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.

Mrs Hannah Simpson literally burst onto the scene in Rotherham when she took over a weekly butchers stall in the Shambles. It was true to say that at first, she was not popular as she managed to undercut all the local butchers and sold her meat at much cheaper prices. Although she was the wife of a Derby butcher, Mrs Simpson became quite well known in her own right, although her fame was not always positive. On the evening of Saturday 7 June 1872 she was returning home to Derby with her daughter, Sarah. The fact that she had £150 worth of takings in her pocket and carrying three empty meat baskets was evidence enough of her successful day.

Having sold all her produce, she took a cab to Masbrough Station, but as the cab arrived at the bridge at Masbrough, it was in collision with an omnibus. By the time Mrs Simpson managed to extricate herself from the wreckage, she found that she had missed her train home. Consequently she walked into the Bridge Inn and requested a room for the night. Another local butcher called Mr Robert Green saw her and demanded that the landlady, Annie Holbein not give her a room. He told her ‘Don’t give her a bed and don’t give her anything to drink; she is running down the price of meat in Rotherham.’

Someone told Mrs Simpson that the man was a butcher and she replied ‘oh that explains it’ before she called all the Rotherham butchers ‘duffers’. Angrily, Green asked her if that applied to him and when she answered in the affirmative, he punched her in the face and knocked her glasses off. Mrs Holbein called the police and Green complained that Mrs Simpson was drunk. However the Superintendent Mr Gillott arrived and said that she was not drunk, just extremely angry. He urged the landlady to find her a bed for the night. One was finally obtained for Mrs Simpson and her daughter and they soon retired to bed. However Green was arrested and brought into court on Tuesday 11 June 1872.

The case had been well publicised and consequently the court room was packed. Mr F Parker Rhodes appeared for Mrs Simpson and Mr Edwards for the butcher, Green. Mr Rhodes opened the case and several witnesses were heard who supported the evidence as to what had transpired. Mr Edwards contended that the woman had simply asked for a bed for the night and when told that the Inn was full, had used the most filthy and obscene language. He said that she then demanded a glass of brandy which Mrs Holbein refused to serve her. Green said he heard the exchange and bid the landlady not to serve her. He claimed that was when Mrs Simpson called him a ‘lump of muck’ and a ‘fat head’ amongst other vile names. The butcher also said that was when she pulled his face whiskers very violently, and in response he punched her in the face.

Several witnesses corroborated Green’s evidence, but not one confirmed that they had seen Mrs Simpson pull the butchers whiskers. The bench found Green guilty of the assault and he was fined 40s. At the same time one of the magistrates remarked that it had been very cowardly for a man to strike a woman, no matter what the provocation. Two weeks later Mrs Simpson herself was in Rotherham magistrates court again. She was charged with impeding an Inspector of Nuisances from carrying out his duties. He was a man called Mr Charles Parkin, who had the responsibility to seize any meat that was thought to be unfit for human consumption. It seems that on the same day as Mrs Simpson had the argument with Green, he had seen some suspicious looking meat on her stall in the Shambles.

He told the magistrates that he had called another Inspector and another butcher called Mr Robert Spendlove to Mrs Simpson’s stall. Together they examined two joints of meat and all three thought that is looked unwholesome. When Mrs Simpson heard what they were claiming, she challenged them using very abusive language. The Inspector told the bench that there were about 150 persons gathered around the stall, who observed the way in which she had spoken to him. He told the court that Mrs Simpson sold what was called in the profession ‘good rough meat’ explaining that it was not of the highest quality, but it was usually sound and wholesome. This was the kind of meat which was popular with working class women to buy at the weekend.

Mrs Simpson spoke to the bench and admitted that there was a lot of bad feeling aimed at her among the other local butchers, They didn’t like the fact that she was able to sell cheaper meat. Another witness claimed that the meat was ‘rather indifferent, but passable’ and added that Mrs Simpson did also have some very good meat for sale. The second butcher Mr Robert Spendlove, also admitted that the meat he examined was ‘thin, but again passable.’ Mrs Simpson said that the meat was alright to sell and if she had ‘shown a bit of spirit’ it was because they had tried to disgrace her in front of her customers. She apologised for her bad language, claiming to be overexcited at the time and consequently was fined just 6d.

However it was not long before another serious charge was made against her. On Tuesday 6 January 1874 she was brought before the magistrates again for selling two pieces of beef deemed ‘unfit for human consumption’ once more. For that she was fined £5. Perhaps the bad publicity was having an effect on the Derby Butcher, as by the following Christmas she seemed to be trying to change her image. It was reported in the local newspaper that for the display of meat on sale over Christmas of 1875 ‘the largest show was undoubtedly that of Mrs Simpson’s stall in the Shambles.’ The report continued stating that ‘in the front of the Derby Butchers stall was a lofty scaffolding from which hung the carcasses of no fewer than 23 sheep. To add to the festivities, the whole display was lit up by gas!’

However, Mrs Simpson’s growing reputation had reached its climax on Monday 19 August 1878 when she opened the Simpson’s Arcade, on Howard Street, Rotherham. Newspapers reported that the arcade:

‘Will hold about 60 shops and stalls and the opening ceremony will be undertaken by Rev. Dr Falding, the principal of Rotherham College. During the festivities, which will include fireworks, a balloon ascent and other amusements at the Clifton Lane Cricket Ground, there will be prizes for street decorations.’

It was also reported that the Parish Church bells were rung, the streets were decorated and through them marched brass bands ‘playing some merry tunes’. In the opening ceremony, Dr Falding described Mrs Simpson. He stated that it was seven years since the ‘Derby butcher’ had come to Rotherham and admitted that ‘during that time she had not been without opposition, but had risen above it.’ The principal spoke about her great generosity during a recent colliery explosion at Rawmarsh, when she offered assistance to the bereaved widows and orphans. Dr Falding also referred to the ovation which she had received at the time and stated that ‘he ventured to think that the Prince of Wales (later to be crowned King Edward VII) would scarcely have obtained such a reception as had been accorded to Mrs Simpson’.

The Rev Dr Falding described all the facilities which the new Arcade offered to the town and concluded that Mrs Simpson ‘was about the most popular person in the whole borough.’ At these words, there was much cheering. Mrs Hannah Simpson’s reputation grew to such an extent that by the end of October of 1880 she was now living at Ferham House. However her luck had turned and at that time she was described as being ‘a widow who had just gone into receivership.’ So ends the tale of yet another enterprising Rotherham woman stood up against bullies and made a living in the best way that she could.

In June of 1873, a twenty two year old collier named George Nixon married his childhood sweetheart Sarah Ann who was aged just 16. However the marriage was not a happy one, mainly due to the fact that George was extremely jealous of his young wife, and that as a consequence he acted very violently towards her. After one serious assault at Barnsley, where the couple were then living, Sarah Ann took out a warrant against him, and George was forced to appear before the magistrates. He was ordered to live peaceably with his wife with sureties for his own good behaviour. George remained unrepentant however and soon after this assault on 30 November the couple decided to finally separate for good.

Sarah Ann returned back to Rotherham to live with her parents, whilst he stayed in Barnsley. Within a matter of weeks, George gave up his employment and followed his wife to Rotherham, where he managed to get lodgings on Wellgate. He visited Sarah at her parents house, and after he obtaining employment at Denaby Main Colliery, George convinced Sarah that he was going to ‘turn over a new leaf,’ As in many such similar cases she agreed to give the marriage another try. On Friday 18 December 1873 George persuaded his wife to go for a walk with him that evening, along the canal bank near to the Northfield Iron works at Rotherham. The couple were accompanied by Sarah’s 14 year old brother, William Henry.

They had arrived at a secluded spot by the bridge at Parkgate where George made an indecent question to which, mindful of her young brothers presence, Sarah refused. Suddenly George grabbed her and threw her to the ground and taking out his pocket knife he waved it in her face. At this point Sarah had enough and she told him that she threatened that she would ‘fetch him up before the magistrates again’. In reply George stated that ‘he would kill her first before he allowed her to do that to him again’. Pulling out his clasp knife, he attempted to stab his wife in the throat. Whether it was due to her struggles, or to the fact that her young brother was trying to pull the man off his sister, George only succeeded in stabbing at her collar bone.

Although initially the wound started to bleed, it was later established that he had inflicted little damage. Determined to still Sarah’s struggles, her husband then straddled her body and attempted to stab her again. The desperate girl raised her hands to defend herself, and as a result George slashed her right thumb almost in two. Throwing his knife down in anger, he then attempted to carry her bodily and place her in the water in order to drown her in the canal. George had almost succeeded when her cries for help attracted two men to the scene, who quickly separated the couple. Sarah got to her feet and ran into Rotherham still bleeding profusely from her wounds.

Arriving at the police station, she gave a statement to Sergeant Turner who was on duty at the time. The injured woman pointed out her husband who had followed her, and said ‘that was the man who attacked me’. The sergeant promptly arrested George Nixon, and when the officer asked him why he had done it, his prisoner simply stated that ‘he was determined to kill her’. Meanwhile Sarah was being treated by surgeon Mr W H Pearce, who found that although there was plenty of blood, her wounds were thankfully just superficial. Consequently on Monday 22 December George was brought before the Rotherham Police Court charged with the attempted murder of his wife.

Sarah gave evidence that she left her husband at Barnsley on 30 November and returned back to Rotherham. She told the court that on Thursday 10 December George came to Rotherham and asked her to go back to live with him if he got work in Rotherham and she agreed. But then unaccountably he lost his temper and struck her in the street. On the Friday 18 December she agreed to meet him again and once more described what happened as he tried to kill her. One of the men who had rescued the girl was called John Doherty and he told the magistrates that when the two men heard cries of ‘murder’ they found the woman laying on her back on the canal footpath with her head hanging over the side of the canal.

Kneeling over her was the prisoner who had his hands raised as it to hit her. When he saw Doherty approach he lowered his hand, but he told him ‘if you hadn’t come I would have murdered her and thrown her into the cut’. Sergeant Turner gave evidence that it was about 6pm when the woman approached him in College Yard, and pointing out the husband who had attacked her. The sergeant told the court that he had promptly arrested him, before he produced the knife which had been used in the assault. Sergeant Turner was asked by a member of the bench if the prisoner had been sober at the time, and the officer stated that he was. When George was asked to explain his attack, he claimed that he had simply acted out of passion.

He said that he had heard that his wife had deceived him with another man, and repeated again the threat that ‘even if sentenced that he would ‘do for his wife when he got out of prison’. The magistrates consulted together only for a short time before finding the prisoner guilty. Consequently George Nixon was brought before the Leeds Assizes on Monday 6 April 1874 in front of judge, Mr Baron Pollock. The judge told him that ‘the attack was a very determined one and if not for the intervention of the two men, he might be facing a much more serious charge’.

Mr Vernon Blackburn, his defence counsel, told the court that his client had acted under the most provoking of circumstances, and emphasised the fact that the wounds inflicted on his wife were only of a superficial nature. The jury agreed and they returned a verdict that the prisoner was not guilty of attempted murder, but guilty of the lesser charge of wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm. Mr Baron Pollock then sentenced George Nixon to 18 months imprisonment.

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.