On Thursday 1 November 1849, there was not one, but two cases of child desertion brought before the Sheffield Magistrates Court. The first was a woman called Emma Thompson who on the previous Tuesday had taken her child to the shop of an unnamed local tradesman. Emma then left it, stating that the child was his and therefore he must provide for it, as she was unable to. The man’s name was left out of the newspaper report for legal reasons. Solicitor, Mr Ellis who was acting as prosecution stated that the unnamed tradesman, who denied that the child was his, had therefore had no option but to send the baby to the Sheffield workhouse.

Once he had identified the mother, she had been questioned by Mr Ellis who requested that she take back the child, but the prisoner refused, and so the charge of child desertion was made. Thankfully in this case, a solicitor Mr A C Branson was appointed to defend the prisoner and he told the court of the circumstances behind the child’s birth. He said that Emma had previously been employed by the tradesman as a servant and during that period she had became pregnant. On the previous Tuesday, 30 October she had applied to the Sheffield magistrates for an affiliation order against the father. However the request had failed, as she had been unable to produce any physical evidence in order to corroborate her account.

Instead, she was told that the bench would consider her case afresh if she could, at some point in the future, bring forward some clear evidence that the tradesman was the father of the illegitimate child. At that point the case had been dismissed. Mr Branson told the court that his client, Emma Thompson had since spoken to some friends, who had suggested taking the child to the shop and leaving it there and that she had done so on their advice. However, since then he had, as her defence, told her that leaving the child at the workhouse would result in her being charged with desertion. The girl had no option but to remove her child from the workhouse and meanwhile Mr Branson had told her that he would endeavour to find some fresh evidence to prove that the tradesman was indeed the father to the child.

The bench considered the case before Emma was discharged and told that only she was legally responsible for the child. One of the other magistrates, Mr Haywood said that the prisoner had acted very wrongly, but ‘there was perhaps, some excuse for her behaviour!’ Then the second case of child desertion was heard. However this time the mother was no young girl, but a widow called Ann Smith. The prosecution was again Mr Ellis who stated that the prisoner had previously lodged with a person named Mrs Bradbury at Duke Street, Park, Sheffield. On 7 September the prisoner had left her three month old child alone at her lodgings, telling the landlady that she was going out to look for work.

When she did not return, once again the baby was sent to the Sheffield workhouse. Mr Ellis said that a warrant was taken out for the mothers arrest, charging her with desertion. As a result, two days later, police enquiries had established that she was now living with a man at Willington near Derby. An officer had been dispatched with an arrest warrant and found the prisoner living in adultery with the man, who was a stone mason. Ann had told him that she had deserted the child because she was simply unable to keep it. Nevertheless the prisoner was ordered to, not only remove the child, but also to repay the workhouse authorities for the full costs of the child’s upkeep. This amounted to £2.4.6d, or failing that, Ann Smith would be committed to prison for three months.

Mordecai Timm was the landlord of the Municipal Inn on Burgoyne Road, Sheffield in December of 1884 and he had a daughter named Annie Eliza. So when she started to court a young man called Alfred Smith on a regular basis, he had great hopes that he might be getting his daughter married off at last! Smith, who lived on Greaves Street, Walkley, Sheffield had a good job as an engraver so Mordecai was delighted at Christmas of 1883 when the pair announced their engagement. They had agreed to get married in August 1884 and happily planned their nuptials. Mordecai was even more pleased when Annie told him that they were planning to buy furniture for their future home together. He told his daughter that they could store the items in the empty clubroom of the Municipal Inn.

Alfred Smith was delighted at this and he told Mordecai that he was going to pay a weekly amount of money to Annie so that she would be able to buy bits of furniture and store them away for when they found a house to live in. The couple accordingly bought various items for their new home and had them delivered into the clubroom. At first matters went well, as Annie and Alfred grew close and Mordecai was delighted to see is daughter looking so happy. Sadly this did not last and around 21 July 1884 Annie told him that she was breaking off their engagement. No reason was given and Mordecai knew better than to ask.

A week after she announced the news to her father, Smith turned up at the Inn and demanded that all the items of furniture should be returned back to him, pointing out that he had paid for them. He valued the items as being around £17, although Mordecai stated that some of the items had been presents from Smith to his daughter. Annie said that she had already given him 15s which she said was money that he had given her towards some of the items of furniture. She admitted that he had given her more money, but said that was all she had in hand at the time. Mordecai kept Alfred outside in the garden of the Inn as he did not want to come inside and disturb his customers. After a while, he managed to calm the young man down and suggested that he and Annie draw up a list of items to split between them.

At first Smith was not happy and pointed out that he had given his daughter money each week to pay for them, so the furniture in fact belonged to him. Mordecai instead told him that Annie had paid for some of the cheaper items herself. He also pointed out that Smith still owed him 10s for a subscriptions to a fishing club run by some of the Municipal Inn regulars. At this Smith lost his temper and started to smash up garden furniture and plants at the Inn. He was only prevented from doing further damage by Mordecai and a young, strong barman he employed. Nevertheless, soon afterwards Mordecai issued a warrant for Smiths arrest for damage, and he was brought before the Sheffield Stipendiary Magistrates on Tuesday 15 October 1884.

He was quickly found guilty and was ordered to pay £15 for the damage as well as court costs or he had go to prison for fourteen days. As Smith was unable to pay the fine, he elected to go to prison and serve his time. Upon leaving the court, Mordecai saw Smith and he offered him £9 to buy all the furniture from the clubroom off him. Smith refused and instead challenged Mordecai to a fight which he refused. Upon his release from prison, Annie’s former lover again went to the Municipal Inn and once more demanded the furniture which again Mordecai refused. Accordingly, Smith sued Mordecai Timm for something called Action for Detinue. The case was heard at the Sheffield County Court on Wednesday 12 November 1884 before judge Thomas Ellison Esq. Mr Clegg, acted as prosecution and outlined the case for Alfred Smith.

When it was time for Mr Binney, Smith’s defence solicitor to speak, he denied that any of the items of furniture were ever gifts. He admitted that his client had bought Annie presents from time to time, but he had not included them in his claim. Annie gave evidence to the contrary and said that she had always paid half the costs of many of the items. When asked why she had broken off the engagement in the first place, she told the court that she was not satisfied with Smith’s conduct towards her. However she claimed that instead of the 10s she had given him, that it was in actual fact nearer to something like £2.5s.

The judge asked her to guess more exactly how much it would be, but the witness said she could not remember. Her father Mordecai had also changed his story and now claimed that he knew nothing about the items that had been stored in the clubroom. Judge Thomas Ellison was obviously annoyed at this change in their story and stated that in his opinion neither Mordecai Timms or his daughter had been candid witnesses. He said that:

‘their memory was that kind of memory which served them for everything they wanted, and for nothing else. An element of difficulty I could see is by the statement that the girl had contributed a portion of the money; but she could name no sum which she had so contributed. Although this was a circumstance that could hardly have escaped her notice. The evidence all tended to prove that the plaintiffs [Alfred Smith] story is substantially correct and therefore I think that judgement should be given for him.’

Nevertheless he adjourned the case for a week in order that Mordecai could give up some of the items, before he gave his final pronouncement. When the case reconvened on Wednesday 19 November 1884, it appeared that none of the goods had been returned. His Honour now gave judgement for the amount claimed of £16. 19 4d and the courts costs to be paid by Mordecai Timms to Alfred Smith. It is to be wondered if it was all worth it?

On Sunday 9 September 1900 around 3 am, Police Constable Barnett was on duty at New Denaby, Rotherham. It was very quiet, as one would expect at that time of a morning, when suddenly he heard the sound of a woman’s screams coming from the house of an elderly couple on Loversall Street. They were called Mr and Mrs William White and the constable knew that at that time they had their daughter and her husband staying with them. The cries of the woman screaming out ‘murder’ at the top of her voice penetrated the quiet streets, so he ran to the house. As he was approaching he could clearly hear the sound of heavy blows.

The officer hammered on the door and shouted out ‘Police’ until he could gradually hear the steps of someone coming down the stairs. A voice he recognised as Mrs White’s shouted out to enquire who was there, so he hammered on the door once more and demanded admittance. When the door opened, Police Constable Barnett identified himself and told the woman that he had heard screams coming from the house, but Mrs White denied there had been any screams or shouts of ‘murder.’ Then the officer heard Mrs White’s son-in-law, a man called William Henry Freestone telling someone upstairs ‘I’ll kill you, you bitch: I’ll murder you.’ However after that it all went quiet, so eventually the officer returned back to his duties.

However he was determined to keep an eye on the house for any more disturbances. Just a few minutes later PC Barnett once more heard screams coming from one of the upstairs rooms at the same house on Loversall Street. Once again he hammered on the door with his fists, but no one came to the door this time. Frustrated, but knowing that there was little he could do, the constable simply reported the incident to his sergeant when he returned back to the station at the end of his shift. He was relieved by Police Constable Kilner, who after his colleague’s report, made a mental note to check on the house at some point that morning to see if there had been any trouble.

Accordingly around 10.30 am he found himself in the area of Loversall Street, so he proceeded to the house. The door was opened by Mrs White and she invited the officer inside. In the main room was Mr White, smoking his pipe and their daughter, Mary Elizabeth Freestone lying on a sofa before the fire. The woman appeared to be badly hurt and she seemed to be having difficulty in speaking. PC Kilner insisted that she see a doctor immediately and he summoned Dr McClure to the house. The surgeon examined the injured woman and told her husband categorically that his wife had received a beating from someone. However William didn’t reply, although he hung his head.

Dr McClure told the constable that he would need another opinion and he called for the services of his assistant. When he too agreed that Mary Elizabeth had been badly injured by someone, William Henry Freestone was arrested and taken into custody. Dr McClure instructed Mrs White to not allow her daughter be moved from the sofa, and said it would be best to leave her there. On the way back to the station, William Henry asked PC Kilner what he was going to be charged with, the officer replied that he would be charged with unlawfully wounding his wife. The prisoner pointed to his heavy black work boots and admitted that he had kicked her with those same boots. Freestone added: ‘if she had given me the bottle of rum I should not have done it.’

On Monday 10 September 1900 William Henry Freestone was brought in front of the Doncaster West Riding magistrates charged with the violent assault on his wife. Mary Elizabeth was not in attendance as she was still under the direction of Dr McClure. However her mother Hannah Maria was the first witness and she told the court that her daughter and son-in-law had been living with them for some time. She described being aroused from her sleep by her daughters screams the night before. Mary Elizabeth was crying out ‘Mother, mother come here, or I shall die: murder, murder.’ Her husband refused to interfere between his daughter and her husband, so the witness said she got up and lit a candle before going into her daughters bedroom.

Hannah said that when she opened the door, she saw her daughter was lying on the bed and William Henry was standing over her and ‘thumping her on the head with his fists.’ The witness told the court that as a result there was blood on the sheets, the blankets and the bedroom floor. An argument followed before Hannah said she left the couple alone, telling them to go to sleep and ‘let the house rest.’ She got back into bed, but it was not long before she and her husband were roused by another disturbance coming from the bedroom again. Once again the poor woman lit the candle and went back into her daughters bedroom.

Once again she saw the prisoner beating his wife and saw that her daughters head and body were black with bruises. After listening to her account, one of the magistrates questioned her as to why she would not let Police Constable Barnett enter the house on the first occasion when her daughter was being attacked. Hannah told him that she hoped by doing so, her son-in-law might become quiet, as he had done on previous occasions. However she claimed that she had not heard the officer knock the second time, but said that if she had heard him knock she would have let him enter. After some discussion, the magistrates ordered the prisoner to be remanded in custody for a week, in the hope that his wife would be well enough to attend the court.

Accordingly William Henry Freestone was brought back into court on Monday 17 September 1900 and thankfully this time Mary Elizabeth was present. She described the attack at her fathers house which had started around 3 am. The poor woman said that she had awoke to find her husband leaning over her to reach a bottle of rum which was on a side table. The witness said that she tried to stop him, but he pushed her roughly away. Mary Elizabeth said that after drinking heavily from the bottle, he commenced to beat her for no reason at all and she screamed out for her mother. Mary Elizabeth then went on to describe in horrific details how the prisoner had thumped her in the face, jumped on her body with his knees before telling her ‘next time I will murder you.’

There was silence in the courtroom as the witness described how her husband had struck her on the face, shoulders and in her sides. She said that at one point she managed to get away from him and run downstairs. However on reaching the living room she fell down and he picked her up and threw her onto the sofa. Mary Elizabeth told the court that at that point she thankfully became unconscious. Finally she admitted that she had been cared for most assiduously by Dr McClure. After hearing all this terrible evidence, the magistrates found William Henry Freestone guilty of the charge of the unlawful wounding of his wife. Accordingly he was sentenced to just three months imprisonment.

Thankfully Mary Elizabeth had the courage to apply to the magistrates for a separation order which was granted. As a final humiliation the prisoner was ordered by the magistrates to pay his wife 7s 6d a week maintenance. However throughout the recording of this account it was clear that at no time did her father interfere. It was a prevalent belief at that time that no one should come between a man and his wife, even when Mr White could see for himself, his own daughter being treated so cruelly.

I have been unable to resolve the issue with facebook and Chris is unavailable for the time being with work stuff. All I can do is to keep updating this page, so just keep checking it out from time to time.

Before the meeting regarding the Heeley ghost could take place on 22 October 1870, a most curious incident took place. Mr Counsellor Hawksley heard a rumour from a member of the constabulary that a young boy of 15 years of age had been arrested. He had been seen at night, impersonating the ghost by dressing in women’s clothing and was arrested on a charge of disturbing the peace. As a result, when the counsellor walked into the Red Lion on the night of the meeting, he was not surprised to see that the place was crowded. People had also gathered outside the public house, all anxious to hear the details about the supposed phantom. Thankfully by this time Counsellor Hawksley was able to satisfy that curiosity.

He told the meeting that a young boy, whose name was Frederick Maxey had been seen in the area on the night of Saturday 15 October. He lived with his parents in Heeley and was well known to be a local prankster. Maxey had taken great delight in dressing up in his mothers white dress and shawl at midnight and had paraded around the streets of Heeley. Following this statement a discussion took place about what should be done. Counsellor Hawksley suggested that a summons should be taken out against the young man, at the very least. The nature of the boy’s charge was read out which stated:

‘For that he, on 15 October in the parish of Sheffield, did unlawfully go about the public streets and highways there situate, dressed in woman’s clothes. He was guilty of scandalous conduct, whereby her Majesty’s subjects then and there residing, passing and re-passing, were alarmed and annoyed. Decency was openly outraged and the public peace disturbed.’

After much discussion on the subject, the meeting finally agreed that Frederick Maxey could not be allowed to get off Scot-free. Eventually a deputation was appointed to look into the matter with Counsellor Hawksley elected as the chair. A resolution was then put forward, which stated that the matter should be placed in the hands of a respectable solicitor, with instructions to demand a public apology from the boy concerned. Matters took their course, but when the boy’s father, Mr Maxey heard that his son’s name had been mentioned at this very public meeting, he was furious. He wrote an angry letter to the editor of the Sheffield Daily Telegraph which was printed on Tuesday 25 October 1870. The editor reported that the boy’s father insisted that it had all been just a joke and that:

‘His son a 15 year old boy, who on Saturday evening last, had dressed himself in white for a short time, in boyish fun. He was instigated by the fact that there had, for some time been a supposed ‘Woman in White’ perambulating in the neighbourhood. Mr Maxey complained that his name and those of his family should be talked about so opprobriously in a public house, as was the case on Saturday last, at a meeting supposed to be convened to put a stop to this so-called scandal.’

Accordingly Frederick Maxey was brought before the magistrates at the Town Hall, Sheffield on the most appropriate date of Halloween itself, on Monday 31 October 1870. He was charged with having ‘alarmed the inhabitants of Heeley by appearing in ghostly attire.’ He was described as ‘an intelligent looking lad who worked as a clerk’. Mr Clegg appeared for the prosecution and he told the magistrates that for some time past, the people of the area had been ‘very much annoyed and their children were being very frightened by the circulation of stories of ghostly apparitions in the streets.’ However what the prosecution was forced to make very clear was that the boy was not responsible for any of these other sightings. Therefore he was not being asked to apologise for all the appearances of the so-called ‘ghost’ but simply the one which had taken place on the night of 15 October.

Counsellor Hawksley informed the bench about the outcome of the meeting at the Red Lion. He stressed that all he wanted was for Maxey to express regret for his actions, and to give his promise that it would not happen again. The counsellor told the court that it was of the greatest importance that such a state of things should be stopped, because he believed that if children were frightened when they were young, they might never recover for the rest of their lives. One of the magistrates, Mr Rodgers stated that in his opinion some of the legal authorities were more concerned, not by the prisoner having frightened the children, but rather of his having offended against public decency by dressing up as a woman.

The magistrate stated most emphatically that when he first read the offence ‘he had been determined to stamp out such a thing’. However, Mr Rodgers continued that once he had seen the prisoner for himself, he could not but think that it had been more of an ‘act of frolicsome mischief’ on Maxey’s behalf. The magistrate therefore felt that the case should have been dealt with as a private matter with Maxey receiving punishment at the hands of his father, rather than being brought before a court. Mr Rodgers said that it would have been a very different matter if the boy had been a bit older. He said:

‘If it had been shown that a grown up person had been going around the streets in woman’s clothing, offending public decency and those proprieties of life which ought to exist towards the opposite sex, I would take some uncommon good care that he should have difficulty in escaping a months imprisonment in Wakefield Gaol’.

The prosecution Mr Clegg then gave his opinion that the bench had no desire to punish the young lad. All that the court required was to have the prisoner express regret for what he had done, and to give assurances that he would not repeat it again. Of course the prosecution pointed out, that if similar cases were to be brought before the court, then they must be judged on their own merits and those prisoners must take the consequences. Another magistrate who had been watching Maxey stated that he had no doubt that the boy, who appeared to be very respectable, was undoubtedly very sorry for having got himself into such mischief.

Maxey’s defence solicitor Mr Binney agreed that it was clear that the prisoner was simply guilty of a one-off indiscretion for which he was very sorry, and that his father would no doubt ensure that it did not happen again. Nevertheless Mr Clegg pointed out that for some time there had been many reports which had been widely circulated in Heeley that a ‘woman in white’ had been going about in the night. The prosecution suggested therefore that there might be other persons who copied the prisoners’ indiscretion and therefore it needed to be stopped. Mr Binney interrupted at this point to re-iterate once again that that the young man had only committed this act on this one, single occasion.

He pointed out that the boy had no knowledge of any other persons going out similarly dressed, and therefore he asked that Maxey’s apology might be limited to what had happened on that one particular night. It was at this point that one of the bench asked when the apology was going to be made and Mr Clegg said the boy was prepared to do it right there and then. Frederick Maxey then stood up in the court room and made the following apology. He said ‘I am very sorry that I went out in women’s clothes on the Saturday night referred to, and I will not do it again.’ His father also volunteered to make his own public apology, but he was told there was no need.

However Mr Maxey also stated that he did not think his son was involved in any other sightings of the ‘woman in white’ which had been reported previously. The Sheffield Daily Telegraph dated Tuesday 1 November 1870 agreed with Mr Maxey’s summary and reported:

‘There had been for some time a report current of the perambulations of a ghost in Heeley at the witching hour of night, and young Maxey had been seen on the night in question in strange raiment. Therefore it was at once believed that he was this veritable ghost which had for so long a time, frightened, not only the children, but many adults of Heeley. This however was not the case. Nevertheless the demands of justice were yesterday met by the defendant making an apology’.

The magistrates considered that with this apology the summons was then withdrawn, and Frederick Maxey left the court with his father.

That seemed to satisfy the legal authorities, but nevertheless this case leaves us with more questions than answers. It would seem that at that period going out dressed in women’s clothing was seen as an offence to public decency, a fact which would be challenged in our more enlightened times. But what I find more disturbing is that it was made very clear that the spirit of the ‘woman in white’ had been seen on several different occasions in the village of Heeley. These appearances were made prior to Frederick Maxey’s arrest, so could these indeed have been genuine hauntings from a tormented spirit beyond the veil? I have been unable to find any more stories of the Heeley Ghost after this time unless of course, one of my readers knows differently!

John Sheridan aged 26 was a travelling hawker who originated from Leeds. At some point he met up with a woman called Ann O’Connor aged 21 who lived with him and adopted his name to hide the fact that they were not legally married. When he arrived at Rotherham the couple also had a two month old baby with them, a little girl also called Ann, who was reported to have been weak and sickly from birth. The couple had travelled from Barnsley on 22 July 1890 and two days later they rented a room at the lodging house of a man called Ben Shaw. It was not long before the deputy lodging house keeper, a woman called Mrs Emma Butler noted that the couple were almost continually drunk. She also saw Ann taking the little girl out with her to the public houses of the town, often returning back to the lodging house well after 11pm at night.

Mrs Butler had a room next door to the couple and as a consequence, she often heard them quarrelling and the child crying. One night, to her horror she heard Ann say to Sheridan ‘take this child and smother it as you did the other one’. Needless to say Mrs Butler was very disturbed about this, but felt unable to do anything about it. She was slightly mollified however as John Sheridan appeared to feel some sympathy for the little girl as she had often seen him carrying her around in his arms. On one occasion Mrs Butler saw him sleeping with the child in the same bed, even though she could not help noticing his drunken condition.

On Sunday 25 July 1890 the Chief Constable of Rotherham, Captain Burnett was walking along Westgate when he noticed a noisy crowd of people ahead of him. As he approached, he found a man lying on the floor, bleeding from a wound to his head. He was told that the man was called John Stronach and that he had been attacked by a woman. Captain Burnett immediately cleared the crowd and flagging down a passing waggonette, asked the driver to take the injured man to the Rotherham Infirmary. He was also told that the woman had run into Wilson’s Court off Westgate and he immediately followed her. She was hiding behind a privy wall and as the chief constable made towards her, the woman climbed over another wall and disappeared into the lodging house next door, which he knew was run by Ben Shaw.

When he entered the house, Captain Burnett found several men in the front room and behind them was the woman, lying on a bench with a shawl over her head, feigning sleep. By this point he had seen enough and he dragged the woman to her feet, arresting her on the charge of wilfully wounding John Stronach. At the station she told him that her name was Ann Sheridan and declared that she had just been defending her husband. The couple had been drinking with John Stronach when the two men started to fight. Ann said that when he knocked her husband to the floor, that was when she hit him with an earthenware bottle that she had been carrying. Ann claimed that the fight had started after Stronach had thrown a glass of beer into her husbands face.

After making her statement she was told that she was going to be arrested and locked in a cell. No doubt hoping for sympathy, she begged for her two-month old child to be brought to her. Consequently a constable was dispatched to fetch the baby from the lodging house on Westgate. However when shown up to the room in which the little girl lay, the constable was appalled at the state of her. He reported back to the chief constable that the baby was in a ‘fearfully emaciated condition’ and looked very neglected. Captain Burnett immediately asked for the child to be examined by the police surgeon, Dr Alexander Richard Cobban who had been present when her mother had been brought into the office. The surgeon weighed her and was horrified to find that she only weighed 5½lbs which, he said was probably less than she must have weighed at birth.

He also noted that the baby was in a ‘moribund’ state and he strongly suspected that not only had the parents neglected to feed her, but that someone had given her laudanum. On seeing the condition of the little girl, Captain Burnett and Dr Cobban decided that the mother should not have the custody of the child, and she was immediately removed into the care of Mrs Butler at the lodging house. Dr Cobban instructed her to just administer nourishment in small quantities, as it was obvious that the baby had been starved of food for quite a while. The local branch of the Society for the Cruelty to Children was notified, and they instituted enquiries to be made into the case, and as a result of this John Sheridan was also arrested.

The following day John Sheridan and Ann O’Connor were brought before the Rotherham magistrates. The first case to be heard was the attack on John Stronach. A witness, Mr Battersby introduced himself to the bench as being the house surgeon at the Rotherham Infirmary. He spoke about examining the man’s injuries which consisted of two deep lacerations above his right eye which required stitching. The surgeon gave his opinion that the wound was consistent with his being struck over the head with an earthenware bottle by the prisoner’s wife. After dealing with this incident, the magistrates were then informed by the chief constable of the terrible condition in which the little girl, Ann O’Connor had been found. After hearing the details they adjourned the case to the following Thursday and the couple were charged with the neglect of the child.

When the court re-convened on July 30, solicitor Mr Aizlewood appeared to prosecute the case on behalf of the NSPCC, and he asked that the first witness be brought into the court. Mrs Butler appeared, carrying the child in her arms, so that the bench could see for themselves its terrible emaciated condition. The witness told them that prior to entering the court room, she had seen the female prisoner in the cell and had castigated her for the treatment to her child. Mrs Butler told her that she and her husband should be ashamed of themselves, not sparing a halfpenny to get the little girl some milk. Instead of showing any contrition, the prisoner simply informed her that her husband wanted to ‘get rid of the child’ stating bluntly that ‘it was in the way’. When John Sheridan heard this statement, he laughed out loud. The clerk to the court silenced him by saying ‘you will find that this is no laughing matter’.

Police Sergeant Roper then gave evidence of arresting John Sheridan and said that on the way to the office the male prisoner told him that Ann was not his wife and they had only met five months previously. Irregardless of this, he claimed that the little girl was his. PC Roper said that Sheridan had told him that he had provided for both Ann and the child by giving her 4s a day for food. He also said that the little girl had been born at Goole, but her birth had not been registered. The magistrates heard this evidence before remanding both prisoners for another week in order to make further enquiries. Sadly the little girl’s condition had deteriorated and as a result had since been removed from the care of Mrs Butler to the children’s ward at the workhouse. However she could not be saved and died on Monday 4 August 1890.

A coroners inquest into her death was therefore held in the board room of the Rotherham Workhouse on Wednesday 6 August 1890. At first there had been some delay as the prisoners had not yet arrived, so in the meantime the coroner, Mr D Wightman asked Police Sergeant Roper what the name of the child was. He replied that she was known as Ann Sheridan, but pointed out that she had never been christened. Then the prisoners arrived, but the coroner showed them little sympathy. When he asked John Sheridan how old the child was, Ann answered and Mr Wightman rebuked her saying ‘I am not asking you’. The jury were visibly shocked when the police medical officer, Dr Cobban gave evidence that when he examined the child after the mother had been arrested, she was in a ‘moribund’ state and that he strongly suspected that she had been given laudanum.

Dr Cobban stated that nevertheless he had desperately tried to save the little girls life and thought at first he had succeeded. He had visited her on a daily basis and gradually found her to have recovered from the poison of the opiates she had been given. However the little girl was so weak that he was unable to save her life. The surgeon told the inquest that he and Dr Branson had then been asked to complete a post mortem on her. Externally they had found no outward signs of any violence, but having removed her clothing they could not miss the fact that the baby was barely a skeleton. She was weighed again and was found that she had actually lost weight and was only 4½lbs. The police surgeon stated that a child of that age should have weighed about 11lb or 12lbs. Dr Cobban added that because of such starvation, every vestige of fat and the greater portion of muscular structure had been absorbed back into the little body.

He finally concluded that the two surgeons had found there was no food in the stomach apart from some milk and wine, which had been given to her at the workhouse. Therefore he could only state that the cause of death was ‘wasting away from sheer starvation’. Mrs Emma Butler was the next witness and she gave evidence that the two prisoners had arrived at the lodging house on Thursday 22 July, and told her that they were man and wife. When she commented on the poorly state of the child, her mother said that the little girl had been ill. Mrs Butler said that after the female prisoner had been arrested, she had been instructed by the medical officer to feed the child on sponge cake and milk in very small quantities. The witness said she had done so but she told the inquest that little Ann had vomited much of it back again and could not seem to digest any food.

To our modern ears, the fact that the child had been given sponge cake and wine under medical direction, beggars belief, but sadly it only illustrates the lack of knowledge about infant digestion of the period. Mrs Butler then related how on the Thursday 29 July the child had not improved and she was removed to the workhouse and she had not seen her since. Questioned about the behaviour of the child’s parents, the witness told the coroner about an incident which had happened soon after the couple had appeared at the lodging house. She related how she had thrown the couple out of the house one afternoon because they were drunk and quarrelling and annoying the other lodgers. As a result, upon going outside the female prisoner had laid the child on the pavement and informed Sheridan to ‘take it up and take care of it and not to smother it, the same as you had done the other one’.

The boardroom was silent as the witness uttered these words. The coroner asked Mrs Butler if the mother had been sober at the time and she replied that she wasn’t. The witness, continuing with her evidence, then said that Sheridan had simply picked up the child and they both walked away. The witness told the court that she had no idea where they had gone, but they spent the remainder of the night somewhere else. Captain Burnett asked her if she had heard the mother express any evil intention towards the child and Mrs Butler looked grim as she replied that the female prisoner had called it ‘a bastard’ and wished ‘it was in hell’. Needless to say this statement caused a dreadful sensation in the room, which the coroner was forced to call ‘silence’ to end.

Captain Burnett told the inquest that John Sheridan had been arrested on 25 July for cruelty to the infant. He also said that the couple had a history of drinking to excess, and that when Ann O’Connor had been arrested for the attack on John Stronach, she was already drunk and incapable. Then Mr Wightman decided to look into the paternity of the child. Captain Burnett told him that the male prisoner had said on two separate occasions, on the 29 and 31 July that he was the father. The next witness was Ann O’Connor herself, but she showed little remorse as she told the inquest that the father of the child was not John Sheridan, but a man called William Johnson who ‘sells fish at Scarborough’. After hearing this the coroner was clearly disgusted at the couple’s lifestyle, and he did not try to hide it as he addressed the jury. He told them:

‘The two Sheridan’s are disgraceful and just about as bad as a man and woman could be, I should think there is very little doubt about that, and that morally speaking they had certainly hastened, if not actually caused the death of the child. That is beyond doubt.’

However he demonstrated the difficulties in proving the case before the legal authorities as he said:

‘But you do not have the power to punish them for the ill treatment of the child. The only verdict that you can record is that of murder or manslaughter against one or both of them.’

Mr Wightman explained that because the child had been removed from the care of the parents and cared for by others before she died, there was little chance of any conviction in a court of law. The coroner clearly stated that if the child had died on 26 July in the care of her mother, then he would have had no hesitation in saying that she was guilty of either murder or manslaughter. Although the medical officer had suspected strongly that one of the prisoners had given the child opiates, he was not able to prove it scientifically. Therefore Mr Wightman said that he did not think that the evidence was strong enough to send the prisoners for trial. This provoked a heated discussion on the legal aspects of the case, which indicated the jury’s dilemma in presenting a verdict.

One of them asked a question as to what John Sheridan’s moral responsibility was towards a child which might not be his own. The coroner replied that as an adult, he was bound to do the best he could for this or any other child. Another juryman asked about the possibility of returning a verdict of manslaughter against the couple, saying that would, at the very least, result in the matter being more properly inquired into at the Assizes. However Mr Wightman considered the matter carefully before concluding ‘I do not think you can send the female prisoner, as no jury will convict her on the evidence before us’. At this point a further discussion took place as to whether John Sheridan was obliged to provide food for a child that wasn’t his. The coroner told the jury that he was not, pointing out that the evidence showed that he had only known the female prisoner for five months on his own admittance, therefore he was clearly not the father of the child.

Captain Burnett at this point stated that he was going to Gainsborough to make further enquiries and might be able to bring back more information on the couple. Therefore Mr Wightman adjourned the inquest to the following Monday. When the inquest resumed at the Mechanics Institute in Rotherham on Monday 11 August it seems that his journey had been well worth it. There he had established some interesting facts about John Sheridan and Ann O’Connor. It seems that they had not simply known each other for five months, but had been living as man and wife at Goole a year previously, and the chief constable stated that he had found no evidence that they had ever been married. Captain Burnett had also established that a little girl had been born to the couple and she had in fact been baptised as Ann O’Connor, not Sheridan on 15 May 1890.

However he had also found that the female prisoner had a child 13 months previously and the father of that child was said to be a William Johnson, a fish hawker from Scarborough. He had managed to interview him, but instead of clearing matters up, Johnson had provided even more disturbing evidence. He admitted being the father of Ann’s first child, but said that when she and John Sheridan had left Scarborough a year earlier, the three month old child was with them, but he had heard nothing about the child since. A lodging house keeper of Goole, a man named Patrick Morgan confirmed that they had lodged with him and had claimed they were man and wife. He too remember the little girl being born in May of that year, and said that John Sheridan had said he was the father. Chillingly he stated that the pair had no other child with them. Summing up for the jury, Mr Wightman admitted that the police were no further forward in their enquiries apart from having confirmed that the evidence of both prisoners was totally unreliable. He told them that he had given the matter much thought and had consulted with people more qualified in criminal law than himself, but could offer no more advice than that at the previous inquest. He stated that there was simply not enough evidence to send the prisoners for trial.

The jury considered together for about 20 minutes before giving their verdict which was:

‘That the deceased died on the 4 August from starvation, but as to how brought about, or how caused there is not sufficient evidence before the said jurors to prove. The said jurors further say that Ann O’Connor, the mother of the deceased and John Sheridan, with whom she co-habits, are most censurable for their cruel and improper treatment of the deceased.’

When the coroner asked Ann if she understood the verdict she told him that she didn’t, and so he spelled it out to her in no uncertain terms. He told the couple that they would have to go before a magistrate and they would make a decision in the matter. He then said:

‘That you have contributed, either one or both of you, morally towards the death of this child, I have little doubt whatsoever. Fortunately for you there is not sufficient evidence to prove it. I hope that the awful recollection that you have been parties to causing the death of a poor innocent child, will be with you wherever you go. Whatever you do, if you get into trouble in any shape or way, this will be brought against you. It may enhance the punishment which by sheer good luck, you seem to have escaped today.’

The two prisoners were then dismissed. However if they thought that they had got away with it, they were wrong.

The Rotherham Police authorities were determined to make this couple be responsible for the death of little Ann O’Connor. It was announced in the Sheffield Daily Telegraph dated Wednesday 20 August 1890 that the couple, who had previously been charged under the Cruelty to Children Act, were now to be charged with the manslaughter of an infant under three months. They had been arrested and imprisoned in Wakefield Gaol and on Monday 18 August Captain Burnett had travelled to Wakefield to take them both into custody on the much more serious charge. They were brought before the magistrates at the Rotherham Borough Police Court on Thursday 21 August where Mr P Aizlewood prosecuted.

The facts of the case were gone into again and the same witnesses gave their evidence. Although there was little new evidence, the pair were nevertheless sent to take their trial at the next Assizes, where sadly there was still no happy resolution. The couple appeared before Mr Justice Smith on Wednesday 17 December 1890. All too sadly the words of the coroner proved correct and when all the evidence was heard, the judge summed up for the jury. He told them that although the cause of death was clearly starvation, the jury must prove that it the death was caused by ‘wicked neglect’. He clarified that means that the mother deliberately starved the child because she did not care whether she lived or died. The judge had to admit that there was simply no evidence for this. The jury had no option but to record that Ann O’Connor was guilty of neglect, but not wicked neglect. His lordship concluded that was equivalent to the prisoners being found not guilty and they were both discharged.

Caroline Brown had been married to her 59 year old husband John Francis for 34 years when they finally separated, due to his drunkenness and his persistent violence towards her. Throughout their married life he had spent his wages in drink, leaving much of the responsibility on her to manage their financial affairs and to bring up their six children. The family had consisted of three sons and three daughters, all of whom were now married and living elsewhere. Finally in December 1867 Caroline got the courage to leave her brutal husband and now aged 56 herself, was thankful when she found a post as housekeeper to a widower named John Morton. Gratefully she took up her employment at his house on Howard Terrace, off Howard Hill, Sheffield.

Caroline was reputed to be a hard working industrious woman, who quickly made herself invaluable to her employer. Neighbours soon warmed to her as she was said to be a kindly woman who was generous and helpful. Meanwhile John Francis went to live with one of his married daughters in Eyre Lane, Sheffield. However soon after his wife had left him he lost his job, which seemed to compound his dissatisfaction with his life. As a consequence, he would regularly turn up at the house where Caroline was employed and make a nuisance of himself until she gave him some money to go away. The fact that his wife was living under the same roof as her employer also festered in his brain.

As a result he was often heard to say to acquaintances ‘I will cut her throat or hang for it.’ To his wife he made his threats more specific, and told her that he had only to put his penknife into her jugular vein ‘and you will be done for at once’. When this threat became known to their unnamed daughter and her husband they were quite concerned, as they knew that John Francis was quite capable of committing such an act against his wife. By November of 1868 his demeanour was causing his daughter concern, as he became more aggressive towards his wife. This had mainly been brought on because Caroline had finally snapped and told her husband that she would not continue to support him financially. She refused to give him any more money and told him that he now had to fend for himself.

As a result John Francis became suicidal and so his daughter was forced to hide all the knives and sharp objects in the house on Eyre Lane. Matters did not improve as her father was becoming more violent and argumentative, to the point where sometimes he appeared quite deranged. Over the Christmas period of 1868, John Francis went again to the house where his wife worked and knocked at the door in Howard Hill. He demanded angrily to see Caroline, but as he appeared so deranged, John Morton interfered and refused him entry. John Francis immediately began to threaten his wife, who he could see stood behind her employer in the passageway. Thankfully John Morton called on the help of neighbours, who had been attracted by the man’s shouted threats. Together they managed to eject John Francis and close and lock the doors against him.

However this did not pacify the enraged man who shook his fists at the house and threatened to kill Caroline the next time he saw her in Sheffield. He was quite capable of carrying out such a threat. On a previous occasion when John Francis had met her in the street he was so incensed that he punched Caroline in the face, causing her nose to bleed. In February 1869 once more John Francis went to her employers house and demanded to see his wife. However John Morton had now left strict instructions that the man was not allowed to enter the premises, and he was once more turned away. At this point Caroline was becoming quite concerned that she would lose the post of housekeeper as well as becoming very alarmed for her own safety. Kindly neighbours would keep a look out for her husband, and when he was spotted in the vicinity of the house they would let her know. Upon hearing this news Caroline would lock herself inside the house of her employer.

When she went out to do any shopping she always kept an eye out for her abusive husband, and took precautions against suddenly bumping into him in the street. Thankfully, within a matter of weeks she heard from her daughter that John Francis had started doing odd jobs for people and was earning some money for himself. However, in truth this money was usually spent in drink, which simply aggravated his anger against his wife. John Francis also seemed to be unable to keep away from the house in Eyre Street and on Wednesday 14 April 1869 he was, once again seen in the area in an intoxicated condition. Caroline upon hearing of this, kept herself inside the house in order to avoid him, but she knew that the situation was becoming desperate.

Later that day she was in the kitchen around 2 pm, and was in the act of removing the tablecloth after John Morton had finished his lunch. Suddenly she looked up and saw her husband standing in the kitchen in front of her. It seems that he had surreptitiously entered the house from a passage leading to the back door. For a moment she was frozen in terror as man and wife stared at each other. Suddenly he put his hand into his pocket and pulled out a penknife and rushed at her. Caroline screamed loudly as she tried to grab hold of his hands in order to prevent him from stabbing at her. However she was unsuccessful as he knocked her to the floor, before kicking out at her.

A neighbour, a woman called Mrs Bottom heard the scream and rushed into the kitchen of Mr Morton’s house, accompanied by a servant girl called Martha Ellett. However when the two women saw John Francis with a knife, standing over the prone body of his wife, Mrs Bottom was so terrified that she ran back to her own house. Meanwhile Martha watched in horror as John Francis once more kicked out viciously at his wife, before plunging the pen knife into her neck. The blood which flowed must have alarmed the frantic man, as he immediately threw the knife away from him before punching at the prone woman in a most brutal manner. Ironically all the time he was attacking her, the servant girl heard him say ‘why doesn’t thou not come and live with me again.’

Caroline, recognising her difficult position told him that ‘she would, if he didn’t kill her.’ It was at this point that Martha ran out into Howard Hill and screamed out loudly for help to passers-by. A man who had been working on some nearby allotments, heard her cry and ran to help. Other men followed and they went into the neighbouring house. There they found Caroline on the floor bleeding and trying to crawl away from her attacker. He had now picked up the discarded knife and was in the process of attempting to cut his own throat. However he found that the knife was too blunt. Nevertheless he was slashing at his throat in such a determined manner that a gash appeared. Now in his frenzy, he tore at the wound trying to open it with his fingers. Thankfully he was prevented by one of the men quickly grabbing his hands and holding them down by his side.

John Francis looked down at his badly injured wife and saw that she was still alive. Instead of showing remorse, he simply grinned at her before wishing the knife had been sharper so that he ‘could have finished her off.’ As two men now held him, Caroline was helped into a sitting position on the kitchen settle, but all the time she cried out in pain. Any movement, compounded by the kicks and bruises she had received at the hands of her jealous husband, hurt her badly. A surgeon Mr Hargitt soon arrived and he could see immediately that Caroline’s neck wound, although still bleeding was not as serious as those of her husband. Therefore he tried to examine the man’s neck, but John Francis twisted away from him.

Finally after about 15 minutes of calmly talking to the injured man, the surgeon managed to persuade him to put a few stitches into the wound in his throat. Meanwhile someone had sent for a police officer and Police Constable Johnson soon arrived and took control. He organised a cab to take the injured woman into the Sheffield Infirmary before taking John Francis into custody. Once at the Town Hall, the prisoner was placed in a cell along with another police officer to keep a strict eye on him. As a suicide risk, he was closely watched throughout that night in order to prevent him trying to make another attempt at opening the wound in his throat. However in all the time in police custody, the prisoner simply ranted and raved about the fact that the knife had not being sharp enough for him to ‘finish the job’.

On Thursday 15 April John Francis Brown was brought before the Mayor at Sheffield Magistrates Court where he was described by a reporter as being ‘an elderly man who was rather eccentric’. He was charged with the attempted murder of his wife, Caroline Brown. It was instantly noticeable that the prisoner had recovered his spirits. As the Chief Constable, Mr Jackson addressed the court, John Francis told him ‘speak up, will you, I can’t hear you.’ Dr Hargitt’s assistant, Mr Bentley gave evidence of Caroline Brown’s injuries, before adding that she was still recovering from her ordeal. After hearing all the evidence John Francis was remanded until his wife had fully recovered and was able to give her own testimony. It was noted throughout that the prisoner did not express any remorse for his actions, instead he simply displayed anger that he had not been allowed to speak in his own defence.

More remands took place as Caroline’s condition slowly improved until she was finally able to attend the court on Thursday 13 May 1869. Mr Smith, a house surgeon at the Infirmary, gave a description of the terrible wounds received by the injured woman during the attack. He also listed the number of bruises which she had received from her husband. However Mr Smith said that although the gash in Caroline’s neck was not a serious one, her other injuries had been quite significant. Thankfully she had now made a full recovery. Police Constable Johnson gave an account of arresting John Francis Brown and the prisoners admission that he ‘meant to do it, if the knife had just been sharp enough.’ The officer stated that after he had been taken into custody and all the way to the Town Hall, the prisoner used very bad language.

PC Johnson stated that John Francis had also accused his wife of having an improper relationship with her employer. Upon hearing this wild statement Caroline burst into tears and sobbed uncontrollably. She was so upset that she was finally led out of the courtroom upon the arm of a police officer. However during the proceedings, reporters noted the strange antics of the prisoner, as he gesticulated and mimicked the witnesses as they gave their evidence. The Sheffield Daily Telegraph dated Friday 14 May 1869 reported that:

‘The prisoner conducted himself in a strange manner while the depositions were being read over, and there is reason to believe that he is “crazy.” He excited the laughter of the court, in which even some of the magistrates joined.’

John Francis Brown was quickly found to be guilty of the crime and was ordered by the magistrates to take his trial at the next Assizes.

All the evidence from the witnesses seemed to point to the fact that the prisoner was clearly not in his right mind when he made the attack upon his wife, or even during his court appearance. Nevertheless he had been sentenced to appear at the Leeds Assizes on Saturday 7 August 1869 charged once again with attempted wife murder. Sadly, despite John Francis’s clear insanity, no defence counsel was allocated to him as he appeared in front of judge, Mr Baron Cleasby. His only defence was that he had claimed that Caroline had stripped the house of furniture and had taken away some of his clothing, which she passionately denied.

Witnesses gave clear evidence that the prisoner had shown no remorse for his actions and had stated several times that his only regret had been that the knife was not sharp enough. The judge summed up the evidence, before the jury returned a verdict that John Francis Brown was guilty of the charge. However they asked for leniency due, not to the prisoners clearly deranged mind, but simply on the grounds of his age. Mr Baron Cleasby took no notice of this as he sentenced the prisoner to 14 years imprisonment.

On 15 November 1863, a young woman called Fanny Richardson attended the magistrates court in Rotherham to bring an affiliation order against a 20 year old miner, called David Walsh. She stated that she had given birth to a child on 7 October of that year and that he was the father. If she could prove her statement, he would be ordered by the magistrates to pay maintenance towards the child. Fanny told the bench that she lived at the village of Scoles which is situated just south of the town, and that David Walsh lived in the same village. She stated that he knew that she was pregnant as she had told him on two occasions. Once when they had been watching the Ecclesfield brass band playing and another time at the Scholes Feast.

An order of bastardy was made, and the following week Walsh was brought before the court where Fanny’s statement was read out to him. He then made his own statement under oath which was taken down by the clerk to the magistrates. Walsh completely denied the allegation that he had ever a liaison with Fanny Richardson. He swore that he knew her as she lived in the same village, but had never even met her and therefore he could not possibly be the father of her child. Walsh told the bench that later he had been told on 7 October that she had given birth to a baby, but as far as he was concerned it was just a bit of gossip.

After hearing this statement, the magistrates adjourned the enquiry in order that witnesses could be found who might confirm or refute Fanny Richardson’s accusation. She was once again brought before the magistrates where Fanny was forced to make a fuller account of her liaison with the accused miner. She told the court that she had worked previously as a domestic servant, but had managed to obtain leave from her employers for two days to attend her brother’s wedding on 25 January 1863. Fanny said that after the wedding, the guests all assembled at Moses Law’s public house in Scholes, who was the brother of her new sister-in-law.

Then Fanny Richardson revealed an account, that would raise no eyebrows in today’s modern society, but seems particularly lax for the tight laced, Victorian morality we think of today. It was at that public house that Fanny struck up an acquaintanceship with Walsh and spent the next three hours with him. Consequently, it was round 11 pm when Walsh asked if he could accompany her home to her parent’s house. Once there he was invited inside and introduced to her parents and the landlord who lived at the same house, a man called James Riley. The family and Riley were still drinking and celebrating the wedding, but it was not long before Fanny’s parents went to bed, leaving the couple alone downstairs.

Before they went to bed however, her mother, Elizabeth Richardson urged her daughter to see the man off the premises and warned her not stay up too late. Fanny blushed as she told the bench that it was there that they couple ‘had relations with each other’. This remarkable laxity was also noted in the Sheffield Independent dated Saturday 19 December 1863 when the reporter stated that:

‘The young woman seems to have been of a very yielding disposition, for she made no resistance to the advances of her new acquaintance and they slept together on the sofa’.

Mrs Richardson was the next witness, and she told the bench that she was horrified the next morning when she came downstairs to find the young couple still sleeping together on the sofa. She said that it had also been witnessed by the landlord James Riley, as well as her husband. Needless to say, the witness and her husband were extremely upset at finding the pair still together. However when challenged, Walsh re-assured them both saying ‘it will be alright; I’ll make her as good as myself’. Mrs Richardson told the magistrates that she took this to mean that if her daughter found herself pregnant after the encounter, he would marry her and ‘make everything respectable.’

Mrs Richardson, continuing with her tale, said that Walsh left the Richardson’s house some time later that morning, but returned again around dinnertime. At this point Fanny Richardson was invited back into court to continue with her own statement. She said that when Walsh came back to the house, he invited her to the same public house in Scholes where they had met the night before. Once there, Walsh bought her several drinks and they stayed drinking there until around 7 pm. The witness told the bench that she was a bit tipsy and as a consequence, had stood talking outside her parent’s house for some time, until her brother ordered her to go inside. He told Fanny that that she was making ‘a public spectacle of herself.’

Shortly afterwards, Walsh left the house after arranging to meet Fanny at the same public house house the next night. On 27 January she said that the pair met again and once more at closing time they returned back to her parent’s house and on that occasion they were seen going home by a neighbour called Mrs Mirfin. Incredibly it seems that once again, Fanny’s parents went to bed leaving the couple downstairs on the sofa. However she told the court that this time, she made sure that Walsh had gone by the time her parents got up the following morning. Fanny said that since that time, the couple had met regularly until she found herself to be in a pregnant condition.

The next witness was the neighbour Mrs Mirfin who confirmed that on the 27 January she had seen the couple return back to the lodging house where Fanny’s parents lived. Another neighbour, a woman called Mrs Oxley also stated that in February she had been watching the Ecclesfield band with Fanny Richardson, when Walsh came up to speak to the girl. He asked her to come for a walk to some nearby woods, but Fanny refused, however she told him that she suspected that she might in the family way. After hearing the account of Fanny Richardson and the neighbours, David Walsh was arrested and brought back to court on Monday 7 December 1863 charged with wilful and corrupt perjury. Local solicitor Mr Edwards was the prosecution and he outlined the facts of the case for the bench, and once again the first witness to be heard was Fanny herself.

She gave a complete account again of her former statement made in front of the magistrates. However when Walsh was asked if he had anything to say, he continued to deny that the child was his. He stated that he had never been at Moses Law’s public house at Scholes on the 25, 26 or even the 27 of January. In fact he told the court that on that latter date he was in a shop at Masbrough selling fish. He stated that he had never seen Fanny Richardson or spoken to her at Scholes Feast, nor had any of her neighbours seen them together. As a result of his declarations, Elizabeth Richardson, James Riley and several other witnesses including the neighbours were brought back into the court room. There they re-affirmed their evidence that they had seen the young couple together on the three days in question.

However what finally convinced the magistrates was confirmation from a most impeccable source. He was Police Constable Strange of Scholes, who gave evidence that he had seen the couple together at the Scholes Feast, deep in conversation with each other. That officer then related how he had been sent to arrest David Walsh after his perjury had been uncovered. He told the court that in answer to the charge, the prisoner had said that it was ‘a bad job.’ Despite hearing all the witnesses evidence, the prisoners defence Mr Hirst expressed a hope that the magistrates would take a lenient view of the case. He said that the young man had not intended to commit perjury, and that he had been simply mistaken over the dates. The defence also criticised the evidence of the witnesses, who were mainly composed of the woman’s family and neighbours and therefore, he said their evidence was suspect.

He complained that as far as he was concerned the evidence against the prisoner was biased and weak and suspicious in character. Mr Hirst concluded by asking the bench if they could they really consider such testimony from the witnesses to be sufficient for them to warrant sending the prisoner for trial on such a serious a charge as that of wilful perjury? However the bench were having none of it and said that on the contrary, the evidence proved to them a very clear case against the prisoner. Then the magistrates informed David Walsh that he had been found guilty of gross perjury and he was ordered to pay a weekly sum of maintenance towards the child of Fanny Richardson. They then ordered the prisoner to take his trial at the ensuing York Assizes.

David Walsh appeared before judge Mr Justice Mellor on Friday 18 December 1863 at the Yorkshire Winter Assizes, charged with having committed the perjury on 16 November. The prosecution, Mr Waddy outlined the case and stated that the perjury had been committed after an affiliation order had been applied for by Fanny Richardson. He said that the prisoner had denied having any intercourse with the girl, and that his words were given under oath as well as being taken down in writing. He said it was that statement which had constituted the perjury, now being heard by the grand jury

The clerk to the Rotherham magistrates, Mr John Oxley said that under oath the prisoner had sworn that he had not had any kind of relationship with the young woman, Fanny Richardson. He had taken the statement down himself, which the prisoner had then signed. The judge after hearing all the evidence from the same witnesses, summed up for the jury. He commented that incidents of perjury were all too common in affiliation cases. The jury then retired for a mere 30 minutes before finding the prisoner guilty of the crime of wilful and corrupt perjury. Mr Justice Mellor then sentenced David Walsh to be imprisoned for six months in the Wakefield House of Correction and the prisoner was removed from the court.

In March 1846 there was a man in Sheffield, called Robert Withington Harper who had reached the end of his tether. Some months previously he had left his wife Sarah and their two children John and Mary Jane at their home in Bristol, whilst he went looking for employment in Sheffield. In his absence, his wife had been forced by her family to remove the children out of the marital house they had both shared together. Now he did not know where they were. Frantically Robert had sent letters to some of her relatives asking for the letters to be forwarded to his wife, but as there had been some dispute with them in the past, his letters were simply returned unopened.

Earlier that month Robert had gone to Sheffield and had found lodging with a Mrs Storey in Carver Street. He soon found work, but almost immediately became ill with an attack of rheumatism, and subsequently had been unable to take up his position. Because of this, it was not long before Robert found himself penniless, apart from a weekly postal order of 10s a week sent by his wife’s family to live on. As this was all the money he had, he wrote to his wife Sarah asking her to send him some warm clothing and some money to Sheffield, but had no response. In a state of absolute desperation Robert had written several letters to local men of the town, asking them to intervene in order to make contact with his family.

In desperation he had written to the Lord Mayor of Sheffield himself, Mr Samuel Butcher. In the letter which the Mayor received on Thursday 12 March, Robert asked him to use his influence to establish a meeting between himself and his family, so that some issues might be resolved. He warned that unless an advertisement giving the date of a meeting could be inserted in the Sheffield Independent of Saturday 14 March, he would take some poison which he had in his possession. Robert concluded that if he killed himself, his family would at the very least be obliged to attend an inquest and would learn of his plight. There they would be required to vindicate themselves to the Coroner and give for the reasons for his abandonment.

Thankfully the Mayor of Sheffield took his letter seriously and upon reading the letter, he went immediately to the lodging house in Carver Street to seek Robert out. There Mr Butcher found that there had been a man of that name staying at the house, who had appeared to be in a distressed position. However the landlady Mrs Storey told the Mayor that he had now left and she had no idea where he had gone. She gave him a description of Robert Harper and the clothing he had been wearing when she last saw him leave. Mr Butcher alerted the police authorities, giving them a description of the man. He instructed them that if Robert was found, he was immediately to be brought to him at the Town Hall. Police enquiries quickly established that Robert Harper had travelled to Rotherham.

It seems that once there, he had scoured the Saturday edition of the Sheffield Independent looking anxiously for the appropriate advertisement, but none had been found. With no hope that any help would now be offered to him, Robert returned back to Sheffield on Tuesday 17 March determined to kill himself. In order to carry out this final act, he went to the Bank Coffee House late in the afternoon, where he then ordered a cup of coffee. Robert then drank the coffee which contained the arsenic he had been keeping for that very purpose. He then went from there to the Town Hall where he asked after the Mayor. When Robert was told that Mr Butcher was not in, he informed a member of staff that he had taken poison and would soon be a dead man.

Two surgeons Mr Boultbee and Mr Wright were immediately sent for but it was too late to help Robert Harper, and he died later that night. Whilst he had been at the Town Hall, he had handed over to the office keeper, four small books in which was written his life story. The books revealed a slow but inevitable fall from grace, as Robert went from one disaster to another. The first book recorded his early life and stated how his father was a Mr Thomas Harper of Bristol. He had died in 1837 and had left a will stating that his estate should be shared out amongst his children equally. However it happened that some of his brothers and sisters had died since his father had made his will. Subsequently a row had developed over who should have the remainder. When his older brother claimed the inheritance of his deceased siblings as well as his own, Robert’s share had shrunk considerably.

The book related how even as a result of this small inheritance, Robert had found that he was in a good financial position, and so he decided to marry a woman whose dowry consisted of £950. Some of the dowry was handed over to him after the wedding, however her father’s trustees kept the remainder of the capital. With this windfall Robert went into business for himself, but he did not have a good head for such things and sadly ended up bankrupt. One of the other books listed how after his fathers death, Robert had managed to obtain employment in Reading, Berkshire. The book related how his wife Sarah and himself were happy there for some time, and eventually his widowed mother had joined them, living with them until she too died. Sadly that seems to have precipitated the beginning of the breakdown with his family, which renewed the dispute about the division in his fathers estate.

On top of that, Robert had recorded that he had signed a document which he was told would secure his wife entitlement to the rest of the money, which was still held by her appointed trustees. However in actual fact this document turned out to be one giving the trustees the power of attorney over Sarah’s remaining capital, instead of her husband. Subsequently, in 1841 Robert left Reading for some employment in London but once there, had an attack of rheumatism which he blamed on sleeping in cold, damp beds. As a result, Robert not only lost that position, but also ended up disabled through his rheumatism. In the book he described returning back to Sarah and the two children, but once again was unable to find work. He also complained bitterly about the influence his brother-in-law had over his wife in his absence.

It was shortly after that whilst he was in London looking for some employment, that Sarah left him and returned back to her family, taking much of the furniture and the children with her. However she left him a note saying that the trustees had agreed to pay Robert 10s a week. This amount was hoped to keep him until he gained some employment. The trustees had even arranged for him to go to Birmingham where there might be a job available. He did go to Birmingham, but he was not offered the post and it was at that point that he bought the arsenic. Subsequently Robert tried to arrange a meeting between himself and his wife’s relatives, but nothing was achieved. However he was told that they would give him his rail fare to Sheffield, where he might find employment there.

Instead the book described a period where the poor man was living in Sheffield almost in complete poverty. As his mental and financial situation slowly deteriorated, Robert had decided to send letters to local businessmen of Sheffield, threatening to take the poison unless they helped him. The last entries of the third and fourth book were later reported in the local newspaper, which illustrate his complete desperation at that time. The entries read:

‘Sunday morning 15 March 1846, Rotherham.

There was no advertisement in the Independent. I tried to read works of fiction, to get into company and to take walks, but I dare not. I wanted to think about my children, but I dare not. I think the people here in Rotherham think I am mad. Yesterday I watched the tombs in the churchyard from my bedroom window. Soon I shall be a mass of clay, a man tried, condemned and executed without meeting his accusers or knowing what his crime is. Dear John and Mary Jane, from their father who will never kiss them again.

The account continues, although after this there are no dates given. Robert writes that on one particular day he felt that he was struggling ‘with the Devils of Hell and Incarnate Fiends.’ His writing at this point becomes almost unreadable, as he is obviously in a state of unstable excitement. Thankfully in another portion from the fourth book, Robert appears more calm and his writing becomes more legible again. Nevertheless he is still trying to reach out to others for help. In this extract, also written in Rotherham he writes:

‘Last evening I went to Masbrough Chapel and heard Mr Stowell preach. He looks like a man of God and he preached like one, but that is nothing. However I was compelled to write to him and I have done so. What will be the result?’

Robert then lists sums of money left by his father, which should rightly have been his. He also lists instances when, in his own deluded opinion, his wife Sarah should have treated him better than she had during their marriage. The list of self-pitying excuses continue, which sadly reveal the poor man’s slow descent into madness and paranoia. Robert also lists the names of his ‘murderers’ who he states are driving him into killing himself. However he concludes:

‘Vengeance is mine and I will repay saith God, and to Gods vengeance I leave my murderers. May God forgive them, for I cannot do that. I cannot forgive them who have separated me from my dear children. God grant them repentance and may that mercy now be extended to me. What more shall I add? Nothing. Amen.’

Signed R.W.H.’

Other extracts continue along in this vein. In one such, just headed ‘Monday’ Robert again reports on how he was miserably looking out onto the Rotherham Church graveyard, when suddenly a wedding party appeared. He simply comments ‘such is life’ before sinking back again into a complete state of misery. It would seem that this was the catalyst which finally drove him to prepare the arsenic. His last entry is made on the following morning [17 March] before he returned back to Sheffield to take the poison.

Once again it is undated although it is headed ‘From Rotherham, Tuesday 10 am.’ He writes:

‘Tuesday morning and here I am still living. Am I asked why I have not kept my word? My answer is I want to keep out of hell as long as I can. I have lived till every shilling has gone, and tonight I have not the price of a bed. Do you wish to trace my conduct at Rotherham? The first night I slept at the Temperance Coffee Room; the second at the College Inn; and the last at Mrs Frith’s, at the Ring-of-Bells, on Church Street. Now to think of Sheffield, the hour has come, the solemn awful day is come, spirits of my parents look upon me.’

His last poignant words are in a note to his wife and it appears that these were written at the Sheffield Town Hall on the Tuesday evening after Robert had taken the poison. He simply writes:

‘My dear, My love to you and the children. I forgive you. R.W.H.’

The Sheffield Coroner, Mr Thomas Badger was informed of Robert Harper’s death and an inquest was held at the Town Hall on Friday 20 March 1846. As the Coroner opened the inquest, he informed the jury of the circumstances around the man’s suicide. He also read some of the extracts from the letters, indicating the deceased man’s state of mind at the time. Mr Badger said that he had thought it was his duty to communicate with Robert Harper’s relatives in Bristol and London. As a result he had received a reply from his brother-in-law, a man called Mr Daniel Lomas who was a Methodist preacher in London. Mr Badger told the inquest that Mr Lomas had said that he would try to attend the inquest however, although he was on the way, he had not arrived at that time.

Nevertheless the Coroner said he would proceed with the inquest and the first witness was called. It was Robert’s landlady in Sheffield, Mrs Storey. She told the court that Mr Harper had been lodging with her for nine weeks up to his going to Rotherham. During the time he had stayed with her, Robert had conducted himself in a quiet manner, but had seemed to her to be in a very depressed state. The witness told the inquest that he had told her of his financial troubles and had also read parts of the letters out to her that he had sent to various people. Mrs Storey said that her lodger had read one he had sent to his brother-in-law, along with some others he had arranged to be forwarded to his wife. She said that all the letters had all been returned unopened and unread. After that Mr Harper became very excited and talked to himself, as he walked restlessly up and down the house.

The landlady said he had also showed her the arsenic that he intended to take, if he got no response from the letters he had sent to the gentlemen in Sheffield. Her evidence was corroborated by her daughter, Lucy Pearce and she added that for most of the time Mr Harper had appeared perfectly sane, yet at others he seemed to be excited and quite irrational. However the witness added that in the conversations she had with the deceased man, she did not consider him to be completely insane. The Mayor of Sheffield, Samuel Butcher then gave his evidence and produced the letter he had received from Robert Harper. He described interviewing Mrs Storey at her house in Carver Street and explained his orders to the police officers regarding searching for the man. The Mayor stated that he had made enquiries every day as to whether Harper had been found or not.

He admitted to the inquest that his only regret was not having inserted something in the Independent newspaper as had been requested to do so by the deceased. Another witness was a woman called Jane Woolhouse, who introduced herself as a waitress employed at the Bank Coffee Rooms in Sheffield. She described Mr Harper ordering a cup of coffee before sitting with a man called Blackhurst for a while. Woolhouse described how the two men had talked for a short time before Harper left. The witness then told the jury that after the deceased man had gone, Blackhurst had brought the man’s coffee cup back and handed it to her. He instructed her to ‘wash it carefully’ as the man had just told him that he had taken some poison from it.

The next witness was a man called Frederick Shaw who stated how the deceased had come to the desk at the entrance to the Town Hall around 10 am. He had asking to speak to the Mayor and said that ‘there was no time to lose, as he should be a corpse in a few minutes’. Shaw said that Harper had told him that he had bought some arsenic in Birmingham three months ago which he had now taken. Inspector Wakefield was the next witness and he told the inquest that he had been called to the Town Hall and informed that a man there had taken some poison. He said that at that point the man was still alive although he was obviously suffering. The Inspector told the jury that from his observations, he had no doubt but that the deceased man was completely irrational and insane.

Medical evidence was also given by surgeon Mr Boultbee who had also been called to attend to the man. He said that himself and a colleague had tried everything they could to counteract the effects of the poison, but it had all been in vain. Mr Boultbee said that they had spent two hours trying to revive the poor man, but they knew that the case was hopeless. The witness described how Mr Harper was taken to the workhouse, where the two medical men had visited him regularly until his death at 11 pm. The surgeon told the inquest that Robert Harper had appeared easier in his mind after he had taken the poison and had asked the surgeon to pray with him, which he did. Just before the end he had asked Mr Boultbee to inform his family that his last words had been that he was not afraid that he would go to hell, for he felt that God had pardoned him.

Mr Badger then read more extracts from the letters and books and said that the words left little doubt in his mind as to the man’s irrationality being very real. The Coroner then read out a letter from the deceased man’s brother-in-law, Mr Nathaniel Lomas which had been received by the Mayor before Robert Harper’s death. He informed the jury that it would indicate the mind of the deceased man. However the letter simply revealed how his wife’s family had tried to paint him as a black hearted villain, whose ‘profligate behaviour’ had resulted in his own death. In the letter Mr Lomas had written:

‘I may state that for several years back, Harper has repeatedly left his family for several weeks together, taking with him all the money or silver plate he could obtain. After he had squandered it all away, he would return to abuse his wife and make her life wretched. On one occasion he took with him £180, which in nine months he had spent, before he again returned. His clothes and watch were pawned and several debts were contracted, which his wife had to pay.

It became at length absolutely necessary to remove his wife and children from him, taking the opportunity when he had once more left her. His desire to be returned to his family is principally that he may simply have a home to return to, when he has squandered all his money away. As to his threats to commit suicide, you need not be under any apprehension that he will destroy himself. This is an old attempt to frighten his friends, repeated frequently, but never seriously intended.’

The Coroner said the letter went on to explain that the deceased was not, as he frequently claimed to be, destitute and abandoned. On the contrary the family had allowed him 10s a week and urged him to find some kind of employment. Just as Mr Badger finished reading, the letter writer himself, Nathaniel Lomas entered the room accompanied by Robert’s brother, Mr A Harper. The two men apologised to the inquest for their lateness, before the Coroner asked Mr Harper if he would now like to give his evidence. He told the inquest that it was painful for him to have to speak of his brother’s terrible conduct. Mr Harper also described the frequent threats of suicide and his brothers profligate lifestyle, which had so alarmed his family at one point that he was taken before a magistrate in London. As a result he had been confined for some time in a lunatic asylum.

The witness spoke of another occasion when Robert had returned home, once more deep in debt and had written several letters asking for help to various parties. In those letters too he had threatened to commit suicide. When the witness had asked him whether he had really intended to kill himself, his brother had replied that he never had any intention of doing so. Consequently the whole family were convinced that the whole sordid plot had simply been a ruse to obtain money from the parties applied to. Contrary to the letters and the writings in the books, Mr Harper said that his own family had tried their best to help him. Only a month previously they had sent him some warm clothing to Sheffield in response to his request. In addition he said that he had also just recently been left a small legacy from an uncle. The witness said that despite this, there was no mention of either event in the letters or the notebooks.

At this point the Coroner summed up for the jury and told them that they had two tasks. Firstly they had to establish whether or not the deceased man had died from the effects of the arsenic, of which there could be little doubt. Secondly, they had to take into consideration his state of mind at the time the deceased took the poison. Mr Badger went over again the evidence of the witnesses, who had described how Harper’s excitement had manifested itself at times. He reminded them of the evidence of Inspector Wakefield who had said that he had no doubt that in his opinion, the deceased man was ‘completely irrational and insane.’ The Coroner said that he was glad to have had the confirmation from a member of the man’s own family as to the allowance of 10s a week.

Mr Badger added that this was backed up by a letter which had been given to him after Mr Harper’s death. It was unopened and was addressed to the deceased man, and inside was his weekly remittance. The jury took little time to return a verdict that ‘the deceased had died from having taken arsenic, whilst labouring under temporary insanity.’ Mr Harper’s brother then said that although he and his brother had not spoken together for some time, he still had a great affection for him. Although in the latter years he was unable to reach out to his brother, he wanted to take this opportunity to express his gratitude to the Sheffield Coroner and the jury ‘for the sympathy they had shown on this most melancholy occasion.’ Mr Badger then announced that the inquest on the tragic suicide of Robert Harper was now closed.

William Watson and Henry Laughton worked as bailiffs for the Rotherham Court House and on 2 November 1881 they were instructed by the High Bailiff to arrest a 40 year old man called William Bailey. He had a warrant against him issued by the Barnsley County Court, but as he lived in West Melton, it had been handed over to the Rotherham bailiffs to deal with. Bailey had long been part of a poaching gang, some of whom had been found guilty in May 1881. As a result he had been fined 15s 9d costs or sentenced to 40 days imprisonment if he failed to pay. The bailiffs Watson and Laughton had been unable to execute the warrant for some time, because although several visits had been made to Bailey’s house, they couldn’t catch him at home.

That day, as was their usual practice, Watson went to the door of the house in the yard where Bailey lived with his wife, leaving Laughton to speak to some of the neighbours. Watson knocked on the door which was opened by Mrs Bailey. When he asked her where her husband was, she told him that he had gone to Bolton for the day and would not return until much later that night. However as they were speaking, Watson noted a man walking towards the house, who was being followed by Laughton. It was not difficult to guess that the man was Bailey himself. The two officers immediately seized him by the collar and asked him his name.

When he admitted that he was William Bailey, Laughton informed him they had been sent by the High Bailiff and asked him if he was prepared to pay the fine imposed on him by the Barnsley County Court. Bailey immediately told them he did not have it on him right then, but if they came back on Saturday he would have enough money to pay it. Laughton said that they had no power to authorise such postponements, and as they had a warrant for his arrest, they must take him into custody. At first it seems that Bailey was ready to comply as he said ‘very well, I will go with you’ as he made as if to enter the house. However before the two bailiffs could follow him, he lunged for the door pushing his wife inside and slamming it in the faces of two officers.

Watson and Laughton threw themselves at the door and managed to break it open. Going inside, they told Bailey that he must now come with them. Once again it looked as if the man was ready to obey. He stated that he just wanted to change into his boots, as Bailey sat in a chair to remove the shoes he had been wearing. The two bailiffs were standing by the door when he placed the boots on his feet and started to lace them up. Suddenly Bailey lunged at something in the corner of the room and before either of the bailiffs could stop him, he picked up a gun that had been leaning against a wall. He pointed it at the two officers, threatening them that he ‘would do for them both.’ Bravely Laughton stooped under the barrel of the gun and pushed it upwards, having no idea if the weapon was loaded or not.

Seeing what the bailiff was trying to do, Bailey then smashed the barrel down hard over Laughton’s shoulders. Mrs Bailey shouted at her husband to drop the weapon as it was dangerous. He put the gun down on the kitchen table, but as the two men closed in, he picked up a heavy wooden stool and threw it at Watson. Bailey then grabbed hold of Laughton by the shoulders of his jacket and smashed his head heavily against the wall. Watson made as if to help his colleague, just as both Mr and Mrs Bailey seized Laughton and threw him through the door into the yard outside. They next grabbed hold of Watson and pushed him out of the door, causing him to fall onto the cobbles of the courtyard. As the two men lay on the ground, the pair then started to lash out at both officers with impunity, kicking them both in their heads, legs and backs.

By this time the noise of the confrontation had brought out the neighbours, who quickly gathered around as they urged the two bailiffs to clear out of of the yard. William Bailey was known to be a very dangerous and violent man and as Mrs Bailey had by this time, armed herself with a poker and the leg from the broken footstool, the two bailiffs had no option but to leave. They returned back to the Court House at Rotherham and after reporting the attack, a warrant for William Bailey and his wife was issued. As a result the pair were arrested and brought before the magistrates at Rotherham Court House on Monday 7 November 1881. William and Mary Bailey were both charged with ‘committing an assault on officers of the court with intent to commit grievous bodily harm.’

Mr F Parker Rhodes prosecuted the case and he described the vicious attack carried out on the two bailiffs. Henry Laughton was waiting to give evidence and it was noted by court reporters that he still bore signs of the beating he had received. Mr Rhodes stated that bailiffs must be protected in the lawful discharge of their duties, and he asked that the two prisoners be sent to the Assizes to take their trial. Surgeon Dr Lyth was the first witness and he described some of the injuries which the two men had received. He said that Henry Laughton was a mass of bruising from his head to his thighs, however it was clear that William Watson’s injuries had been the most severe. As a result that officer had been unable to attend the court or even return back to work.

The surgeon listed one particular blow which Watson received from Mrs Bailey. She had hit him over his ear with the broken off leg from the heavy wooden stool. The cut was so deep that just that one blow alone had left him in a most dangerous condition. Dr Lyth added that as a result he was still having to treat that officer for his injuries. Henry Laughton was the next witness and described the terrible struggle that the two bailiffs had with the prisoners. He said quite clearly that he had seen Mary Bailey kicking out at Watson as he lay on the ground, and attacking him with the footstool. The Deputy High Bailiff for the Rotherham Courthouse, a man called Henry Foster then took the stand and he described the condition of the two men on their return back from the Baileys house.

He said that Watson ear was badly cut, he was bleeding profusely and there was also a huge lump on the side of his head. Both the man’s eyes had been blackened and he appeared to be dazed and confused. However Mr Barras who defended the prisoners, stated that the couple had only been acting in self defence and he claimed that the bailiffs had entered the house illegally, by smashing the door latch. The defence stated that therefore Mr and Mrs Bailey had every right to eject the two bailiffs from their premises. Then Mr Barrass quoted a recent similar case which had been tried at the Manchester Assizes, where two bailiffs had been killed after being ejected from a house. The defence claimed that the judge, Lord Justice Bramwell had directed the jury to acquit the prisoners, stating that the bailiffs had made what he described as a ‘wrongful entry’.

Mr Barrass said that as for the charge against Mrs Bailey, it should be completely dismissed as she was only acting under her husbands directions. He then also dismissed Laughton’s identification of Mrs Bailey who had been seen attacking Watson. Mr Barrass said that an excited crowd of neighbours had gathered in the small courtyard and in particular around the prone bailiff. He said that therefore it would have been impossible to state with any confidence that it had been the female prisoner who had kicked out at the man. After hearing all the evidence the bench found both prisoners guilty. Mr Barrass then asked for bail for the male prisoner, but the chair of the magistrates told the court that Bailey was a dangerous character with a long history of violence.

He stated that the man had been before the court on 10 different occasions and therefore he should remain in custody. Hearing this remark, Bailey told him ‘well it wasn’t for anything serious. Ive never been had up for murder’ which caused laughter in the courtroom. After some discussion between the magistrates however, he was granted bail and left the court with his wife. William and Mary Bailey were brought before the West Riding Christmas Quarter Sessions held at the Sheffield Town Hall on Friday 6 January 1882. The prosecution, Mr Mellor went over the case for the jury and said that it was an assault of a most serious nature. Both bailiffs then gave their evidence and it was noted that William Watson still showed signs of his terrible ordeal. Then it was time for Mrs Bailey’s defence, Mr Blackburn to speak on her behalf and he made claims which astonished the court.

He said that rather than defend her husband, she had done all that she could to help the bailiffs in discharging their duty. He reminded the jury that when her husband picked up the gun and pointed it at the two men, the female prisoner had made him put it down. Although his claims were rather tenuous, the nineteenth century legal authorities tended to excuse women acting in concert with their husbands. It was believed that being the weaker sex they were under their husbands domination. As a result of this Mary Bailey was found not guilty and discharged. However the long list of offences for which her husband had previously been brought before the courts, could not be so easily ignored. William Bailey was sentenced to twelve months imprisonment for this most brutal attack.