In the summer of 1883 an elderly widow called Elizabeth Cross lived in Brightside Lane with her fourteen year old daughter Hannah. Elizabeth was an elderly widow who earned a living by keeping lodgers. Hannah had been a good girl and rarely caused her mother any trouble until she made the acquaintance of a good looking, nineteen year old miner called Thomas Hodgson. The pair had met when they were both lodging with Elizabeth on Brightside Lane. However when Hannah left to stay with her older, married sister, a woman called Annie Lucas at Carbrook, Thomas was quick to join her there in July 1883.

When Hannah returned back to live with her mother in September, Thomas quickly followed her again, and it was only at that point that her mother understood the close relationship which had developed between her daughter and the young miner. Elizabeth Cross had been very occupied with the Salvation Army and attended evening services, so the couple had taken advantage of her absences to go out in an evening with each other. When she did find out however, Elizabeth was very concerned as Hannah was still only fourteen, and a very naive fourteen year old at that. On Saturday 24 November the matter came to a head, when her daughter was getting ready to go out again with Thomas around 3.30 pm.

Elizabeth tried to reason with her, but when Thomas returned home from work, he told the elderly landlady that he intended to marry Hannah and if she tried to stop them, he would simply ‘take her away.’ With that the pair went out together, holding hands. When they returned around 6.30 pm and had some tea, yet another argument broke out. After the meal, Thomas simply told Hannah to bundle up some clothes for them both. When Elizabeth objected, she told him that he could go, but her daughter was only fourteen and was too young to leave home. In an effort to keep her daughter safe, as Thomas left the house, Elizabeth rushed to lock the door behind him.

However, Hannah was so determined, that she managed to escaped through the front room windows and the pair ran off. For several days Elizabeth searched for her daughter until Wednesday 28 November when she finally reported the girl missing at Attercliffe Police Station. She told Police Constable John Barlow that she suspected that the pair had gone back to lodge with her older daughter Annie Lucas. So that officer accompanied her to the house at Carbrook where, sure enough they found the pair. The officer, who was well aware of Hannah’s young age, sternly instructed her immediately to put on her hat and return home with her mother, or he would be taking her into custody.

Thankfully the girl immediately complied, nevertheless Thomas Hodgson was charged with ‘the abduction of Hannah Cross, a girl being then under the age of 16 years.’ Accordingly, he was brought before the Sheffield Magistrates Court at the Town Hall on Monday 3 December 1883. There he was described as being ‘a good looking youth, who gave his age as nineteen, but that he appeared to be several years younger.’ The prisoner gave his address as Amberley Street, Sheffield. After hearing Elizabeth’s account of the abduction, Thomas was asked if he had anything to say in his own defence.

He immediately told the bench that almost all of Elizabeth’s statement was completely untrue. He claimed that instead that she had turned her daughter Hannah out of the house and told her to ‘go.’ Thomas stated that he had never encouraged Hannah to leave her mother, but the pair just wanted to ‘walk out’ together without interference. The girl Hannah herself was the next witness and she was merely described as being ‘a pretty little girl.’ She confirmed that on the night in question her mother had turned her out and told her to ‘go back no more.’ Another younger daughter, called Elizabeth after her mother, was the next witness.

She stated that she was eleven years of age but denied that her mother had told Hannah to leave. Once again Elizabeth was recalled and confirmed that Hannah had gone away without her permission and against her will. However two neighbours on Brightside Lane were then called to give their evidence which turned out to be damning. They both stated that Elizabeth was in the habit of ‘knocking Hannah about and pulling at her hair.’ After hearing all the evidence, the bench committed Thomas Hodgson for trial at the next Assizes, although they were prepared to allow him bail.

However he told them that he had no friends in Sheffield, who would pay his sureties, so he was removed still in custody. Consequently Thomas Hodgson was brought before judge Mr Justice Day at the Yorkshire Assizes at Leeds on Saturday 9 February 1884. Mr Ryalls, who prosecuted the case, told the court that ‘being under 14 years of age Hannah’s own consent was not material to the case’. He then outlined the details before Elizabeth gave her own account of her daughters abduction.

In order to malign her own married daughter, Annie Lucas in the eyes of the court, Elizabeth told the judge that Lucas kept a house ‘frequented by unmarried couples.’ Hannah, herself claimed that she had left home simply due to her mothers ill treatment of her and the same witnesses confirmed this account. Thankfully after hearing all the witness’s evidence, the grand jury found Thomas Hodgson not guilty and he was dismissed. There is little doubt that the young couple left the court in triumph!

On the morning of Thursday 5 November 1908 a man called Ridgeway was walking along the side of the canal at Tinsley. He was passing a keel boat when a cabin window in the side opened and an elderly man, looking extremely ill shouted to him. He begged Ridgeway to fetch a doctor to his six year old grandchild who was ill. The boy was onboard and suspected of suffering from food poisoning. Ridgeway immediately raced back to Tinsley to a house on Wharf Road where he knew a nurse lived called called Sarah James. She hurriedly put on her coat and hat, at the same time instructing Ridgeway to go to the house of Dr Selby and ask him also to attend.

Once onboard, Sarah found an elderly couple William and Frances Hamshaw stricken with ptomaine poisoning (an old fashioned way of saying food poisoning). Also on board was their six year old grandson Jack Hodson who was also stricken. All of them were in a terrible condition. Despite Dr Selby’s assiduous attentions the little boy Jack died. William Hamshaw told Sarah that they had been travelling from Goole to Sheffield on the previous day, when Jack fell ill. Before he could get any medical attention, all three of them were taken desperately ill for the rest of the night. Thankfully, the next morning he had managed to call the attention of a passing stranger, urging him to find them a doctor.

Sadly, William himself died the following day, but by this time his wife, Frances had thankfully recovered sufficiently enough to go home. Accordingly, an inquest on the body of Jack Hodson was due to be held on Friday 6 November 1908 at the Plumpers Hotel, Tinsley. However before it began, the Coroner, Mr J Kenyon Parker was informed of the second death of the child’s grandfather. He was told that he too had been suffering from a serious case of food poisoning, although from where it had originated was a mystery. Mr Parker told the jury that the case of William Hamshaw would be dealt with first.

The deceased man’s stepson, John Hodgkinson was the first witness and he told the inquest that William was aged 63 years and he had always been a very healthy and active man. He stated that his stepfather had been the master of the keel boat for many years and was well known to people living on the canal. Hodgkinson told the inquest that he had last seen William on Monday at Goole and he had been in the best of health on that day. However he had been told that he had been taken ill on the Wednesday night and shortly afterwards his wife and grandson had begun to display the same symptoms.

Dr Selby was the next to give evidence and he stated that he had been called into the case, and in consultation with the Medical Officer of Health, Dr Weatherbe, they had both concluded that William had died from food poisoning. He said that on Tuesday the family had a meal of roast pork and the following night, cold ham and suet pudding. The pork had then been given to a relative, who had suffered no ill effects after consuming a considerable quantity. He said that the meat had been salted, therefore he did not think it could easily become contaminated on board the keel.

The mother of the deceased boy, Maria Hutchinson told the jury that she had identified the body of her son who was born to her first husband. In his summing up, Mr Parker told the jury that both doctors Dr Weatherbe and Dr Selby did not think it necessary to undertake post mortems on the bodies of the grandfather or his grandson. The symptoms from which they both died showed undoubted that they had died from food poisoning. Accordingly the jury had no option but to return a verdict that both deaths were due to gastro-enteritis.

The rapping case was first reported in the Sheffield Independent dated Thursday 8 December 1881 at a house on Sheffield Moor. The house was in Johnson’s Yard which was situated on Pearl Street and entered by a narrow passageway. On each side of the passageway were two single houses. It was reported that

‘the occupants of these houses had for the past week, had to endure nightly disturbances of incessant knockings. The origins of these disturbances however could not be traced and, not unnaturally, left the people concerned extremely nervous.’

As fame about this phenomena spread, more and more local people came to witness the knockings for themselves. At first it was thought that the sound originated from leaking water pipes, as the sounds originated in the lower rooms. Shortly after the noise became such a nightly nuisance, that plumbers were employed to take up the pavement outside to check the water pipes. However they could find no evidence of leaking, nor any disturbance in the pipework’s at all. The cellars of the two houses were also checked in an effort to discover the origin of these noises, but it was quickly established that no person, apart from the occupants had access to the cellars without being discovered.

As the fame of this ‘nighttime rapper’ spread, it was usual that around ten o’clock there gathered quite a crowd in Pearl Street. Inevitably, amongst them there ‘gangs of youths who prowled here and there, defying the spirit and daring the mysterious phantom to reveal itself.’ Needless to say this resulted in much hooting of the crowd, enough to keep most of the occupants of the two houses wide awake. The occupant of one of the houses was a man called Joseph Hodgkinson, whose daughter at the time was seriously ill. Her father claimed nightly that she was disturbed by the thoughtless hubbub which was happening outside their house.

The local police authorities too were becoming more disturbed at the crowds which collected on a nightly basis, all hoping to hear this phenomena. By Thursday 8 December, it was estimated that almost a thousand people had collected in Johnson’s Yard. Many took the rapping’s as a bit of a lark to be laughed at, whilst others viewed the issue more seriously. They would wait for the disturbance to begin, their faces pinched and full of concern. Suggestions were put forward that the nightly disruptions were the prediction of an earthquake. Whilst other more imaginative theories were that the rapping’s were the work of a previous tenant of one of the houses.

It was said that this unnamed soul was a man, weary of this world who decided to end his existence. As a result he had cut his own throat and it was his spirit that was haunting the place where his ancient spirit roamed. Police officers were now put on duty to watch the large crowds and on that particular night there were four of them in attendance. It was noted that some of the officers were forced to use their truncheons in order to maintain control, as some of the mob became more and more unruly. One woman fainted and many others were clearly terrified.

As news of the ‘ghost’ spread, the sound it made was likened to that of ‘a blow struck with a mallet upon some hard substance.’ This continued for a few moments and then stopped before it was then resumed at the hour of 10 o’ clock where the continued once more for some ten or fifteen minutes. On the following, Friday night the police officers would not allow the crowd to approach the passageway into Johnson’s Yard and they quickly dispersed those who collected there on Pearl Street waiting for the ‘show’ to start. These officers were kept so busy moving the crowd on until midnight, that they hardly noticed when a cold fog descended. Only then did the crowds finally disperse to their own homes.

Needless to say all the excitement generated had an affect on the onlookers, which came to a head on Saturday 10 December when a forty-five year old midwife, a woman called Mrs Coldwell mingled in with the crowd. Suddenly, and without warning, she dropped to the ground in an apoplectic fit. Mrs Coldwell was removed to another house in Pearl Street, but sadly died the following day. It was thought that anticipation and excitement had brought on the fit. Thankfully, by Friday 16 December the Pearl Street rapping phenomena had finally ceased altogether, to the crowds great disappointment.

Thankfully for the police authorities, gradually fewer and fewer people gathered on Pearl Street after it became clear that there was nothing more to hear. Yet even well afterwards, many still sought answers as to what had started the phenomena in the first place. Failing to find any other solution, it was gradually stated that the mysterious rapping must have originated with the ‘afflicted’ daughter of Joseph Hodgkinson. It seems that once she was moved from her bedroom and placed on the sofa in one of the lower rooms, the rapping’s finally ceased altogether and Johnson’s Yard and Pearl Street resumed their former nighttime silence.

On Friday 29 November 1907 around 10 pm, twenty one year old Bill Durose and his step-sister Susannah Davies were on their way to visit their parents at Cross Street, Whinney Hill, Thrybergh. Bill had been drinking heavily and therefore Susannah wanted to make sure that her step-brother reached home safely. Reaching the house, the pair let themselves in, going through the front door, along the passage into the kitchen. It was a short distance, nevertheless Susannah was forced to help Bill, who was so drunk that he could scarcely walk along unaided. Once inside they found Bill’s father, Charles Durose and Susannah’s mother sat in front of the fire.

The elder Durose was a fifty six year old collier who was employed along with his son at Silverwood Colliery. He was described as being a powerfully built man and Susannah’s mother lived with him at the house, although she and Charles were not married. Between them they had five children. There was Charles junior, William or Bill as he was called, as well as two daughters, Lizzie aged 15 and Lydia, aged 13 years. Finally there was another unnamed son who was aged just nine years. On that particular day, it seems that Charles and Susannah had been into Rotherham to spend £3 compensation money that he had received. This was following an accident at work which had kept him at home, unable to work for three weeks.

However once some clothes were bought, the couple who were both heavy drinkers, spent the rest of the day in the several pubs of the town, returning home just before 10 pm. Entering the house, Susannah noted immediately that neither Charles or her mother looked particularly sober. Once inside the kitchen, Bill sat down on the hearth as it was a cold night and his father sat in an armchair close by. Almost immediately his father started to kick out at Bill telling him to move, as he was blocking the warmth from the fire. However when Bill laid down on the hearthrug and closed his eyes, Charles became even more annoyed.

When Bill still refused to move, his father kicked him again until his son finally stood up and rubbed his hands complaining at the same time that he too was cold. Then matters took a turn for the worst. At that point Charles stood up to get another beer from the sideboard, but somehow instead he fell back into the armchair. This went over backwards leaving him and the chair sprawled on its back on the kitchen floor. Bill immediately started to laugh, but by now furious, the elderly man jumped to his feet and lashed out at his son with his fists. In his own mind he was convinced that Bill had tipped the chair backwards somehow.

The blow landed on Bill’s cheek and his son quickly moved to retaliate. An argument quickly ensued as father and son struggled together. Susannah, trying to prevent the fight getting out of hand, stood between Charles and her brother and for her pains received a blow on her right temple. One of the younger girls, Lizzie then got upset and she ran out of the house screaming, as Charles continued to curse and swear at his son. She was quickly joined by her sister Lydia, who were both afraid that the row had got so quickly out of hand that they both began to cry. When a neighbour came out to find out what was the matter, Lizzie told him ‘our Bill has kicked my father under his jaw.’

Susannah came out to comfort her younger step siblings and the three girls, stood outside in the cold for about five minutes, as the sounds of the argument continued inside the house. When they finally went back inside, it was to find Charles unconscious on the floor and Bill standing over him, breathing heavily. As a result, the two young girls were dispatched to fetch Police Sergeant Rowe and Police Constable Stones who were on duty not far away. After hearing the girl’s tale, the two officers immediately went to the house where they saw Charles lying on the floor. Sergeant Roe went over to the body and found the man was dead.

A doctor was immediately called and Dr John Ewing Adams attended the house around 11.35 pm. However by the time he arrived all he could do was to confirm that Charles Durose was indeed dead. The two officers noted that throughout their visit and that of Dr Adams, that Susannah’s mother stayed sitting at the kitchen table almost stupefied with drink. The sergeant could not help but notice that the poor woman had a black eye from an argument which had taken place a few days previously. The surgeon examined the deceased man and noted a slight wound over his left eye and a more serious bruise behind the man’s ears.

Needless to say Bill Durose was taken into custody charged with causing the death of his father, and the next day, Saturday 30 November he was brought before the West Riding Court at Rotherham. Superintendent McDonald of the Rotherham police gave the court a description of finding the deceased man lying on his back in the kitchen, as well as describing the state of the room with the broken chair and a damaged fender. The superintendent then asked for a remand for the prisoner until after the inquest and a post mortem had be held, which was granted. Consequently, the Sheffield Deputy Coroner, Mr Kenyon Parker arranged for an inquest to be held at the Grapes Hotel at Dalton on Tuesday 3 December.

Mr Parker opened the inquest and informed the jury that it was their duty to identify any person or persons who were responsible for the death of the deceased man, Charles Durose. When Susannah stood to give her evidence, the mark of the blow she had received in trying to separate the two men was still visible on her temple. The witness told the jury that her mother and Charles Durose had been living together for twenty-seven years as man and wife. She described the events of the evening in question and was asked by a juror if the father and son had argued before. Susannah told him that there had been frequent quarrels over the previous year, which were usually exacerbated when both the men had been drinking.

She was followed by the surgeon who attended to the deceased, Dr Adams. He stated how the man was clearly dead by the time he arrived at the house. He informed the inquest that he had undertaken the post mortem and described the wounds he had found. Dr Adams said that internally Charles Durose’s organs were quite healthy and there was no fracture of the skull. However, he concluded that the most serious injury was the large swelling below and behind the deceased man’s left ear. He concluded that death was a result of shock from the injury, which had caused bleeding at the bottom of the brain.

The next witness was Police Sergeant Rowe of Wickersley who related how, when he found the elderly man was dead, the prisoner immediately said ‘If he is dead then I have not killed him, he fell off the chair. There has been a right row here tonight.’ The coroner then summed up for the jury and stated that it was very clear that all the parties involved had been drunk at the time. The jury retired in private for just ten minutes before returning a verdict of manslaughter against Bill Durose. On hearing this, the prisoner burst into tears and had to be helped out of the room, before being removed to the cells at Rotherham.

When he was next appeared before the magistrates again on Wednesday 11 December, thankfully he was now defended by solicitor, Mr W J Bradford. His defence stated that when the prisoner was in the fight with his father, he denied having his boots on his feet at the time. Therefore the statement by Lizzie that he had kicked his father under the jaw could not be true. Instead he suggested that the injury behind the deceased man’s ear must have been caused by his fall. Dr Adams pointed out that there had been a stone sink in the corner of the room and said that might well have caused such an injury.

Despite his defence able attempts, Bill Durose was found guilty of manslaughter and ordered to take his trial at the next West Riding Assizes. These were to be held at Leeds Town Hall on Wednesday 25 March 1908. The prisoner was charged with the manslaughter of his father and he was defended by Mr Bramley. The prosecution Mr Leader addressed the jury and told them it would be for them to decide whether the prisoner had just been defending himself, or whether he was angry and had attacked his father in his turn. He pointed out that if he struck a blow in self-defence then the jury must find him not guilty.

Mr Bramley reminded the jury that the prisoner had taken his boots off before lying down on the hearthrug to sleep. Police Sergeant Rowe confirmed the fact that when he had gone to the house and found the deceased man, that the prisoner had no boots on. They were found by the sink, close to where the prisoner was standing. When asked what he had to say in his own defence, Bill simply stated that even he could not say how his father had got the wound behind his ear. He said that they had been rolling about on the floor and struggling together for a quarter of an hour or so and that at one point his father had got hold of him by the throat.

In retaliation he agreed that he had given him a shove, and that was when his fathers chair went over and Charles lay there and did not get up again. Mr Justice Sutton summed up for the jury and said that if the prisoner had indeed just been defending himself that would not be manslaughter and it would be a verdict of accidental death. He said that the evidence had shown that the deceased was a quarrelsome, violent man and that he was strong, powerful and muscular in build.

His Lordship said that to find the prisoner guilty the jury would have to prove that he had caused his fathers death by some direct act, not in self defence. Nevertheless they would have to say what had caused his death. No instrument had been found or anything to account for the swelling at the back of the deceased man’s ear mentioned by the medical evidence. The grand jury retired to consider their verdict at 3.15 pm and after just thirty minutes absence, they returned with a verdict of not guilty. Bill Durose was therefore discharged, to his own and his families great relief.

In Sheffield in November of 1872 there lived a widow called Ann Smith who made a living from running a lodging house in Harvest Lane. Generally speaking, she had few problems with her lodgers, as she was well able to keep them under control. However, over the last few months one particular man had been causing her particular headaches. Fifty five year old labourer Peter Williams thought nothing of getting drunk every Saturday night and using bad language in front of his landlady. However when he started to do it in front of her children, that was a completely different matter.

On Saturday night 22 November the lodger came in roaring drunk and when one of Ann’s sons remonstrated with him, Williams lashed out at the child. The boy had simply told the drunken man that ‘he ought not to conduct himself in such a manner.’ As Williams lifted his fist, Ann stepped between the pair and as a result received a violent blow in the mouth for her trouble. Only when she took down a heavy pot basin and threatened Williams with it, did he finally sit down and become quiet again. Ann had just began to relax, when glancing out the window she spotted another lodger called John Maugham standing in the yard.

There had already been some sort of feud between Williams and the sixty one year old carter, Maugham, so she went outside and begged the man to go away. He played little heed and the poor woman went back into the kitchen, and taking down the key she firmly locked the door. However Maugham had already seen that the landlady’s face was bleeding, and seeing Williams inside, he knew who the person was who had initiated such an injury. Maugham kicked at the locked door and demanded that Williams come out and fight ‘like a man’. Hearing this the lodger forced the key out of Ann Smiths hands before unlocking the door and going outside.

However, once outside and being confronted by the larger man, Williams took to his heels and ran down Harvest Lane. Maugham was having none of this and he ran after and caught hold of him before the two men immediately began to struggle fiercely together. Thankfully, two other lodgers saw what was happening and quickly separated the pair. Nevertheless during the short struggle, the two men and their landlady quite clearly heard Maugham say that Williams had bitten him. As they dragged the two men apart, it was clear that Maugham’s thumb was bleeding. Thankfully, that seemed to be the end of the argument, and matters soon settled down at the lodging house.

Nevertheless, the condition of Maugham’s bitten thumb did not improve and steadily got worse. Only after Ann had nagged at him for a full three weeks, did he finally take her advice and go to seek medical advice. He went to see Dr Kemp at the workhouse hospital on 12 December. The surgeon saw that the man’s whole arm from his hand to his elbow was now swollen and inflamed. Dr Kemp diagnosed ‘erysipelas’ and did what he could to save his patient, but almost from the beginning he knew the wound was a fatal one. Sadly Williams condition was so frail by this time that four days later, on 16 December 1872 John Maugham died from his injury at the Workhouse hospital.

As a result, an inquest on the body of the deceased man was opened at the Alma Hotel by the Coroner, Mr J Webster two days later. However only evidence of identification was taken, before the inquest was adjourned until Wednesday 22 January 1873. On that day Ann Smith found herself the first witness at the resumed inquest, as she described the fight between the two men. The landlady told the inquest that both men were quiet, inoffensive kind of persons until they had been drinking, when they would both become quarrelsome.

Surgeon, Dr Kemp described his treatment of erysipelas for the deceased man at the workhouse hospital and admitted that he knew from the start that the case was a hopeless one. He told the coroner that by the time he saw that man’s injured thumb, he was in such a poor physical condition that he could not even contemplate having the infected arm amputated. Other witnesses gave evidence of the two men struggling together in the street. After hearing all the evidence, Mr Webster told the jury that the only question they would have to decide was whether Peter Williams was guilty of manslaughter or not.

The coroner gave his opinion that he did not think that the prisoner was guilty of manslaughter as it was clear from the evidence of witnesses that he was not the aggressor in the case. He pointed out that it was John Maugham who had followed Williams after he had run away and forced him to into the fight. However, some members of the jury disagreed, and felt that they were of the opinion that Williams had not needed to fight, if he had not wished to do so. Hence they returned a verdict that Peter Williams was guilty of manslaughter. As a result on Friday 25 January, the prisoner was brought before the magistrates at Sheffield Town Hall.

The details of the case was gone into once more, before Williams was asked if he had anything to say in his own defence. He simply shook his head, before the bench found him guilty and remanded him on bail for a week, in his own recognizances of £40 and two other sureties of £20 each. Finally, Peter Williams was brought before the Leeds Assizes on Thursday 27 March 1873 to take his trial. He was charged with the manslaughter of John Maugham before being placed in a cell.

However, before the trial could begin the judge, Mr Justice Denman opened the assizes and gave his address to the Grand Jury. He made a particular mention of the case of Peter Williams, as he told them that the case would require more than the jury’s ‘ordinary attention’. He told them that they had to decide whether Maugham’s death was from the erysipelas or the bite from the prisoner. Thankfully the following day the Grand Jury threw out the case against Peter Williams and he was discharged. There is little doubt that he returned back to Sheffield a wiser and more careful kind of man.

John French was a thirty year old labourer who had been a collier by trade in Cardiff, Wales before coming to Sheffield at the beginning of February 1907. In fact he was destitute in the city when he was approached by a kind and merciful man called Owen Fitzsimmons. He took pity on the poor young man and took him back to his house in Bailey Street. There he not only gave him lodgings for the night, but also a change of clean clothes as well. Fitzsimmons and his wife, Elizabeth made a living by running a grocers shop on Bailey Street as well as taking in lodgers. At the time they also had living with them two elderly ladies. They were Fitzsimmons mother, Sarah Ann and another elderly widow called Rose Ann Horan.

In order to help them they also employed a twenty- year old servant, a girl called Alice Cole, towards whom French immediately displayed some affections. Thanks to Owen Fitzsimmon’s charity, it was not long before the new lodger found employment at Birley Colliery. An agreement was soon reached that French would continue to lodge with the family and that he would pay them 12s a week. His circumstances now having improved, it was not long before the lodger asked Alice to go out with him, but she appeared more frightened of him than affectionate, and refused. However French pressed the girl until finally she gave in.

On that occasion, although Alice had agreed, she asked Owen to follow them. His lodger had told Fitzsimmons that he was taking the girl into Rotherham, but as they left the house, Owen saw they were heading towards Endcliffe Woods. Thankfully around 11.30pm that they both returned safely back to Bailey Street. At some time around the beginning of March, French managed, possibly using threats to get Alice to come out with him again and this time his purpose was more sinister. He took her to the Westbar Registry Office and once there and without consulting her beforehand, he made arrangements for a wedding to take place a fortnight later.

Throughout this sinister romance, he had tried to prevent Alice from saying anything to her employer about their relationship, so she said nothing to the family until Saturday 9 March. However when the wedding arrangements came to light, a confrontation happened which resulted in French seeking lodgings across the road with a woman called Mrs Clark. He slept there on the Sunday night and as he went over in his head the events of the previous few days, he plotted his revenge. What he did not know however was that his determination to retaliate himself on the whole Fitzsimmons family, including Alice Cole had already been foreseen.

Owen’s mother, Sarah Ann Mrs Fitzsimmons, had a remarkable dream on the Saturday night, which foretold the tragedy. On Sunday morning, 10 March she told her son that she had a dream where she saw shots being fired, and described the kitchen as being ‘full of smoke.’ She told other people about the dream and said that she had also seen blood streaming all over the floor. So vivid was the dream that she warned Alice not to go out with French that night. What she didn’t know was that on Monday 11 March, French had bought a revolver. He was spotted at some time before noon going into the Fitzsimmon’s back kitchen, situated in a yard at the back of the house.

Entering he found Owen Fitzsimmons and his wife, who was nursing her young baby. Mrs Horan and Alice were also in the kitchen, although Owens elderly mother was reportedly still upstairs in bed, the dream of the previous Saturday night having disturbed her considerably. French was described as ‘looked excited’ as he confronted Alice and asked her point blank if she was going to marry him at the Register Office as arranged. Taking courage from the other people present, the girl told him that she wouldn’t marry him and French flew into a rage as he pulled out the gun. Standing at the doorway, the lodger fired several shots, although thankfully most of them missed the target due to his agitation.

He fired at, and thankfully missed, Owen Fitzsimmons and then at Elizabeth his wife, who still had the baby on her knee. The bullet struck her on the nose before she ran out screaming, and then he turned his attention to the young domestic servant. French fired three more times at her as she lay on the floor pleading for mercy. How she survived was a miracle, but after knowing that he now only had one bullet left, French thankfully turned it on himself. Placing the muzzle against his right temple, he pulled the trigger and immediately fell down dead. The shots were clearly heard in Bailey Street and so it was a matter of just fifteen minutes before the police arrived.

Deputy Chief Constable of Sheffield, Mr G H Barker and Inspector Henley with several constables took charge. In French’s pocket was found a gun license which had been taken out that same morning at 9.30 am. John French’s body was removed and an inquest was arranged on his body on Wednesday 13 March at the Mortuary where the identification was made by Owen Fitzsimmons himself. He was the first witness and he admitted to the Coroner Mr D Wightman, that he had made a big mistake with French, and in particular with having brought him into his family. He had thought that he was a good man, but he had been mistaken.

The witness also said that the deceased man was given to ‘romancing’ about incidents which had happened in his life, so that it was impossible to trust anything he said. He also admitted that his former lodger had always wanted to carry on his affair with Alice Cole in a secret way, and had made arrangements to marry her without telling anyone else. He was angry with her when she refused to keep himself and his wife in ignorance of their affair. Fitzsimmons then described the shooting and how, after his wife had been shot, that he picked up his child and ran outside. Thankfully the witness told the coroner that French was so drunk that it caused him to shoot wildly or they would all be dead.

Alice Cole gave evidence that the deceased had proposed that they should live together in Rotherham soon after she went out with him for the first time, but she refused. As a result, French had threatened her several times, during their short acquaintanceship. She readily told the inquest that she had always been frightened of him. When she told the deceased man that she wanted no more to do with him, he threatened her again. He told her ‘I will pawn this ring and buy something in its place that will finish you.’ Mr Wightman told the jury that French appeared to have acted like a fool throughout, and it was a wonder that he had not killed more people.

The coroner advised the jury that the only question they had to decide at the point was what was his state of mind at the time. The jury consulted together for a short while, before returning their verdict of ‘suicide during temporary insanity.’ It was hoped that was the end of the terrible affair, but a month later there was a completely surprised revelation. French had told everyone that he was a single man, however a letter was sent from Maryport, Cumberland from his abandoned wife. In the letter sent to Sheffield Mrs French described her husbands tattoo on his arms of ‘JLF’. These were his initials (John Lawson French) as well as she described other identifying details.

Concluding the letter, Mrs French stated that ‘true to form’ her husband had left her with a six week old child taking all his wages and leaving her penniless. Thankfully Alice Cole survived her ordeal as did her employer Mrs Elizabeth Fitzsimmons. It was reported thankfully that the disfigurement of having part of her nose shot off ‘was much more serious than her pain.

Mary Jane Hayes was a long suffering miner’s wife who finally found the strength to take her abusive husband to court on Wednesday 1 September 1886. She was the first witness against her husband, John who had been charged with committing a most aggravated assault on her for no reason at all. The witness described how they were living in a house in Smith’s Yard, Conisbrough when he viciously assaulted her. Mary Jane described how he had struck her in the face on the night of Saturday 29 August, just because she had asked him for money. She told the court that prior to this assault, a fortnight earlier he had threatened her with a penknife at Mexborough.

On that date, he had literally run at her with an open penknife and tried to stab her. The poor woman explained how most of such offences usually happened whilst her husband John was under the influence of alcohol. Thankfully, on that occasion, the blade hit one of her corset stays instead, and merely bounced off. The poor witness admitted that throughout her marriage, John had repeatedly beaten and punched out at her and she was now afraid to live with him again. Therefore she was asking the bench for a separation order. Mary Jane admitted that since the attack she had gone to live back with her father, as she was now in fear of her life due to her husband’s violence.

John Hayes denied his wife’s accusations and told the magistrates that it was all lies. He said ‘she knows I never touched her and its all a made up thing.’ However a neighbour from Smith’s Yard called William Hawksworth corroborated Mary Jane’s account, as did a lodger who lived at the house, a woman called Mary Elizabeth Orton. Obviously feeling sorry for himself, Hayes told the court ‘I haven’t a friend in the world, and they are all against me.’ Mary Jane was asked how much her husband earned and she told the bench that his average earnings were about 30s a week. The magistrates told the prisoner that it was a very serious case and granted Mary Jane the separation order she requested.

The magistrates also instructed John Hayes that he would have to pay his wife 10s a week maintenance. The prisoner was also fined 20s and £1.7s.6d court costs for the attack on his wife. However that was not the end of the matter, for the prisoner was also charged with a second, much more serious assault on the lodger, Mary Elizabeth Orton. The next witness was surgeon Dr Hills who informed the court that after this brutal attack, his patient Mary Orton had been unconscious for three hours. He therefore gave the clerk to the magistrates a note to state that the female witness was still too ill to attend the court. Accordingly the case was adjourned to the following Saturday.

Thankfully on that date Mary Orton had recovered sufficiently to give evidence, and a chair was provided so that she could remain seated whist she made her statement. The witness told the court that along with her husband, Henry they had both been lodgers at the prisoners house for the past two years. Mary Elizabeth told the court that prior to the offence, Hayes had been drinking for some time. Indeed he had been brought before the magistrates charged with being drunk and disorderly on Saturday 28 August, where he had been fined 10s and 12s 6d costs. She described how, on Tuesday 31 August she had gone to the colliery in order to take her husband, Henry some hot dinner.

When she returned, the witness said that she found the house locked against her. Mary Elizabeth managed to get through the kitchen window, thinking that her landlord had gone out and that no one was at home. However once inside, she found Hayes hiding behind the kitchen door. Without speaking, he knocked her to the ground and jumped upon her as she lay on the floor. The next to give evidence was a police officer called Sergeant Noble who described how he had heard cries of ‘murder’ and ‘police’ proceeding from the prisoners house on the day in question. He reported how he went to the house and using his feet managed to break down the door.

Still hearing the woman’s cries for help, he entered and burst into the kitchen. There he found Mary Orton unconscious and Hayes standing over her with a knife saying that ‘he would cut her head off’. When arrested, Hayes had told him that the lodger had provoked him and that consequently he had stabbed her in the head with a pocket knife. The sergeant then produced the knife in court, where it was said to be ‘a large pocket knife with a blade as sharp as a razor.’ The officer told the magistrates that he had promptly arrested the prisoner who, throughout had ‘acted like a madman.’

Thankfully these two cases indicated the violent nature of John Hayes and he was found guilty and ordered to take his trial at the next Michaelmas Quarter Sessions. These were held at the Guild Hall, Doncaster on Friday 22 October 1886. John Hayes, was again charged with a murderous assault on Mary Elizabeth Orton. However he claimed that the woman had no right to enter his house and that he had been merely defending himself against her. He likened her assault to being attacked by ‘a wild beast.’ Hayes stated that rather than himself, it was she who had been drunk at the time, which was angrily denied by Mary Elizabeth Orton.

The justices who heard the case, consulted between themselves before sentencing John Hayes to eighteen months imprisonment. As he was led away down stairs to begin his sentence, he was described by the local reporters as being ‘a very dangerous man.’

In January of 1856 James Hill aged twenty-three still lived at home with his aged mother and father at their house in Byre Lane, Sheffield. He was described at the time as being a ‘stoutly built young man’ nevertheless his appearance belied that there was something strange about him. Those who knew him, viewed him thus as for some years he had displayed such eccentricities of conduct which led to a conclusion that he was ‘not right in the head.’ Although Hill had been working as a knife grinder, for the previous year or so, he had since been out of work and was getting more and more depressed as a consequence. Thankfully, on 18 January he managed to get some employment at Messrs Gallimore of Edward Street, Sheffield.

It was hoped that this would raise his spirits although it was reported that his depressed mood remained. Hill had only been at work for six days, when on Thursday 24 January he abruptly got up from the bench where he had been working and put on his coat. Another workman who saw this glanced at the clock seeing that it was only 5.30 pm asked Hill why he was leaving early? His workmates only reply was ‘I’ll tell you when I get back.’ It seems that after leaving work he went to his sisters house in Green Street, Sheffield where he found a group of children playing outside the house. Among them was his nephew Wilfred Deakin aged three and a half.

He asked him where his mummy was, and the child told him that she was next door with a neighbour. Hill then said to his nephew ‘come Wilfred we are going for a walk.’ He told one of the girls who looked older than the other children to close the shutters. As she climbed onto the sofa to do his bidding, she saw Hill take something from the top of a shelf in the kitchen. Although she didn’t know it at the time, it was the razor belonging to his brother-in-law. Little Wilfred innocently took hold of his uncle’s hand not knowing what the terrible consequences would be. The next time Hill was seen, was when he went into the workshop of Hawksley and Haslam, silversmiths where a niece called Emma Lowden worked.

He asked to see her and when she went to enquire as to what he wanted, Hill immediately blurted out ’Ive committed murder.’ He showed her the weapon which still held bloodstains, but the girl just ran away screaming. Sure enough, an hour later James Hill returned back to work and his workmates could not help but see that his hands and clothes were full of blood. Once again he told them ‘I’ve committed murder’ as he pulled out the bloody razor and showed it to them. One man said to him ‘Come on Jim, give me that razor’ as he held his hand out. Hill immediately handed over the weapon, before agreeing with the other men to go to the Town Hall and give himself up.

Consequently three other workmen accompanied through the streets of Sheffield to the police station. One of the men told the desk sergeant that they had brought in Jim Hill for committing a murder. At this, the prisoner nodding towards the three men and said ‘yeah and they have got the razor I did it with.’ Needless to say he was arrested and placed in a cell, whilst a search was made for the child. Police spoke to a neighbour who told them that she had seen Hill and the child at the end of Green Street, crossing over the road into Moor Street. Later a man and a child were also reported to be seen going into a brick yard on Moor Street, Little Sheffield where the little body was found.

Meanwhile Emma Lowden went to Green Street, where she found the children still playing happily outside. They told her that little Wilfred had gone for a walk with his uncle, confirming what she had been told by Hill. Going inside she saw Wilfred’s mother had returned back from the neighbours house and was inside continuing with her chores, whilst her husband Walter was smoking a pipe by the chimney. Then she told the couple about Hill’s confession and that he had given himself up to the police. Meanwhile the poor little body of the child had been found.

It seems that a young man called Sorby had been returning home from work, when he saw a group of excited children. He was about to ignore them, when heard them say something about a child’s body lying on the ground. Sorby got them to show him and that’s when he found the body of Wilfred Deakin lying in a pool of blood. A police officer was called and he ordered the body to be initially removed to the nearby Pilot Inn, and from there it was taken in a basket to the Town Hall. Making their usual enquiries, the police found that James Hill’s elderly parents had been quite concerned about their sons behaviour for some time.

In fact his mother told officers that she was now so afraid of him that she hid all the knives and sharp implements in the house. However when questioned as to his motivation, she admitted that she could not understand why it had happened. Mrs Hill said that her son had always seemed to be very fond of his little nephew. However she did mention that he had received a kick in the head from a horse about three years earlier, and reported that after that time he became a different man becoming more moody and morose. Needless to say an inquest was arranged by Coroner, Mr Thomas Badger at the Town Hall the following afternoon.

The child’s father Walter was the first witness and he tragically identified the murder weapon as being his own razor. He told the coroner that he usually kept it on a high shelf in the kitchen, well away from his children’s hands. An eleven year old girl called Ann Arnold who had been playing with the children at the Deakin house, described how she had identified the prisoner as being James Hill. She described how had taken both the weapon and the little boy out of the house. Her account was confirmed by another little girl, who had been present at the time, the nine year old sister to the deceased child, Ellen Deakin.

Another child called Cordelia Judd also confirmed that she had seen the prisoner taking the boy away and commented that she though that ‘Hill looked vicious’. She was followed by Police Constable Thomas Mason. He gave the jury a description of the prisoner being arrested and brought into the station and described him as being ‘slightly manic’ at the time. Mr J F Wright the police surgeon told the inquest jury that he had conducted the post mortem and described the terrible injuries to the boys throat. He added that ‘great resolution would be required to make such wounds.’

Needless to say the inquest soon found the prisoner James Hill guilty of the wilful murder of Wilfred Deakin and he was ordered to take his trial at the Assizes. Accordingly, James Hill was brought before judge Mr Justice Willes at the Yorkshire Spring Assizes at York on Thursday 13 March 1856. Mr Blanchard defended him. The prisoner pleaded not guilty before staring around the courtroom with much curiosity. Once he had glanced around however, he took little notice of the rest of the proceedings. Prosecution, Mr Hardy stated that although the prisoner had pleaded not guilty, he would demonstrate that throughout the carrying out of the act of murder, the prisoner had shown nothing but a calm and dispassionate manner.

The same witnesses gave evidence. The only change was from relative Emma Lowden who, when asked about the kick in the head which Hill had received three years previously, did not recall the incident at all. Nor did she remember him being ill at the time. After this statement it was noticeable that the prisoner’s demeanour became more moody and sullen. Another witness was Mr Henry Dunn the senior surgeon of Wakefield House of Correction. He told the judge that he had been able to observe the prisoner since he was brought to Wakefield on 28 January.

He stated that in all his, almost daily dealing with Hill, he had observed no sign of insanity. He added that ‘on the contrary he was quite aware of the nature of the crime he had committed.’ Nevertheless his conclusions were disputed by the medical superintendent of Wakefield who stated quite clearly that he was of the opinion that the prisoner was not of sound mind. Mr Justice Willes summed up for the jury, who took just over an hour to find James Hill guilty on the grounds of insanity. Only when the jury gave their verdict was the prisoner finally seen to smile. Nevertheless his smile disappeared as the judge then told him that he was be kept in prison until Her Majesties pleasure be known.

On 10 November 1852 Thomas White was asked by another local man called Henry Wade to help his wife Ellen, move some articles of clothing into their new house. White agreed, however he was such an inveterate criminal that instead of helping the woman to move, he quickly decamped with many of Mrs Wades belongings. Still carrying the stolen clothing and wondering what he was going to do with them, he was walking down the High Street when he met Thomas Simmonite. White could not resist showed his companion some of the articles of clothing he had stolen. Among them was a very pretty women’s shawl.

Simmonite suggested that they go into two local pubs and try to sell them. They went first to the Cross Daggers on the High Street and then to the Boot and Shoe in Bridgegate where they thankfully found both public houses crowded. It did not take long for the two men to exhibit and sell the articles of stolen apparel at knock down prices. Whilst showing off the beautiful woman’s shawl, Simmonite told the buyer that it had belonged to an aunt of his who had recently died. Needless to say the woman bought this beautiful article for sixpence. However, by this time the theft of women’s clothing had been noticed by Ellen Wade.

It was not long before the Rotherham Police were called in and their enquiries soon established the impromptu ‘sale’ of the stolen items of clothing. Thomas White was quickly identified and arrested before being brought before the Rotherham Magistrates on Saturday 13 November 1852. There he was sentenced to twelve months imprisonment for the theft. Simmonite meanwhile had disappeared from Rotherham and it was supposed that he had last been seen catching a train at Doncaster railway station. For almost three weeks nothing more was heard of Simmonite, until Saturday 4 December when he returned to Rotherham and was seen and arrested for his part in the nefarious sale.

Consequently, he was brought before the magistrates where he pleaded not guilty. Nevertheless the prisoner was sent to take his trial at the next Sheffield Sessions. However Simmonite was not a man who would be dismissed quite as quickly as White had been. Consequently he was brought before Mr Wilson Overend and the Grand Jury at the Town Hall on Monday 6 December 1852, where he was undefended. Nevertheless it was reported that the prisoner made:

‘a very clever and ingenious defence, proving that he was, evidently no novice to criminal jurisprudence.’

Simmonite began by readily admitting to being in company with Thomas White on the night in question and helping him to sell the clothing. However he hotly denied knowing that the articles had been stolen.

In order to do this, Simmonite went very minutely into the details of all the transactions with White and in particular where the evidence was conflicting. The prisoner admitted that there were some discrepancies in the two men’s accounts. However he boldly claimed to be ‘applying the Torch of Truth’ onto some of these differences. Needless to say, the jury were not convinced by his rhetoric and they soon found him guilty. At that point the Chair to the magistrates, Wilson Overend told the court that he also intended to ‘apply the Torch of Truth’ on Thomas Simmonite’s former criminal career.’

He told the court that since 1840 and despite the prisoner plea of ‘not guilty’ to this crime, he had been convicted eight times for various different other offences. Overend said that Simmonite had also served a prison sentence of three years in prison. He listed other offences as being in 1840 three months imprisonment for neglect of family, and in 1843 three months for felony. In 1844 he was sentenced to another nine months for felony and in 1846 he was again incarcerated for twelve months for various offences. In 1847 the prisoner was committed for trial, but was acquitted of that particular crime, however in 1849, 1851 and 1852 he was imprisoned each time for the persistent neglect of his family.

After hearing this list of offences, the Grand Jury retired for two hours before returning back into the courtroom with a verdict. Mr Wilson Overend immediately asked the foreman of the jury if they had come to a decision about the theft of the women’s clothing. Mr George Wolstenholme answered that they had found Thomas Simmonite guilty of the offence. Then it was time for Mr Overend to address the prisoner. He told him that:

‘To use your own terminology, the Torch of Truth has indeed been shone on your career, including the crime for which you have been brought before the court today.’

The Chair to the magistrates then sentenced Thomas Simmonite to transportation for the term of seven years.

On Thursday 5 March 1840 a twenty three year old Sheffield prisoner called George Jenkinson was charged with two most serious crimes. Accordingly, he was brought before the Yorkshire Spring Assizes at York. He was charged that on two consecutive nights, Saturday 20 September and Sunday 21 September 1839, he had robbed two men. His victims were Peter McKinnell and James Bray both of Sheffield. For this most serious hearing the court had two prestigious judges listening to the evidence. They were the Honourable Sir John Taylor Coleridge and the presiding judge the Right Honourable Thomas Erskine. The first case to be heard was that of the robbery and attempted murder of of Peter McKinnell.

He had been robbed of 6s 6d, a penknife and other articles. The prosecutor was the Honourable J S Wortley and the prisoners defence was Sir G Lewin. George Jenkinson pleaded not guilty and he simply told the judge that on that particular date he was in bed with his wife at the time the robbery was committed. This was the kind of defence that could not be refuted, as wives could not give evidence against their husbands. The first witness was the victim himself, Peter McKinnell. He stated that on the night in question he had been drinking at the Norfolk Arms on Dixon Lane, Sheffield. He said that he had not had much to drink and on walking home he reached Wilkinson Street, without any problem.

Suddenly McKinnell said he said Jenkinson was before him and held his hand out as he demanded ‘your money.’ The witness said that the man had tried to grab him by the collar, but he managed to dodge the blow. He then admitted lashing out at the robber and succeeded in knocking him to the floor, but then he saw a second man. The witness described how this man also knocked him down to the floor in turn. Whilst McKinnell was lying on the floor, he said he felt someone kneel on him at the same time as holding a sharp knife to his temple. The other man then rifled his pockets before they both ran away down Wilkinson Street, Sheffield.

The witness said that he managed somehow to stagger to his feet. McKinnell soon discovered blood flowing from the back of his head where it had impacted on the hard ground. Nevertheless he told the court that he managed to get home somehow. When asked by the judge what kind of night it was, the witness stating that it was a bright, moonlit night and therefore he had no problem identifying the man in the dock. However McKinnell told the judge that because he was unconscious for a moment or two, he was unsure which man had actually knelt on him or held the knife to his head. His daughter Elizabeth McKinnell was the next to give evidence and she confirmed her fathers account.

She told the court that on the night in question he arrived home bleeding profusely from the right temple which had been pierced by something sharp. When asked by the prisoner’s defence, Sir G Lewin if her father had been sober at the time, the girl confirmed that he was. The next witness was Constable William Bland who stated that he had arrested Jenkinson on the morning of Monday 22 September 1839. He had found him in bed at his house on Upper Edward Street, Sheffield. Crucially he stated that he had searched the prisoners home, but had found none of the stolen articles. He was the last witness to be heard.

George Jenkinson’s defence, Sir G Lewin then addressed the jury and told them that there was a want of proof as to the identification of the prisoner. Mr Justice Erskine summed up for the jury, but despite the prisoners plea of innocence, they found Jenkinson to be guilty. Then the judge spoke spoke about the severity of the crime and underlined the fact that much unnecessary violence had been used in the robbery. Therefore Mr Justice Erskine stated it was his duty was to sentence the prisoner to transportation for life. However the judge stated that he would hear the second charge before he made up his mind.

This was the charge that George Jenkinson had also robbed James Bray the following night. Bray told the court that on that night he had gone to the Bee Hive public house in order to receive his weeks pay from his employer. This was quite a common practice at that time for employers to pay wages in public houses. This tradition was encouraged by local landlords, knowing that the recipient would happily buy drinks out of his wages. Accordingly, Bray said that he was paid 16s 6d which he placed in a tobacco box, spending just four pence in beer before leaving. He told the court that he was walking down West Street, when he saw Jenkinson.

He had been working with him for the last few weeks, so easily recognised him as they passed. The witness stated that the two men had simply nodded to each other as they passed, before he described turning first into Bailey Lane and then Trippet Lane. The witness described the latter as being a very dark, narrow street and he had not proceeded far before he felt someone seize him by the throat. The robber then dragged him towards a wall, where a second man waited. The man he had recognised as Jenkinson held him in a vice like grip around his neck, as the other searched through his pockets. After hearing all the evidence the judge gave his sentence of transportation for life, but then a most mysterious thing happened.

A single piece of paper was handed to Mr Justice Erskine and the judge examined it carefully. After reading it through, the judge informed the court that ‘if the circumstances stated in the paper were correct, he would be asking for a commutation of sentence’ before the court was then cleared. What ever was written on the mysterious piece of paper, it took some time for the matter to be settled. In fact the case was not heard about again until 7 March 1841 when George Jenkinson was once more brought back into court. There he finally heard his sentence, but if he was hoping that it would be a good outcome, he was in for a shock. Mr Justice Erskine simply read out the sentenced of death.

It was suggested, at the time that this was mainly due to the increase of violent highway robbery crimes which had been committed around Sheffield at the time. However I have been unable to find any reference to an execution of the man called George Jenkinson. So the question has to be asked, what was in the mysterious piece of paper? Was his sentence eventually commuted to one of imprisonment for life, or was it the fact that his identification of him was uncorroborated by any other witness? Sadly we shall never know!