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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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