Thirty-five year old Henry Seyman, a pen and pocket blade grinder lived with his wife and five children in Lansdowne Road, Sheffield in March of 1869. It was said that a short while previously a doctor, who had been treating him for an infection of the chest had warned Henry that ‘he would not be long lived.’ This combined with the fact that earlier that year his mother had died seemed to depress him terribly, so he took solace in drink. It was said that Henry was a pretty sensible man unless he had been drinking, when his temper took control of him and he acted like a madman. However, what could not be disputed, was the fact that he was particularly fond of his four-year old youngest son, little Harry.

On the morning of Friday 19 March, his wife Mary got up to attend to the family, leaving her husband in bed sleeping off the previous nights alcohol. It seems that Henry had been drinking all day on the Thursday and had only returned home around 3.30 am that morning. It was therefore around noon when she asked her daughter to take her father a cup of tea upstairs. The girl complained ‘let Harry take it.’ Her young brother also objected, being in the middle of a game, but finally agreed and took the cup of tea upstairs. When he didn’t return immediately, Mary was not particularly disturbed, but just assumed that Henry had taken the little boy into bed with him, and they had both gone to sleep.

A while afterwards, Henry came downstairs and went to put on his boots. As he struggled to tie up the laces, he told his wife ‘go upstairs and look at Harry, he is dead.’ She immediately ran upstairs to the bedroom she shared with her husband and found the body of her son. Little Harry was lying in the middle of the double bed, fully dressed apart from his shoes. Most frightening of all was that all the bedding around him was covered in blood. Going closer she could see that his throat had been dreadfully sliced open. Mary screamed before running downstairs and following Henry as he fled out of the door and into the street.

She found herself clinging onto his arm, but he just shook her off, looking about him in a wild and excited manner, before running away down Lansdowne Road. A neighbour to the family, a woman called Harriet Griffin saw what was happening and went to ask her neighbour what the matter was? By this time Mary was almost incoherent as she pointed upstairs and told Harriet that ‘he is dead, little Harry is dead.’ Mary Seyman sank down into a kitchen chair as she told her neighbour ‘he has murdered my child!’ After hearing this, Harriet went upstairs to see the little boy for herself. When she came back downstairs she found Mary lying insensible on the sofa.

Needless to say the police were called and, accompanied by a witness who knew him, a search was made for Henry Seyman around the streets of Sheffield. However no sign could be found of him and the search was finally called off. Some hours later, a man called in at the police station in Water Lane, Sheffield and asked to speak to the Chief Constable, Mr Jackson. On being told that Mr Jackson was not available, the man, whose clothes were soaked, walked back out. It was in fact Henry Seyman, but no one had recognised him. However, around 7.50 pm the man suddenly returned and gave himself up.

Henry’s clothes were still soaking wet and he was trembling from the effects of walking around in the pouring rain. He told the duty officer, Inspector Cook ‘I am very cold, will you let me sit before the fire? He was searched before he pulled out a bloodstained razor from his pocket. Only then was he allowed to sit by the fire. Henry Seyman was brought before the magistrates the next day before being remanded in custody until after the inquest on the body of little Harry Seyman had been heard. The Coroner, Mr John Webster Esq., had arranged this on Monday 22 March 1869 to be held at the Town Hall, Sheffield.

During the hearing of the evidence, it was noted that the prisoner was very disturbed at what he was hearing. He sobbed throughout, holding his handkerchief over his face whilst the witnesses made their statements. At the inquest Mary and the neighbours gave their evidence of finding the body of the murdered child. Then it was the turn of surgeon Dr Kemp, who described the wound in the boys neck as being very deep and very long. He said that one of them had severed the trachea (windpipe) the left jugular vein and the carotid artery. Thankfully, the surgeon had deduced that death would have been instantaneous.

Inspector Cook described the prisoner giving himself up at the police station and stated that he appeared to have been drinking, and was suffering from delirium tremens although his speech had seemed quite rational. Another officer, Detective Officer Winn gave evidence that Seyman had admitted to killing his son before being locked in a cell. That officer claimed that throughout the night, the prisoner seemed to constantly fret for what he had done. Mr Webster at this point, summed up for the jury and told them that the evidence they had heard was sufficient to commit Henry Seyman for trial at the present assizes, which were due to start the following week.

Accordingly on Wednesday 31 March 1869, Henry Seyman was brought before judge Mr Baron Cleasby at the Leeds assizes charged with the wilful murder of his four year old son, Harry. Curiously, a police surgeon of Leeds called William Nicholson Price gave contrary evidence as to the state of the prisoner. He told the jury that he attended Henry Seyman since his confinement in Armley Gaol to await his trial. Mr Price said that he had seen the prisoner repeatedly and therefore had time to assess his state of mind. Against all the evidence to the contrary, the surgeon stated that in his opinion the prisoner ‘was a man of sound mind.’

Mr Price emphasised that Henry had ‘no trace of any disease of the mind, nor could he trace any remains of it.’ In his summing up, the prisoners defence counsel Mr Blackburn clarified for the jury. He told them that there had only been a suspicion that the prisoner had been drinking before he committed this awful act. However there had been no actual evidence from any witnesses that this was so. Mr Blackburn said that the prisoners violent trembling at the time were due, not to the effects of delirium tremens, but the fact that he had been walking around Sheffield on such a cold and rainy night. He pointed out that indeed the first thing he asked for was to warm himself in front of the fire.

He concluded that even the prosecution had spoken of the open affection between the prisoner and the child. Therefore, Mr Blackburn suggested that the prisoner had been clearly insane and did not know what he was doing at the time he committed the act. Mr Baron Cleasby agreed that the evidence seemed to show that the prisoner was probably not responsible for his actions at the time. Accordingly the jury brought in a verdict of ‘not guilty on the grounds of temporary insanity.’ Henry Seyman was removed, still sobbing, from the court.

In spite of clear evidence to the contrary, nevertheless the attitude of most people was to blame alcohol on persons committed of such crimes. The local newspaper, the Sheffield Independent dated Saturday 20 March 1869 had previously emphasised this belief. The report states ‘this deed adds another to the dark catalogue of crimes to be laid at the door of strong drink. The unhappy man who has murdered the child of whom he was most fond, is a confirmed drunkard now working his hardest to earn money, before spending the money, so hard earned in a debauch protracted, until want again urges him to exertion.’

Despite the fact that there was no evidence of this, it had become accepted belief. It is something that only Henry Seyman could explain, and he took this explanation with him to the grave!

On Friday 26 September 1894 a twelve year old girl called Maria Hepplestone was playing outside the house where she lived with her mother and her stepfather on School Lane, Park, Sheffield. Maria’s relations with her mother, forty-year old Mary were very difficult, as she was often drunk and abusive. On top of that she had also been accused of keeping her daughter starved of sufficient food and drink. Consequently, Maria kept out of her mothers way as much as she could. On the day in question, it was about 2.40 pm when she was playing with another girl, a school friend called Rhoda Hallam. Suddenly Mary came to the door and called out to her daughter to come inside, but Maria ignored her and ran down the entry as if to escape.

Suddenly Rhoda saw Mary throw something at her daughter, before her friend dropped to the ground. That was when Rhoda saw to her horror that the girl had a small, light poker sticking out of her neck, just below the ear. Mary too saw the poker and roughly pulled it out of her daughters neck before ordering her back inside the house. Maria, clutching at her neck now had no option but to follow her mother back inside. The next day Maria was not to be seen and in fact Rhoda never saw her friend again. Meanwhile Maria’s father Charles returned home and his wife told that his daughter was suffering from a ‘stiff neck.’ He was not told the real reason for his daughters wounds.

Obviously, he had noticed that Maria had a scar on her neck, but readily accepted what Mary told him. In fact he suggested that she put a poultice on it, but the wound didn’t seem to improve, instead it grew worse. Nevertheless it was still a week later when finally a surgeon was called to attend to the young girl. Mr Smith was an assistant to surgeon Dr Byrne and he went to the house and examined Maria only to find that he was doubly shocked. Firstly to see the deterioration of the wound and secondly to see how emaciated the young girl was. Her mother stated that the girl had always been picky about her food and rarely ate much, even though she had done her best for her child.

Needless to say the story of how Maria had really been injured was the talk of the neighbourhood. Charles Hepplestone was therefore shocked to hear from his sister what had really happened. Although he was aware that his wife was in the habit of drinking regularly, he had no idea that she kept Maria short of food. He was therefore very shocked when his daughter died of her injuries on Wednesday 7 November 1894. An inquest was held into the death by Coroner Mr D Wightman on the body of the girl on Saturday 10 November at the Mortuary on Plum Lane, Sheffield. However the enquiry was very short, as Mr Wightman simply told the jury that the police were still making further enquiries into the case and therefore it would have to be adjourned.

Evidence of identification was given by Charles Hepplestone, before the enquiry was adjourned until the afternoon of Wednesday 14 November. Once the inquest was reconvened, the first witness was surgeon Mr Arthur Hallam who had, in the meantime undertaken a post mortem on Maria. He described how he had been shocked at the emaciated appearance of the body. He had examined the puncture wound on the right side of the girls neck, which he said was about two and a half inches below her ear. He stated that he had found extensive inflammation of the tissues beneath the skin resulting in the amount of pus which had gathered. Unable to escape, the pus had burrowed under the base of the girl’s skull.

Mr Hallam therefore concluded that the cause of death had been blood poisoning. Mr Wightman asked him if he could give any other explanation as to how the injury could have been caused, and suggested that the deceased girl might have fallen in the street, but the surgeon shook his head at this suggestion. Neither could he estimate how many days before her death had the wound been inflicted or how the girl had come to be so emaciated. However he suggested that the latter might have arisen from the rapid fever which the girl had obviously suffered from. Charles Hepplestone was the next witness, but he could add nothing to the surgeons evidence and claimed he knew nothing about how emaciated his daughter had been.

He protested that he always gave her mother sufficient money to buy food, at the same time admitting that she may have spent some of it on alcohol instead. He said that when he asked his daughter why she had not told him that her mother had thrown a poker at her, the girl had made no reply. A neighbour called Sarah McQueeny told the jury that she lived opposite to the Heppelstones and described Mary as ‘not a steady woman, although her husband had been fairly steady.’ She said that on Friday 26 October she had been undertaking some housework when she heard Mary call her daughter to come in.

The witness suggested that perhaps her daughter hadn’t heard her mother, as she continued playing with her friend. Then she described seeing Mary come to the door and lift up her arm just before little Maria screamed, however the witness could not say whether or not Mary had anything in her hand at the time. Rhoda Hallam gave her evidence and the young girl was very clear about what had happened. She stated categorically that Mrs Hepplestone had the poker in her hand which she had thrown at her daughter. After hearing this statement, the coroner asked Maria if she wanted to add anything to her statement, although he assured her that she did not need to if she didn’t want to.

Maria agreed and openly admitted to throwing the poker at the girl, although she stated that she did not intend to hit her on the neck. The jury consulted without leaving the inquest room before bringing in a verdict of manslaughter against Mary Hepplestone. Mr Wightman therefore issued a warrant that the prisoner take her trial at the next Leeds assizes.

The case was brought before the Assizes on Thursday 6 December Mary appeared before the judge, Mr Justice Collins who stated that she was guilty of ‘a rash and cruel act.’ He continued that ‘he had not the smallest doubt that when she threw the poker at the child it was an act of cruel negligence. Mr Justice Collins said that he had carefully considered her case to see whether he could justify giving her a lighter sentence, but looking into all the circumstances of the case, he could not give her less than twelve months imprisonment with hard labour.

On Saturday 6 March 1875 it was reported that a forty-five year old miner had died a horrible death when several trucks had passed over his body, cutting him to pieces. His name was Joseph Diggins and he lived in Lyme Street, (off Masborough Street) Rotherham. Around 2 pm he had been underground at the Holmes Colliery employed with filling up four trucks with coal slack. He was removing some sprags from first one of these trucks when he was knocked over. (Sprags are a short, stout wooden or steel bars used as a rudimentary brake) At that point he was not seriously injured, but he left that position and was working elsewhere, when the filled trucks behind him began to move.

Diggins looked up to see the trucks moving towards him, but before he could jump out of the way they knocked him to the ground before all four passed over his body. He was pulled out alive, but only lived for about ten minutes afterwards. Consequently his body was brought to the surface before being removed to the Queens Hotel at the Holmes to await a coroners enquiry. Sadly it was reported that he left a wife and five children. Incredibly before this inquest could even be held, yet another mining accident took place in the same colliery just five days later. On Thursday 11 March 1875 another collier, nineteen year old Oliver Garner was also killed.

He had been accompanying some rails placed on an underground train, but instead of walking alongside, as he should have done, he sat astride the rails on the train itself. Despite being warned not to do so, a fall of earth took place and Garner was so deeply buried that it took nearly two hours before his dead body could be recovered. The Coroner, Mr D Wightman was again informed, so he arranged to hold a joint inquest on the two bodies at the Rotherham Town Hall on Monday 15 March. Also in attendance at the enquiry was Mr Wardell the Government Inspector of Mines. The first part of the inquest looked into the death of Joseph Diggins.

His wife Sarah was the first witness, and she told the jury that her husband had only worked at the colliery for the past two years, adding that he had been very deaf. Another miner, a man called Edward Kelly, said that he was a pony driver employed at the Holmes and had seen the deceased filling up the trucks. He described how Diggins had been later occupied further down the track, when the trucks he had filled started to move. The pony driver immediately realised that there had been no brakes (sprags) put on to stop them. He said that he shouted a warning to Diggins but it was all to no avail. The witness said that the moving trucks hit the immobile truck on which Diggins was working before they went over his body.

Kelly told Mr Wardell, the Government Inspector that he had shouted to the deceased but, of course being deaf, he hadn’t heard him. The pony driver explained that one sprag would have been enough to have held all four wagons in position. The manager of the pit was the next to give evidence and introduced himself as Mr Stubbs. He was asked if he knew that Diggins had been deaf when he employed him and the manager stated that he had. However he explained the job was not a dangerous one and emphasised that Diggins had previously been instructed to ensure that he would sprag the wagons. The coroner, Mr Wightman was having none of it.

He stated that in such cases as this one, employers should exercise great caution. He said that whilst he did not wish to prevent any man from earning a living because of his deafness, in such situations, caution should nevertheless be exercised. The coroner said that he did not wish to blame Mr Stubbs or anyone else in this matter. The manager countered that the deceased had been employed for two years and during that time he had thoroughly understood the needs of the job. He concluded that at the end of the day it was Diggins own fault that the wagons were left without a brake on them.

The mine inspector Mr Wardell said that he agreed with Mr Wightman’s comments and after just a few moments deliberations the jury returned a verdict. They said that in the case of Joseph Diggins no one was to blame apart from the deceased himself and therefore the verdict was one of ‘accidentally killed.’ Then it was time to hear the second case, that of Oliver Garner. The deceased man’s brother Silas was the first witness, and confirmed that he had identified his brothers body. Another witness, Vincent Rhodes stated that he had charge of the ropes and chains at the Holmes Colliery and had seen Garner riding on one of the sets. (A group of filled transport tubs).

He had told Rhodes not to ride on the sets and that he should walk alongside. However the collier took no notice. Then he described the collision and how the dead man had been found buried under all the earth that had fallen on top of him. The witness was forced to admit under questioning from Mr Wardell, that he had not reported the fact that the deceased man had been riding on the sets at the time. Thomas Hartley said that he was a signalman at the pit and he too had told Garner to get off the sets and walk. He admitted to his having seen him ride in such a manner before but had been afraid to report him, as the man had only been employed at the pit for two months.

The mines inspector asked him if there was any warning boards around, instructing the men on safe practise in the pit, but the witness shook his head. He said however such a thing would be useless before admitting that like many of the miners, he could only read a little bit but not very well. Mr Wightman stated that both himself and the mines inspector thought that the man’s death had been an accident, but he criticised the pit manager Mr Stubbs. His was a post in which a lot of responsibility rested, and therefore he should see that the men were properly instructed in safe working practise.

Mr Wightman summed up for the jury and stated that such little derelictions of duty, sometimes immaterial in themselves, often led to more serious results. He added that in his own experience as a coroner, he had found that half the accidents in the collieries arose from the lack of understanding of safety in the mines. The other half arose from the careless practise of the colliers themselves. The jury were absent for just fifteen minutes before returning back into the inquest room. There, once again in the case of Oliver Garner, they gave a second verdict of accidental death.

One man in particular was becoming a real nuisance, he was a mason’s labourer called Francis Laverty who lived on Ecclesfield Common. He appeared once again on the night of Saturday 28 September, having already become quite abusive. He demanded some more ale, but John refused to serve him, saying he had already had enough and asked him to leave. Instead, knowing that the landlord would not refuse if someone else bought him a drink, Francis sat down next to a friend called Charles Moxon. He asked Moxon to buy him a drink and his friend obliged. John had no option but to serve Moxon with four pints shared between the two men.

Nevertheless he watched Francis Laverty carefully in case he started to make any trouble. Around 8 pm Francis was told that his employer, Mr Dowson was holding a supper party in another upstairs room in the Inn. Insisting that his master would buy him some more beer, Francis tried to get inside the upstairs room, but John refused to allow him. Francis insisted and opening the door of the supper room, he shouted to Mr Dowson to invite him inside. Instead, seeing the state of his employee, Dowson took him by the shoulders and pushed him out of the room. Once out the door, he spent little time in telling Francis to go home and that he would deal with him on Monday.

Landlord John grabbed Francis Laverty roughly and tried to eject him out of the Golden Ball all together. But the drunken man just would not listen and instead kicked the landlord hard on his shins. At this point John Hawksworth had enough and taking the drunken man by the collar, he shook him roughly and literally pushed him out of the public house. Nevertheless he was alarmed to see Laverty fall flat on his face. In temper John also kicked him in the side, and threatened what he would do to him if he tried to return. Thirty minutes later, a man came in the Golden Ball and reported that there was a dead man outside lying on the pavement.

John and several of his customers rushed outside, to find Francis Laverty still lying face down on the floor. A doctor was summoned, but there was little he could do, as the man was clearly already dead. The police were called to the scene and John Hawksworth was taken into custody charged with causing the death of Francis Laverty. Accordingly, he was brought before the magistrates at the West Riding Court in Sheffield on Monday 30 September 1878. The Superintendent of Sheffield Police, Mr Gill gave an outline of the case for the bench, before the landlord was asked if he had used much violence in ejecting the man from his house the night before. John insisted that he had not used any excessive force.

Superintendent Gill informed the court that an inquest was due to be held on Tuesday 1 October, so he asked that the prisoner to be remanded and allowed bail, which was granted. At the inquest, surgeon Dr Spowart told the coroner that he had completed the post mortem on Francis Laverty’s body. He stated that although it was obvious that the man had some violence inflicted on him, his death was the result of internal injuries. He found that Francis Laverty had died from suffocation, which had been caused when his lungs had filled with blood. Accordingly, the coroner summed up for the jury who returned an open verdict.

However if John Hawksworth thought for a moment that he had managed to get away with the death of Francis Laverty, he was sadly mistaken. When he was brought back into court on the following Tuesday, he found that the magistrates were taking a much more serious attitude towards the death at the Golden Ball. He read out the prisoners statement when he was arrested by the police officer. In his statement the landlord John Hawksworth said:

‘This a very sad affair and it is a bad job. The man came into my house about seven o’clock last night very drunk. We had a supper party in one of the rooms, and he wanted to force himself amongst the company, and he kicked up a regular bother. His master tried to turn him out of the room upstairs, so then I tackled him. He then kicked me very badly on the legs, and kicked a piece of skin off. So when he kicked me, I kicked him back. I then forced him to the door and I must say I gave him a pretty stiff kick in the back, as I flung him out of the door. I then shut the door to keep him from coming back. I am very sorry it happened, but I did it all in self defence.’

After hearing all the evidence the magistrates committed John Hawksworth for trial at the next assizes charged with manslaughter. It would seem that John Hawksworth was considered to be a respectable man in the area and he was well liked by those who knew him. So much so that a public meeting was held at the Workman’s Hall at Thorncliffe to consider the possibility of forming a fund to help out with the landlords legal expenses in defending himself. There was a very large attendance and a resolution was passed that a committee be formed to organise a fund.

At the Assizes on Friday 7 February 1879, John Hawksworth was brought before Mr Justice Lopes and the prosecution, Mr Clegg opened the case. He stated from the start that he did not think that the facts of the case were very much in dispute. He described the disturbance as the deceased man tried repeatedly to get someone to buy him a drink and how Hawksworth had finally ejected him. He read out the prisoners statement and told the bench the results of the post mortem. He said that the medical evidence had shown that there had been some pressure on the deceased man’s windpipe.

Therefore it was evident that in the struggle, Hawksworth must have at some point, seized the deceased man around the throat. He claimed that he had been irate and violent subsequently as he tried to free himself the prisoner, would have inevitably have tightened his grasp. Evidence from the witnesses were heard and the doctor gave some vital evidence. He said that if a man was drunk and fell heavily on his face, he would not be surprised to find that death resulted from suffocation. The jury debated for a few minutes before giving a verdict that they found the prisoner guilty but they also thought that undue violence had been used.

The judge to clarify matter said that the question they had to answer was did they think that the prisoner was guilty of manslaughter. There then followed a short conversation between the foreman of the jury and his Lordship before they answered that they thought he was ‘not guilty.’ After some further discussion the judge agreed that was enough to show that the prisoner had not caused the death of the deceased. Accordingly John Hawksworth was told that he was discharged.

But if the prisoner was found not guilty of the death of Frances Laverty, it did him no good at all. The death preyed on his mind to such an extent that a year later, aged just 55 he died on Tuesday 23 September 1879. Afterwards it seems that the former landlord had been such a popular fellow that he was carried to his grave by a number of his personal friends and workmen. Most of them had known him from when he had worked at Thorncliffe. John Hawksworth had also been a member of the West Yorkshire Artillery Volunteers, and a detachment from the battery followed him to his grave side.

Like many households in Sheffield during the nineteenth century, Samuel Foster and his wife had a lodger in order to aid the families finances. His name was John Newton and on that Saturday night an argument broke out about a dog after the two men had been drinking. A decision was made to fight it out and going outside into New Street, Park the two men started to exchange blows. Foster was wielding a large, heavy metal frying pan, whereas Newton had grabbed a heavy poker to use as a weapon. Needless to say the argument soon attracted neighbours, including Foster’s sister-in-law, a woman called Emma Simmonite who lived nearby.

In the crowd also was a twenty year old woman called Eliza Ann Oates, who was shocked at the ferocity of blows that the two men were exchanging. Others neighbours also tried to intervene, shocked at the violence that was being inflicted. Some tried to push Foster back into the house, but it was all to no avail. Emma Simmonite had been hurling abuse at the two men, when suddenly Foster lashed out at her with this formidable weapon. To his horror, she ducked and he found he had hit Eliza Oates instead. She had been standing near to Emma Simmonite and by the time anyone reached Eliza, her face was covered in blood.

To make things worse, portions of her brain could be seen protruding from the wound. The poor woman was laid out on a stretcher, and was taken first to a druggist shop and from thence to the Sheffield Dispensary where it was found that she had sustained a fractured skull. Two dispensary surgeons Mr G Thorpe and Mr H Shera immediately operated on the woman, who was, by now thought to be in a dying condition. Meanwhile Sergeant Clarke and Police Constable Palmer went and arrested Samuel Foster, who in response told him that he had never had so much as an angry word with Eliza Oates.

On the contrary, he said that she had always been extremely kind to him and his wife. The next day Eliza’s condition had not changed, so the Chief Constable of Sheffield, Mr Jackson felt it necessary to take her dying disposition. Accordingly, a Justice of the Peace Mr W Pearce and a clerk was dispatched immediately to the woman’s bedside. Detective Carswell was also in attendance at the dispensary with Foster in custody. The statement she made read:

‘My name is Eliza Ann Oates, wife of Allen Oates a carter living at New Street, Park, Sheffield. I know Samuel Foster, he is a neighbour. At a quarter past eleven last night I heard a row and went to see what was the matter. I found it was the prisoner quarrelling with his lodger and I was among the on-lookers. He was attempting to strike at the lodger with a frying pan, but instead, he caught me on the forehead, a blow which knocked me down although I was not insensible.’

She told Mr Pearce that she had never quarrelled with the prisoner before and confirmed once more that he had been in the attempt of striking at his lodger when he hit her instead. When Samuel was asked if he had anything to say to Eliza, he said that he was very sorry for what he had done, but that he had not done it on purpose. On Monday 13 August 1877 the prisoner was brought before the Sheffield magistrates, but as the victim was unable to attend, he was simply remanded. Sadly Elizabeth died from her injuries around 4 am on the morning of Wednesday 22 August.

An inquest was arranged to be held by Coroner Mr D Wightman on Friday 24 August 1877 at the Public Dispensary in Sheffield. House surgeon Mr Shera described the deceased woman’s wound. He said it was on the left temple, around two and half inches long, through which the woman’s brain was visible. The surgeon stated that he had completed the post mortem after her death and found death was caused by inflammation of the wound. He said that it had been caused by an instrument with an edge. When the frying pan was produced and shown to the witness, Mr Shera agreed that weapon would produce such a wound.

After hearing all the evidence the coroner summed up for the jury who returned a verdict of manslaughter against Samuel Foster. He was therefore committed to take his trial at the next Leeds Assizes. At the Spring Assizes at Leeds which began on Saturday 27 March 1878, the judge Mr Justice Hawkins told the jury that although Foster had been aiming at his sister in law, he had hit the deceased woman instead. He told them therefore ‘he was just as responsible for the death of Mrs Oates, as though he had intended to strike at her and therefore he must take the consequences.’

Accordingly, when Samuel Foster’s case was heard on Wednesday 10 April, the jury found him guilty. Mr Justice Hawkins therefore sentenced him to eight months imprisonment with hard labour.

The ponds had long been a scene of much popular attraction. It was estimated that on the night in question the month had been icy and cold, so consequently there were around 200 skaters enjoying themselves. It looked most picturesque as lit candles were also placed here and there. Suddenly around 8 pm the centre of the ice on one of the ponds gave way and several young people were cast into its icy depths. Altogether it was estimated that seven young people had gone into the water, and four had been quickly drowned. Rescuers were immediately on the scene, but one body was still unaccounted for. Two of those who died were sisters, Emily Pennington aged 16 years and Ethel Pennington aged 14 years whose bodies were taken to the Little Bridge Inn, Parkgate.

The girls mother and their stepfather lived on Effingham Street, Rotherham and the couple were quickly notified of the sad event. The body of another 16 year old girl called Maggie Abson was also recovered, and her parents too were notified. By midnight the police, including Superintendent McDonald and Inspector Kelly were still searching for the body of the fourth fatality, a young man aged 15 called Fred Powell of Rawmarsh. Thankfully his body was recovered shortly afterwards. Needless to say an inquest on all four bodies was arranged by Deputy Coroner, Mr J Kenyon Parker on Saturday 21 January 1905 at the West Riding Police Station at Rawmarsh.

Mr Parker apologised for the swiftness of the inquest, but stated that it was so that the funerals might take place as soon as possible for the victims relatives. He informed the jury that the cause of death was simply because the ice had given way and was not due to any danger of the place itself. Therefore there would be no question of identifying who the property belonged to, or into any lack of fencing or right of way for the general public. The step father of the two sisters, William John Ellis, George, the brother of Maggie Abson and Thomas Powell, the father of Fred, stated that they had all identified the bodies and were satisfied that the occurrence was purely accidental.

The first witness was a 15 year old boy called Samuel Angell, who told the inquest that he had been skating on what was known locally as ‘dead house ponds’ around four hours on the night in question. He said that the ice had originally broken first around 6 pm, although it was a smaller break, nevertheless the ice had made a loud ‘crack’. No one had fallen into the water, so after a short break the skating continued. Around 7.40 pm there was about 200 people on the ice at the time when the ice broke with no warning this time, and the seven bodies were plunged into its icy depths.

The witness then described how he too had been trapped under the ice, until he was rescued by a young man called Daniel Cooke, who was the next witness. He said that he was 19 years of age and described how one man tried to rescue people by using his jacket. The man had tried to reach those trapped in the water with his jacket, whilst Cooke held onto his feet. The witness also described how he ‘had to fight with the ice and was so exhausted that he and thought he was done.’ However he managed to save himself by “skating” his body across the ice to a place of safety.’ The deputy coroner asked his opinion of what had made the ice give way, and Cooke told him that he thought that the ice was very thin at that part.

When the foreman of the jury asked him how deep the pond was, Cooke told him that they had tried to reach the bottom of the pond, but without success. Therefore no one could say how deep it was. Mr Parker stated that he considered that the witness had ‘behaved very pluckily’. He added that ‘it is not given to everybody to do as he had done, to keep his head and do his best under the circumstances.’ Samuel’s brother William Angell was the next witness, who stated that he had been putting his skates on and was about 15 yards away from the crack in the ice as it gave way. He had noted three girls who had been arm in arm and skating along. After the crack in the ice they all quickly disappeared into its icy depths.

Angell said that he had helped to rescue them, before being cast into the water itself, which he judged was about about four yards under the ice. Labourer, Matthew McGowan described getting the bodies out of the iced-up pond. He said that he began breaking the ice around 8.30 pm and using hooks he managed to recover the bodies of the two sisters first. Then around a quarter of an hour later, the body of Abson was brought to the bank. Fred Powell’s body was found just shortly after 11 pm. The deputy coroner in his summing up said that sadly no one could be blamed for what happened.

He therefore informed the jury that in such a case there could only be one verdict, that of accidental death. He said it was just a case of rashness on the people who went onto the ice. The fact that the ice had given way earlier in the evening, should have been a warning which sadly, had just ignored. The foreman of the juror stated that the jury were of a unanimous opinion that these unfortunate souls had been accidentally drowned and asked for an expression of sorrow for all the families who had lost people in this accident. He asked if the owners of the land could be required to fence the ponds off, but the deputy coroner pointed out that the ponds were on private land and no pressure could therefore be put on anyone.

However, he hoped that if the press reported this conversation, that steps would be taken and that was where the matter was left. The jury needless to say, brought in a verdict of ‘accidentally drowned.’ The funerals of all the victims was held on Tuesday 24 January 1905.The two sisters, Mary Emily Pennington and her sister Margaret Ethel Pennington were interred together at Rotherham General Cemetery in front of a large crowd of as many as 300 people. In fact so great was the crowd in front of the Pennington’s house as the funeral cortège set off, that for a while the tramway service was temporarily suspended. Margaret Ethel Abson was buried at the Rawmarsh Cemetery. The funeral of Fred Powell also took place at Rawmarsh Cemetery later in the same afternoon.

Early in the morning of Thursday 19 May 1881, a boy named John Wood was on his way to work at Messrs Swift’s Rolling Mill at Storrs Bridge in the beautiful Loxley Valley. He was just passing a dam, whose water was used for driving the works machinery, when he spotted some items on the bank near the water. Going closer, he saw there were two hats which on closer examination proved to be a man’s and a woman’s. An umbrella, a memorandum book and two letters were also left on the ground. One letter was addressed to ‘Mrs Wagstaffe, Storrs Bridge near Sheffield’ and the second was simply addressed to a ‘Mrs Shaw.’ John picked the articles up and carried them to work.

Some time later around 7.15 am, a man called Joseph Ibbotson and his friend, Roland Hartley were also passing the same spot, when they got the shock of their lives. The water of the dam was so clear that they could see the bodies of two people lying around eight or nine feet under the surface. The men could see they were both fully dressed, apart from not wearing any hats. Ibbotson secured the help of Police Constable Thompson, who with the use of a long pole, to which a hook had been attached, managed to drag the bodies out of the water. Later enquiries found that the two people were a married man and an unmarried woman who had decided to put an end to their lives.

As the two bodies were laid out on the bank, it was clear that the couple had intended to kill themselves together as a long piece of brown ribbon was attached to the right hand of the male and the left hand of the female. They were identified as being those of twenty eight year old James Shaw, a master mason who was married with three children, and twenty five year old Mary Ann Wagstaffe a domestic servant employed by Dr Bentley, a surgeon of Hillsborough. PC Thompson obtained a cart from a nearby wire-works and the two bodies were taken to the Admiral Rodney Inn in Loxley. The journey, which involved walking slowly up a very steep hill, soon attracted the attention of a large crowd.

It later appeared that quite a few years previously the couple had formed a relationship, which at the time was deemed to be unacceptable to Mary Ann’s parents. As a result of this, the couple parted and James later married another woman. Earlier on the morning of Tuesday 18 May, Mary Ann had been busy doing some washing in the wash house which was situated behind Dr Bentleys surgery. When Mrs Bentley rang the bell to call for her servant, there was no response. Going into the wash house she found no one there, and had no option but to presume that Mary Ann had gone out without telling her.

At first Mrs Bentley was surprised as the girl had not told her that she was going anywhere, but decided that she would speak to her on her return. However, it took several days before the surgeon and his wife found out the truth. A few weeks previously one of Shaw’s children had been taken ill and James had called on Dr Bentley to come to the house and attend to the child. Leaving the surgery on another day, when he had called to pick up some medicine, James spotted Mary Ann. As a result of this meeting, the previous relationship was started afresh. Later, that same Tuesday, the couple had spotted together by a cabman called Harry Moore.

James had hailed him in Sheffield and asked him to take them both to the Pack Horse Inn in Westbar. There they managed to obtain a room, and Mary Ann’s large tin trunk was placed in the room that they both shared. Sadly, the next day, Wednesday 19 May the couple went out and were not seen alive again. It was believed at the time that the they were intending to make for Liverpool in order to travel together for America. Meanwhile the two mothers had received the letters addressed to them which had been found by John Wood. Both letters were written in pencil and were difficult to read, so it was presumed that they had both been written in darkness.

An inquest on the two bodies was arranged to be held by Coroner Mr D. Wightman on Friday 20 May. The jury first went to view the two dead bodies, which lay in solemn state in the front parlour of the Admiral Rodney Inn, before going into another room for the enquiry. James’s wife, also called Mary was much affected as she gave her evidence and described how her husband had kissed her and the children affectionately before he left. Questioned by the coroner, Mary Shaw denied knowing anything about his affair with Mary Ann Wagstaffe. She also told the inquest that the letters must have been written by the woman concerned, as her husband was unable to read or write.

John Wood was the next witness and he described finding the items at the side of the dam. These were produced and he identified them. Then the letters were read out. The first was to Mrs Shaw and it mentions Mary Ann Wagstaffe before included the words ‘she was the first and only girl that I really loved and I could not settle without her. Therefore it has caused me to do what I have done.’ The letter ended in the statement that ‘we have well considered what step we are taking.’ Mary Ann’s letter was also brief and to the point. She stated to her mother ‘it made us determined that if we cannot live, we will die together. I am sure I shall die without a pang.’

The coroner summed up for the jury before they retired to consider their verdict. After just a quarter of an hour, they concluded that:

‘We find that the deceased James Shaw and Mary Ann Wagstaffe committed suicide by drowning on the 19^th day of May, but as to the state of their minds of the deceased at the time, there is not sufficient evidence before the jury to show.’

The funeral of the two lovers took place at Stannington Parish churchyard on Sunday 22 May 1881 in front of an enormous crowd of people. It seems that the news had travelled so quickly that before long a large crowd had gathered all along the route, anxious to view the funeral procession. A newspaper report condemned this morbid curiosity. It stated that ‘Men and women crowded in to see the sickening sight, and continued to do so until the inn was closed.’

It was at first thought that the two would be buried in separate churches, but in the end the decision was taken to bury them both at Stannington. Hundreds of people examined the two graves before the ceremony took place, closely watched by several constables for the purpose of keeping the crowds in order. Mary Ann was buried in a grave which belonged to her family, whilst James was buried near to members of his own and his wife’s family.

At the beginning of April 1906, Ethel Tyas began working for Mr Frederick Hunt and his wife, Louie. He ran a tobacconists shop, whilst Ethel’s domestic housework tasks for Mrs Hunt were light. Mrs Hunt found the girl to be a good worker, although noted that she always seemed to be worrying about something or other and therefore didn’t seem to settle as well as her employer would have liked. It soon became obvious that the girl was concerned that her boyfriend, back in Swinton had found another sweetheart to replace her. In fact Mr Hunt was so concerned about this that he wrote to Ethel’s parents to warn them of this matter.

On the morning of Friday 11 May 1906 the girl had been busy at her work before going to bed around 9.40 pm. The following morning, Mr Hunt rose at his usual time of 8 am and went downstairs expecting to see the young servant making the fire in the living room. Instead he found fires already blazing in both the kitchen and the living room, the doors unlocked and no sign of Ethel. The poor young girl was next seen by a man called William Gomersall who noticed her walking along the canal bank going from Kilnhurst to Mexborough. She was in front of him and suddenly he saw her stop and take off her jacket, fold it carefully and place it on the pathway.

To his surprise and horror, William then heard her give a terrifying scream before she jumped or fell into the water. As he approached her jacket, he saw an empty bottle of laudanum lying beside it on the ground. Immediately he made a great effort and, with the help of some passers-by, managed with some difficulty, to extricate the body from the water. Needless to say the Coroner Mr D Wightman was notified and he arranged for an inquest to be held at the Plant Hotel, Mexborough on Tuesday 15 May 1906. The girls mother Mary Tyas, was the first to give evidence and she told the Coroner that she had identified her daughters body.

She stated that Ethel was a healthy girl and was not in any trouble that she was aware of. A letter had been found in the girl’s jacket addressed to the witness, which was read out by Mr Wightman. The letter stated:

‘Dear Mother, Do not waste a tear over me. I shall be better off in Heaven, God knows what I have had to put up with the last day or two. Mrs Hunt says she wants to make a better lady of me. I dare say she does….’

Signing the letter Ethel, then wrote a post script. Referring to her boyfriend she wrote ‘poor lad, if I had my way, he would do the same as I have.’ The Coroner, who seemed to have already made his mind up that the deceased girl had been pregnant and presumed that it was that which was causing her some worry.

He asked Mary ‘after hearing this, do you still think she wasn’t in trouble?’ To which the witness answered simply ‘no sir.’ Mary told the inquest that she had only learned that her daughter had a sweetheart since her death. However Mr Wightman seemed convinced that the girl ‘had some trouble.’ Then the boyfriend, Joseph Meage also of Swinton gave his evidence, and stated that he was sixteen years of age and employed as a cleaner. He told the coroner that he had been keeping company with the deceased for the past couple of months or so, although he had not seen her since she went to work for Mr and Mrs Hunt.

However in answer to questions from the coroner, he said that they had never quarrelled and she was not in any trouble that he was aware of. He admitted getting two letters from her which were dated on Monday and Tuesday of last week. In these letters Ethel had suggested that he was courting another girl, a suggestion which he strongly denied. In fact he told the inquest that he had immediately written back to her strongly denying the suggestion. However by the time she would have received it, she was already dead. Then it was time for the Coroner, Mr Wightman to sum up the evidence for the jury, before they brought back a verdict of ‘suicide whilst temporarily insane.’

This is a most curious case where the real reason Ethel decided to take her life was never fully established. The coroner was obviously convinced that the girl was ‘in trouble’ but I have found no evidence to support it. The finding of the bottle of laudanum and her last letter gave the intention she chose to leave this life, so a post mortem to prove whether or not she was indeed pregnant, was deemed unnecessary. Nevertheless, her employer was convinced that she had been ‘uneasy’ in her mind, leading up to her death. But given Ethel’s immaturity and inexperience in matters of the heart, it is something from this distance of time, we will never know.

The manager who had organised the event was a man called Mr Percy Chavasse and as he expected to draw quite a crowd, it was arranged that there would be two performances. The jumps would be performed by sisters Edith and Maude Brookes and one would take place on the Monday and the second the following day. Maude was booked to undertake the first jump on Monday 19 May 1902 and she watched carefully as the balloon was inflated. The parachute was then strapped to her body around her waist and shoulders. It had taken longer than expected, at so it was nearly 7 pm before she took her place on a little trapeze seat under the balloon as it rose into the air. It was estimated that there were around seven thousand people in the football grounds who had all paid their sixpences to watch the spectacle.

However just as many more were gathered on the hills all around, where they could watch the event for free. Soon Maude was just a mere speck in the sky as she jumped and the chute bellied out behind her. Gracefully they both sank to the ground, landing gently in Neepsend Station. Later that same night it was reported that her sister, Miss Edith Brookes had arrived at the Station Hotel, Wicker, where she was to spend the night before her jump the following day. Originally, it had been expected that Maude was booked to jump on both days, but when she was offered another engagement in Wales on the Tuesday, her place was taken by her younger sister.

Once again on the following night, Tuesday 20 May it was almost 7 pm before the balloon was fully inflated in the football ground. Twenty-three year old Edith was soon escorted to where the balloon was now inflated. Looking full of confidence, she was described as wearing ‘a blue silk blouse, with cream lace around the throat on top of a pair of black velvet knickers.’ The crowd, which was estimated to be as large as five thousand people, were all eagerly expecting to be entertained. Edith was given a glass of spirits before she gave the order to ‘lets go’ as she too sat on the seat which was suspended under the balloon.

It was reported that the parachutist had not shown the slightest nervousness before the ascent, as she watched the balloon being inflated. Once again there was almost complete silence as the balloon slowly rose high up into the sky. There was a gasp as the crowd saw Edith launch herself into the air as the girl and the parachute fell towards the ground. As before, Edith and the parachute dropped a few feet before the deflated parachute was expected to open, but to the crowds horror nothing happened. It was quickly obvious that something was badly wrong. The girl and the parachute were now gathering speed as witnesses noted that Edith was being twisted round and round, as if the ropes themselves were having to untwist.

Suddenly she hit the ground in Hillsborough Park with a thud which reverberated throughout. Women started screaming as others ran to towards the body of the young girl, but all they found was a mangled corpse. Dr W Campbell of Owlerton, who had also witnessed the fall from his home on Bradfield Road, soon arrived. But even a superficial examination made it clear that Edith’s spine and skull had been fractured and several bones were badly smashed. Nevertheless it was reported that the face of the poor girl was not disfigured, beyond her pallid lips and clenched teeth. However the back of Edith’s head was smashed to the point where her brains protruded.

The parachute, which should have been a life preserver was, for the time being used as a funeral shroud and stained with blood, was placed over the poor girl’s body. Her mangled remains were carried into the bandstand, before a police ambulance soon arrived driven by three horses, ready to take the remains to the Sheffield Mortuary. Needless to say, the following day Mr Percy Chavasse was interviewed by a reporter from the Sheffield Independent. He stated that he had carefully checked the parachute itself on both occasions before it was due to be used, and those checks had been carried out to his complete satisfaction.

The manager described how he had personally escorted Miss Brookes into the balloon and that she had been in good spirits and showed not the slightest sign of any fear. Mr Chavasse said that there had been other occasions when the ‘chute’ had taken some time to open, so he was not at first duly worried. A delay in opening would result in Miss Brook falling somewhat violently, but she would not have been killed. The Sheffield Evening Telegraph dated Wednesday 21 May 1902 summed up what most people were thinking after the event.

It stated ‘one result of last evenings ghastly affair, should be to strengthen the demand that the legislature should step in and prohibit senseless and dangerous feats undertaken solely with the object of “amusing” the public.’ Tragically at the inquest held the following day it became clear that Edith had never actually done a ‘jump’ before and had indeed only stepped in for her sister at the last minute. In fact Maud had tried to dissuade her sister from going through with it, but all to no avail. After hearing all the evidence, the inquest jury had no option but to return a verdict of ‘accidental death.’

The Chief Constable of Sheffield, Charles Scott was urged by the Watch Committee to write to owners of all recreation grounds in Sheffield to ban such performances. A question was even asked about the case in the House of Commons, but the Home Secretary said that he had no power to prohibit such performances. The resolve to this whole dilemma only came when it was finally given by an observer who had been stationed on Bole Hills. He had witnessed the accident through his powerful telescope.

He stated that Edith instead of slipping off the trapeze in the usual way, either through fainting of giddiness, had fallen ‘all of a heap’ into the parachute ropes below her. By doing so, she had inextricably entangled them in such a way as to prevent the parachute opening properly. The only good thing which emerged from these enquiries was that afterwards, the Sheffield Wednesday football club directors forbade the use of their grounds for any such exhibits in the future. However this would be of little comfort to the girl who had lost her younger sister in such a tragic manner.

The culmination to the case came on 22 November when the engine house of Messrs Newsome’s timber merchants of Forge Lane, Masborough was broken into and several expensive engine brasses were stolen. Three days later the company suffered a second loss, when the same gang broke in again and stole several other items of value including thirty-seven dozen files. To add insult to injury Mr Newsome found to his annoyance, that the thieves had also taken a woollen scarf which had belonging to him which he had left in the office. The same night a tailors shop at Thornhill, Masborough belonging to Mr Francis Birkenshaw was also broken into and several unfinished garments were stolen.

These items consisted of fourteen coats, twenty vests, a quantity of cloth pieces and three pairs of trousers all in various stages of repair. The Rotherham police authorities had by now enough evidence and were determined that this gang needed to be caught. Therefore local police constables about to start on their rounds were ordered to be vigilant by their sergeant, as he told them that these thieves obviously knew the area well. Accordingly, when Police Constable Mitchell arrested a twenty-five year old man named William Mumford on Saturday 26 November, he had no idea that he had finally broken the case.

The man had been charged with stealing two fowls from the Plough Inn on Greasborough Lane, Rotherham, and when searched he was found to be wearing the same scarf which had been stolen from the office at Mr Newsome’s timber yard. Sergeant McVeitty’s own vigilance was also rewarded the following day when he too arrested three men he had apprehended at Whiston. He had met them carrying bundles and when stopped and searched, found many of the stolen items from Birkenshaw’s tailors shop at Thornhill. Not only that, but when the men were being placed in cells at the station, underneath their shirts were several of the unfinished garments which had also been taken.

When arrested, the three men, twenty-five year old William Smith, eighteen-year old Henry Moore and twenty-six year old George Sanson claimed they were on their way to Birmingham seeking work. Having been found with stolen items on their persons, the men had little option but to soon co-operate with the police. As a result of this, Inspector Horne and Sergeants McVeitty and Lee went to search the house where the men had been staying. It was a house in a rather secluded part of Rotherham known as ‘Amen Corner’ just off College Road. There they were rewarded by discovering a large quantity of stolen items from shops in Rotherham and Masborough.

A woman claiming to be Smiths wife Eliza, who was also in the house was found to have a number of pawn tickets on her. She too was arrested and charged with being an accomplice. A further examination of the prisoners resulted in Superintendent Gillett and Inspector Horne going to Masborough Railway Station. There they found a large box in the goods shed which had been left on Saturday evening and was addressed to ‘William Smith, Lawley Street Station, Birmingham.’ It was therefore deduced that the three men apprehended by Sergeant McVeitty at Whiston on 26 November had been on their way to Birmingham to collect this very box.

The inspector tried to lift it, but it proved to be so heavy that it had to be removed to the police station in a cab. Although the box had been nailed shut, it was soon opened and was found to contain the greater portion of the stock of unfinished items from the tailor shop at Thornhill. Also, underneath the unfinished clothing were the twenty seven dozen new files stolen from Newsome’s timber yard. Mr Newsome himself identified them as being a portion of the thirty five dozen stolen on 22 November. At a second search of the house on Amen Corner, a large quantity of house breaking implements had also been found. Accordingly, once again the three prisoner were brought before the Rotherham magistrates on Monday 28 November and were remanded to Thursday 1 December.

In court once again the magistrates heard that the box, which had been found to contain the stolen items, had been bought from Mr Lodge a grocer at Masborough by the prisoner Mumford and another man. The bench also looked into the case against Eliza Smith, but as she was deemed to be under the charge and influence of her husband, she was simply discharged. All the other prisoners were sent to take their trial at the next Sessions. Accordingly, all four prisoners appeared at the Sheffield Sessions, held at the Town Hall, Sheffield on Saturday 7 January 1871.

William Smith, Henry Moore, George Sanson and William Mumford were all charged with breaking into the tailors shop of Francis Birkenshaw and stealing the unfinished garments on 22 November. Mr Blackburn and Mr Atkinson prosecuted the case against the prisoners. As a result, Mumford who had twice previously been convicted of similar crimes was sentenced to two years imprisonment. Smith, who only had one previous conviction against him, received a sentence of 12 months imprisonment and Moore and Sanson received sentences of six months each.