In August of 1855 a woman called Matilda Jane Naylor acted as housekeeper to her brother William Henry. He was a local auctioneer of Sheffield and the pair lived together at his house in Hanover Street. Sadly Matilda suffered from chronic and painful facial tics which she described as ‘periodic stabbing pains.’ Eventually she found that these were only relieved by an inhalation of chloroform. On Wednesday 22 August 1855, Matilda had been suffering badly throughout the day and around 11 pm had gone to bed. She had been in the custom of locking her bedroom door when she retired for the night, so when one of the servants went to rouse her the following morning, she could not gain entrance.

The servant, Fanny Barber shouted through the door for almost an hour, but could not rouse the girl. Finally she spoke to her master William, who also shouted to his sister to come to open the door. Eventually fearing the worst, he was force to break down the door and was horrified to find his sister dead in bed. A handkerchief smelling of chloroform lay beside her on the pillow and an uncorked empty bottle also lay within the bedclothes. A surgeon, Dr Bartoleme was called who confirmed that the deceased had been dead for some hours. He surmised that the young girl had used a moderate dose in order to fall asleep, but having left the bottle uncorked, the chloroform had continued to work.

On the evening of Friday 24 August, the Coroner Mr T Badger Esq., held an inquest on the deceased girl at the house on Hanover Street. The first witness was the maid servant Fanny who told the jury that Miss Naylor had asked her to make sure she was called up around 7 am. She wanted to see her brother who was due to return home in the early hours of the following morning. Fanny stated that Miss Naylor had returned home around 8 pm and complained that she had the ‘tic’ so bad that she ‘scarcely knew what to do with herself.’ Finally she had taken some brandy and water hoping to relieve the pain, but it returned just after supper.

When the witness was asked by Mr Badger if she was aware that her mistress took chloroform to ease her pain, the servant admitted that she had known. Fanny stated that she was aware that Miss Naylor had taken as many as forty drops at a time, sometimes as often as two or three times a week. One of the jury asked her if she had known that there was chloroform in the house that night, but the servant girl shook her head. When asked if she could give any reason why her mistress would wish to take her own life, Fanny referred to knowing about a previous relationship with a young man, who had been paying his addresses to Miss Naylor.

However, she admitted that she could not think that was any reason for her mistress to end her life as, although the intimacy had ceased at some time around Christmas, Miss Naylor appeared not to care about it very much. The coroner forced the servant to repeat her statement, and asked her once again, if she thought that the deceased had intended to end her life, but Fanny again shook her head. She stated most confidently that she was convinced that Miss Naylor had only taken the chloroform to relieve the tic, and not with the intention of destroying herself. She also added that Mr Naylor and his sister had lived very comfortably together and they had always treated her most kindly.

William Naylor was the next witness, and told Mr Badger that he had got home around 1 am on the Thursday morning. He had been awakened a few hours later by Fanny Barber shouting through his sister’s bedroom door. He described finding Matilda lying on her left side in bed, quite dead and cold. William described how the bed clothes had covered her head and the handkerchief which had been soaked in chloroform, lay on the pillow beside her. The coroner asked him if he had been aware that his sister was in the habit of taking chloroform, but the witness denied it. He said he knew nothing about it until the servant informed him on the Thursday morning.

The witness stated that some years ago when the ‘tic’ first started, he was aware that Matilda had taken laudanum. However he did not for a moment believe that his sister took as much as forty drops of chloroform at a time. William admitted to knowing that there had been some tension about her relationship with the young man spoken of by the servant. However, he told the jury that he had spoken to her about it and shortly afterwards ‘the intimacy was terminated at her wish.’ Therefore he did not see that having anything to do with causing his sisters death.

Dr Bartoleme was the next to appear and the surgeon told the inquest that he had known the deceased professionally for around three years. He stated that earlier that morning he had undertaken a post mortem along with Mr Tinsley, the house surgeon at the Infirmary. Dr Bartoleme said that he had discovered that no stomach contents had been removed after death. Without those, it was impossible to pinpoint the cause of death accurately, However, having examined the remains, he had no doubt that it was caused by the inhalation of chloroform. Nevertheless the surgeon stated that he too thought death was accidental and that Miss Naylor had no intention of ending her own life.

The doctor illustrated this by saying that he had last seen Miss Naylor the previous Wednesday when she had been a great good humour. They had both joked about an amusing book that she had been reading and she had been in high spirits. However the witness said that when he went into the bedroom to see the deceased, the smell of chloroform was still very powerful. Dr Bartoleme said that if he had remained in the room for any length of time, it would have affected him. The surgeon stated clearly that he truly believed that the deceased had taken the proper dose of chloroform in the first instance. However having left the bottle uncorked it had continued to ooze out, filling the bedroom and causing her death.

Dr Bartoleme stated that just a few weeks previously, he had been informed by the servant that her mistress was in the habit of taking chloroform for the relief of the tic. He had strictly advised Miss Naylor that the practice was a very dangerous one. Consequently, the last time he saw his patient, she had told him that she had stopped inhaling the chloroform. Having recently been told by the servant, Fanny that her mistress had resumed doing so, he had intended again to speak to her on the subject. After hearing all the evidence and the coroners summing up, the jury retired to consider their verdict. They returned a verdict that Miss Naylor’s death had been accidental, as a result of an inhalation of an excess of chloroform.

In the early hours of Saturday 16 June 1860, a man called Jarvis heard a noise in the street below his bedroom window. It was around 1.45 am in the morning and his house was situated in a small yard in New Zealand Lane off Bridgegate, Rotherham. Looking outside, he saw opposite some men descending a ladder from the window of Mr William Bray’s pawnbrokers shop. The property was situated on the corner of Bridgegate and New Zealand Lane, although Mr Bray lived elsewhere in the town. Jarvis immediately shouted out ‘police’ as the men fled. Two passing young men asked what the matter was, and he told them that some thieves had broken into the pawnshop. They, in turn notified the Sheffield Police at their office at the Town Hall.

Meanwhile Jarvis, now dressed, went after the robbers. He knew they had gone up New Zealand Lane as there was items scattered along the route. Later it was estimated that in total the men had stolen around £350 to £400 worth of jewellery. Stopping only to pick stolen items off the ground, Jarvis found a watch and around 20 rings lying about. Later that day, Sheffield police officers searching the area, also found evidence which proved the flight of the men concerned. From the dropped items they established that the robbers had probably crossed some waste land into Effingham Street. There they proceeded behind the Mechanics Institute towards a footbridge that crossed over the canal leading into Rawmarsh Lane.

A gold pin and some brooches were quickly picked up and it was presumed that the robbers had headed towards Masbrough and on towards Sheffield. Accordingly an hour later three officers, Detective Officer Sills, Office keeper Laughton and Sergeant Burgess from the Sheffield police force were on the site of Mr Bray’s pawnbrokers shop. Detective Sills had by this time carefully examined the evidence, so he could estimate how the gang had made their entrance inside the building. The detective noted that the thieves had at first tried to enter the shop by breaking the chain across the cellar grate. But once inside found no access into the shop itself, so were forced to retreat back outside.

Fortunately, they had not noticed a trap door in the cellar which would have led them directly into the shop premises. Next, the robbers tried to prise open the heavy shutters placed over the shop windows, but upon removing them, found strong iron bars behind, preventing them from going any further. Probably by now getting quite frustrated, they next obtained a ladder from some houses which were being built in Effingham Street. This they leaned against the second floor bedroom window and climbing up the ladder, managed to open the window using a sharp knife. Inside the building, Detective Sills found that the thieves had gone into the pledge shop and had been unsuccessfully in attempting to open the desk.

Finally the thieves were reduced to simply ransacking the pawn shop window where items were offered for sale. They finally absconded with around fifty-nine items including fourteen gold watches, as well as silver watches and guards. They also took between £40 to £50 worth of rings amongst other items such as, snuff boxes, brooches and gold and silver pins. The same day three local notorious thieves, John Jackson, William Grist and Luke Thorpe were arrested and charged with the robbery. Nevertheless, there was little evidence against them and even though a careful search of their lodgings was made, none of the stolen property had been found.

The men had been suspected simply because one of them, Thorpe, had been carrying a large carpet bag that night. However he seemed to be at pains to conceal the bag, at times sitting on it. The men had also been bragging about their latest ‘escapade’ at Rotherham. That, combined with the fact that they had also been seen in many of the low ‘dives’ of Rotherham on the night in question, had been enough to condemn them. But what absolutely proved their guilt was the fact that they had first been seen at one particularly low dive. A beer shop known as the ‘New Zealand Chief’ which was situated within a few yards of Mr Bray’s shop.

The fact that they were known thieves and were acting suspiciously was enough for the landlord, a man called Windle. He had spotted the men entering and fearing that they intended to rob his own house went looking for a police officer. He reported his suspicions to Police Constable Fletcher who was patrolling along Westgate. The Chief Constable of Rotherham, Mr Jackson sought a warrant from the magistrates, assuring them that he would succeed in making out a case against the accused men. Another local thief called Richard Campbell alias ‘King Dick’ was also suspected, as he had been seen hanging around Mr Bray’s shop on the night of the robbery. However by the time it was found that he had fled to Leeds.

Shortly afterwards he was taken into custody by the Leeds Constabulary and brought back to Rotherham. He too was charged with robbing the pawnshop. That combined with the fact that Campbell was in possession of more than £14 in gold and silver and dressed in a good suit of clothes when arrested, had been enough to condemn him. Prior to his arrest, his garb had been reported to be ‘of somewhat mean appearance.’ Campbell was taken before JP Mr Fullerton Esquire at Thrybergh the following day and remanded. Accordingly, all four men were taken before the magistrates on Tuesday 19 June 1860. Not surprisingly, due to the lack of evidence, they were all discharged.

Local newspapers reported the case at length, which only served to establish the fact that the robbery at Mr Brays shop had created a strong feeling against the Sheffield police force. At a meeting of the Rotherham Board of Health on Wednesday 18 July 1860 the question of re-establishing the old system of policing was brought before the consideration of the Board. This was when constables and night watchmen were appointed by local magistrates to walk around the streets of the town in the hope of deterring criminals. However the Board decided to adjourn the question for the time being.

What was decided however was that the fact that the robbery had been the final touch for the pawnbroker Mr Bray. In October the premises in Bridgegate were being put up for rent. The advertisement read:

‘To be LET, with immediate possession, a SHOP with DWELLING-HOUSE adjoining, in Bridgegate, Rotherham, lately occupied by Mr William Bray, Pawnbroker.’

Particulars were to be obtained from another tradesman, Mr Saville, a hosier of Bridgegate

On Tuesday 7 January 1891, Coroner Mr D Wighthead attended an enquiry into the death of a Sheffield woman called Agnes Broadhead which was held at the Bath Hotel, Broomhall Street. Agnes, had been just thirty-one years of age when she died the previous Saturday. The first witness was her husband, William who had a very sad tale to tell. He stated that he and his wife had lived at Aberdeen Street, which was just off Broomhall Street, Sheffield. The witness admitted that during the previous six years, Agnes had been addicted to excessive drinking and taking laudanum. On that Saturday alone she had drunk a quantity of whisky.

William told the inquest jury that his wife had been in the daily habit of taking two pennyworth of laudanum and a penny worth of paregoric, which was a camphorated tincture of opium. He reported that on the night of Friday 4 January 1891, he had left his wife who was ‘beastly drunk’ and took their youngest child, a girl also called Agnes, to his mothers house. All that day his wife had been drinking gin and whisky and the witness described himself as being ‘sick at heart’ of seeing her in such a condition. Around 5.40 pm a female neighbour came and told him that his wife was dead.

When William returned, he found his wife in the kitchen lying on a hearthrug and he could not help but notice that there was an empty laudanum bottle on a shelf in the kitchen. When one of the jury asked the witness if he had any employment, the poor man told him that he was consumptive and was therefore forced to receive money every week from a sick club. However, he did mention that Agnes was employed at a tin makers in Arundel Street, Sheffield and that she earned a ‘great deal of money there.’ Mr Wightman then asked him if Agnes had any insurance and he told him that she had. He said his mother had insured her life for £14, exactly twenty-two years previously.

Describing his married life, William said that his wife would ‘drink like a fish’ for weeks on end. When she did manage to have a day without alcohol however, she could not sleep and that’s how she got into the habit of taking laudanum in order to sleep. As an illustration he said that on New Years Eve, Agnes came home helplessly drunk and continued to drink all night and the following day. Another juror asked William whether he had tried to prevent his wife from drinking so much. The witness told him that he had tried to do so, but she had threatened him and the children with a poker on several occasions when he had.

A neighbour, a woman called Florence Cockayne confirmed Williams account and said she had known the deceased for about two years. Over the Christmas and New Year period, she had only seen Agnes sober once. Florence told the coroner that around 6 o clock the previous Friday, little Agnes came to her house and told her that her mother was dying. The witness stated that she went straight away next door and found her mother unconscious and very white in the face. Florence called a surgeon, but the poor woman was dead before he arrived. She too reported seeing the empty laudanum bottle on a shelf near her and little Agnes told her that her mother had drunk from the bottle before she died.

The coroner summed up for the jury calling it a ‘very bad case’ before the jury retired for a short while. When they finally came back into the courtroom, it was evident that they had some deep discussions on the case. To admit that they possibly suspected that the poor woman had ended her own life, would have led to some serious concerns for William and his family. Therefore when the coroner asked them for their verdict, they simply recorded that ‘in their opinion death was from excessive drinking of alcohol, aggravated by the use of laudanum.’

One of these navvies was a ganger or foreman called Charles Trimm who employed a gang of labourers working on the railway that was, at that time, being constructed between Laughton and Anston. For a long time the labourers huts had been erected around Crampit Bridge, Anston which caused some problems to the local police force, and the activities of these navvies were a constant source of trouble to them. So when Superintendent McDonald heard about one of the labourers selling alcohol without a licence (known as shebeening) he was forced to take action. The superintendent quickly obtained a warrant, not only for the arrest of Charles Trimm, but also for that of his wife Annie

Consequently in the early hours of the following morning, 2 February 1904 they carried out a raid at the site of the huts. Two police officers, Police Constables Ward and Stennett, were dressed in their ordinary clothes when they went to Trimm’s hut and asked him if he wanted to purchase some rabbits. Trimm told them he would take two of the rabbits which he bought for a shilling each, before he invited the pair inside the hut to take a seat. When he asked the two men if they would like a drink, they agreed. Accordingly, Trimm supplied the two men with a pint of beer each telling them that ‘it is on me. Anytime you come this way, I will always have a couple of rabbits from you.’

The police followed up this initial visit by another one on 14 February, once again in plain clothes and bringing the pair some rabbits. Once again another couple of pints was bought and paid for, this time by supplied by Annie. During the visit, the two plain clothed police officers noted other men in the hut being supplied and paying for both beer and spirits. always supplied by both Charles and Annie Trimm. Needless to say, after this visit the pair were arrested and charged with having sold intoxicating liquors without a licence. On Monday 22 February the couple were brought before the magistrates at the Rotherham West Riding Court.

In total there were three charges of ‘shebeening’ brought again Charles Trimm, but just one charge against his wife and their defence solicitor was Mr Gichard. Superintendent McDonald was the first to give evidence and he described how, after the arrests, his men had seized an eighteen gallon cask containing beer, three gallons of bottled beer, a quart bottle containing whisky and another marked ‘port wine.’ The next witness was Police Constable Ward, who described the raid on the hut. He stated that there had been around twenty men all drinking in the hut at the time of the visit. Then it was time for Mr Gichard to defend his clients.

He immediately expressed his disgust at how the officers had dressed in their ordinary clothes in order to purposely mislead the two Trimms. The solicitor also argued that in neither case was the intoxicating liquor ‘pushed’ onto any of the officers in disguise. Instead he maintained that they had openly asked to be served alcohol. However, after hearing all the evidence, the bench were having none of it. They showed no sympathy for the prisoners who were both fined. Charles Trimm was fined £10 and costs for each of the three charges. Thankfully in this instance Annie Trimm was dealt with more sympathetically, as her offences were simply merged with those of her husband and the case against her was dismissed.

Mr George Ottaway had run a most successful jewellers and pawnbroking business at Rotherham for several years by December of 1892. Most of his business success came from the shops popular situation on Masbrough Bridge, which was just on the outside of the town. People wishing to pawn objects would be less likely to be seen, as those using pawnbrokers in the centre of the town itself. Also the building itself was of such a higgledy-piggledy nature which would seem to attract thieves. On the night of Thursday 2 December, pawnbroker George was away on business in London. He had therefore left the premises in the charge of his son Richard and a shop assistant, Thomas Smithers.

More than likely taking advantage of his fathers absence, Richard and Thomas decided to shut the premises early at 1 pm before going into Rotherham itself. They returned around ten o clock and shortly afterwards went to bed. Around 2 a.m. Richard woke suddenly after hearing the shop dog barking downstairs. He called the assistants attention to the sound, but Thomas commented that the dog barked easily at passers-by, so the pair gave little thought to getting out of bed and investigating. So it was around 8 am the following morning, when the two men were preparing to open the shop, when Thomas approached the front door. To his alarm he found that it had been unlocked from inside the building.

He called Richard’s attention to it and a careful search was made. Only at that point did both men realise that a most serious robbery had taken place. They found that entry into the building had been made through one of the sitting room windows, which was situated above the shop premises. This particular window overlooked an open passage leading to the back door, which was easily reached by a low roof covering a small extension. It was later found that the thieves had opened the window by simply inserting a sharp knife and pushing back the catch which kept the window closed. Inside was a room which was protected by an iron gate, however this was easily removed from the wood frame surrounding it.

Once inside, Richard found that the thieves had opened a large cabinet and taken drawers out from which several, valuable items were missing. These consisted of gold and silver watches, brooches, and gold chains, which had all been carried off. Thankfully the robbers had ignored the windows of the shop which also held expensive items, where nothing looked to have been disturbed. Richard and his assistant made an inventory and found that the thieves had absconded with stolen booty which was to the value of more than £500. This was a massive amount of jewellery to have been stolen.

The following day that Sheffield Daily Telegraph dated Saturday 3 December 1892 noted:

‘One of the most extensive burglaries committed in Rotherham for several years was brought to light yesterday morning. It was impudent in its character, and careful planning to avoid observation, which leads to the conclusion that cracksmen of more than ordinary experience have been at work’.

Sadly that was not the end to Mr George Ottaway’s troubles. On Friday 20 January of the following year a thief called William Thomas Clegg of Westgate, Rotherham was brought before the Rotherham magistrates. He was charged with stealing goods which had been hung on shop doorways and pawning them. In this manner Clegg had stolen a jacket worth 7s 6d from the shop doorway of Mr George Ottaway and pawned it at another shop in the town, claiming it to be his own. Nevertheless the shopman’s suspicions were aroused and Clegg was arrested and sentenced to a months prison. In court, George Ottaway asked for the costs of the jacket to be repaid back to him, but the bench refused.

The magistrates informed him that they considered that the hanging of good for sale on shops doors created a temptation for poor people. Therefore they suggested that all goods should be kept on the inside of the shops. This small theft however must have been the last straw for pawnbroker George Ottaway as by September of the same year his premises were advertised to be let as:

‘A large pawnbrokers sales shop and dwelling house in a good position, late owned by Mr Ottaway.’

Interested parties were advised to contact estate agent Mr W. Taylor, of Bridge Street, Rotherham. However the magistrates words had little effect as local shop keepers continued to hang goods on the outside doors of their shops.

George Parker was a fifty-four year old miner who worked at the Kiveton Park mine in 1902. Living with him was a housekeeper, Louisa Holmes aged thirty-eight and the couple had lived together quite amicably for the past nine years. However around November of 1900 George’s thirty-year old son Walter also came to live with them and that’s when the problems began. They lived in a cottage which was situated in part of the Waleswood parish known as Pigeon Bridge situated on the Rotherham to Mansfield Road. The couple had lived in the cottage for the previous eight or nine years, yet despite the fact that they were both married to other people, to all intents and purposes were generally regarded as husband and wife.

However it could not be said that the couple lived happily together as many quarrels and arguments were heard by neighbours, but these seemed to get much more violent after Walter moved in. At one time it was said that Louisa returned back to her discarded legal husband, claiming that George had ‘thrashed’ her. Nevertheless, prior to that day they were described as being a very hard working couple. George was said to being steady in his habits when sober and Louise was described as being clean and homely. However it appears that after Walter moved in, that jealousy of some imagined relationship between Walter and Louisa had haunted George’s thoughts.

On the last Sunday in June it was the Wales Feast, when George attacked Louisa with a poker and blacked both her eyes. Throughout the attack he was screaming out that he ‘would finish her.’ Finally on 9 July George moved out of the cottage and found lodgings in Worksop, leaving Louisa and Walter alone. However on 15 July he returned and George showed Louisa a pocket knife he had bought for his son. They were all drinking rather heavily, so that night George stayed over at the house, Louisa sleeping downstairs on the sofa and father and son sharing a bed upstairs. Around 4.30 am George left his son in bed saying that he was going to walk back to Worksop.

However another argument quickly developed in the kitchen when George told Louisa that he was going to leave, stating that ‘I suppose that Walter is going to stay with you.’ Louisa told him that ‘so long as he behaved himself, it did not matter to her.’ But when she turned to start to prepare some breakfast, that was when Louisa was attacked by George with the same penknife. He stabbed her four times in her back. Meanwhile upstairs, Walter, who had fallen back to sleep when his father left the bedroom, was awakened sharply by the sound of Louisa screaming. Dashing into the kitchen, he found his father stabbing at her arms and hands as she tried to protect herself.

George then went and picked up an old revolver, as Louisa opened the kitchen and ran outside. It was around 5.30 am when she was heard to be screaming for help at the top of her voice, as she ran down the road outside the cottage. Neighbours who looked out, described Louisa as being covered in blood and almost hysterical, as her cries aroused people from their sleep. Thankfully, several of them dashed outside to see what they could do. One neighbour, a man called William Green quickly took the hysterical woman inside his own cottage and a doctor and the police were called to the house. Police Constable Graham quickly attended and Dr Saunders of Aston was sent for.

Meanwhile George had taken possession of an old pistol and had tried to shoot himself, but the weapon was old and faulty and it simply burst when he pulled the trigger. All he succeeded in doing therefore was to injure the back part of his head. George then tried to cut his own throat with the penknife and was found in that condition by Dr Saunders when he arrived. He ordered the pair to be immediately sent to Sheffield Hospital and the Kiveton Park Colliery ambulance was called. Thankfully both injured parties slowly recovered, although George was unable to appear before the Rotherham magistrates at the West Riding Court until Monday 22 September 1902.

It was noted that he was still in a very weak condition, having just been discharged from the hospital that morning. The case was prosecuted by Mr Aizlewood, who gave details of the attempted murder to the court, where the prisoner was undefended. The first witness was Mr John Broadley of the Sheffield Royal Infirmary and he told the bench that on 16 July, around 10.30 am the prisoner was brought in. At some time between one and two o’clock, Louisa too arrived. He listed that she had ten wounds, four on the back of the left shoulder blade, which were clean cuts and went down to the bone. The rest were on her hands as she had desperately tried to protect herself.

Mr Aizlewood was shown the pocket knife and agreed that it was probably the weapon which inflicted the wounds. He then described George’s wound primarily as a gunshot wound to the head, just above and behind the right ear. The second wound was in his throat, and that was about four inches long. Thankfully it had missed the windpipe and the main artery. Louisa gave evidence about the attack made on her by the prisoner, before Walter was asked if he had anything to say. He confirmed Louisa’s account, before a neighbour, Frank Barker described hearing Louisa scream outside and how he had gone to fetch Constable Graham. He told the magistrates that as he and the constable returned they found George lying on the sofa.

He had a wound in his throat and a bloodstained clasp knife lay on the floor. He also saw a pistol which had burst and there was blood everywhere. PC Graham described arriving at the cottage and how he had taken possession of the blood stained knife and the burst pistol. He told the magistrates that he had charged the prisoner that morning with the attempted murder of Louisa Holmes. George was asked if he had anything to say in his own defence, but he made no reply. He was then committed for trial at the next Leeds Assizes. He was brought before judge, Mr Justice Channell on Friday 5 December 1902. After hearing all the evidence, George Parker was sentenced to ten years imprisonment for the attempted murder of Louisa Holmes.

To emphasise her skills, forty-four year old Mrs Hughes told Elizabeth Ann Wistow that she had been a midwife for the last twenty-three years, so she was very experienced. The pregnant mother, lived with her father Samuel on Coleridge Road, Sheffield, and was overjoyed therefore on 17 January 1896 when she gave birth to a healthy child. However her joy did not last, as just four days later Elizabeth Wistow herself died. An inquest was arranged to be held at the Coach and Horses Hotel in Attercliffe, Sheffield on Wednesday 22 January. Right from the beginning, it was quickly established that enquiries had been made which revealed that the midwife Elizabeth Hughes had ignored some crucial medical advice.

The coroner, Mr D Wightman told the inquest that she had ‘acted contrary to advice given to her by Dr Harvey Littlejohn, the Medical Officer of Health for Sheffield.’ Therefore at that point he had no option but to allow more enquiries to be made, so the inquest was adjourned until Friday 31 January 1896. When it was resumed, a local solicitor, Mr Albert Howe attended the enquiry on behalf of the midwife. Surgeon Mr D Pettigrew gave evidence that he had been called in to see the deceased on the night before her death. Mrs Wistow had a very high temperature and was obviously in a dying condition. After her death he signed the certificate stating that the death was due to puerperal fever.

When Mr Howe asked the surgeon about the state of the house on Coleridge Road, he had to admit that ‘the house was anything but satisfactory’ in his opinion. He agreed with Dr Howe that such conditions might have contributed to the deceased woman’s death. However, when the coroner asked Mr Pettigrew about another death, that of a Mrs Sarah Jane Lunn of Belmore Road, Attercliffe, he had to admit that she too had been attended to by Mrs Hughes. He added that she also died on 13 January. Another surgeon, Mr W Kerr Smith told the inquest that he had made a post mortem examination on Elizabeth Ann Wistow and found she had indeed died from puerperal fever.

He stated that two different women dying of the same thing clearly amounted to gross culpable neglect on the midwife’s behalf. The next witness was Dr Littlejohn and he stated that he had heard about the death of Mrs Lunn on 14 January and had appointed another inspector to investigate the case. He also requested Mrs Hughes to call on him and the midwife did so 15 January. She expressed sorrow on hearing about the death of Mrs Lunn. Dr Littlejohn informed Mrs Hughes that she was to be very careful about her own hygiene and instructed her on disinfecting herself and her clothing before attending to any other expectant mothers. In fact he warned her not to attend any more midwifery cases for the next three weeks, at the same time admitting that he had no power to make her obey his instructions.

Mrs Hughes appeared to accept his advice, but he also said that if any more mothers were to die at her hands, he would be writing to the coroner about the matter. One of the jury asked him if the condition of the house had any effect on the fever, but Dr Littlejohn just shook his head. He replied categorically that in his opinion the midwife appeared to him to have been the most probable person to have carried the puerperal fever to the deceased women. Then it was time for Elizabeth Hughes to speak for herself. She gave the opinion that she felt that Mrs Lunn had died, not from puerperal fever but from inflammation of the lungs.

However she admitted that she had seen the Medical Officer of Health on 15 January, although claiming that she had not heard him instruct her not to attend any more midwifery cases for three weeks. Then it was time for the coroner to sum up the case for the jury. Mr Wightman told them that Mrs Hughes was a very experienced midwife. Therefore she should have known that there was a risk in attending any other pregnant woman after any death from puerperal fever. The coroner stated that whether or not the midwife heard Dr Littlejohn instructing her not to attend any more births or not, should have no impact on the jury’s verdict. As a result they were absent for some time before bringing in a verdict of manslaughter against Elizabeth Hughes.

Immediately, Detective Officer Masterman took the midwife into custody and she was then remanded until the following Monday. Accordingly on Monday 10 February 1896, the midwife was brought before the stipendiary magistrate Mr E Welby at the City Police Court where she pleaded not guilty. However she was simply remanded for a week. The following Monday, the 17 February 1896 she was brought once more before the Sheffield magistrates, once again charged with manslaughter. Mr R Fairburn appeared for the prosecution and he told the court that it was alleged that the prisoner ‘on account of her own negligence, resulted in the contagion of puerperal fever being communicated to the patient who died.’

Mr Fairburn again described the advice given to the prisoner by Dr Littlejohn, which she had obviously ignored. The Medical Officer of Health for Sheffield himself was the next witness and the surgeon repeated his advice to Elizabeth Hughes not to attend any more cases for three weeks. However he told the jury that she attended the next childbirth case in less than a fortnight. The same witnesses gave the same evidence before the midwife was committed to take her trial at the next Assizes. Accordingly Mrs Elizabeth Hughes was brought before judge, Mr Justice Collins at the West Riding Assizes on Monday 16 March 1896.

Charged with manslaughter, she was defended by Mr C Mellor and the prosecution was undertaken by Mr Harold Thomas. He immediately opened the case by stating that in any indictment for manslaughter there needed to be a clear intention of motive. He reminded the court that the accused had been a practising midwife for twenty-three years and would therefore not be ignorant of how to deal with cases of puerperal fever. He said that any person who undertook to cure another, whether a medical practitioner or midwife must have a certain knowledge about diseases and what their effects were. So whether she heard Dr Littlejohn or not, she ought not to have put herself in a position where she might infect another woman.

When it was time for Dr Pettigrew to repeat his advice to the prisoner to wait at least three week, he was questioned by the defence. Mr Mellor asked him what other causes of puerperal fever might cause a woman’s death. The surgeon listed infection, dirt from insanitary condition and sewage gas etc. Dr Harvey Littlejohn was the next witness and he repeated the evidence given previously. He stated that he had fixed the time limit of three weeks, as he was well aware that being a midwife was Mrs Hughes calling. He said that if there had been another case of a mother treated by Mrs Hughes dying from puerperal fever, he would have fixed the time at two months.

However questioned by Mr Mellor, the Medical Officer of Health admitted that he saw no signs of puerperal fever in the post mortem. This was confirmed by another doctor, who had been also present at the post mortem. In the prisoners defence Mr Mellor claimed that the death of Mrs Wistow was due to ‘misadventure, rather then culpable negligence.’ He added that it was state of affairs which nobody regretted more than the accused midwife. He emphasised how she had earned and enjoyed the confidence of all of the women in her care. After her discussion with Dr Littlejohn, she had disinfected herself and her clothes most carefully, yet sadly Mrs Wistow still died.

Mr Mellor agreed that death was due to puerperal fever, but he told the jury that they had two issues to consider. They had to decide firstly whether the prisoner took the infection to the place of birth and secondly whether she took it recklessly and with culpable criminal carelessness. The prisoners defence concluded that ‘if ever there was a case in which a jury should exonerate a woman, this was the case.’ His Lordship in summing up, told the jury that they should be completely satisfied that the prisoner caused the death of Mrs Wistow. Assuming that they were satisfied of that, they must also be satisfied that it was a case of culpable negligence.

Thankfully after her long ordeal, the jury, after only a short consultation between themselves found Elizabeth Hughes not guilty and she was immediately discharged.

On 15 February 1888 a thirty-two year old man called Thomas Bywater found himself to be a pauper inmate at the Rotherham Workhouse. He remained there until Monday 28 February when he took his discharge from that institution and went to Mrs Curtis’s lodging house on Westgate. He could not afford a room, but he asked Mrs Curtis if he could sit by the fire until the following morning when he was going to Hoyland. Mrs Curtis kindly agreed and Bywater settled himself in for the night. The following day however, instead of Hoyland he went to Tinsley. The landlady at the Tinsley Hotel, Mrs Johnson noticed that he arrived around 7.30 am and that he was already drunk.

Despite the early time of day, he and another man were served with four penny glasses of rum and several pints of beer by landlord, Mr Joseph Johnson. He noted that all the money tendered had been in copper coins. In chatting to the landlords daughter, Bywater told her that he had come into some money and he showed her around £6 in gold which he casually pulled out of his trousers pockets. When she made a remark about it being unsafe to be carrying such a large amount, she suggested that her mother, could keep it safe for him. Consequently he handed over £8.1s to Mrs Johnson. After having some refreshment, Bywater then left the Hotel and headed for Carbrook, Sheffield.

However he never reached his destination, because he fell over a wall in his semi-drunken state and sustained a bad injury to his head. Thankfully he was quickly found and transported to the Rotherham Hospital. Whilst he was in bed being treated for his rather serious injury, on 30 February he sent a letter to the landlord at the Tinsley Hotel which read:

‘Mr Johnson,
Having had an accident just after leaving your house on Tuesday, if my memory serves me right, I left a small sum of money with your wife. If you would forward the money here to me at the Rotherham Hospital, you would greatly oblige me.
Yours truly
Thomas Bywater.’

Making enquiries, it did not take long for local police officers to connect the burglary at the workhouse, with a recent inmate who seems to have come into some money. Bywater was brought before the Rotherham magistrates at the Rotherham Police Court on Tuesday 6 March 1888 charged with having burglariously stolen the sum of around £10 from the workhouse masters office. The prosecution was Mr Barrass, who pointed out that the prisoner had been destitute when he entered the workhouse, although by the time he went to Tinsley, he obviously had some money in his possession.

Bywater was remanded until Thursday 8 March 1888 in order for the police to continue with their enquiries. The prisoner was described as having no fixed abode as he was charged with the burglary. When the magistrates reconvened, the master, Mr Walton was the first to give evidence and stated that he was aware that his office window had a faulty catch on it. However he was more sure that his office door had been locked at the time of the break in. The witness also stated that implements for the crime had been left inside. Besides the chisel, there was a poker on the desk and a shovel on the floor. The master then told the court that he had been shown two old boots by the police.

He identified them as those supplied by the workhouse to the prisoner. Mr Walton stated that he had compared one of the boots with some marks found under the office window and they were identical. However Bywater was condemned by the masters own final statement. He told the bench that the prisoner had been paid at the masters office and therefore was quite familiar with where the cash box had been kept. Then it was time for Bywater to defend himself. He said that despite the fact that paupers were regularly searched on arrival at the Rotherham workhouse, many of them managed to secrete money about their persons.

When one of the magistrates pooh poohed this statement, Bywater said that it was common practice at the time. He bragged that he had managed to secrete nine pounds in his belongings and knew of one inmate who had secreted twenty pounds upon entry. Barmaid Miss Johnson gave evidence that when the prisoner was in the tap room of the Tinsley Hotel, he kept pulling cash from his pockets and showing it to the men gathered around him. She told how, when a glass got broken in the room, the prisoner admitted that he had broken it, and again pulled out money to pay for it. Miss Johnson said that before he left he gave her mother the £8.1s.10d to keep for him.

Police Inspector Barham was the next to give evidence and he stated that he had been called to the workhouse after the robbery and found marks on the brickwork as if the thief had climbed up the wall. He had compared these with the prisoners boots and found that they matched. The Inspector stated that on the 9 March he had gone to the Rotherham Hospital and found the prisoner in bed. When he charged him, Bywater simply asked ‘what me!’ However staff reported that the patient had suffered a serious head injury and was too ill to be arrested. Accordingly, it was not until Monday 15 March before he was well enough to be taken into custody.

Needless to say that when Thomas Bywater finally made it to court, he was found guilty and sent to take his trial at the Quarter Sessions at Wakefield. However, his luck still held as before he could appear at the Sessions he was found to be suffering from small-pox. Thankfully he soon recovered and finally appeared at the West Riding Sessions held at Wakefield on Tuesday 3 April 1888 charged with the burglary at Rotherham Workhouse. After hearing all the evidence, the prisoner was quickly found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment for six months at the Wakefield House of Correction.

In December of 1855 a thirty-five year old man called Charles Sjoguist had a little upstairs workshop attached to the house and shop belonging to local jeweller and watchmaker, Isaac Guttman. These premises were situated on the High Street, Sheffield. However the ‘shop’ consisted of just one workroom in which Charles would clean and repair watches for his landlord and other customers. In order to save money, Mr Guttmann also allowed his assistant called Tudor Redlich to sleep in the same workshop during the night. It was most convenient for Charles who would lock up the workshop at night and leave the key downstairs with his landlord.

Every night Charles would lock all the clocks and watches he was working on in a cupboard in the workshop, an arrangement which suited all concerned. Nevertheless, on the morning of Thursday 28 December everything changed. As usual, Charles collected his keys before going upstairs to his workshop, but within seconds he returned downstairs breathing heavily. He told Mr Guttmann that during the night, the cupboard in his workshop had been broken into and that between thirty to forty watches amounting to around £200 had been stolen. Mr Guttmann advised him to call in the police and Charles ran all the way to the Town Hall in order to report the robbery.

He told one of the officers that there had been around twenty watches left in the cupboard overnight. A police officer went to his workshop, but it was not long before suspicion was raised that the jeweller had robbed himself of the watches entrusted to him for repair. This suspicions was mainly due to the fact that the cupboard was still locked, nor were there any signs that the lock had been forced open. The local police obviously jumped to the conclusion that the jeweller had indeed robbed himself and was charged and brought into custody.

Consequently on Friday 29 December Charles Sjoguist was brought before the Sheffield Magistrates Court charged with robbing his own place of business. However the prisoner was remanded to the following Thursday in order for the police to continue their investigations. Thankfully, by that time the watchmaker had acquired a defence solicitor, Mr Turner. Mr Broadbent prosecuted the case and told the court that police enquiries had clearly established the prisoners guilt. He stated that the Superintendent of police, Mr Raynor had found several local pawnbrokers, where seven or eight of the stolen watches had been pledged by the prisoner himself.

One gold watch was produced in the courtroom which had been identified by its original owner, a Mr Jacobs of Fargate, Sheffield. He stated that he had taken the watch to the workshop for repair around three months previously. However when shown the watch he stated that a gold chain with three gold seals had been attached when he left the watch for repair. These were now missing. But this is where it got tricky. Mr Broadbent stated triumphantly that the prisoner, by removing the chain from the watch itself, had now compounded his own theft. By doing so it had rendered the case to be one of larceny rather than illegal pawning.

The only prosecution witness was a young man called Jacob Jacobs, whose sister was the owner of the watch. He told the court that he assisted his father in his own jeweller’s shop in Fargate. He said that Charles Sjoguist had cleaned and mended watches for them for many years for their business. Jacobs said that on Thursday morning 28 December, he heard that the shop on the High Street had been robbed and he went to enquire about his sisters watch. The prisoner admitted that he had been robbed and that her watch had been taken with all the rest. When it was time for the defence, Mr Turner to make out his clients case, he pointed out that his workshop premises were in a very unique position.

They were situated above the shop of jeweller, Mr Guttmann. Mr Turner stated that consequently anyone entering the building would have access to the jewellers workshop simply by walking up the stairs. The next witness was a man called Henry Chapman whose evidence damned the prisoner’s fate. He told the bench that his father had a pawnbrokers business in Sheffield. Crucially, he identified the same watch as one which the prisoner himself had pledged on 3 November 1855, using the name of Anderson. The pawnbrokers assistant declared that he had given him £2 for the watch even though there were no chain or seals attached to it.

At that point, some legal discussions took place between the bench, the defence and the prosecution. Mr Broadbent admitted that there was a slight technical legal hitch to the proceedings against the prisoner for felony as regards many of the watches. He said that the statute books stated that when goods of any description were entrusted to an outworker, and he sold or disposed of them, he could not be charged with larceny, only be sued for damages for breach of trust. Therefore the watches, being voluntarily entrusted to him to repair, came within this category. However the only exception to this rule was the gold watch which had been produced at the first court appearance belonging to Mr Jacobs.

In that case, Mr Broadbent said that the law states that when a person sold part of the property entrusted to him to repair, that constituted a felony. The prosecution, Mr Broadbent told the court that he needed to take legal advice on this matter, so it was agreed that the prisoner would be remanded until the following Wednesday in order to clarify this legal conundrum. Accordingly on Wednesday 2 January the case was resumed. During that time period police officers had been busy visiting various pawn shops in Sheffield. They were accompanied by Jacob Jacobs who admitted that at the time of the so-called robbery, the prisoner was in possession of three gold watches and a silver one from his father to repair.

Jacobs said that his sister’s name had been engraved on the watch and identified the watch produced in court. He said that it had been on the Saturday night, the day after the prisoner’s first appearance in court that he found and identified the missing watch at the pawnshop belonging to Mr Chapman on Westbar. He indicated his sister’s name which had been engraved inside. However, more legal arguments took place before the magistrates clerk advised Mr Phillips the magistrate that a sufficient case had been made out to send the prisoner for trial. After further discussion the watchmaker was simply remanded again until the following day’

Even then however, the case was not clarified and following yet more legal arguments, it was finally decided to proceed with the charge of illegally pawning a watch. At the end of a very difficult and challenging investigation Charles Sjoguist was found guilty. He was therefore ordered to pay the cost of the watch (£3) and a fine of £8 or to go to prison for three months, which was accordingly paid. I often wonder what happened to the prisoner after the case had ended and he’s paid the fine. Incidents like this would have ruined the watchmakers career and his reputation in the town. Did he leave and go elsewhere? I would love to know!

We tend to think nowadays that drinking and driving is a modern phenomena, but in actuality it has been around for centuries. One of the most amusing cases I found, actually took place at Anston in 1877 when two eminent and most respectable of men were found in a drunken heap on the road on Tuesday 21 August. The curate of Anston, the Rev. Armand de Bordieux and a medical officer of the Rotherham Workhouse, Dr Charles Gowan were brought before the Rotherham Police Court the following day charged with being drunk. The magistrates decided to enquire into the cases of the two men as separate individuals and the first case was that of the surgeon, Dr Charles Gowan.

Police Constable Finlayson stated that he had received some information that two men had been seen lying in the road, having been thrown out of their trap. The incident had happened on the road between Wickersley and Morthern Lodge. He went immediately to the area and found the two men still lying on the ground and the trap on its side next to them. PC Finlayson asked Dr Gowan, who was bleeding from the head, if he was much hurt, but he told him that he wasn’t. He asked the same question to Rev. de Bordieux, who didn’t answer, but instead began a drunken sermon to the surrounding crowd. PC Finlayson said that eventually he put both men into his own trap and took them to Dr Gowan’s house and surgery at Anston.

Another witness was a stone mason called George Taylor who stated that the pony and trap had passed him a few minutes before the accident and the doctor had been driving. He estimated it to have been going at a speed of around fifteen minutes an hour. when suddenly the trap went over onto its side. The witness described them both as ‘both rolling around in the trap’ and obviously very drunk. Toll house keeper Mr George Beaumont also saw the two gentlemen pass the bar at Wickersley at ‘a furious rate. He said they did not stop as they should have done to pay the toll, but drove straight through. He got into his own trap to follow the speeding cart and that’s when he saw it overturn just ahead of him.

However the first witness for the defence was Mr Garrard a surgeon of Rotherham put forward a different alternative. He had attended Mr Gowan after the accident and said that previously the man had consulted him about his headaches. After the accident, he found that Mr Gowan was suffering from concussion of the brain. Mr Garrard told the court that the symptoms were very similar to inebriation and were often mistaken for that condition, as the main symptoms were slurring of the speech and vomiting. Another witness was a man called Joseph Birley said that instead of driving along the road, the trap had kept swaying from side to side, throwing up stones and gravel.

Another workhouse medical officer, Dr Hardwicke stated that the two men had been with him at his house for some hours before the accident. They had left around 2.15 pm when he swore that they were both ‘steady’ in their demeanour. Another witness to their sobriety was another Rotherham surgeon, Mr Pearce. He stated that the two gentlemen had called on him around three o’clock and had remained with him for an hour. He too stated that both men had been perfectly sober when they got into the trap to leave. The case of the curate of Anston Mr Armand de Bordieux was then looked into. He was also charged with being drunk at the same time and place.

PC Finlayson stated that when called to the scene he found the Reverend gentleman on his knees and about 50 or 60 people gathered around hooting at the pair. However the curate took no notice and continued with his sermon. When PC Finlayson finally put both men into his own trap to remove them from the scene, Rev. de Bordieux tried to jump out of the moving vehicle. Thankfully the constable managed to restrain him and ended up tying his hand to some metalwork at the back of the trap. Thankfully he then dropped both men off at Dr Gowan’s house. At this point a magistrate asked both men if they had anything to say in their defence and Dr Gowan stood up.

He told told the court that on the morning in question around 11 am he left South Anston. As previously arranged he collected Rev de Bordieux at his lodgings at North Anston and they went for a drive together. They headed towards Rotherham and after visiting some patients they arrived at the town around 11.30 am. They had a glass of brandy at the Crown Inn before going to Dr Hardwicke’s for lunch. He said that whilst there Rev. de Bordieux had two glasses of ale and one glass of wine. He claimed that he had only one glass of wine during lunch, before getting back into the trap and driving back towards South Anston. He blamed the accident on the horse that he was driving, saying that it was a vicious one which shied at the slightest thing.

An unnamed ostler employed at the Crown Hotel confirmed that the horse they had been driving was indeed a vicious one. The stableman said he had taken the trap outside so that both gentlemen could drive to Dr Hardwicke’s house and he too noted that both men were sober as Dr Gowan settled up his bill with him. Postman, Edward Pawson said that when he came up to the trap after the accident that Dr Gowan appeared to be insensible and his head was bleeding. The witness claimed that Rev. de Bordieux seemed to be ‘quite overcome’ at his friends condition, but he did not seem to be drunk. He also confirmed that Dr Gowan’s horse was an unruly one and that after the accident that he had ridden it that morning.

He stated that it would take a sober man to be able to control the beast at all. Cross examined by Mr Badger however, he would not confirm that Rev de Bordeaux was completely sober when he first saw him. The surgeon who had treated Dr Gowan said that he told the police officer at the scene that the reverend gentleman appeared to be slightly drunk. After hearing all the evidence the Rotherham magistrates discussed the matter between themselves. After some time they announced that ‘given the conflicting evidence placed before them that morning, that both charges would be dismissed.’ It would be interesting to compare this case with others of a similar nature. I would suggest that the two men were let off so lightly due simply to their status in the town.