Indeed the only incident which had been reported at Highfields Police Station on Boxing Day of 1885 was when a request came in for a drunken man to be removed from the premises of a respectable house. It was rented by an elderly couple Mr and Mrs Stevenson in Holland Place, Highfield Road. It seems that an abusive man was creating a disturbance outside the premises, after possibly celebrating the season too well. Two constables, PC’s Richards and Collins, were dispatched, but they soon returned back to the station to report that by the time they arrived, the man had gone. Thankfully by this time PC Prosser’s shift had ended, and he was soon joined by his son, also called Charles, as the pair began to walk home together.

Suddenly as they got to St Barnabas’s Road they heard a shout of ‘watch, watch’ coming from the direction of Atkin Place. Wondering who would be calling out for a watchman at that time of night, the two men headed there as quickly as they could. PC Prosser arrived first and as he reached the corner, he saw a woman running towards Highfield Place screaming out ‘murder’ as loud as she could. Behind her, on the ground was the body of a fifty four year old man who was struggling in a pool of blood! Prosser ran towards the woman and stopped her in her tracks, whilst his son approached the man on the ground.

Pulling her to a standstill, the officer saw that she had a dreadful gash in her throat, although thankfully she was still able to talk. She told him that her name was Mrs Emma Hives and her husband was the injured man on the floor. She claimed that he had tried to kill her that night by stabbing her in the throat. Just then, Prosser’s son shouted out to his father to come and help as he was struggling with the man on the ground. Approaching the pair the constable saw John Hives was desperately trying to pull open up the wound in his throat. Taking charge, Prosser directed his son to take the badly injured woman to the nearby surgery of Dr O Meara.

However when the younger man and the injured woman reached the surgery, they found the doctor was away from home. Prosser junior instantly called a cab and had the injured Mrs Hives taken to the hospital. Meanwhile, his father continued to desperately struggle with John Hives, trying to hold down both his hands in order to prevent him from injuring himself further. Finally in desperation, the officer gave several blasts on his police whistle, which was heard by Police Sergeant Walsh who was nearby on London Road, Sheffield. He rushed to the scene, and once there gathered several clean towels from neighbours who by now had gathered. These were held to the injured man’s throat and eventually stemmed the bleeding.

The sergeant and Constable Prosser were soon joined by Police Constable Richards, who had also had a busy night. He told them that he had firstly been sent to the fracas at Holland Road to remove the ‘drunk’ but when he arrived was told that the man and his wife had since left the scene. That officer had then gone back to Highfield’s Police Station to report the incident, before resuming his shift. Upon hearing the police whistle, he had rushed to the scene at Atkin Place and helped to transport the injured man to the station. Only at that point did he realise that John Hives had been the drunken man creating the scene in Holland Road. The Sergeant in charge had ordered him to be taken to the hospital, and he too was taken there in a cab. Another constable was stationed by his bedside, until he regained consciousness.

PC Prosser meanwhile was dispatched back to Atkins Place which he searched with the aid of a lantern. There he quickly found the knife which had caused the two peoples injuries. The weapon was described as being a moderately sized pocket knife which when opened, still held bloodstains on the blade. Although the blade itself was not very sharp, it was noted that it came to a sharp point at the end, making a dagger like effect. Both Mr and Mrs Hives were kept in hospital and it was not until 2 January that they were both considered to be out of danger and allowed to be discharged. Police enquiries soon established that up to a year previously, John Hives had been a respectable married man with good employment as a labourer.

He and his wife had lived at Sharrow, however, since that time, Hives had taken to drinking more than was good for him. Eventually, he and his wife Emma separated, she moving in with a married daughter, whilst he found lodgings where he could. Mrs Hives immediately sought to find herself respectable employment and she soon obtain a post of nurse to an aged couple Mr and Mrs Stevenson of Holland Road, Sheffield. Occasionally her husband would come to the house of her employers and she would give him money to get rid of him.

However she had recently told him that she would no longer supply him with any more money and that he needed to get a job, which infuriated him. That was the reason Hives threatened to kill her and himself. On the night in question he had gone to his wife’s place of employment and demanded to see her. He was allowed inside, whereupon Hives insisted that she leave with him, claiming that Emma was ‘his property.’ When the elderly Mr Stevenson ejected him, Hives stayed in the yard shouting abuse and that was when a call was put in to Highfield’s Police Station to remove the drunken man and PC Richards was dispatched.

However, that officer found that after the call to the police station had been made, Emma had gone outside to speak to her husband and beg him to leave. The only way she could get him to go was by agreeing to accompany him. Consequently, as the couple were walking along Atkin Place, Hives stabbed her and tried to cut his own throat. Once at the hospital, daily reports were issued on the couple, as both lives were thought to be in imminent danger. Finally, Emma Hives started to recover although on Thursday 7 January 1886, John Hives died from his wounds. Subsequently an inquest was held on the body on Saturday 9 January at the hospital by Coroner Mr D Wightman.

He told the jury that at the time of his death, the deceased had been living rough in Sheffield and had no fixed abode. Emma Hives was the first witness and she explained that she did not live with her husband, due to his dissolute habits. She said that on the night in question, John had told her that he had been ‘walking the streets since Christmas Eve’ and begged her to come and live with him again. However she once again refused. Suddenly, and without any warning, he put his arm around her, as Emma thought to give her a kiss. That was when she felt the knife slice into her throat. The witness described how they both fell to the floor and when she looked at him again she saw the pool of blood.

The witness told the coroner that she had often thought that her husband was not exactly sane, particularly when he had been drinking. However that night she was convinced that he was ‘off his head’ completely. Police Constable Prosser was the next to give evidence and he described the terrible events of the evening. Emma’s employer. Mr Stevenson told the inquest that Emma Hives had been employed as nurse at his house for the past six weeks. He too described the deceased man as being ‘dangerous and wild’ on the night in question.

Mr Wightman, after hearing all the evidence, told the jury:

‘I do not think you will have much difficulty in coming to a decision on the evidence you have just heard. It is almost a miracle that we are not holding two inquests today instead of one, for the deceased had seemed determined to cut his wife’s throat as well as his own. There is no doubt in my mind that either through drink or trouble, or a combination of causes, the deceased man’s mind had been affected. In considering your verdict you must take that into account.’

The jury retired for a short while, before returning a verdict of ‘suicide during a state of temporary insanity’ was returned. As people filed out from the inquest at its conclusion, I have little doubt that Police Constable Charles Prosser amongst others, would remember the dreadful events which they had witnessed that night, for the rest of their lives.

AN ACCOUNT BY A ROTHERHAM ‘LUNATIC AT LARGE’

ON WADSLEY ASYLUM.

Throughout the nineteenth century, many undercover journalists were writing about the lives of the poor working classes. The subjects they chose to cover were often controversial ones such as ‘A night in the Vagrant Ward of the Workhouse’ underlining the kinds of situations which drove people to sink to such depths. In this case this account was from an anonymous Rotherham reporter, simply calling himself ‘a vagrant journalist.’ His account, which was printed in the Sheffield and Rotherham Independent dated Saturday 5 December 1874, reveals an appalling attitude towards the inmates of the asylum. Using language, which would thankfully not be acceptable today, it does reflect societies attitudes of the period.

It seems that this unnamed reporter had been sent by his editor to visit Wadsley Asylum where the patients would receive treatment. I use the word ‘treatment’ advisedly as there simply was no treatment, apart from locking up the inmate in order to keep him or her safe and unable to harm themselves or others. Upon his arrival, the journalist states that he was courteously met by the Asylum Superintendent, Dr Mitchell on the steps of the building. The superintendent shook his hand and, to his surprise dealt with the reporter with much reverence. He stated that the superintendent treated him as if he was an official visitor, such as one of the a Commissioners for Lunacy, who were appointed to inspect all Yorkshire asylums.

Indeed the respect Dr Mitchell showed him he says, made him feel like he was an important Visiting Justice of the Peace or indeed a Guardian of the Rotherham or Sheffield Workhouse. The journalist states that Dr Mitchell informed him that the asylum was divided into three blocks, which were capable of holding up to 800 patients. Inviting him inside, he showed him that the central block comprised of reception rooms, administration rooms and kitchens. To the left were the women’s wards and the laundry, and to the right were the men’s dining rooms and workshops.

Dr Mitchell appeared happy to show the journalist around and they went first to the women’s ward. The superintendent told him that this section held 344 patients at that time and they were scattered among rooms of various sizes and shapes. The reporter says that all the rooms appeared to be cheerful, warm and comfortable. However, then his negative attitude towards the inmates began to creep through his account. The journalist wrote ‘the cleanliness was surprising, especially when we remember how dirty are the habits of some of the poor creatures, and how disorderly have been their homes.’ The report described how the walls were hung with bright coloured pictures and how ‘the decorations were simple, but cheerful.’

However, then the reporter writes ‘many of the women are old and most of them are ugly.’ He describes ‘one old crone of nearly 80, who was crouched on the floor by the fireside, poking among the cinders. It seems that she ‘resolutely declined the use of a chair.’ The report continues on how he was then approached by ‘another dame of portly build and voluble tongue who came forward with a letter. She told him that she was writing to the Queen asking her to instruct the superintendent that she should be released. The journalist concluded that ‘it needed no expert to tell that she was mad as a March hare.’

However he does admit that many others were sitting quietly in chairs and sofas, sewing or gazing vacantly about them. His description of the sick wards, which he said ‘were gratifying to think how much better the patients were tended and lodged than they could ever have been in their own homes.’ He states ‘the inmates, who were mostly old women reclining in their beds, seem to be held up only by the hook of their noses from slipping down under the bedclothes.’ The reporter was then taken into the men’s ward where his negative descriptions continued.

He said that at the time Dr Mitchell told him that there were only 259 patients in residence, which was much less that the inmates of the women’s wards. However, here he described the rooms as being much different to the women’s wards:

‘not only because these men differ in their habits from women, but because their dress is more sombre and untidy even though their faces are more repulsive. They talked much less, although mischief lurked in many a man’s eye.’

Dr Mitchell then proudly took our intrepid reporter through the men’s dining rooms where the inmates were dining on boiled bacon, potatoes and turnips. They entered the kitchens where the journalist recorded that he saw potatoes steaming, and porridge, tea and coffee being prepared in huge cauldrons. He was invited to taste the beer which the superintendent told him costs something in the region of 6d a gallon to produce. The reporter said that after tasting the alcohol ‘that it was not likely to make drunkards of anyone.’

Moving into the asylum workshops, he described two boilers which were constantly in use to provide hot water for heating, washing and cooking. The workers in the bakery were also in the process of making their daily batch of 200 loaves of bread. These Dr Mitchell boasted, were made completely by machinery and that the dough ‘never touched human hands until it comes out of the oven as loaves and is carried to the racks to cool.’ The reporter noted that during the visit, painters were busy painting scenery for a play which was to be performed for the inmates later that evening. He states that the audience was made up of both ‘sane and insane in unequal proportions.’

Nevertheless, this patronising report by the ‘vagrant journalist’ described his favour of the progressive attitude of the Wadsley Asylum staff. He says ‘now the old ideas of a straight jacket, the dark cell and chain are exploded, because the keepers actually think it desirable to amuse the unfortunates committed to their care.’ He concluded:

‘I must express my conviction that the Wadsley Asylum is an institution for the county to be very proud of. Its management is such as to reflect the highest credit on all concerned. So long as the insane are to be provided for in this way, this is the sort of retreat they should have.’

On the night of Tuesday 24 September 1901 the body of a newly born child was found in an ashpit of a house at Pitsmoor, Sheffield. The body was wrapped in a brown paper parcel and was lying in a pool of water. It was removed to the Mortuary and the Sheffield City Coroner, Mr Kenyon Parker was informed. He arranged for an inquest to be held on the child at the Mortuary on Friday 27 September to which there was only one witness, a woman called Mary Coulton. She told the coroner that she lived with her husband William in a court off Pitsmoor Road, Sheffield where the child’s body had been found.

The witness said that she believed that the child had belonged to her sister-in-law, a woman called Mary Elizabeth Mallinson who had been pregnant. Although she was, at that time, an inmate at Firvale workhouse infirmary. When the coroner asked her if her sister-in-law was married, the witness said that she was, however she explained that her husband had gone to America the previous year in July 1900, and nothing had been heard from him since. Mrs Coulton stated that thirty year old Mary Elizabeth had been staying with her for the last three weeks and although she seemed poorly, the woman refused to see a doctor.

The witness told the coroner that she suspected that Mary Elizabeth was pregnant, but when she asked her if she was, her sister-in-law denied it. Coulton said that in the end, she had consulted her parents who had made arrangements for their daughter to be admitted to the Firvale workhouse on the previous Saturday 21 September. It was the following Tuesday that the body of the child had been found in Mrs Coulton own ashpit, situated in the yard off Pitsmoor Road. The coroner said that it was impossible to continue the inquest until he could arrange for the attendance of the supposed mother and so he adjourned the inquest until Monday 28 October 1901.

When the inquest was re-opened Mary Elizabeth Mallinson was in attendance along with her defence solicitor, Mr L E Emmett. Inspector Healey of the Sheffield Police Force was also present. He described the condition of the body when it was brought to the Sheffield Mortuary where surgeon, Dr Walter Hallam had been asked to undertake a post mortem. He was the next witness and told the inquest that the body had proved to be that of a fully developed male child. He did certain tests which proved that the baby had led a separate existence from his mother after birth. Dr Emmett said the nose was in a flattened position and he found extravasation of blood coming from the nostrils.

Internally the surgeon found some of the organs to be much congested and there was fluid in the left side of the heart. When the coroner asked him for his opinion on how the child had died, Dr Hallam told him that the cause of death was suffocation. The coroner summed up for the jury and he told the jury that if they thought that the case was satisfactorily proved, then the verdict must be wilful murder or manslaughter against Mrs Mallinson. The jury took only a short while to return a verdict that:

‘The deceased had been found dead on 24 September, having died from suffocation. But as to how it was caused there was not sufficient evidence to show.’

Mrs Mallinson was then taken into custody by the inspector charged with concealment of birth and ordered to take her trial at the next Assizes. On Wednesday 4 December the prisoner was brought before judge, Mr Justice Ridley at the West Riding Assizes held at Leeds Town Hall. She pleaded guilty before the prosecution, Mr H Wilson outlined the details of the case for the jury. He stated that the prisoner had stayed for a while with her brother and his wife at the house on Pitsmoor Road but had always denied that she was pregnant. On September 18 she had been seen by a doctor and on 22 of that month, she was removed to the Firvale Workhouse, where she was examined by the medical officer.

He concluded that during his examination he had found that she had recently been delivered of a child within the last twenty four hours. Inspector Healey searched the premises of the prisoners brother on 24 September and that was when the body of the child had been found in the ashpit. Mary Elizabeth’s defence counsel Mr J Andrews described how his client had been deserted by her husband the previous year, shortly after they had been married. Since that time Mary Elizabeth had become pregnant although no one knew who the father was. In order to hide her shame the prisoner had told no one that she was pregnant, but it had left her with the dilemma of having to rid herself of the child after it had been born.

Mr Andrews told the court that the prisoner had expressed great remorse for what she had done.
Her father was the next witness and he stated an intention to have his daughter live with him if she was liberated. He told the court that his daughter had always been an honest and upright woman, but had been devastated when her husband deserted her. Mr Justice Ridley told the court that he had great sympathy for the prisoner and therefore he would sentence her to just two days imprisonment. As Mary Elizabeth had already been in custody awaiting her trial for the last few weeks, she was immediately released into her fathers care.

Joseph Turner, a collier of Hesley Lane, Thorpe Hesley, near Rotherham was very pleased with life in the first few months of 1882. He was just twenty three years of age and was satisfied with his job and the friends he had made, both at work and in the local public house which he regularly visited. The landlord William Stockdale not only sold excellent beer, but Turner had also been attracted by the landlady, Maria there. The couple had recently started a secret, romantic alliance and Turner became quite besotted with her. After some time, they talked about eloping together and going to live in Sheffield and he was quite keen to pursue this.

However her husband Stockdale was a man who was very careful with his money, so when he realised that he could get more interest by investing the £60 he already had with the Sheffield Co-operative Society elsewhere, he decided to act. Subsequently Stockdale withdrew the money and gave it to his wife, Maria to invest for him. She thought that the money would be better spent giving herself and Turner a good start on their own illicit lifestyle in Sheffield. So on January 1882 she gave it to him to put it into the Post Office Savings Bank at Chapeltown. However instead of investing the money as instructed, Turner hid the money in a wall at Scholes.

Needless to say, when the crime came to light Turner denied any knowledge of the stolen money. On Friday 3 February 1882 he was brought before the Rotherham magistrates charged with the theft of £60. Mr Parker Rhodes prosecuted the case and outlined the facts for the bench. Turner’s defence was Mr H Hickmott who claimed that his client had been given the £60 by Maria Stockdale in order to allow them both to elope to Sheffield together. The prisoner denied this and stated instead that he had been given the money by Stockdale’s wife as a gift. The solicitor closely cross examined Maria Stockdale, who denied any truth in the accusation that she had been intimate with the prisoner, or that she had given him the money to invest in the Post Office.

Police Constable Powell described arresting Turner and told the court that at the time he had asked the prisoner if he had anything to say in response. He had simply said:

‘I have not got it. I will go with you because I know that I am innocent. The prosecutor’s [Stockdale] wife came to me and told me that she and her husband had a row, and she wanted me to go away with her, but I said I should not do so.’

After hearing the evidence, Turner was remanded for a week, but when Mr Hickmott applied for bail, it was refused. On 8 February a visitor to the police station where Turner was held in custody appeared. He gave the name of Robert Durant and stated that he was a friend of the prisoner and he also worked with him at the same colliery at Thorpe Hesley. He told one officer that he wanted to see Turner and make a clean breast of the whole affair. The miner stated that he knew where the money was hidden and asked for a constable to accompany him to the place to recover it.

Accordingly, Police Constable’s Pilmore and Durant went to a place called Scholes Coppice and found the money concealed in a mustard tin in a cavity of the wall adjoining the coppice. On the way there Durant had told the officer that Turner had told him that Mrs Stockdale had wanted to elope with him. When they got back to the police station, the prisoner was informed that PC Pilmore had recovered the cash and he charged Joseph Turner with stealing the money. In reply the prisoner again accused Mrs Stockdale of giving him the money. He said that:

‘We were walking on the road together and we were both fresh [tipsy] She told me to put the £60 in the bank in my own name, and then she would get some more, and then we would go away together.’

The following week the case was re-opened on Friday 10 February and the prosecution Mr Parker Rhodes stated that Turner had been a regular visitor to the public house at Thorpe Hesley which the Stockdale’s ran. He had been considered a close friend by the landlord, who had no idea of the intimacy which had developed between the prisoner and his own wife. Mr Rhodes stated that Turner had never either produced the cash or produced a bank book to prove he had invested the money as instructed. The prisoners defence counsel at this point asked the bench if they were going to send his client to the Assizes because if they were, he would reserve his defence.

One of the magistrates thought that the case had been proven, but another member of the bench disagreed. He felt that the prisoner had merely acted foolishly and that the blame should be laid at the feet of the prosecutors wife. She had incited him to commit this act and had acted very foolishly by doing so. As a result Joseph Turner was sent to take his trial at the next Assizes, and he was therefore conducted back to the cells below. Then there was seen some humour in the courtroom. Mr Rhodes applied for the £60 to be returned back to the prosecutor [Stockdale] which was agreed. The Mayor told the landlord that he hoped he would take better care of his money in the future. Mr Stockdale told him ‘she wont have it again!’ to which there was laughter in the courtroom.

On Saturday 8 April 1882 Turner was brought before the West Riding Assizes at Wakefield where his defence claimed that his client no felonious intent on his behalf. He stated that Turner felt that he had personally been given the money by his lover, Maria Stockdale. His employer, the manager of Messrs Newton Chambers and Co., gave the prisoner an excellent character and told the court that he had been employed by them for the past thirteen years and his record had been exemplary up to that point. Colonel Brooke told Turner that:

‘In consequence of the good character from your employers, the Court has determined to treat this case more leniently than we otherwise would have done. Nevertheless you have been found guilty of the most disreputable and atrocious crime.’

He then sentenced Joseph Turner to four months imprisonment with hard labour.

George Beeston left his thirty two year old wife Edith around 4.50 pm to go to his work at Messrs John Brown and Co. He was a twenty eight year old fitter by trade and that week he had started working night shifts. The couple had only been married for five years, but it had to be said that they were not happy together. Beeston assumed this was the reason for Edith’s low spirits as he left her on that Thursday evening. However he had also mentioned earlier that he intended to volunteer for service in the Boer War, which was taking place in South Africa at the time. He told her that he would like to volunteer as an ambulance driver, another reason which he assumed had added to his wife’s unhappiness.

Upon find the woman was deceased, Detective Officer Flint ordered the body to be removed to the mortuary and the City Coroner, Mr D Wightman was informed. He arranged an inquest to be held at the Normanton Inn on Grimesthorpe Road, Sheffield on Saturday 20 January 1900. The first witness was the same detective who told the jury that he had been attached to the Burngreave Division. He described how Beeston had rushing into the station and how he accompanied him back to his house and found his dead wife. The officer told the coroner that the police were at that point making enquiries at local chemists and pharmacies in order to establish where the woman had purchased the bottle of laudanum from.

George Beeston appeared to be very pale and haggard at the enquiry, which was not a lengthy one. Evidence was simply taken from him as to the identification of the body and a post mortem was ordered by Mr Wightman. Then he adjourned the inquest to the following Friday. Accordingly on Friday 26 January, the inquest was reconvened once again at the Normanton Inn and a local solicitor, Mr Neal appeared to watch the proceedings on behalf of Edith Beeston’s father. Inspector Smith of the Brightside Division also attended on behalf of the police force. Almost the first enquiries the coroner asked the Inspector was if had discovered how the deceased woman had obtained the laudanum.

The officer stated that his enquiries had established that the purchase of the liquid had finally been traced it back to a local chemist called Mr F Sheldon of Hanover Street, Sheffield. However the scent had stopped there, as the chemist had no records of who he had sold it to. Inspector Smith assured Mr Wightman that he had visited several chemist and druggist in the city, but no one could remember selling it to a Mrs Beeston. Then it was the turn of George Beeston to give his evidence of finding his wife dead in bed. He readily admitted to the jury that his marriage had not been a happy one on both sides.

At this Mr Neal quietly charged the witness if it had been true that he had once tried to stab his wife on a previous occasion? However George Beeston shook his head and outright denied the charge. Nevertheless the solicitor was not going to take this as an answer, and closely cross-examined him on the subject. He said to him ‘will you pledge [swear] that you have never stabbed her or that you do not remember stabbing her.’ Beeston admitted that he did not remember ever stabbing his wife. However Mr Neal was relentless. He asked Beeston if he remembered Edith’s father also asking him if he had stabbed his daughter.

Finally George admitted that he had in fact done so about a week previous to her death. Mr Neal then asked him if he remembered her father bringing a dress with him which clearly had a stab hole in it. At first Beeston denied it and then cried out ‘Oh God in Heaven help me!’

Satisfied, Mr Neal then went in for the kill!

He asked the witness if he had ever been cruel to his wife from time to time and Beeston replied that ‘I may have been’ but he added that Edith had spoken harshly to him too. Mr Neal, now sick of the witnesses prevarications, asked him if it was within the same week as her death that he had stabbed her, to which Beeston admitted that ‘if I had done so, I would have been immediately penitent afterwards.’ At this point Mr Wightman asked the witness if his wife had been a healthy woman, Beeston said that she was not and she had often complained of pains in her head for which she had resorted to taking medicine. Beeston also said that she had taken some laudanum when she had a cough.

The witness admitted that he was aware that his wife took the medicine from time to time and on one occasion told him that it had made her sleepy, but again he could not remember what day she had told him that. The coroner then told the jury that the inquest would have to be adjourned as no further evidence was available and therefore the police enquiries would continue. Mr Wightman also urged Detective Flint to try to established how the deceased woman had purchased the bottle of laudanum, as that might lead to a resolution, to which the officer agreed.

He then told the jury that:

‘I have never known a more contemptible man than the husband and I feel sure that you will all feel the same. The very fact that his wife was found with the bottle of laudanum close to her side and the fact that she had recently quarrelled with her husband, made it expedient to institute further enquiries. Of course you, the jury may put a little reliance on the man’s evidence, but I would not place any reliance on him whatever. Whenever he was asked a question that made him at all uncomfortable he had invariably ‘forgotten’ all about it.’

The following day Beeston’s suspicious conduct was the talk of the city, so much so that by the time the inquest was resumed on 9 February 1900, he had his own solicitor, Mr A Muir Wilson who was defending him. However little new evidence was heard and the coroner eventually stated that that he didn’t think they could progress the matter any further. He advised the members of the jury therefore to leave the matter in the hands of the police. Then, if any further evidence was forthcoming, they would be responsible for taking the case before the magistrates. Accordingly, an open verdict was recorded ‘that the deceased died from poisoning by laudanum, but by whom administered and for what purpose, there was not sufficient evidence to show.’

Had George Beeston actually killed his wife Edith, or had she taken the laudanum herself? What do you think?

Mr George Jackson was a farmer at Masborough and so he was delighted in September 1864 when he hired a young domestic servant girl at the Sheffield Fair. His wife Elizabeth had asked him to look out for someone young enough who she could mould to her ways. So when he spotted an eighteen year old girl, he hired her on the spot. Her name was Ann Sherdin and she was so excited at her new position. As she travelled back to Rotherham with the farmer, she asked him a lot of questions about his wife and the kinds of work she would have to undertake. As George had no real idea of what his wife would expect, he just told her some light housework and to look after her.

Ann was delighted when she saw the farm which was quite big and looked very prosperous, so she could hardly wait to meet her new mistress. However, after meeting her she quickly changed her mind. Elizabeth Jackson proved to be a most demanding mistress who insisted that the housework should be done in a very particular way. So when the girls work did not meet her high expectations she chided Ann and called her names. She would also threaten that she would take some money out of her wages until the work was done to her complete satisfaction. Poor Ann felt that she would never be able to satisfy her mistress, but as she had been hired for a year at the fair, she could not leave.

There seemed to be no way out of her dilemma by Christmas of 1864, when she came to a most drastic decision. Elizabeth Jackson had been downstairs the day before and had complained bitterly to Ann about the neglectful way she had cleaned the living room. She also complained to her husband and criticised him for having hired the girl in the first place. One of the first tasks that Ann undertook every morning was that she would serve her mistress breakfast in bed, before going downstairs to light the fire in the drawing room. Accordingly, on the morning of Friday 29 December there was a timid knock on the bedroom door before Ann carried in a huge tray containing a silver teapot and china crockery, which she placed on a table at the side of the bed.

Elizabeth had always insisted in pouring out the tea for herself, so as Ann left the room she poured the tea into the cup followed by cream and sugar. However as she tasted the tea, she found it to be quite bitter. Elizabeth then tried some of the cream and found that was the source of the bitter taste. Consequently when George came upstairs some time later, his wife got him to taste the tea and the cream and he too found it not as it should be. He then went downstairs, into the kitchen where he accused Ann of attempting to poison her mistress. The girl shook her head and denied it, but the next day, a Friday, she left the farm without anyone giving her notice.

The Rotherham police were informed and Ann was arrested before being brought before the magistrates on the morning of Monday 16 January 1865 at the Rotherham Court House. Thankfully she was defended by Mr Whitfield. The prosecution described the events at the farm before Elizabeth Jackson gave her own account. Cross examined, the witness stated that the cream jug was one that she regularly used and was kept in a cupboard in the kitchen for that purpose. Elizabeth described how it would be Ann’s responsibility to to take the cream from the top of the milk in the cellar where it was kept. She told the court that after accusing her servant, she had locked the cream jug in a cupboard.

The witness described how on the Friday evening she was visited by a friend called Ann Armitage and she produced the cream and asked her friend to taste some of it. It was immediately obvious that it was not as it should be. Elizabeth said she gave the jug to Mrs Armitage and asked her to take it to a doctor called Mr Saville in order to have it tested for poison. The witness admitted that they had sometimes had problems with rats on the farm and consequently usually kept some poison in the cellar called ‘Battles Vermin Killer.’ She told the bench how her husband usually bought it from Davies Chemist in Bridgegate, and described how he would occasionally spread it on a piece of bread and butter and leave it in the cellar in order to kill the rats.

Mr Jackson was the next to give evidence that he had used some of the same cream earlier that morning in his coffee and detected nothing wrong with it at the time. He was followed by Mr Saville who stated that he had been attending to Mrs Jackson before he was given the cream to analyse. The surgeon described how he had tested the cream and found some blue powder crystals in it. Incredibly he gave some to a small kitten before watching it convulse in pain before it died. He also sent a sample of the cream to another local doctor, Mr Shearman to test and he was the next witness. He confirmed the fact that there had been strychnine poison in the cream.

Police Constable Burgin of Rotherham police force, described how he had arrested Ann Sherdin on Tuesday 10 October before the defence Mr Whitfield stated his case. He said that after listening to all the evidence, he declared that there was not one person who had witnessed his client putting the poison into the cream or administering it to Mrs Jackson. However the magistrates thought differently and ordered the prisoner to take her trial at the next Assizes. Consequently Ann Sherdin was brought before judge, Mr Justice Willes on Wednesday 30 March 1865.

Thankfully, although the same evidence was heard from the same witnesses, the judge found the prisoner not guilty and Ann Sherdin was discharged. It was clear that the only motive that could be suggested for Ann’s actions was that her mistress had chided her for not cleaning the house properly the day before. However, as no one had seen her doing it, and it was purely her mistresses word again hers, Mr Justice Willes had no option but to stop the trial. But the question remained. Had this eighteen year old servant girl taken her revenge on her querulous mistress by poisoning the cream?

On Monday 13 January 1873 an official of the Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railways
was most surprised to be handed a box addressed to a ‘Mr William Jones, 18 Sorby Street, Sheffield, Yorkshire.’ It had been found in a railway carriage when a passenger arrived at the Victoria Station, Sheffield the previous Saturday. Accordingly the box was taken to the address the following day by an employee of the Railway Company. He found that there was indeed a man of that name living there, although he was also known as William Towns. He was not at home at the time, so the railway employee requested the person who opened the door, to let Mr Jones know that the package was ready for collection.

Accordingly William Towns collected the parcel on Wednesday 15 January. Puzzled as to who could have sent him the parcel which was postmarked from Retford, Towns (otherwise Jones) opened the parcel and just underneath the lid he found a letter which he opened and it said:

‘Well William,
I have sent you this box and I hope you will carefully examine it and put it away respectfully as you have behaved so bad to me. By the time you get this box I will have left Retford and I hope never to see you again. It died as it was born. You are the cause of all my misery, but I hope God will provide something for me. You will never prosper. I have sent you many a letter, but you wont answer. You promised me money.’

Underneath this was something wrapped in a blanket which Towns dare not open. So he had no option but to notify the Sheffield police authorities and to ask them to come and open the box as he was afraid as to what he might find inside. When he was questioned, Towns stated categorically that he knew of no person in Retford or anywhere else for that matter, who could have done this. Accordingly the police were called and they asked for two neighbours to also witness the opening of the box. Two neighbours entered the house, although Towns remained at the door of the room, unwilling to come any closer.

To the watchers horror, inside wrapped in a blanket was the dead body of a newly born, female child. The body was immediately taken to the police office, and an inquest was arranged by the Sheffield Coroner, Mr J Webster Esq. When he opened the enquiry which took place on Friday 17 January 1873 at the police office on Castle Green, the first witness was William Towns himself. He described collecting the box and signing for it when he went to collect it. The delivery book was passed around the members of the jury and the signature ‘W Jones’ was clearly to be seen. Towns was asked by the coroner why had he signed the book ‘William Jones?’ But he could not give a reason for doing this, apart from the fact that the parcel had been addressed in that name.

The next to give evidence was the clerk at the railway office, Mr Charles Collins. In reply to one of the jury, Collins stated that the parcel could have been left in the railway carriage anywhere. as the train had stopped at several stations such as Lincoln and Hull en route to Sheffield. The police surgeon, Mr Woolhouse told the inquest that he had made a post mortem of the little body and found it to be a normal, full term child. He said that he had firstly examined it externally, but had found no marks of violence or negligence upon the little body.

However the surgeon said that internally he had found evidence that the child had breathed after being born. Mr Woolhouse said one lung had been fully inflated and the other appeared to be partially so. He also added that there was evidence that a professional midwife must have attended at the birth. Mr Webster asked him if he could see any evidence as to how the child had met its death, but Mr Woolhouse stated that he could not account for it. At this point the inquest was then adjourned for a fortnight until 31 January in order for police enquiries to continue.

When the inquest was re-opened Mr Webster stated that the Chief Constable had made enquiries about the case in all directions, but without any success. However, his enquiries with the railway company had led him to believe that the parcel had originated from Nottingham. The main witness once again, was Towns himself, but his account left more questions than answers. The coroner told the jury that after the last inquest, the witness Towns had been interviewed by the Chief Constable and afterwards he left Sheffield for Nottingham where he arrived in the early hours of the Sunday morning. Then he had left Nottingham at noon on the Monday and returned back to Sheffield.

Mr Webster therefore asked the witness why he had gone to Nottingham in the first place, but all he got in reply were even more evasions. Towns however did admit that he had once lived in Nottingham for about five months. At this point the coroner confronted the witness and accused him of being the father of the dead child, which Towns adamantly denied. When he was asked if he lived with his wife, the witness stated that he had not lived with her for the past two years. Nevertheless Towns denied that he had lived with any other woman either.

Mr Webster cross-examined the witness and asked him many other questions, all of which he denied. However some of the police enquiries revealed that when the witness went to Nottingham he had called at the house of a Mrs Denham, who lived in Rancliffe Street, Nottingham. A juryman asked Towns if he had received any letters from this woman and the witness admitted that he had, but had burned them all afterwards. Despite making out that he had nothing to do with Mrs Denham Towns admitted that he had twice recently sent her money. He stated that he had sent her 5s about three weeks ago and since then he sent her 9s. When asked what the money was for, he claimed it was to pay her back for a previous loan.

By this time it was clear that Mr Webster had quite enough, as he told the inquest that Towns obviously knew more than he cared to tell. He said that he believed that although Mrs Denham wasn’t the mother of the child, she clearly knew who was. He advised the jury therefore to return an open verdict and leave the rest to the police. The jury accordingly returned a verdict ‘that the deceased was found dead in a box in a railway carriage addressed to William Jones or Towns, but how it came by its death there was no evidence to show.’

On Monday 4 November 1878 information reached Inspector Parker of the Rotherham Police that a newly born child’s body had been found in a water tub in Twiggs Yard at Masborough. It was around 4.30 pm when he arrived at the yard and spoke to the woman who had found the body. Her name was Rebecca Walsh and she told him that about half an hour earlier, she had gone to the water tub which was placed at the rear of hers and the next door neighbours house. When the inspector asked her who lived there she told him it was rented by a family called Hargate. There was the father Thomas and his wife Zilpah, a twenty five year old son William and their nineteen year old daughter Ruth, who suffered with epilepsy.

So Inspector Parker went next door where the man and his wife invited him inside. Thomas told him that they knew nothing about the finding of the body as that day they had visited the Statute Fair which was being held in Rotherham. He said that he and his wife, his son and daughter Ruth had all spent that afternoon at the fair. They only heard about the child being found on their return. Then Thomas made an admittance to the Inspector. He told him that he suspected that his daughter might have given birth to the child. Zilpah said that she had watched her daughter carefully as she had put on a lot of weight, but when she asked her about it, Ruth had always denied that she was pregnant.

Inspector Parker, who had dealt with such cases before, advised then both to carefully watch over their daughter in order to ensure that she did not harm herself. Thomas assured the officer that he would do so, but not withstanding his promise, Ruth later tried to cut her throat and had to be removed to the Rotherham Infirmary for treatment. On her arrival it was found by house surgeon, Mr Brett that she had succeeded in cutting through the front section of her windpipe. When Inspector Parker spoke to the surgeon, he said that Ruth was still in grave danger due to her throat injury, her recent confinement, as well as from epilepsy and general shock.

Her fragile condition was such that Ruth remained in the Infirmary until 11 December 1878 when she was finally allowed to go home. Meanwhile, the inspector had notified the coroner of the death of the child. Subsequently an inquest was arranged for Wednesday 6 November 1878 and Dr Pearce was asked to undertake a post mortem on the remains. The neighbour Rebecca Walsh was the first to give evidence and she told the court that she had noticed the body of the child at the bottom of a water tub situated at the rear of the two houses. The child’s body had been in about two or three feet of water.

When she took the child out of the tub and showed it to Thomas and Zilpah Hargate, the neighbour said their reaction was if they had been struck dumb. Neither of them spoke. Then finally Thomas took the child and wrapped it up in a cloth and stated that he would hand it over to the police. The witness claimed that she had not known that Ruth had been was pregnant and confirmed that the girl had been subject to epileptic fits from the age of about 14 years. William Henry Pearce surgeon of Wharncliffe Street, Rotherham was the next witness. He told the coroner that he had undertaken the post mortem that morning and found that the child’s lungs were not inflated.

When the coroner asked the surgeon what this meant, Dr Pearce replied that it proved to him that the child had not breathed after birth. He said there were signs that the child had clearly not been professionally attended to. The witness gave his opinion that the child had died at the moment of birth, but that if the mother had been professionally attended to by a doctor or a trained midwife, the baby’s life might have been saved. In return from a question from a member of the jury, the surgeon said that it was quite possible that the child had died inside the mother some hours before she gave birth.

The house surgeon Mr John Brett stated that Ruth Hargate had been admitted to the Rotherham Infirmary around 10 am on Tuesday 5 November. He said that the patient had been insensible and had a deeply incised wound across her neck, which was about three inches long. When she regained consciousness, he examined and found signs that she had recently been confined. After hearing from all the witnesses, the coroner summed up for the jury and told them that it was their duty to enquire into the death of a person. However as far as he could make out, in a legal sense the child had never led a separate existence from its mother.

Therefore it could only be considered to be a non-person, so the responsibility was taken out of the hands of the jury. He said therefore as matter stood at that time, there could be no charge of manslaughter or murder against any one. The only charge that could be brought against the mother was that of concealment of birth. Therefore he concluded the enquiry. After hearing the coroners summing up, Inspector Parker was instructed to arrest Ruth Hargate went on the charge of concealment, but Ruth was still recovering at the Infirmary. Subsequently it was not until she was discharged was he able to arrest Ruth on 12 December 1878. The girl made no reply to the charge and was taken into custody. However she was allowed bail.

On Thursday 26 December 1878 the case was heard in front of the Rotherham magistrates Mr H Jubb and ex Mayor Alderman Morgan. The first witness once again was the neighbour Rebecca Walsh. She told the court that she was a widow and had lived next door to the Hargate’s for the past two years. The witness described how at some time around 4 pm she had gone to the water tub and to her horror had found the body of the newly born child at the bottom of the tub. She said that she showed it to Thomas Hargate before he took it into his own house. The next witness was Ruth’s mother Zilpah who told the bench that she knew nothing of the child until the body was shown to her.

Prior to that, she stated that she had several times asked Ruth if she was pregnant, but she had consistently denied it. The witness said that she did not question her daughter too hard on the subject, due to her being subject to fits. Zilpah did not want her questioning to bring one of them on. When asked a question by one of the magistrates, she told them that her daughter had not bought any clothes or prepared for the birth as far as she was aware. After hearing all the evidence, Ruth was sentenced to take her trial at the next Yorkshire Assizes to be held at the Leeds Town Hall.

Accordingly Ruth was brought before judge Mr Justice Lopes on Saturday 1 February 1879 where she pleaded guilty to the charge of ‘unlawfully endeavouring to conceal the birth of her child at Rotherham on 4 November 1878.’ After listening to all the witnesses evidence, the grand jury found Ruth Hargate to be guilty of the charge and the judge sentenced her to six months imprisonment.

On the night of Saturday 23/24 September 1916 a huge naval Zeppelin was seen over the skies of Sheffield which, for the purposes of secrecy in the local newspapers was referred to as ‘a North Midlands town’. It was later established that the airship was the L22 which approached Sheffield from the East Coast and its Captain was a man called Martin Dietrich. The ship slowly passed over the city around 11 pm as most people were preparing for bed. Its outline could clearly been seen in the sky and the noise of its engines could also be heard. Thankfully the stringent wartime lighting regulations meant that the city was in relative darkness when the attack occurred.

Most people stayed inside their houses when the alarm buzzers sounded, but some brave souls went outside to gaze at the Leviathan as it hovered in the sky. They could clearly see flashes as the airship dropped its bombs over the city, and they could both see and hear firing from the anti-aircraft guns attempting to shoot the airship down. It was estimated that between twelve to twenty bombs were dropped on the various districts of Pitsmoor and Attercliffe. These bombs consisted of both the explosive and the incendiary kind. The first two bombs dropped onto Burngreave cemetery and the second landed on a street of working class houses.

As a result, almost every one of those houses had its doors and windows blown in. Another bomb fell on the Primitive Methodist Chapel situated in Princess Street, Sheffield. Initially it was thought that around twenty four people had been killed, although this later decreased to eleven. One man told a reporter that he had been outside and had seen two bombs drop, so he had rushed inside to seek the safety of the cellar. He and his wife and their three children were actually on their way into the cellar when another bomb dropped in the yard. The blast blew the man off his feet and his wife was knocked down to the bottom of the cellar steps. Thankfully neither were seriously injured, and they both recognised that if they had stayed upstairs they would all be dead.

The house next door was also badly damaged but thankfully the occupiers were away at the seaside. Another area which was damaged was a few streets away when a bomb landed on two blocks of houses where it was estimated around nine people in total were killed. Only a heap of debris remained and an end wall where ten or eleven bodies were recovered. Another bomb dropped on a nearby house where in the attic five children were sleeping. A stout wooden balk fell across the beds, but none of the children were hurt although they were all covered in light debris. Several more bombs were dropped making large craters and holes.

Yet despite all this drama, there were some lighter moments. As rescuers started to work amid all the trauma of finding dead and crushed bodies, a group of Royal Engineers found two eggs in a woman’s kitchen which had not even been cracked. Outside the Zeppelin slowly passed over Sheffield once and then returned, making three circles over the Sheffield Town Hall as if looking for a suitable target to attack. Searchlights lit it up in the sky and the anti-aircraft guns were seen and heard firing at it.

The German version of the raid appeared in the their newspapers on Tuesday 26 September 1916. One report gave Berlin’s view of the raid on Sheffield and stated that:

‘During the night of 23/24 September several detachments of our marine airships dropped numerous bombs on places of strategic importance including Sheffield and Nottingham. They were bombarded by a large number of anti-aircraft batteries, however some of these were silenced by us with well aimed salvoes.’

Despite the Germans proud boast that they targeted places of strategic importance, in reality this was far from the truth. Four of the explosive bombs dropped on two fields, whose only occupants were sheep. Another two explosive bombs fell onto roads and lanes. Most of the incendiary bombs also fell onto open spaces apart from one house whose occupants had a most lucky escape. It crashed through the roof of a house where a man, his wife and his child were sleeping. Thankfully it fell into the water system in the bathroom, which diminished the effect. Consequently any small fires were soon extinguished by the family.

Nevertheless the next day rescue teams were being sent in to recover the bodies and take them to the mortuary. Thankfully it was later established that just ten incendiary bombs and six explosive bombs had been dropped on the city in total. The Zeppelin L22 although it escaped undamaged after this particular raid, was destroyed the following year on 14 May 1917. The airship had been brought down over the North Sea. It had been seen approaching the British coast when a squadron of planes were sent up to attack it. One of the planes fired at it and the airship burst into flames, as two of its crew jumped from the gondola beneath the ship into the cold waters below.

Later reports of a Zeppelin with its gondola enveloped in smoke was spotted flying over Holland, but observers claimed that after watching it for fifteen minutes, it could no longer be seen in the sky.

Mr G W Chambers Esq, the owner of both the boatyard and the Holmes Colliery, had built the vessel at his yard. On the day of the ships launch, he made arrangements to have as many people as could fit on board beforehand to attend. It had been rumoured that the ship, which could carry up to 70 tons of cargo was a bit light, and therefore this had been necessary in order to give the ship some weight. This rumour, however was later denied by Mr Chambers himself. Nevertheless, in order to celebrate the event, flags were erected and bunting hung at the yard, which naturally drew many people. They were all eager to secure themselves a seat on the vessel for the launching.

As the yard was at a point on the River Don that was not very wide, it was judged that the launch would be a sideways one and the wooden slidings were laid accordingly. Needless to say there was much excitement as the fastening were loosened and the ship started to move down and into the water. Suddenly, instead of sliding gracefully into the river, the ship overturned casting everybody out into the river. The screams and cries were piteous and every assistance was made to rescue people both from out of the water, as well as those who had been trapped beneath the ship. Horses were procured and chains attached to the vessel, which finally lifted the boat enough for those trapped underneath to scramble out.

Then the fastenings themselves collapsed and needless to say this again sent many of the rescuers back into the water. It took another two hours before the vessel was finally lifted high enough up to rescue all of those beneath. Each time the boat was lifted, more dead bodies emerged, floating up from the waters below. By the end of the day it was estimated that out of all the people that had been rescued, at least 50 of them were dead. Because of an old tradition that having a woman aboard had been thought to bring bad luck, most of those on board were made up of men and boys. Nevertheless to lose a husband or a son in such a way must have been devastating.

The stories which became known later were heartbreaking, such as that of John Smith a boatman who perished with his two sons. When his body was brought out of the water, his children, Charles aged 8 and Henry aged 5 were locked so securely in their fathers arms that all three had to be lifted out together. Another was a young lad called John Greatorex who had died sadly perished on his twenty first birthday. Accordingly, what should have been a day of great rejoicing for his family, turned out to be one of mourning instead. A man called Samuel Heathcote was another corpse whose body was recovered. He was well known in the town, who was a joiner by trade and a bell ringer at Rotherham Church.

One local reporter commenting on the catastrophe the following day stated that:

‘The occurrence seems to have cast a gloom over the whole inhabitants of Rotherham, and in every street appears signs of mourning and affliction. The awful calamity is the general topic of conversation throughout this town and Sheffield, and the most anxious enquiries are made after the names of the sufferers. Nothing can equal the sensation it has caused among all classes. The vessel, which is considerably damaged, has been visited this morning by a great number of people.’

The bodies of many of those who drowned were taken to their respective homes and the rest were taken to the nearby Angel Inn at Masborough to await a coroners inquest. The coroner Mr Thomas Badger arranged for an inquest to be held at 2 pm on Wednesday 7 July and the jury spent the first four hours visited the various houses where the dead persons lay. Returning back to the Inn, the first witness was the owner of the vessel, Mr Edwin Cadman of Pitsmoor, Sheffield. He described how he had been in a fly boat already in the water and so could see everything as it happened. He said that as the ship began to move down the slipway, he saw many of the people on board, rush to the leeward side of the vessel in order to see it enter the water.

He therefore stated that was the reason that the boat overturned. Mr Badger asked him ‘if it was your boat, why were you not on board?’ The witness replied that he had been told by the boatmen that it was bad luck for the owner of a boat to be onboard when it is launched. However he affirmed that the men in charge of the launch were all sober and respectable, and had conducted the business in their usual professional manner. Heart rending accounts were then heard from witnesses and participants who had managed to escape from the boat, however it soon became clear that insufficient planking had added to the catastrophe.

Mr George Heywood gave evidence that the planking upon which the boat slid down, ended about 18 inches from the surface of the water. Mr Edwin Cadman stated that this was usual at launchings as the vessel picked up enough impetus to carry her safely into the water. When the coroner asked if ropes or any other means of checking the descent should have been used, Mr Cadman relied that ‘it would be futile and most dangerous to do that.’ After hearing all the evidence, the jury had no option but to declare a verdict of accidental death, as men and boys who had rushed to the leeward side of the ship were clearly to blame. Needless to say with the amount of witnesses to be heard, the inquest was naturally quite a protracted one.

Consequently it was around 11.30 pm before the jury returned their verdict. They also criticised the tradition of having people on board at the time of a boats launching and recommended that the practise be discontinued for the future. Needless to say, a subscription was put in place and by Saturday 10 July, around £200 had been collected for the relief of the families of the poor involved in the accident. However, how much consolation this was to women like Ann Straw, who was a widow living on Masborough Common, we have no information. She lost her only son Thomas, a boy of just ten years old when he died.