The hostility towards the police in Sheffield was further aggravated when the area covered by the force was extended outwards from the centre of town, which caused much resentment by the law breakers of the districts. One of the men employed as a night watchmen in 1838 was a man called Joseph Straw, who was numbered watchman number fifty three on the new force. Six years later, Straw was enjoying patrolling Sheffield at night, his beat being along Westbar, Gibraltar Street and several other adjoining streets around. He particularly enjoyed having the town to himself, especially in the month of April when the weather was becoming more clement.

The night of Tuesday 30 April 1844 was one such balmy, moonlit night and Straw was standing at the bottom of Furnace Hill when he saw a man, well known to the police called Mark Roberts. He was twenty one years of age, and he and a companion were coming out of a beerhouse in Bower Street. Just then a young woman passed Straw and he heard Roberts call out to her. However the woman did not appear to want to speak to him, or acknowledge him in any way. In retaliation, Roberts crossed over the road towards the girl and struck her very hard on her back and then as she fell, he punched her in the stomach.

Straw immediately went over to the couple and asked him ‘what have you done that for?’ Roberts simply answered that ‘she has been asking for it.’ The watchman then asked the stricken girl what her name was and she replied that it was Martha Cartledge. However when he asked her if he should take Mark Roberts in charge, she simply shrugged her shoulders. Straw angrily told Roberts to be on his way, but man would not move. Without any warning Roberts then punched Straw, before running off. The watchman managed to pursue him, at the same time taking out his rattle, which he sounded to call for help. Then Roberts ran down a passage leading out of Gibraltar Street into Cherry Tree Yard before he tripped and crashed to the ground.

Straw stood over him and ordered him to get up, at the same time continuing to rotate his rattle for help. By this time Straw was getting quite annoyed at his prisoner and grabbing Roberts around the collar, he roughly forced him onto his feet. Almost dragging him along at this stage, the two men were proceeding out of the yard when Roberts suddenly sat down on some steps. Once again the watchman stood over him and told him to get up, just as the prisoner lunged at him. That was when Straw felt a stabbing pain in his back, at the same time feeling a trickle of blood running down his back and legs. Thankfully, by this time two other police officers arrived, summoned by their colleagues rattle.

They were Sergeant Revill and Police Constable Lorimer. The sergeant quickly marched the culprit off to the Town Hall, whilst Lorimer accompanied the injured watchman to the surgery of Mr Henry Payne. The surgeon examined his wound and found it bleeding profusely, so he stitched it up as quickly as he could. The injured man was then taken back to his lodgings in Trippet Lane, Sheffield where he was put to bed by his wife. For two days his life was despaired of, as Mr Payne valiantly continued to attend to Straw. Thankfully by the third day, the surgeon had hopes that his patient would eventually recover.

By this time it had been established that his attacker was indeed Mark Roberts, who was very well known to the police force. He had been involved in a lot of illegal activities in Sheffield for some years. He was also known to be very antagonistic towards police officers and had a history of violence against them. Consequently on Thursday 2 May, Roberts was brought before the magistrates, charged with the stabbing offence. However he was simply remanded until Tuesday 7 May 1844, due to the fact that the watchman was still too ill to give his own evidence. After a further remand, the case was finally heard on Tuesday 14 May 1844.

In court, Mr Raynor acted as prosecution as he described the crime for the court. He told them that as a result of his injuries, Joseph Straw had been confined to his bed for nine full days after the attack. He then held up the bloody clothing that the injured man had been wearing at the time, which were quite shocking to see. Two witnesses called Thomas Cooper and Samuel Vickers who had been passing, confirmed the events of the night. A third witness John Fowler described how he saw the prisoner sitting on some steps, before seeing him put his hand in his trouser pocket and draw out something, which was ‘long and shiny.’ The witness spoke of his horror when he saw the man plunge the blade into the officer’s back.

Fowler was asked by one of the jury if he could have been mistaken, but he shook his head as he replied that he could see everything as the moon was so bright. The next to give evidence was the surgeon Mr Henry Payne, and he told the court how Joseph Straw was brought to his surgery by several persons. When his clothes were removed, the surgeon stated that he found an incision about three inches below the injured man’s left shoulder blade, which was bleeding profusely. Thankfully, the surgeon said that he had managed to stop the bleeding, before dressing the wound and sending his patient home. Mr Payne concluded that he considered the wound to be a dangerous one and that for some time, he felt that the watchman’s life was in great danger.

Martha Cartledge was next to testify, and she told the court that she was a single woman who lived on Trinity Street, Sheffield. She knew the prisoner because he had been going out with another young woman that she was acquainted with, called Elizabeth Ashton. The witness told the bench that on the night in question, she had gone out to get some supper, when she had been confronted by Mark Roberts. He appeared to be very angry with her and pulled her about, all the time speaking to her using very indecent language. The witness stated that when the watchman asked her if he should take the prisoner into custody, she had simply told him to make the prisoner go about his own business.

Roberts had arrogantly told Straw ‘I can beat a dozen watchmen like you’ as he struck him. However, Cartledge admitted that she had gone looking for some help at that point and therefore she didn’t witness the actual stabbing. The prisoners defence, Mr Palfreyman ably cross examined all the witnesses, but even he had to admit that the case against Mark Roberts was hard to disprove. He pointed out nevertheless, that Roberts had acted on the spur of the moment and there had been no clear intentions behind his actions. Even Joseph Straws solicitor, Mr Hunter was forced to admit that he did not suppose that Roberts had intended to actually kill his client.

The magistrate Rev J Hand considered the case very carefully before committing the prisoner to take his trial for ‘intending to do grievous bodily harm’ and he was removed. Accordingly, Mark Roberts appeared at the Yorkshire Assizes on Tuesday 16 July 1844 in front of judge Mr Justice Cresswell. The case was prosecuted by Mr Smith who laid out the events for the jury. The same witnesses gave their evidence as before, and the jury had no other option but to find Mark Roberts guilty of ‘feloniously stabbing, cutting and wounding Joseph Straw.’ Mr Justice Cresswell spoke about the vicious nature of the attack on a defenceless watchman, before sentencing the prisoner to fifteen years transportation.

In September of 1863 Emma Cutler was aged just twenty two when she started work as a domestic servant for a farmer at Kilnhurst, called Waterhouse. She had been deserted by her husband, and whether she knew she was pregnant at the time she took the job, remains to be seen. However by the beginning of 1864 Emma was beginning to show, and when Mrs Waterhouse charged her with being pregnant the girl denied it, telling her mistress that she had developed dropsy. Unfortunately by Saturday 19 March she could no longer hide her widening waistline, and by that time Mrs Waterhouse had enough and gave her notice. A few days later Emma Cutler disappeared.

When her employer noted that the domestic servant wasn’t in the house, her bedroom was searched. Mrs Waterhouse felt vindicated to find unmistakable evidence that proved that Emma had recently given birth in that very room. Information was given to the Rotherham police and on Wednesday 23 March she was shortly afterwards found to be back at her parents home at Worksop. Emma was quickly arrested by Police Sergeant Horne. In reply to a charge that she had murdered her child, Emma told him that the child had been born dead. When the sergeant asked her how she knew the baby was dead, she told him that it had not cried when it was born.

Emma then asked Sgt. Horne if he wanted to know where the body was, and when he replied in the affirmative, she told him that she had placed the baby in an unused attic at her employer’s house. Emma had hoped that the little body would never be discovered. The attic room, was carefully examined, and the body of a female child was found hidden underneath some clothing in an old box. It was taken to the police office in Rotherham, and an inquest was arranged for Thursday 24 March 1864 at the Rotherham Court House, by deputy coroner Mr W Woodhead Esq. The enquiry was merely a preliminary, and evidence was simply given of Emma Cutler’s arrest before it was adjourned for a week.

In the meantime the coroner requested that a post mortem be carried out on the little body by Dr Henry Darwin, the house surgeon at the Rotherham Dispensary. Subsequently Emma was brought before magistrates, on Monday 28 March, where the prisoner was simply remanded for a week. When the inquest was resumed, Dr Darwin stated that he had examined Emma and found that she had recently given birth to a child. She had told him that on the day in question she was suddenly taken ill, and was quite unable to help herself. The child at its birth, fell on the floor and did not make a sound and so the prisoner believed that it was dead.

The surgeon stated that on undertaking the post mortem, he found congestion in the child’s brain and membranes which might have happened by falling on the floor. He said that the child was full term and had died from haemorrhage and exposure combined with the want of medical assistance at the time of its birth. Dr Darwin then gave devastating evidence which pointed towards Emma’s guilt. He declared that he had examined the child’s lungs and found air in them, which proved that the child had taken a breath after it had been born. He therefore told that court, that in his opinion the child had lived a separate existence from its mother, and therefore it could not have been born dead.

Emma was not only undefended in the inquest, but was so distraught throughout the hearing of the evidence, that she wept bitterly. Consequently when the prisoner was brought before the magistrates on Monday 4 April, she offered no defence. The evidence from the coroners inquest was read out and Emma Cutler was found guilty and committed to take her trial at the next York assizes. The prisoner was brought before the very first Assizes to be held at Leeds, at the Town Hall on Saturday 13 August. She was brought before the judge, Mr Justice Keating on the lesser charge of concealment of birth. Nevertheless once again the poor girl was undefended, although she was prosecuted by a very skilful advocate, Mr Vernon Blackburn.

The only defence against such a charge was if a woman could prove that they had not actually tried to conceal the birth, but had in fact made preparations for it. As mitigation for her actions therefore, Emma told the court that she had made some arrangements for the birth of the child, and had bought the necessary baby linen. She claimed that her intention had been to leave her employers house immediately after she had been given her notice, then the baby would have been delivered at her parents house at Worksop. But before she was able to leave, she had gone into labour and the baby had been born. Acting out of sheer panic and well aware that she had denied the fact that she was pregnant at all to Mr and Mrs Waterhouse, she left the house in shame after hiding the baby’s body.

However her employer denied this statement when she gave her own evidence. Mrs Waterhouse told the judge that the prisoner had, with her permission, stayed on for several days after the expiry of her notice. Trials of these kinds were very frightening to an undefended young girl, and being faced with skilful questions from the prosecution and the judge would have been very distressing to an ignorant girl. It was noted that throughout the trial Emma was reported as being in such distress and so terrified, that during the judges charge to the jury, she had actually fainted. Thankfully, the prisoner he had been quickly attended to by the York prison matron. She gave the prisoner some smelling salts and Emma soon recovered.

Nevertheless the jury found her guilty, although the judge stated that the case was one ‘entirely devoid of any aggravation’. He must have felt some sympathy for the stricken girl though, as he sentenced Emma to be imprisoned for just one month with hard labour. She was lucky. Two more similar cases were tried by the same judge on the same day, at the same Assizes. The next case of concealment was one from Arksey near Doncaster and the prisoner, a twenty two year old girl called Jane Tomlinson was sentenced to three months imprisonment. The second case was from South Kirby near Wakefield and involved a 19 year old girl called Faith Abbott. Justice Keating admitted that the case was a sad one, however in his summing up told the prisoner that nevertheless she had broken the law, and Faith was sentenced to six weeks imprisonment with hard labour.

Adapted From ‘Rotherham Crimes: Book Two’ by Margaret Drinkall (2016) A collection of twenty seven weird and terrible crimes from Amazon. Kindle edition: £2.49 or Paperback: £7.99

On Saturday 19 December 1835, Mr David Miller was in his hardware shop in Fargate when he received a box which had arrived on Mr Bradleys coach that afternoon. The porter charged him a shilling for carriage and porterage, which Miller quickly paid. Although the box held a label with his address, and also had a second one with ‘Birm, Dec 18’ written on it. Miller did not, at that time recognise the handwriting, nor could imagine who had sent anything to him from Birmingham. Curiously inspecting the box before he opened it, Miller noted that one end of the box had been sealed down very securely with lots of tape. Slowly he began to feel somewhat suspicious of this parcel, so he took it into an outbuilding and laid it on the floor.

Above it, he rigged up a four stone weight attached to a rope which he hung from a hook in the ceiling. As Miller let the rope go, it dropped and caused a fracture in the wood of the box from which gunpowder appeared. Also among the gunpowder were eight or nine ‘crackers’ which were attached to the sides and the lid of the box. He assumed that these were intended to explode the gunpowder upon opening. Miller went immediately to Mr Bradley’s coach office and upon enquiring about the box, was told by one of the porters that two other similar boxes from Birmingham had also arrived.

They too had been delivered that morning. One addressed to Edward Hobson and the other to Benjamin Rose. Miller immediately rushed to warn his business acquaintances about not opening the boxes. Going first to Rose’s shop, which was near to his own premises on Fargate, Miller burst through the shop door and asked Rose if he had opened the box, warning him that it had been filled with gunpowder. Rose replied that he hadn’t, so Miller asked if he could see it. Rose said it was upstairs and that he would fetch it down. He went up the stairs, but although Miller could hear him moving about, he wondered what was taking him so long. Finally, Rose came back downstairs empty handed.

By this time, Miller’s curiosity was fully aroused, as Rose now pointed to an unopened box situated on the other side of the counter and said that was the one. To make things even more suspicious, Miller could not help but notice that the box was nothing like his own. Rose’s behaviour had been so strange that after considering it for some time, he went to the Town Hall to report the matter to the police. He spoke to Constable James Wild and told him how strangely Benjamin Rose had been acting. He also revealed his suspicions that he had been the one who had sent the three gunpowder parcels. Needless to say, that officer went immediately to Rose’s premises and demanded to see the box that had been delivered that morning.

However, he was told that after Miller had told him about the gunpowder, he had taken it to a nearby cooper called Jarvis to have him open it. After hearing this, PC Wild took Benjamin Rose into custody, charging him with sending David Miller and Edward Hobson, boxes loaded with gunpowder which had been constructed to explode upon opening. Consequently on Tuesday 22 December 1835 Rose was brought before the magistrates at the Sheffield Town Hall. However, even before the case could be heard, a conundrum was established. The prisoners defence solicitor, Mr Dixon told the court that the prisoner had only been apprehended the previous afternoon. He asked for a remand in order in order to prepare the defence for his client.

However the prosecution, Mr Palfreyman objected, stating that the bench could not remand the prisoner without some evidence being brought against him. However if they did so, it might defeat the ends of justice to detail any part of it at that time. The magistrates agreed, but said that they needed to hear sufficient grounds against the prisoner in order to remand him in the first place. Finally it was decided that Constable James Wild’s opinion would be sought, and he was called into the courtroom. Wild stated that he was aware that there were sufficient ground to charge the prisoner and agreed that it would be highly improper to relate any of the facts at that time. A remand in custody was ordered and Mr Dixon promptly asked for bail, which was refused.

Benjamin Rose was accordingly returned back into court on Saturday 26 December when the case was due to be heard in full. The prosecution, Mr Palfreyman stated the nature of the charge against Benjamin Rose. He informed the bench as to the law referring to anyone sending gunpowder through the post, in order to injure or murder the party to whom it was sent. Miller was the first witness and he gave evidence on the box being delivered to his premises and described the label with ‘Birm, Dec 18’ on it. He was asked by the prosecution if he recognised the handwriting on it. He told the court that he had seen Rose’s handwriting on many occasions and claimed that it was identical to the writing on the label.

The witness also produced a number of receipts, which also held the prisoners signature and they were shown to and compared by the magistrates. Miller claimed that they were all identical, nevertheless the bench was not so sure. There certainly was some legal dispute about whether the handwriting on the cards should even have been admitted at evidence and as to whether they should be brought into question at all. It was finally agreed that the identification of the handwriting was very unclear and therefore could not be used in a question of law. Cross examined by Mr Dixon, Miller stated that he had known the prisoner a long time and had no grudge against him as far as he knew.

Mr Palfreyman, in referring to the testing of the box in the outbuilding, then asked if there had been an explosion when the weight dropped onto the box. Miller said that there hadn’t. When asked about Edward Hobson to whom the second box had been addressed, Rose said he had dealt with him also through his business. At this point PC Wild produced the box which had been sent to Hobson and which had been handed over to a local cooper called James Jarvis for testing. The cooper was next to give evidence, and Jarvis told the court that he lived in Snig Hill, Sheffield and had known both Miller and Rose for many years. The witness said that when the box was tested, that he too had found gunpowder in it when opened.

He described how Miller had come into his shop in Lambert Croft on 19 December and had asked him to drill a hole in the box. He warned Jarvis to be careful as he suspected there was ‘something not quite right about it.’ Jarvis told the court that the two men ended up taking the box out into the yard and carefully prising the lid off. He had poured the powder out and found it weighed six pounds in total. Parkinson Webster was the next to give his evidence, and he told the court that he was a porter at Mr Bradleys Coach Office. He stated that on 19 December he had taken delivery of three boxes which had come from Birmingham. He reported that he had delivered one box to David Miller, the second box he had handed to Mrs Rose and the third to Mr Hobson.

PC James Wild told the court that on the previous Saturday around 5 pm, Miller had come to his house and reported that he had received a box full of gunpowder and that Rose and Hobson had also received boxes similarly packed. Edward Hobson told the court that he had been made aware that a box addressed to him was waiting at the coach office for delivery. The witness was asked if the card on the box were in Rose’s handwriting. Hobson stated that he thought it was Rose’s handwriting, although he could not swear to it for sure. He described how the coachman came to his workplace and informed him that a box had arrived at the coaching office for him and about 3.30 pm, so he went to fetch it.

Only at the coach office was he also informed about the other two similar boxes. A quarter of an hour later Miller came to warn him about opening the box. This was the case for the prosecution, although at this point there was again a dispute as to whether Benjamin Rose should be allowed bail. Mr Palfreyman stated that even if the case was proved against the prisoner, it could only be classed as a demeanour and he began to quote some legal authorities to prove it. One of the magistrates, Mr Hugh Parker suggested that the prisoner be remanded in custody until Tuesday 29 December and that meanwhile the third box should be opened carefully by PC Wild. He suggested that would give him time to seek some legal clarification on the matter before the court was finally cleared.

When the court reconvened on Tuesday 29 December 1835, the prisoners defence Mr Dixon opened his defence by citing a similar case which had taken place in Birmingham recently. He described how a man had also been sent a tin case charged with gunpowder, which had been constructed to explode upon opening. Upon hearing about this case, Mr Dixon said that he had sent a letter to the Law Courts, querying as to whether the crime would be categorised as a misdemeanour or a capital offence and he was still awaiting their response. Police Constable James Wild produced the third box which had now been opened. He showed the court how it had contained a quantity of gunpowder and a cracker, one side of which was attached to the lid.

The other cracker was attached to the side of the box, in the expectation that it would blow up when the box was opened. However a witness who had attended the opening with the constable, Mr V Corbett stated clearly that there had been no explosion when the box had been opened. The defence, Mr Palfreyman pointed out that the court must be satisfied that the device was really intended to explode, otherwise there was no case against his client. He stated that the crackers were made of silver nitrate which would not ignite gunpowder. He concluded that without that, the total charge against the prisoner had rested entirely on the identification of the handwriting.

Mr Dixon stated that although two witnesses (Miller and Hobson) had swore it was the prisoners writing, a third witness had denied it was Rose’s handwriting at all. Therefore the evidence against his client was shaky to say the least. Evidence was also given from a man called George Foster who told the court that he and the prisoner had married two sisters. On the night before the incident, Rose and his wife had been at the house of her sister from 9 pm to 11 pm. Therefore he could not have travelled to Birmingham in order to send the parcels. Other witnesses gave evidence of the prisoners character which was reported to be of an upright, kind and humane disposition.

However the most important witness, was a manufacturer of fireworks in Sheffield called Mr Bywater. He told the court that he had scientifically examined the box and stated inequivalently that the crackers would never have ignited the gunpowder. His evidence was backed up by a second firework manufacturer, Mr John Gascoigne of Leeds. After hearing all the witness statements, the magistrates consulted for some time between themselves. Mr Hugh Parker stated that the bench had considered all the evidence, but that they were still undecided and therefore they would prefer to have a judges decision on the matter. Accordingly Benjamin Rose was sent to take his trial at the next Assizes.

Thankfully by the time the prisoner was brought before the court at York on Thursday 10 March 1836, the case against him had been reduced to that of a simple misdemeanour. The evidence was heard by Mr Coltman in the Grand Jury Room, and due to the fact that the charge had been reduced, the jury put a stop to the defence. They immediately returned a verdict that the prisoner was clearly not guilty. Thankfully Benjamin Rose was able to leave the courtroom without a stain on his character.

George Shepley was a confectioner who had a shop on Fargate, Sheffield around Easter of 1882. In his employment were three sisters called Bathia, Janet and Ada Machin, who all worked as domestic servants for him and his wife. Around that time, George’s wife Emma had spoken to him of her suspicions that the twenty two year old Bathia had recently put on weight and she suspected her of being pregnant. She admitted to her husband that she had spoken to the girl, but Bathia had convinced her mistress that her suspicions were groundless and the matter was dismissed for the time being. However Mrs Shepley was not convinced.

On 31 May the three sisters went to bed at the usual time in the bedroom they all shared. Bathia shared a bed with Ada and Janet slept in another bed in the same room. Nothing unusual was heard throughout the night, apart from Janet waking and hearing Bathia was being sick in the bathroom around 1.30 am. Nevertheless, Mrs Shepley was still suspicious and so on 1 June she sent for surgeon Mr F. Woolhouse and asked him to examine the girl. Sure enough he found enough evidence that Bathia had recently been confined of a child. After the surgeon left the room, Mrs Shepley asked her servant what had become of the baby and the prisoner told her that it had been born dead and she had buried it in the garden.

A search was made and the little body was quickly found, wrapped in an apron made of course sacking. Angry as she was at being deceived, Mrs Shepley allowed Bathia to stay at the confectioners until she had completely recovered, before being sent to Fir Vale Workhouse. Meanwhile an inquest on the child’s body was arranged by Coroner, Mr D Wightman to be held at the workhouse on 5 June 1882. However, as Bathia had still not recovered and was unable to attend, just formal evidence was taken. Surgeon Mr Woolhouse was asked to undertake a post mortem by the coroner before the inquest was adjourned to Tuesday 4 July.

Thankfully Bathia had completely recovered and was at the inquest in the custody of Acting Detective Jackson of the Sheffield Police Force. The first witness was the confectioner himself and Mr Shepley told the jury that the girl had worked for him for a year, as had her sisters Janet and Ada. He said that following the surgeons revelation that Bathia had recently given birth, he and the surgeon had searched all the cupboards and outbuildings attached to the property on Fargate. Both he and Mr Woolhouse described the finding of the body of the child in the ashpit.

Mr Woolhouse then spoke about the post mortem and how he had found that a wad of tissue had been pushed down into the child’s throat. He stated that in appearance the female child looked full term and well developed and there were signs that there had been air in the lungs after birth. He concluded that its death was due to suffocation caused by the tissue paper in the throat. Mrs Emma Shepley also gave evidence that over the past year she had suspected the girl had been pregnant, but when she tasked her with it, Bathia denied it twice. She repeated how she had sent for Mr Woolhouse and he discovered that Bathia had given birth recently.

At the conclusion of the inquest Mr Wightman summed up for the jury, who after a short deliberation brought in a verdict of wilful murder against Bathia Machin. He told the prisoner:

‘Bathia Machin the jury have returned a verdict of wilful murder against you. It is therefore my duty to commit you to take your trial on that charge’

The prisoner was weeping as she was escorted into a police cell at the conclusion of the inquest.

Accordingly Bathia Machin was brought before judge Mr Justice Cave in the Crown Court of the Leeds Assizes on Monday 31 July 1882. Thankfully she was defended by Mr Lawrence Gane. Mr Barker prosecuted the case and he gave details to the court. He stated that the main evidence against the prisoner was the examination by the doctor and the fact that the child had been wrapped in an apron which had been identified as the property of the prisoner. Mr Woolhouse once again repeated his evidence of the post mortem and finding the tissue in the child’s throat.

He was then cross-examined by the judge who asked him if he was sure that the piece of paper in the throat was the cause of death. However Mr Woolhouse shook his head and said that he could not say that it was the definitive cause of death. Mr Justice Cave immediately stated that after that comment that he did not see how the capital charge of murder could therefore be maintained. When the prosecution said that would be a question for the jury to decide, his lordship disagreed. He told Mr Barker ‘how can they say, not being persons of scientific skill, when the medical man himself cannot say so? They must be guided by the scientific evidence.’

The judge pointed out that to find the prisoner guilty, the jury have to have clear evidence, not only in order to prove that death was caused by the paper in the throat, but also that it was the prisoner who had put it there. Mr Barker admitted that was so and that he would withdraw the capital charge and proceed with a case of concealment of birth. Mr Gane’s line of defence was that there was no evidence to show that Bathia intended to conceal the birth from her mistress. When asked outright, she had immediately admitted giving birth without any hesitation. Nevertheless the jury found Bathia Machin guilty of concealing the birth. Mr Justice Cave summed up before sentencing the prisoner to twelve months imprisonment with hard labour.

One of the biggest impacts on mental health for the people of Sheffield was the implementation of an Act of Parliament dated 1845. This stipulated that each county in Britain now had to each have their own asylum to cater for those people who were diagnosed to be insane. For Sheffield this was the South Yorkshire Asylum (later renamed the West Riding Asylum at Wadsley) built in August of 1872. These buildings were large, airy places, purposely designed so that fresh air and exercise were part of the patients regime which, it was hoped would aid to restoring them back to full health. Under this Act, these asylums were now visited and inspected on a regular basis by Inspectors or Commissioners of Lunacy.

However there was no improvement to the method of diagnosing a patients mental illness in the first place. The normal practise was usually brought to the attention of the authorities when a family member displayed any unusual symptoms. Concerned relatives would then appeal to the workhouse guardians, who requested one of their medical officer’s to assess that person. However the assessment process was very lax and informal, and usually consisted of just an observation of that individual, sometimes this was completed in the street. In many cases after such an assessment, nothing more was done for the patient as he/she was left with their family, until he/she showed more excessive traits.

The next step in the diagnosis process was that all cases of lunacy had to be reported to the local magistrates, and if they thought there was a case to answer, the patient would be referred to the workhouse officials. Those who were reported as violent, were immediately removed to the workhouse ‘lunatic’ ward, often in restraints. Sadly, despite the fact that the same Poor Law Act of 1834 clearly stated ‘no dangerous lunatic, insane person or imbecile was to be detained in workhouses for more than 14 days’ this was often ignored. As a result this gave carte blanch to workhouse masters, guardians or medical officers to detain the patient in these wards indefinitely.

They did this because the problem was, that it was cheaper for workhouse guardians to keep the person so afflicted in the workhouse ward, rather than have to pay for their support in the county asylums. To make the issue more complex, once at the workhouse, segregation from other inmates was difficult to maintain. It was a frequent complaint listed in the Guardian minute books that the people they labelled as ‘lunatics’ were kept in the same ward as twenty to thirty poor, aged people. As a result the elderly paupers were unable to sleep for the dreadful noises, ramblings or raucous singing that would often continue all night long.

This was further made problematic by the lack of paid staff, which often resulted in such afflicted persons being kept in open wards. In many cases other inmates were made to be responsible for them, sometimes with disastrous results. Sadly the treatment of lunatic patients who did enter the county asylums, were not made to be any better than that which they received in local workhouses. In August 1879 an account was published in a Sheffield newspaper giving an account of what it was like inside Wadsley Asylum. In an ‘Interesting Narrative by a Cured Patient’, the unnamed reporter describes the asylum attendant as ‘one who bids us to cease in a loud tone.

He states that if not obeyed at once, you are handled very rudely, pushed backwards and forwards and on one occasion, punched in the ribs’. The report describes an incident where the reporter threw an object at an abusive attendant:

‘I was laid hold of by two or three men and banged first against a wall and then a floor. If you make your mind up to report the attendants to the doctors, the attendant will not give you a chance to speak. You are then locked up in a dark room for as much as 12 hours. Patients who are recovering tend to be used as servants’.

Given the lack of understanding of what treatment could be metered out, it appears that the only attitude towards all lunatic patients during the Victorian period was to just keep them calm and occupied as much as possible. When it was needed, restraints or padded cells were used on the more violent patients to stop them harming themselves or others. Strict routines and diets were followed. Despite the ignorance around mental health issues, it was found to be true that many patients responded well to this type of regular regime.

Gradually, by the turn of the century however, new methods were being tried such as electric convulsive therapy and lobotomy operations. However, given the ignorance around such conditions archaic methods still continued. Cold baths were advocated for women who were described as ‘hysterical’ and scalps were shaved from both sexes in order promote a ‘cooling of the brain.’ All outdated practises which gave no long term relief to patients of either sex. Eventually there was a growth towards more moral treatment, where routine and regular prayers were found to be effective, and thankfully harsh treatment, brutal behaviour and restraints were gradually abandoned.

Ellen Houghton was a forty eight year old woman who lived on Tusmore Street, Rotherham with her husband and her eight year old son called Maurice. No one knew the reason why in January 1922, she decided to end her own life and take her beloved son with her. Ellen had run an ice cream business which she sold from a stall in Rotherham Market. The business was doing alright, but it would be fair to say that Ellen had no business head on her shoulders. Consequently she continually worried about money, and whether the family would be able to manage just on her husbands wages as a labourer in order to survive the winter.

It affected her so much that she became terribly depressed. On top of this, poor Ellen had also been subject to terrible headaches, no doubt due to her constant worrying and gradually she became more and more morose. Whatever the reason, at 8 pm on Sunday 8 January she took Maurice by the hand and they went to visit her sister Eliza. However when the reached the house, Eliza was not at home, so they walked back towards Effingham Square, where mother and child boarded a tram which took them to Parkgate. When they got off the tram, Ellen told Maurice ‘I am going down here to do something.’ Still holding him by the hand they walked together to the side of the canal.

Mother and child stood at the edge of the water contemplating its murky depths, when suddenly and without warning she jumped into the water pulling Maurice with her. As she hit the water she automatically screamed at its icy depth. Thankfully her screams were heard by two brothers Harry Swift aged thirty years and his younger brother Ben aged nineteen. They were passing over the canal at the Rotherham Road Bridge. They ran towards the tow path from where the screams had emanated and there they saw two bodies in the water about eight yards away. Harry Swift saw his brother Ben immediately jump into the water and he did the same.

He swam towards the two figures and as he got close he felt the woman reach out for him. Emma took hold of Harry as he dragged her towards the edge of the canal. At some point she became unconscious and he had the greatest difficulty in pulling her out of the water. Then he saw his brother had taken hold of the young boy. Ben managed to get Maurice out of the water, but both men now saw that the woman, whose name they did not know, lay unconscious on the towpath.
Harry ran for a constable, whilst his brother did what he could to help the woman and the boy.

When Ben returned, he had with him Police Constable Green who he had found on duty in Parkgate. Thankfully by this time, the woman was beginning to come around. When P C Green asked her name, Ellen gave it to him, but she cried piteously as she said ‘I am sorry I got into this state, I am very depressed and have been for a month or more. The business worries me and I went in the water with the purpose of putting an end to it all.’ Ellen was removed to the Parkgate Police Station. To her complete shock she was charged with not only trying to commit suicide, but also on the more serious crime of attempting to murder her son, Maurice.

Upon hearing this, Ellen cried as she told the arresting officer that she did not want to kill her son. Nevertheless, on Tuesday 10 January 1922 Ellen was brought before the Rotherham Borough Court where it was reported that the prisoner had to be assisted into the courtroom by a police matron. Throughout the hearing of the evidence, she appeared to be in great distress. Holding a handkerchief to her face, she listened in horror at the events taking place before her. The Chief Constable prosecuted the case, and he relayed the gallant rescue which had taken place. PC Green told the court that thankfully the boy was now out of danger and was recovering well.

The bench consulted for a while before remanding the prisoner to Armley Gaol for eight days.
On Wednesday 18 January 1922 Ellen was brought back into court, where the first witness was her own son Maurice. The boy appeared to be very mature for his age as he gave his evidence, continually looking at his mother for re-assurance as he did so. He described the tram ride with her, before she jumped into the water pulling him in with her. The next witness was Harry Swift who told the court that he lived at Gratton Street, Kimberworth and worked as a carter. He described the rescue and said that when they saw the woman and the boy struggling in the water there was no hesitation.

He described how the prisoner had grasped him by his neck tie and he had the greatest difficulty in getting her to let go. His brother Ben then told the court that he worked as a miner and lived on St John’s Avenue, Rotherham. He corroborated his brother’s account in every detail. Then the court went completely silent as Ellen’s husband stepped forward to give his evidence. He gave his name as George Houghton and he stated that his wife Ellen had never been in any trouble before. The witness categorically said that she had never spoken to him about wanted to commit suicide, although he knew that lately she had been troubled in her mind.

In answer to one of the magistrates he said there had been no domestic troubles that he was aware of, and that as far as the family was concerned, Ellen had always been a good wife and mother. The witness said that they had always lived companionably together so this had been a total shock to him, as it had completely come out of the blue. George Houghton said that his wife ran the ice cream business well and there had been no financial debts to account for making her want to take such a drastic step as this. Finally the two Swift brothers were re-called back into court before the magistrate, Mr Hastings then addressed them and complimented them on their brave actions.

He told them:

‘I have to say that as soon as you heard the screams, you rushed to the canal and without the slightest hesitation jumped into the water, notwithstanding the cold weather. In that way you were able to bring the woman and the boy safely to the bank. I have do doubt that your heroic deed will be brought before the notice of the Royal Humane Society. I trust with the result that your bravery will be acknowledged by them.’

Ellen Houghton was brought before Commissioner, Mr A J Ashton at the West Riding Assizes at Leeds on Thursday 16 March 1922 where she was described as being ‘a frail looking woman.’ Mr Paley Scott prosecuted the case and he described the events which had taken place. He described the two young men who had risked their lives to save the woman and the boy as being ‘two men of courage and resource.’ They were the first witnesses and were followed by PC Green. He told the court that the female prisoner had always been a most respectable woman who appeared to have a happy and contented home life.

Then an unnamed Police Surgeon told the Grand Jury that the prisoner had suffered from acute mental depression and loss of memory whilst she had been in custody in Armley Gaol. He said that in his opinion she did not quite know what she was doing at the time. Then incredibly, it was turn for little Maurice Houghton to give his evidence, where he was described as being ‘a rosy cheeked little boy of eight.’ Looking older than his years, the young witness seemed bright and intelligent for his age. To put him at his ease, Mr Commissioner Ashton moved nearer to him.

The boy described what had happened and said that his mother ‘looked funny’ at the time. He said how he cried out when he was pulled into the water, but he did not remember anything else.
The jury took quite some time to deliberate on this most difficult case as it was later confirmed that they could not bring in a majority verdict. Finally they succeeded in returning a verdict that Ellen Houghton was not guilty of the charge of attempted murder, but she was guilty of attempting suicide. They also adding a strong recommendation for mercy. Thankfully the Commissioner also took the same view, as he told Ellen that she would be bound over for twelve months.

Thankfully, the two Swift brothers’ courage was also not forgotten. On the evening of Friday 28 April 1922 the Mayoress of Rotherham, Mrs K W Fieldsend presented them both with Certificates from the Royal Humane Society. It was stated that at the point that the two young men entered the water to save mother and son, the canal was, seven feet deep and 60 feet wide. The newspaper reported said that ‘great credit was due to the rescuers, who in addition to the certificates had each been awarded £1 each.’ So ends the tragic story of Ellen Houghton, it is hoped that she lived out the rest of her life free from worry with her beloved son Maurice.

Indeed the only incident which had been reported at Highfields Police Station on Boxing Day of 1885 was when a request came in for a drunken man to be removed from the premises of a respectable house. It was rented by an elderly couple Mr and Mrs Stevenson in Holland Place, Highfield Road. It seems that an abusive man was creating a disturbance outside the premises, after possibly celebrating the season too well. Two constables, PC’s Richards and Collins, were dispatched, but they soon returned back to the station to report that by the time they arrived, the man had gone. Thankfully by this time PC Prosser’s shift had ended, and he was soon joined by his son, also called Charles, as the pair began to walk home together.

Suddenly as they got to St Barnabas’s Road they heard a shout of ‘watch, watch’ coming from the direction of Atkin Place. Wondering who would be calling out for a watchman at that time of night, the two men headed there as quickly as they could. PC Prosser arrived first and as he reached the corner, he saw a woman running towards Highfield Place screaming out ‘murder’ as loud as she could. Behind her, on the ground was the body of a fifty four year old man who was struggling in a pool of blood! Prosser ran towards the woman and stopped her in her tracks, whilst his son approached the man on the ground.

Pulling her to a standstill, the officer saw that she had a dreadful gash in her throat, although thankfully she was still able to talk. She told him that her name was Mrs Emma Hives and her husband was the injured man on the floor. She claimed that he had tried to kill her that night by stabbing her in the throat. Just then, Prosser’s son shouted out to his father to come and help as he was struggling with the man on the ground. Approaching the pair the constable saw John Hives was desperately trying to pull open up the wound in his throat. Taking charge, Prosser directed his son to take the badly injured woman to the nearby surgery of Dr O Meara.

However when the younger man and the injured woman reached the surgery, they found the doctor was away from home. Prosser junior instantly called a cab and had the injured Mrs Hives taken to the hospital. Meanwhile, his father continued to desperately struggle with John Hives, trying to hold down both his hands in order to prevent him from injuring himself further. Finally in desperation, the officer gave several blasts on his police whistle, which was heard by Police Sergeant Walsh who was nearby on London Road, Sheffield. He rushed to the scene, and once there gathered several clean towels from neighbours who by now had gathered. These were held to the injured man’s throat and eventually stemmed the bleeding.

The sergeant and Constable Prosser were soon joined by Police Constable Richards, who had also had a busy night. He told them that he had firstly been sent to the fracas at Holland Road to remove the ‘drunk’ but when he arrived was told that the man and his wife had since left the scene. That officer had then gone back to Highfield’s Police Station to report the incident, before resuming his shift. Upon hearing the police whistle, he had rushed to the scene at Atkin Place and helped to transport the injured man to the station. Only at that point did he realise that John Hives had been the drunken man creating the scene in Holland Road. The Sergeant in charge had ordered him to be taken to the hospital, and he too was taken there in a cab. Another constable was stationed by his bedside, until he regained consciousness.

PC Prosser meanwhile was dispatched back to Atkins Place which he searched with the aid of a lantern. There he quickly found the knife which had caused the two peoples injuries. The weapon was described as being a moderately sized pocket knife which when opened, still held bloodstains on the blade. Although the blade itself was not very sharp, it was noted that it came to a sharp point at the end, making a dagger like effect. Both Mr and Mrs Hives were kept in hospital and it was not until 2 January that they were both considered to be out of danger and allowed to be discharged. Police enquiries soon established that up to a year previously, John Hives had been a respectable married man with good employment as a labourer.

He and his wife had lived at Sharrow, however, since that time, Hives had taken to drinking more than was good for him. Eventually, he and his wife Emma separated, she moving in with a married daughter, whilst he found lodgings where he could. Mrs Hives immediately sought to find herself respectable employment and she soon obtain a post of nurse to an aged couple Mr and Mrs Stevenson of Holland Road, Sheffield. Occasionally her husband would come to the house of her employers and she would give him money to get rid of him.

However she had recently told him that she would no longer supply him with any more money and that he needed to get a job, which infuriated him. That was the reason Hives threatened to kill her and himself. On the night in question he had gone to his wife’s place of employment and demanded to see her. He was allowed inside, whereupon Hives insisted that she leave with him, claiming that Emma was ‘his property.’ When the elderly Mr Stevenson ejected him, Hives stayed in the yard shouting abuse and that was when a call was put in to Highfield’s Police Station to remove the drunken man and PC Richards was dispatched.

However, that officer found that after the call to the police station had been made, Emma had gone outside to speak to her husband and beg him to leave. The only way she could get him to go was by agreeing to accompany him. Consequently, as the couple were walking along Atkin Place, Hives stabbed her and tried to cut his own throat. Once at the hospital, daily reports were issued on the couple, as both lives were thought to be in imminent danger. Finally, Emma Hives started to recover although on Thursday 7 January 1886, John Hives died from his wounds. Subsequently an inquest was held on the body on Saturday 9 January at the hospital by Coroner Mr D Wightman.

He told the jury that at the time of his death, the deceased had been living rough in Sheffield and had no fixed abode. Emma Hives was the first witness and she explained that she did not live with her husband, due to his dissolute habits. She said that on the night in question, John had told her that he had been ‘walking the streets since Christmas Eve’ and begged her to come and live with him again. However she once again refused. Suddenly, and without any warning, he put his arm around her, as Emma thought to give her a kiss. That was when she felt the knife slice into her throat. The witness described how they both fell to the floor and when she looked at him again she saw the pool of blood.

The witness told the coroner that she had often thought that her husband was not exactly sane, particularly when he had been drinking. However that night she was convinced that he was ‘off his head’ completely. Police Constable Prosser was the next to give evidence and he described the terrible events of the evening. Emma’s employer. Mr Stevenson told the inquest that Emma Hives had been employed as nurse at his house for the past six weeks. He too described the deceased man as being ‘dangerous and wild’ on the night in question.

Mr Wightman, after hearing all the evidence, told the jury:

‘I do not think you will have much difficulty in coming to a decision on the evidence you have just heard. It is almost a miracle that we are not holding two inquests today instead of one, for the deceased had seemed determined to cut his wife’s throat as well as his own. There is no doubt in my mind that either through drink or trouble, or a combination of causes, the deceased man’s mind had been affected. In considering your verdict you must take that into account.’

The jury retired for a short while, before returning a verdict of ‘suicide during a state of temporary insanity’ was returned. As people filed out from the inquest at its conclusion, I have little doubt that Police Constable Charles Prosser amongst others, would remember the dreadful events which they had witnessed that night, for the rest of their lives.

AN ACCOUNT BY A ROTHERHAM ‘LUNATIC AT LARGE’

ON WADSLEY ASYLUM.

Throughout the nineteenth century, many undercover journalists were writing about the lives of the poor working classes. The subjects they chose to cover were often controversial ones such as ‘A night in the Vagrant Ward of the Workhouse’ underlining the kinds of situations which drove people to sink to such depths. In this case this account was from an anonymous Rotherham reporter, simply calling himself ‘a vagrant journalist.’ His account, which was printed in the Sheffield and Rotherham Independent dated Saturday 5 December 1874, reveals an appalling attitude towards the inmates of the asylum. Using language, which would thankfully not be acceptable today, it does reflect societies attitudes of the period.

It seems that this unnamed reporter had been sent by his editor to visit Wadsley Asylum where the patients would receive treatment. I use the word ‘treatment’ advisedly as there simply was no treatment, apart from locking up the inmate in order to keep him or her safe and unable to harm themselves or others. Upon his arrival, the journalist states that he was courteously met by the Asylum Superintendent, Dr Mitchell on the steps of the building. The superintendent shook his hand and, to his surprise dealt with the reporter with much reverence. He stated that the superintendent treated him as if he was an official visitor, such as one of the a Commissioners for Lunacy, who were appointed to inspect all Yorkshire asylums.

Indeed the respect Dr Mitchell showed him he says, made him feel like he was an important Visiting Justice of the Peace or indeed a Guardian of the Rotherham or Sheffield Workhouse. The journalist states that Dr Mitchell informed him that the asylum was divided into three blocks, which were capable of holding up to 800 patients. Inviting him inside, he showed him that the central block comprised of reception rooms, administration rooms and kitchens. To the left were the women’s wards and the laundry, and to the right were the men’s dining rooms and workshops.

Dr Mitchell appeared happy to show the journalist around and they went first to the women’s ward. The superintendent told him that this section held 344 patients at that time and they were scattered among rooms of various sizes and shapes. The reporter says that all the rooms appeared to be cheerful, warm and comfortable. However, then his negative attitude towards the inmates began to creep through his account. The journalist wrote ‘the cleanliness was surprising, especially when we remember how dirty are the habits of some of the poor creatures, and how disorderly have been their homes.’ The report described how the walls were hung with bright coloured pictures and how ‘the decorations were simple, but cheerful.’

However, then the reporter writes ‘many of the women are old and most of them are ugly.’ He describes ‘one old crone of nearly 80, who was crouched on the floor by the fireside, poking among the cinders. It seems that she ‘resolutely declined the use of a chair.’ The report continues on how he was then approached by ‘another dame of portly build and voluble tongue who came forward with a letter. She told him that she was writing to the Queen asking her to instruct the superintendent that she should be released. The journalist concluded that ‘it needed no expert to tell that she was mad as a March hare.’

However he does admit that many others were sitting quietly in chairs and sofas, sewing or gazing vacantly about them. His description of the sick wards, which he said ‘were gratifying to think how much better the patients were tended and lodged than they could ever have been in their own homes.’ He states ‘the inmates, who were mostly old women reclining in their beds, seem to be held up only by the hook of their noses from slipping down under the bedclothes.’ The reporter was then taken into the men’s ward where his negative descriptions continued.

He said that at the time Dr Mitchell told him that there were only 259 patients in residence, which was much less that the inmates of the women’s wards. However, here he described the rooms as being much different to the women’s wards:

‘not only because these men differ in their habits from women, but because their dress is more sombre and untidy even though their faces are more repulsive. They talked much less, although mischief lurked in many a man’s eye.’

Dr Mitchell then proudly took our intrepid reporter through the men’s dining rooms where the inmates were dining on boiled bacon, potatoes and turnips. They entered the kitchens where the journalist recorded that he saw potatoes steaming, and porridge, tea and coffee being prepared in huge cauldrons. He was invited to taste the beer which the superintendent told him costs something in the region of 6d a gallon to produce. The reporter said that after tasting the alcohol ‘that it was not likely to make drunkards of anyone.’

Moving into the asylum workshops, he described two boilers which were constantly in use to provide hot water for heating, washing and cooking. The workers in the bakery were also in the process of making their daily batch of 200 loaves of bread. These Dr Mitchell boasted, were made completely by machinery and that the dough ‘never touched human hands until it comes out of the oven as loaves and is carried to the racks to cool.’ The reporter noted that during the visit, painters were busy painting scenery for a play which was to be performed for the inmates later that evening. He states that the audience was made up of both ‘sane and insane in unequal proportions.’

Nevertheless, this patronising report by the ‘vagrant journalist’ described his favour of the progressive attitude of the Wadsley Asylum staff. He says ‘now the old ideas of a straight jacket, the dark cell and chain are exploded, because the keepers actually think it desirable to amuse the unfortunates committed to their care.’ He concluded:

‘I must express my conviction that the Wadsley Asylum is an institution for the county to be very proud of. Its management is such as to reflect the highest credit on all concerned. So long as the insane are to be provided for in this way, this is the sort of retreat they should have.’

On the night of Tuesday 24 September 1901 the body of a newly born child was found in an ashpit of a house at Pitsmoor, Sheffield. The body was wrapped in a brown paper parcel and was lying in a pool of water. It was removed to the Mortuary and the Sheffield City Coroner, Mr Kenyon Parker was informed. He arranged for an inquest to be held on the child at the Mortuary on Friday 27 September to which there was only one witness, a woman called Mary Coulton. She told the coroner that she lived with her husband William in a court off Pitsmoor Road, Sheffield where the child’s body had been found.

The witness said that she believed that the child had belonged to her sister-in-law, a woman called Mary Elizabeth Mallinson who had been pregnant. Although she was, at that time, an inmate at Firvale workhouse infirmary. When the coroner asked her if her sister-in-law was married, the witness said that she was, however she explained that her husband had gone to America the previous year in July 1900, and nothing had been heard from him since. Mrs Coulton stated that thirty year old Mary Elizabeth had been staying with her for the last three weeks and although she seemed poorly, the woman refused to see a doctor.

The witness told the coroner that she suspected that Mary Elizabeth was pregnant, but when she asked her if she was, her sister-in-law denied it. Coulton said that in the end, she had consulted her parents who had made arrangements for their daughter to be admitted to the Firvale workhouse on the previous Saturday 21 September. It was the following Tuesday that the body of the child had been found in Mrs Coulton own ashpit, situated in the yard off Pitsmoor Road. The coroner said that it was impossible to continue the inquest until he could arrange for the attendance of the supposed mother and so he adjourned the inquest until Monday 28 October 1901.

When the inquest was re-opened Mary Elizabeth Mallinson was in attendance along with her defence solicitor, Mr L E Emmett. Inspector Healey of the Sheffield Police Force was also present. He described the condition of the body when it was brought to the Sheffield Mortuary where surgeon, Dr Walter Hallam had been asked to undertake a post mortem. He was the next witness and told the inquest that the body had proved to be that of a fully developed male child. He did certain tests which proved that the baby had led a separate existence from his mother after birth. Dr Emmett said the nose was in a flattened position and he found extravasation of blood coming from the nostrils.

Internally the surgeon found some of the organs to be much congested and there was fluid in the left side of the heart. When the coroner asked him for his opinion on how the child had died, Dr Hallam told him that the cause of death was suffocation. The coroner summed up for the jury and he told the jury that if they thought that the case was satisfactorily proved, then the verdict must be wilful murder or manslaughter against Mrs Mallinson. The jury took only a short while to return a verdict that:

‘The deceased had been found dead on 24 September, having died from suffocation. But as to how it was caused there was not sufficient evidence to show.’

Mrs Mallinson was then taken into custody by the inspector charged with concealment of birth and ordered to take her trial at the next Assizes. On Wednesday 4 December the prisoner was brought before judge, Mr Justice Ridley at the West Riding Assizes held at Leeds Town Hall. She pleaded guilty before the prosecution, Mr H Wilson outlined the details of the case for the jury. He stated that the prisoner had stayed for a while with her brother and his wife at the house on Pitsmoor Road but had always denied that she was pregnant. On September 18 she had been seen by a doctor and on 22 of that month, she was removed to the Firvale Workhouse, where she was examined by the medical officer.

He concluded that during his examination he had found that she had recently been delivered of a child within the last twenty four hours. Inspector Healey searched the premises of the prisoners brother on 24 September and that was when the body of the child had been found in the ashpit. Mary Elizabeth’s defence counsel Mr J Andrews described how his client had been deserted by her husband the previous year, shortly after they had been married. Since that time Mary Elizabeth had become pregnant although no one knew who the father was. In order to hide her shame the prisoner had told no one that she was pregnant, but it had left her with the dilemma of having to rid herself of the child after it had been born.

Mr Andrews told the court that the prisoner had expressed great remorse for what she had done.
Her father was the next witness and he stated an intention to have his daughter live with him if she was liberated. He told the court that his daughter had always been an honest and upright woman, but had been devastated when her husband deserted her. Mr Justice Ridley told the court that he had great sympathy for the prisoner and therefore he would sentence her to just two days imprisonment. As Mary Elizabeth had already been in custody awaiting her trial for the last few weeks, she was immediately released into her fathers care.

Joseph Turner, a collier of Hesley Lane, Thorpe Hesley, near Rotherham was very pleased with life in the first few months of 1882. He was just twenty three years of age and was satisfied with his job and the friends he had made, both at work and in the local public house which he regularly visited. The landlord William Stockdale not only sold excellent beer, but Turner had also been attracted by the landlady, Maria there. The couple had recently started a secret, romantic alliance and Turner became quite besotted with her. After some time, they talked about eloping together and going to live in Sheffield and he was quite keen to pursue this.

However her husband Stockdale was a man who was very careful with his money, so when he realised that he could get more interest by investing the £60 he already had with the Sheffield Co-operative Society elsewhere, he decided to act. Subsequently Stockdale withdrew the money and gave it to his wife, Maria to invest for him. She thought that the money would be better spent giving herself and Turner a good start on their own illicit lifestyle in Sheffield. So on January 1882 she gave it to him to put it into the Post Office Savings Bank at Chapeltown. However instead of investing the money as instructed, Turner hid the money in a wall at Scholes.

Needless to say, when the crime came to light Turner denied any knowledge of the stolen money. On Friday 3 February 1882 he was brought before the Rotherham magistrates charged with the theft of £60. Mr Parker Rhodes prosecuted the case and outlined the facts for the bench. Turner’s defence was Mr H Hickmott who claimed that his client had been given the £60 by Maria Stockdale in order to allow them both to elope to Sheffield together. The prisoner denied this and stated instead that he had been given the money by Stockdale’s wife as a gift. The solicitor closely cross examined Maria Stockdale, who denied any truth in the accusation that she had been intimate with the prisoner, or that she had given him the money to invest in the Post Office.

Police Constable Powell described arresting Turner and told the court that at the time he had asked the prisoner if he had anything to say in response. He had simply said:

‘I have not got it. I will go with you because I know that I am innocent. The prosecutor’s [Stockdale] wife came to me and told me that she and her husband had a row, and she wanted me to go away with her, but I said I should not do so.’

After hearing the evidence, Turner was remanded for a week, but when Mr Hickmott applied for bail, it was refused. On 8 February a visitor to the police station where Turner was held in custody appeared. He gave the name of Robert Durant and stated that he was a friend of the prisoner and he also worked with him at the same colliery at Thorpe Hesley. He told one officer that he wanted to see Turner and make a clean breast of the whole affair. The miner stated that he knew where the money was hidden and asked for a constable to accompany him to the place to recover it.

Accordingly, Police Constable’s Pilmore and Durant went to a place called Scholes Coppice and found the money concealed in a mustard tin in a cavity of the wall adjoining the coppice. On the way there Durant had told the officer that Turner had told him that Mrs Stockdale had wanted to elope with him. When they got back to the police station, the prisoner was informed that PC Pilmore had recovered the cash and he charged Joseph Turner with stealing the money. In reply the prisoner again accused Mrs Stockdale of giving him the money. He said that:

‘We were walking on the road together and we were both fresh [tipsy] She told me to put the £60 in the bank in my own name, and then she would get some more, and then we would go away together.’

The following week the case was re-opened on Friday 10 February and the prosecution Mr Parker Rhodes stated that Turner had been a regular visitor to the public house at Thorpe Hesley which the Stockdale’s ran. He had been considered a close friend by the landlord, who had no idea of the intimacy which had developed between the prisoner and his own wife. Mr Rhodes stated that Turner had never either produced the cash or produced a bank book to prove he had invested the money as instructed. The prisoners defence counsel at this point asked the bench if they were going to send his client to the Assizes because if they were, he would reserve his defence.

One of the magistrates thought that the case had been proven, but another member of the bench disagreed. He felt that the prisoner had merely acted foolishly and that the blame should be laid at the feet of the prosecutors wife. She had incited him to commit this act and had acted very foolishly by doing so. As a result Joseph Turner was sent to take his trial at the next Assizes, and he was therefore conducted back to the cells below. Then there was seen some humour in the courtroom. Mr Rhodes applied for the £60 to be returned back to the prosecutor [Stockdale] which was agreed. The Mayor told the landlord that he hoped he would take better care of his money in the future. Mr Stockdale told him ‘she wont have it again!’ to which there was laughter in the courtroom.

On Saturday 8 April 1882 Turner was brought before the West Riding Assizes at Wakefield where his defence claimed that his client no felonious intent on his behalf. He stated that Turner felt that he had personally been given the money by his lover, Maria Stockdale. His employer, the manager of Messrs Newton Chambers and Co., gave the prisoner an excellent character and told the court that he had been employed by them for the past thirteen years and his record had been exemplary up to that point. Colonel Brooke told Turner that:

‘In consequence of the good character from your employers, the Court has determined to treat this case more leniently than we otherwise would have done. Nevertheless you have been found guilty of the most disreputable and atrocious crime.’

He then sentenced Joseph Turner to four months imprisonment with hard labour.