Mary Ann Thornton was known as what the Victorians called ‘a woman of the town’ in other words a prostitute. She lived in one of the most squalid courts off Wellgate with her pimp a man called John O’Neill. The couple were well known to the legal authorities in Rotherham, as both had previously appeared before the bench charged with many offences. O’Neill, who was known to live off Thornton’s earnings, had been a prize fighter in the past and therefore had a history of brutality. At one time the couple had lived amicably enough together, but when he became more aggressive towards her, Mary Ann had no option but to ask him to move out. O’Neill agreed on the understanding that she give up her former career and remain faithful to him, to which Mary Ann finally agreed. He found lodgings not too far away on Westgate, but continued to visit her on a regular basis.

However when she asked him for money, he told her that he would not maintain her if she would not allow him to return to live with her. This she refused to do because of his violence. Therefore she informed him that he left her with no option, but to continue to earn money in the only way she knew how. At this point he became completely wild and threatened to kill her once again. On Sunday 25 August 1872 he visited her as usual, and once again swore that he would kill her if he found out that she had been unfaithful to him. In vain Mary Ann tried to re-assure him, but O’Neill just became more and more angry. At the time several woman friends had gathered at the house, and he non too politely ordered them all to go. Mary Ann assured her friends that she was alright and would soon calm him down, so they left.

However on this occasion, she was unable to divert O’Neill’s anger and almost immediately he started to punch her. Mary Ann was used to his violence, so she simply tried to protect herself as best as she could. But she knew that she was in trouble when O’Neill grabbed the fire poker and started hitting her over the back with it. Knowing that she would be seriously hurt if he continued, Mary Ann made a break for the door, but O’Neill swung the poker at her face hitting her just above the right temple. The wound immediately started to bleed profusely, but the poor woman managed to wrench open the door and stagger out into the yard. As a result O’Neill threw the poker at her hard, striking her across the back with it. He then followed her outside and commenced beating her once again in the yard.

Hearing her screams, many of the neighbours collected at their doors and began to shout abuse at her attacker. However no one tried to interfere because O’Neill’s brutality was well known. He hit Mary Ann again and again until she fell onto the cobbles. Still not satisfied O’Neill continued to kick out at her prone body. Now in a senseless rage, he stamped on her head and at this point the neighbours were forced to interfere. Finally dragging O’Neill away from the prone woman, several neighbours held onto him, whilst one went to fetch a constable. Some of the woman managed to carry the now unconscious Mary Ann back into the house she had once shared with O’Neill, and a surgeon was called. An assistant surgeon called Mr Yates soon arrived and he did the best he could for the badly injured woman.

Meanwhile a search was made for O’Neill who was quickly found and taken into custody charged with the assault. The following morning he was brought into the magistrates court charged with unlawful wounding. However it was impossible to proceed with the case, as Mary Ann was too badly injured to attend. Consequently the prisoner was simply remanded until the following Thursday in the hope that his victim would have recovered sufficiently to be able to give her own evidence. Mr F Parker Rhodes, who was defending O’Neill asked the court for bail for the prisoner, but it was rejected by the bench given his past history of violence. Sadly Mary Ann was no better by Thursday 29 August 1872 and the Superintendent of police, Mr Gillott, was forced to produce another medical certificate. Once again he requested that the prisoner was to be remanded until the following Monday, which was agreed.

Subsequently on Monday 2 September 1872, Mary Ann Thornton was finally well enough to appear in court to give her own testimony on the terrible assault. Despite the fact that she was still looking very shaky and pale, Mr Parker Rhodes questioned her on the reasons why she had been too ill to attend the court until now. He suggested that she had been out drinking several times since the alleged assault, and that was the real reason the case had to be delayed. The witness staunchly denied the accusation and said that she had only been out of the house twice for very short periods, and had never been in a public house since the attack. Mary Ann told the bench that it was around 2.40 pm when O’Neill came to her house on Westgate. The witness related how he began to quarrel with her almost immediately, even though some friends of hers were present at the time.

She stated how O’Neill had unceremoniously thrown them out, before accusing her of going with other men. She told him that she ‘would do as she liked, if he was not going to maintain her.’ Mary Ann described how the prisoner then lost his composure altogether and began to beat her unmercifully. As the witness was describing how the prisoner had stamped on her head, Mr Parker Rhodes intervened. He asked her if O’Neill had been wearing his boots at the time, but Mary Ann told him that he hadn’t, that he had taken them off as he came into the house. She continued with her statement to say that nevertheless he had kicked out at her until she became senseless. The witness claimed that when she came to, she found herself lying on the ground in the yard. By that time the prisoner was being held by some of her neighbours.

When Mary Ann finally recovered her senses she told the court that she was in one of the neighbours houses, which belonged to a Mrs Kenney. That kindly woman helped her into a chair and gave her some brandy to drink. The next witness was the surgeon, who introduced himself as Mr Knights assistant, and gave his name as Mr Donald Frazer Yates. He said that he had attended the injured woman firstly on 25 August and had visited her several times since. Upon examining Mary Ann, Mr Yates had found her suffering from a contused wound on the head, which was about an inch and a quarter in length. He immediately saw that it was very deep, had been inflicted with some force which had penetrated down to her skull. He explained that the wound was in a very dangerous place, as it was close to the temporal artery.

Since that time the surgeon told the court that an infection had set in, which he had treated her for. Thankfully Mr Yates said that he was now able to state that his patient had fully recovered. The witness was shown the poker which had been seized from the house, and he identified it as being the most likely weapon to have been used in the attack. A man called Thomas Johnson confirmed Mary Ann’s account of the vicious assault, and how the neighbours had been afraid to intervene due to O’Neill’s violent nature. Police Constable Clarke was the next witness and told the bench that when he had gone to arrest the prisoner, O’Neill had claimed that Mary Ann had attacked him first, and he had only acted in self defence. The prisoner had also stated that he had not thrown the poker at her, but rather that she had fallen against a wall in the yard and hurt her head.

At this point Colonel St Leger who was one of the magistrates, stated that as far as he was concerned all the evidence pointed to the fact that the assault had been proved. He also told the court that the prisoner had a history of aggression and had been before the bench 12 times in all charged with similar offences. The colonel said that these crimes ranged from drunkenness, prize fighting or assaulting the police in the course of their duty. For those offences the prisoner had been fined or sent to prison for a term of incarceration. Addressing the prisoner he told him:

‘John O’Neill, this is a very serious crime. Under the circumstances we shall sentence you to imprisonment with hard labour for four calendar months. We also order you to be bound over in your own recognisances to keep the peace for six months, at the expiry of your term of imprisonment.’

The prisoner was then escorted out of court to begin his sentence.

There is no evidence of what happened to John O’Neill when he finished his prison sentence, but Mary Ann Thornton continued with her disreputable life. A year later on Thursday 30 October 1873 she was brought into court again this time charged with overcrowding in the house on Wellgate, which she had previously shared with O’Neill. Mr C E Parkin, the Borough Inspector of Nuisances, whose job it was to regulate all lodgings houses, told the court he had visited on 19 October. He said it was about 1.30 am when he went to the house in the company of a police constable.

The Inspector claimed that there was only one bedroom at the house, but it held four beds all of which were occupied by couples. He said that the female prisoner had claimed that they were all visitors who had stayed for the night and they would have been gone in the morning. The unnamed police officer who had accompanied Mr Parkin, told the court that in his official capacity he knew the house to be a disreputable one, which was known to be a brothel. He stated that because of this there had been many complaints. Mary Ann was found guilty by the bench and fined 20s and costs. It seemed evident that Mary Ann Thornton had not suffered unduly from her terrible attack, and that she was still up to her old tricks!