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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sadly we will never know.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In September of 1843 a woman called Jane Marsden of Waingate Sheffield found herself a widow when her husband Jeffrey died. Before he died, they had lived in a large house on Waingate which they rented out to lodgers. However now with her husband gone, Jane had no way of running such a large establishment by herself. Sadly she was now in a position where she had no option but to sell the house. Thankfully she was able to put what effects she had in a garret of the house of her sister, Phoebe Pepper in Arundel Street, Sheffield. Jane was now in a position where she was forced to find herself a job as a housekeeper for an elderly couple.

However matters soon took a downward turn when, towards the end of January her sister Phoebe was taken ill and needed a domestic servant to take care of her. Accordingly, Jane applied to the Sheffield Workhouse for the services of one of the inmates who had nursing experience. Soon a forty-eight year old woman called Mary Hobson was recommended by the matron of the workhouse and the two women returned back to Arundel Street. However shortly afterwards Phoebe’s condition so deteriorated that she was bedridden. Mary Hobson took this in her stride and at first things went well as she attended to her patient assiduously.

Jane visited frequently to make sure that matters were progressing satisfactorily. However on Tuesday 26 March 1844 she needed to get back some of her blankets, and going up to the attic, opened the chest containing her stored drapery. Jane immediately noticed that the pile of blankets was a lot smaller than it had been and to her horror noticed that some other goods were also missing. Emptying the chest onto the floor, Jane saw that some sheets, pillowcase and towels were no longer in the chest. Making a quick inventory, Jane found that five blankets, a suit of clothes, a feather pillow, three small pieces of carpet and a shirt amongst other things had gone.

Going back downstairs she asked Mary where her blankets were and the servant told her ‘Oh I knew where they are, I can fetch them back for you tomorrow morning.’ The next morning however she left the house without saying where she was going. A search was made for Mary Hobson and she was soon found in Sheffield and taken into custody. Consequently she was brought before the Sheffield Magistrates at the Town Hall on Friday 29 March 1844. The first witness was a widow called Elizabeth Kirk, who told the court that she had known the prisoner for some time. She reported how on Monday 25 March, Mary had arrived at her house in Waingate.

The prisoner had asked Elizabeth if she would do her a favour and asked her to pledge a boys shirt for her at a pawnshop run by a man called Beet. Elizabeth did as requested and got 6d for the article which she duly gave to Mary. The next witness was the pawnbroker himself and he proudly introduced himself as Mr William Champion Beet. He stated that on 14 March the prisoner came into his shop with a blanket that she said that she wanted to pawn. He asked Mary if it was her own property to which she stated that it was. As a consequence he gave her a shilling for the blanket. Since that time the prisoner had returned back to his shop on Saturday 23 March where she pawned another blanket for the same amount.

The pawnbroker said that Mary had also returned on Monday 25 March when she pledged a cotton shirt for sixpence. The next witness was Police Constable Potton who produced the stolen items in the courtroom. They were readily identified by Jane Marsden as being her property. The prisoner was found guilty and ordered to take her trial. As a result Mary Hobson was brought before the Spring Quarter Sessions at Pontefract on Monday 8 April 1844. She pleaded guilty to stealing the articles from the house of Phoebe Pepper and was sentenced to three calendar months imprisonment.

When I write about such cases, I cant help but wonder what happened to women finding themselves in such a position. Any woman coming out of prison would not have the help and support that ex convicts have today. Just the fact that Mary Hobson had served, even a short a sentence as this, would have guaranteed that even if she returned back to Sheffield, her life would never be the same. ‘Once a jail bird, always a jail bird’ was the thinking of the time. At a guess I would suppose that the only door open to her would be to return to the Sheffield Workhouse as a pauper inmate. As a forty-eight year old woman, it was to be hoped that she found some joy in the few years left to her.

At 2 am on the morning of Monday 27 February 1871 two people, a man and a boy were working in Carr House Colliery, situated about a mile from the town of Rotherham. The man was called William Hague and the boy (who was not a relation) was called Thomas Hague aged just twelve. Although William had worked at the colliery for many years, he had just a week earlier been appointed as deputy and one of his first jobs was as a ‘fire trier.’ As unbelievable as this may sound, it involved testing for fire damp with a naked flame instead of using a safety lamp.

That morning the pair had covered much of the colliery workings quite safely, until they arrived at a place which was about 1,100 yards from the shaft bottom. That was where the flame of the candle came in contact with the fire damp resulting in a great explosion, which was so fierce that both man and boy were dashed to the ground. William, himself badly burned, took one look at the boy and knew immediately that he was dead. Despite his own terrible terrible injuries, he managed to crawl to the shaft bottom and climbed inside the cage before signalling for it to be raised. When William reached the top, his dreadfully scorched and burnt condition spoke for itself.

He told a colliery steward and two other miners about Thomas’s injuries and they accompanied him below to look for the body. When they arrived at the place where the explosion had occurred they found Thomas. Thankfully his body bore distinctive evidence that he had died instantly. He was conveyed to the surface and a surgeon, Mr Bernard Walker of Masborough was instantly dispatched to the scene. He ordered the injured man and the deceased boy to be conveyed to Greasborough where an inquest had been quickly arranged. It was held at the Prince of Wales Hotel the following day at 5 pm. Coroner Mr J Webster opened the inquest before the jury went to view the body of the young boy.

When they returned, the coroner told the inquest that it would be at least six weeks before William Hague would be well enough to give his own account of the accident. Accordingly, he adjourned the enquiry until Tuesday 11 April. When the inquest reconvened, also in attendance was Mr Wardell, the Government Inspector of Mines. The first witness was the surgeon Mr Walker and he told the inquest that Thomas’s remains indicated that although there was no external injuries to his body, the inside of his mouth was badly burned. He therefore concluded that the child had died from suffocation.

The surgeon also told the inquest that William Hague was thankfully now out of danger and could give his own testimony. Mr Webster reminded William that he had been charged with causing the death of Thomas Hague by his neglect of the colliery rules and regulations. So if he chose to give evidence it might be used against him if he was found guilty of manslaughter by the magistrates enquiry which was to follow. Nevertheless William chose to give his evidence. It was very clear that the poor man was still very weak from his injuries and was allowed a chair to sit in whilst he described what had happened.

William told the inquest that he had initially gone down the mine with a safety lamp, but had left it at some place before going forward with a naked candle. When Mr Wardell, asked him why he had taken a candle into the pit, the witness told him that it gave a better light than the safety lamps in the air holes. He said that the area where the explosion occurred had been for a long time unused and it had consequently been standing empty for some time. However William added, that he had been there scores of times before with a candle and nothing had ever happened before. He claimed that it had always been safe and concluded:

‘I knew I was doing wrong, but I went into the heading thinking it was as safe as this room. I have been there scores of times with a naked light. There was not much gas in the pit, I knew as I had worked there for thirteen years.’

The underground manager of the colliery, Mr John Mort next gave his testimony and told the coroner that on the morning of the 27 February the prisoner informed him of the death of young Thomas. He said that William had openly told him about his use of the naked flame and added that ‘it was a bad job’. The witness said that he had cautioned the prisoner just the night before to ‘be careful and to mind what he was doing.’ George Milner, an engine tenter stated that he had let two miners James Bonser and Joseph Sanderson go down the pit in the cage to the shaft bottom which he operated. Almost unbelievably he admitted that two women also went down with them on that occasion.

At this, Mr Wardell asked Milner if he knew that it was against the colliery rules to allow women into the pit, but the witness simply prevaricated and said that he let them go down sometimes! Mr Webster shook his head in disbelief, as he then called for James Bonser to give his evidence. This witness readily admitted that on the Sunday before the explosion occurred, he had indeed gone down in the cage with his wife and another woman he did not know. When Mr Wardell challenged him as to the rules of the colliery, Bonser told him that he did not know the rules as he had never learned to read.

After some desultory conversation between the coroner, the Government Inspector and Mr Mort the jury returned the following verdict:

‘We find that Thomas Hague was killed by an explosion of gas in the Carr House Colliery on 27 February 1871, and we are of the opinion that there is gross mismanagement in that colliery’.

As a sequel to this tragedy, on Thursday 27 April 1871, five men were brought back before the Rotherham Magistrates. William Hague was fined 40s for violating the rules about the use of a naked flame. James Bonser and Joseph Sanderson were each fined 20s for taking females into the pit and George Milner was fined 40s and costs. William Needham, who had not worked at the pit for as long as the others was fined just 1s and costs and all the prisoners were warned as to their future behaviour.

This dreadful accident happened as the family had all assembled in the family dining room around 6 pm on the evening of Saturday 28 June 1845. The house, which was situated in Occupation Road near Grimesthorpe, was a respectable middle class dwelling in which lived a family of independent means. Both Harriet and her husband Thomas were then in their seventies and with them lived their son James. On the night in question, a visitor to the family was also in the room, a woman called Elizabeth Stones of Hall Carr Lane, Sheffield. At the time Harriet was sat in her usual place, in a chair in front of the fire when her son came into the room carrying his shotgun, which he laid on the table.

She asked him what he was doing and he told her that he had seen a large hare at the bottom of the garden. He had fired at it once, but it had got away and run into the hedge and he was determined to finish it off if he could. Harriet didn’t like the gun being in the dining room and in particular did not like to see it on the table, so she asked James to get rid of it as it made her nervous. He agreed that he would after he had cleaned it, before going into the kitchen to get some oil and a rag. One of the house servants, a man called William Hibberd, had just brought in some coal with which to tend the dining room fire. He too noticed that the weapon on the table needed cleaning as the barrel was getting rusty.

James quickly returned back clutching some oil, and whilst standing at the table went to pick up the weapon. His father Thomas meanwhile, who had previously seen his son shoot at the hare, entered the dining room. He sat down on the sofa on the opposite side of the fire from his wife. Suddenly there was a loud explosion as the gun went off. The recoil from the weapon resulted in it flying out of James’s hands and onto the floor about a couple of yards behind him. At the same time Harriet got to her feet and clutching her breast screamed out ‘I am shot’ before dropping to the floor. Her husband Thomas was stunned as when Harriet started to get to her feet, he just thought his wife was coming to sit with him.

Suddenly a large red patch of blood was visible on the front of her apron. The servant William, seeing that his mistress had been shot, shouted for his wife, who was the cook and was still in the kitchen. She came into the room at a rush and she started to cry as she saw Harriet on the floor. Together with her husband, they gently lifted the dying woman back into her chair as James rushed to his mothers side. He could immediately see that she was dying and was heartbroken. Holding Harriet’s hand he urged her to ‘cling on’ until they got some help. Despite his urgent appeals Harriet Hounsfield died in his arms.

On the morning of 30 June1845, Coroner Mr Joseph Badger held an inquest at the family home on Occupation Road. Thomas was the first to give evidence and he described how he had been in the garden when James shot at, and missed the hare. The witness showed great signs of distress as he spoke about the accident to his wife. When Mr Badger asked him what he thought had happened he replied that his son much have forgotten to let the cock down. He said the weapon would not have gone off if it had been at half cock. He stressed that the incident had simply been an accident and that James was not to blame.

The visitor to the house Elizabeth Stones was the next witness and she said the gun went off just as James was lifting it from the table. She too stated that after it had happened James was most distressed as he held his dying mother. The servant William Hibberd also confirmed hearing the shot and rushing into the room and James shouting at him to fetch a doctor. He told the inquest that James had always shown much affection towards his mother and father and that he too believed that it had been a most unfortunate accident. Then it was time for James himself to give his own account.

He described what had happened and admitted that he had never let the cock down after shooting at the hare. Therefore the weapon must have still been at full cock as he placed the gun on the table. Concluding his evidence he told the jury:

‘my mother and I were on the best of terms; and I wish she was here to tell you for herself. If I could bring her back again, I would willingly give up my life for that purpose.’

Surgeon Mr Haxworth stated how he had not been at home, when the call came for him to attend the deceased, so another surgeon, Mr Henry Jackson attended in his place. However, upon his return, and knowing the family well, he went straight to the house on Occupation Road.

The surgeon said that the patient was already dead when he arrived and he described the poor woman’s wounds. She had been injured in several places by the scattered shot which were mainly her right arm and her breast. He stated that death would have quickly ensued from the great loss of blood. He too, tried to absolve James from any blame. He said:

‘I have never seen people more attached to each other than the deceased and her son James were. The old people have had much illness, and his kindness and attention to them were beyond all praise.’

After hearing all the evidence, Mr Badger summed up for the jury, pointing out the great affection between Harriet and her son. The jury were in consultation with each other for just a short time before returning with a verdict of ‘accidental death.’ There is little doubt that James Hounsfield would have left the inquest a sadder and wiser man.