On Friday 29 November 1907 around 10 pm, twenty one year old Bill Durose and his step-sister Susannah Davies were on their way to visit their parents at Cross Street, Whinney Hill, Thrybergh. Bill had been drinking heavily and therefore Susannah wanted to make sure that her step-brother reached home safely. Reaching the house, the pair let themselves in, going through the front door, along the passage into the kitchen. It was a short distance, nevertheless Susannah was forced to help Bill, who was so drunk that he could scarcely walk along unaided. Once inside they found Bill’s father, Charles Durose and Susannah’s mother sat in front of the fire.

The elder Durose was a fifty six year old collier who was employed along with his son at Silverwood Colliery. He was described as being a powerfully built man and Susannah’s mother lived with him at the house, although she and Charles were not married. Between them they had five children. There was Charles junior, William or Bill as he was called, as well as two daughters, Lizzie aged 15 and Lydia, aged 13 years. Finally there was another unnamed son who was aged just nine years. On that particular day, it seems that Charles and Susannah had been into Rotherham to spend £3 compensation money that he had received. This was following an accident at work which had kept him at home, unable to work for three weeks.

However once some clothes were bought, the couple who were both heavy drinkers, spent the rest of the day in the several pubs of the town, returning home just before 10 pm. Entering the house, Susannah noted immediately that neither Charles or her mother looked particularly sober. Once inside the kitchen, Bill sat down on the hearth as it was a cold night and his father sat in an armchair close by. Almost immediately his father started to kick out at Bill telling him to move, as he was blocking the warmth from the fire. However when Bill laid down on the hearthrug and closed his eyes, Charles became even more annoyed.

When Bill still refused to move, his father kicked him again until his son finally stood up and rubbed his hands complaining at the same time that he too was cold. Then matters took a turn for the worst. At that point Charles stood up to get another beer from the sideboard, but somehow instead he fell back into the armchair. This went over backwards leaving him and the chair sprawled on its back on the kitchen floor. Bill immediately started to laugh, but by now furious, the elderly man jumped to his feet and lashed out at his son with his fists. In his own mind he was convinced that Bill had tipped the chair backwards somehow.

The blow landed on Bill’s cheek and his son quickly moved to retaliate. An argument quickly ensued as father and son struggled together. Susannah, trying to prevent the fight getting out of hand, stood between Charles and her brother and for her pains received a blow on her right temple. One of the younger girls, Lizzie then got upset and she ran out of the house screaming, as Charles continued to curse and swear at his son. She was quickly joined by her sister Lydia, who were both afraid that the row had got so quickly out of hand that they both began to cry. When a neighbour came out to find out what was the matter, Lizzie told him ‘our Bill has kicked my father under his jaw.’

Susannah came out to comfort her younger step siblings and the three girls, stood outside in the cold for about five minutes, as the sounds of the argument continued inside the house. When they finally went back inside, it was to find Charles unconscious on the floor and Bill standing over him, breathing heavily. As a result, the two young girls were dispatched to fetch Police Sergeant Rowe and Police Constable Stones who were on duty not far away. After hearing the girl’s tale, the two officers immediately went to the house where they saw Charles lying on the floor. Sergeant Roe went over to the body and found the man was dead.

A doctor was immediately called and Dr John Ewing Adams attended the house around 11.35 pm. However by the time he arrived all he could do was to confirm that Charles Durose was indeed dead. The two officers noted that throughout their visit and that of Dr Adams, that Susannah’s mother stayed sitting at the kitchen table almost stupefied with drink. The sergeant could not help but notice that the poor woman had a black eye from an argument which had taken place a few days previously. The surgeon examined the deceased man and noted a slight wound over his left eye and a more serious bruise behind the man’s ears.

Needless to say Bill Durose was taken into custody charged with causing the death of his father, and the next day, Saturday 30 November he was brought before the West Riding Court at Rotherham. Superintendent McDonald of the Rotherham police gave the court a description of finding the deceased man lying on his back in the kitchen, as well as describing the state of the room with the broken chair and a damaged fender. The superintendent then asked for a remand for the prisoner until after the inquest and a post mortem had be held, which was granted. Consequently, the Sheffield Deputy Coroner, Mr Kenyon Parker arranged for an inquest to be held at the Grapes Hotel at Dalton on Tuesday 3 December.

Mr Parker opened the inquest and informed the jury that it was their duty to identify any person or persons who were responsible for the death of the deceased man, Charles Durose. When Susannah stood to give her evidence, the mark of the blow she had received in trying to separate the two men was still visible on her temple. The witness told the jury that her mother and Charles Durose had been living together for twenty-seven years as man and wife. She described the events of the evening in question and was asked by a juror if the father and son had argued before. Susannah told him that there had been frequent quarrels over the previous year, which were usually exacerbated when both the men had been drinking.

She was followed by the surgeon who attended to the deceased, Dr Adams. He stated how the man was clearly dead by the time he arrived at the house. He informed the inquest that he had undertaken the post mortem and described the wounds he had found. Dr Adams said that internally Charles Durose’s organs were quite healthy and there was no fracture of the skull. However, he concluded that the most serious injury was the large swelling below and behind the deceased man’s left ear. He concluded that death was a result of shock from the injury, which had caused bleeding at the bottom of the brain.

The next witness was Police Sergeant Rowe of Wickersley who related how, when he found the elderly man was dead, the prisoner immediately said ‘If he is dead then I have not killed him, he fell off the chair. There has been a right row here tonight.’ The coroner then summed up for the jury and stated that it was very clear that all the parties involved had been drunk at the time. The jury retired in private for just ten minutes before returning a verdict of manslaughter against Bill Durose. On hearing this, the prisoner burst into tears and had to be helped out of the room, before being removed to the cells at Rotherham.

When he was next appeared before the magistrates again on Wednesday 11 December, thankfully he was now defended by solicitor, Mr W J Bradford. His defence stated that when the prisoner was in the fight with his father, he denied having his boots on his feet at the time. Therefore the statement by Lizzie that he had kicked his father under the jaw could not be true. Instead he suggested that the injury behind the deceased man’s ear must have been caused by his fall. Dr Adams pointed out that there had been a stone sink in the corner of the room and said that might well have caused such an injury.

Despite his defence able attempts, Bill Durose was found guilty of manslaughter and ordered to take his trial at the next West Riding Assizes. These were to be held at Leeds Town Hall on Wednesday 25 March 1908. The prisoner was charged with the manslaughter of his father and he was defended by Mr Bramley. The prosecution Mr Leader addressed the jury and told them it would be for them to decide whether the prisoner had just been defending himself, or whether he was angry and had attacked his father in his turn. He pointed out that if he struck a blow in self-defence then the jury must find him not guilty.

Mr Bramley reminded the jury that the prisoner had taken his boots off before lying down on the hearthrug to sleep. Police Sergeant Rowe confirmed the fact that when he had gone to the house and found the deceased man, that the prisoner had no boots on. They were found by the sink, close to where the prisoner was standing. When asked what he had to say in his own defence, Bill simply stated that even he could not say how his father had got the wound behind his ear. He said that they had been rolling about on the floor and struggling together for a quarter of an hour or so and that at one point his father had got hold of him by the throat.

In retaliation he agreed that he had given him a shove, and that was when his fathers chair went over and Charles lay there and did not get up again. Mr Justice Sutton summed up for the jury and said that if the prisoner had indeed just been defending himself that would not be manslaughter and it would be a verdict of accidental death. He said that the evidence had shown that the deceased was a quarrelsome, violent man and that he was strong, powerful and muscular in build.

His Lordship said that to find the prisoner guilty the jury would have to prove that he had caused his fathers death by some direct act, not in self defence. Nevertheless they would have to say what had caused his death. No instrument had been found or anything to account for the swelling at the back of the deceased man’s ear mentioned by the medical evidence. The grand jury retired to consider their verdict at 3.15 pm and after just thirty minutes absence, they returned with a verdict of not guilty. Bill Durose was therefore discharged, to his own and his families great relief.

In Sheffield in November of 1872 there lived a widow called Ann Smith who made a living from running a lodging house in Harvest Lane. Generally speaking, she had few problems with her lodgers, as she was well able to keep them under control. However, over the last few months one particular man had been causing her particular headaches. Fifty five year old labourer Peter Williams thought nothing of getting drunk every Saturday night and using bad language in front of his landlady. However when he started to do it in front of her children, that was a completely different matter.

On Saturday night 22 November the lodger came in roaring drunk and when one of Ann’s sons remonstrated with him, Williams lashed out at the child. The boy had simply told the drunken man that ‘he ought not to conduct himself in such a manner.’ As Williams lifted his fist, Ann stepped between the pair and as a result received a violent blow in the mouth for her trouble. Only when she took down a heavy pot basin and threatened Williams with it, did he finally sit down and become quiet again. Ann had just began to relax, when glancing out the window she spotted another lodger called John Maugham standing in the yard.

There had already been some sort of feud between Williams and the sixty one year old carter, Maugham, so she went outside and begged the man to go away. He played little heed and the poor woman went back into the kitchen, and taking down the key she firmly locked the door. However Maugham had already seen that the landlady’s face was bleeding, and seeing Williams inside, he knew who the person was who had initiated such an injury. Maugham kicked at the locked door and demanded that Williams come out and fight ‘like a man’. Hearing this the lodger forced the key out of Ann Smiths hands before unlocking the door and going outside.

However, once outside and being confronted by the larger man, Williams took to his heels and ran down Harvest Lane. Maugham was having none of this and he ran after and caught hold of him before the two men immediately began to struggle fiercely together. Thankfully, two other lodgers saw what was happening and quickly separated the pair. Nevertheless during the short struggle, the two men and their landlady quite clearly heard Maugham say that Williams had bitten him. As they dragged the two men apart, it was clear that Maugham’s thumb was bleeding. Thankfully, that seemed to be the end of the argument, and matters soon settled down at the lodging house.

Nevertheless, the condition of Maugham’s bitten thumb did not improve and steadily got worse. Only after Ann had nagged at him for a full three weeks, did he finally take her advice and go to seek medical advice. He went to see Dr Kemp at the workhouse hospital on 12 December. The surgeon saw that the man’s whole arm from his hand to his elbow was now swollen and inflamed. Dr Kemp diagnosed ‘erysipelas’ and did what he could to save his patient, but almost from the beginning he knew the wound was a fatal one. Sadly Williams condition was so frail by this time that four days later, on 16 December 1872 John Maugham died from his injury at the Workhouse hospital.

As a result, an inquest on the body of the deceased man was opened at the Alma Hotel by the Coroner, Mr J Webster two days later. However only evidence of identification was taken, before the inquest was adjourned until Wednesday 22 January 1873. On that day Ann Smith found herself the first witness at the resumed inquest, as she described the fight between the two men. The landlady told the inquest that both men were quiet, inoffensive kind of persons until they had been drinking, when they would both become quarrelsome.

Surgeon, Dr Kemp described his treatment of erysipelas for the deceased man at the workhouse hospital and admitted that he knew from the start that the case was a hopeless one. He told the coroner that by the time he saw that man’s injured thumb, he was in such a poor physical condition that he could not even contemplate having the infected arm amputated. Other witnesses gave evidence of the two men struggling together in the street. After hearing all the evidence, Mr Webster told the jury that the only question they would have to decide was whether Peter Williams was guilty of manslaughter or not.

The coroner gave his opinion that he did not think that the prisoner was guilty of manslaughter as it was clear from the evidence of witnesses that he was not the aggressor in the case. He pointed out that it was John Maugham who had followed Williams after he had run away and forced him to into the fight. However, some members of the jury disagreed, and felt that they were of the opinion that Williams had not needed to fight, if he had not wished to do so. Hence they returned a verdict that Peter Williams was guilty of manslaughter. As a result on Friday 25 January, the prisoner was brought before the magistrates at Sheffield Town Hall.

The details of the case was gone into once more, before Williams was asked if he had anything to say in his own defence. He simply shook his head, before the bench found him guilty and remanded him on bail for a week, in his own recognizances of £40 and two other sureties of £20 each. Finally, Peter Williams was brought before the Leeds Assizes on Thursday 27 March 1873 to take his trial. He was charged with the manslaughter of John Maugham before being placed in a cell.

However, before the trial could begin the judge, Mr Justice Denman opened the assizes and gave his address to the Grand Jury. He made a particular mention of the case of Peter Williams, as he told them that the case would require more than the jury’s ‘ordinary attention’. He told them that they had to decide whether Maugham’s death was from the erysipelas or the bite from the prisoner. Thankfully the following day the Grand Jury threw out the case against Peter Williams and he was discharged. There is little doubt that he returned back to Sheffield a wiser and more careful kind of man.

John French was a thirty year old labourer who had been a collier by trade in Cardiff, Wales before coming to Sheffield at the beginning of February 1907. In fact he was destitute in the city when he was approached by a kind and merciful man called Owen Fitzsimmons. He took pity on the poor young man and took him back to his house in Bailey Street. There he not only gave him lodgings for the night, but also a change of clean clothes as well. Fitzsimmons and his wife, Elizabeth made a living by running a grocers shop on Bailey Street as well as taking in lodgers. At the time they also had living with them two elderly ladies. They were Fitzsimmons mother, Sarah Ann and another elderly widow called Rose Ann Horan.

In order to help them they also employed a twenty- year old servant, a girl called Alice Cole, towards whom French immediately displayed some affections. Thanks to Owen Fitzsimmon’s charity, it was not long before the new lodger found employment at Birley Colliery. An agreement was soon reached that French would continue to lodge with the family and that he would pay them 12s a week. His circumstances now having improved, it was not long before the lodger asked Alice to go out with him, but she appeared more frightened of him than affectionate, and refused. However French pressed the girl until finally she gave in.

On that occasion, although Alice had agreed, she asked Owen to follow them. His lodger had told Fitzsimmons that he was taking the girl into Rotherham, but as they left the house, Owen saw they were heading towards Endcliffe Woods. Thankfully around 11.30pm that they both returned safely back to Bailey Street. At some time around the beginning of March, French managed, possibly using threats to get Alice to come out with him again and this time his purpose was more sinister. He took her to the Westbar Registry Office and once there and without consulting her beforehand, he made arrangements for a wedding to take place a fortnight later.

Throughout this sinister romance, he had tried to prevent Alice from saying anything to her employer about their relationship, so she said nothing to the family until Saturday 9 March. However when the wedding arrangements came to light, a confrontation happened which resulted in French seeking lodgings across the road with a woman called Mrs Clark. He slept there on the Sunday night and as he went over in his head the events of the previous few days, he plotted his revenge. What he did not know however was that his determination to retaliate himself on the whole Fitzsimmons family, including Alice Cole had already been foreseen.

Owen’s mother, Sarah Ann Mrs Fitzsimmons, had a remarkable dream on the Saturday night, which foretold the tragedy. On Sunday morning, 10 March she told her son that she had a dream where she saw shots being fired, and described the kitchen as being ‘full of smoke.’ She told other people about the dream and said that she had also seen blood streaming all over the floor. So vivid was the dream that she warned Alice not to go out with French that night. What she didn’t know was that on Monday 11 March, French had bought a revolver. He was spotted at some time before noon going into the Fitzsimmon’s back kitchen, situated in a yard at the back of the house.

Entering he found Owen Fitzsimmons and his wife, who was nursing her young baby. Mrs Horan and Alice were also in the kitchen, although Owens elderly mother was reportedly still upstairs in bed, the dream of the previous Saturday night having disturbed her considerably. French was described as ‘looked excited’ as he confronted Alice and asked her point blank if she was going to marry him at the Register Office as arranged. Taking courage from the other people present, the girl told him that she wouldn’t marry him and French flew into a rage as he pulled out the gun. Standing at the doorway, the lodger fired several shots, although thankfully most of them missed the target due to his agitation.

He fired at, and thankfully missed, Owen Fitzsimmons and then at Elizabeth his wife, who still had the baby on her knee. The bullet struck her on the nose before she ran out screaming, and then he turned his attention to the young domestic servant. French fired three more times at her as she lay on the floor pleading for mercy. How she survived was a miracle, but after knowing that he now only had one bullet left, French thankfully turned it on himself. Placing the muzzle against his right temple, he pulled the trigger and immediately fell down dead. The shots were clearly heard in Bailey Street and so it was a matter of just fifteen minutes before the police arrived.

Deputy Chief Constable of Sheffield, Mr G H Barker and Inspector Henley with several constables took charge. In French’s pocket was found a gun license which had been taken out that same morning at 9.30 am. John French’s body was removed and an inquest was arranged on his body on Wednesday 13 March at the Mortuary where the identification was made by Owen Fitzsimmons himself. He was the first witness and he admitted to the Coroner Mr D Wightman, that he had made a big mistake with French, and in particular with having brought him into his family. He had thought that he was a good man, but he had been mistaken.

The witness also said that the deceased man was given to ‘romancing’ about incidents which had happened in his life, so that it was impossible to trust anything he said. He also admitted that his former lodger had always wanted to carry on his affair with Alice Cole in a secret way, and had made arrangements to marry her without telling anyone else. He was angry with her when she refused to keep himself and his wife in ignorance of their affair. Fitzsimmons then described the shooting and how, after his wife had been shot, that he picked up his child and ran outside. Thankfully the witness told the coroner that French was so drunk that it caused him to shoot wildly or they would all be dead.

Alice Cole gave evidence that the deceased had proposed that they should live together in Rotherham soon after she went out with him for the first time, but she refused. As a result, French had threatened her several times, during their short acquaintanceship. She readily told the inquest that she had always been frightened of him. When she told the deceased man that she wanted no more to do with him, he threatened her again. He told her ‘I will pawn this ring and buy something in its place that will finish you.’ Mr Wightman told the jury that French appeared to have acted like a fool throughout, and it was a wonder that he had not killed more people.

The coroner advised the jury that the only question they had to decide at the point was what was his state of mind at the time. The jury consulted together for a short while, before returning their verdict of ‘suicide during temporary insanity.’ It was hoped that was the end of the terrible affair, but a month later there was a completely surprised revelation. French had told everyone that he was a single man, however a letter was sent from Maryport, Cumberland from his abandoned wife. In the letter sent to Sheffield Mrs French described her husbands tattoo on his arms of ‘JLF’. These were his initials (John Lawson French) as well as she described other identifying details.

Concluding the letter, Mrs French stated that ‘true to form’ her husband had left her with a six week old child taking all his wages and leaving her penniless. Thankfully Alice Cole survived her ordeal as did her employer Mrs Elizabeth Fitzsimmons. It was reported thankfully that the disfigurement of having part of her nose shot off ‘was much more serious than her pain.

Mary Jane Hayes was a long suffering miner’s wife who finally found the strength to take her abusive husband to court on Wednesday 1 September 1886. She was the first witness against her husband, John who had been charged with committing a most aggravated assault on her for no reason at all. The witness described how they were living in a house in Smith’s Yard, Conisbrough when he viciously assaulted her. Mary Jane described how he had struck her in the face on the night of Saturday 29 August, just because she had asked him for money. She told the court that prior to this assault, a fortnight earlier he had threatened her with a penknife at Mexborough.

On that date, he had literally run at her with an open penknife and tried to stab her. The poor woman explained how most of such offences usually happened whilst her husband John was under the influence of alcohol. Thankfully, on that occasion, the blade hit one of her corset stays instead, and merely bounced off. The poor witness admitted that throughout her marriage, John had repeatedly beaten and punched out at her and she was now afraid to live with him again. Therefore she was asking the bench for a separation order. Mary Jane admitted that since the attack she had gone to live back with her father, as she was now in fear of her life due to her husband’s violence.

John Hayes denied his wife’s accusations and told the magistrates that it was all lies. He said ‘she knows I never touched her and its all a made up thing.’ However a neighbour from Smith’s Yard called William Hawksworth corroborated Mary Jane’s account, as did a lodger who lived at the house, a woman called Mary Elizabeth Orton. Obviously feeling sorry for himself, Hayes told the court ‘I haven’t a friend in the world, and they are all against me.’ Mary Jane was asked how much her husband earned and she told the bench that his average earnings were about 30s a week. The magistrates told the prisoner that it was a very serious case and granted Mary Jane the separation order she requested.

The magistrates also instructed John Hayes that he would have to pay his wife 10s a week maintenance. The prisoner was also fined 20s and £1.7s.6d court costs for the attack on his wife. However that was not the end of the matter, for the prisoner was also charged with a second, much more serious assault on the lodger, Mary Elizabeth Orton. The next witness was surgeon Dr Hills who informed the court that after this brutal attack, his patient Mary Orton had been unconscious for three hours. He therefore gave the clerk to the magistrates a note to state that the female witness was still too ill to attend the court. Accordingly the case was adjourned to the following Saturday.

Thankfully on that date Mary Orton had recovered sufficiently to give evidence, and a chair was provided so that she could remain seated whist she made her statement. The witness told the court that along with her husband, Henry they had both been lodgers at the prisoners house for the past two years. Mary Elizabeth told the court that prior to the offence, Hayes had been drinking for some time. Indeed he had been brought before the magistrates charged with being drunk and disorderly on Saturday 28 August, where he had been fined 10s and 12s 6d costs. She described how, on Tuesday 31 August she had gone to the colliery in order to take her husband, Henry some hot dinner.

When she returned, the witness said that she found the house locked against her. Mary Elizabeth managed to get through the kitchen window, thinking that her landlord had gone out and that no one was at home. However once inside, she found Hayes hiding behind the kitchen door. Without speaking, he knocked her to the ground and jumped upon her as she lay on the floor. The next to give evidence was a police officer called Sergeant Noble who described how he had heard cries of ‘murder’ and ‘police’ proceeding from the prisoners house on the day in question. He reported how he went to the house and using his feet managed to break down the door.

Still hearing the woman’s cries for help, he entered and burst into the kitchen. There he found Mary Orton unconscious and Hayes standing over her with a knife saying that ‘he would cut her head off’. When arrested, Hayes had told him that the lodger had provoked him and that consequently he had stabbed her in the head with a pocket knife. The sergeant then produced the knife in court, where it was said to be ‘a large pocket knife with a blade as sharp as a razor.’ The officer told the magistrates that he had promptly arrested the prisoner who, throughout had ‘acted like a madman.’

Thankfully these two cases indicated the violent nature of John Hayes and he was found guilty and ordered to take his trial at the next Michaelmas Quarter Sessions. These were held at the Guild Hall, Doncaster on Friday 22 October 1886. John Hayes, was again charged with a murderous assault on Mary Elizabeth Orton. However he claimed that the woman had no right to enter his house and that he had been merely defending himself against her. He likened her assault to being attacked by ‘a wild beast.’ Hayes stated that rather than himself, it was she who had been drunk at the time, which was angrily denied by Mary Elizabeth Orton.

The justices who heard the case, consulted between themselves before sentencing John Hayes to eighteen months imprisonment. As he was led away down stairs to begin his sentence, he was described by the local reporters as being ‘a very dangerous man.’

In January of 1856 James Hill aged twenty-three still lived at home with his aged mother and father at their house in Byre Lane, Sheffield. He was described at the time as being a ‘stoutly built young man’ nevertheless his appearance belied that there was something strange about him. Those who knew him, viewed him thus as for some years he had displayed such eccentricities of conduct which led to a conclusion that he was ‘not right in the head.’ Although Hill had been working as a knife grinder, for the previous year or so, he had since been out of work and was getting more and more depressed as a consequence. Thankfully, on 18 January he managed to get some employment at Messrs Gallimore of Edward Street, Sheffield.

It was hoped that this would raise his spirits although it was reported that his depressed mood remained. Hill had only been at work for six days, when on Thursday 24 January he abruptly got up from the bench where he had been working and put on his coat. Another workman who saw this glanced at the clock seeing that it was only 5.30 pm asked Hill why he was leaving early? His workmates only reply was ‘I’ll tell you when I get back.’ It seems that after leaving work he went to his sisters house in Green Street, Sheffield where he found a group of children playing outside the house. Among them was his nephew Wilfred Deakin aged three and a half.

He asked him where his mummy was, and the child told him that she was next door with a neighbour. Hill then said to his nephew ‘come Wilfred we are going for a walk.’ He told one of the girls who looked older than the other children to close the shutters. As she climbed onto the sofa to do his bidding, she saw Hill take something from the top of a shelf in the kitchen. Although she didn’t know it at the time, it was the razor belonging to his brother-in-law. Little Wilfred innocently took hold of his uncle’s hand not knowing what the terrible consequences would be. The next time Hill was seen, was when he went into the workshop of Hawksley and Haslam, silversmiths where a niece called Emma Lowden worked.

He asked to see her and when she went to enquire as to what he wanted, Hill immediately blurted out ’Ive committed murder.’ He showed her the weapon which still held bloodstains, but the girl just ran away screaming. Sure enough, an hour later James Hill returned back to work and his workmates could not help but see that his hands and clothes were full of blood. Once again he told them ‘I’ve committed murder’ as he pulled out the bloody razor and showed it to them. One man said to him ‘Come on Jim, give me that razor’ as he held his hand out. Hill immediately handed over the weapon, before agreeing with the other men to go to the Town Hall and give himself up.

Consequently three other workmen accompanied through the streets of Sheffield to the police station. One of the men told the desk sergeant that they had brought in Jim Hill for committing a murder. At this, the prisoner nodding towards the three men and said ‘yeah and they have got the razor I did it with.’ Needless to say he was arrested and placed in a cell, whilst a search was made for the child. Police spoke to a neighbour who told them that she had seen Hill and the child at the end of Green Street, crossing over the road into Moor Street. Later a man and a child were also reported to be seen going into a brick yard on Moor Street, Little Sheffield where the little body was found.

Meanwhile Emma Lowden went to Green Street, where she found the children still playing happily outside. They told her that little Wilfred had gone for a walk with his uncle, confirming what she had been told by Hill. Going inside she saw Wilfred’s mother had returned back from the neighbours house and was inside continuing with her chores, whilst her husband Walter was smoking a pipe by the chimney. Then she told the couple about Hill’s confession and that he had given himself up to the police. Meanwhile the poor little body of the child had been found.

It seems that a young man called Sorby had been returning home from work, when he saw a group of excited children. He was about to ignore them, when heard them say something about a child’s body lying on the ground. Sorby got them to show him and that’s when he found the body of Wilfred Deakin lying in a pool of blood. A police officer was called and he ordered the body to be initially removed to the nearby Pilot Inn, and from there it was taken in a basket to the Town Hall. Making their usual enquiries, the police found that James Hill’s elderly parents had been quite concerned about their sons behaviour for some time.

In fact his mother told officers that she was now so afraid of him that she hid all the knives and sharp implements in the house. However when questioned as to his motivation, she admitted that she could not understand why it had happened. Mrs Hill said that her son had always seemed to be very fond of his little nephew. However she did mention that he had received a kick in the head from a horse about three years earlier, and reported that after that time he became a different man becoming more moody and morose. Needless to say an inquest was arranged by Coroner, Mr Thomas Badger at the Town Hall the following afternoon.

The child’s father Walter was the first witness and he tragically identified the murder weapon as being his own razor. He told the coroner that he usually kept it on a high shelf in the kitchen, well away from his children’s hands. An eleven year old girl called Ann Arnold who had been playing with the children at the Deakin house, described how she had identified the prisoner as being James Hill. She described how had taken both the weapon and the little boy out of the house. Her account was confirmed by another little girl, who had been present at the time, the nine year old sister to the deceased child, Ellen Deakin.

Another child called Cordelia Judd also confirmed that she had seen the prisoner taking the boy away and commented that she though that ‘Hill looked vicious’. She was followed by Police Constable Thomas Mason. He gave the jury a description of the prisoner being arrested and brought into the station and described him as being ‘slightly manic’ at the time. Mr J F Wright the police surgeon told the inquest jury that he had conducted the post mortem and described the terrible injuries to the boys throat. He added that ‘great resolution would be required to make such wounds.’

Needless to say the inquest soon found the prisoner James Hill guilty of the wilful murder of Wilfred Deakin and he was ordered to take his trial at the Assizes. Accordingly, James Hill was brought before judge Mr Justice Willes at the Yorkshire Spring Assizes at York on Thursday 13 March 1856. Mr Blanchard defended him. The prisoner pleaded not guilty before staring around the courtroom with much curiosity. Once he had glanced around however, he took little notice of the rest of the proceedings. Prosecution, Mr Hardy stated that although the prisoner had pleaded not guilty, he would demonstrate that throughout the carrying out of the act of murder, the prisoner had shown nothing but a calm and dispassionate manner.

The same witnesses gave evidence. The only change was from relative Emma Lowden who, when asked about the kick in the head which Hill had received three years previously, did not recall the incident at all. Nor did she remember him being ill at the time. After this statement it was noticeable that the prisoner’s demeanour became more moody and sullen. Another witness was Mr Henry Dunn the senior surgeon of Wakefield House of Correction. He told the judge that he had been able to observe the prisoner since he was brought to Wakefield on 28 January.

He stated that in all his, almost daily dealing with Hill, he had observed no sign of insanity. He added that ‘on the contrary he was quite aware of the nature of the crime he had committed.’ Nevertheless his conclusions were disputed by the medical superintendent of Wakefield who stated quite clearly that he was of the opinion that the prisoner was not of sound mind. Mr Justice Willes summed up for the jury, who took just over an hour to find James Hill guilty on the grounds of insanity. Only when the jury gave their verdict was the prisoner finally seen to smile. Nevertheless his smile disappeared as the judge then told him that he was be kept in prison until Her Majesties pleasure be known.

On 10 November 1852 Thomas White was asked by another local man called Henry Wade to help his wife Ellen, move some articles of clothing into their new house. White agreed, however he was such an inveterate criminal that instead of helping the woman to move, he quickly decamped with many of Mrs Wades belongings. Still carrying the stolen clothing and wondering what he was going to do with them, he was walking down the High Street when he met Thomas Simmonite. White could not resist showed his companion some of the articles of clothing he had stolen. Among them was a very pretty women’s shawl.

Simmonite suggested that they go into two local pubs and try to sell them. They went first to the Cross Daggers on the High Street and then to the Boot and Shoe in Bridgegate where they thankfully found both public houses crowded. It did not take long for the two men to exhibit and sell the articles of stolen apparel at knock down prices. Whilst showing off the beautiful woman’s shawl, Simmonite told the buyer that it had belonged to an aunt of his who had recently died. Needless to say the woman bought this beautiful article for sixpence. However, by this time the theft of women’s clothing had been noticed by Ellen Wade.

It was not long before the Rotherham Police were called in and their enquiries soon established the impromptu ‘sale’ of the stolen items of clothing. Thomas White was quickly identified and arrested before being brought before the Rotherham Magistrates on Saturday 13 November 1852. There he was sentenced to twelve months imprisonment for the theft. Simmonite meanwhile had disappeared from Rotherham and it was supposed that he had last been seen catching a train at Doncaster railway station. For almost three weeks nothing more was heard of Simmonite, until Saturday 4 December when he returned to Rotherham and was seen and arrested for his part in the nefarious sale.

Consequently, he was brought before the magistrates where he pleaded not guilty. Nevertheless the prisoner was sent to take his trial at the next Sheffield Sessions. However Simmonite was not a man who would be dismissed quite as quickly as White had been. Consequently he was brought before Mr Wilson Overend and the Grand Jury at the Town Hall on Monday 6 December 1852, where he was undefended. Nevertheless it was reported that the prisoner made:

‘a very clever and ingenious defence, proving that he was, evidently no novice to criminal jurisprudence.’

Simmonite began by readily admitting to being in company with Thomas White on the night in question and helping him to sell the clothing. However he hotly denied knowing that the articles had been stolen.

In order to do this, Simmonite went very minutely into the details of all the transactions with White and in particular where the evidence was conflicting. The prisoner admitted that there were some discrepancies in the two men’s accounts. However he boldly claimed to be ‘applying the Torch of Truth’ onto some of these differences. Needless to say, the jury were not convinced by his rhetoric and they soon found him guilty. At that point the Chair to the magistrates, Wilson Overend told the court that he also intended to ‘apply the Torch of Truth’ on Thomas Simmonite’s former criminal career.’

He told the court that since 1840 and despite the prisoner plea of ‘not guilty’ to this crime, he had been convicted eight times for various different other offences. Overend said that Simmonite had also served a prison sentence of three years in prison. He listed other offences as being in 1840 three months imprisonment for neglect of family, and in 1843 three months for felony. In 1844 he was sentenced to another nine months for felony and in 1846 he was again incarcerated for twelve months for various offences. In 1847 the prisoner was committed for trial, but was acquitted of that particular crime, however in 1849, 1851 and 1852 he was imprisoned each time for the persistent neglect of his family.

After hearing this list of offences, the Grand Jury retired for two hours before returning back into the courtroom with a verdict. Mr Wilson Overend immediately asked the foreman of the jury if they had come to a decision about the theft of the women’s clothing. Mr George Wolstenholme answered that they had found Thomas Simmonite guilty of the offence. Then it was time for Mr Overend to address the prisoner. He told him that:

‘To use your own terminology, the Torch of Truth has indeed been shone on your career, including the crime for which you have been brought before the court today.’

The Chair to the magistrates then sentenced Thomas Simmonite to transportation for the term of seven years.

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?