During the Victorian period it seems that instance of juvenile crime was on the increase in Rotherham and consequently the local magistrates were getting concerned about the escalating numbers of very young children being brought before them. The main problems was what to do with them, if and when they had been convicted. Most magistrates were aware of the disastrous result of sending young children to an adult prison. There they would mix with more hardened criminals which would guarantee a life of crime. On the morning of Monday 27 January 1845, two little sisters named Bridget and Sarah Mullins whose respective ages were 11 and 7 were brought before the magistrates charged with stealing seventeen and a half yards of blue satin from the shop of Mr Henry Wigfield, of High Street in the town. Magistrate Mr Walker explained to other members of the bench that the elder of the two girls, Bridget had been brought before the court on five or six charges of felony a short time ago. Hoping for anything which would reclaim her from a life of crime, he had placed her into the asylum at the Rotherham workhouse. Mr Walker admitted that he did not know how long she stayed there, but the previous Thursday Bridget was brought before him with her sister, charged with the present crime. He told the bench that the two children lived with their mother, who travelled aimlessly about the country committing various thefts. She had brought them up to commit similar crimes and his proof was that when he examined the woman, she knew most of the local receivers of stolen goods. The evidence of several witnesses was heard before the older girl was asked if she had anything to say. Bridget told the court that it was not her that had stolen the blue satin, but another older girl who had accompanied her. She claimed that this was a girl called Quinn, who had been in the Rotherham Workhouse as the same time as she had been there. Bridget had travelled around the country with Quinn for several months, and it was her that had taught her to steal. The Chief Constable Mr Bland told the court that ‘they could place no reliance an anything the girl said, as she was one of the most artful children possible’. However under cross-examination he admitted that he had tried to use her to arrest one of the most notorious receivers of stolen goods in Rotherham. The eleven year old Bridget had agreed to act for him and Mr Bland had given her strict instructions as how to capture this person, but instead she had ‘sold him over to them’ and that he had been ‘regularly duped by her’. The oldest girl, Bridget was sent for trial, whilst the younger, Sarah was discharged. It was reported that the mother of the two children was in the courtroom and said to be ‘a hard looking wretch’ who appeared perfectly unmoved during the hearing of the case, and the remarks made by the bench. When Bridget Mullins was brought before the Sheffield Sessions later that month she too was discharged, on the promise of her mother to leave the town.

 In another case, an even younger child brought before the Rotherham bench, which newspapers of the period described as a ‘painful case’. This was a little girl named Sarah Hutchinson aged only 9 years of age of Swinton Common, charged with stealing a bottle of sweets from the shop of Mr Cooper of Wath. On Monday 18 November 1861 she was brought to the court house and in order for the magistrates to see her and to give her evidence, she had to stand on a form. The Sheffield and Rotherham Independent dated Tuesday 19 November stated that ‘the little creature did not seem to understand in the least her position’.  The court was told that the previous Tuesday she had stolen the large jar of sweets and later the jar was found in her possession and she was taken into custody. One of the magistrates, Mr Bosville asked if it was necessary for such a little girl to be brought into court, and why she could not have been dealt with at home by her parents. A respectable looking man then approached the bench and told the magistrates that he was Sarah’s father. He worked as a mechanic and was a widower with five other children at home. Mr Hutchinson stated that Sarah was constantly ‘roaming’ at night, and that she had stolen small items before. He assured the bench that he had done his utmost to reform her. Mr Bosville asked him if he would contribute towards the child’s support if they sent her to a reformatory. Mr Hutchinson however, after a little hesitation stated that he did not want his children to be parted, and he would try her a little longer. In an effort to teach the girl a lesson she was given up to him, after just a short detention in one of the Rotherham police cells.

In May of 1860 the Rotherham bench were becoming all too aware that young children were pawning items for their parents or employers. The magistrates and legal authorities had tried to ban such behaviour in the town, but it was very hard to legislate against it. However this case shows that some young people were pawning stolen items for their own gain. On the morning of 7 May a boy called John Crowder aged just 13, was brought into the court house. He worked for local pawnbroker Mr Bibbs, who had charged him with stealing three gold rings. Mr Whitfield was the prosecutor and the boy was defended by Mr Hirst. Before any evidence was heard, Mr Hirst stated that the boys employer was reluctant to press the case against him, but he would be quite satisfied if the boy was simply to be ordered to be whipped. The bench stated that they had better hear all the evidence before deciding on the boys punishment. Pawnbroker Mr Bibbs took the stand and told the court that the boy had been employed by him in December 1859 on trial as an apprentice, but he had never been officially bound to him. He said that in consequence of information which had been given to him on Saturday 28 April, he found three gold rings to be missing from his shop. He told Crowder that he had heard that he had given a boy named Joseph Hamlett two of the rings to sell for him. Crowder denied the charge but admitted that he had stolen one of the rings. When he was asked what he had done with it, the boy told him that he still had the ring in his possession. Mr Bibbs asked him to show it to him and when he produced it, Mr Bibbs identified it as being one that had been pledged to him. The rings had been kept in a plate chest in an upstairs room above the shop. Crowder told his employer that when he took the ring, he tore up the ticket belonging to it and had burnt the remains in the fireplace. The next day the boy named Hamlett visited the shop, and in the presence of Crowder told Mr Bibbs that the two remaining missing gold rings were in pledge at another Rotherham pawnshop run by a Mr Hammond. Both boys were taken into custody but the case against Hamlett was weak, and he was discharged a few days later.

Mr Bibbs told the court that under normal circumstances Crowder would not have access to the plate chest, as it was always kept locked and the key was kept on his own watch chain. However he admitted that when articles were required from it, he would give Crowder the key to unlock it. The next witness was Joseph Hamlett who gave evidence that he was fourteen years of age, and was an errand boy for a shoemaker at Rotherham. He told the magistrates that six weeks previously he had been given a gold ring by the young prisoner and asked to pawn it for 5s. Hamlett refused to do so, and urged Crowder to have nothing to do with it. About a fortnight later Crowder had asked him to pledge two plain, simple gold wedding band at Mr Hammond’s shop. In return for these services the prisoner gave him a shilling and some cakes. Police enquiries established that the two stolen rings were found at Hammonds shop. When taken into charge for the offences the prisoner had admitted the offences. His solicitor Mr Hirst pointed this out to the magistrates and suggested that the best way of dealing with the case was for the boy to be whipped. He also blamed the pawnbroker Mr Hammond, who had not only taken rings in pledge from the prisoner, a young boy, but also because he knew very well that the prisoner was the servant of another pawnbroker. He stated that ‘if such conduct was to be allowed, pawnbrokers could be robbed from each other of any amount’. The magistrates stated that having listened to the evidence, they had no power to have the boy whipped, but they would give their decision at the rising of the court. Ultimately, at the end of the session they ordered the boy to be discharged.