence, when he admitted that as far as he knew no analysis had been made of the rat poison. The judge, Mr Justice McCardie told the grand jury that the case could not proceed on the evidence offered so far. The poison should have been tested and the contents of the girls stomach should also have been compared with the poison to see if the analysis corresponded in any way. He therefore directed the jury to return a verdict of ‘not guilty’ to which the jury complied. Patrick Galvin, who had never denied what he had done, was therefore discharged.

This case was widely reported in the newspapers of the period and the couple were rightly condemned for their part in it. However throughout, there is no mention in the evidence of the desperate measures which Nora would have gone through in ingesting rat poison. By its very nature it was not meant to be taken internally by a human being. Consequently the agony which Nora would have suffered in imbibing an ‘ingested an acute, irritative poison’ (to use the words of Dr Hagan) must have been terrible both to go through and to witness.

In the summer of 1883 an elderly widow called Elizabeth Cross lived in Brightside Lane with her fourteen year old daughter Hannah. Elizabeth was an elderly widow who earned a living by keeping lodgers. Hannah had been a good girl and rarely caused her mother any trouble until she made the acquaintance of a good looking, nineteen year old miner called Thomas Hodgson. The pair had met when they were both lodging with Elizabeth on Brightside Lane. However when Hannah left to stay with her older, married sister, a woman called Annie Lucas at Carbrook, Thomas was quick to join her there in July 1883.

When Hannah returned back to live with her mother in September, Thomas quickly followed her again, and it was only at that point that her mother understood the close relationship which had developed between her daughter and the young miner. Elizabeth Cross had been very occupied with the Salvation Army and attended evening services, so the couple had taken advantage of her absences to go out in an evening with each other. When she did find out however, Elizabeth was very concerned as Hannah was still only fourteen, and a very naive fourteen year old at that. On Saturday 24 November the matter came to a head, when her daughter was getting ready to go out again with Thomas around 3.30 pm.

Elizabeth tried to reason with her, but when Thomas returned home from work, he told the elderly landlady that he intended to marry Hannah and if she tried to stop them, he would simply ‘take her away.’ With that the pair went out together, holding hands. When they returned around 6.30 pm and had some tea, yet another argument broke out. After the meal, Thomas simply told Hannah to bundle up some clothes for them both. When Elizabeth objected, she told him that he could go, but her daughter was only fourteen and was too young to leave home. In an effort to keep her daughter safe, as Thomas left the house, Elizabeth rushed to lock the door behind him.

However, Hannah was so determined, that she managed to escaped through the front room windows and the pair ran off. For several days Elizabeth searched for her daughter until Wednesday 28 November when she finally reported the girl missing at Attercliffe Police Station. She told Police Constable John Barlow that she suspected that the pair had gone back to lodge with her older daughter Annie Lucas. So that officer accompanied her to the house at Carbrook where, sure enough they found the pair. The officer, who was well aware of Hannah’s young age, sternly instructed her immediately to put on her hat and return home with her mother, or he would be taking her into custody.

Thankfully the girl immediately complied, nevertheless Thomas Hodgson was charged with ‘the abduction of Hannah Cross, a girl being then under the age of 16 years.’ Accordingly, he was brought before the Sheffield Magistrates Court at the Town Hall on Monday 3 December 1883. There he was described as being ‘a good looking youth, who gave his age as nineteen, but that he appeared to be several years younger.’ The prisoner gave his address as Amberley Street, Sheffield. After hearing Elizabeth’s account of the abduction, Thomas was asked if he had anything to say in his own defence.

He immediately told the bench that almost all of Elizabeth’s statement was completely untrue. He claimed that instead that she had turned her daughter Hannah out of the house and told her to ‘go.’ Thomas stated that he had never encouraged Hannah to leave her mother, but the pair just wanted to ‘walk out’ together without interference. The girl Hannah herself was the next witness and she was merely described as being ‘a pretty little girl.’ She confirmed that on the night in question her mother had turned her out and told her to ‘go back no more.’ Another younger daughter, called Elizabeth after her mother, was the next witness.

She stated that she was eleven years of age but denied that her mother had told Hannah to leave. Once again Elizabeth was recalled and confirmed that Hannah had gone away without her permission and against her will. However two neighbours on Brightside Lane were then called to give their evidence which turned out to be damning. They both stated that Elizabeth was in the habit of ‘knocking Hannah about and pulling at her hair.’ After hearing all the evidence, the bench committed Thomas Hodgson for trial at the next Assizes, although they were prepared to allow him bail.

However he told them that he had no friends in Sheffield, who would pay his sureties, so he was removed still in custody. Consequently Thomas Hodgson was brought before judge Mr Justice Day at the Yorkshire Assizes at Leeds on Saturday 9 February 1884. Mr Ryalls, who prosecuted the case, told the court that ‘being under 14 years of age Hannah’s own consent was not material to the case’. He then outlined the details before Elizabeth gave her own account of her daughters abduction.

In order to malign her own married daughter, Annie Lucas in the eyes of the court, Elizabeth told the judge that Lucas kept a house ‘frequented by unmarried couples.’ Hannah, herself claimed that she had left home simply due to her mothers ill treatment of her and the same witnesses confirmed this account. Thankfully after hearing all the witness’s evidence, the grand jury found Thomas Hodgson not guilty and he was dismissed. There is little doubt that the young couple left the court in triumph!