Rebecca Heath was twenty-three year old Sheffield girl who had been working as a domestic servant to a Miss Sergeant of Church Street, Rotherham for several years. In May of 1883 she became engaged to a young man called William Wragg who also lived at Rotherham. The couple had made arrangements for the wedding to take place on Sunday 11 May. Her mistress was very demanding and so Rebecca looked forward to Sundays, which was the only day she had off work. So it was a great shock and surprise on Monday 5 May when her body was found drowned in what was known locally as the Godfrey Dam, Sheffield. It was reported that the deceased girl had been of an excellent character and regularly attended Garden Street Chapel.

The alarm had been raised by her employer who had expected her domestic servant to return back to the house at Rotherham at 9 am the previous night. She knew it was most unlike Rebecca, who up to that time, had been most reliable, so she reported her missing the next morning. An enquiry by the Sheffield police authorities was made and her body was found and reported. The death was reported to local Coroner, Mr D. Wightman and he arranged an inquest to be held at the South Sea Hotel at Broomhill, Sheffield on Wednesday morning 7 May 1883. The first witness was her father Thomas Heath who told the jury that he lived in Pearl Street, Sheffield and had earlier identified the body of his daughter, Rebecca.

He stated that he was not aware of the reason why she had taken such a drastic step, but he had heard that she had expected to meet the young man from Rotherham on the Sunday, but he had not turned up. The next witness introduced himself to the jury as the young man in question, William Wragg. He said that he had been ‘courting’ the girl for the past eighteen months and they were to have been married the following Sunday. The witness said that he had not been to marry her before as he had been unable to find any work. However in February he had found employment in Workington, Cumbria and the wedding had been arranged and the banns called in the local parish church.

The witness was visibly trembling as he stated the engagement had never been broken off and there had been no argument between the couple. He added that he had not seen Rebecca for a fortnight, but he had received a letter from her the previous Sunday. Mr Wightman asked the witness if he had any objection to the letter being read out, to which William just shook his head. The letter, which was dated 5 May 1883 was very affectionate and read:

‘My Darling lover, I now write these few lines to you, hoping they will find you quite well. I am sorry darling you have not been to see me. Do come my sweetest love on Sunday. Do let me see you about six o’clock Sunday night. I shall not come out till then. Do come my darling love, so no more at present.
From your truly affectionate lover,
R. HEATH.’

The letter was marked with many crosses, signifying kisses. The coroner then asked the witness to explain his failure to meet the deceased woman on the Sunday. William told him that he had come to Sheffield but had missed the 5.30 pm train. Accordingly, he caught the next one at 7.30 pm which reached Sheffield around 8 pm, but he did not see Rebecca. Then Mr Wightman asked him ‘if Rebecca was pregnant to which he replied that she was indeed five months pregnant. Rebecca’s employer, Mrs Ann Sergeant was the next to give evidence and she told the inquest that the deceased girl had been in her employ at Rotherham for around 15 months. During that time her work had been good and she described Rebecca as being clean, honest, industrious and kind.

The witness was asked if she was aware that her servant had been pregnant, and Mrs Sergeant stated that she had known of it, but was eager to keep the girl employed as ‘she had no place to call home.’ The coroner interrupted to ask her to explain what she meant by that, and that was when Rebecca’s father Thomas Heath broke in. He stated that his present wife was stepmother to Rebecca but they did not get on. In fact she had been mostly brought up by her married sister Charlotte, to whom the letter had been addressed. Thomas was asked if he had criticised his daughter for her pregnant condition, but he denied that he had ever spoken to her about it. He added that he had been told of her condition by his eldest daughter.

A man called William Bennett was the next witness and he described finding the girls hat and umbrella laid on the ground in front of the Godfrey Dam. He said that he had found the body on the Monday afternoon, which he estimated had been in the water since the previous night. He told the inquest that he had communicated finding the hat and umbrella to Inspector Toulson, who then ordered that the dam be dragged and that’s how the body was found. A juryman at this point asked the coroner what was the piece of paper that had been found on the girl after she had been pulled out of the water and the scrap of paper was produced. It was written in pencil and addressed to ‘Charlotte, Lancing Road, Sheffield.’

Thomas Heath was recalled and asked who Charlotte was and he admitted that she was his married daughter who lived at that address. However on the other side was written the tragic words: ‘Charlotte, instead of being married, I think it will be best to bury me: so goodbye to all.’ The coroner, in his summing up, stated that he could see no reason for the deceased girl to have taken her own life in the way that she had. However he concluded that ‘it was a very pitiable case of someone committing suicide through a mistaken idea.

The jury then retired to consider their verdict and agreed that it was the failure of her lover Wragg to keep the Sunday appointment which had preyed on the girls mind. Therefore they concluded that Rebecca Heath had committed suicide on 7 May ‘whilst in a state of temporary insanity.’

It seems that the couple were walking back to Joseph’s house in between Parkgate and Rotherham on Thursday 22 June 1899 when he showed her a revolver, which he took out of his pocket. Joseph told her that he had bought it the previous week on a day trip to Skegness, as he began loading it with ball cartridges. The couple then went to his parents house, where they spent the night. The next morning, according to Joseph, it was about 10 am he asked Jenny to hand him the gun and whilst she did so, the gun went off.

Jenny was immediately rushed into the Montague Cottage Hospital, Mexborough where she was found to be suffering from the effects of a shot from a revolver to her chest. An x-ray proved the bullet to be lodged just under her heart. Needless to say, Joseph was arrested despite the fact that he claimed that the whole incident had been an accident. He told police officers that the gun had been in the inside pocket of his coat and when he asked Jane to pass it to him, the gun had gone off unexpectedly. Medical help was immediately sought and Dr Fullerton had the injured girl immediately transferred to the local hospital.

Joseph was immediately arrested on a charge of grievous bodily harm and brought before the Rotherham magistrates on Friday 23 June. Superintendent Quest asked the court for a remand until Jenny was well enough to give her own evidence. He told the court that the prisoner had stated that when she gave him the weapon they had both been sat on the sofa together and somehow the gun ‘went off.’ However to make matters worse for Joseph, he was, at that time, being described as a deserter from the Royal Artillery. This meant that, whilst investigating this case, he would also need to be handed over to the military authorities to be dealt with.

By Monday 26 July Jenny’s condition was so poor that the bullet still had not been extracted. However police enquiries had established that, prior to the shooting, Joseph had been threatening his girlfriend and accused her of seeing someone else. In order for enquiries to continue, he was simply remanded once again. In fact Joseph was brought before the Rotherham magistrates several times, but as Jenny was still in a poorly state, he was simply remanded. However the case against Joseph got much worse when he made an inflammatory statement to a witness called Annie Turton.

She told the court that she knew that Jenny had spoken to her brother Wilfred ‘for some time’ when she had met him in Sheffield on 3 June. Later, when she had related this conversation to Joseph, he told her that ‘I intend to do for her if I find her to be untrue’. Finally Joseph was sent to take his trial at the Leeds Assizes where he appeared on Thursday 27 July 1899. Thankfully Jenny was also in attendance as the prosecution, Mr Wilson outlined the case for the court. He told the court that although there was no evidence to show how the revolver went off, he could prove that there had been some real affection between the couple.

He produced letters where Joseph, who was undefended, referred to Jenny as his ‘brown eyed pet’ and declared that she meant more to him than ‘life liberty and parents.’ In one letter he had written her a poem which stated

‘The waves are high, the sea is deep.
I love you so much, I cannot sleep.
If you love me, as I love you,
Nothing but death will part us two.’

Nevertheless his jealousy appeared to take him over, as he threatened to shoot her. He told her flatly that ‘if she turned out to be a disreputable woman, there would be two less persons in Mexborough!’ Joseph claimed ‘for she knew what a demon jealousy was in a man’s heart.’ Jenny was then called to give her own evidence and she said that the prisoner had been very jealous of her. He had threatened to shoot her and showed her the gun he had bought at Skegness on 14 June.

In his summing up of the case, the Commissioner advised the jury to return a verdict of ‘not guilty’, stating that in his opinion no other verdict would be safe. Accordingly Joseph Prosser was found not guilty of shooting Jennie Siddons and discharged! Was he indeed guilty of shooting at Jenny? I suspect he was! The fact that he had bought the weapon at Skegness on 14 June 1899 and the shooting had occurred, just nine days later on 23 June indicates, at the very least a level of pre-meditation.

What do you think?

On Saturday 10 June 1899, a twenty-three year old Sheffield man called Harry Cook visited a funfair which was held to celebrate the Ecclesfield Feast. Needless to say he was attracted to the swing boats and climbed on board with a man called Joseph Greaves. It was about 3.30 pm and the whole funfair was heaving with happy patrons. The two men swung on the boats to a pretty good height when just at its highest they suddenly heard a grating noise. Suddenly one of the rods came away from its coupling of the swing boat, which then overbalanced. As a result, Harry Cook was knocked against one of the posts and fell out of the boat, landed with a terrific impact on his head.

Needless to say the swing boats were immediately stopped as a crowd of people flocked to the site. People helped the young man, who was lifted onto a makeshift stretcher and taken home. A surgeon was called, but he just sent Harry to the Sheffield Infirmary, where he died the following day. An inquest was heard on Monday 12 June where the jury recorded a verdict of ‘accidental death’ However Harry’s parents were convinced that their son’s death had been as a direct cause of neglect on behalf of the proprietors. Accordingly, six months later they made a claim of £50 damages against Mrs Mary Marshall of Carbrook, the swing boat proprietress.

The case was heard on Monday 18 December at the Sheffield County Court. The judge was His Honour Judge Waddy who heard from the witnesses who had been present at the time. Mary Marshall was charged with negligence ‘in having in her possession for public use, the fastenings of a swing boat which were in such a condition as to be dangerous.’ Harry’s mother Mrs Hannah Cook was the first witness and she told the judge that the upright iron rods were coupled together with a piece of old wire, instead of a firm bolt which should have been used. Two witnesses to the accident also gave their version of what had happened. A third witness Frank Jepson stated that he too had seen the accident.

He claimed that as soon as the accident happened, the ride was stopped and he saw a man put something into where the rod was attached to the boat. Joseph Robert Greaves, the deceased man’s companion, said that they had got the boat swinging to a good height. He said the momentum was pretty steady when they heard a grating sound, and Harry complained that the boat was ‘going funny.’ A few minutes later the swing boat dashed against the side supports and his companion fell out, dropping to the ground. Then it was time for the defence led by Mr Wilson. He introduced his first witness, another woman working on the fair called Harriet Oliver.

She told a completely different story. Harriet said that the swing boats had been in use for some hours previously and there had been no suggestion of any piece of iron or a nail being used by any of the other passengers on the ride. Rather, she said that she had been appalled at the conduct of the deceased man himself. He had been standing up in the swing boat, which was against all regulations. The witness said that she had called out to him to sit down, but he simply shouted back that ‘he was alright.’ Harriet said that consequently the boat was going too high when it came down, catching on the upright and the bolt fell out. This witness claimed that was when the man Cook lost his balance and fell out.

Another of the fairground staff, John Baxter told the court that he had helped to erect the swing boats and was employed to take care of the ride. He too, noted Cook standing up and holding onto the two rods at either side of the boat. Baxter claimed that he thought that he was just about to sit down, when he actually fell out. Another fair man, Albert Floyd confirmed his colleagues evidence stating that the deceased was holding onto the rod when he overbalanced. The judge asked him about whether or not the rod had been held together with a piece of wire. The fairground man simply shook his head.

Floyd replied that as Harriet Oliver had already stated, the swing boats had been in operation for some hours already. Therefore if a wire had been in place, the accident would have happened immediately the swing boats started to move. The defence, Mr Wilson argued that Harry Cook had brought about his own death, by his own negligence in standing up to push the swingboat even higher. Instead he blamed the accident on local miners who ‘intent on getting their money’s worth out of any ride, would get into a fight if the ride had been prematurely stopped before their time was up.’ He said that in this case, the man had brought his death upon himself and therefore the claim for his parents of compensation of £50 was monstrous.

Then it was time for his lordship, Mr Justice Waddy to sum up for the jury. He stated that he agreed with Mr Wilson that the amount of compensation had been over exaggerated. His Lordship said that he felt extremely sorry for Mr and Mrs Cook, who lived on just a few shillings a week, but pointed out that Harry Cook was a young man who was just about the leave home and get married anyway and that damages of £50 was, in this case, excessive. Mr Justice Waddy therefore ordered that he would award the parents a joint sum of £20 for the death of their son Harry Cook.

In 1899 Ada Wilcox was a housemaid employed by a Mr W J Cockayne of Broomgrove Road, Sheffield. On the morning of Sunday 22 October she was busy making the fires for the family, when her mistress Mrs Cockayne told her that there was something lying in the ashpit. Ada and a day girl who was also employed at the house called Sarah Watts went immediately to the ashpit, which was situated in an outhouse behind her masters house. There the two girls found a piece of rough matting. Lifting it up, Ada found underneath it a parcel wrapped up in some coarse material. Sarah opened it gingerly, before the two girls were faced with the body of a newly born, male child.

Needless to say, the police were called and Inspector Thompson of Broomhill ordered enquiries to be made into all the staff working for the family. This included a thirty-eight year old cook called Elizabeth Turner, who had been employed by the family since 18 October of the previous year. It seems that she had been unwell for some time, Indeed that very day she had been sent home to be cared for by her family at Oughtibridge, Sheffield. The family physician, Dr Alfred Reckless had examined her and found that she had recently given birth. She had confessed to him to being the mother of the dead child. However, she claimed that it had been a miscarriage and the child had been born dead.

Needless to say, an inquest on the little body was held at the Sheffield Royal Hospital on Tuesday 24 October 1899. There, the City Coroner, Mr D Wightman informed the jury that information had been given as to who the mother of the child was. However, as she was too ill to be be present at the inquest that day, he would be unable to conclude the enquiry without giving her the opportunity to speak for herself. Therefore the jury would just hear the basic details that day. Ada Wilcox was the first witness and she told the coroner that from the first she had suspected that Elizabeth had been the mother of the deceased child.

Ada said that the cook had been previously married, although she was aware that her husband had deserted her. The witness also stated that Elizabeth had given birth to another child, a few years previously, who had been a girl who now lived with her parents. Dr Reckless, was the next witness and he said that he had examined the body of the child, that had been found in the ashpit. He said its organs had been healthy and it weighed around 5¼lbs. However the surgeon stated that the cause of death was due to the fact that child’s throat had been cut and the right side of the skull had been smashed in. There had also been other bruises on its face and a wound to the angle of the right jaw.

After being shown a knife which had belonged to Elizabeth, Dr Reckless confirmed that the wounds on the throat might well have been inflicted by such a knife. His descriptions of the injuries was confirmed by Mr Thomas Priestly, the house surgeon at the Royal Hospital. He told the coroner that he had held a post mortem on the child’s remains. However he condemned Elizabeth’s statement that the child had been born dead, when he crucially stated that the child had air in its lungs. This meant that it had clearly taken a breath and therefore led, what was termed as ‘a separate existence to its mother’. After hearing from these two witnesses, Mr Wightman adjourned the inquest until Tuesday 7 November in order that the mother of the child could attend and give her own evidence.

However this second inquest was again of short duration as Elizabeth was simply remanded as she was due to appear before the Sheffield Magistrates the following day. There she readily admitted that she had been the wife of a man called Robert Turner, although the couple had not lived together for some years. Elizabeth admitted that she had given birth to the child in the closet (toilet) and the child’s injuries to its skull had been caused, when it accidentally fell onto the stone floor beneath. Dr Priestly stated that his own examination had proved that the child had lived for some moments after birth, and that such a fall would not have caused those particular wounds to its skull.

However the surgeon could not confirm whether the wounds were inflicted before or after death. Needless to say, that inquest too was of very short duration and after hearing from the same witnesses, the prisoner Elizabeth Turner was found guilty of infanticide and committed to take her trial at the next assizes. Accordingly, she was brought before Mr Justice Wright at the West Riding Assizes held at Leeds on Friday 8 December 1899. The prisoner was charged with the wilful murder of her own child and the prosecution, Mr Mellor outlined the case for the jury. However he readily admitted as to the uncertainty of whether or not the injuries had been inflicted before or after the child’s death.

He said that therefore he did not think it right to ask the jury to take on the responsibility of making that crucial decision for themselves. Nevertheless he added that ‘they still had to decide whether it was a case of murder, manslaughter or concealment of birth.’ Thankfully, the latter much less serious verdict was given. The matter was simplified, when the prisoners defence Mr Kershaw, added that his client had already agreed to plead guilty to that lesser charge. Thankfully, the jury therefore brought in the verdict that Elizabeth Turner had been found guilty of concealment of birth. The judge then ordered that the prisoner was to be sent to prison for six months.

In 1899 a young, professional twenty-nine year old nurse called Frances Ruth Edwards was employed at a private nursing home in Scarborough. It seems that prior to this appointment she had much experience working in a nursing capacity, as previously she had worked at the South Yorkshire Asylum at Wadsley, where she lived. Before that she had worked at another nursing home at Huddersfield, where she had also tried to commit suicide. It seems that Ruth’s roots were in Australia, where her father still lived although she had few friends in Sheffield. However, in July of that year when her employer Louisa Ann Penty at Scarborough found out that Frances had stolen some money, she was asked to leave.

Reluctantly the nurse caught the 12.25 train to York, prior to catching a second train which would take her back to Sheffield. Another passenger, a woman called Ellen Hutchinson was on the same train. During the journey she saw the young woman drink something from a small glass before she fell from her seat around five minutes later. Ellen lifted Frances into her arms and held her like that until the train drew into Malton station. Only as she held the woman did she see the carbolic acid bottle and a small glass on the seat of the train. As the train drew to a stop, she pulled the communication cord to summon help but, according to this witness it never rang.

Accordingly, an inquest was held on Frances Edwards by the Coroner for the East Midlands, Mr Luke White at Malton Railway Station on Saturday 8 July 1899. The first witness was Mrs Penty, who explained the circumstances of the deceased woman leaving her employ. When the second witness was shown the glass bottle and glass, Ellen Hutchinson identified them as the same ones she had seen on the seat of the train. Then she described how she had pulled the cord, but got no response, which caused something of a stir at the inquest. One member of the jury asked her if she had pulled the cord hard and she replied that she had.

Mr Thompson, the station master at Malton was in attendance and was asked if the cord was tested regularly. He assured the coroner that it had been tested before the train left Scarborough and therefore it should have been working. His statement was backed up by railway porter Samuel Wood. After hearing from the witnesses, it was needless to say the verdict of the jury was that Frances Ruth Edwards had committed suicide ‘by carbolic acid poisoning whilst suffering from temporary insanity.’ Sadly the second case of women taking such a poison was again heard that same month. On Friday 28 July 1899 an inquest was held at the Golden Ball Inn at Attercliffe, Sheffield.

It seems that another woman, forty-six year old Sarah Gilham had died two days earlier from carbolic acid poisoning. Her husband, Hiram stated that his wife had been very depressed as she had suffered from rheumatism in her hands and feet for some time. He said that she had also been prone to complaining of pains in her head. Hiram told the coroner that on many occasion Sarah had expressed the wish to die and this had been exacerbated by the fact that she had let her son have goods on account from a little shop she ran. However he had not paid her back, which had worried her considerably. On the night of Wednesday 26 July Hiram said he was in the shop when he saw her drinking something from a small bottle.

Immediately he knocked it out of her hand and sent for a surgeon Dr Blythe, but he was too late to save his wife and Sarah Gilham died at a quarter-past midnight. The couple’s daughter confirmed his account and the same tragic verdict was returned. The third and final case of the ingestion of carbolic acid is perhaps the most poignant happened in Meersbrook, Sheffield in October of the same year. The woman concerned was twenty-four year old Emma Black who, the previous week had left her husband and gone back to live with her parents at Wincobank. She was said to be very depressed in spirits, so her parents kept a close eye on her.

Despite their close attentions, Emma managed to find some carbolic acid on the morning of Sunday 15 October. She took it up to her bedroom whilst the rest of the family were downstairs. Emma took a determined drink, but finding it burned her throat, threw the bottle across the room. She screamed out for her mother who ran upstairs and tried to make her daughter vomit, whilst her father ran to fetch Dr Toyne of Wincobank. He tried several antidotes, but without any effect and subsequently Emma died about an hour and a half later.

What makes this particular case more unfortunate was that Emma was about to become a mother!

Police Constable Turner was informed that the suspect was a man called George Johnson, who described himself as a sailor from Newcastle. The officer was then informed that yet another lodging house robbery had been found and he was dispatched to an address at Mexborough to make enquiries. It seems that Johnson had been busy once more. Once again he had been lodging at the house, when several items from some of the other lodgers at the house had again gone missing. These included a purse and a gold pin, as well as some items of clothing including a suit and pants. Needless to say, by the time PC Turner arrived at Mexborough, the suspect Johnson had decamped with his booty.

However then PC Turner was given a break. He was told that a man fitting Johnson description had been seen travelling on the road from Rotherham to Swinton. Turner rightfully deduced that Johnson might be in need of ready cash and would have to dispose of some of his stolen items. So he went to a well known pawn broker and jeweller’s shop in Mexborough where, to his great surprise, he actually found Johnson there. As he had surmised he was trying to dispose of some of his ill-gotten gains and the officer noted that he was also wearing some of the stolen clothes. Johnson was arrested and brought back to Rotherham police station.

Once at the station, Detective Inspector Thompson of the Sheffield police force was sent for. Having hearing of Johnson’s capture, he guessed that he might be the same man who had committed similar lodging house thefts at various places in Sheffield. It appeared that Johnson had an interesting methodology. On Monday 30 December he had gone to a lodging house in Clarence Street, Wath run by a woman called Mrs Louisa Ellis. As was his habit, he had told her that he was a traveller in the jewellery trade and was seeking respectable lodgings. Johnson explained his lack of luggage on the fact that he had left them at the railway station earlier in the day although the luggage office was now closed.

As it was late in the evening, Mrs Ellis took pity on him and allowed him to lodge in a room of the house. Johnson told her that he was intending to collect his luggage the following morning. However, once again the landlady, as had others before her badly misled. By the next morning she found that her lodger had not only absconded, but once again had also been in other lodgers rooms and stolen several articles. On the following evening, Johnson repeated this method at the lodging house of a Mr George Stevenson of Baldwin Street, Attercliffe, Sheffield. Once again asked for lodgings, claiming his luggage was still at the station.

Like Mrs Ellis, Mrs Stevenson also felt sorry for the man and allowed him to stay at her house overnight. However, her trust too was severely misplaced as at 6 am the following Wednesday morning her lodger had de-camped once again. This time his haul had included five pocket knives, a suit of clothes, several waistcoats and a pairs of boots, along with a silver lever watch. These articles were later recovered from several pawn shops at Attercliffe by Detective Inspector Thompson.

Mrs Stevenson also accompanied the detective to Rotherham where she identified the arrested man, now in the cells, as the same man who had robbed her lodging house. Accordingly, George Johnson was brought before the Rotherham magistrates on Monday 5 January where Police Constable Turner told the bench that the prisoner was still being investigated for other thefts. The bench stated that great credit was due to PC Turner and Detective Thompson for the way in which they had tracked the prisoner. Accordingly he was remanded for another week.

However the case against Johnson was still not complete, as when he next appeared in front of the Rotherham magistrates the following week, a further case of robbery was heard from a Mrs Hume of Mexborough. Needless to say, Johnson was found guilty by the bench and ordered to take his trial at the next Assizes. The case was heard on Thursday 12 March at Leeds in front of judge Mr Justice A L Smith. After hearing all the evidence the grand jury returned with a verdict of guilty and George Johnson was sentenced to five years imprisonment for his part in the lodging house robberies.

On a hearthrug in front of the fire was the child’s bath full of water and the body of his baby son, little Albert was lying, submerged in the water. Of his wife Mary Ann there was no sign. Needless to say a full search of the town was made for her, but it was unsuccessful until she returned back to the house later that night and was taken into custody. Needless to say, Mary Ann Richardson was brought before the Sheffield Stipendiary magistrate Mr E M Welby on Tuesday 11 July charged with the wilful murder of her son. Given the publicity of the case, the bench for spectators watching the courts proceedings was full.

Mary Ann was placed before the clerk’s desk, where it was reported that ‘she made a pathetic figure as she stood with a careworn expression, listening to the charge read out to her.’ The prisoner was described as wearing a black dress, shawl and a matching straw hat. When called forward to testify, it was noted that Mary Ann pulled her black shawl tighter around her shoulders as if for protection. Superintendent Moody asked the clerk Mr Welby to remand the prisoner for a week, as an inquest on the baby was due to be held in a couple of days which was agreed. The prisoner was then removed by a female searcher employed by the Sheffield Police force.

Accordingly on Thursday 13 July, the inquest on the body of little Albert Richardson was held in the City Mortuary. Mary Ann did not try to hide her guilt, as she frankly told the Coroner, Mr D Wightman:

‘I could not help it. I put the baby in the bath and watched him for a few minutes. Then I took him out and tried to bring him around, but I could not. So I put him back in and went out. I know what I am doing now, but I did not know then.’

Dr Godfrey Carter, who had held the post mortem on the little body, told the inquest that the child had died through immersion in water, although all his organs appeared to be healthy. Mary Ann’s husband Edward Richardson was the next witness, and he stated that his wife had always seemed to be in a low spirited manner since she came out of the Jessops Hospital for women, soon after the birth. He described finding his baby son in the bath who, he said was completely dressed with the exception of his shoes and socks. Edward described how, upon returning home around 1 pm, he found the door to be locked. Knowing that Mary Ann always left a key with a neighbour, he went into the house and found the body of his son.

When the coroner asked him whether his wife had shown any mental health issues before, he told him that eight years previously she had been sent to Wadsley Asylum. He said that she always seemed to be brooding about something or other. A neighbour Amelia Senior, confirmed Edward’s account and stated that the family had always appeared respectable and she had never heard either of them quarrelling. However, she too had noticed that Mary Ann was in poor spirits as she was in the habit of keeping the kitchen blinds closed all day long. Police Constable Surgey told the inquest of how he had been called to the prisoners house following her return on 10 July around 6.30 pm. There the prisoner had openly admitted that she had drowned her baby.

Mary Ann was asked if she had anything to say, but she made no reply before the jury brought back a verdict of wilful murder against her. On Tuesday 18 July she was brought before the magistrates at the Sheffield Court House, charged with the wilful murder of her son, Albert Edward Richardson. Prosecution Mr J E Wing outlined the case for the bench, before another neighbour, Mrs Agnes Stebbing described seeing Mary Ann leaving the yard around 10 am. She said that her neighbour appeared normal as she wished her ‘good morning.’ The witness said that after Edward had picked up the spare key, he had called her into his house and that’s when she saw the body of the child in the water.

Dr Carter gave evidence of the post mortem, before the accused was asked if she had anything to say. Almost in a whisper Mary Ann murmured ‘no’ before being committed to take her trial at the assizes, which were being heard in Leeds at that time. Accordingly, Mary Ann Richardson was brought before the judge, Mr Justice Jelf on Monday 31 July 1905. When she was placed in the dock, the seriousness of her situation seemed to hit the prisoner and the poor woman began to cry. However she soon managed to pull herself together. Prosecution, Mr Kenneth Marshall told the jury that there was little doubt about the fact that Mary Ann Richardson had drowned her own child. However, he told the jury that what they must consider is her state of mind at the time.

Dr Clarke of Wakefield Prison stated that he had been able to observe the prisoner whilst she had been awaiting her trial. He then briefly told the story of Mary Ann Richardson’s tragic life. Dr Clarke described how the couple’s first child died soon after it was born, some nine years previously. This fact had weighed so heavily on her mind, that Mary Ann became insane and ended up as an inmate of Wadsley Asylum, where she remained for three months. Since then, the surgeon said that she had suffered from periodic bouts of deep depression. This had been accentuated in April when Albert was born when during the birth, she had sustained an internal rupture.

The hospital told her at the time that they could not operate on her until September, when they might be able to do something about it. Dr Clarke told the jury categorically that at that moment in time the prisoner was thought to be quite sane and fit to plead. However they, the jury had to judge whether or not the act was done whilst she was suffering from acute melancholia. He had therefore concluded that from what the prisoner had told him, he had formed the opinion that the prisoner was not of sound mind at the time the deed was done. Neighbour Amelia Senior once more gave her opinion that on the day in question Mary Ann had seemed quite normal in her manner.

She told the court that she ‘had fair worshipped’ the little boy, Albert. In the neighbours opinion, she stated that she would have expected her to do something to herself rather than to harm the child. Another neighbour, Agnes Stebbings told the judge that Edward Richardson had been so concerned about his wife’s mental health that he had been forced to send her two older children away to live with relatives. This also had preyed on the poor woman’s mind. PC Surgey stated that when Mary Ann returned back to the house after her husband had found body of little Albert she had seemed to be in a very excited state. That officer described how she was perspiring very much.

Nevertheless, he added that she had seemed quite rational when she made her statement admitting to what she had done. In answer to a question from one of the jury, Dr Carter stated that acute melancholia was apt to re-occur from time to time. Therefore he should not consider someone who had suffered from acute melancholia to be ‘safe’ even after many years. Mr Justice Jelf in his summing up, told the jury that he could not see any motive for the crime and therefore, he could only guess that at the time the prisoner was not responsible for her actions. The jury, without leaving the courtroom agreed, and brought in a verdict accordingly.

The judge therefore said it was the order of the court that the prisoner was to be kept in custody in a criminal lunatic asylum until His Majesty’s pleasure was known. It was reported that Mary Ann ‘seemed to not thoroughly realise the meaning of the verdict and sentence, and went below without showing any sign of emotion.’ Had Mary Ann Richardson got away with murder? I think not! Being confined in a lunatic asylum was no easy life in the nineteenth century. There was no treatment available, nor drugs to be given in the huge, state-run asylums. Patients therefore tended to, very quickly, becoming institutionalised by confinement, until their lives came thankfully to an end!

Without speaking, William Turner approached the two farmers and punched George heavily in the face, knocking the poor man off his feet. Then whilst he lay on the ground, the assailant fell on top of him and attempted to put his arm around the neck of the injured man in order to strangle him. Joseph Senior went to help his brother, but he had great difficulty in getting the attacker off him. Once more Turner smacked his brother in the face and tried once more to strangle him. Suddenly two men were seen approaching. They were Mr William Sheppard and a fourteen-year old boy called George Mirfin. Sheppard, who was on horseback, jumped down and tried to stop the assailant from inflicting any more injury on the elderly farmer.

Even though his face was now scratched and blackened from the attempt at strangulation and
despite his age, George had fought back as hard as he could. At this point Turner fled and the farmer, who had only recently recovered from a paralytic stroke, thanked the two passers-by before he was taken back to his home by some men working in the fields. Surgeon, Mr Latimer was immediately called to attend to him, but he found that the farmer could not speak. Subsequently, for seven or eight days, George Senior’s recovery was despaired of. Meanwhile William Turner had absconded and a search was being made for him. Thankfully, by the time the case was brought before the magistrates at the Rotherham Court House on Monday 7 August 1865, the elderly farmer’s condition had improved slightly.

Although he had recovered his voice, his mind had been affected and so was unable to answer any questions. By this time William Turner had been found and arrested on the charge of the murderous assault on George Senior. He was defended by Mr Edwards, who asked for bail for his client. However the prosecution Mr Wilkinson objected, pointing out the still dangerous state that George Senior was in. The bench agreed and it was decided that due to the seriousness of the charge, the prisoner would be remanded. However by Monday 21 August 1865 the farmer was still unable to attend the court in order to give his own evidence.

Accordingly surgeon Mr Latimer’s assistant, Mr Edward Johnson attended and described the condition of his patient. He said that although the elderly farmer was still in a precarious state and suffering from paralysis, he thought that he might be able to attend court the following week. Bail was once more requested for Turner, but was still objected to, so the prisoner was remanded once again. Matters dragged on and by 22 September 1865, Turner had been remanded seven times and in custody for two months. Suddenly, news came that he and another prisoner named John Holmes had made a bid for freedom. They had both escaped from the Rotherham lock up and once free, were last seen heading towards Brigg.

In fact it was not until Friday 10 November that Turner was finally recognised, back in Sheffield by Inspector Cook of the Sheffield Borough Police force. Enquiries were made and acting upon information, the inspector and some other officers went to a house in Corby Street, Sheffield where William Turner was found to be staying. Of John Holmes there had been no sign and, in his absence Turner blamed him for masterminding the escape plan. Finally, he was brought before the Rotherham Petty Sessions on Monday 20 November, charged with the assault on George Senior on 22 July. Frustratingly however, the elderly farmer was again unable to attend,

Surgeon, Mr Johnson again stated that his patient was still suffering from the effect of a stroke, which had, more than likely, been brought on by the attack upon him. His evidence was backed-up by another surgeon, Dr Thompson of Sheffield who agreed and said that in his opinion the farmer would never be able to give evidence properly. Nevertheless the case still had to go ahead and Mr Willis for the prosecution supported the prisoners application. However Turners defence, Mr Edwards emphsised that his client had been more than ready to meet the charge from the very beginning. He pointed out that witnesses had come to court at great expense to give evidence.

Nevertheless, despite this Turner was remanded yet again until the following Thursday. Accordingly on Thursday 23 November 1865 when the court reconvened, George Senior was still unable to be present and so it was agreed that the case would be heard without his evidence. The prosecution, Mr Whitfield pointed out that if the injuries received by the elderly farmer had resulted in death, then the prisoner would be facing a much more serious charge. The prisoner’s defence solicitor, Mr Edwards stated that his client had been willing to co-operate with the police enquiry and had remained in custody ‘apart from a short break.’ This was the break out from the Rotherham lock up in September.

There was laughter in the court when Mr Edwards added ‘when he took a short holiday.’ The injured man’s brother, Joseph Senior then gave his evidence and described the events concluding with the vicious attack. He stated that up to that time, his brother had generally been in good health and on the day of the attack had travelled into Rotherham to vote in the elections. Surgeon Edward Johnson then described attending to the injured farmer who, following the attack, had been unable to move or speak. He said that this was probably due to the fact that he was suffering from an effusion of the brain.

Mr Johnson confirmed that his patient was unable to give evidence as ‘he was scarcely able to understand anything that was said to him.’ He concluded by giving his opinion that the violence of the attack had produced Mr Seniors present condition. George’s brother, Mr Joseph Senior gave evidence confirming that he had witnessed the attack and deduced that Turner had been drinking at the Red Lion at Aston shortly before. As a result of this, the prisoner was then committed to take his trial at the ensuing Sessions, and once again, bail was refused. Accordingly William Turner was brought before the Rotherham Petty Sessions on Monday 20 November 1865.

The Chairman, Mr T B Bosvile Esq., cast doubt on the statement of one of the main witnesses of the case. After hearing the evidence of the brother of the prosecutor (Joseph Senior) he stated that the way in which he had given his evidence was ‘not open and satisfactory.’ Accordingly the jury found that prisoner was guilty of a simple common assault and he was sentenced to two months imprisonment. William Turner was then tried for breaking out of the Rotherham Lock up. His defence Mr Blackburn said that it was not his client who broke out, but a fellow prisoner called John Holmes. He claimed that Turner had simple taken took advantage of it and left the place.

The prosecution Mr Forbes denied this and said that the two prisoners shared the same cell and the escape had been planned and executed very precisely. They had taken up a portion of the floor, broke through an arched roof beneath and had escaped by means of a passage below, the door of which had been left unfastened. Mr Forbes pointed out that Holmes had been a chimney sweep and was well acquainted with knowing the mystery of confined spaces and chimney flues. Accordingly William Turner was sentenced to two months imprisonment to run concurrently with that in the preceding case.

It would be interesting to know if this particular lock up was in fact the Chapel on the Bridge which was used as such from 1800 – 1900 and is still in situ today. The fact the actual lock up from which the men broke out had an arched roof beneath the cell suggests that it might have been. However, at the same time other lock ups attached to courtrooms were also used for the easy facilitation of prisoners on court days, so it has to remain a mystery.

In the evening of Wednesday 16 June 1875 two police officers were on duty in Queen Street, Sheffield when they noted a crowd of people at the corner of Silver Street. Going over they found people in the crowd staring down at the body of a man lying on the ground. Police Constable Turner lifted the man up by his upper body and rested him against a wall, but he simply keeled over and sank down again. One of the crowd said that when he first saw him. he was under attack from some men who were kicking him. The two officers called a cab and the man, who they judged to be in a very drunken condition, was removed to the Police Office and lodged in a cell.

It was hoped that he was recovering, but seemed to be so inebriated that he could not speak in order to give his name and address. His face was bloody and blood was oozing from his mouth and nose. However a search was made of the man’s pockets and a pawn ticket and a shilling in change was found. The ticket held the name ‘Henry Law, 6 Sidney Street, Sheffield.’ However, by this time, it was still unclear whether the man was drunk, or had been the victim of a serious, vicious assault. A short time later Inspector King, who was the duty officer at the Central Police Station on Castle Green, Sheffield, heard Law shout ‘police’ and he went immediately to his cell.

Unfortunately the man still could not speak properly, so that officer gave him a drink of water and assured him that he was safe. Almost immediately Law fell back, either asleep or unconscious, so the inspector kept an eye on him for the rest of the night, visiting his cell regularly. By 12.30 am it became apparent that the man was in a dying condition and so the police surgeon, Dr Arthur Hallam was sent for. He arrived at 12.55 am, but found the injured man was already dead. Making an external examination of the body, the surgeon found his nose was fractured and Dr Hallam therefore concluded that Henry Law was not drunk, but had suffered a fractured skull in an attack.

The following day an inquest was held by Coroner Mr D Wightman in the Watch Committee room at the Sheffield Town Hall. The coroner, gave the jury a run down of what was known about Law so far, but assured them that on this occasion they would simply deal with the identification of the deceased man, before he ordered a post mortem to be held. The man’s widow Sarah Law identified the body as being that of her husband, who she said was twenty three years old, and they both lived on Creswick Road, Pond Hill, Sheffield. Then the inquest was adjourned for a week until Wednesday 23 June 1875.

However police enquiries continued, and it was quickly established that, on the day his body was found, Law had spent a considerable amount of time in a public house on Silver Street, Sheffield. It appeared that he had left the house around 10.30 pm when he had been accompanied by a woman. As they were walking along, a man came up and started an argument with the pair. As a result Law had been knock savagely to the floor, before being punched and kicked by the man. Accordingly, when the adjourned inquest was opened in the Grand Jury room at the Town Hall, Mr Wightman told the jury that he feared that they would have to adjourn the inquest yet again.

Although police enquiries had been made, no suspect was yet held in custody. So the enquiry was postponed yet again for a fortnight. However when the inquest was convened once more, on Wednesday 7 July 1875, Dr Hallam stated that he could confirm the fact that Henry Law had indeed died as a result of a fractured skull. The surgeon gave his opinion that the injury had been caused either by a kick or a blow but was not the result of a fall. The surgeon described Law’s face as being ‘a mass of bruises’ although these could not account for his death. The first witness was a man called Frederick Graham who had seen and described the attack which, he said had happened around 11.10 pm on Wednesday 16 June 1875.

He said that he had witnessed two men fighting and they both fell to the ground before the second man jumped to his feet and ran away. Graham said the first man followed him, before hitting him on the back of his neck and kicking him when he fell to the ground. A second witness Thomas Henry Green too had seen the fight, but he said that four men had been involved in the attack, not just one. Green said that he had told two police officers what had happened, and gave his opinion that Law had been sober. However the two officers disagreed and said that the man had been drunk, but the witness continued to deny this.

The third witness, although agreeing with the basis of the previous witness, also stated that Law had been drunk. She was a woman called Kate Connor, who said that a group of four men had attacked Law and one of them she recognised as being a man called Thomas Tierney. She described how they had formed a ring around Law before he and Tierney had begun fighting. However, they had just been fighting for a short while before Law walked away and Tierney had followed him. She said that in attempting to knock him down, Tierney fell down on top of him. Her account was confirmed by another woman called Amelia Fletcher. She too had witnessed Tierney falling on top of Law, but admitted that she could not see all of the fight, as her vision was blocked by the large crowd that gathered around the fighting men.

There then followed a conversation between the coroner and Inspector King as to why a surgeon had not been immediately called to the police station, when the deceased man had first been locked in a cell. The inspector still claimed that the prisoner had been drunk and it was not usual to call out a surgeon for that reason. However, in an attempt not to apportion blame, Mr Wightman pointed out that in his opinion the death blow had already been struck before Law had been brought into the police station. Nevertheless he added, it was still the responsibility of the police to send for a surgeon immediately and let them decide if the prisoner was drunk or dying. However he emphasised to the jury that in this case ‘not sending for a surgeon had not caused Henry Law’s death.’

Mr Wightman summed up and said that it did not matter how the victim had died or whether Law’s head had struck the kerbstone or not. The reality was that he would not have fallen before being struck by Tierney, if that was what had happened. However, he told the jury, that did not relieve Tierney from the responsibility for Law’s death. Once again he stated that he believed that when Henry Law was brought into the police station, he was in a dying state and could not have been saved by a surgeon even if one had been called. He suggested that after Law had walked away, Tierney had followed him and inflicted the injuries which, he emphasised were wilful and malicious. Therefore in his opinion the attack amounted to wilful murder. The jury concurred and that verdict was given.

Frustratingly, I have been unable to find a conclusion to this case, having poured over all the local cases sent to the Leeds Assizes. There could be many reasons for this, which usually are not always documented, but I have come up with a blank. The prisoner, Thomas Tierney could have died in custody or the grand jury at the beginning of the assizes, might have thrown it out due to lack of verifiable evidence. Admittedly, the only two people who witnessed and identified Tierney as fighting with Law were women. Was that a good enough reason for the grand jury to have the case thrown out at the assize court? Sadly, we will never know!

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!