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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

George Beeston left his thirty two year old wife Edith around 4.50 pm to go to his work at Messrs John Brown and Co. He was a twenty eight year old fitter by trade and that week he had started working night shifts. The couple had only been married for five years, but it had to be said that they were not happy together. Beeston assumed this was the reason for Edith’s low spirits as he left her on that Thursday evening. However he had also mentioned earlier that he intended to volunteer for service in the Boer War, which was taking place in South Africa at the time. He told her that he would like to volunteer as an ambulance driver, another reason which he assumed had added to his wife’s unhappiness.

Upon find the woman was deceased, Detective Officer Flint ordered the body to be removed to the mortuary and the City Coroner, Mr D Wightman was informed. He arranged an inquest to be held at the Normanton Inn on Grimesthorpe Road, Sheffield on Saturday 20 January 1900. The first witness was the same detective who told the jury that he had been attached to the Burngreave Division. He described how Beeston had rushing into the station and how he accompanied him back to his house and found his dead wife. The officer told the coroner that the police were at that point making enquiries at local chemists and pharmacies in order to establish where the woman had purchased the bottle of laudanum from.

George Beeston appeared to be very pale and haggard at the enquiry, which was not a lengthy one. Evidence was simply taken from him as to the identification of the body and a post mortem was ordered by Mr Wightman. Then he adjourned the inquest to the following Friday. Accordingly on Friday 26 January, the inquest was reconvened once again at the Normanton Inn and a local solicitor, Mr Neal appeared to watch the proceedings on behalf of Edith Beeston’s father. Inspector Smith of the Brightside Division also attended on behalf of the police force. Almost the first enquiries the coroner asked the Inspector was if had discovered how the deceased woman had obtained the laudanum.

The officer stated that his enquiries had established that the purchase of the liquid had finally been traced it back to a local chemist called Mr F Sheldon of Hanover Street, Sheffield. However the scent had stopped there, as the chemist had no records of who he had sold it to. Inspector Smith assured Mr Wightman that he had visited several chemist and druggist in the city, but no one could remember selling it to a Mrs Beeston. Then it was the turn of George Beeston to give his evidence of finding his wife dead in bed. He readily admitted to the jury that his marriage had not been a happy one on both sides.

At this Mr Neal quietly charged the witness if it had been true that he had once tried to stab his wife on a previous occasion? However George Beeston shook his head and outright denied the charge. Nevertheless the solicitor was not going to take this as an answer, and closely cross-examined him on the subject. He said to him ‘will you pledge [swear] that you have never stabbed her or that you do not remember stabbing her.’ Beeston admitted that he did not remember ever stabbing his wife. However Mr Neal was relentless. He asked Beeston if he remembered Edith’s father also asking him if he had stabbed his daughter.

Finally George admitted that he had in fact done so about a week previous to her death. Mr Neal then asked him if he remembered her father bringing a dress with him which clearly had a stab hole in it. At first Beeston denied it and then cried out ‘Oh God in Heaven help me!’

Satisfied, Mr Neal then went in for the kill!

He asked the witness if he had ever been cruel to his wife from time to time and Beeston replied that ‘I may have been’ but he added that Edith had spoken harshly to him too. Mr Neal, now sick of the witnesses prevarications, asked him if it was within the same week as her death that he had stabbed her, to which Beeston admitted that ‘if I had done so, I would have been immediately penitent afterwards.’ At this point Mr Wightman asked the witness if his wife had been a healthy woman, Beeston said that she was not and she had often complained of pains in her head for which she had resorted to taking medicine. Beeston also said that she had taken some laudanum when she had a cough.

The witness admitted that he was aware that his wife took the medicine from time to time and on one occasion told him that it had made her sleepy, but again he could not remember what day she had told him that. The coroner then told the jury that the inquest would have to be adjourned as no further evidence was available and therefore the police enquiries would continue. Mr Wightman also urged Detective Flint to try to established how the deceased woman had purchased the bottle of laudanum, as that might lead to a resolution, to which the officer agreed.

He then told the jury that:

‘I have never known a more contemptible man than the husband and I feel sure that you will all feel the same. The very fact that his wife was found with the bottle of laudanum close to her side and the fact that she had recently quarrelled with her husband, made it expedient to institute further enquiries. Of course you, the jury may put a little reliance on the man’s evidence, but I would not place any reliance on him whatever. Whenever he was asked a question that made him at all uncomfortable he had invariably ‘forgotten’ all about it.’

The following day Beeston’s suspicious conduct was the talk of the city, so much so that by the time the inquest was resumed on 9 February 1900, he had his own solicitor, Mr A Muir Wilson who was defending him. However little new evidence was heard and the coroner eventually stated that that he didn’t think they could progress the matter any further. He advised the members of the jury therefore to leave the matter in the hands of the police. Then, if any further evidence was forthcoming, they would be responsible for taking the case before the magistrates. Accordingly, an open verdict was recorded ‘that the deceased died from poisoning by laudanum, but by whom administered and for what purpose, there was not sufficient evidence to show.’

Had George Beeston actually killed his wife Edith, or had she taken the laudanum herself? What do you think?

Mr George Jackson was a farmer at Masborough and so he was delighted in September 1864 when he hired a young domestic servant girl at the Sheffield Fair. His wife Elizabeth had asked him to look out for someone young enough who she could mould to her ways. So when he spotted an eighteen year old girl, he hired her on the spot. Her name was Ann Sherdin and she was so excited at her new position. As she travelled back to Rotherham with the farmer, she asked him a lot of questions about his wife and the kinds of work she would have to undertake. As George had no real idea of what his wife would expect, he just told her some light housework and to look after her.

Ann was delighted when she saw the farm which was quite big and looked very prosperous, so she could hardly wait to meet her new mistress. However, after meeting her she quickly changed her mind. Elizabeth Jackson proved to be a most demanding mistress who insisted that the housework should be done in a very particular way. So when the girls work did not meet her high expectations she chided Ann and called her names. She would also threaten that she would take some money out of her wages until the work was done to her complete satisfaction. Poor Ann felt that she would never be able to satisfy her mistress, but as she had been hired for a year at the fair, she could not leave.

There seemed to be no way out of her dilemma by Christmas of 1864, when she came to a most drastic decision. Elizabeth Jackson had been downstairs the day before and had complained bitterly to Ann about the neglectful way she had cleaned the living room. She also complained to her husband and criticised him for having hired the girl in the first place. One of the first tasks that Ann undertook every morning was that she would serve her mistress breakfast in bed, before going downstairs to light the fire in the drawing room. Accordingly, on the morning of Friday 29 December there was a timid knock on the bedroom door before Ann carried in a huge tray containing a silver teapot and china crockery, which she placed on a table at the side of the bed.

Elizabeth had always insisted in pouring out the tea for herself, so as Ann left the room she poured the tea into the cup followed by cream and sugar. However as she tasted the tea, she found it to be quite bitter. Elizabeth then tried some of the cream and found that was the source of the bitter taste. Consequently when George came upstairs some time later, his wife got him to taste the tea and the cream and he too found it not as it should be. He then went downstairs, into the kitchen where he accused Ann of attempting to poison her mistress. The girl shook her head and denied it, but the next day, a Friday, she left the farm without anyone giving her notice.

The Rotherham police were informed and Ann was arrested before being brought before the magistrates on the morning of Monday 16 January 1865 at the Rotherham Court House. Thankfully she was defended by Mr Whitfield. The prosecution described the events at the farm before Elizabeth Jackson gave her own account. Cross examined, the witness stated that the cream jug was one that she regularly used and was kept in a cupboard in the kitchen for that purpose. Elizabeth described how it would be Ann’s responsibility to to take the cream from the top of the milk in the cellar where it was kept. She told the court that after accusing her servant, she had locked the cream jug in a cupboard.

The witness described how on the Friday evening she was visited by a friend called Ann Armitage and she produced the cream and asked her friend to taste some of it. It was immediately obvious that it was not as it should be. Elizabeth said she gave the jug to Mrs Armitage and asked her to take it to a doctor called Mr Saville in order to have it tested for poison. The witness admitted that they had sometimes had problems with rats on the farm and consequently usually kept some poison in the cellar called ‘Battles Vermin Killer.’ She told the bench how her husband usually bought it from Davies Chemist in Bridgegate, and described how he would occasionally spread it on a piece of bread and butter and leave it in the cellar in order to kill the rats.

Mr Jackson was the next to give evidence that he had used some of the same cream earlier that morning in his coffee and detected nothing wrong with it at the time. He was followed by Mr Saville who stated that he had been attending to Mrs Jackson before he was given the cream to analyse. The surgeon described how he had tested the cream and found some blue powder crystals in it. Incredibly he gave some to a small kitten before watching it convulse in pain before it died. He also sent a sample of the cream to another local doctor, Mr Shearman to test and he was the next witness. He confirmed the fact that there had been strychnine poison in the cream.

Police Constable Burgin of Rotherham police force, described how he had arrested Ann Sherdin on Tuesday 10 October before the defence Mr Whitfield stated his case. He said that after listening to all the evidence, he declared that there was not one person who had witnessed his client putting the poison into the cream or administering it to Mrs Jackson. However the magistrates thought differently and ordered the prisoner to take her trial at the next Assizes. Consequently Ann Sherdin was brought before judge, Mr Justice Willes on Wednesday 30 March 1865.

Thankfully, although the same evidence was heard from the same witnesses, the judge found the prisoner not guilty and Ann Sherdin was discharged. It was clear that the only motive that could be suggested for Ann’s actions was that her mistress had chided her for not cleaning the house properly the day before. However, as no one had seen her doing it, and it was purely her mistresses word again hers, Mr Justice Willes had no option but to stop the trial. But the question remained. Had this eighteen year old servant girl taken her revenge on her querulous mistress by poisoning the cream?

On Monday 13 January 1873 an official of the Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railways
was most surprised to be handed a box addressed to a ‘Mr William Jones, 18 Sorby Street, Sheffield, Yorkshire.’ It had been found in a railway carriage when a passenger arrived at the Victoria Station, Sheffield the previous Saturday. Accordingly the box was taken to the address the following day by an employee of the Railway Company. He found that there was indeed a man of that name living there, although he was also known as William Towns. He was not at home at the time, so the railway employee requested the person who opened the door, to let Mr Jones know that the package was ready for collection.

Accordingly William Towns collected the parcel on Wednesday 15 January. Puzzled as to who could have sent him the parcel which was postmarked from Retford, Towns (otherwise Jones) opened the parcel and just underneath the lid he found a letter which he opened and it said:

‘Well William,
I have sent you this box and I hope you will carefully examine it and put it away respectfully as you have behaved so bad to me. By the time you get this box I will have left Retford and I hope never to see you again. It died as it was born. You are the cause of all my misery, but I hope God will provide something for me. You will never prosper. I have sent you many a letter, but you wont answer. You promised me money.’

Underneath this was something wrapped in a blanket which Towns dare not open. So he had no option but to notify the Sheffield police authorities and to ask them to come and open the box as he was afraid as to what he might find inside. When he was questioned, Towns stated categorically that he knew of no person in Retford or anywhere else for that matter, who could have done this. Accordingly the police were called and they asked for two neighbours to also witness the opening of the box. Two neighbours entered the house, although Towns remained at the door of the room, unwilling to come any closer.

To the watchers horror, inside wrapped in a blanket was the dead body of a newly born, female child. The body was immediately taken to the police office, and an inquest was arranged by the Sheffield Coroner, Mr J Webster Esq. When he opened the enquiry which took place on Friday 17 January 1873 at the police office on Castle Green, the first witness was William Towns himself. He described collecting the box and signing for it when he went to collect it. The delivery book was passed around the members of the jury and the signature ‘W Jones’ was clearly to be seen. Towns was asked by the coroner why had he signed the book ‘William Jones?’ But he could not give a reason for doing this, apart from the fact that the parcel had been addressed in that name.

The next to give evidence was the clerk at the railway office, Mr Charles Collins. In reply to one of the jury, Collins stated that the parcel could have been left in the railway carriage anywhere. as the train had stopped at several stations such as Lincoln and Hull en route to Sheffield. The police surgeon, Mr Woolhouse told the inquest that he had made a post mortem of the little body and found it to be a normal, full term child. He said that he had firstly examined it externally, but had found no marks of violence or negligence upon the little body.

However the surgeon said that internally he had found evidence that the child had breathed after being born. Mr Woolhouse said one lung had been fully inflated and the other appeared to be partially so. He also added that there was evidence that a professional midwife must have attended at the birth. Mr Webster asked him if he could see any evidence as to how the child had met its death, but Mr Woolhouse stated that he could not account for it. At this point the inquest was then adjourned for a fortnight until 31 January in order for police enquiries to continue.

When the inquest was re-opened Mr Webster stated that the Chief Constable had made enquiries about the case in all directions, but without any success. However, his enquiries with the railway company had led him to believe that the parcel had originated from Nottingham. The main witness once again, was Towns himself, but his account left more questions than answers. The coroner told the jury that after the last inquest, the witness Towns had been interviewed by the Chief Constable and afterwards he left Sheffield for Nottingham where he arrived in the early hours of the Sunday morning. Then he had left Nottingham at noon on the Monday and returned back to Sheffield.

Mr Webster therefore asked the witness why he had gone to Nottingham in the first place, but all he got in reply were even more evasions. Towns however did admit that he had once lived in Nottingham for about five months. At this point the coroner confronted the witness and accused him of being the father of the dead child, which Towns adamantly denied. When he was asked if he lived with his wife, the witness stated that he had not lived with her for the past two years. Nevertheless Towns denied that he had lived with any other woman either.

Mr Webster cross-examined the witness and asked him many other questions, all of which he denied. However some of the police enquiries revealed that when the witness went to Nottingham he had called at the house of a Mrs Denham, who lived in Rancliffe Street, Nottingham. A juryman asked Towns if he had received any letters from this woman and the witness admitted that he had, but had burned them all afterwards. Despite making out that he had nothing to do with Mrs Denham Towns admitted that he had twice recently sent her money. He stated that he had sent her 5s about three weeks ago and since then he sent her 9s. When asked what the money was for, he claimed it was to pay her back for a previous loan.

By this time it was clear that Mr Webster had quite enough, as he told the inquest that Towns obviously knew more than he cared to tell. He said that he believed that although Mrs Denham wasn’t the mother of the child, she clearly knew who was. He advised the jury therefore to return an open verdict and leave the rest to the police. The jury accordingly returned a verdict ‘that the deceased was found dead in a box in a railway carriage addressed to William Jones or Towns, but how it came by its death there was no evidence to show.’

On Monday 4 November 1878 information reached Inspector Parker of the Rotherham Police that a newly born child’s body had been found in a water tub in Twiggs Yard at Masborough. It was around 4.30 pm when he arrived at the yard and spoke to the woman who had found the body. Her name was Rebecca Walsh and she told him that about half an hour earlier, she had gone to the water tub which was placed at the rear of hers and the next door neighbours house. When the inspector asked her who lived there she told him it was rented by a family called Hargate. There was the father Thomas and his wife Zilpah, a twenty five year old son William and their nineteen year old daughter Ruth, who suffered with epilepsy.

So Inspector Parker went next door where the man and his wife invited him inside. Thomas told him that they knew nothing about the finding of the body as that day they had visited the Statute Fair which was being held in Rotherham. He said that he and his wife, his son and daughter Ruth had all spent that afternoon at the fair. They only heard about the child being found on their return. Then Thomas made an admittance to the Inspector. He told him that he suspected that his daughter might have given birth to the child. Zilpah said that she had watched her daughter carefully as she had put on a lot of weight, but when she asked her about it, Ruth had always denied that she was pregnant.

Inspector Parker, who had dealt with such cases before, advised then both to carefully watch over their daughter in order to ensure that she did not harm herself. Thomas assured the officer that he would do so, but not withstanding his promise, Ruth later tried to cut her throat and had to be removed to the Rotherham Infirmary for treatment. On her arrival it was found by house surgeon, Mr Brett that she had succeeded in cutting through the front section of her windpipe. When Inspector Parker spoke to the surgeon, he said that Ruth was still in grave danger due to her throat injury, her recent confinement, as well as from epilepsy and general shock.

Her fragile condition was such that Ruth remained in the Infirmary until 11 December 1878 when she was finally allowed to go home. Meanwhile, the inspector had notified the coroner of the death of the child. Subsequently an inquest was arranged for Wednesday 6 November 1878 and Dr Pearce was asked to undertake a post mortem on the remains. The neighbour Rebecca Walsh was the first to give evidence and she told the court that she had noticed the body of the child at the bottom of a water tub situated at the rear of the two houses. The child’s body had been in about two or three feet of water.

When she took the child out of the tub and showed it to Thomas and Zilpah Hargate, the neighbour said their reaction was if they had been struck dumb. Neither of them spoke. Then finally Thomas took the child and wrapped it up in a cloth and stated that he would hand it over to the police. The witness claimed that she had not known that Ruth had been was pregnant and confirmed that the girl had been subject to epileptic fits from the age of about 14 years. William Henry Pearce surgeon of Wharncliffe Street, Rotherham was the next witness. He told the coroner that he had undertaken the post mortem that morning and found that the child’s lungs were not inflated.

When the coroner asked the surgeon what this meant, Dr Pearce replied that it proved to him that the child had not breathed after birth. He said there were signs that the child had clearly not been professionally attended to. The witness gave his opinion that the child had died at the moment of birth, but that if the mother had been professionally attended to by a doctor or a trained midwife, the baby’s life might have been saved. In return from a question from a member of the jury, the surgeon said that it was quite possible that the child had died inside the mother some hours before she gave birth.

The house surgeon Mr John Brett stated that Ruth Hargate had been admitted to the Rotherham Infirmary around 10 am on Tuesday 5 November. He said that the patient had been insensible and had a deeply incised wound across her neck, which was about three inches long. When she regained consciousness, he examined and found signs that she had recently been confined. After hearing from all the witnesses, the coroner summed up for the jury and told them that it was their duty to enquire into the death of a person. However as far as he could make out, in a legal sense the child had never led a separate existence from its mother.

Therefore it could only be considered to be a non-person, so the responsibility was taken out of the hands of the jury. He said therefore as matter stood at that time, there could be no charge of manslaughter or murder against any one. The only charge that could be brought against the mother was that of concealment of birth. Therefore he concluded the enquiry. After hearing the coroners summing up, Inspector Parker was instructed to arrest Ruth Hargate went on the charge of concealment, but Ruth was still recovering at the Infirmary. Subsequently it was not until she was discharged was he able to arrest Ruth on 12 December 1878. The girl made no reply to the charge and was taken into custody. However she was allowed bail.

On Thursday 26 December 1878 the case was heard in front of the Rotherham magistrates Mr H Jubb and ex Mayor Alderman Morgan. The first witness once again was the neighbour Rebecca Walsh. She told the court that she was a widow and had lived next door to the Hargate’s for the past two years. The witness described how at some time around 4 pm she had gone to the water tub and to her horror had found the body of the newly born child at the bottom of the tub. She said that she showed it to Thomas Hargate before he took it into his own house. The next witness was Ruth’s mother Zilpah who told the bench that she knew nothing of the child until the body was shown to her.

Prior to that, she stated that she had several times asked Ruth if she was pregnant, but she had consistently denied it. The witness said that she did not question her daughter too hard on the subject, due to her being subject to fits. Zilpah did not want her questioning to bring one of them on. When asked a question by one of the magistrates, she told them that her daughter had not bought any clothes or prepared for the birth as far as she was aware. After hearing all the evidence, Ruth was sentenced to take her trial at the next Yorkshire Assizes to be held at the Leeds Town Hall.

Accordingly Ruth was brought before judge Mr Justice Lopes on Saturday 1 February 1879 where she pleaded guilty to the charge of ‘unlawfully endeavouring to conceal the birth of her child at Rotherham on 4 November 1878.’ After listening to all the witnesses evidence, the grand jury found Ruth Hargate to be guilty of the charge and the judge sentenced her to six months imprisonment.

On the night of Saturday 23/24 September 1916 a huge naval Zeppelin was seen over the skies of Sheffield which, for the purposes of secrecy in the local newspapers was referred to as ‘a North Midlands town’. It was later established that the airship was the L22 which approached Sheffield from the East Coast and its Captain was a man called Martin Dietrich. The ship slowly passed over the city around 11 pm as most people were preparing for bed. Its outline could clearly been seen in the sky and the noise of its engines could also be heard. Thankfully the stringent wartime lighting regulations meant that the city was in relative darkness when the attack occurred.

Most people stayed inside their houses when the alarm buzzers sounded, but some brave souls went outside to gaze at the Leviathan as it hovered in the sky. They could clearly see flashes as the airship dropped its bombs over the city, and they could both see and hear firing from the anti-aircraft guns attempting to shoot the airship down. It was estimated that between twelve to twenty bombs were dropped on the various districts of Pitsmoor and Attercliffe. These bombs consisted of both the explosive and the incendiary kind. The first two bombs dropped onto Burngreave cemetery and the second landed on a street of working class houses.

As a result, almost every one of those houses had its doors and windows blown in. Another bomb fell on the Primitive Methodist Chapel situated in Princess Street, Sheffield. Initially it was thought that around twenty four people had been killed, although this later decreased to eleven. One man told a reporter that he had been outside and had seen two bombs drop, so he had rushed inside to seek the safety of the cellar. He and his wife and their three children were actually on their way into the cellar when another bomb dropped in the yard. The blast blew the man off his feet and his wife was knocked down to the bottom of the cellar steps. Thankfully neither were seriously injured, and they both recognised that if they had stayed upstairs they would all be dead.

The house next door was also badly damaged but thankfully the occupiers were away at the seaside. Another area which was damaged was a few streets away when a bomb landed on two blocks of houses where it was estimated around nine people in total were killed. Only a heap of debris remained and an end wall where ten or eleven bodies were recovered. Another bomb dropped on a nearby house where in the attic five children were sleeping. A stout wooden balk fell across the beds, but none of the children were hurt although they were all covered in light debris. Several more bombs were dropped making large craters and holes.

Yet despite all this drama, there were some lighter moments. As rescuers started to work amid all the trauma of finding dead and crushed bodies, a group of Royal Engineers found two eggs in a woman’s kitchen which had not even been cracked. Outside the Zeppelin slowly passed over Sheffield once and then returned, making three circles over the Sheffield Town Hall as if looking for a suitable target to attack. Searchlights lit it up in the sky and the anti-aircraft guns were seen and heard firing at it.

The German version of the raid appeared in the their newspapers on Tuesday 26 September 1916. One report gave Berlin’s view of the raid on Sheffield and stated that:

‘During the night of 23/24 September several detachments of our marine airships dropped numerous bombs on places of strategic importance including Sheffield and Nottingham. They were bombarded by a large number of anti-aircraft batteries, however some of these were silenced by us with well aimed salvoes.’

Despite the Germans proud boast that they targeted places of strategic importance, in reality this was far from the truth. Four of the explosive bombs dropped on two fields, whose only occupants were sheep. Another two explosive bombs fell onto roads and lanes. Most of the incendiary bombs also fell onto open spaces apart from one house whose occupants had a most lucky escape. It crashed through the roof of a house where a man, his wife and his child were sleeping. Thankfully it fell into the water system in the bathroom, which diminished the effect. Consequently any small fires were soon extinguished by the family.

Nevertheless the next day rescue teams were being sent in to recover the bodies and take them to the mortuary. Thankfully it was later established that just ten incendiary bombs and six explosive bombs had been dropped on the city in total. The Zeppelin L22 although it escaped undamaged after this particular raid, was destroyed the following year on 14 May 1917. The airship had been brought down over the North Sea. It had been seen approaching the British coast when a squadron of planes were sent up to attack it. One of the planes fired at it and the airship burst into flames, as two of its crew jumped from the gondola beneath the ship into the cold waters below.

Later reports of a Zeppelin with its gondola enveloped in smoke was spotted flying over Holland, but observers claimed that after watching it for fifteen minutes, it could no longer be seen in the sky.

Mr G W Chambers Esq, the owner of both the boatyard and the Holmes Colliery, had built the vessel at his yard. On the day of the ships launch, he made arrangements to have as many people as could fit on board beforehand to attend. It had been rumoured that the ship, which could carry up to 70 tons of cargo was a bit light, and therefore this had been necessary in order to give the ship some weight. This rumour, however was later denied by Mr Chambers himself. Nevertheless, in order to celebrate the event, flags were erected and bunting hung at the yard, which naturally drew many people. They were all eager to secure themselves a seat on the vessel for the launching.

As the yard was at a point on the River Don that was not very wide, it was judged that the launch would be a sideways one and the wooden slidings were laid accordingly. Needless to say there was much excitement as the fastening were loosened and the ship started to move down and into the water. Suddenly, instead of sliding gracefully into the river, the ship overturned casting everybody out into the river. The screams and cries were piteous and every assistance was made to rescue people both from out of the water, as well as those who had been trapped beneath the ship. Horses were procured and chains attached to the vessel, which finally lifted the boat enough for those trapped underneath to scramble out.

Then the fastenings themselves collapsed and needless to say this again sent many of the rescuers back into the water. It took another two hours before the vessel was finally lifted high enough up to rescue all of those beneath. Each time the boat was lifted, more dead bodies emerged, floating up from the waters below. By the end of the day it was estimated that out of all the people that had been rescued, at least 50 of them were dead. Because of an old tradition that having a woman aboard had been thought to bring bad luck, most of those on board were made up of men and boys. Nevertheless to lose a husband or a son in such a way must have been devastating.

The stories which became known later were heartbreaking, such as that of John Smith a boatman who perished with his two sons. When his body was brought out of the water, his children, Charles aged 8 and Henry aged 5 were locked so securely in their fathers arms that all three had to be lifted out together. Another was a young lad called John Greatorex who had died sadly perished on his twenty first birthday. Accordingly, what should have been a day of great rejoicing for his family, turned out to be one of mourning instead. A man called Samuel Heathcote was another corpse whose body was recovered. He was well known in the town, who was a joiner by trade and a bell ringer at Rotherham Church.

One local reporter commenting on the catastrophe the following day stated that:

‘The occurrence seems to have cast a gloom over the whole inhabitants of Rotherham, and in every street appears signs of mourning and affliction. The awful calamity is the general topic of conversation throughout this town and Sheffield, and the most anxious enquiries are made after the names of the sufferers. Nothing can equal the sensation it has caused among all classes. The vessel, which is considerably damaged, has been visited this morning by a great number of people.’

The bodies of many of those who drowned were taken to their respective homes and the rest were taken to the nearby Angel Inn at Masborough to await a coroners inquest. The coroner Mr Thomas Badger arranged for an inquest to be held at 2 pm on Wednesday 7 July and the jury spent the first four hours visited the various houses where the dead persons lay. Returning back to the Inn, the first witness was the owner of the vessel, Mr Edwin Cadman of Pitsmoor, Sheffield. He described how he had been in a fly boat already in the water and so could see everything as it happened. He said that as the ship began to move down the slipway, he saw many of the people on board, rush to the leeward side of the vessel in order to see it enter the water.

He therefore stated that was the reason that the boat overturned. Mr Badger asked him ‘if it was your boat, why were you not on board?’ The witness replied that he had been told by the boatmen that it was bad luck for the owner of a boat to be onboard when it is launched. However he affirmed that the men in charge of the launch were all sober and respectable, and had conducted the business in their usual professional manner. Heart rending accounts were then heard from witnesses and participants who had managed to escape from the boat, however it soon became clear that insufficient planking had added to the catastrophe.

Mr George Heywood gave evidence that the planking upon which the boat slid down, ended about 18 inches from the surface of the water. Mr Edwin Cadman stated that this was usual at launchings as the vessel picked up enough impetus to carry her safely into the water. When the coroner asked if ropes or any other means of checking the descent should have been used, Mr Cadman relied that ‘it would be futile and most dangerous to do that.’ After hearing all the evidence, the jury had no option but to declare a verdict of accidental death, as men and boys who had rushed to the leeward side of the ship were clearly to blame. Needless to say with the amount of witnesses to be heard, the inquest was naturally quite a protracted one.

Consequently it was around 11.30 pm before the jury returned their verdict. They also criticised the tradition of having people on board at the time of a boats launching and recommended that the practise be discontinued for the future. Needless to say, a subscription was put in place and by Saturday 10 July, around £200 had been collected for the relief of the families of the poor involved in the accident. However, how much consolation this was to women like Ann Straw, who was a widow living on Masborough Common, we have no information. She lost her only son Thomas, a boy of just ten years old when he died.

Mrs Hannah Simpson literally burst onto the scene in Rotherham when she took over a weekly butchers stall in the Shambles. It was true to say that at first, she was not popular as she managed to undercut all the local butchers and sold her meat at much cheaper prices. Although she was the wife of a Derby butcher, Mrs Simpson became quite well known in her own right, although her fame was not always positive. On the evening of Saturday 7 June 1872 she was returning home to Derby with her daughter, Sarah. The fact that she had £150 worth of takings in her pocket and carrying three empty meat baskets was evidence enough of her successful day.

Having sold all her produce, she took a cab to Masbrough Station, but as the cab arrived at the bridge at Masbrough, it was in collision with an omnibus. By the time Mrs Simpson managed to extricate herself from the wreckage, she found that she had missed her train home. Consequently she walked into the Bridge Inn and requested a room for the night. Another local butcher called Mr Robert Green saw her and demanded that the landlady, Annie Holbein not give her a room. He told her ‘Don’t give her a bed and don’t give her anything to drink; she is running down the price of meat in Rotherham.’

Someone told Mrs Simpson that the man was a butcher and she replied ‘oh that explains it’ before she called all the Rotherham butchers ‘duffers’. Angrily, Green asked her if that applied to him and when she answered in the affirmative, he punched her in the face and knocked her glasses off. Mrs Holbein called the police and Green complained that Mrs Simpson was drunk. However the Superintendent Mr Gillott arrived and said that she was not drunk, just extremely angry. He urged the landlady to find her a bed for the night. One was finally obtained for Mrs Simpson and her daughter and they soon retired to bed. However Green was arrested and brought into court on Tuesday 11 June 1872.

The case had been well publicised and consequently the court room was packed. Mr F Parker Rhodes appeared for Mrs Simpson and Mr Edwards for the butcher, Green. Mr Rhodes opened the case and several witnesses were heard who supported the evidence as to what had transpired. Mr Edwards contended that the woman had simply asked for a bed for the night and when told that the Inn was full, had used the most filthy and obscene language. He said that she then demanded a glass of brandy which Mrs Holbein refused to serve her. Green said he heard the exchange and bid the landlady not to serve her. He claimed that was when Mrs Simpson called him a ‘lump of muck’ and a ‘fat head’ amongst other vile names. The butcher also said that was when she pulled his face whiskers very violently, and in response he punched her in the face.

Several witnesses corroborated Green’s evidence, but not one confirmed that they had seen Mrs Simpson pull the butchers whiskers. The bench found Green guilty of the assault and he was fined 40s. At the same time one of the magistrates remarked that it had been very cowardly for a man to strike a woman, no matter what the provocation. Two weeks later Mrs Simpson herself was in Rotherham magistrates court again. She was charged with impeding an Inspector of Nuisances from carrying out his duties. He was a man called Mr Charles Parkin, who had the responsibility to seize any meat that was thought to be unfit for human consumption. It seems that on the same day as Mrs Simpson had the argument with Green, he had seen some suspicious looking meat on her stall in the Shambles.

He told the magistrates that he had called another Inspector and another butcher called Mr Robert Spendlove to Mrs Simpson’s stall. Together they examined two joints of meat and all three thought that is looked unwholesome. When Mrs Simpson heard what they were claiming, she challenged them using very abusive language. The Inspector told the bench that there were about 150 persons gathered around the stall, who observed the way in which she had spoken to him. He told the court that Mrs Simpson sold what was called in the profession ‘good rough meat’ explaining that it was not of the highest quality, but it was usually sound and wholesome. This was the kind of meat which was popular with working class women to buy at the weekend.

Mrs Simpson spoke to the bench and admitted that there was a lot of bad feeling aimed at her among the other local butchers, They didn’t like the fact that she was able to sell cheaper meat. Another witness claimed that the meat was ‘rather indifferent, but passable’ and added that Mrs Simpson did also have some very good meat for sale. The second butcher Mr Robert Spendlove, also admitted that the meat he examined was ‘thin, but again passable.’ Mrs Simpson said that the meat was alright to sell and if she had ‘shown a bit of spirit’ it was because they had tried to disgrace her in front of her customers. She apologised for her bad language, claiming to be overexcited at the time and consequently was fined just 6d.

However it was not long before another serious charge was made against her. On Tuesday 6 January 1874 she was brought before the magistrates again for selling two pieces of beef deemed ‘unfit for human consumption’ once more. For that she was fined £5. Perhaps the bad publicity was having an effect on the Derby Butcher, as by the following Christmas she seemed to be trying to change her image. It was reported in the local newspaper that for the display of meat on sale over Christmas of 1875 ‘the largest show was undoubtedly that of Mrs Simpson’s stall in the Shambles.’ The report continued stating that ‘in the front of the Derby Butchers stall was a lofty scaffolding from which hung the carcasses of no fewer than 23 sheep. To add to the festivities, the whole display was lit up by gas!’

However, Mrs Simpson’s growing reputation had reached its climax on Monday 19 August 1878 when she opened the Simpson’s Arcade, on Howard Street, Rotherham. Newspapers reported that the arcade:

‘Will hold about 60 shops and stalls and the opening ceremony will be undertaken by Rev. Dr Falding, the principal of Rotherham College. During the festivities, which will include fireworks, a balloon ascent and other amusements at the Clifton Lane Cricket Ground, there will be prizes for street decorations.’

It was also reported that the Parish Church bells were rung, the streets were decorated and through them marched brass bands ‘playing some merry tunes’. In the opening ceremony, Dr Falding described Mrs Simpson. He stated that it was seven years since the ‘Derby butcher’ had come to Rotherham and admitted that ‘during that time she had not been without opposition, but had risen above it.’ The principal spoke about her great generosity during a recent colliery explosion at Rawmarsh, when she offered assistance to the bereaved widows and orphans. Dr Falding also referred to the ovation which she had received at the time and stated that ‘he ventured to think that the Prince of Wales (later to be crowned King Edward VII) would scarcely have obtained such a reception as had been accorded to Mrs Simpson’.

The Rev Dr Falding described all the facilities which the new Arcade offered to the town and concluded that Mrs Simpson ‘was about the most popular person in the whole borough.’ At these words, there was much cheering. Mrs Hannah Simpson’s reputation grew to such an extent that by the end of October of 1880 she was now living at Ferham House. However her luck had turned and at that time she was described as being ‘a widow who had just gone into receivership.’ So ends the tale of yet another enterprising Rotherham woman stood up against bullies and made a living in the best way that she could.

In June of 1873, a twenty two year old collier named George Nixon married his childhood sweetheart Sarah Ann who was aged just 16. However the marriage was not a happy one, mainly due to the fact that George was extremely jealous of his young wife, and that as a consequence he acted very violently towards her. After one serious assault at Barnsley, where the couple were then living, Sarah Ann took out a warrant against him, and George was forced to appear before the magistrates. He was ordered to live peaceably with his wife with sureties for his own good behaviour. George remained unrepentant however and soon after this assault on 30 November the couple decided to finally separate for good.

Sarah Ann returned back to Rotherham to live with her parents, whilst he stayed in Barnsley. Within a matter of weeks, George gave up his employment and followed his wife to Rotherham, where he managed to get lodgings on Wellgate. He visited Sarah at her parents house, and after he obtaining employment at Denaby Main Colliery, George convinced Sarah that he was going to ‘turn over a new leaf,’ As in many such similar cases she agreed to give the marriage another try. On Friday 18 December 1873 George persuaded his wife to go for a walk with him that evening, along the canal bank near to the Northfield Iron works at Rotherham. The couple were accompanied by Sarah’s 14 year old brother, William Henry.

They had arrived at a secluded spot by the bridge at Parkgate where George made an indecent question to which, mindful of her young brothers presence, Sarah refused. Suddenly George grabbed her and threw her to the ground and taking out his pocket knife he waved it in her face. At this point Sarah had enough and she told him that she threatened that she would ‘fetch him up before the magistrates again’. In reply George stated that ‘he would kill her first before he allowed her to do that to him again’. Pulling out his clasp knife, he attempted to stab his wife in the throat. Whether it was due to her struggles, or to the fact that her young brother was trying to pull the man off his sister, George only succeeded in stabbing at her collar bone.

Although initially the wound started to bleed, it was later established that he had inflicted little damage. Determined to still Sarah’s struggles, her husband then straddled her body and attempted to stab her again. The desperate girl raised her hands to defend herself, and as a result George slashed her right thumb almost in two. Throwing his knife down in anger, he then attempted to carry her bodily and place her in the water in order to drown her in the canal. George had almost succeeded when her cries for help attracted two men to the scene, who quickly separated the couple. Sarah got to her feet and ran into Rotherham still bleeding profusely from her wounds.

Arriving at the police station, she gave a statement to Sergeant Turner who was on duty at the time. The injured woman pointed out her husband who had followed her, and said ‘that was the man who attacked me’. The sergeant promptly arrested George Nixon, and when the officer asked him why he had done it, his prisoner simply stated that ‘he was determined to kill her’. Meanwhile Sarah was being treated by surgeon Mr W H Pearce, who found that although there was plenty of blood, her wounds were thankfully just superficial. Consequently on Monday 22 December George was brought before the Rotherham Police Court charged with the attempted murder of his wife.

Sarah gave evidence that she left her husband at Barnsley on 30 November and returned back to Rotherham. She told the court that on Thursday 10 December George came to Rotherham and asked her to go back to live with him if he got work in Rotherham and she agreed. But then unaccountably he lost his temper and struck her in the street. On the Friday 18 December she agreed to meet him again and once more described what happened as he tried to kill her. One of the men who had rescued the girl was called John Doherty and he told the magistrates that when the two men heard cries of ‘murder’ they found the woman laying on her back on the canal footpath with her head hanging over the side of the canal.

Kneeling over her was the prisoner who had his hands raised as it to hit her. When he saw Doherty approach he lowered his hand, but he told him ‘if you hadn’t come I would have murdered her and thrown her into the cut’. Sergeant Turner gave evidence that it was about 6pm when the woman approached him in College Yard, and pointing out the husband who had attacked her. The sergeant told the court that he had promptly arrested him, before he produced the knife which had been used in the assault. Sergeant Turner was asked by a member of the bench if the prisoner had been sober at the time, and the officer stated that he was. When George was asked to explain his attack, he claimed that he had simply acted out of passion.

He said that he had heard that his wife had deceived him with another man, and repeated again the threat that ‘even if sentenced that he would ‘do for his wife when he got out of prison’. The magistrates consulted together only for a short time before finding the prisoner guilty. Consequently George Nixon was brought before the Leeds Assizes on Monday 6 April 1874 in front of judge, Mr Baron Pollock. The judge told him that ‘the attack was a very determined one and if not for the intervention of the two men, he might be facing a much more serious charge’.

Mr Vernon Blackburn, his defence counsel, told the court that his client had acted under the most provoking of circumstances, and emphasised the fact that the wounds inflicted on his wife were only of a superficial nature. The jury agreed and they returned a verdict that the prisoner was not guilty of attempted murder, but guilty of the lesser charge of wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm. Mr Baron Pollock then sentenced George Nixon to 18 months imprisonment.