It seems that on the night of Saturday 3 July 1880 a woman called Fanny Northern was standing in College Street, Rotherham, when she noticed an altercation taking place. One man attempted to strike another before a third man crossed over the road and viciously struck the first man hard in the face. He immediately fell back to the ground and remained there unconscious. She ran towards a police officer who was patrolling along College Street and he immediately took charge. He summoned another officer who appeared shortly afterwards with a stretcher, and the injured man was removed to the hospital carried by the two officers.

Police enquiries quickly established that the injured man was a thirty-six year old labourer called William Hogan. His own testimony proved that one of his two attackers was a twenty seven year old man called Peter Gray and the second, a twenty-year old called Charles Hughes. However before anything could be done, William Hogan was discharged from the hospital and sent back to his home on Wellgate, where he died in the early hours of the following morning. How could this happen? Needless to say, the two men concerned were arrested and brought before the Rotherham magistrates on Monday 5 July 1880, charged with being concerned in Hogan’s death.

Inspector Hammond immediately asked the bench to simply remand the two prisoners until Thursday, so that police enquiries might continue, which was granted. That officer stated that an inquest and post mortem would be held on the deceased man in the meantime. Coroner Mr D Wightman arranged for the inquest to be held, at the Rotherham Court House on Wednesday 7 July when the whole matter was thoroughly investigated. However, new revelations were being uncovered, which made the man’s death appear more ominous than ever.

It seems that when Hogan was removed to the Rotherham Hospital for treatment, it soon became clear that he was very inebriated, so much so that one of the house surgeons, Mr T L Jaquet refused to treat him. Instead, he sent Hogan home where, the following day he died. At the inquest the surgeon was the first witness, and he openly admitted that he had told Mrs Hogan to take her husband home from the hospital as he was drunk! However, he told the coroner that even if he had allowed Hogan to remain, he would have died from his injuries anyway. The surgeon added that the man had been so drunk that he could barely walk.

In answer to a question from a juryman, the house surgeon told him ‘that institution was not kept up for the purpose of attending to drunkards.’ Dr Falding the chairman of the Hospital Board agreed and said that the surgeon had done the right thing. Dr Branson who undertook the post mortem, described Hogans wound which, he said was about a quarter of an inch below his right eye. He said that he believed it had been inflicted by a knuckle duster or some other sharp instrument. Then it was time for Mrs Hogan to describe her husbands last few minutes. She said that just before he died around 1 am, he seemed to gather his senses together.

He asked to see his son and when he did so exclaimed ‘Oh Lord have mercy on me. I am done for’ and then he died. Fanny Northern gave her account of seeing the fracas on College Street before the coroner summed up for the jury. After a brief consultation of just a quarter of an hour, they returned with a verdict of manslaughter against Peter Gray and Charles Hughes. However the added a rider: ‘that in the opinion of the jury, the house surgeon of the hospital committed an error of judgement in not allowing the deceased to remain in the institution until he was fully recovered.’ Accordingly the two prisoners were again brought before the magistrates on Thursday 15 July 1880.

The route that Hogan and his wife took on that fateful night was described by the prosecution Mr Barrass. He described how the couple had gone to get some goods at the market before calling in at the Cross Daggers and then to the White Hart in Church Street, Rotherham. It was there that they met the two prisoners. An argument started when Gray offered Hogan a drink out of his own pot, which he refused. Gray seemed to take offence at this and so followed the couple as far as College Street before Gray challenged Hogan to fight and once again he refused. That’s when, it was alleged, that Hughes walked up to Hogan and struck him in the face with his right hand in which was suspected to contain a sharp instrument.

Mr Barrass told the jury that he did not think there was enough evidence for the bench to commit the two prisoners on the capital charge. However they certainly had malice in what they subsequently did, which was proved by the evidence. Mary Ann Hogan gave her account and now said that she thought that Hughes had a ‘bright’ instrument in his hand as he lashed out at her husband. However she admitted that she could not see exactly what it was. Nevertheless as soon as he did so, her husband dropped senseless to the floor. Hughes then ran away in the direction of the church, whilst Gray walked hurriedly away up College Street.

Mr Branson stated that at the post mortem he had concluded that the man had died from a blow under the right eye and believed it was caused by a knuckle duster. Consequently the two prisoners were found guilty of manslaughter and sent to take their trial at the next Leeds Assizes. They appeared before judge, Mr Justice Bowen on Tuesday 27 July 1880. In the prisoners defence, their counsel, Mr Gane stated that there had been no ‘common purpose’ on the part of the two men. Indeed, he claimed that witness statements had proved that Gray had never struck out at the deceased at all, and therefore he ought to be discharged.

He concluded that as regards Hughes, it seemed clear that Hogan’s death would have ensued in all probability and asked that the prisoners therefore should both be found ‘not guilty.’ The jury however disagreed and both men were found guilty, although the judge stated that he would sentence the two prisoners on the following day. Accordingly, Peter Gray was sentenced to six months imprisonment and Charles Hughes to twelve months imprisonment for the attack on William Hogan.

Nineteen year old Robert Greensmith was employed as a one of the navvies working at the Newbiggin branch of the Greasborough Canal in 1843. The canal was used by the Parkgate Iron Company to transport material to and from the works. These men thought nothing of drinking on the job, so on the night of Sunday 17 November 1843, between 5 pm and 6 pm two of them, Robert Greensmith of Greasborough and Joseph Bell of Rawmarsh brought a bottle of ale each from Rotherham to where they were working. Greensmith placed his bottle near to the yard door and went ten or twelve yards away to the foot of the crane. However when, around ten minutes later he went back to the place, the bottle had gone.

Bell was standing nearby and so Greensmith asked him if he had seen it and he replied sarcastically ‘we neither have had it, nor have we seen anyone take it!’ However Greensmith made such a fuss that other workmen joined in and looked around to see if they could find the missing bottle, but it was nowhere to be seen. At that point it was unclear exactly what happened next, but within minutes Greensmith had taken a shovel and smashed it over Bell’s head cleaving his skull into two. A surgeon called Mr Edward Robinson was immediately called, but the wound was so serious that there was little he could do, as by now the patient was insensible and unable to talk.

Bell was taken to hospital whilst Constable William Ward of Kimberworth arrested Greensmith and took him into custody. When charged with the offence, the man showed no remorse, but simply showed the officer the shovel he had used. Later that same day, the same constable and Mr Badger the surgeon went to Rawmarsh to see Bell in order to try to take his statement. But it was clear that the injured man was still insensible. Accordingly, Robert Greensmith was brought before the magistrates at the Court House in Rotherham on Monday 20 November 1843 charged with cutting and maiming Joseph Bell.

However, in view of Bell’s dangerous condition the prisoner was simply remanded. The following day he was again brought before the magistrates. Mr Robinson described the injured man’s skull which he said was completely divided and the brains could be seen quite clearly. He said that it was inevitable that inflammation would set in and Bell’s death would ensue. Accordingly Greensmith was remanded for another week in order, if possible to allow the injured man’s statement to be taken. A witness, Christopher John Burkett of Parkgate claimed that as he passed through the casting-house where Greensmith was working on the day in question, he heard him say to someone ‘Bell says I have stolen his ale: I’ll cut his bloody head off or split him down with a shovel.’

Surgeon, Mr Robinson again repeated that the bone of the injured man’s head looked as if it had been sawn in half. Consequently, the prisoner was once more remanded. Although Greensmith was brought before the Rotherham magistrates twice more, he was simply remanded each time. Indeed, Joseph Bell was unable to attend court to give his side of the attack until Monday 4 December when he appeared in the courtroom with his head heavily bandaged. As soon as Greensmith saw him, he began to cry. Bell described how he ‘gave my head a turn and was immediately struck.’

Witness Christopher Burkett stated that he had witnessed the attack, as he was standing just a yard and a half from Bell when he was struck down by the prisoner. Surgeon Edward Robinson of Rotherham gave his evidence of attending to the stricken man at his house at Rawmarsh. He described the wound as being very serious indeed and about four and a half inches in length, through which the brain was visible. Finally, Constable Ward of Masbrough gave evidence of arresting Bell on the 17 Nov. Accordingly, Robert Greensmith was ordered to take his trial at the next assizes.

Greensmith appeared at the Yorkshire Winter Assizes on Wednesday 4 January 1844, before the judge, Mr Justice Coleman. In view of the fact that the attack had been made in front of witnesses, the prisoner had no option, but to plead guilty. Greensmith was defended by Mr Boothby who offered no defence in view of the witness testimonies. Instead he stated that he simply wished to recommend the prisoner to his Lordship’s mercy. The judge told the prisoner that he would take time to consider the case before announcing his verdict.

Indeed, Mr Justice Coleman took three days before Robert Greensmith was brought back into court. He accordingly told the prisoner that he had considered his case long and hard before deciding on his sentence. He then ordered him to three months imprisonment in York Castle for cutting and wounding Joseph Bell at Rawmarsh. Sadly I have been unable to find any evidence as to the fate of Joseph Bell, but given the seriousness of his injuries, it is highly unlikely that he survived for any length of time after his attacker was sentenced to York

In September of 1843 a woman called Jane Marsden of Waingate, Sheffield found herself a widow when her husband Jeffrey suddenly died. The couple had lived in a large house where they let out rooms to lodgers. Now, with her husband gone, Jane had no way of running such a large establishment. Sadly she was forced to sell the house and leave what effects she had at the house of her sister, a woman called Phoebe Pepper who lived in Arundel Street, Sheffield. Phoebe allowed her to store some of her household goods in the attic of her house. Matters also seemed to improve when Jane also found a job as a housekeeper for an elderly couple.

Suddenly, at the end of February 1844 Phoebe was taken ill and Jane decided to employ a domestic servant to take care of her sister. She therefore applied to the Sheffield Workhouse for the services of one of the inmates, who had nursing experience. A forty-eight year old woman called Mary Hobson was recommended by the matron of the workhouse, and the two women returned back to the house on Arundel Street together. However, it was not long before Phoebe became completely bedridden. At first things went well with Hobson and she attended to her patient assiduously while Jane visited frequently to make sure that her sisters health continued to progress satisfactorily.

However on Tuesday 26 March 1844 Jane needed to get back some of her blankets that were stored in her sisters attic. So going upstairs she opened the large chest which contained most of the drapery articles. Jane immediately noticed that the pile of blankets and towels was a lot less than it should had been. To her horror it was quite clear that many of her goods were missing. Emptying out the sheets, pillowcase and towels onto the floor and making a quick inventory, Jane quickly realised that missing in total were five blankets, a suit of clothes, a feather pillow, three small pieces of carpet and a boys shirt.

Going back downstairs she asked Hobson where her blankets were and the servant immediately told her ‘Oh I knew where they are, I can fetch them back for you tomorrow morning.’ The next morning however Mary Hobson left the house without saying where she was going. However when she returned, she was arrested for theft and taken into custody. As a result, Hobson was brought before the Magistrates at the Sheffield Town Hall on Friday 29 March 1844. The first witness was a widow called Elizabeth Kirk, who told the court that she had known Mary Hobson for some time.

She told the court that on Monday 25 March the prisoner had gone to her house to ask her if she would pledge a boys shirt for her at the pawnshop. Elizabeth agreed and took the garment to a shop run by a man called Mr William Champion Beet, who gave her sixpence in return. Elizabeth accordingly gave the money to Mary Hobson. The next witness was the pawnbroker himself and he stated that on 14 March the prisoner came into his shop with a blanket that she wanted to pawn. He asked her if it was her own property, to which she stated that it was. As a consequence he gave her a shilling in exchange for the blanket.

Mr Beet stated that the prisoner had returned back to his shop several times again and had pawned other articles, each time claiming that they were her own. The next to give evidence was Police Constable Potton who gave details of arresting the prisoner and taking her into custody. He also produced several stolen items recovered from the pawnbrokers shop, which were readily identified by Jane Marsden as being her property. As a result, the prisoner was found guilty and ordered to take her trial. Accordingly Mary Hobson was brought before the Spring Quarter Sessions at Pontefract on Monday 25 March 1844. She pleaded guilty to stealing the articles from the house of Phoebe Pepper and was sentenced to three months imprisonment.

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!