On the night of Tuesday 22 May 1888 a man called Edward Larkin aged 22 and his mother aged 55 were drinking in the Phoenix Hotel on Masbrough Street. By 8.25pm the pub was crowded and a man called Joseph Hollings caused an uproar that night by noisily dancing up and down in a manner that was described ‘as if he was not right in the head’. Diplomatically Sarah Larkin asked him to be quiet and invited him to come and have a glass of beer with her. He did not answer her but without a reason struck out at her and she fell against a table. A man called John Carrol went up to remonstrate with him, and the row caused the landlord Mr Davy to turf the noisy party outside. As a result, Edward, his mother, Carrol and Hollings were all ejected. Edward Larkin and Hollings then started to fight, but Mrs Larkin intervened once again and pleaded with them both ‘do be quiet, lets be jolly and have no fighting’. It was later claimed that someone pushed at her at that point and she fell in the middle of Masbrough road, the back of her head coming in contact with some stones. John Carrol maintained that it was Hollings that had pushed her, but he denied it. The police were called and when the chief constable, Mr Pollard attended and tried to lift the woman from the road, he heard her say to her son ‘Oh Edward, thou hast done me’. Sarah was taken home and despite being attended to by Dr Collinson, she died at 10.30 am three days later.

On Saturday 26 May 1888 the local newspaper the Sheffield and Rotherham Independent described:

‘yesterday afternoon the higher part of Masbrough Street, Rotherham was in a state of considerable excitement, owing to the death of a woman named Sarah Larkin, who lived with her husband at 155 Masbrough Street. At the moment the police are very reticent on the subject’.

The reporter, who in his haste to put the case before the reading public, made several mistakes in his copy, quoted the man Hollings as being named Rollins and stating that Sarah had intervened to prevent him from striking her son. He also stated that her death was as a result of  concussion of the brain, despite the fact that a post mortem hadn’t been undertaken at that point. The reporter even wrongly claimed that the party had all been drinking at the Travellers Rest at the coroner of Masbrough Street and Main Road, Rotherham and not the Phoenix Hotel. The unreliable report then concluded:

‘Whether the woman fell to the floor owing to her having been drinking and thus received her injuries. Or whether they were caused by the blow or push she received from Rollins, or whether her death is attributable to another cause, are matters which will undoubtedly be set at rest when the police authorities have completed their enquiries. But the belief prevailed last evening that the injury had been caused by her falling, when struck or pushed by Rollins at the Travellers Rest’.

 The case was brought before the coroner, Mr D Wightman on Monday 28 May 1888 at the Queens Hotel, Masbrough Street. The first to give evidence was the police surgeon Dr Cobban who told the inquest that he had completed a post mortem the previous day, and found a contused wound at the back of the deceased woman’s scalp. There were no other outward sign of violence on the rest of her body, but he found the membranes of the skull very congested. He concluded that the cause of death was compression of the brain caused by violence to the back of the head. The surgeon clearly stated that the injury was caused when she fell to the floor and could not have been caused by a man’s fist. He admitted that he had not examined the woman’s internal organs, but said that he was aware that the deceased had been in the habit of drinking heavily. Dr Cobban was questioned as to whether the wound could have been caused by a blow from a stick or a poker for example, but he did not think that would have been possible. The surgeon concluded that in his opinion the wound was caused by her falling onto a hard kerbstone or something similar. The woman’s husband Hugh Larkin was the next to give evidence and told the court that he had lived with his wife on Masbrough Street for about 35 years. He said that she was not a regular drinker, but a glass or two of beer would be too much for her. However he added that she had always been a very healthy woman. On the night in question she had been brought home insensible by two people, a man called Kirby and a woman, and that she had died on Friday 25 May. He had sent for Dr Collinson, but the poor woman never recovered sufficiently to be able to tell him how her injuries had been caused. Mr Larkin also said he was the father of Edward and said that he was not aware of any argument between his wife and his son. A witness called Herbert Deakin was passing the Phoenix about 8.30 pm, when he saw Edward Larkin and two men come out to fight. He clearly saw the woman come out after them and she tried to separate the two men. He said that he saw Edward Larkin hit his mother on the mouth, and saw her fall to the ground striking the back of her head on the road. Deakin said that he heard the woman say ‘Oh Edward thou hast done me’ before becoming insensible. He claimed that the son had hit his mother on purpose and that all the people involved had been drinking and were intoxicated.

Joseph Hollings gave evidence of the men being turned out to fight and blamed the reason for the argument on John Carrol from Sheffield who had caused the trouble by his dancing about in the Phoenix that night. He also said that in his opinion Edward Larking and his mother were sober and that the deceased woman had simply tried to prevent the men from fighting. He said that Hollings had pushed her and she had fallen into the road. Carrol in his evidence claimed that Edward Larkin did not strike his mother. Another witness was a young single woman called Fanny Young who claimed that it was Hollings who had hit the woman. The chief constable cross questioned her which proved that she was keeping company with Edward Larkin for the past two years and was expected to marry him. So he told the jury that her evidence had to be discounted. The coroner stated that the evidence from all the witnesses was so contradictory that he could hardly expect the jury to come to a decision. The chief constable said that he had not the slightest doubt as to who had done it, the only difficulty was trying to prove it. He told the coroner that the Larkin’s had impeded the police investigation by refused to say where the witness Carroll lived, and the Sheffield police had eventually traced him. The girl Young also refused to give the name of anyone else in the Phoenix that night. A servant girl named Maria Shaw described the argument which had broken out and described the men being ejected by the landlord, Mr Davy. She said that the deceased woman was sober and they were not noisy until Carrol interfered with Hollings. Another witness was Eliza Bennett the wife of a mill roller of Sarah Street, Holmes, was passing the public house on that night. She said that she did not know the family or anyone in the party before they started fighting. Mrs Bennett claimed that she did not see Larkin strike at his mother, but thought he might have pushed her. She also said that she saw Larkin picked his mother up off the ground and drop her again on the floor. She too heard his mother say ‘Oh  Edward you have done me’. Her husband was the next to give his evidence and he corroborated his wife’s statement and he thought that the deceased woman was intoxicated.

The coroner in summing up stated that the weight of evidence was against Larkin, even to his mother’s last words. He said that the witness Mrs Bennett had claimed that there was more than one fall, but whether the first fall killed her, or the second, or a combination of them both was immaterial. However the witness statements were so contradictory, that he could not send the man for trial as he could not see how he could be convicted of manslaughter. He concluded:

‘nothing would give me greater pleasure than to send Edward Larkin for trial. Yet it is my duty, as a coroner  to tell you the jury, that I do not see any prospect whatever of a conviction on the evidence’.

Even the members of the jury were unclear as to who the attacker was. One stated that he thought that Hollings was just as guilty as Larkin, and felt that his name should also be added to the charge. But the foreman of the jury said that he did not think on the evidence that they had, they could come to any other conclusion other than that the death had been accidental. He added that it was just possible that the deceased herself was as much to blame as the two men, if indeed she was intoxicated. After much discussion the jury came to the conclusion that the deceased had died ‘from concussion of the brain caused by a fall, during a quarrel with Edward Larkin her son. But as to how she fell, there was not sufficient evidence to show’. Nevertheless when the enquiry came to an end Edward Larkin was arrested on the charge of ‘causing the death of Sarah Larkin by striking her with his fist’.

On Tuesday 29 May 1888 Edward Larkin was brought before the Rotherham magistrates, but was simply remanded. The chief constable Mr Pollard said that he hoped the magistrates would not grant bail to the prisoner, as he had made threats against the witnesses. However the magistrates agreed that he could be bailed with substantial sureties. Larkin’s sister stated that she could produce two respectable witnesses who would provide two sureties of £20 each and bail was granted. When the adjourned enquiry was resumed on Thursday 4 June, Inspector Barham said the coroners jury had returned what was in effect an open verdict and up to the present the police had not been able to get any further evidence against the prisoner. The Mayor addressing the prisoner told him that as there was no clear evidence  against him, he would be remanded at large, and be liable to be brought up if any further evidence should be obtained to throw light upon the case. Larkin was then bound over in the sum of £25 on his own recognisance’s to appear when and if called upon. Alderman Neill told him he had better look upon this as a warning, because he had a very narrow escape’. Sadly there is no conclusion to this case and so we are left with the question, was it matricide or manslaughter?