Burglary was one of the most common crimes committed throughout the nineteenth century, so much so that violent burglaries would be dealt with as a capital offence. In an attempt to foil witnesses and the police, many burglars would wear masks to disguise themselves, or failing that would darken their faces with soot to avoid recognition. On the night of 16 October 1841 a single woman Sarah Hancock aged 50 was living at Brampton-en-le-Morthen, near Rotherham. The house in which she lived was an crumbling old mansion house, which included many unoccupied rooms as well as others which she let out for rent. She herself, lived in two rooms on the ground floor, and despite having two bedrooms above, was in the habit of sleeping in one of the downstairs rooms. On that evening Sarah, who kept no servants, retired to bed after making sure the house was securely locked up. She slept lightly and about 2 am she heard sounds which disturbed her. Partially dressing herself, she went to the door and was confronted by a man carrying a light which was so bright that despite the soot on his face, Sarah later told the police that she recognised him as John Rose, a chimney sweep of Rotherham. She later claimed that the light was so bright that she could see that he was wearing a light coloured jacket and hat. They looked at each other before she fled in the direction of the kitchen, but the man followed her and knocked her to the floor. He held her down as he told her ‘Thou must be still thou knows. Where’s thy money?’ Just then something attracted his attention and as he turned, this courageous woman managed to pushed him off her and ran to another open door which led to the yard. However as she approached she was confronted by a second man, who she said she recognised as another Rotherham chimney sweep called Henry Wilson. He too was in his sooty clothes. At this point the first attacker viciously knocked her down again, and Sarah fell heavily into the yard. Showing no mercy the men dragged her back into the house and continued to strike her several times. They tore her cap off and ripping her night gown at the neck demanding to know where she kept her money. Fearing that the men would kill her, Sarah gave them her purse which she had in her pocket. Inside the red morocco purse was a £5 note of the Old Sheffield Bank and some ancient gold and silver coins. Eventually after threatening her not to contact the police, the two men left. After Sarah was sure they had gone, she went to the nearby rooms occupied by a lodger Mr James Ward. She told him what had happened and that she had recognised the two burglars.

The next morning the Rotherham police were notified and they found the woman in a terrible state. Her eye was blackened and one ankle was bruised and swollen and all one side of her body was discoloured. During the attack the men had so severely twisted her neck, that she could not without difficulty turn her head, breathe or swallow properly. After hearing her statement and the identification of her two attackers, Constables Bland and Womack obtained warrants to arrest the men. On Sunday morning of 18 October about 1.30 am they found Henry Wilson at his own house on Westgate and arrested him. At the same time two other constables named Dearnelly and Hague proceeded to the lodging house owned by George Denton where John Rose was known to live. Another lodger, Mrs Norman told them he was not there, however she stated that Rose had not left the house the night of the attack. The landlord George Denton confirmed to the two constables that Rose had stayed at his house that night, and pointed out that he could not have left the house without his knowledge. Another lodger said his name was Abraham Parr said that he shared a bed with Rose on the night in question and stoutly declared that his friend had not got out of bed until seven o’clock the following morning. Despite their denials both Henry Wilson and John Rose were brought before the Rotherham magistrates, Colonel Fullerton and Henry Walker Esq., on Monday 25 October 1841. They were charged that about 2am on the morning of 17 October they had broken into the house of Sarah Hancock and stolen a £5 bank note and the gold and silver coins. The victim, Sarah was in the courtroom, and it was reported that she was ‘still very much disfigured and her hands and face showed that she had been very much abused by the villains’.

Showing great courage as she faced her attackers, Sarah gave her evidence in a clear and concise manner, as she described the events of the night. She confidently told the court that she recognised both men, now standing in front of her, as they had been employed by her to clean the chimneys at her house at different times. She also complained that this had been the sixth time that her house had been broken into. Mrs Norman gave her evidence as she stated that Rose slept in a chamber above the kitchen with another lodger Abraham Parr. She remembered the 16 October very well as she had been nursing her sick grandchildren that night. Because of their illness she was sleeping on a temporary bed in the kitchen, and had been there when Rose came in earlier in the night and brought some ale with him. Like her fellow lodger Abraham Parr, Mrs Norman confirmed that John Rose had never left the house after finishing his ale, but had then gone to bed. She pointed out that because she was sleeping in the kitchen, anyone going out would have to pass her, and stated categorically that no one had entered the kitchen until the following morning. Hearing this evidence the magistrates asked Sarah if she was correct in her identification of the two men. The woman never hesitated, as she told them that she was completely sure and had indeed known Henry Wilson since childhood. The magistrates only conferred for a short before concluding that the two men were to be sent to take their trial at the next York assizes.

On Friday 5 November 1841 Henry Wilson and John Rose were taken to York Castle to await their trial. However it was not until the following year, 21 March 1842 that they appeared in front of judge Baron Rolfe charged with burglary and using personal violence on Sarah Hancock. Once again Sarah demonstrating a great deal of coolness and self possession described the events of the night and again identified the two men standing in the dock. Rose’s defence counsel, Mr Roebuck told the jury that in order to condemn a man to death for a crime as serious as they were hearing, the evidence should be taken very seriously. He stated that:

‘no jury should rely on the identification of just one witness, under circumstances which might have deprived her of her self possession’. In such circumstances she would be least able  to give her accurate opportunity for observing the robbers’.

 As a witness he brought George Denton, who once again swore on oath that the prisoner had been at his house on the night in question. Wilson’s defence counsel Mr Wilkins was equally vocal in condemnation of Sarah Hancock’s identification. He claimed that although she had said that the prisoners had soot on their faces and were wearing sooty clothes, not a scrap of soot had been found on her person after the attack. He claimed that in her mind she had associated the soot on their clothes and faces with that on the chimney sweeps who had previously swept her chimneys. However Wilkins stated that he was unable to produce any witnesses to prove that Wilson was elsewhere, as the only alibi he had was his wife, and she was forbidden by law to be a witness for her husband. The jury retired for quite a while and eventually John Rose was declared innocent, but Henry Wilson was found guilty. The judge then gave him the death sentence. Thankfully this was later replaced by transportation for the rest of his natural life.

Two months later however, the real attackers were revealed. On Friday 15 May 1842 information had been received about several robberies in the area around Conisbrough. Consequently four men were arrested for the robberies, the following Tuesday by the Conisbrough constable Mr Joseph Hill. Their names were Joseph Goodlad, James Morton, Charles Oxley and Richard Gregory. Another member of the gang William Harrison had disappeared and a warrant was out for his arrest. The four men were brought before magistrate Mr Bosville and after hearing their evidence Goodlad, Morton and Oxley were sent to Wakefield Gaol to await their trial and Gregory was discharged. During the investigations into the robberies the magistrate Mr Bosville was informed that some of them including William Harrison had committed the burglary against Sarah Hancock. On Saturday 16 May, Harrison was captured in an outhouse near the residence of George Banks Esq., by two workmen who had been employed in land draining. On being informed of the circumstances Mr Bosville was sent for and he interviewed Harrison at Rotherham police station. He then committing him to Wakefield House of Correction to await his trial on Thursday 19 May 1842.

The four men, William Harrison, John Goodlad, Charles Oxley and James Morton were brought before the Sheffield Sessions charged with the burglaries at Conisbrough and at Brampton. Mr Wilkins, who had defended Henry Wilson prosecuted the case. He reminded the jury of the robbery of Sarah Hancock and that a man named Wilson had been convicted of that crime. The chair in passing sentence told the court that so long as he was entrusted with the administration of justice, he was determined that all those who were convicted before him of most violent robberies should not be allowed to remain in this country. The sentence on the prisoner Harrison therefore would be that he be transported beyond the seas, to such place as her Majesty should direct for the term of 15 years. The sentence on the three other prisoner, Goodland, Oxley and Morton was transportation for ten years.

On Saturday 4 June 1842 an advertisement appeared in the Sheffield and Rotherham Advertiser which called the attention of the public to the case of Henry Wilson and John Rose. The crime was described as being a burglary at the house of Mrs Hancock, at Brampton, which was ‘attended with great violence’ and continued:

‘Considerable expenses was incurred by their friends in defending them. Rose was acquitted, but Wilson convicted and sentenced to transportation for life. Circumstances however, have since happily come to light, entirely confirming the innocence of Rose and so completely satisfactory as to Wilson‘s innocence also, that her Majesty’s Royal Pardon has just been granted to him. After several months imprisonment, he is rescued from suffering and disgrace. Little need be said to excite the sympathy of the public towards one so painfully situated, or towards their friends in humble circumstances, who came forward to defend the innocent, and, by doing so have seriously embarrassed themselves’.

The advertisement asked that subscriptions could be sent to the Rotherham bank or directly to the magistrate Mr Bosville himself. Thankfully by the same day an announcement of the Royal Pardon was granted to Henry Wilson, who was still languishing in York Castle awaiting his transportation. He was released two days later before returning back to Rotherham in triumph.