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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In a trial held at Nottingham Assizes on Wednesday 18 July 1906 a forty-seven year old housekeeper of Bulwell, called Sarah Wardle was brought before the judge. It seems that the scandal caused by the distribution of diachylon pills in Sheffield was now spreading to other counties. Sarah Wardle was indicted on four occasions of selling diachylon pills to women ‘for an unlawful purpose’. More concerning was the fact that at the same Assizes, a second woman, twenty-six year old Hilda Atkins was also charged on the same count. Both women’s defence was that because the pills were not scheduled as a poison, they had no idea that the substance in the pills contained lead.

After hearing all the evidence, His Lordship summed up for the jury. He told them that they had to decide whether or not the pills were sold in order that they would bring on an abortion. Wardle was found to be guilty and was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment with hard labour. However no evidence was offered against Atkins and she was discharged. Nevertheless, back in Sheffield things were hotting up as once again as more and more local women were accused of selling diachylon pills. In the afternoon of Wednesday 3 October 1906, two Sheffield magistrates heard three such cases, including a charge against a certified midwife, fifty year old Sarah Elizabeth Carford.

She proudly told the bench that she had given birth to twenty one children and had been a practising midwife for the past twenty five years. The witness claimed that a married woman called Barbara Davies had visited her on 2 April 1906 and told her that she was pregnant again and could not afford another baby. She begged the midwife for help. Carford reluctantly admitted that she had sold her the pills and told her how to use them. Dr Scurfield, the Medical Officer of Health for Sheffield stated that at that time, there were still a great many women in the city of Sheffield that were suffering through the extensive use of diachylon pills.

The same prisoner also admitted giving the same pills to two other local women named Mary Anne Bagshawe and Eliza Anne Somerset. The prosecution on behalf of Sheffield Council, a Mr H. Lang Coath readily admitted that the two named women had purposely been sent to the house of the midwife in order to procure these pills. He stated that upon their return, the city analyst, Mr George Scott Smith had been given the box containing 14 diachylon pills to examine. Mr Scott Smith appeared as the next witness and he told the bench that the box of pills had been obtained from the midwife, Sarah Carford. He found that each contained lead.

He stated that any woman taking two of these pills, one at night and one in a morning would most certainly give rise to lead poisoning. He added ominously that it would also definitely procure an abortion in any pregnant woman. The surgeon admitted that he himself had witnessed the deaths of Sheffield women through the taking of this poison. Another local surgeon, Dr Carter gave evidence that in one case, the woman concerned had been told to take four diachylon pills a day, which obviously acted as a virulent metallic poison from which she died. His evidence was backed up by Dr Arthur Hall and both women were committed to take their trial at the next Sheffield Quarter Sessions.

Accordingly Sarah Elizabeth Carford appeared at the sessions on Tuesday 23 October 1906 where the prosecution Mr T Ellison condemned the habit of supplying such drugs. He told the court that ‘the proceedings had been brought with the object of checking the pernicious habit of supplying drugs of this kind. He pointed out that the practise was only too prevalent in the city of Sheffield at that time.’ He too admitted that Barbara Davies and Mary Anne Bagshawe had been engaged by the Chief Lady Sanitary Inspector of Sheffield. Her purpose was to uncover the sale of the pills in Sheffield.

The defence Mr Waddy condemned the practise of employing women to ‘act as spies’ who would then go on to influence another woman to commit a crime. Nevertheless the jury found Carford guilty before hearing a similar case of Mary Ellen Styring. She too had admitted selling diachylon pills to two women, a Mrs Davies and a Mrs Mary Ellen Fletcher. An unnamed assistant at the shop of J T Dobbs and Co., a pharmacist of Sheffield was the next to give evidence. He told the court that he had been supplying Mrs Styring with packets of diachylon for the past four years. The assistant admitted that he had sold her a pound and a half of the substance, just in the last three or four weeks alone.

However, the previous April he had refused to sell her any more once he established that she was making pills out of it. Mrs Styring told the court that for years her family had been involved in making up diachylon pills for people. She said that her uncle and then her aunt had made the pills which later bore her name. The witness stated that she had followed the same prescription and had called them ‘Nurse Oakley’s Female Corrective Pills’ which she supplied to the two women in May. However she was found not guilty and discharged. But if the Sheffield legal authorities hoped that she would be the last woman to deal in this obnoxious practise, they were wrong. The following day a forty-three year old woman called Polly West was brought before the bench.

She claimed that she had bought the diachylon pills from a man who sold tapes and cottons door to door. He had told her she was quite safe to sell them, as he had got the recipe from a doctor. Once again the two women Davies and Fletcher to whom she had sold the pills gave evidence. They told the court that when handed the pills she had told them to ‘keep it quiet, as they are not registered by the Government, and I’m not allowed to sell them.’ Once again the City Analyst gave evidence that the pills had each contained diachylon. After hearing from witnesses Polly West was found guilty and sentenced to prison for twelve months with hard labour.

It was reported that the prisoner seemed to be most surprised at being sentenced. The Recorder at this point reduced the sentence to six months as he believed that the prisoner truly thought that the pills were not dangerous. However nationally, the question about the diachylon pills would not go away. The subject of why the pills were not just listed as a poison was once more was raised in the House of Commons by the Home Secretary Mr Gladstone. He asked Mr Samuel Roberts the M.P. for Ecclesall why this had not happened. He was told that to have the substance declared a poison ‘would entail great inconvenience’ without going into any detail. Mr Roberts concluded therefore that heavy sentencing at the Assizes for women found selling the pills, would serve as a deterrent.

However this hope was doomed to failure, as the sale of diachylon continued to be reported. The following year on 7 August 1907 a case was found in Mexborough. The coroner Mr D Wightman held an inquest into the death of Matilda Crummack, a married women of Swinton who had died in the Mexborough Montague Hospital a few days previously. Following her death, a post mortem had been held and lead poisoning had been found. However, at the time the inquest was adjourned until Wednesday 7 August 1907 when Dr Ram, who had treated the deceased woman returned from his holiday. Despite the delay, Dr Ram was unable to state where the poisonous pills had come from.

Police Sergeant Matthews had also made enquiries, which had also drawn a similar blank. As a result the coroner was forced to conclude that he could throw no further light on the case. However he added that he only hoped that publicity around the diachylon pills would stop the practise of supplying them altogether. But if it was to be hoped that would bring and end to Rotherham and Sheffield’s terrible scandal, people were in for a great disappointment. Just a few days later another inquest on a woman called Mary Robotham who lived in Wadsley Bridge Sheffield was held.

The inquest was conducted by the coroner at Wadsley Asylum where the deceased woman had recently been admitted. After her death the Asylum surgeon, Dr William Vincent told the jury that he had conducted a post mortem where, once again lead poisoning was the cause. He reported that Mary Rowbotham had been admitted to the Asylum hospital in a feeble and exhausted state. However it was clear from the contents of her stomach that she had been taking the poison for some time before her death. Needless to say the verdict was that she had died as a result of lead poisoning.

Thankfully that was where the scandal around the distribution of diachylon pills fizzled out in Sheffield, although they continued to be reported in other parts of the country. It seems that Mr Samuel Roberts M.P. for Sheffield’s prediction that heavy sentencing would form a deterrent to Sheffield midwives, was enough to put an end to this terrible plague of deaths.

During the early years of the twentieth century birth control pills were non existent, so when local women heard of a pill which aborted a foetus, chemists were bombarded with requests for it. The matter was brought to light at an inquest held at the Sheffield Public Mortuary on Friday 23 March 1906 on the body of a young married woman called Maria Russell. She was just twenty years of age and lived at Norton, Sheffield. Also in attendance was Dr Arthur Hall (who was later knighted by Queen Victoria) and was one of the most influential members of Sheffield Medical School. He was well known in the town through his efforts to try to stop the sale of pills containing diachlyon.

It had been at first thought that Maria had died supposedly from shock from a tram car collision she had been involved in prior to her death. However when the family physician, Dr Gale undertook the post mortem, he found that death was due to what he presumed was lead poisoning. The chief evidence was there right in front of his eyes, indicated by the presence of blue lines on the woman’s gums. Curiously, he noted that the poison had been taken in large quantities for some time before her death. Questioned by the coroner, Mr D Wightman the surgeon admitted that the diachlyon pills containing lead were sometimes taken by young women and were generally sold by quack doctors.

The jury brought in a verdict that ‘the deceased woman had died from the effects of lead poisoning, but as to how or why it was administered there was no evidence to show.’ The jury also requested the coroner to forward a copy of the verdict to the Home Office, to which he agreed. However the fame of the substance was spreading. Just a week later, Mr Wightman was asked to hold another inquest on 31 March 1906 on yet another twenty year old married woman of Rotherham called Mrs Beatrice Newcomb. She had died the day before from exactly the same symptoms as Maria Russell. It seems that Beatrice had been married for two years and already had two children, so she did not wish to have any more.

She lived with her husband at Conisborough and since moving to Sheffield, often went back to visit her mother at Thrybergh. Mrs Julia Allen, Beatrice’s mother was asked questions about the pills which had been found in the girl’s bedroom, by one of the servants. When the coroner asked Mrs Allen where the pill had come from, she denied all knowledge of them. She said that she had never seen her daughter take any pills whatsoever. However, the deceased woman’s husband next gave his account and he stated that he was aware that Beatrice had some pills labelled as ‘Nurse Oaklands Female Pills’ which he had seen her take.

Dr J Mason of Darnall, Sheffield told the coroner that he had undertaken a post mortem on the deceased and found that she too had died from lead poisoning. He stated that no medical man would proscribe any kind of pills made with diachlyon, however he admitted that he was aware of the rumours of their use in procuring abortions. The surgeon stated that he had learned that lead pills were frequently taken by women to prevent conception or to procure abortions. He admitted that he had looked after the deceased woman for five days before her death. Continuing with his evidence, Dr Mason stated that in his own practice in Darnall, he had been called to many cases in which women suffered and died from taking this poison.

A servant of Mrs Julia Allen was the first witness and she introduced herself to the inquest and said that her name was Lily Ricketts. She said that Beatrice had stayed at her mothers house at Thrybergh, near Rotherham some time ago and they had both slept in the same bed. During that visit Lily had witnessed the deceased woman making up some pills to her own recipe, which included diachylon and aloes. When Beatrice told her the purpose of the pills, she told her that she kept them in a box, away from her mothers knowledge. However another servant, Mrs Hannah Clarke told the inquest that the truth was that the previous witness had given Beatrice the recipe for the pills in exchange for a guinea.

Lily Ricketts was re-called but she denied having done so, blaming Hannah Clarke instead. After hearing from the two domestic servants, the jury brought back a verdict that ‘death was due to lead poisoning, caused by diachlyon pills, administered by the deceased for a specific purpose.’ The coroner, Mr Wightman demanded that the substance should to be put on the poisons list. He explained that in such a manner, the pills would have to be entered in chemist’s Poison Register and the names of both purchaser and seller would have to be noted down. A few days later, the events in Sheffield had caused such a scandal that the British Medical Association was forced to step in.

A letter signed by Mr J Smith the Medical Secretary to the BMA writing from the Strand, London gave a statement which was printed in several local newspapers. The letter roundly condemned ‘the evil which has been found to be prevalent in your district.’ The letter, was published over several days following Wednesday 4 April 1906 and warned:

‘The attention of the British Medical Association has been drawn to the danger incurred through the use of diachlyon in pills or otherwise. The Council feels that the public should be made aware that ingesting this substance has resulted frequently in paralysis, blindness, insanity and death.’

In Parliament, a question on the subject was even asked by the Home Secretary, Mr Gladstone by Mr Samuel Roberts, the Member of Parliament for the Eccleshall Division of Sheffield. He said that following two deaths in Sheffield, there was a developing increasing in the use of these pills among many local women. He admitted however that many of these woman were ignorant of the properties of the drug. Mr Gladstone declared that ‘to schedule diachylon as a poison would not mitigate the evil complained of.’

However that was not the end of the matter. Suddenly it was found that the scandal of the pills was not just confined to Sheffield….

(To read about the second part of Sheffield’s diachlyon problem, check out this space on Wednesday 19 November 2025)

At around 5.15pm on the evening of Thursday 27 December 1888, Sergeant Hepworth of the Rotherham Police Force was called out to a house by some neighbours. They were concerned as they could hear children crying inside, although they knew that their mother had gone out drinking. The house was on Oil Mill Fold, a notoriously squalid courtyard off Westgate. The sergeant asked Police Sergeant Warrington to accompany him and the two officers found the door to the house was unlocked. As they entered they detected a really bad smell which emanated from a table where a foul, stinking blanket lay. Lying on top of the blanket was on was a naked male child aged around six months.

Going upstairs they found a second female twin in a cot with dirty sheets and noted that the only clothes the child was wearing was a dirty chemise. Both children looked starved and emaciated and seemed to have their bones protruding through their flesh. Neighbours soon informed the two officers that the children’s mother was a woman called Catherine Hazel, although she now called herself McHugh as she was now living with a man of that name. They said that she would be found drinking at the nearby Wellington Hotel on Westgate. Accordingly, Sergeant Hepworth went immediately to the public house and brought the negligent mother back to the house. It was evident that she was in an advanced state of inebriation.

Sergeant Hepworth immediately asked Sergeant Warrington to inform the Chief Constable of Rotherham and to his surprise, Captain Burnett arrived a few moment later. He had come himself to see the state of the house and the children. The chief constable indicated to the drunken woman an old dirty pillow which had lay under the little boy’s head. He said that it looked as if the pillow and the child had been laying there for over a week. Catherine did not reply or indicate any shock or remorse at the state of her little son. Now angry, Captain Burnett instructed her to bring down her daughter from the bedroom, but the woman was so drunk she could not remember which bedroom the little girl was in.

Even though it was by now eleven thirty pm, both children were immediately removed to the Rotherham Workhouse in a cab accompanied by the police surgeon Dr Cobban. Their removal had been delayed because he had refused to remove them in their dirty bed linen. Instead the surgeon had sent for clean sheets from the workhouse, in which to wrap the twins in, ready for their removal. Once at the workhouse, they were both weighed by the workhouse master. He found the girl weighed only 9lbs and the boy 8lbs. Instead of the 15lbs to 16lbs they should both weigh at that age. Dr Cobban also found that the twins were both suffering from bronchitis

Needless to say Catherine Hazel was arrested and brought in front of the magistrates the following day. She was charged with ‘unlawfully and wilfully neglecting to provide adequate food, lodgings or clothing and medical aid for her two infant children.’ Described as ‘a middle aged woman’ the prisoner was placed in the dock from where she pleaded guilty to the charge. She was prosecuted by Mr Neal on behalf of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children who outlined the case for the bench. He warned the magistrates however that this case was ‘as bad as it could possibly be, worse than any brought previously before the court’. The prisoner told the court that the children had been born on 14 July 1888 and were five and a half months old.

Mr Neal pointed out that that the prisoner had lived in a house, but that was hardly deserving of such a name. He said that she had got into the habit of begging children’s clothing from charitable persons in the town, which she then promptly pawned in order to buy drink. In searching the house where the children had lived, twenty nine pawn tickets had been found, all of them for children’s clothing. Mr Neal emphasised that such dealings led to the prisoner being in a constant state of drunkenness and that was the reason why the children had been neglected. Dr Cobban told the court that he had undertaken a post mortem on the children and stated categorically that:

‘Both children were in an emaciated state, however he had found no organic disease or wasting state to account for the lack of weight. The children were therefore in emaciated condition purely from neglect and want of food.

He told the court that ‘they were in a state of danger to their lives when I ordered their removal and I suspected that at least one would not recover.’

He showed the bench bottles which had been removed from the house which were ordinary pint beer bottles, each having a teat of sorts attached in order to feed the children. Dr Cobban stated that these bottles had been washed since coming from the house, as previously one had contained black sediment about two inches thick in the bottom. He said that the mixture smelt so bad that ‘it was enough to knock a person over.’ When he called the prisoners attention to the state of the children’s feeding bottles, she said that she would clean them. Catherine had also claimed that the children had been provided with plenty of fresh milk, although it was clear that few attending court would have believed this statement.

However then the reason for the neglect became very clear. The prisoner admitted to a horrified courtroom that the children had both been insured with the London, Edinburgh and Glasgow Insurance Company. Mr Neal said that he had found the insurance documents in the house and from which he deduced that the lives of the children would be worth around 30s each. When it was time for the prisoner to defend herself, she claimed that both the children had been suffering from ‘thrush’ which the medical officer soon discounted. Next, she said that the reason the children had no clothes on, was because she had been washing that day. However there were no signs that any washing had being done.

Dr Cobban also reminded the court that she had to be fetched from the public house and was drunk when he saw her. Police Sergeant Hepworth said that he knew the family and knew that McHugh allowed her on average around 18s a week to keep herself and the children. He said that she spent this money on alcohol and was accustomed to drinking every day. Charles Edwin Parkin the Nuisance Inspector reported that the prisoner had lived in the same house for about thirty years. He went onto described the filthy condition of the building, which he rendered as being unfit for human habitation. He informed the court that since the woman’s arrest, the landlord had ordered bedding to be burned, every room scoured, whitewashed and cleaned.

Police Sergeant Hepworth was recalled and he told the court that the prisoner was not married, but although she had adopted the name of McHugh, as the couple had been together for ten years. The Bench considered what to do with the prisoner, but they could do no more than sentence Catherine Hazel to four months imprisonment. The Mayor added that they regretted that they could do nothing as regard to the system of Infant Life Insurances ‘which was becoming a perfect pest.’

In January of 1893, a man called George Holmes was a travelling photographer who went to lodge at the house kept by Mr William Shales, his wife and family on Attercliffe Common, Sheffield. Shales had two daughters living with him, sixteen year old Isabella and thirteen year old Eliza. Some time later, on 6 March, William Shales returned home from his job as a picture framer to find his wife in tears. It seems that she had just found out that Holmes had had improper relations with Isabella, whilst living under their roof. It seems that the lodger had asked her daughter several times to run off with him, promising that if she did, he would ‘make a lady of her.’

Needless to say, when he heard this, Shales banished Holmes from the house, hoping that was the end of the matter. However, he soon found out that it wasn’t. On 3 April Isabella disappeared from the house, although most of her clothing was left behind. Only later did it become apparent that the forty-one year old former lodger had also gone missing. Despite the disparity in their ages it was obvious that the pair had run off together. A massive police search was instituted and on Monday 17 April, the North Shields police were informed that a couple answering the description of the two missing persons from Sheffield had been found.

A detachment of officers were sent to a local lodging house and the pair were taken into custody. It was quite clear that the couple had been living together as man and wife. The following day Holmes was arrested, charged with abduction and brought back to Sheffield and Isabella was returned back to her parents care. The following day the prisoner was brought before the Sheffield magistrates at the City Police Court. Mr Shales was the first to give evidence and he claimed that he had heard that the photographer had also assaulted his younger daughter before abducting her older sister. He stated that as being the reason he had banned him from the house.

Holmes angrily denied the charge, instead claiming that Shales had wanted him to go into business with him and when he refused had banished him from the house. Then it was Isabella’s turn to give her evidence. She told the bench that about a week after Holmes was sent away from her parents lodging house, she received a letter from him asking her to visit him at a house on Dunlop Street, Sheffield. There she met the prisoner again and once more Holmes had asked her to go away with him. When she objected because she had no clothes with her, he bought her a hat, a pair of gold earnings and a petticoat.

Isabella said that at first when the prisoner had asked her to go away with him, she had refused, telling him she was too young. However on 3 April they met at Tinsley station and walked along the canal until they got to Masbrough Station in Rotherham. In the end, worn down by his persuasions, Isabella agreed and he bought two tickets to Wakefield and then they went to Hemsworth, where they found lodgings together. Soon afterwards, the pair went to South Shields where they again took lodgings together. Isabella told the court that when she agreed, he bought her a dress and a new fur coat. He also presented her with a wedding ring and told her that they would get married.

The prosecution. Mr W E Clegg asked her if, at this time, she was well aware that Holmes was a married man, to which she agreed that she had known it. However when the prosecution asked her whether or not she had asked the prisoner to take her away, Isabella hotly denied this. Again Mr Clegg argued that she had told the prisoner that if he didn’t take her away that she ‘would jump in the water’ and that was the reason for the abduction. The next witness was a man called George Highfield who had premises on Dunlop Street, Sheffield. He said that he had known the prisoner for twenty years or more and was well aware that he was already married.

The witness admitted that it was him who had in fact informed William Shales of the matter. The next to give evidence was a woman called Charlotte Godfrey who introduced herself as the prisoners eldest daughter. She told the court that her father had not lived with her mother for the past thirteen years. Nevertheless when they heard that he was having relations with a young girl called Isabella, they came to Sheffield in order to warn her. The witness described going to the house on Attercliffe Common on 6 March and telling both William Shales and Isabelle that the prisoner was married.

It was some time after this when and she and her mother heard that the couple had already gone away together. After hearing the evidence, the prisoner was found guilty of abduction and sent to take his trial at the next Leeds Assizes. Consequently, George Holmes was brought before the judge, Mr Justice Gamsford Bruce on Friday 12 May 1893. When Isabella gave her evidence, she stated that Holmes was very aware that she was just sixteen years of age. The prisoners defence, Mr Middleton, told the jury that his client had every reason to believe that Isabella was over 18 years of age. In his summing up His Lordship said that:

‘It is very important that young children should be protected from acts of such a character. It is therefore the imperative duty of those who administered the law to punish with great severity the men who commit such offences.’

He then sentenced George Holmes to 15 months imprisonment with hard labour for the abduction of a girl below the age of 18

Towards the end of 1892 Masbrough Street, Rotherham was full of dubious courtyards containing closely squashed, poorly built houses. Overcrowding was rife and so anyone who had a spare room available would generally take in lodgers to maximise their weekly income. Such a woman was

widow Mrs Ann Wood who lived at number ten, Square Yard, Masbrough Street. This small house contained herself, her son Albert aged nineteen and provided lodgings for a seventy-two year old rat catcher called James Middleton. On Monday 31 October, Albert returned back home from his work at Messrs Harrison and Camm’s waggon works. His mother asked him what he wanted to eat and he thought for a minute before asking her for some ‘hasty pudding.’

This was a thick oatmeal porridge which was sweetened with treacle. So Ann smiled as she prepared it for him and mother and son enjoyed their meal together. Afterwards there was some left, so when the lodger James arrived back some time later, Ann watered it down into a gruel and served him the same. However the rat catcher couldn’t finish it. In fact he was just half way through when he lay down his spoon and complained that it tasted bitter. A few hours later all three people were vomiting and extremely ill and a local surgeon, Dr Alex Murray was summoned to the house. He immediately diagnosed poison and came to the conclusion that somehow the oatmeal had been to blame.

It had been bought for the family by the rat catcher about two weeks previously and had remained in the cupboard since that time. Ann Wood remembered how her lodger had pulled it out of his jacket pocket to give it to her. Then crucially, she also remembered that in his trade he often carried arsenic around in the same pocket. The rat catcher was so ill by this time that he was taken a couple of doors away to where his married sister, a Mrs Lockwood lived. She had arranged to look after her brother. Shortly before 3 am young Albert Wood died and the Rotherham Police were notified. Police Sergeant Powell went to the house and after hearing what had transpired, he searched James’s pockets.

In one of the them he found a bottle containing arsenic, which James used to kill rats. The officer also took possession of the large pan in which the porridge had been made, as well as the plates and basin which had contained the remains. Much later around 9.45 am, James Middleton also died at his sisters house. Both deceased men had demonstrated signs of being in complete agony just before their deaths. Therefore Police Sergeant Powell had both bodies removed to the Rotherham Mortuary and the Coroner for the district, Mr D Wightman was notified. Needless to say the matter soon became the talk of the neighbourhood, as both men were very well known around Masborough.

Albert had been a member of the Rotherham Volunteers and was due to be married shortly, and James was well known because of his trade. Thankfully, by this time Ann’s condition was reported as ‘improving’ although she was rightly devastated at the death of her only son. The inquest on the two men therefore was held at the Phoenix Hotel, Rotherham on Wednesday 2 November 1892. Dr Murray told the Coroner, Mr D Wightman that thankfully by this time it was thought that Ann would soon make a full recovery. He described for the jury how he had been called to the house on Monday evening and saw the deceased man, James vomiting near the back door. Inside the house was James Middleton lying on the sofa, also vomiting.

After the two deaths, the surgeon stated that he had completed the post mortem and externally saw no signs of violence. However, with the use of simple tests it was confirmed that the contents of the bottle found in the rat catchers pocket did contain arsenic. Mr Wightman, in his summing up, told the jury that as far as he could tell there was no suspicion of the poison being mixed with the food ‘with any felonious intent.’ He told them that the best proof of that was the fact that James Middleton ate some of the oatmeal himself. It therefore looked as though it was a case of neglect or thoughtlessness on the rat catchers part. Police surgeon, Dr Cobban told the inquest that he had attended the post mortem with Dr Murray and confirmed his conclusions.

He told the inquest that he had known James Middleton personally and was well aware that he often carried poison with him in his pockets. He also stated that although Ann Wood was still very poorly, he had high hopes of her full recovery. After hearing all the evidence the jury went out to consider their verdict. They eventually returned and passed a verdict that:

‘On the said November 1, the deceased James Middleton and the deceased Albert Wood both died from poisoning by arsenic. It had been inadvertently administered in food and without any felonious intention by any person or persons whatsoever.’

On Sunday 6 November 1892 the remains of Albert Wood were interred in the Kimberworth Cemetery with full military honours provided by his colleagues in the Rotherham Volunteer detachment. Major Hirst led the men in playing ‘the Dead March’ as the young man’s body was lowered into the ground. Thankfully it was also reported that his mother Ann was well on her way to recovery, although her private thoughts on losing her only son in this tragic manner were not described.

Towards the end of April 1904 a tragic case was brought before the Sheffield Magistrates, where an Austrian woman called Amalia Zoder had been charged with ‘wandering abroad.’ This was a term for people who had been found in the town with no fixed address. It seems that Amalia appeared to be a woman in her late twenties, but unlike many charged with this offence, she was described as being ‘of respectable appearance’. What’s more, in her possession was a bank book containing quite a considerable sum of money. Just a month previously she had arrived in Sheffield in search of a lost lover.

This was a Sheffield man to whom she became engaged in her home town of Vienna a few weeks before that. Amalia claimed that after a quarrel, he had left her and she had come to Sheffield to try to effect a reconciliation. After hearing what the prisoner had to say, the case was dismissed by the bench and she was discharged. Nevertheless, such was Amalia’s persistence that on Thursday 19 May, she was brought into court once again, charged with the same offence. Dean Dolan, the Roman Catholic clergyman of Saint Marie’s church told the court how the prisoner had become very annoying by constantly ringing the presbytery bell at the church.

He claimed that she had also been pestering the clergy and what made things more difficult was that her English was very poor. This resulted in her time in custody and before the court, the authorities had great difficulty in making her understand the position that she had found herself in. Amalia claimed that she had simply been looking for work in Sheffield. In the end the magistrates decided to remand her to the Fir Vale Workhouse, so that enquiries to be made into her mental condition.
They soon established that Amalia had sought the aid of the Catholic priests at Saint Marie’s church and had actually managed to find one who spoke fluent German.

On her behalf, he had interviewed the errant lover who was now living and working in Sheffield.
Sadly it was a case of ‘love grown cold’ and he stated that he had no wish to marry Amalia having, in the meantime, married someone else. The poor abandoned girl simply did not want to accept the situation. Amalia had found out that as he had married his new wife in a local Protestant church, she was therefore convinced that if the priests of St Maries church would just marry him to her, he would come to his senses. To this end, the prisoner had persistently arrived at the presbytery and rang the bell to the point that she finally declined to leave the premises at all. She simply sat down just where she was.

The priests had no option therefore but to call in the police, who found her sat on the presbytery doorstep. Amalia was, for the third time brought before the Sheffield magistrates on 27 May 1904. The bench were told that during her stay in Fir Vale workhouse enquiries had also been made in Vienna. However it was found that her parents were very poor and were not in a position to help their daughter. In the meantime the medical officer of the workhouse had found her to be perfectly sane and well able to take care of herself. Finally Amalia was discharged from the workhouse and given money to find lodgings in Howard Street, Sheffield.

Sadly the severe mental strain which the poor woman had been under, appeared once more and the landlady gave her notice to quit. Finding herself in the difficult situation, Amelia returned back to St Marie’s Presbytery where she again made a nuisance of herself sitting on the doorstep and ringing the bell. Once again the police were called and Amalia was brought before the court. In frustration the magistrates remanded her to the workhouse for a fortnight whilst further enquiries were made, but nothing new could be established. Sadly that is where the mystery of Amalia Zoder ends. Did she find her errant lover and make things up with him or did she go back to Vienna a sadder, but wiser woman?

Sadly we will never know.

Although both Norah Beeby and Patrick Galvin were married to other people, for the past five weeks they had been living together in lodgings in Oxford Street. Galvin, who was originally from Denaby, was employed in Rotherham by a local firm of refrigerator manufacturers as a joiner. On Wednesday 22 April 1925 Nora had been taken ill, but because of the dubious substance she had taken, it was not until Saturday that a surgeon was sent for. Dr Core attended her and he could see that her condition was fatal, so he immediately ordered her to be removed to the hospital. Her dying state was also reported to the police authorities and Detective Sergeant Emsley of the local police force was dispatched to the Rotherham hospital without delay.

He arrived around 5.13 p.m. and found Galvin at Nora’s bedside. The man agreed to make a statement, and after being cautioned by the sergeant, he said:

‘I have been living with her for five weeks, but I have been keeping company with her for some time before that. She has been taking rat poison. I know she has been taking that, for I bought it for her a fortnight ago today. She has taken several lots, sometimes in tea and sometimes in water. The last time she took any was last Wednesday, and she had a miscarriage later that night. I was responsible for her condition. We came into town on Saturday and I bought the poison for her.

After Nora confirmed these events, Galvin was arrested and brought before the Rotherham magistrates on Monday 27 April 1925. The Chief Constable of Rotherham, Mr E Weatherhogg told the court that the prisoner was charged with ‘obtaining a poison knowing that it was to be used for an unlawful purpose’. The poison in question contained phosphorous which was a vermin killer. The prisoner admitted to the arresting officer that Nora had told him that she was expecting their child a few weeks previously. Consequently Galvin had told her that to get ‘rid of it’ he would buy something for her to take.

The poison was manufactured under the name ‘Rodine’ and Nora had taken some on the Wednesday and had died on the Sunday. Mr Weatherhogg told the bench that as the police were continuing with their enquiries, he asked for a remand until the following Wednesday and this was granted. Accordingly the Coroner, Mr W J Bradford held an inquest on the remains of Nora Beeby on Tuesday 28 April 1925. Patrick Galvin was defended by Mr W J Clarke and he pleaded ‘not guilty’ to the charge. The first witness was Nora’s father, Thomas White, who gave his address as Norwood Street, Dalton Brook.

He told the inquest that in September 1923 his daughter had been married to a man called Edward Beeby. However, White said that the marriage had failed after only six months and the couple parted. He was asked by the coroner if he was aware that his daughter had been living with the prisoner for the last five weeks and Thomas admitted that he had. He told the inquest that he had last seen his daughter alive on Tuesday 21 April. At that point Mr Bradford announced that he would adjourn the inquest until the police had finished their enquiries. Accordingly the inquest reconvened on Wednesday 29 April, and the first witness was Dr James Hagan, a house surgeon at the Rotherham hospital.

He gave evidence to the effect that Galvin had admitted to him that Nora had been taking rat poison before she died. The prisoner had also added that she had taken it in the form of a paste. The surgeon told the coroner that on Monday 27 April he had undertaken a post mortem on the deceased woman’s body, He had found clear signs the woman’s death was due to having ingested an acute, irritative poison. Needless to say Patrick Galvin was found guilty of manslaughter and ordered to take his trial at the Yorkshire Assizes to be held at Leeds. Bail was requested, but it was refused. Accordingly the prisoner was brought before the judge on Monday 18 May 1925.

Although Galvin found himself in a most serious position, it seems that his honesty about supplying the rat poison had given him a slight advantage in the grand jury’s eyes. This was mitigated in Dr Hagan’s evidence, when he admitted that as far as he knew no analysis had been made of the rat poison. In his summing up the judge, Mr Justice McCardie told the grand jury that the case could not proceed on the evidence offered so far. The poison should have been tested and the contents of the girls stomach should also have been compared with the poison to see if the analysis corresponded in any way. He therefore directed the jury to return a verdict of ‘not guilty’ to which the jury complied. Patrick Galvin, who had never denied what he had done, was therefore discharged.

This case was widely reported in the newspapers of the period and the couple were rightly condemned for their part in it. However throughout, there is no mention in the evidence of the desperate measures which Nora would have gone through in ingesting rat poison. By its very nature it was not meant to be taken internally by a human being. Consequently the agony which Nora would have suffered in imbibing an ‘acute, irritative poison’ (to use the words of Dr Hagan) must have been terrible both to go through and to witness.

Local solicitor, Mr A Neal was prosecuting the case on behalf of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. He began by outlining the case for the bench and described how the two prisoners would regularly send out their two sons at all hours and in all kinds of weather to sell newspapers. In fact, the children were often sent out barely clothed in the worst weather in order for people passing by to buy the newspapers out of sympathy for them. Many times the parents had been warned about sending their children out with insufficient clothing. Mr Neal also described the conditions of the house in which the family lived in a squalid court off Pond Street, Sheffield.

He said that there was only one bedroom in which the two adults and two children shared, although there was no bedding or furniture in the room, just a heap of dirty straw for them all to lie on. The prosecutor accused Swinscoe and his wife of going out drinking and letting the children wander the streets of Sheffield whilst they did so. Mr Neal reminded the bench that this was one of the first such cases to be brought before them and he asked the magistrates to make an example of the couple. Therefore as a deterrent to others, the prosecutor asked finally that the couple be substantially punished.

The first witness was Police Constable Roberts and he told the Mayor that he had been on duty on 23 November 1889 in Arundel Street, Sheffield around 8 pm. He was therefore very surprised to see the two children were still out at that late hour selling their newspapers. Roberts described the seven year old boy as ‘running about nearly naked, despite it being a very wet and rainy night.’ He had no shoes on just a ‘bad’ pair of boots, no cap and very little clothing altogether. The younger son was similarly attired, but in an equally destitute state. Constable Roberts stated that he had visited the parental home, but found no one there and calling again later around 9.30 pm, he found the same empty house.

The officer told the court how he had on previous occasions found the two boys wandering the streets and had taken them back to their home on Pond Street. In fact he complained that he had been doing this constantly for the last twelve months. However each and every time he went to the house, the constable had never seen a scrap of food in any of the cupboards. PC Roberts described the conditions in the house as being ‘not fit for a pig to live in.’ Another witness also in the Sheffield police force, Police Constable Green, confirmed his colleague’s account. He stated that he too had warned the prisoners several times about sending their children out to sell newspapers whilst they went out drinking.

Both officers accounts were also confirmed by Sergeant Stone who also gave similar evidence. He said that the prisoners spent every penny they earned on drink. In fact he claimed that if it was not what the children were given by benevolent neighbours, they would probably have starved to death. Another officer, Police constable Vause echoed both his colleague’s accounts and said that he had been so disturbed that he had reported the matter to his superior, the Chief Constable himself. He had also cautioned the parents, to no effect whatsoever. These witnesses accounts were backed up by the next witness, Police Surgeon William Skinner.

He told the court that he had attended the parental home on 11 December and had been appalled at the conditions he found. He repeated the scarcity of any furniture in the bedroom and condemned the actions of the parents. When Swinscoe was asked if he had anything to say in his own defence, Henry claimed that the couple did the best they could with the small amount of money coming into the house. When the Mayor asked Henry what he had done for a living, the male prisoner told him that he had started work as a spoon and fork filer, but in 1872 he had become a hawker.

The magistrates retired to consider the case and after a long consultation between themselves agreed to commit both parents to prison for one calendar month with hard labour. The two boys were to be removed to the workhouse and to remain there during their parents confinement. I would suggest that life in the Sheffield workhouse was a rare treat for those poor neglected little boys!

Mary and James Ashworth were both in their early thirties when they lived on Cresswell Road, Mexborough. On Saturday 1 August of 1906 around 10.10 pm an argument broke out just as the couple had been enjoying a late supper in the kitchen. Also there was a friend, Henry Johnson who, saw James reached over the table and smack his wife in the mouth. As Mary (who was known locally as Polly) put out her hands to save herself, she accidentally knocked over a parrafin lamp which had been standing in the middle of the table. It broke against the surface and within an instant, parrafin was spreading everywhere. To their horror the paraffin blazed up spread across the remains of the meal and poured into James lap.

Suddenly it ignited and set James’s clothes alight as Mary screamed at the top of her voice. James got up from the table, still ablaze and ran out of the house also screaming. A neighbour called Emma Smith saw the man ablaze, but all he said was ‘Polly’s thrown a lamp at me!’ Neighbours quickly came rushing to his rescue and managed to put out James clothes using a hearthrug to extinguish the flames. He was immediately removed to the Mexborough Montague Hospital where medical staff treated his terrible burns. The Rotherham Police were informed and the next day he was visited by Inspector Watson and Sergeant Matthews.

He told them that the matter had been ‘a pure accident’ however, six weeks later on Thursday 13 September James Ashworth succumbed to his injuries and died. The Deputy Coroner, Mr J Kenyon Parker arranged for an inquest to be held on Tuesday 18 September at the Primitive Methodist Institute, Mexborough. Also in attendance was Superintendent Hicks of the West Riding Constabulary. The witness Henry Johnson was the first witness, and he stated that Mary Ashworth had deliberately picked up the lamp and thrown it across the table at her husband. In view of this grave allegation, Mr Kenyon Parker had no option but to adjourn the inquest to Friday 21 September 1906 so that the man’s story could be looked into. As a result Mary Ashworth was taken into custody.

At the adjourned inquest, the prisoner questioned Johnson, but he managed to stick to his story. However he admitted that he had left the house for around five minutes, so had no idea how the argument had started. He had only just entered the house as James attacked his wife. One of the surgeons at the Montague Hospital, Frank Harvey gave evidence that he had seen the deceased man shortly after he had been admitted. However he claimed that James’s burns were extensive, but all were superficial. His burns were mostly from the middle of his waist to his toes. For the first few days there were hopes that he might survive, but nevertheless James Ashworth died.

Frank Harvey stated that the cause of his death had been from exhaustion, as James had been unable to sleep due to the great pain he was constantly in. A sister at the hospital called Clara Wesley confirmed the surgeon’s account and said that the patient had always maintained that the matter was an accident. However in reply to Sergeant Hicks, Clara said that she was present on the morning that her patient died. She also stated that James had made a statement to the sergeant ‘but that it was different to the one he had made to her.’ Another witness was a woman called Eliza Winter who lived at the South Yorkshire Hotel, Mexborough.

It seems that around a quarter to midnight, having heard about the incident, she went to the house on Cresswell Road and saw the prisoner. She said that her husband James had already been removed to the hospital, but she was standing outside the house with her little boy. Eliza asked her ‘Polly what have you done?’ to which she replied ‘I have thrown a lamp at him. Well he shouldn’t be jealous of me!’ The witness claimed that on this occasion that the prisoner was talking wildly and not like her normal, quiet self. The coroner asked her if she was quite sure those were the words used by the prisoner, to which she replied that she said it in such a loud voice, so other people must have heard it too.

Another woman called Mary Ann Lockwood, who had accompanied the previous witness corroborated her evidence. Then Mr Kenyon Parker addressed the prisoner and told her that she could make a statement if she wished, but as she was not represented by a defence counsel he advised her to say nothing, to which she agreed. The coroner summed up for the jury and reminded them that they had a two fold issue to decide. They had first to find the cause of death of the deceased man and secondly to decide who was responsible for it. He said that the fact that the lamp had struck the table, did not alter the legal consequences of the prisoners actions in the slightest degree.

He reminded the jury that several witnesses had heard the deceased man say that his wife had thrown the lamp at him as well as that it had fallen over. They had also heard Mary Ashworth had said much the same thing. The jury retired to consider their verdict and brought back a charge of manslaughter against Mary Ashworth. The prisoner was sentenced to take her trial on the Coroners warrant and was immediately removed from the inquest. Thankfully by the time that Mary was brought before Mr Justice Bigham at the West Riding Assizes in Leeds on Friday 14 December 1906 she was represented by counsel, Mr Yarborough.

Mr Fleming, the prosecution opened the case and related the events of the night of 1 August for the jury. He stated that at the time the deceased man was sober, but the prisoner was drunk as he described the events. The same inquest witnesses gave their evidence as Police Sergeant Matthews related how he had been called to the house with Inspector Watson. He opened his notebook and related how the prisoner had indeed been drinking, but nevertheless he said that she seemed to know what she was doing. She had told him:

‘Jim and me have been having words. He struck at me across the table. I put my hands out and knocked the lamp over. It fell over onto the table and broke and burned him. Some of them say I threw the lamp at him, but that is not true.’

Inspector Watson said that from what Mary Ashworth had said to him, he thought that the incident had been a complete accident. Mr Justice Bigham pointed out to the jury that although the witnesses evidence differed, the last two witnesses were men specially trained to listen to evidence. He also reminded them that Ashworth himself, before he had died had stated that the incident had been an accident. The judge added that in her distress, the prisoner herself might easily have thrown the lamp at her husband. Nevertheless in his opinion the lamp had simply been knocked over. He therefore directed the jury to find the prisoner ‘not guilty’ and Mary Ashworth was thankfully discharged.