On Thursday 5 March 1840 a twenty three year old Sheffield prisoner called George Jenkinson was charged with two most serious crimes. Accordingly, he was brought before the Yorkshire Spring Assizes at York. He was charged that on two consecutive nights, Saturday 20 September and Sunday 21 September 1839, he had robbed two men. His victims were Peter McKinnell and James Bray both of Sheffield. For this most serious hearing the court had two prestigious judges listening to the evidence. They were the Honourable Sir John Taylor Coleridge and the presiding judge the Right Honourable Thomas Erskine. The first case to be heard was that of the robbery and attempted murder of of Peter McKinnell.

He had been robbed of 6s 6d, a penknife and other articles. The prosecutor was the Honourable J S Wortley and the prisoners defence was Sir G Lewin. George Jenkinson pleaded not guilty and he simply told the judge that on that particular date he was in bed with his wife at the time the robbery was committed. This was the kind of defence that could not be refuted, as wives could not give evidence against their husbands. The first witness was the victim himself, Peter McKinnell. He stated that on the night in question he had been drinking at the Norfolk Arms on Dixon Lane, Sheffield. He said that he had not had much to drink and on walking home he reached Wilkinson Street, without any problem.

Suddenly McKinnell said he said Jenkinson was before him and held his hand out as he demanded ‘your money.’ The witness said that the man had tried to grab him by the collar, but he managed to dodge the blow. He then admitted lashing out at the robber and succeeded in knocking him to the floor, but then he saw a second man. The witness described how this man also knocked him down to the floor in turn. Whilst McKinnell was lying on the floor, he said he felt someone kneel on him at the same time as holding a sharp knife to his temple. The other man then rifled his pockets before they both ran away down Wilkinson Street, Sheffield.

The witness said that he managed somehow to stagger to his feet. McKinnell soon discovered blood flowing from the back of his head where it had impacted on the hard ground. Nevertheless he told the court that he managed to get home somehow. When asked by the judge what kind of night it was, the witness stating that it was a bright, moonlit night and therefore he had no problem identifying the man in the dock. However McKinnell told the judge that because he was unconscious for a moment or two, he was unsure which man had actually knelt on him or held the knife to his head. His daughter Elizabeth McKinnell was the next to give evidence and she confirmed her fathers account.

She told the court that on the night in question he arrived home bleeding profusely from the right temple which had been pierced by something sharp. When asked by the prisoner’s defence, Sir G Lewin if her father had been sober at the time, the girl confirmed that he was. The next witness was Constable William Bland who stated that he had arrested Jenkinson on the morning of Monday 22 September 1839. He had found him in bed at his house on Upper Edward Street, Sheffield. Crucially he stated that he had searched the prisoners home, but had found none of the stolen articles. He was the last witness to be heard.

George Jenkinson’s defence, Sir G Lewin then addressed the jury and told them that there was a want of proof as to the identification of the prisoner. Mr Justice Erskine summed up for the jury, but despite the prisoners plea of innocence, they found Jenkinson to be guilty. Then the judge spoke spoke about the severity of the crime and underlined the fact that much unnecessary violence had been used in the robbery. Therefore Mr Justice Erskine stated it was his duty was to sentence the prisoner to transportation for life. However the judge stated that he would hear the second charge before he made up his mind.

This was the charge that George Jenkinson had also robbed James Bray the following night. Bray told the court that on that night he had gone to the Bee Hive public house in order to receive his weeks pay from his employer. This was quite a common practice at that time for employers to pay wages in public houses. This tradition was encouraged by local landlords, knowing that the recipient would happily buy drinks out of his wages. Accordingly, Bray said that he was paid 16s 6d which he placed in a tobacco box, spending just four pence in beer before leaving. He told the court that he was walking down West Street, when he saw Jenkinson.

He had been working with him for the last few weeks, so easily recognised him as they passed. The witness stated that the two men had simply nodded to each other as they passed, before he described turning first into Bailey Lane and then Trippet Lane. The witness described the latter as being a very dark, narrow street and he had not proceeded far before he felt someone seize him by the throat. The robber then dragged him towards a wall, where a second man waited. The man he had recognised as Jenkinson held him in a vice like grip around his neck, as the other searched through his pockets. After hearing all the evidence the judge gave his sentence of transportation for life, but then a most mysterious thing happened.

A single piece of paper was handed to Mr Justice Erskine and the judge examined it carefully. After reading it through, the judge informed the court that ‘if the circumstances stated in the paper were correct, he would be asking for a commutation of sentence’ before the court was then cleared. What ever was written on the mysterious piece of paper, it took some time for the matter to be settled. In fact the case was not heard about again until 7 March 1841 when George Jenkinson was once more brought back into court. There he finally heard his sentence, but if he was hoping that it would be a good outcome, he was in for a shock. Mr Justice Erskine simply read out the sentenced of death.

It was suggested, at the time that this was mainly due to the increase of violent highway robbery crimes which had been committed around Sheffield at the time. However I have been unable to find any reference to an execution of the man called George Jenkinson. So the question has to be asked, what was in the mysterious piece of paper? Was his sentence eventually commuted to one of imprisonment for life, or was it the fact that his identification of him was uncorroborated by any other witness? Sadly we shall never know!

Throughout the twenty three years of Christopher Jackson’s life he had been robbing and stealing. He had even joined the army at one time, but was soon discharged after breaking into a warehouse. He was described as a labourer, but this feckless Rotherham lad would rather steal than undertake honest work. Consequently in June 1936 when he found himself without any money and owing three months rent, Jackson decided to go to borrow some money off his uncle Thomas who was a retired bookie. His aunt and uncle, Mr and Mrs Linney lived at Betton Street, Sunderland. Accordingly on 29 June Jackson travelled up to Sunderland, where he quickly found lodgings on Front Street, Chester-le-Street with a family named Bainbridge.

Travelling to Sunderland the next day around 6pm, he soon arrived at the house of his aunt and uncle. His aunt Harriet May greeted him most warmly, although she told him that his uncle was at the racetrack. Needless to say the conversation soon turned to his uncles bookmaking business. Harriet told him that even though her husband was retired, that business continued to be good and she admitted that they were still regularly taking in bets every day ranging from £5 – £20. Jackson asked her if she had any problems paying the money into the bank and that when Harriet made her big mistake.

She told him that they had little truck with banks and kept all the money at the house until it got to a sufficient amount when her husband Thomas was forced to bank it. Harriet may not have noticed, but Jackson’s eyes widened when she told him this. It looked very much like his evil plan was working. His aunt Harriet made herself a cup of tea and offered Jackson a bottle of beer, but that was when all politeness ended. When her nephew asked her if she could lend him some money, she told him categorically ‘no!’ Matters soon got very heated and his aunt told him flatly that he ‘was a feckless waster and wasn’t worth any help.’

That soon developed into name calling and before he knew what had happened, Jackson hit her with the back of his hand. The poor woman fell to the floor and as she sat up again, he hit her again, this time with the empty beer bottle that still stood on the table. Then taking the poker she had been using to poke the fire, he hit her again several times with it. As she lay on the floor, this most murderous nephew then began to look around, stealing what money he could find, before leaving the house and returning back to his lodgings. What he did not know at the time was that Harriet’s neighbour, a woman called Mrs Hall had noticed the strange man calling at her neighbours door around 6pm. She later described him to police as being ‘tall with a raincoat over his arm.’

A couple of hours later, another neighbour called Mrs Dunn noticed that Harriet’s back door was open and that was a most unusual sight. She knew her neighbour was normally very careful with the security of the house, due to the money which the couple got from betting. Mrs Dunn told her husband she was going to check on her friend and make sure that she was OK. Very carefully she approached the back door and pushed it wide open. There to her horror she saw Harriet lying on the hearth with her head covered in blood. It was clear that she was dead. The local police were called in and soon Christopher Jackson was traced and arrested, charged with the murder of his aunt Harriet.

On Thursday 2 July the prisoner was brought before the Sunderland Police Court where he pleaded not guilty. It had been reported that hundreds of people had queued for hours before the court was opened, hoping to get seats in the public gallery. However they were frustrated as the prisoner was only in court for five minutes before he was remanded for a week, in order for the police to continue their enquiries. Further remands were given, so it was not until Thursday 16 July before the case was finally heard. The prosecutor was Mr E G Robey, who outlined the case for the court. Police Constable Slater described the scene as he entered the murdered woman’s house.

He told the bench that lying beside the woman’s body was the bloodstained poker and some broken glass from a shattered beer bottle. Dr Cookson, who had also been called to the house, described the deceased woman’s injuries before confirming that either weapon could have caused the extensive injuries which had killed Mrs Linney. The next witness was the landlady of the lodging house, Mrs Bainbridge who stated that when Jackson arrived back at the house after visiting his aunt, his raincoat was buttoned up to the neck. He told her that he intended to have a bath and getting some clothes together and putting them into a suitcase, he headed for an outhouse in the back yard which held a tap and a tin bath.

When Jackson came back inside, the witness reported that he seemed to be in a very cheerful mood and actually paid her back some money which he had borrowed earlier in the week. Then, taking the suitcase upstairs, he returned back to sit by the fire and switch on the wireless. There Jackson listened to a comedy programme, laughing out loud at some of the jokes. Later that night however, Superintendent Cook and Detective Constable Bird from the Sunderland Police arrived and arrested him on a charge of murder. The next day Jackson was interviewed by the two officers before they went back to the lodging house and recovered his suitcase, which had been shoved under the bed.

Inside the suitcase was the heavily bloodstained clothing and a knotted handkerchief containing just £9.13s.4d. Also in the turn-ups of his trousers they found pieces of broken glass which matched the shattered beer bottle found in the murdered woman’s kitchen. Christopher Jackson was cautioned before being charged with the murder of his aunt, Mrs Harriet May Linney to which he replied ‘that is right.’ After hearing all the evidence, the magistrates found the prisoner guilty and he was sent to take his trial at the next Durham Assizes. Consequently, Christopher Jackson was brought before Mr Justice Goddard at the Assizes on Wednesday 4 November 1836.

The prosecution stated clearly that his motive in the killing of his elderly aunt had been robbery. His defence Mr H Hallet KC, stated instead that it was not a case of murder, but of self defence. He claimed that he had attacked the old woman in retaliation, only after she had abused him and called him vile names. The defence described how, when he had stood up to leave and picked up his raincoat, his aunt shoved him and he pushed her back. He stated that she was still holding the poker, so she hit him on the back with it. That was when he shoved her against a table, before picking up the empty bottle and hitting her over the head with it.

Throughout the trial, which lasted five hours, Jackson remained calm and spoke clearly when giving his version of events. However his calm manner soon disappeared when the judge spoke to him. The prisoner blanched as Mr Justice Goddard sentenced him to death. He told the prisoner ‘you have been convicted of as shocking a murder as has been my lot to try. I can hold out no hope to you that the sentence of death will not be carried out.’ On hearing these words it was reported that Jackson swayed and would have fallen if not held up by one of the two warders with him in the dock. The following day he was visited in his cell by the Durham prison governor. Captain Roberts.

He informed him that the High Sheriff of Durham had fixed the date of his execution as being Wednesday 16 December 1936. During the days leading up to his execution it was reported that Jackson remained calm, spending his time solving jig-saw puzzles. The prisoner had been informed the day before that the Home Secretary had declined to interfere with his sentence and therefore there would be no reprieve. A few days prior to his execution, Jackson was visited by the daughter of his former landlord, Elsie Bainbridge. He arrogantly told her that he would die with a smile on his face. On the morning of the execution, Jackson was awoken by the prison chaplain, Canon Mayne and the two held prayers in his cell.

At 8am the governor arrived, followed by the Under Sheriff, Mr A Luxmoor. Then accompanied by the prison surgeon, Dr Derry they formed a procession as they walked between two rows of warders to the site of the gallows. There, hangman Albert Pierrepoint and his assistant were both waiting. The execution took little time as within just eight minutes, a notice was posted outside the prison gates announced the prisoner’s death. A small crowd of about 20 people, most of them women, had gathered outside of the prison gates. They soon dispersed after reading the notice. Meanwhile an inquest was held inside the prison and Dr Derry informed the coroner that Rotherham born Christopher Jackson’s death had been instantaneous.

The house in question was occupied by a forty nine year old man called John James and his housekeeper was a woman called Mrs Georgina Parry. She lived at the address with her fourteen year old daughter Ethel May. On the night of Friday 12 February 1904 a next door neighbour, Mrs Hopewell popped into to see her friend, and she had not been there very long when Georgina complained of feeling unwell. She had barely laid down on the sofa before she was taken with a violent attack of vomiting. When the attack subsided, Ethel May brought her mother some brandy and whisky, before she too complained of her head hurting.

The girl went upstairs to bed whilst her mother continued to lie on the sofa. Eventually after trying to settle her two neighbours, Mrs Hopewell left to go home around 10pm. The next day it was noted that matters had not improved and during the following afternoon Dr Byrne of Attercliffe was finally sent for. He found the mother and daughter were still complaining of headache and feeling ‘muddled in the head.’ However the lodger John James appeared to be in his usual health, although the doctor could detect that he had been drinking. The following day the family were visited by a young woman called Miss Nellie Bee, who soon after she entered the house, also complained of feeling queasy and unwell.

It was not long before she too collapsed unconscious, nevertheless she vomited ‘awfully.’ Thankfully she was able to go home where she soon recovered. The next day it was reported that the householder John James had died. It seems that the day before he had been drinking in several of the local public houses before returning home. Soon afterwards he was complaining of ‘going mad’ and was seen to be waving his arms around in a frenzied manner. However his behaviour just seemed to be the actions of a drunken man. Another family friend, a Mrs Chapman, hearing about the mysterious illness also called at the house and she found Georgina with froth coming from her mouth.

Mrs Chapman sat in a chair next to the sofa where Georgina lay and it was not long before she too complained of feeling ill. Suddenly and without warning, the poor woman collapsed, falling from the chair onto a hearth. Yet another visitor, another female friend called Mrs Lily Jinks called in and she too felt the effects of this strange illness. She later stated that there was a strange smell in the house, which she described as being like ether, although no one else could smell it. After all this, the lodger James and another neighbour, a man called Smith decided to sit up all night and keep and eye on the housekeeper. The rest of the night passed quietly before yet another visitor, Mrs Summers called around the next morning around 8 am.

She immediately noted that the man Smith, had foam coming from his nose and mouth. However the lodger John James was stretched out unconscious on the hearthrug. Approaching him, Mrs Summers could see that he was dead. Georgina was in an unconscious state as she lay on the sofa. Another surgeon Dr Hargit was called in, but there was little for him to do. He order the removal of the body of James to the Mortuary and the others were dispatched to the Sheffield Royal Infirmary, including young Ethel Parry, who was still vomiting. Needless to say the police had to be notified of the mysterious poisoning in Attercliffe and Inspector Hebb was called to the house.

He inspected every room most carefully, but could find no reason to account for all the illnesses. So he locked up the house and took possession of the key. Needless to say several suggestions of what might have caused the poisonings were put forward, but it was reported that there was no gas laid on at the house, so no reason could be found. Over the next few days, the house was inspected by Mr Scurfield, the Sheffield Medical Officer of Health and Mr H Cleghorn the Superintendent of the Sheffield Gas Company. Meanwhile the inquest into John James was opened on Wednesday 17 February 1904 by the Deputy Coroner, Mr Kenyon Parker.

The deceased man’s brother Henry was the first to give evidence, and he described for the jury the layout of the house. He also mentioned the close proximity of the Siemans Blast Furnace to the property. Significantly he told the inquest that the furnace had been shut down for some months until the previous Thursday when it had been suddenly started up again. Other witnesses gave evidence of feeling ill at the house and vomiting after they got home, but no one complained of any smell. A surgeon called Dr Carter gave evidence of carrying out the post mortem on John James where he described some of the deceased man’s organs as being cherry red in colour.

The surgeon stated that he sent specimens of the deceased man’s organs to Professor Macdonald of the Sheffield University College, who had made a minute inspection of them. He was able to exclude prussic acid or cyanide poisoning, but instead confirmed to presence of carbon monoxide or nitrous oxide. Dr Scurfield told the coroner that he agreed with his colleagues account. He too, had closely examined the house and theorised that gas from the blast furnace might have passed through faulty brickwork under the house which had been damaged whilst the blast furnace had been shut down. Therefore gas might have been absorbed into the earth around the house.

Nevertheless this theory was immediately dismissed by Mr Cleghorn of the Sheffield Gas Company. In his summing up, Mr Kenyon Parker told the jury that although the cause of death of John James was clear, the evidence itself was not conclusive. After consulting together for some time, the jury finally returned a verdict after two hours. The conclusion they had reached was to the effect that the deceased had died from poisoning by carbon monoxide, but they expressed no opinion as to the source of where the gas had come from. Indeed it was not until Thursday 25 February before the solution to the mystery was finally found.

It soon became clear that the Medical Officer of Health had not been too far off in his suggested that damage had been caused to the brickwork. Dr Scurfield said that due to the Siemans blast furnaces being idle, the joints between the underground brickwork had become leaky as a result. Once the works were re-opened, the gas now escaped through the opened joints. He pointed out as confirmation that the illnesses had started the next day. Dr Scurfield concluded therefore that John James’ death was due to poisoning by his inhalation of carbon oxide coming from the blast furnace.

When asked what preventative measures were now being taken, the Medical Officer of Health stated that the house was to be left empty. He said that the Siemens Blast Furnace Company were, at present renting it, in order to make sure no such poisonings happened again. They had also agreed that at the end of six months to demolish a concrete wall to a depth below the foundations of the house. The company will then ensure that a new length of brickwork would replace the old, to prevent gas finding its way into the earth around the house in the future. Whether this was of a comfort to the dead man’s family or to the others who suffered from the catastrophe went unrecorded.

Benjamin Harrison was a thirty one year old man in July of 1879 and was a boatman, earning his living working on the busy canals around South Yorkshire. However his health problems started two years earlier when he was thrown from his horse at Doncaster and sustained severe injuries, landing head first on a sharp kerb stone. It was noted that after this, Ben became very peculiar in his manner. Thankfully he was able to continue to live an ordinary life, soon returning back to work when his wounds were healed. However his brother James noted that Ben was never quite the same as he had been before the incident. James recognised that his condition soon began to deteriorate, and slowly he became more and more violent.

Things came to a head on 11 July 1879 when Ben went to his brothers house, who also lived in Mexborough and it was not long before an argument broke out between the two siblings. This resulted in Ben swinging punches at his brother, before starting to smash first some crockery and then the windows. James said afterwards that his brother acted like a man insane, nevertheless he stoutly defended himself and his family before calling the police. As a result Ben was handcuffed before being examined by a police medical officer who judged him to be insane. As a result, two medical officers from the Doncaster Workhouse were called in, as three signatures were needed to have a person committed.

They both agreed with the medical officer’s diagnosis and the following day arrangements were made to have Ben taken to Wadsley. When he arrived, the patient was admitted by Dr Samuel Mitchell, the medical superintendent of the asylum in order to assess his condition. He noted that there were no external marks on the man, apart from a slight bruise on his forehead and the chafing of the handcuffs on his wrists. Ben was admitted onto a ward and the next morning another medical officer, Dr Kaye tried to make an examination of the patient. However he had been unable to do so due to Ben’s constant restlessness.

He too recorded that apart from the small bruise the man, there were no other injuries. Nevertheless seventeen days later on Saturday 28 June, Benjamin Harrison was dead. An inquest was arranged to be held at the Asylum on Tuesday 1 July by the Coroner, Mr D Wightman. The deceased man’s brother James was the first witness and he described the night when Ben became so violent that he was forced to defend himself. He told the jury about his brother being thrown from his horse two years earlier and the slow deterioration in his condition ever since that time. Another witness was
one of the medical officers from Doncaster Workhouse called John Cochrane.

He gave evidence of attending the deceased man at James Harrison’s house on 11 June. He told the jury that the patient was extremely violent and almost without any control over himself. Cochrane reported how it took four men to get the deceased man safely into the asylum. Finally, it could only be undertaken by himself, an assistant workhouse overseer called Mr Lockwood and two of the man’s own brothers. Mr Wightman asked for the Superintendent of Wadsley, Dr Mitchell to be recalled. He then asked his opinion of Benjamin’s condition once he had been received into the asylum. Dr Mitchell told him that at first he thought the man was ‘quite raving’ as he could not answer any questions put to him.

The next witness was Mr Henry Payne, the surgeon who had conducted the post mortem examination on the body of the deceased man after death. The surgeon agreed with the medical evidence given so far, in that Benjamin Harrison had no external marks of violence apart from the small bruise on his right temple. However internally it had been a very different situation. Mr Payne said that he had found a fracture of the sternum or breast bone and three broken ribs, one on the right side of his body and two on the left. The surgeon concluded that he found the man’s lungs to be in a state of inflammation, which in his opinion was the final cause of death.

The surgeon explained that the inflammation might have been caused by the fractures, which would anyway have accelerated the man’s death. Then the Coroner then asked him the question which the jury most wanted to hear. He asked the surgeon if he could estimate at what point the fractured ribs had received the injuries which had been noted. Mr Payne considered his answer very carefully before he spoke. He gave his opinion that Benjamin Harrison’s ribs must have been broken for some time as there had been evidence of ‘natural mending’ on some of the bones. He judged that in his opinion they had certainly been broken for a week, or it might have been nearer to three weeks previously.

The assistant overseer from Mexborough, Mr Lockwood also told the inquest that the deceased had been very violent whilst being transported to Wadsley. At one point, he described how they had to hold him down on a sofa, nevertheless he stated that Ben had never complained to him of being injured. When it was finally time to sum up, the coroner told the inquest jury that the evidence had been very contradictory. Consequently, the jury did not know much more, other than the deceased man had received some injuries, somewhere. The coroner agreed and concluded that it would probably be prior to the man admission to Wadsley on 11 June.

Nevertheless, he assured the jury that the whole matter would be sent to the Lunacy Commissioners for their opinion. The jury retired for a short while before coming back into the room with a verdict. They stated that:

‘Benjamin Harrison died on 28 June in the South Yorkshire Asylum seventeen days after his admission. Death was from inflammation of the lungs, accelerated or caused by a fractured sternum and three broken ribs. When or where inflicted, or by what means there is no evidence to show.’

The Sheffield Daily Telegraph dated Friday 29 August 1879 holds the result of the enquiry held by the Lunacy Commissioners. Nevertheless its somewhat contradictory conclusions fails to give any satisfactory outcome. It is headed from the office of the Commissioners in Whitehall Place, London. It stated that the public enquiry took four and a half days in total and 35 witnesses were interviewed under oath. The report then listed six conclusions, two of which seemed to cloud the causes of death even more.

Conclusion no 3 stated ‘that the deceased had not at his admission into the Asylum sustained the fracture.’ However more confusingly, conclusion no 6 states ‘That while in the Asylum the deceased met with an accident on 22 June last, which possibly produced the fractures.’ It is not until the following month that we get a clue as to what that ‘accident’ might have been when further conclusions were added. No 7 carefully notes that Benjamin Harrison had a fall on another occasion which was no ones fault. However No 8 states more ominously:

‘That the Board should call the attention of the Committee of Visitors of the Asylum to the propriety of so altering the window shutter in the single rooms as to prevent the recurrence of such an accident as that referred to in our conclusion No 6!

Thankfully by Saturday 6 September 1879 the mystery was finally cleared up. The Sheffield Independent of that date described an altercation which took place on 22 June when Harrison:

‘suddenly climbed upon a closed window shutter and then he fell or sprang down six feet coming down heavily and doubled up, his knees bent which were “driven up into his stomach” as one witness described it.’

Despite the drop of six feet, it was alleged that Harrison immediately jumped up, exhibiting no sign of pain, injury or even a bruise. The matter was reported to a medical officer, but no further action was taken even when the patient died a few days later. This most unsatisfactory conclusion has to leave people wondering exactly how did Benjamin Harrison come to his death in Wadsley Asylum?

George Taylor lived with his mother at Crooked Steps Row, Pye Bank, Bridgehouses and was by trade a razor grinder. He was usually in good health, but around March of 1848 George became unwell with a pain in the back part of his left arm, just above his elbow. At first his mother Sarah was not concerned, assuming it was rheumatism. This she treated with an old remedy of rubbing the arm with turpentine and wrapping it in flannel. However this did little to release her son from his pain and discomfort. In desperation, she managed to obtain a recommendation for an appointment at the Sheffield Dispensary from the workhouse officials.

They supplied her with some lotion and for three weeks George tried rubbing it into his arm, the skin of which was now hard and swollen. Still under the direction of one of the doctors at the Dispensary, leeches were also applied to his arm, but they did no good at all. Six months later on Sunday morning, 28 September her son told Sarah that after being unable to sleep or rest, he had enough. In desperation she remembered that several of her neighbours had recommended a sixty four year old quack doctor called Thomas Whitehead. George was so sick of the pain at this point that he went to see Whitehead, who also tried out several different medications on the young man. One including cutting open the arm to release the pain, however nothing seemed to work.

Finally Whitehead had to admit to being stumped and Sarah went to see surgeon Mr Overend at the Infirmary. Once there, she begged for an appointment for her son, to which the surgeon agreed. Consequently on Saturday 19 August George went to the Infirmary in a cab. Mr Joseph Law who was house surgeon at the Infirmary, examined the poor man’s arm, and in particular the open wound which by now smelt bad. In fact so horrid was the smell, that the surgeon had to put him in a ward all by himself. Despite all efforts to treat the young man, George Taylor died on Friday 22 August. At the time Mr Law gave the cause of death as ‘from the consequences of constitutional irritation and exhaustion.’

Mr Law carried out the post mortem and found by an external examination that apart from the injury to his arm, the poor man also suffered from bed sores. He noted also that after all his suffering, his body was very emaciated and thin. The surgeon immediately consulted his brother surgeons regarding his concerns, but before any more attempted remedies could be imposed on the young man he died. Consequently, Mr Joseph Badger the Deputy Coroner arranged an inquest to take place at the Infirmary on Monday 25 September 1848. The jury heard evidence from Mrs Sarah Taylor and other witnesses, who described Whitehead’s treatment of the deceased man.

Surgeon Mr Law gave an extensive list of the poor man’s suffering, before concluding that his death had been caused by maltreatment from an untrained medical man. At this point, one of the jury commented that the witnesses all seemed to implicate the quack doctor Thomas Whitehead who was not there to defend himself. Therefore he felt it desirable that the man should attend the inquest in person to give his own account. Mr Badger agreed, and stated that he had ordered Whitehead to attend, but had not noticed that he was not actually there in the room. Thankfully the quack doctor was waiting outside and was called into the inquest.

The previous witnesses statements were then read out to him and Whitehead asked several questions before the coroner adjourned the enquiry. He wanted to hear the evidence of the medical officers of both the Dispensary and the Infirmary who had treated the deceased man. Therefore on Wednesday 27 September 1848 the adjourned inquest was reconvened at the Infirmary where it was noted that Whitehead now had a defence solicitor called Mr Oxley. At the first mention of the words ‘quack doctor’ however his defence intervened and told the coroner that his client was legally entitled to practise medicine.

However, he pointed out that he held no medical diploma, as he had already been in practice before the passing of the Apothecaries Act of 1815. Once again the witnesses statements from the last inquest was read out, before it was time to hear Mr Wilson Overend Esq., one of the senior surgeons at Sheffield Infirmary. He put the concerns of all the medical men involved in the case quite succinctly, when he stated that he had examined the deceased man on the day after the post mortem had been made. Consequently Mr Overend concurred completely with the evidence of Mr Law. He stated that when he first examined the patient on Sunday 20 August, the day after his admission to the Infirmary, he was appalled at what he saw.

The surgeon said it was not so much the man’s appearance, which he recognised immediately would end in death. But it was more the fact that the poor man had suffered so much from the miss-applications inflicted on him by the prisoner. Mr Overend told the coroner that ‘no human person should have to endure such suffering’. He stated that after his examination, both he and Mr Law saw it as such a flagrant case, that it was their duty to bring it under the investigation of a coroner and jury. Mr Overend concluded that he had advised amputation of the limb at the Infirmary. He said that ‘I believe that if that had been done, his life would have been saved.

Mr Badger then gave explanations of of what constituted ‘malpractice’ by a surgeon, qualified or not, before advising the jury that they had a duty to return a verdict of manslaughter against Thomas Whitehead. When the coroner asked the prisoner if he had anything to say, Whitehead made a voluntary statement outlining the different treatments that he had applied to the deceased man. The jury retired to consider their verdict, but even after three hours they still had not reached a decision. Therefore Mr Badger swore a court official to keep the jury locked up ‘without meat, drink, fire etc., and to allow no person to communicate with them, until they have reached a verdict.’

This appears very harsh treatment, nevertheless it was not until 10 pm before finally a unanimous verdict of manslaughter against Thomas Whitehead was reached. The coroner immediately ordered the prisoner to be taken into custody and he was placed in one of the cells at the Town Hall. On Thursday morning of 28 September, Thomas Whitehead was removed to York under a coroners warrant to take his trial. Consequently he appeared before Mr Justice Platt at the York Winter Assizes on Saturday 23 December 1848. After hearing all the evidence, his Lordship summed up for the jury, who only took fifteen minutes to find Thomas Whitehead guilty. Then the judge turned to the prisoner and told him:

‘You have been found guilty of a most aggravated offence. You have, by your own self conceit in supposing you could cure all ills and diseases to which man was liable, caused the death of a young man in the prime of his life.’

He then ordered that the prisoner be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for twelve calendar months.

In the afternoon of Tuesday 23 May 1876 a respectable looking, twenty six year old woman with long flowing hair, stepped down from the Sheffield train and went to the Station Hotel Rotherham. There she reserved rooms for herself giving the name of Edith Groves. The landlady, Mrs Taylor was delighted when she told the woman the price for lodgings and was informed that lodgings in Sheffield were much more expensive. Edith then request a tea of ham and eggs and asked for it to be served around 5 pm, which was agreed. Edith told the landlady that she was anxious to post a book back to a person in Sheffield from whom she had borrowed and forgotten to return.

She asked Mrs Taylor if the hotel could supply her with a shillings worth of postages stamps in order to post it immediately and was supplied with sufficient stamps from the hotel’s cash box. The woman told the landlady that she would go for a walk around Rotherham whilst her tea was being prepared. Only after the woman had gone out did Mrs Taylor began to suspect that her elegant lodger might not be as respectable as she claimed. Although she had taken lodgings with her she had brought no luggage with her. Her suspicions were confirmed when two pairs of boots were delivered. It seems that upon leaving the hotel, Edith had gone into a boot shop which adjoined the hotel, and ordered two pairs of boots to be delivered next door.

Mrs Taylor advised the boot boy to take them back again, which he did. Unbeknownst to the landlady her errant lodger then went to the Ship Hotel, Rotherham and ordered lodgings there for the night. Once more she ordered a tea to be prepared for her and whilst waiting for it, the landlord supplied her with a glass of port wine. Again she asked him for postage stamps in order to return a book and was given 2s 6d worth of stamps. Edith then walked along the High Street until she arrived at the shop of Henry Wigfall and Company. There she purchased goods amounting to around £5 to be delivered to the Ship Hotel. By the time the goods were delivered, the respectable looking Edith was nowhere to be found.

The police were notified and thankfully found her at midnight at the Station Hotel waiting for her supper of bread and cheese. She again gave the name of Edith Groves to Police Sergeant Morley and Police detective Hodgson, before being taken to the Police Office and searched. The stamps were found in her possession, as were four pairs of kid gloves, which were found in the corner where Edith had been standing earlier. When asked if the gloves were hers, she denied this most strongly claiming that they had been ‘placed’ there by someone. The prisoner claimed that they were intended to get her into trouble. However these were later identified as being stolen from Henry Wigfield’s shop.

However trying to establish the truth from Edith proved to be much harder than the two officers had, at first anticipated. The woman seemed to change versions every time she spoke. Firstly she said that she was Danish and had just landed in this country, but when the Mayor questioned her, Edith told him she was from Liverpool. When hotel staff were questioned it seemed that the prisoner had said that she was on her way to Edinburgh and another that she came from Bristol. The following morning she was brought before the bench and was defended by solicitor, Mr Packwood. The first witness was an apprentice to Henry Wigfield and he described the prisoner coming to the shop and asking for a pair of gloves.

She ended up selecting two pairs one of black and one of grey silk and once again asked for them to be delivered to the Ship Hotel. The apprentice confirmed that she did not pay for any of the articles that were later delivered by himself on the Wednesday morning. He also identified the four pair of gloves that he had missed after the prisoner had left the shop. At this point the prisoner was simply remanded for a week. When she was brought back into court however on Thursday 1 June the Superintendent of Police, Mr Gillett gave quite a different ‘character’ to the woman now being called ‘the Lady Swindler.’ He had discovered that despite her elegant language, Edith Groves was a convicted felon at present out on ‘ticket of leave.’

This was a prisoner who had served part of a previous sentence before being issued with a certificate stating that she was considered to be trusted with some freedom. When questioned about the postage stamps that were found in her possession the prisoner claimed that she had done the ‘postage stamp business’ before. She therefore considered it not to be a theft, but that she was merely ‘borrowing’ them with the intention of paying the hotel back. It was noted however, that throughout the trial this feisty ‘lady’ questioned all the witnesses who gave evidence against her at considerable length. Mary Farmery the female searcher gave evidence that after the prisoner had been searched the gloves were found under a bench where the prisoner had been sitting.

However when charged with stealing them from Messrs Wigfields and Company, the prisoner once again complained that the gloves had been ‘planted there’ by the female searcher. She went onto claim that the woman had probably stolen the gloves herself. Needless to say Edith was found guilty and sent to take her trial at the Sessions. Accordingly, Edith Groves was brought before the Rotherham Quarter Sessions on Friday 31 June 1876 where Mr Barker prosecuted. He was lucky to get a work in edgeways. Once again the prisoner took charge of her own defence addressing the jury at some length as ‘gentlemen of the jury, before elaborating on three doubtful points in her defence.

It has to be admitted that even the chair to the magistrates, Mr G W Chambers was impressed and later described it as being ‘a very clever defence.’ However, once the jury found the prisoner guilty, only then was her previous criminal career revealed. Mr Chambers told the court that ‘this lady swindler’ had commenced her questionable dealings fifteen years earlier. On 2 August 1861 she had been sentenced to 28 days imprisonment for two different charges of larceny. On 6 January 1869 she was again charged with larceny and sentenced to prison for twelve months. On 14 January 1870 she was sentenced to six months, once again for larceny. On 18 August 1870 Edith was charged with being a rogue and a vagabond and was given six months imprisonment on three different charges.

At the Hampshire Sessions on 11 June 1871 the prisoner had pleaded guilty to three different charges and was given seven years penal servitude followed by seven years police supervision. That was when Edith Groves had been liberated from Woking Gaol as a ticket-of-leave criminal on 4 April of the present year and the offence with which she was now charged took place on 23 May of the present year. Mr Chambers told the jury that they could not sentence her to any less than ten years penal servitude, but the bench had wanted to sentence her for a much longer period.

In the end they had decided on a sentence of ten years penal servitude followed by five years police supervision. The prisoner was then taken downstairs to begin her sentence. However the last word on this matter goes to a Rotherham correspondent to the Sheffield Daily Telegraph dated Saturday 1 July 1876. He wrote about the case describing Edith Groves as:

‘The Lady Swindler, who a few weeks ago spent a couple of days among the hotel keepers of this town, relieving them of their surplus postage stamps, and entertaining them with her engaging manners and pleasant conversation. However that was when she met with her Nemesis. For ten long weary years our bucolic publicans will now sigh in vain for the charms of her voice, and will, no doubt miss her engaging conversation and pleasing manners.’

Josef Husnik had been a native of Prague before coming to Sheffield in 1877. Six years later he found himself living in lodgings in Sheffield. His landlord, Mr Oates thought a lot about his lodger, although he noted that the twenty seven year old lad could easily become very depressed on occasions. When in this mood, Josef tended to sit close to the fire smoking his pipe incessantly, sometimes quiet and other times talking quite wildly. More worryingly, he told Mr Oates that he got into the habit of carrying a gun, a practise his landlord was well aware of, as he would often practice shooting in the back yard of the lodging house.

Nevertheless Josef was very popular mainly due to his polite and nice manners and was ready to say ‘thank you’ to anyone he interacted with. However at some point he started to drink regularly at the Royal Hotel on West Street, which was described as being ‘a beerhouse of something more than average size.’ The landlord of the Hotel was a man called John Jubb and he lived there with his wife Margaret and their four children. Like most landlords in the town Jubb had two jobs. During the day he had been employed at Messrs Rogers Works as a table knife hafter and in the evening helped his thirty one year old wife to serve customers.

Around the beginning of June 1884, instead of just calling in at the Hotel for a drink, Josef moved in as a lodger. Apparently the young Austrian had formed a strong attachment to the landlady, which was quickly noticed by her husband. Consequently in July of 1886 Jubb gave him notice to leave and Josef was forced to find new lodgings in St Phillips Road, Sheffield. However he continued to visit the Royal Hotel a couple of times a week. On Wednesday 1 December 1886, Josef came down to breakfast where his landlady, Mrs Oates noticed that he seemed rather morose. Nevertheless he managed to eat a good breakfast of three eggs and a rasher of bacon,

However when he left the house he bid Mr and Mrs Oates ‘good morning’ in a cheery manner and raised his hat to them both. He then left around 9 am stating that he would be back at dinnertime. When Josef got to the Royal Hotel, he appeared to be very restless and paced around for a time as if he could not settle in one place. He went from the public bar into the dram shop, almost as if he had something heavy weighing on his mind. About noon, when the public house was almost empty of customers, he saw Margaret Jubb talking to a tailor, called Freeman who leased a workshop in the Hotel yard.

When the landlady returned back inside the hotel she joined her servant, fourteen year old Mary Ellen Whitaker in the kitchen with the couple’s four children. Suddenly there was a knocking on the dram shop window and Mary Ellen answered. She said to her mistress, that ‘someone wanted her’. A few moments later, completely out of the blue, five shots were heard. Mary Ellen ran into the passage which separated the kitchen from the hotel dram shop where she met Mrs Jubb clutching at her bleeding chest. She told the girl ‘Oh Ellen, I’ve been shot!’ The poor woman managed to stagger into the kitchen where she sank to the floor and immediately became unconscious.

Mary Ellen ran out into the yard to get help, but the shots had already attracted the attention of Mr Freeman and another worker called Marriott, who both ran into the house. They lifted the poor woman onto the settle and Freeman ran to call an ambulance, whilst Marriott attempted to staunch the woman’s bleeding. Husnik was seen at this point staggering into the dram shop. Later his dead body was found by the servant girl Mary Ellen lying behind the door which led out into West Street. Just at the same time, Police Constable Candlin arrived with several other officers. Husnik’s body was lying on the floor with the revolver still clutched in his hand.

It was quite clear that he had shot himself in the mouth. PC Candlin arranged for the body to be taken to the Dispensary in West Street along with the body of his victim, Margaret Jubb. That afternoon the house surgeon Mr Harry Lockwood, carried out post mortems on both bodies, the results of which were given at the inquest held the following day. The surgeon told the Coroner that the cause of death for Margaret Jubb was internal haemorrhage from the wound in her chest. In the case of Husnik, he gave the cause as two bullet wounds which had passed through his lungs and lodged in his spine.

Mrs Harriett Oates told the inquest that her lodger had been a ‘steady man’ up to three weeks ago. On the previous Sunday she had found him firing a gun at the wall in the back yard. When she asked him what he was doing, he told her that he was testing the revolver to see if it still worked alright. The next witness was the young servant, Mary Ellen Whitaker who told the inquest that Josef had been a frequently visitor to the Royal Hotel on West Street, She said that he was such a frequent visitor that he did not pay for his beer at the bar. Then the young girl described the night in question and finding her mistress shot.

At this point the coroner said that there was little doubt that Margaret Jubb died at the hands of Josef Husnik, even though there were no actual witnesses to the act. He told the jury that the first thing for them to decide was firstly had the deceased man shot Mrs Jubb and secondly what was his state of mind at the time. Police Constable John Candlin told the coroner that on the body he had found a letter and asked permission to read it out. The coroner acquiesced, and it seems that the letter was in the form of a confession which was dated November 29 1886. It stated that the writer, Husnik had been a lodger at the Royal Hotel for two years.

He said that during that time he had been very kind to Mrs Jubb and had often lent her money. The letter claimed that in return, she sent him love letters expressing her feelings for him. They had, at first been very passionate, however for the last five weeks they had quarrelled. Since 27 November she had told him that she only said she loved him for his money as ‘it was very useful to her.’ The letter stated that since that time Husnik had found out that she had done the same to three other men. In conclusion he had written that he had left the other letters from his former paramour at his lodgings to prove that what he had said was true.

The coroner then told the inquest that he had read the letters, and although they were clearly love letters, that Mr Jubb had claimed they were not in his wife’s handwriting. He told the jury that nevertheless it was their duty to decide how these two people came to their deaths. Accordingly the jury returned a verdict that:

‘The woman Margaret Jubb was wilfully murdered by Josef Husnik and that the said Josef Husnik committed suicide by shooting himself. But as to the state of his mind at the time, there is not sufficient evidence to show.’

In a final act to what was now being referred to as the West Street Tragedy, the body of the deceased Austrian was interred in the cemetery at Intake. As he had no relatives in this country it was reported that the burial had been paid for by the Sheffield workhouse authorities. But perhaps what is most poignant of all was that because the service had not been advertised, there were no spectators at the ceremony and no funeral service was read out either in the chapel or at the graveside itself.

The Doncaster Michaelmas Quarter Sessions were being held on Monday 22 October 1849 when a mother and her twelve year old son were brought before the Magistrates. They were both charged with feloniously inciting another twelve year old boy to steal two half crowns at Rotherham, the property of Abraham Jackson. The elder prisoner was a forty five year old woman called Mary Linten who pleaded guilty, although her son, Henry pleaded not guilty to the charge. The prosecution, Mr Overend told the court that he was acting on behalf of his client, Mr Jackson the proprietor of the White Swan on Westgate, Rotherham.

At the time the offence was committed, he said the prisoners lived in a house nearby at a time when Mr Jackson had his nephew Joseph Hobson staying with him. Mr Jackson himself told the court that he understood that the elder prisoner encouraged her son to go out and play with his nephew. He had no objection as both boys were around the same age. What he later established however, was that Mary somehow found out from young Hobson where his uncle kept the public house takings. The boy told her that they were kept in a special drawer at the Inn. It was not long before this evil woman encouraged her son to bet Hobson that he would not be able to take some of his uncles money without being detected.

Mr Overend said that the female prisoner made it seem like a game, but at first Hobson refused to steal from his uncle. However, meeting him in the street one day, Mary told him that she thought that he was a very clever child. She was convinced that his uncle would never even miss the money that had been taken, particularly if he just took a portion of it. This evil woman suggested that if he just took something like a single half crown, and left the rest behind, no one would suspect that it was him. When the nephew demurred, she told him not to worry and that if he was ever found out, Hobson could simply come and live with them.

After much persuasion over the next few days, the nephew finally agreed to do it. Mary convinced him to just steal a half crown and give it to Henry, who was instructed to hand it immediately over to his mother. Finally, under great pressure, the boy gave way and the money was handed over. After praising Hobson again for his astuteness, the female prisoner once again convinced him to do it again and a second half crown was similarly removed successfully. However it was not long before Mary got greedy, and it was on the third attempt that the young nephew was finally caught taking money from the drawer.

At this point Mr Overend reminded the magistrates that although the charge against the younger prisoner was one of incitement to steal, he was in fact only guilty of a lesser offence of aiding and abetting. The prosecution reminded the magistrates that the boy had only committed the offence in the first place under the influence and advice of his mother. Mr Overend therefore suggested that the ends of justice would surely be served by charging the mother alone. With this in mind he said that he proposed therefore not to bring any charges before the court concerning young Henry Linten, to which the court agreed.

Then, it was time for the chairman of the magistrates, Mr E B Dennison MP to address the prisoners. He asked Mary Linten why she had pleaded guilty and she told him that she had received the money and that was all she felt that she was guilty of. Mr Dennison told her:

‘We have no doubt of the fact that you induced your own son to aid you in inciting the boy Hobson to rob his own uncle. For behaving so shamefully to your own child and that of your neighbours, it is the sentence of the court that you be imprisoned with hard labour for six months.’

The prisoner turned to leave, but before she got out of the dock, he told her that on the advice of magistrates on both sides of him, that her son would be set at liberty. The chair concluded that he hoped that

‘His father would now take care and ensure that he is removed from the contaminating influence of such a wretch as you have proved yourself to be.’

Henry Fair worked as a collier’s labourer in Rotherham in March of 1877, where life should have been perfect for him. Six weeks earlier he had married a woman half his age, called Elizabeth Richardson, who despite her young age was already a widow. The wedding had taken place on Sunday 12 February 1877, and the couple settled together in a house in Parkgate. However, since that time they had quarrelled so violently, that they had mutually agreed to separate. Consequently, Elizabeth had gone back to live with her mother and father, Mary and George Richardson on Chapel Street, Parkgate, whilst her husband moved into lodgings in Rotherham.

Henry burned with resentment at what should have been a happy and contented time of his life. On Monday 26 March 1877 he made a most dreadful decision. Going into ironmongers, Messrs Haggard’s shop on the High Street, Rotherham, he asked for 2lbs of blasting powder and a ring of fuse about eight yards long. Mr Haggard, who knew Henry worked as a colliers labourer, thought nothing of supplying him with the dangerous items required. Later that evening when it was already dark, Henry then proceeded to Elizabeth’s fathers house at Parkgate. He then poured the blasting powder into a cellar grating underneath the front window of the house and lit the fuse.

It would be hard to describe his emotions as he was completing his task, as he knew that Elizabeth’s her father also took in lodgers. Therefore he was aware that there would have been at least twelve people in the house at the time. As Henry was lighting the fuse, some children who had been playing nearby, started to shout out a warning to those in the house and consequently some of them rushed outside to see what the matter was. One of them was a lodger who worked at the same colliery as Henry, a man called Thomas Phipps. Henry told him to ‘keep those children back.’ Pointing at the grating he said ‘there’s 20lbs of blasting powder in there, and it will blow us all to hell in about two minutes’.

Without hesitation, Phipps cut the burning fuse and threw it into a nearby pond. George Richardson meanwhile grabbed hold of his son-in-law and held tightly onto him whilst shouting for someone to call the police. Meanwhile George’s brother, Richard who was also at the house, took the grating off and scooped up the powder into a bucket. Incredible as it seem, whilst waiting for the police to arrive, the prisoner got one of the bystanders to buy eight quarts of beer. He shared this with the crowds of people now being attracted to the spot. Thankfully Police Constable Jowett soon arrived and took the prisoner into custody

Henry Fair was brought before magistrate, Mr H Jubb the following day on Tuesday 27 March where he pleaded guilty. The first witness was the police officer who told the court that he had arrested the prisoner at the scene. PC Jowett was asked if the man had been sober at the time, and he gave the bench his opinion that Henry had been drinking at some point, but seemed sober enough to know what he was doing. The officer commented however that throughout the whole proceedings, the prisoner showed absolutely no remorse. In fact, he reported it was just the opposite. All the way to the police station Henry Fair expressed regret that he had not succeeded in his diabolical attempt.

The Chief Constable asked for a remand of seven days for the prisoner which was granted, The case was therefore re-opened on Monday 2 April where the prosecution was Mr C Hoyland, although the prisoner was undefended. Elizabeth Fair was the first witness and she told the court that she had known the prisoner for three years when he lodged at her fathers house. She described him as being very controlling and that five weeks previously she had been forced to take him before the magistrates for using bad language towards her. She stated that he had been bound over to keep the peace for six months. Nevertheless she truly believed that once married, Henry would settle down and make a good husband.

Elizabeth stated that even as a lodger he had been in the habit of drinking too much and she only agreed to marry him on the understanding that he would stop drinking altogether. However within five weeks Henry had broken that promise and since then he had barely been sober. The witness said that at first, she had tried to avoid him, so did not go out of the house for a few days. Then she described hearing the children making a noise outside on the night in question and seeing the powder in the grate. Elizabeth’s younger sister, Ann also described going home on that Monday night and seeing the prisoner lighting a fuse. She ran inside her fathers house and told him what Henry had done.

A lodger called Thomas Phipps also gave evidence of seeing the prisoner near to the Richardson’s house through their front room window. Some children were shouting and looked frightened, so he went outside to see what the matter was. That’s when he saw that the fuse attached to the grating was burning. As an experienced collier, he estimated that it would have taken just two minutes to have ignited the blasting powder. He also knew from experience that it would have blown up the whole house along with all the people inside. Phipps stated also that where the prisoner had been standing at the time, he too would also have been killed in the explosion, if the powder had ignited.

At this point the prisoner pointed out that the powder had not been confined to a small area, but through open grating and therefore Henry argued that it would not have blown the whole house up. He said at the very best it might have blown the grating out of its setting. John Allen, an assistant at Messrs Haggard and Sons at Rotherham gave evidence that at the time the prisoner bought the powder and fuse ‘he appeared confused.’ The bench concluded that Henry Fair was to take his trial at the Assizes for ‘maliciously placing into or against a building a quantity of gunpowder, with intent to do bodily harm.’ Accordingly the prisoner appeared at the Wakefield Sessions on Wednesday 4 April 1877.

Henry’s defence was that he was well experienced in using blasting powder in his line of work and that if he really intended to blow up the house, he would undoubtedly have succeeded. He claimed that instead of having a settled married life, his honeymoon had barely been over before Elizabeth had taken him to court for his controlling behaviour. Henry also stated that his wife had then stripped the house of all the furniture, just leaving him a few necessary items. Despite his denials of any intention to blow up the house, the bench found the prisoner guilty and sentenced him to five years imprisonment.

But that was not the end of Henry Fair.

In May 1877 he was taken to the Model Prison at Pentonville in order to serve his time. However on Monday 27 August, Elizabeth Fair was informed that her former husband had died. It seems that Dr Hardwick the London Coroner had held an inquest into the prisoner who had died at the prison, barely three months into his sentence. Newspaper reports stated that since Henry had arrived, he had slowly declined in health and died on 23 August 1877. After hearing evidence from the staff and other inmates of Pentonville, the verdict was given that Henry Fair ‘died by the visitation of God.’

Sarah Stones had been married to a man called George, although by June of 1877 they had not lived together for the past seven years. Following her own code of conduct, she had numerous affairs, sometimes living with the man concerned and sometimes not. Since March of that year, however she had lived with a twenty seven year old man called John Smith, a steel roller by trade who lived in Millsands, Sheffield. Sarah had hoped to marry him but, it would seem that he was equally fickle in his affections. Prior to that she had also lived with a man called Walter White, but sadly that didn’t end in matrimony either.

On Saturday 16 June, she and Smith were following their usual weekend routine of touring several Sheffield hostelries, and drinking throughout the day. Needless to say both were very drunk before Smith told her that he had enough and was going to leave. He told her that he was already planning to move in to live with another Sheffield woman anyway as he left her alone. Hearing this, Sarah continued to drink hoping to console herself. Suddenly, she was surprised to meet up with her former paramour, the man called Walter White. He lived in Rotherham, so it was not often he came to Sheffield. Needless to say Sarah was delighted to renew her acquaintance with him.

Indeed, the pair got on so well that she ended up taking White home at the end of the evening. They returned back to the same lodgings in which she had lived with John Smith, possibly in revenge for the fact that she now believed he was in the arms of his new lover. Consequently, the pair shared some ale that they had bought back with them, before ending up in bed together. Suddenly, around midnight, Sarah heard a noise and to her complete surprise, Smith walked into the bedroom. Seeing the pair in bed together Smith picked up a piece of iron and smashed White on the head with it, before attacking Sarah with the same implement.

What he hadn’t realised in his agitation was the weapon was a bedstock, a hard, strong metal piece of the bed frame. Sarah screamed so loudly, that the noise attracted two of the other lodgers who broke down the door and pulled the man away from the couple in the bed. The police were called and John Smith was arrested and taken into custody. The police surgeon, Mr Harrison also attended the scene and arranged for Sarah to be taken, by now in an almost unconscious state, to the Infirmary. It was thought for many days, that her recovery was in grave doubt.

Accordingly, John Smith appeared before the Sheffield magistrates at the Town Hall on Monday 25 June, charged with committing a murderous assault upon both Walter White and Sarah Stones. However he was simply remanded for a week. Subsequently on Monday 25 June 1877 Smith was brought back before the bench where thankfully Sarah had, by now recovered from her attack. She was the first to give evidence, and it was reported that some of her injury’s were still evident on her face. The witness described the events of the night and stated that when she took White home, she genuinely thought that Smith would be spending the night with the other woman, as he had threatened.

Sarah then described how the prisoner had attacked White with the heavy piece of iron before turning his attentions to her. She told the court that, as a result she had been confined to bed for some days afterwards. The next witness was Walter White, who also stated that Smith had attacked him first with the iron bar. He claimed that he had simply tried to defend himself, before Smith turned his anger on Sarah, who he pulled out of bed, lashing out and kicking her in a brutal manner about the body. The witness described how all the time he was doing this, he swore at her, stating that ‘he would kill her’ in the process.

The two other, unnamed lodgers then gave their evidence and described how they had been forced to break down the door. The police surgeon Mr Harrison gave the court a list of injuries that both White and Sarah had received at the hands of the prisoner and told the bench that for some days, her life in particular had been in great danger. After hearing from these witnesses, John Smith was ordered to take his trial and the next Sessions. Consequently, on Friday 6 July 1877, the prisoner was brought before the Rotherham Midsummer Sessions at the Court House in Rotherham.

He was charged:

‘firstly with the unlawfully and maliciously wounding of Sarah Stones on the night of 16 June and secondly with attacking Walter White at the same time and place.’

Mr Fenwick prosecuted the case and described the events of that evening. After hearing all the evidence the jury found the prisoner guilty of the two assaults consequently, the chair to the magistrate Mr W Overend sentenced John Smith to twelve months imprisonment with hard labour.