I have been unable to resolve the issue with facebook and Chris is unavailable for the time being with work stuff. All I can do is to keep updating this page, so just keep checking it out from time to time.

Before the meeting regarding the Heeley ghost could take place on 22 October 1870, a most curious incident took place. Mr Counsellor Hawksley heard a rumour from a member of the constabulary that a young boy of 15 years of age had been arrested. He had been seen at night, impersonating the ghost by dressing in women’s clothing and was arrested on a charge of disturbing the peace. As a result, when the counsellor walked into the Red Lion on the night of the meeting, he was not surprised to see that the place was crowded. People had also gathered outside the public house, all anxious to hear the details about the supposed phantom. Thankfully by this time Counsellor Hawksley was able to satisfy that curiosity.

He told the meeting that a young boy, whose name was Frederick Maxey had been seen in the area on the night of Saturday 15 October. He lived with his parents in Heeley and was well known to be a local prankster. Maxey had taken great delight in dressing up in his mothers white dress and shawl at midnight and had paraded around the streets of Heeley. Following this statement a discussion took place about what should be done. Counsellor Hawksley suggested that a summons should be taken out against the young man, at the very least. The nature of the boy’s charge was read out which stated:

‘For that he, on 15 October in the parish of Sheffield, did unlawfully go about the public streets and highways there situate, dressed in woman’s clothes. He was guilty of scandalous conduct, whereby her Majesty’s subjects then and there residing, passing and re-passing, were alarmed and annoyed. Decency was openly outraged and the public peace disturbed.’

After much discussion on the subject, the meeting finally agreed that Frederick Maxey could not be allowed to get off Scot-free. Eventually a deputation was appointed to look into the matter with Counsellor Hawksley elected as the chair. A resolution was then put forward, which stated that the matter should be placed in the hands of a respectable solicitor, with instructions to demand a public apology from the boy concerned. Matters took their course, but when the boy’s father, Mr Maxey heard that his son’s name had been mentioned at this very public meeting, he was furious. He wrote an angry letter to the editor of the Sheffield Daily Telegraph which was printed on Tuesday 25 October 1870. The editor reported that the boy’s father insisted that it had all been just a joke and that:

‘His son a 15 year old boy, who on Saturday evening last, had dressed himself in white for a short time, in boyish fun. He was instigated by the fact that there had, for some time been a supposed ‘Woman in White’ perambulating in the neighbourhood. Mr Maxey complained that his name and those of his family should be talked about so opprobriously in a public house, as was the case on Saturday last, at a meeting supposed to be convened to put a stop to this so-called scandal.’

Accordingly Frederick Maxey was brought before the magistrates at the Town Hall, Sheffield on the most appropriate date of Halloween itself, on Monday 31 October 1870. He was charged with having ‘alarmed the inhabitants of Heeley by appearing in ghostly attire.’ He was described as ‘an intelligent looking lad who worked as a clerk’. Mr Clegg appeared for the prosecution and he told the magistrates that for some time past, the people of the area had been ‘very much annoyed and their children were being very frightened by the circulation of stories of ghostly apparitions in the streets.’ However what the prosecution was forced to make very clear was that the boy was not responsible for any of these other sightings. Therefore he was not being asked to apologise for all the appearances of the so-called ‘ghost’ but simply the one which had taken place on the night of 15 October.

Counsellor Hawksley informed the bench about the outcome of the meeting at the Red Lion. He stressed that all he wanted was for Maxey to express regret for his actions, and to give his promise that it would not happen again. The counsellor told the court that it was of the greatest importance that such a state of things should be stopped, because he believed that if children were frightened when they were young, they might never recover for the rest of their lives. One of the magistrates, Mr Rodgers stated that in his opinion some of the legal authorities were more concerned, not by the prisoner having frightened the children, but rather of his having offended against public decency by dressing up as a woman.

The magistrate stated most emphatically that when he first read the offence ‘he had been determined to stamp out such a thing’. However, Mr Rodgers continued that once he had seen the prisoner for himself, he could not but think that it had been more of an ‘act of frolicsome mischief’ on Maxey’s behalf. The magistrate therefore felt that the case should have been dealt with as a private matter with Maxey receiving punishment at the hands of his father, rather than being brought before a court. Mr Rodgers said that it would have been a very different matter if the boy had been a bit older. He said:

‘If it had been shown that a grown up person had been going around the streets in woman’s clothing, offending public decency and those proprieties of life which ought to exist towards the opposite sex, I would take some uncommon good care that he should have difficulty in escaping a months imprisonment in Wakefield Gaol’.

The prosecution Mr Clegg then gave his opinion that the bench had no desire to punish the young lad. All that the court required was to have the prisoner express regret for what he had done, and to give assurances that he would not repeat it again. Of course the prosecution pointed out, that if similar cases were to be brought before the court, then they must be judged on their own merits and those prisoners must take the consequences. Another magistrate who had been watching Maxey stated that he had no doubt that the boy, who appeared to be very respectable, was undoubtedly very sorry for having got himself into such mischief.

Maxey’s defence solicitor Mr Binney agreed that it was clear that the prisoner was simply guilty of a one-off indiscretion for which he was very sorry, and that his father would no doubt ensure that it did not happen again. Nevertheless Mr Clegg pointed out that for some time there had been many reports which had been widely circulated in Heeley that a ‘woman in white’ had been going about in the night. The prosecution suggested therefore that there might be other persons who copied the prisoners’ indiscretion and therefore it needed to be stopped. Mr Binney interrupted at this point to re-iterate once again that that the young man had only committed this act on this one, single occasion.

He pointed out that the boy had no knowledge of any other persons going out similarly dressed, and therefore he asked that Maxey’s apology might be limited to what had happened on that one particular night. It was at this point that one of the bench asked when the apology was going to be made and Mr Clegg said the boy was prepared to do it right there and then. Frederick Maxey then stood up in the court room and made the following apology. He said ‘I am very sorry that I went out in women’s clothes on the Saturday night referred to, and I will not do it again.’ His father also volunteered to make his own public apology, but he was told there was no need.

However Mr Maxey also stated that he did not think his son was involved in any other sightings of the ‘woman in white’ which had been reported previously. The Sheffield Daily Telegraph dated Tuesday 1 November 1870 agreed with Mr Maxey’s summary and reported:

‘There had been for some time a report current of the perambulations of a ghost in Heeley at the witching hour of night, and young Maxey had been seen on the night in question in strange raiment. Therefore it was at once believed that he was this veritable ghost which had for so long a time, frightened, not only the children, but many adults of Heeley. This however was not the case. Nevertheless the demands of justice were yesterday met by the defendant making an apology’.

The magistrates considered that with this apology the summons was then withdrawn, and Frederick Maxey left the court with his father.

That seemed to satisfy the legal authorities, but nevertheless this case leaves us with more questions than answers. It would seem that at that period going out dressed in women’s clothing was seen as an offence to public decency, a fact which would be challenged in our more enlightened times. But what I find more disturbing is that it was made very clear that the spirit of the ‘woman in white’ had been seen on several different occasions in the village of Heeley. These appearances were made prior to Frederick Maxey’s arrest, so could these indeed have been genuine hauntings from a tormented spirit beyond the veil? I have been unable to find any more stories of the Heeley Ghost after this time unless of course, one of my readers knows differently!

John Sheridan aged 26 was a travelling hawker who originated from Leeds. At some point he met up with a woman called Ann O’Connor aged 21 who lived with him and adopted his name to hide the fact that they were not legally married. When he arrived at Rotherham the couple also had a two month old baby with them, a little girl also called Ann, who was reported to have been weak and sickly from birth. The couple had travelled from Barnsley on 22 July 1890 and two days later they rented a room at the lodging house of a man called Ben Shaw. It was not long before the deputy lodging house keeper, a woman called Mrs Emma Butler noted that the couple were almost continually drunk. She also saw Ann taking the little girl out with her to the public houses of the town, often returning back to the lodging house well after 11pm at night.

Mrs Butler had a room next door to the couple and as a consequence, she often heard them quarrelling and the child crying. One night, to her horror she heard Ann say to Sheridan ‘take this child and smother it as you did the other one’. Needless to say Mrs Butler was very disturbed about this, but felt unable to do anything about it. She was slightly mollified however as John Sheridan appeared to feel some sympathy for the little girl as she had often seen him carrying her around in his arms. On one occasion Mrs Butler saw him sleeping with the child in the same bed, even though she could not help noticing his drunken condition.

On Sunday 25 July 1890 the Chief Constable of Rotherham, Captain Burnett was walking along Westgate when he noticed a noisy crowd of people ahead of him. As he approached, he found a man lying on the floor, bleeding from a wound to his head. He was told that the man was called John Stronach and that he had been attacked by a woman. Captain Burnett immediately cleared the crowd and flagging down a passing waggonette, asked the driver to take the injured man to the Rotherham Infirmary. He was also told that the woman had run into Wilson’s Court off Westgate and he immediately followed her. She was hiding behind a privy wall and as the chief constable made towards her, the woman climbed over another wall and disappeared into the lodging house next door, which he knew was run by Ben Shaw.

When he entered the house, Captain Burnett found several men in the front room and behind them was the woman, lying on a bench with a shawl over her head, feigning sleep. By this point he had seen enough and he dragged the woman to her feet, arresting her on the charge of wilfully wounding John Stronach. At the station she told him that her name was Ann Sheridan and declared that she had just been defending her husband. The couple had been drinking with John Stronach when the two men started to fight. Ann said that when he knocked her husband to the floor, that was when she hit him with an earthenware bottle that she had been carrying. Ann claimed that the fight had started after Stronach had thrown a glass of beer into her husbands face.

After making her statement she was told that she was going to be arrested and locked in a cell. No doubt hoping for sympathy, she begged for her two-month old child to be brought to her. Consequently a constable was dispatched to fetch the baby from the lodging house on Westgate. However when shown up to the room in which the little girl lay, the constable was appalled at the state of her. He reported back to the chief constable that the baby was in a ‘fearfully emaciated condition’ and looked very neglected. Captain Burnett immediately asked for the child to be examined by the police surgeon, Dr Alexander Richard Cobban who had been present when her mother had been brought into the office. The surgeon weighed her and was horrified to find that she only weighed 5½lbs which, he said was probably less than she must have weighed at birth.

He also noted that the baby was in a ‘moribund’ state and he strongly suspected that not only had the parents neglected to feed her, but that someone had given her laudanum. On seeing the condition of the little girl, Captain Burnett and Dr Cobban decided that the mother should not have the custody of the child, and she was immediately removed into the care of Mrs Butler at the lodging house. Dr Cobban instructed her to just administer nourishment in small quantities, as it was obvious that the baby had been starved of food for quite a while. The local branch of the Society for the Cruelty to Children was notified, and they instituted enquiries to be made into the case, and as a result of this John Sheridan was also arrested.

The following day John Sheridan and Ann O’Connor were brought before the Rotherham magistrates. The first case to be heard was the attack on John Stronach. A witness, Mr Battersby introduced himself to the bench as being the house surgeon at the Rotherham Infirmary. He spoke about examining the man’s injuries which consisted of two deep lacerations above his right eye which required stitching. The surgeon gave his opinion that the wound was consistent with his being struck over the head with an earthenware bottle by the prisoner’s wife. After dealing with this incident, the magistrates were then informed by the chief constable of the terrible condition in which the little girl, Ann O’Connor had been found. After hearing the details they adjourned the case to the following Thursday and the couple were charged with the neglect of the child.

When the court re-convened on July 30, solicitor Mr Aizlewood appeared to prosecute the case on behalf of the NSPCC, and he asked that the first witness be brought into the court. Mrs Butler appeared, carrying the child in her arms, so that the bench could see for themselves its terrible emaciated condition. The witness told them that prior to entering the court room, she had seen the female prisoner in the cell and had castigated her for the treatment to her child. Mrs Butler told her that she and her husband should be ashamed of themselves, not sparing a halfpenny to get the little girl some milk. Instead of showing any contrition, the prisoner simply informed her that her husband wanted to ‘get rid of the child’ stating bluntly that ‘it was in the way’. When John Sheridan heard this statement, he laughed out loud. The clerk to the court silenced him by saying ‘you will find that this is no laughing matter’.

Police Sergeant Roper then gave evidence of arresting John Sheridan and said that on the way to the office the male prisoner told him that Ann was not his wife and they had only met five months previously. Irregardless of this, he claimed that the little girl was his. PC Roper said that Sheridan had told him that he had provided for both Ann and the child by giving her 4s a day for food. He also said that the little girl had been born at Goole, but her birth had not been registered. The magistrates heard this evidence before remanding both prisoners for another week in order to make further enquiries. Sadly the little girl’s condition had deteriorated and as a result had since been removed from the care of Mrs Butler to the children’s ward at the workhouse. However she could not be saved and died on Monday 4 August 1890.

A coroners inquest into her death was therefore held in the board room of the Rotherham Workhouse on Wednesday 6 August 1890. At first there had been some delay as the prisoners had not yet arrived, so in the meantime the coroner, Mr D Wightman asked Police Sergeant Roper what the name of the child was. He replied that she was known as Ann Sheridan, but pointed out that she had never been christened. Then the prisoners arrived, but the coroner showed them little sympathy. When he asked John Sheridan how old the child was, Ann answered and Mr Wightman rebuked her saying ‘I am not asking you’. The jury were visibly shocked when the police medical officer, Dr Cobban gave evidence that when he examined the child after the mother had been arrested, she was in a ‘moribund’ state and that he strongly suspected that she had been given laudanum.

Dr Cobban stated that nevertheless he had desperately tried to save the little girls life and thought at first he had succeeded. He had visited her on a daily basis and gradually found her to have recovered from the poison of the opiates she had been given. However the little girl was so weak that he was unable to save her life. The surgeon told the inquest that he and Dr Branson had then been asked to complete a post mortem on her. Externally they had found no outward signs of any violence, but having removed her clothing they could not miss the fact that the baby was barely a skeleton. She was weighed again and was found that she had actually lost weight and was only 4½lbs. The police surgeon stated that a child of that age should have weighed about 11lb or 12lbs. Dr Cobban added that because of such starvation, every vestige of fat and the greater portion of muscular structure had been absorbed back into the little body.

He finally concluded that the two surgeons had found there was no food in the stomach apart from some milk and wine, which had been given to her at the workhouse. Therefore he could only state that the cause of death was ‘wasting away from sheer starvation’. Mrs Emma Butler was the next witness and she gave evidence that the two prisoners had arrived at the lodging house on Thursday 22 July, and told her that they were man and wife. When she commented on the poorly state of the child, her mother said that the little girl had been ill. Mrs Butler said that after the female prisoner had been arrested, she had been instructed by the medical officer to feed the child on sponge cake and milk in very small quantities. The witness said she had done so but she told the inquest that little Ann had vomited much of it back again and could not seem to digest any food.

To our modern ears, the fact that the child had been given sponge cake and wine under medical direction, beggars belief, but sadly it only illustrates the lack of knowledge about infant digestion of the period. Mrs Butler then related how on the Thursday 29 July the child had not improved and she was removed to the workhouse and she had not seen her since. Questioned about the behaviour of the child’s parents, the witness told the coroner about an incident which had happened soon after the couple had appeared at the lodging house. She related how she had thrown the couple out of the house one afternoon because they were drunk and quarrelling and annoying the other lodgers. As a result, upon going outside the female prisoner had laid the child on the pavement and informed Sheridan to ‘take it up and take care of it and not to smother it, the same as you had done the other one’.

The boardroom was silent as the witness uttered these words. The coroner asked Mrs Butler if the mother had been sober at the time and she replied that she wasn’t. The witness, continuing with her evidence, then said that Sheridan had simply picked up the child and they both walked away. The witness told the court that she had no idea where they had gone, but they spent the remainder of the night somewhere else. Captain Burnett asked her if she had heard the mother express any evil intention towards the child and Mrs Butler looked grim as she replied that the female prisoner had called it ‘a bastard’ and wished ‘it was in hell’. Needless to say this statement caused a dreadful sensation in the room, which the coroner was forced to call ‘silence’ to end.

Captain Burnett told the inquest that John Sheridan had been arrested on 25 July for cruelty to the infant. He also said that the couple had a history of drinking to excess, and that when Ann O’Connor had been arrested for the attack on John Stronach, she was already drunk and incapable. Then Mr Wightman decided to look into the paternity of the child. Captain Burnett told him that the male prisoner had said on two separate occasions, on the 29 and 31 July that he was the father. The next witness was Ann O’Connor herself, but she showed little remorse as she told the inquest that the father of the child was not John Sheridan, but a man called William Johnson who ‘sells fish at Scarborough’. After hearing this the coroner was clearly disgusted at the couple’s lifestyle, and he did not try to hide it as he addressed the jury. He told them:

‘The two Sheridan’s are disgraceful and just about as bad as a man and woman could be, I should think there is very little doubt about that, and that morally speaking they had certainly hastened, if not actually caused the death of the child. That is beyond doubt.’

However he demonstrated the difficulties in proving the case before the legal authorities as he said:

‘But you do not have the power to punish them for the ill treatment of the child. The only verdict that you can record is that of murder or manslaughter against one or both of them.’

Mr Wightman explained that because the child had been removed from the care of the parents and cared for by others before she died, there was little chance of any conviction in a court of law. The coroner clearly stated that if the child had died on 26 July in the care of her mother, then he would have had no hesitation in saying that she was guilty of either murder or manslaughter. Although the medical officer had suspected strongly that one of the prisoners had given the child opiates, he was not able to prove it scientifically. Therefore Mr Wightman said that he did not think that the evidence was strong enough to send the prisoners for trial. This provoked a heated discussion on the legal aspects of the case, which indicated the jury’s dilemma in presenting a verdict.

One of them asked a question as to what John Sheridan’s moral responsibility was towards a child which might not be his own. The coroner replied that as an adult, he was bound to do the best he could for this or any other child. Another juryman asked about the possibility of returning a verdict of manslaughter against the couple, saying that would, at the very least, result in the matter being more properly inquired into at the Assizes. However Mr Wightman considered the matter carefully before concluding ‘I do not think you can send the female prisoner, as no jury will convict her on the evidence before us’. At this point a further discussion took place as to whether John Sheridan was obliged to provide food for a child that wasn’t his. The coroner told the jury that he was not, pointing out that the evidence showed that he had only known the female prisoner for five months on his own admittance, therefore he was clearly not the father of the child.

Captain Burnett at this point stated that he was going to Gainsborough to make further enquiries and might be able to bring back more information on the couple. Therefore Mr Wightman adjourned the inquest to the following Monday. When the inquest resumed at the Mechanics Institute in Rotherham on Monday 11 August it seems that his journey had been well worth it. There he had established some interesting facts about John Sheridan and Ann O’Connor. It seems that they had not simply known each other for five months, but had been living as man and wife at Goole a year previously, and the chief constable stated that he had found no evidence that they had ever been married. Captain Burnett had also established that a little girl had been born to the couple and she had in fact been baptised as Ann O’Connor, not Sheridan on 15 May 1890.

However he had also found that the female prisoner had a child 13 months previously and the father of that child was said to be a William Johnson, a fish hawker from Scarborough. He had managed to interview him, but instead of clearing matters up, Johnson had provided even more disturbing evidence. He admitted being the father of Ann’s first child, but said that when she and John Sheridan had left Scarborough a year earlier, the three month old child was with them, but he had heard nothing about the child since. A lodging house keeper of Goole, a man named Patrick Morgan confirmed that they had lodged with him and had claimed they were man and wife. He too remember the little girl being born in May of that year, and said that John Sheridan had said he was the father. Chillingly he stated that the pair had no other child with them. Summing up for the jury, Mr Wightman admitted that the police were no further forward in their enquiries apart from having confirmed that the evidence of both prisoners was totally unreliable. He told them that he had given the matter much thought and had consulted with people more qualified in criminal law than himself, but could offer no more advice than that at the previous inquest. He stated that there was simply not enough evidence to send the prisoners for trial.

The jury considered together for about 20 minutes before giving their verdict which was:

‘That the deceased died on the 4 August from starvation, but as to how brought about, or how caused there is not sufficient evidence before the said jurors to prove. The said jurors further say that Ann O’Connor, the mother of the deceased and John Sheridan, with whom she co-habits, are most censurable for their cruel and improper treatment of the deceased.’

When the coroner asked Ann if she understood the verdict she told him that she didn’t, and so he spelled it out to her in no uncertain terms. He told the couple that they would have to go before a magistrate and they would make a decision in the matter. He then said:

‘That you have contributed, either one or both of you, morally towards the death of this child, I have little doubt whatsoever. Fortunately for you there is not sufficient evidence to prove it. I hope that the awful recollection that you have been parties to causing the death of a poor innocent child, will be with you wherever you go. Whatever you do, if you get into trouble in any shape or way, this will be brought against you. It may enhance the punishment which by sheer good luck, you seem to have escaped today.’

The two prisoners were then dismissed. However if they thought that they had got away with it, they were wrong.

The Rotherham Police authorities were determined to make this couple be responsible for the death of little Ann O’Connor. It was announced in the Sheffield Daily Telegraph dated Wednesday 20 August 1890 that the couple, who had previously been charged under the Cruelty to Children Act, were now to be charged with the manslaughter of an infant under three months. They had been arrested and imprisoned in Wakefield Gaol and on Monday 18 August Captain Burnett had travelled to Wakefield to take them both into custody on the much more serious charge. They were brought before the magistrates at the Rotherham Borough Police Court on Thursday 21 August where Mr P Aizlewood prosecuted.

The facts of the case were gone into again and the same witnesses gave their evidence. Although there was little new evidence, the pair were nevertheless sent to take their trial at the next Assizes, where sadly there was still no happy resolution. The couple appeared before Mr Justice Smith on Wednesday 17 December 1890. All too sadly the words of the coroner proved correct and when all the evidence was heard, the judge summed up for the jury. He told them that although the cause of death was clearly starvation, the jury must prove that it the death was caused by ‘wicked neglect’. He clarified that means that the mother deliberately starved the child because she did not care whether she lived or died. The judge had to admit that there was simply no evidence for this. The jury had no option but to record that Ann O’Connor was guilty of neglect, but not wicked neglect. His lordship concluded that was equivalent to the prisoners being found not guilty and they were both discharged.

Caroline Brown had been married to her 59 year old husband John Francis for 34 years when they finally separated, due to his drunkenness and his persistent violence towards her. Throughout their married life he had spent his wages in drink, leaving much of the responsibility on her to manage their financial affairs and to bring up their six children. The family had consisted of three sons and three daughters, all of whom were now married and living elsewhere. Finally in December 1867 Caroline got the courage to leave her brutal husband and now aged 56 herself, was thankful when she found a post as housekeeper to a widower named John Morton. Gratefully she took up her employment at his house on Howard Terrace, off Howard Hill, Sheffield.

Caroline was reputed to be a hard working industrious woman, who quickly made herself invaluable to her employer. Neighbours soon warmed to her as she was said to be a kindly woman who was generous and helpful. Meanwhile John Francis went to live with one of his married daughters in Eyre Lane, Sheffield. However soon after his wife had left him he lost his job, which seemed to compound his dissatisfaction with his life. As a consequence, he would regularly turn up at the house where Caroline was employed and make a nuisance of himself until she gave him some money to go away. The fact that his wife was living under the same roof as her employer also festered in his brain.

As a result he was often heard to say to acquaintances ‘I will cut her throat or hang for it.’ To his wife he made his threats more specific, and told her that he had only to put his penknife into her jugular vein ‘and you will be done for at once’. When this threat became known to their unnamed daughter and her husband they were quite concerned, as they knew that John Francis was quite capable of committing such an act against his wife. By November of 1868 his demeanour was causing his daughter concern, as he became more aggressive towards his wife. This had mainly been brought on because Caroline had finally snapped and told her husband that she would not continue to support him financially. She refused to give him any more money and told him that he now had to fend for himself.

As a result John Francis became suicidal and so his daughter was forced to hide all the knives and sharp objects in the house on Eyre Lane. Matters did not improve as her father was becoming more violent and argumentative, to the point where sometimes he appeared quite deranged. Over the Christmas period of 1868, John Francis went again to the house where his wife worked and knocked at the door in Howard Hill. He demanded angrily to see Caroline, but as he appeared so deranged, John Morton interfered and refused him entry. John Francis immediately began to threaten his wife, who he could see stood behind her employer in the passageway. Thankfully John Morton called on the help of neighbours, who had been attracted by the man’s shouted threats. Together they managed to eject John Francis and close and lock the doors against him.

However this did not pacify the enraged man who shook his fists at the house and threatened to kill Caroline the next time he saw her in Sheffield. He was quite capable of carrying out such a threat. On a previous occasion when John Francis had met her in the street he was so incensed that he punched Caroline in the face, causing her nose to bleed. In February 1869 once more John Francis went to her employers house and demanded to see his wife. However John Morton had now left strict instructions that the man was not allowed to enter the premises, and he was once more turned away. At this point Caroline was becoming quite concerned that she would lose the post of housekeeper as well as becoming very alarmed for her own safety. Kindly neighbours would keep a look out for her husband, and when he was spotted in the vicinity of the house they would let her know. Upon hearing this news Caroline would lock herself inside the house of her employer.

When she went out to do any shopping she always kept an eye out for her abusive husband, and took precautions against suddenly bumping into him in the street. Thankfully, within a matter of weeks she heard from her daughter that John Francis had started doing odd jobs for people and was earning some money for himself. However, in truth this money was usually spent in drink, which simply aggravated his anger against his wife. John Francis also seemed to be unable to keep away from the house in Eyre Street and on Wednesday 14 April 1869 he was, once again seen in the area in an intoxicated condition. Caroline upon hearing of this, kept herself inside the house in order to avoid him, but she knew that the situation was becoming desperate.

Later that day she was in the kitchen around 2 pm, and was in the act of removing the tablecloth after John Morton had finished his lunch. Suddenly she looked up and saw her husband standing in the kitchen in front of her. It seems that he had surreptitiously entered the house from a passage leading to the back door. For a moment she was frozen in terror as man and wife stared at each other. Suddenly he put his hand into his pocket and pulled out a penknife and rushed at her. Caroline screamed loudly as she tried to grab hold of his hands in order to prevent him from stabbing at her. However she was unsuccessful as he knocked her to the floor, before kicking out at her.

A neighbour, a woman called Mrs Bottom heard the scream and rushed into the kitchen of Mr Morton’s house, accompanied by a servant girl called Martha Ellett. However when the two women saw John Francis with a knife, standing over the prone body of his wife, Mrs Bottom was so terrified that she ran back to her own house. Meanwhile Martha watched in horror as John Francis once more kicked out viciously at his wife, before plunging the pen knife into her neck. The blood which flowed must have alarmed the frantic man, as he immediately threw the knife away from him before punching at the prone woman in a most brutal manner. Ironically all the time he was attacking her, the servant girl heard him say ‘why doesn’t thou not come and live with me again.’

Caroline, recognising her difficult position told him that ‘she would, if he didn’t kill her.’ It was at this point that Martha ran out into Howard Hill and screamed out loudly for help to passers-by. A man who had been working on some nearby allotments, heard her cry and ran to help. Other men followed and they went into the neighbouring house. There they found Caroline on the floor bleeding and trying to crawl away from her attacker. He had now picked up the discarded knife and was in the process of attempting to cut his own throat. However he found that the knife was too blunt. Nevertheless he was slashing at his throat in such a determined manner that a gash appeared. Now in his frenzy, he tore at the wound trying to open it with his fingers. Thankfully he was prevented by one of the men quickly grabbing his hands and holding them down by his side.

John Francis looked down at his badly injured wife and saw that she was still alive. Instead of showing remorse, he simply grinned at her before wishing the knife had been sharper so that he ‘could have finished her off.’ As two men now held him, Caroline was helped into a sitting position on the kitchen settle, but all the time she cried out in pain. Any movement, compounded by the kicks and bruises she had received at the hands of her jealous husband, hurt her badly. A surgeon Mr Hargitt soon arrived and he could see immediately that Caroline’s neck wound, although still bleeding was not as serious as those of her husband. Therefore he tried to examine the man’s neck, but John Francis twisted away from him.

Finally after about 15 minutes of calmly talking to the injured man, the surgeon managed to persuade him to put a few stitches into the wound in his throat. Meanwhile someone had sent for a police officer and Police Constable Johnson soon arrived and took control. He organised a cab to take the injured woman into the Sheffield Infirmary before taking John Francis into custody. Once at the Town Hall, the prisoner was placed in a cell along with another police officer to keep a strict eye on him. As a suicide risk, he was closely watched throughout that night in order to prevent him trying to make another attempt at opening the wound in his throat. However in all the time in police custody, the prisoner simply ranted and raved about the fact that the knife had not being sharp enough for him to ‘finish the job’.

On Thursday 15 April John Francis Brown was brought before the Mayor at Sheffield Magistrates Court where he was described by a reporter as being ‘an elderly man who was rather eccentric’. He was charged with the attempted murder of his wife, Caroline Brown. It was instantly noticeable that the prisoner had recovered his spirits. As the Chief Constable, Mr Jackson addressed the court, John Francis told him ‘speak up, will you, I can’t hear you.’ Dr Hargitt’s assistant, Mr Bentley gave evidence of Caroline Brown’s injuries, before adding that she was still recovering from her ordeal. After hearing all the evidence John Francis was remanded until his wife had fully recovered and was able to give her own testimony. It was noted throughout that the prisoner did not express any remorse for his actions, instead he simply displayed anger that he had not been allowed to speak in his own defence.

More remands took place as Caroline’s condition slowly improved until she was finally able to attend the court on Thursday 13 May 1869. Mr Smith, a house surgeon at the Infirmary, gave a description of the terrible wounds received by the injured woman during the attack. He also listed the number of bruises which she had received from her husband. However Mr Smith said that although the gash in Caroline’s neck was not a serious one, her other injuries had been quite significant. Thankfully she had now made a full recovery. Police Constable Johnson gave an account of arresting John Francis Brown and the prisoners admission that he ‘meant to do it, if the knife had just been sharp enough.’ The officer stated that after he had been taken into custody and all the way to the Town Hall, the prisoner used very bad language.

PC Johnson stated that John Francis had also accused his wife of having an improper relationship with her employer. Upon hearing this wild statement Caroline burst into tears and sobbed uncontrollably. She was so upset that she was finally led out of the courtroom upon the arm of a police officer. However during the proceedings, reporters noted the strange antics of the prisoner, as he gesticulated and mimicked the witnesses as they gave their evidence. The Sheffield Daily Telegraph dated Friday 14 May 1869 reported that:

‘The prisoner conducted himself in a strange manner while the depositions were being read over, and there is reason to believe that he is “crazy.” He excited the laughter of the court, in which even some of the magistrates joined.’

John Francis Brown was quickly found to be guilty of the crime and was ordered by the magistrates to take his trial at the next Assizes.

All the evidence from the witnesses seemed to point to the fact that the prisoner was clearly not in his right mind when he made the attack upon his wife, or even during his court appearance. Nevertheless he had been sentenced to appear at the Leeds Assizes on Saturday 7 August 1869 charged once again with attempted wife murder. Sadly, despite John Francis’s clear insanity, no defence counsel was allocated to him as he appeared in front of judge, Mr Baron Cleasby. His only defence was that he had claimed that Caroline had stripped the house of furniture and had taken away some of his clothing, which she passionately denied.

Witnesses gave clear evidence that the prisoner had shown no remorse for his actions and had stated several times that his only regret had been that the knife was not sharp enough. The judge summed up the evidence, before the jury returned a verdict that John Francis Brown was guilty of the charge. However they asked for leniency due, not to the prisoners clearly deranged mind, but simply on the grounds of his age. Mr Baron Cleasby took no notice of this as he sentenced the prisoner to 14 years imprisonment.

On 15 November 1863, a young woman called Fanny Richardson attended the magistrates court in Rotherham to bring an affiliation order against a 20 year old miner, called David Walsh. She stated that she had given birth to a child on 7 October of that year and that he was the father. If she could prove her statement, he would be ordered by the magistrates to pay maintenance towards the child. Fanny told the bench that she lived at the village of Scoles which is situated just south of the town, and that David Walsh lived in the same village. She stated that he knew that she was pregnant as she had told him on two occasions. Once when they had been watching the Ecclesfield brass band playing and another time at the Scholes Feast.

An order of bastardy was made, and the following week Walsh was brought before the court where Fanny’s statement was read out to him. He then made his own statement under oath which was taken down by the clerk to the magistrates. Walsh completely denied the allegation that he had ever a liaison with Fanny Richardson. He swore that he knew her as she lived in the same village, but had never even met her and therefore he could not possibly be the father of her child. Walsh told the bench that later he had been told on 7 October that she had given birth to a baby, but as far as he was concerned it was just a bit of gossip.

After hearing this statement, the magistrates adjourned the enquiry in order that witnesses could be found who might confirm or refute Fanny Richardson’s accusation. She was once again brought before the magistrates where Fanny was forced to make a fuller account of her liaison with the accused miner. She told the court that she had worked previously as a domestic servant, but had managed to obtain leave from her employers for two days to attend her brother’s wedding on 25 January 1863. Fanny said that after the wedding, the guests all assembled at Moses Law’s public house in Scholes, who was the brother of her new sister-in-law.

Then Fanny Richardson revealed an account, that would raise no eyebrows in today’s modern society, but seems particularly lax for the tight laced, Victorian morality we think of today. It was at that public house that Fanny struck up an acquaintanceship with Walsh and spent the next three hours with him. Consequently, it was round 11 pm when Walsh asked if he could accompany her home to her parent’s house. Once there he was invited inside and introduced to her parents and the landlord who lived at the same house, a man called James Riley. The family and Riley were still drinking and celebrating the wedding, but it was not long before Fanny’s parents went to bed, leaving the couple alone downstairs.

Before they went to bed however, her mother, Elizabeth Richardson urged her daughter to see the man off the premises and warned her not stay up too late. Fanny blushed as she told the bench that it was there that they couple ‘had relations with each other’. This remarkable laxity was also noted in the Sheffield Independent dated Saturday 19 December 1863 when the reporter stated that:

‘The young woman seems to have been of a very yielding disposition, for she made no resistance to the advances of her new acquaintance and they slept together on the sofa’.

Mrs Richardson was the next witness, and she told the bench that she was horrified the next morning when she came downstairs to find the young couple still sleeping together on the sofa. She said that it had also been witnessed by the landlord James Riley, as well as her husband. Needless to say, the witness and her husband were extremely upset at finding the pair still together. However when challenged, Walsh re-assured them both saying ‘it will be alright; I’ll make her as good as myself’. Mrs Richardson told the magistrates that she took this to mean that if her daughter found herself pregnant after the encounter, he would marry her and ‘make everything respectable.’

Mrs Richardson, continuing with her tale, said that Walsh left the Richardson’s house some time later that morning, but returned again around dinnertime. At this point Fanny Richardson was invited back into court to continue with her own statement. She said that when Walsh came back to the house, he invited her to the same public house in Scholes where they had met the night before. Once there, Walsh bought her several drinks and they stayed drinking there until around 7 pm. The witness told the bench that she was a bit tipsy and as a consequence, had stood talking outside her parent’s house for some time, until her brother ordered her to go inside. He told Fanny that that she was making ‘a public spectacle of herself.’

Shortly afterwards, Walsh left the house after arranging to meet Fanny at the same public house house the next night. On 27 January she said that the pair met again and once more at closing time they returned back to her parent’s house and on that occasion they were seen going home by a neighbour called Mrs Mirfin. Incredibly it seems that once again, Fanny’s parents went to bed leaving the couple downstairs on the sofa. However she told the court that this time, she made sure that Walsh had gone by the time her parents got up the following morning. Fanny said that since that time, the couple had met regularly until she found herself to be in a pregnant condition.

The next witness was the neighbour Mrs Mirfin who confirmed that on the 27 January she had seen the couple return back to the lodging house where Fanny’s parents lived. Another neighbour, a woman called Mrs Oxley also stated that in February she had been watching the Ecclesfield band with Fanny Richardson, when Walsh came up to speak to the girl. He asked her to come for a walk to some nearby woods, but Fanny refused, however she told him that she suspected that she might in the family way. After hearing the account of Fanny Richardson and the neighbours, David Walsh was arrested and brought back to court on Monday 7 December 1863 charged with wilful and corrupt perjury. Local solicitor Mr Edwards was the prosecution and he outlined the facts of the case for the bench, and once again the first witness to be heard was Fanny herself.

She gave a complete account again of her former statement made in front of the magistrates. However when Walsh was asked if he had anything to say, he continued to deny that the child was his. He stated that he had never been at Moses Law’s public house at Scholes on the 25, 26 or even the 27 of January. In fact he told the court that on that latter date he was in a shop at Masbrough selling fish. He stated that he had never seen Fanny Richardson or spoken to her at Scholes Feast, nor had any of her neighbours seen them together. As a result of his declarations, Elizabeth Richardson, James Riley and several other witnesses including the neighbours were brought back into the court room. There they re-affirmed their evidence that they had seen the young couple together on the three days in question.

However what finally convinced the magistrates was confirmation from a most impeccable source. He was Police Constable Strange of Scholes, who gave evidence that he had seen the couple together at the Scholes Feast, deep in conversation with each other. That officer then related how he had been sent to arrest David Walsh after his perjury had been uncovered. He told the court that in answer to the charge, the prisoner had said that it was ‘a bad job.’ Despite hearing all the witnesses evidence, the prisoners defence Mr Hirst expressed a hope that the magistrates would take a lenient view of the case. He said that the young man had not intended to commit perjury, and that he had been simply mistaken over the dates. The defence also criticised the evidence of the witnesses, who were mainly composed of the woman’s family and neighbours and therefore, he said their evidence was suspect.

He complained that as far as he was concerned the evidence against the prisoner was biased and weak and suspicious in character. Mr Hirst concluded by asking the bench if they could they really consider such testimony from the witnesses to be sufficient for them to warrant sending the prisoner for trial on such a serious a charge as that of wilful perjury? However the bench were having none of it and said that on the contrary, the evidence proved to them a very clear case against the prisoner. Then the magistrates informed David Walsh that he had been found guilty of gross perjury and he was ordered to pay a weekly sum of maintenance towards the child of Fanny Richardson. They then ordered the prisoner to take his trial at the ensuing York Assizes.

David Walsh appeared before judge Mr Justice Mellor on Friday 18 December 1863 at the Yorkshire Winter Assizes, charged with having committed the perjury on 16 November. The prosecution, Mr Waddy outlined the case and stated that the perjury had been committed after an affiliation order had been applied for by Fanny Richardson. He said that the prisoner had denied having any intercourse with the girl, and that his words were given under oath as well as being taken down in writing. He said it was that statement which had constituted the perjury, now being heard by the grand jury

The clerk to the Rotherham magistrates, Mr John Oxley said that under oath the prisoner had sworn that he had not had any kind of relationship with the young woman, Fanny Richardson. He had taken the statement down himself, which the prisoner had then signed. The judge after hearing all the evidence from the same witnesses, summed up for the jury. He commented that incidents of perjury were all too common in affiliation cases. The jury then retired for a mere 30 minutes before finding the prisoner guilty of the crime of wilful and corrupt perjury. Mr Justice Mellor then sentenced David Walsh to be imprisoned for six months in the Wakefield House of Correction and the prisoner was removed from the court.

In March 1846 there was a man in Sheffield, called Robert Withington Harper who had reached the end of his tether. Some months previously he had left his wife Sarah and their two children John and Mary Jane at their home in Bristol, whilst he went looking for employment in Sheffield. In his absence, his wife had been forced by her family to remove the children out of the marital house they had both shared together. Now he did not know where they were. Frantically Robert had sent letters to some of her relatives asking for the letters to be forwarded to his wife, but as there had been some dispute with them in the past, his letters were simply returned unopened.

Earlier that month Robert had gone to Sheffield and had found lodging with a Mrs Storey in Carver Street. He soon found work, but almost immediately became ill with an attack of rheumatism, and subsequently had been unable to take up his position. Because of this, it was not long before Robert found himself penniless, apart from a weekly postal order of 10s a week sent by his wife’s family to live on. As this was all the money he had, he wrote to his wife Sarah asking her to send him some warm clothing and some money to Sheffield, but had no response. In a state of absolute desperation Robert had written several letters to local men of the town, asking them to intervene in order to make contact with his family.

In desperation he had written to the Lord Mayor of Sheffield himself, Mr Samuel Butcher. In the letter which the Mayor received on Thursday 12 March, Robert asked him to use his influence to establish a meeting between himself and his family, so that some issues might be resolved. He warned that unless an advertisement giving the date of a meeting could be inserted in the Sheffield Independent of Saturday 14 March, he would take some poison which he had in his possession. Robert concluded that if he killed himself, his family would at the very least be obliged to attend an inquest and would learn of his plight. There they would be required to vindicate themselves to the Coroner and give for the reasons for his abandonment.

Thankfully the Mayor of Sheffield took his letter seriously and upon reading the letter, he went immediately to the lodging house in Carver Street to seek Robert out. There Mr Butcher found that there had been a man of that name staying at the house, who had appeared to be in a distressed position. However the landlady Mrs Storey told the Mayor that he had now left and she had no idea where he had gone. She gave him a description of Robert Harper and the clothing he had been wearing when she last saw him leave. Mr Butcher alerted the police authorities, giving them a description of the man. He instructed them that if Robert was found, he was immediately to be brought to him at the Town Hall. Police enquiries quickly established that Robert Harper had travelled to Rotherham.

It seems that once there, he had scoured the Saturday edition of the Sheffield Independent looking anxiously for the appropriate advertisement, but none had been found. With no hope that any help would now be offered to him, Robert returned back to Sheffield on Tuesday 17 March determined to kill himself. In order to carry out this final act, he went to the Bank Coffee House late in the afternoon, where he then ordered a cup of coffee. Robert then drank the coffee which contained the arsenic he had been keeping for that very purpose. He then went from there to the Town Hall where he asked after the Mayor. When Robert was told that Mr Butcher was not in, he informed a member of staff that he had taken poison and would soon be a dead man.

Two surgeons Mr Boultbee and Mr Wright were immediately sent for but it was too late to help Robert Harper, and he died later that night. Whilst he had been at the Town Hall, he had handed over to the office keeper, four small books in which was written his life story. The books revealed a slow but inevitable fall from grace, as Robert went from one disaster to another. The first book recorded his early life and stated how his father was a Mr Thomas Harper of Bristol. He had died in 1837 and had left a will stating that his estate should be shared out amongst his children equally. However it happened that some of his brothers and sisters had died since his father had made his will. Subsequently a row had developed over who should have the remainder. When his older brother claimed the inheritance of his deceased siblings as well as his own, Robert’s share had shrunk considerably.

The book related how even as a result of this small inheritance, Robert had found that he was in a good financial position, and so he decided to marry a woman whose dowry consisted of £950. Some of the dowry was handed over to him after the wedding, however her father’s trustees kept the remainder of the capital. With this windfall Robert went into business for himself, but he did not have a good head for such things and sadly ended up bankrupt. One of the other books listed how after his fathers death, Robert had managed to obtain employment in Reading, Berkshire. The book related how his wife Sarah and himself were happy there for some time, and eventually his widowed mother had joined them, living with them until she too died. Sadly that seems to have precipitated the beginning of the breakdown with his family, which renewed the dispute about the division in his fathers estate.

On top of that, Robert had recorded that he had signed a document which he was told would secure his wife entitlement to the rest of the money, which was still held by her appointed trustees. However in actual fact this document turned out to be one giving the trustees the power of attorney over Sarah’s remaining capital, instead of her husband. Subsequently, in 1841 Robert left Reading for some employment in London but once there, had an attack of rheumatism which he blamed on sleeping in cold, damp beds. As a result, Robert not only lost that position, but also ended up disabled through his rheumatism. In the book he described returning back to Sarah and the two children, but once again was unable to find work. He also complained bitterly about the influence his brother-in-law had over his wife in his absence.

It was shortly after that whilst he was in London looking for some employment, that Sarah left him and returned back to her family, taking much of the furniture and the children with her. However she left him a note saying that the trustees had agreed to pay Robert 10s a week. This amount was hoped to keep him until he gained some employment. The trustees had even arranged for him to go to Birmingham where there might be a job available. He did go to Birmingham, but he was not offered the post and it was at that point that he bought the arsenic. Subsequently Robert tried to arrange a meeting between himself and his wife’s relatives, but nothing was achieved. However he was told that they would give him his rail fare to Sheffield, where he might find employment there.

Instead the book described a period where the poor man was living in Sheffield almost in complete poverty. As his mental and financial situation slowly deteriorated, Robert had decided to send letters to local businessmen of Sheffield, threatening to take the poison unless they helped him. The last entries of the third and fourth book were later reported in the local newspaper, which illustrate his complete desperation at that time. The entries read:

‘Sunday morning 15 March 1846, Rotherham.

There was no advertisement in the Independent. I tried to read works of fiction, to get into company and to take walks, but I dare not. I wanted to think about my children, but I dare not. I think the people here in Rotherham think I am mad. Yesterday I watched the tombs in the churchyard from my bedroom window. Soon I shall be a mass of clay, a man tried, condemned and executed without meeting his accusers or knowing what his crime is. Dear John and Mary Jane, from their father who will never kiss them again.

The account continues, although after this there are no dates given. Robert writes that on one particular day he felt that he was struggling ‘with the Devils of Hell and Incarnate Fiends.’ His writing at this point becomes almost unreadable, as he is obviously in a state of unstable excitement. Thankfully in another portion from the fourth book, Robert appears more calm and his writing becomes more legible again. Nevertheless he is still trying to reach out to others for help. In this extract, also written in Rotherham he writes:

‘Last evening I went to Masbrough Chapel and heard Mr Stowell preach. He looks like a man of God and he preached like one, but that is nothing. However I was compelled to write to him and I have done so. What will be the result?’

Robert then lists sums of money left by his father, which should rightly have been his. He also lists instances when, in his own deluded opinion, his wife Sarah should have treated him better than she had during their marriage. The list of self-pitying excuses continue, which sadly reveal the poor man’s slow descent into madness and paranoia. Robert also lists the names of his ‘murderers’ who he states are driving him into killing himself. However he concludes:

‘Vengeance is mine and I will repay saith God, and to Gods vengeance I leave my murderers. May God forgive them, for I cannot do that. I cannot forgive them who have separated me from my dear children. God grant them repentance and may that mercy now be extended to me. What more shall I add? Nothing. Amen.’

Signed R.W.H.’

Other extracts continue along in this vein. In one such, just headed ‘Monday’ Robert again reports on how he was miserably looking out onto the Rotherham Church graveyard, when suddenly a wedding party appeared. He simply comments ‘such is life’ before sinking back again into a complete state of misery. It would seem that this was the catalyst which finally drove him to prepare the arsenic. His last entry is made on the following morning [17 March] before he returned back to Sheffield to take the poison.

Once again it is undated although it is headed ‘From Rotherham, Tuesday 10 am.’ He writes:

‘Tuesday morning and here I am still living. Am I asked why I have not kept my word? My answer is I want to keep out of hell as long as I can. I have lived till every shilling has gone, and tonight I have not the price of a bed. Do you wish to trace my conduct at Rotherham? The first night I slept at the Temperance Coffee Room; the second at the College Inn; and the last at Mrs Frith’s, at the Ring-of-Bells, on Church Street. Now to think of Sheffield, the hour has come, the solemn awful day is come, spirits of my parents look upon me.’

His last poignant words are in a note to his wife and it appears that these were written at the Sheffield Town Hall on the Tuesday evening after Robert had taken the poison. He simply writes:

‘My dear, My love to you and the children. I forgive you. R.W.H.’

The Sheffield Coroner, Mr Thomas Badger was informed of Robert Harper’s death and an inquest was held at the Town Hall on Friday 20 March 1846. As the Coroner opened the inquest, he informed the jury of the circumstances around the man’s suicide. He also read some of the extracts from the letters, indicating the deceased man’s state of mind at the time. Mr Badger said that he had thought it was his duty to communicate with Robert Harper’s relatives in Bristol and London. As a result he had received a reply from his brother-in-law, a man called Mr Daniel Lomas who was a Methodist preacher in London. Mr Badger told the inquest that Mr Lomas had said that he would try to attend the inquest however, although he was on the way, he had not arrived at that time.

Nevertheless the Coroner said he would proceed with the inquest and the first witness was called. It was Robert’s landlady in Sheffield, Mrs Storey. She told the court that Mr Harper had been lodging with her for nine weeks up to his going to Rotherham. During the time he had stayed with her, Robert had conducted himself in a quiet manner, but had seemed to her to be in a very depressed state. The witness told the inquest that he had told her of his financial troubles and had also read parts of the letters out to her that he had sent to various people. Mrs Storey said that her lodger had read one he had sent to his brother-in-law, along with some others he had arranged to be forwarded to his wife. She said that all the letters had all been returned unopened and unread. After that Mr Harper became very excited and talked to himself, as he walked restlessly up and down the house.

The landlady said he had also showed her the arsenic that he intended to take, if he got no response from the letters he had sent to the gentlemen in Sheffield. Her evidence was corroborated by her daughter, Lucy Pearce and she added that for most of the time Mr Harper had appeared perfectly sane, yet at others he seemed to be excited and quite irrational. However the witness added that in the conversations she had with the deceased man, she did not consider him to be completely insane. The Mayor of Sheffield, Samuel Butcher then gave his evidence and produced the letter he had received from Robert Harper. He described interviewing Mrs Storey at her house in Carver Street and explained his orders to the police officers regarding searching for the man. The Mayor stated that he had made enquiries every day as to whether Harper had been found or not.

He admitted to the inquest that his only regret was not having inserted something in the Independent newspaper as had been requested to do so by the deceased. Another witness was a woman called Jane Woolhouse, who introduced herself as a waitress employed at the Bank Coffee Rooms in Sheffield. She described Mr Harper ordering a cup of coffee before sitting with a man called Blackhurst for a while. Woolhouse described how the two men had talked for a short time before Harper left. The witness then told the jury that after the deceased man had gone, Blackhurst had brought the man’s coffee cup back and handed it to her. He instructed her to ‘wash it carefully’ as the man had just told him that he had taken some poison from it.

The next witness was a man called Frederick Shaw who stated how the deceased had come to the desk at the entrance to the Town Hall around 10 am. He had asking to speak to the Mayor and said that ‘there was no time to lose, as he should be a corpse in a few minutes’. Shaw said that Harper had told him that he had bought some arsenic in Birmingham three months ago which he had now taken. Inspector Wakefield was the next witness and he told the inquest that he had been called to the Town Hall and informed that a man there had taken some poison. He said that at that point the man was still alive although he was obviously suffering. The Inspector told the jury that from his observations, he had no doubt but that the deceased man was completely irrational and insane.

Medical evidence was also given by surgeon Mr Boultbee who had also been called to attend to the man. He said that himself and a colleague had tried everything they could to counteract the effects of the poison, but it had all been in vain. Mr Boultbee said that they had spent two hours trying to revive the poor man, but they knew that the case was hopeless. The witness described how Mr Harper was taken to the workhouse, where the two medical men had visited him regularly until his death at 11 pm. The surgeon told the inquest that Robert Harper had appeared easier in his mind after he had taken the poison and had asked the surgeon to pray with him, which he did. Just before the end he had asked Mr Boultbee to inform his family that his last words had been that he was not afraid that he would go to hell, for he felt that God had pardoned him.

Mr Badger then read more extracts from the letters and books and said that the words left little doubt in his mind as to the man’s irrationality being very real. The Coroner then read out a letter from the deceased man’s brother-in-law, Mr Nathaniel Lomas which had been received by the Mayor before Robert Harper’s death. He informed the jury that it would indicate the mind of the deceased man. However the letter simply revealed how his wife’s family had tried to paint him as a black hearted villain, whose ‘profligate behaviour’ had resulted in his own death. In the letter Mr Lomas had written:

‘I may state that for several years back, Harper has repeatedly left his family for several weeks together, taking with him all the money or silver plate he could obtain. After he had squandered it all away, he would return to abuse his wife and make her life wretched. On one occasion he took with him £180, which in nine months he had spent, before he again returned. His clothes and watch were pawned and several debts were contracted, which his wife had to pay.

It became at length absolutely necessary to remove his wife and children from him, taking the opportunity when he had once more left her. His desire to be returned to his family is principally that he may simply have a home to return to, when he has squandered all his money away. As to his threats to commit suicide, you need not be under any apprehension that he will destroy himself. This is an old attempt to frighten his friends, repeated frequently, but never seriously intended.’

The Coroner said the letter went on to explain that the deceased was not, as he frequently claimed to be, destitute and abandoned. On the contrary the family had allowed him 10s a week and urged him to find some kind of employment. Just as Mr Badger finished reading, the letter writer himself, Nathaniel Lomas entered the room accompanied by Robert’s brother, Mr A Harper. The two men apologised to the inquest for their lateness, before the Coroner asked Mr Harper if he would now like to give his evidence. He told the inquest that it was painful for him to have to speak of his brother’s terrible conduct. Mr Harper also described the frequent threats of suicide and his brothers profligate lifestyle, which had so alarmed his family at one point that he was taken before a magistrate in London. As a result he had been confined for some time in a lunatic asylum.

The witness spoke of another occasion when Robert had returned home, once more deep in debt and had written several letters asking for help to various parties. In those letters too he had threatened to commit suicide. When the witness had asked him whether he had really intended to kill himself, his brother had replied that he never had any intention of doing so. Consequently the whole family were convinced that the whole sordid plot had simply been a ruse to obtain money from the parties applied to. Contrary to the letters and the writings in the books, Mr Harper said that his own family had tried their best to help him. Only a month previously they had sent him some warm clothing to Sheffield in response to his request. In addition he said that he had also just recently been left a small legacy from an uncle. The witness said that despite this, there was no mention of either event in the letters or the notebooks.

At this point the Coroner summed up for the jury and told them that they had two tasks. Firstly they had to establish whether or not the deceased man had died from the effects of the arsenic, of which there could be little doubt. Secondly, they had to take into consideration his state of mind at the time the deceased took the poison. Mr Badger went over again the evidence of the witnesses, who had described how Harper’s excitement had manifested itself at times. He reminded them of the evidence of Inspector Wakefield who had said that he had no doubt that in his opinion, the deceased man was ‘completely irrational and insane.’ The Coroner said that he was glad to have had the confirmation from a member of the man’s own family as to the allowance of 10s a week.

Mr Badger added that this was backed up by a letter which had been given to him after Mr Harper’s death. It was unopened and was addressed to the deceased man, and inside was his weekly remittance. The jury took little time to return a verdict that ‘the deceased had died from having taken arsenic, whilst labouring under temporary insanity.’ Mr Harper’s brother then said that although he and his brother had not spoken together for some time, he still had a great affection for him. Although in the latter years he was unable to reach out to his brother, he wanted to take this opportunity to express his gratitude to the Sheffield Coroner and the jury ‘for the sympathy they had shown on this most melancholy occasion.’ Mr Badger then announced that the inquest on the tragic suicide of Robert Harper was now closed.

William Watson and Henry Laughton worked as bailiffs for the Rotherham Court House and on 2 November 1881 they were instructed by the High Bailiff to arrest a 40 year old man called William Bailey. He had a warrant against him issued by the Barnsley County Court, but as he lived in West Melton, it had been handed over to the Rotherham bailiffs to deal with. Bailey had long been part of a poaching gang, some of whom had been found guilty in May 1881. As a result he had been fined 15s 9d costs or sentenced to 40 days imprisonment if he failed to pay. The bailiffs Watson and Laughton had been unable to execute the warrant for some time, because although several visits had been made to Bailey’s house, they couldn’t catch him at home.

That day, as was their usual practice, Watson went to the door of the house in the yard where Bailey lived with his wife, leaving Laughton to speak to some of the neighbours. Watson knocked on the door which was opened by Mrs Bailey. When he asked her where her husband was, she told him that he had gone to Bolton for the day and would not return until much later that night. However as they were speaking, Watson noted a man walking towards the house, who was being followed by Laughton. It was not difficult to guess that the man was Bailey himself. The two officers immediately seized him by the collar and asked him his name.

When he admitted that he was William Bailey, Laughton informed him they had been sent by the High Bailiff and asked him if he was prepared to pay the fine imposed on him by the Barnsley County Court. Bailey immediately told them he did not have it on him right then, but if they came back on Saturday he would have enough money to pay it. Laughton said that they had no power to authorise such postponements, and as they had a warrant for his arrest, they must take him into custody. At first it seems that Bailey was ready to comply as he said ‘very well, I will go with you’ as he made as if to enter the house. However before the two bailiffs could follow him, he lunged for the door pushing his wife inside and slamming it in the faces of two officers.

Watson and Laughton threw themselves at the door and managed to break it open. Going inside, they told Bailey that he must now come with them. Once again it looked as if the man was ready to obey. He stated that he just wanted to change into his boots, as Bailey sat in a chair to remove the shoes he had been wearing. The two bailiffs were standing by the door when he placed the boots on his feet and started to lace them up. Suddenly Bailey lunged at something in the corner of the room and before either of the bailiffs could stop him, he picked up a gun that had been leaning against a wall. He pointed it at the two officers, threatening them that he ‘would do for them both.’ Bravely Laughton stooped under the barrel of the gun and pushed it upwards, having no idea if the weapon was loaded or not.

Seeing what the bailiff was trying to do, Bailey then smashed the barrel down hard over Laughton’s shoulders. Mrs Bailey shouted at her husband to drop the weapon as it was dangerous. He put the gun down on the kitchen table, but as the two men closed in, he picked up a heavy wooden stool and threw it at Watson. Bailey then grabbed hold of Laughton by the shoulders of his jacket and smashed his head heavily against the wall. Watson made as if to help his colleague, just as both Mr and Mrs Bailey seized Laughton and threw him through the door into the yard outside. They next grabbed hold of Watson and pushed him out of the door, causing him to fall onto the cobbles of the courtyard. As the two men lay on the ground, the pair then started to lash out at both officers with impunity, kicking them both in their heads, legs and backs.

By this time the noise of the confrontation had brought out the neighbours, who quickly gathered around as they urged the two bailiffs to clear out of of the yard. William Bailey was known to be a very dangerous and violent man and as Mrs Bailey had by this time, armed herself with a poker and the leg from the broken footstool, the two bailiffs had no option but to leave. They returned back to the Court House at Rotherham and after reporting the attack, a warrant for William Bailey and his wife was issued. As a result the pair were arrested and brought before the magistrates at Rotherham Court House on Monday 7 November 1881. William and Mary Bailey were both charged with ‘committing an assault on officers of the court with intent to commit grievous bodily harm.’

Mr F Parker Rhodes prosecuted the case and he described the vicious attack carried out on the two bailiffs. Henry Laughton was waiting to give evidence and it was noted by court reporters that he still bore signs of the beating he had received. Mr Rhodes stated that bailiffs must be protected in the lawful discharge of their duties, and he asked that the two prisoners be sent to the Assizes to take their trial. Surgeon Dr Lyth was the first witness and he described some of the injuries which the two men had received. He said that Henry Laughton was a mass of bruising from his head to his thighs, however it was clear that William Watson’s injuries had been the most severe. As a result that officer had been unable to attend the court or even return back to work.

The surgeon listed one particular blow which Watson received from Mrs Bailey. She had hit him over his ear with the broken off leg from the heavy wooden stool. The cut was so deep that just that one blow alone had left him in a most dangerous condition. Dr Lyth added that as a result he was still having to treat that officer for his injuries. Henry Laughton was the next witness and described the terrible struggle that the two bailiffs had with the prisoners. He said quite clearly that he had seen Mary Bailey kicking out at Watson as he lay on the ground, and attacking him with the footstool. The Deputy High Bailiff for the Rotherham Courthouse, a man called Henry Foster then took the stand and he described the condition of the two men on their return back from the Baileys house.

He said that Watson ear was badly cut, he was bleeding profusely and there was also a huge lump on the side of his head. Both the man’s eyes had been blackened and he appeared to be dazed and confused. However Mr Barras who defended the prisoners, stated that the couple had only been acting in self defence and he claimed that the bailiffs had entered the house illegally, by smashing the door latch. The defence stated that therefore Mr and Mrs Bailey had every right to eject the two bailiffs from their premises. Then Mr Barrass quoted a recent similar case which had been tried at the Manchester Assizes, where two bailiffs had been killed after being ejected from a house. The defence claimed that the judge, Lord Justice Bramwell had directed the jury to acquit the prisoners, stating that the bailiffs had made what he described as a ‘wrongful entry’.

Mr Barrass said that as for the charge against Mrs Bailey, it should be completely dismissed as she was only acting under her husbands directions. He then also dismissed Laughton’s identification of Mrs Bailey who had been seen attacking Watson. Mr Barrass said that an excited crowd of neighbours had gathered in the small courtyard and in particular around the prone bailiff. He said that therefore it would have been impossible to state with any confidence that it had been the female prisoner who had kicked out at the man. After hearing all the evidence the bench found both prisoners guilty. Mr Barrass then asked for bail for the male prisoner, but the chair of the magistrates told the court that Bailey was a dangerous character with a long history of violence.

He stated that the man had been before the court on 10 different occasions and therefore he should remain in custody. Hearing this remark, Bailey told him ‘well it wasn’t for anything serious. Ive never been had up for murder’ which caused laughter in the courtroom. After some discussion between the magistrates however, he was granted bail and left the court with his wife. William and Mary Bailey were brought before the West Riding Christmas Quarter Sessions held at the Sheffield Town Hall on Friday 6 January 1882. The prosecution, Mr Mellor went over the case for the jury and said that it was an assault of a most serious nature. Both bailiffs then gave their evidence and it was noted that William Watson still showed signs of his terrible ordeal. Then it was time for Mrs Bailey’s defence, Mr Blackburn to speak on her behalf and he made claims which astonished the court.

He said that rather than defend her husband, she had done all that she could to help the bailiffs in discharging their duty. He reminded the jury that when her husband picked up the gun and pointed it at the two men, the female prisoner had made him put it down. Although his claims were rather tenuous, the nineteenth century legal authorities tended to excuse women acting in concert with their husbands. It was believed that being the weaker sex they were under their husbands domination. As a result of this Mary Bailey was found not guilty and discharged. However the long list of offences for which her husband had previously been brought before the courts, could not be so easily ignored. William Bailey was sentenced to twelve months imprisonment for this most brutal attack.

The Sheffield Iris dated Tuesday 19 November 1839 had quickly recognised the threat that substances such as Godfrey’s Cordial represented. In a column which discussed ‘Deaths in England by Poisoning’ the reporter listed 10 children’s deaths that had taken place that year alone in Sheffield. Many of these had been from overdoses innocently administered by mothers. It noted that the residue of such poisons soon disappeared in the child’s stomach, so it remained undetectable to surgeons completing post mortems. As a result, Coroners often ruled many of the mysterious deaths of young children as accidental. One such example of this was noted on Tuesday 11 July 1843 at an inquest on a boy aged just three years old.

He was William Henry Blake whose parents lived in Trafalgar Street, Sheffield where a verdict of ‘died by visitation of God’ was given. This was a catch-all verdict which basically meant that the jury did not know why the person had died. Nevertheless it was noted that ‘some suspicion had been excited that the child had been poisoned, but no proof of this was adduced, though the mother was in the habit of giving him large quantities of Godfrey’s Cordial.’ Another child’s death which was remarkable similar took place twelve years later, and it was also blamed on the same source. On Saturday 12 May 1855 an inquest on a four week old baby, took place at the Plumpers Inn, Duke Street, Park, Sheffield. He was the son of a woman called Milnes, and the Coroner Mr Badger called the child’s unnamed grandmother as the first witness.

She described how she had taken him with her when she had been washing at the house of a woman called Mrs Pickering. Upon hearing the child crying, the witnesses employer gave him half a teaspoon of some Godfrey’s Cordial to keep him quiet. The grandmother told the inquest that the baby almost immediately fell asleep, and that she had been thankful as she was now able to continue with the washing. Only when the child awoke a while later and started to convulse, did the witness become concerned. The poor woman cried as she described her grandson dying in her arms soon afterwards. A surgeon Mr Lawton told the Coroner that he had been called out to see the baby, even though it was already dead by the time he arrived. He stated that death was caused by convulsions after the administration of a narcotic poison.

The next witness at the inquest was Mr John Henry Dixon Jenkinson of Duke Street, a druggist who admitted to selling the cordial and gave a list of its contents. These consisted of a mixture of opium, sassafras, treacle and water. The druggist told the jury that he had been horrified when he heard how much the child had been given. He pointed out that clearly printed on the label attached to the bottle was a statement that only ten drops should be given to a baby four weeks of age. Then the woman who had administered the cordial, Mrs Pickering was brought into the room. She was castigated by the Coroner for having administered such a large dose to the little boy. Mr Badger roundly condemned the use of such ‘noxious compounds in any quantity to a child of that age.’ The jury had no option but to return a verdict that ‘the child had been inadvertently poisoned by Godfrey’s Cordial by mistake.’

Government legislation of 1857 tried to restrict such compounds being sold over the counter, but it failed to get passed through Parliament. Consequently six years later that ‘blessing to parents’ was still killing children. Evidence was heard again at an inquest held in the afternoon of Tuesday 17 February 1863 in the vestry room of the Congregational Chapel on Occupation Road, Sheffield. The Coroner Mr J Webster Esq., told the jury that the inquest had been called to enquire into the death of a ten day old male child, the son of a labourer called William Hides of Hallcar Street, Sheffield. The child’s mother, Mary Hides was the first witness and she told the jury that her son had been born on 7 February 1863.

She said that since his birth he had shown slight convulsions and on the previous Saturday had developed thrush. About 7 pm he would not settle and so she gave him some rum on a teaspoon, which not surprisingly, caused him to promptly vomit. Desperate at this point, she then gave the baby three drops of Godfrey’s Cordial, and soon afterwards the child became insensible, before dying the following day. After hearing all the evidence, the jury returned a verdict that ‘the deceased died from poison administered by its mother, but without any felonious intent’.Sadly no lessons were learned and parents continued to administer this deadly medicine to their children. It was just a month later when the next death of yet another Sheffield child to be given this deadly opiate, occurred.

On Friday 20 March 1863, a mother called Ann Dodd of Bernard Street, Park, Sheffield gave her nine month old son half a teaspoon of Godfrey’s Cordial. The next morning she was horrified to find little William dead in his cot. Once again an inquest was held the following day by Mr Webster at the Union Inn on Duke Street, Park. To the jury’s concern Mrs Dodd freely admitted that not only had she given her son some Godfrey’s Cordial on the night he had died, but she had been in the habit of giving him the same amount on a regular basis in order to build up his constitution. In fact she claimed that she had given him the cordial every night for the last three months. The verdict was given that ‘the deceased died from poison, having had administered to him for ninety consecutive days, a mixture called Godfrey’s Cordial.’

Nevertheless Godfrey’s Cordial continued to be sold freely to the desperate parents of Sheffield. It was still on sale a year later when yet another child’s death was recorded. However this one was felt to be more suspicious, as it had been administered to an illegitimate baby. Any kind of illegitimate birth resulted in both the mother and child being condemned by society, so there was strong suspicion that the mother might have given the child the cordial to rid herself of the shame. To emphasis this undercurrent of suspicion, it was established that the mother had been alone at the time she gave the child some Godfrey’s Cordial.

The inquest opened at the Town Hall by deputy Coroner Mr W W Woodhead Esq., who was told that the two week old little boy had been suffering from a bowel complaint before his death. On the night of Monday 21 March 1864 his mother Mary Ann Eams admitted that she had given him some Godfrey’s Cordial at the house she lived on Water Lane Sheffield. She told the jury that she only gave him three drops, but he grew gradually worse and died around 5 am on the following morning. Once again the verdict named the substance which had caused the child’s demise. It was recorded to be a death from an overdose of Godfrey’s Cordial. If the Sheffield Coroners had hoped to underline the dangers of parents giving their children such a deadly poison, it had not worked.

By November of the same year, so many deaths of young children from that and other similar substances had been recorded in the town, that they now took up very little room in local newspaper columns. One such report in the Sheffield Independent dated Saturday 12 November 1864 simply recorded:

‘On Wednesday morning, the death of a child aged seven weeks was caused by its mother, Mrs White, a widow residing in Eckington. She administered a dose of Godfrey’s Cordial on the previous night about 11pm, the child being restless. It lingered until about 11 am of the morning following. Mr Jones surgeon was called in, but not until after the death.’

In fact on this occasion more column space was given to the article which followed, which was about picking pockets at Masbrough Station in Rotherham. Concerned about the numbers of deaths brought about by laudanum and other opioids, the Government brought in the Pharmacy Act of 1868. This established that only qualified and registered chemists could now sell such opium derivatives. However Godfrey’s Cordial was exempt, as it was described as a patent medicine. This encouraged desperate parents to continue to buy the cordial and consequently children’s death’s continued to happen.

The next time Godfrey’s Cordial was heard of in Sheffield however, it took on much more serious police enquiry. This was not just a case of overdose by a distracted parent, but led to the charge of manslaughter by a registered chemist. It involved the man called John Henry Dixon Jenkinson who had served Godfrey’s Cordial to the baby Milnes fourteen years earlier. It seems that after the child’s death he had sold the druggist business to his brother and left Sheffield continuing as a druggist elsewhere. In the middle of July 1869, he had been invited by his brother to come back to Sheffield, in order to look after the shop in Duke Street for a week in his absence.

On the night of 14 July 1869 a three month old child called Walter Nutton was becoming very restless and disturbed at the house of his parents on St John’s Place, Sheffield. He was the youngest of four children born to his mother Maria, and on that night she was having difficulty in getting him to sleep. She was used to giving little Walter regular doses of Godfrey’s Cordial and as a result she had run out, so she sent her 13 year old sister Mary Ann Holland for a penny worth of the cordial from the Jenkinson’s shop. When the girl returned, Maria gave her son half a teaspoonful and Walter immediately went into convulsions. In a panic Maria sent her sister back to the shop to inform Mr Jenkinson. To his horror, he found that he had given the girl laudanum by mistake. This was an opium based product for adults.

Upon hearing of the dangerous condition of the child, he immediately urged the girl to call out a surgeon. Maria sent her sister to Mr Thomas’s surgery nearby and he arrived at the house around 8 pm. He did what he could for the baby, but little Walter died the following morning at 7 am. An inquest was held on Saturday 17 July at the Green Man Hotel on Broad Street, Park, Sheffield by the Coroner Mr J Webster Esq. The surgeon Mr Thomas was the first witness and he stated that he had been called to the house on the evening of Wednesday 14 July where he found a child looked undernourished and thin. He said that the child was in a coma and the pupils of his eyes were contracted. The surgeon stated that all the symptoms indicated to him that the child had been poisoned by laudanum.

Mr Thomas told the jury that he used what remedies he could to make the child vomit, but it had all been in vain. He added that he thought it very unwise of the mother to have given her children Godfrey’s Cordial on a daily basis. The father of the deceased child was the next witness and he told the inquest that his name was Charles Nutton and he was an edge tool striker by trade. He confirmed the fact that his son had been delicate from birth and his wife was anxious to make him stronger, so she was innocently in the habit of giving Walter some Godfrey’s Cordial on a regular basis to build him up. The next witness was his wife Maria who was unfairly challenged by the Coroner for giving her child something, which she thought would make him stronger.

She told the Coroner that her son had been just eleven weeks old before she described the circumstances of sending her sister for some cordial and how she had given the mixture to her son. Maria told Mr Webster that she understood that Godfrey’s Cordial was good for all her children as it was advertised that it would ‘nourish their insides.’ Therefore she gave him and her other children one dose every day. The Coroner retorted ‘by giving your child so much of the cordial every day since it was born, you have done your best to kill it.’ When the poor distraught mother told him that she had done the same for her five year old son, Mr Webster unfeelingly told her ‘I wonder it has not killed him also then.’

The Coroner asked her if she had noticed anything different in what she took to be the cordial, but Maria told him that it just looked the same to her. However after the child had died, she put some onto a teaspoon and tasted it and it seemed to be ‘too strong.’ That was when she realised that it was not the usual cordial. After hearing the evidence of the two parents, Mr Webster adjourned the inquest to the following Monday in order to request the presence of the druggist concerned to give evidence of how laudanum was given to the child by mistake. When the inquest was re-convened, Mr John Jenkinson was present and he listened carefully as the first witness Mary Ann Holland gave her evidence of buying the Godfrey’s Cordial from his brother’s shop.

At his own request Mr Jenkinson was then sworn in to give his defence. Right from the start he freely admitted that the mistake had been his. He said that it was only when Mrs Nutton’s sister brought the bottle back, did he realise what had happened. In order to prevent further accidents he substituted the remains of the laudanum for Godfrey’s Cordial and returned the bottle back to the girl. When the Coroner made some remark about it all being too late, Mr Jenkinson told him that he took every precaution to prevent mistakes, but they sometimes happened regardless. He admitted that the bottle which had contained the laudanum had been placed on the shelf next to the Godfrey’s Cordial. However since the accident, he had made sure that they were both kept completely separate.

At this point Mr Webster condemned the sale of any substance which included opium for infants as he told the people at the inquest:

‘As a public officer I feel bound to say that it is a very dangerous practice indeed for druggists or for anyone except regular practitioners to sell any preparations of opium to be given to infants, especially when they are so small that a quantity was sufficient to destroy life. It is a practice that could not be too strongly reprobated by these gentlemen at the inquest. It is a very serious thing, as the number of children who lost their lives by opium was very large indeed.’

Then Mr Jenkinson dropped a bombshell. He admitted that the Godfrey’s Cordial he had given the girl was not the well known product that had been advertised, but was instead a variation of his own making. He described how he had used the same ingredients as the original cordial and made them up himself. After hearing this, the Coroner summed up for the jury. He told them that:

‘You will have to consider whether it was carelessness or the neglect of Mr Jenkinson which caused the child’s death. If you think that Mr Jenkinson had not taken due care before dispensing the mixture, then you will be bound to find him guilty of manslaughter.’

He concluded his summing up by informing the inquest that this was the second case he had in the last few days alone. The jury considered the case for just 30 minutes before returning back into the inquest room. There the foreman gave the verdict that ‘John Henry Dixon Jenkinson of Sheffield did feloniously and unlawfully kill and slay Walter Nutton.’ However he added that:

‘There has been a good deal of discussion about this matter, and the whole fourteen jurymen have agreed that we cannot return any other verdict but manslaughter. We are however, so pleased with the young man’s statement – not withstanding his gross carelessness – that we strongly recommend him to mercy.’

John Jenkinson was then placed in the custody of a constable who took him directly to the Town Hall where he was bailed on sureties of £100 for himself and two other sureties of £50 each.

John Henry Dixon Jenkinson was brought before judge Mr Baron Cleasby on Thursday 5 August at the Leeds Assizes charged with the manslaughter of Walter Nutton on 14 July 1869. The prosecution, Mr Barker outlined the case for the Grand Jury and stated that the mother of the child was in the habit of giving him Godfrey’s Cordial on a daily basis. He outlined the case before stating that at the inquest the prisoner had readily admitted his mistake, although he could not account for how it had occurred. However he said it was for the jury to say whether or not the prisoner ought to be held criminally responsible for his actions.

Jenkinson’s defence Mr Waddy told the court that he had studied the case and stated that rather than manslaughter, his client was simply guilty of gross negligence. The shop belonged to the prisoners brother and therefore he was not used to the layout of the drugs he sold. He stated that because the prisoner was not used to it, he had made a simple mistake in the bottles which were possibly in a different place to those he was used to. Mr Waddy also added that according to the evidence, the mother of the child had given her son more than the prescribed dose, and that therefore she was as culpable as the prisoner. He said that if the medicine had been administered by mistake, then the verdict could only be one of homicide by misadventure.

The defence counsel concluded that therefore it was a genuine mistake which no one regretted more than the prisoner himself. He had several times expressed great remorse for the child’s death which he admitted had been caused by his own negligence. The next witness was a chemist from Birmingham called Mr J J Hughes who told the jury that he had employed the prisoner for the last nine months. He said that during the time he had worked for him, he had taken unusual care in the discharge of all his duties. The judge, in his summing up, addressed the jury and stated that:

‘A man ought not to be convicted for manslaughter for a mistake which even the most careful were liable to fall into. You should consider whether there was, on the part of the prisoner, any criminal neglect as to make him responsible and guilty of the crime of which he stood charged.’

He added that he thought the charge should never have been brought before the assizes. The jury agreed and the prisoner, to his great relief was acquitted.

Nevertheless Godfrey’s Cordial continued to be sold to desperate parents anxious to give their children a remedy which would either build up their constitutions, or soothe their restlessness. However such bad publicity about the cordial empowered other courts throughout Britain to encourage parents to use much safer products. Only then did the use of Godfrey’s Cordial begin to dwindle. Finally the Pharmacy Act of 1908 was passed, which restricted the use of all opium based drugs including Godfrey’s Cordial. Only then finally did the sales of this ‘blessing to parents’ gradually decline.

Enquiries established that the person in Rotherham who was trading in such pornographic literature was a man called Benjamin Smith, who also gave himself the alias of Martin Stanley. The address from which he traded was a lodging house situated in Oil Mill Fold on Westgate, which was also known as Alma Place. Naturally the attention of the local constabulary, was brought to the advertisement by the Chief Constable of the West Riding Constabulary named Captain McNeil, who instigated immediate proceedings. The case was given to one of Rotherham’s best officers, Inspector William Horne of the Rotherham Police force. He was tasked with trapping the person concerned.

He started by writing a letter addressed to Mr Stanley, Oil Mill Fold, Rotherham requesting a list of some of these photographs and postcards, using the pseudonym Thomas Rodgers. As instructed, he enclosed three postage stamps as payment for the list. Inspector Horne arranged for the letter to be posted from Braithwell near Doncaster, which was a little village situated about a mile from Maltby and three miles from Conisborough. A list of available photographs and postcards were duly sent and on Christmas Day 1871 the Inspector wrote to the address in Rotherham signing himself again as Thomas Rogers. In it he requested two more of the photographs, enclosing four shillings worth of stamps as payment.

He received these purchases three days later on 28 December 1871. On the 5 January 1872 that same officer again requested a postcard, for which he enclosed another four shillings worth of stamps. Now that Inspector Horne had lulled his prey into a false sense of security, he closed the trap. On 12 January 1872 he once again requested some more photographs and postcards and on the following day kept a close watch on the suspected lodging house on Oil Mill Fold. The Inspector watched surreptitiously from a distance as the local postman delivered the letter into the suspect’s house. He then, in the company of two other constables, hammered on the door of the lodging house demanding entrance to the property. Smith was the only male in the house and he was searched by one of the constables, and a number of letters and money orders were found in his pockets.

These were addressed to both names which the prisoner had been known by. Inspector Horne closely examined these letters, and quickly identified the one he had sent on the previous day. He could distinguish this by some distinct puncture marks which he had made on some of the stamps included in the letter. Also inside Smith’s pockets were several other obscene photographs similar to those the Inspector had received. After finding this evidence, the man was arrested and taken to the police cells. Benjamin Smith was brought before the magistrates at the Rotherham Borough Police Court on Monday 15 January 1872 where he was described as being ‘a respectably dressed man’.

The Sheffield Independent dated Tuesday 16 January 1872 listed the charge as being:

‘That he, on the 27^th day of December, and on diverse other days, did sell, utter and publish to one William Horne (Inspector of Police) diverse lewd and obscene pictures, tending to scandalise and debase human nature.’

Mr Whitfield prosecuted the case, although he immediately admitted that he would not be going into any detail that day, as he hoped simply to have the prisoner remanded. He then called his first witness, Inspector Horne who outlined his postal transactions with the prisoner. He told the court that the photographs and postcards he received were some ‘of the most filthy and abominable character ever to be sold and distributed.’ As if to illustrate this, some of them were inspected by members of the bench, who showed deep repugnance at what they saw. Mr Whitfield then asked the bench for a remand, in order for police enquiries to be continued. The prisoners defence solicitor, Mr Fernell of Sheffield immediately asked for bail. He stated that due to the severity of the case he was in a position to bring a substantial sureties for his client.

However Mr Superintendent Gillett asked that bail be refused, claiming that it would defeat the ends of justice, to which the magistrates agreed. Smith was therefore remanded in custody until the following Thursday. Consequently on Thursday 18 January 1872 the prisoner was once again brought into court and Mr Whitfield prosecuted. Inspector Horne once more described his dealings with Smith and stated that as he was searching the house for more of the obscene material, the prisoner told him that there was no more to be found. Mr Fernell, hoping to redeem his client in the eyes of the bench, asked the officer if Smith had freely offered up a name and address of the other person involved in the scheme. Inspector Horne agreed that he had and said that the prisoner had given a name and address of someone who lived on Attercliffe Common, Sheffield.

Smith said the name of the person at the property was a man called William Gillam, although he also used an alias of Mr. A Perry. The next witness was the Rotherham postman John White. He gave evidence of being in the habit of delivering a lot of letters addressed to both W. Stanley and B. Smith to the house on Oil Mill Fold. He told the court that several times he had handed the letters to the prisoner himself, and sometimes handed the letters over to the landlady Mrs Ann Gorrill. Mr Whitfield then told the court that one of the letters which had been found in the possession of the prisoner, was from a man called Arthur Whitehouse who lived at West Hallam near Derby. Then called the elderly witness to gave his evidence.

He said that he lived at West Hallam and that he was a farmer there, before reluctantly admitting that he had sent off for some postcards from the prisoner at the house in Rotherham. He said that he too had enclosing stamps in payment. Mr Whitfield asked him what he thought about his actions now that he had time to reflect, and the farmer hung his head, as he told the bench:

‘I am thoroughly ashamed, and my friends are ashamed for me, that I was ever tempted to enter upon this correspondence. I feel thoroughly degraded and thoroughly ashamed of myself.’

Mr Whitfield then requested a further remand for the prisoner which was granted, although bail was once again denied.

On Thursday 25 January 1872 Benjamin Smith was brought back before the bench. Inspector Horne told the court that he now had in his possession another 65 letters which had been sent to the prisoners address. However when he told the court that he had taken the liberty of opening the letters, he was immediately challenged by the prisoners defence solicitor, Mr Fernell. He asked him on what authority he had opened letters which were not addressed to himself. In reply Mr Whitfield coolly informed him that he had contacted the proper authority, which had been given by the Postmaster General and Her Majesty’s Secretary of State.

The next witness was the landlady of the house, Ann Gorrill, who stated that the prisoner had lodged with her for four years. She told the court that during that time the prisoner had always acted ‘like a man’ and she had never seen an indecent picture or postcard, nor had the prisoner ever used any indecent language towards her. Mrs Gorrill said that the prisoner had one child aged three, who lived with him and she took care of during his absences. A Money Order clerk from Sheffield Post office then gave evidence that the prisoner had cashed money orders ‘scores of times’ in the name of M. Stanley and B Smith. Two Sheffield officers Detective Moody and Inspector Toulson stated that they had raided the house on Attercliffe Common on 13 January 1872. There they had found seven obscene prints and a number of price lists. However they stated that the man, William Gillam had since absconded and had not been found.

After hearing all the evidence, the prisoner was found guilty and ordered to take his trial at the next Sheffield Sessions. However, when Mr Fernell applied for bail on this occasion it was granted, but only in the most substantial sum of £200 in the prisoners own recognisances, and two others of £100 each. One of the bench Mr Chambers warned the prisoner that if he carried on his filthy trade whilst out on bail, it would go much harder for him when he appeared at the Sessions. The Sheffield Independent dated Saturday 2 March 1872 condemned the ‘passion for nastiness which was fed by indecent pictures’ which was current in society of the time. The report stated that such pictures:

‘Are so mean and despicable that it can only be fostered by persons whose tastes are naturally base and course. Unhappily the filthy trade of manufacturing these obscene prints and photographs are carried on very prosperously, and often with a certain degree of immunity, for it is not always easy to get at the principals.’

The report went on to state that from the evidence which the police had gathered, that ‘one such vendor of trash, Benjamin Smith’ must have carried on his vile business for a considerable time judging from the large numbers of letters that he had received at the address at Rotherham, before he had been caught.

Benjamin Smith was brought before the Hon. F S Wortley’s at the Sheffield Christmas Sessions at the Town Hall, Sheffield on Friday 1 March 1872. There were four charges against the prisoner which were outlined by the prosecution, Mr Tennant. They were 1/ The prisoner did procure obscene photographs for the purpose of selling them. 2/ That he did lawfully and maliciously sell an indecent print to Arthur Whitehouse of West Hallam, near Derby. 3/ That he did preserve such indecent photographs, and did notify to the public that they were so preserved and kept. 4/ That he did sell, utter and publish divers lewd and obscene pictures to Inspector Horne.

Mr Tennant opened the case by stating that the publisher of the publication Day and Night had been subpoenaed and brought from London to give evidence. He was the next witness and he gave his name as Robert Ashton and told the court he carried on business from the Strand in London. He said that his was a weekly newspaper which carried advertisements. However when asked to produce some of the letters he had received authorising the advert from Rotherham, he claimed he had not had time to collect them before heading for Sheffield. He was severely reprimanded by the Chair for this neglect. However he told the court that he could identify the prisoner standing in the dock as the person who had inserted the advertisements. He said that he had been to his office to complain that some of his adverts had not appeared as ordered, and he gave his name as Smith and his address at Rotherham.

Evidence was then given by a new witness called Thomas Hunsworth of Newton-le-Willows. He stated that he too had bought some of the obscene photographs and postcards. Then it was time for Mr Blackburn the defence, to make a case for his client. He claimed that up to these proceedings, Benjamin Smith had led a most respectable life and that he intended to disprove the case against him. He claimed that there was only any real evidence on the third charge to put before the jury and therefore the rest of the allegations against him had not been proved to his complete satisfaction. The Chair summed up the case for the grand jury and told them that they must put behind them their natural repugnance to such activities in which the prisoner had been involved.

He told them that they must therefore be convinced that the prisoner was the person who had engaged in this ‘nasty and beastly business’ before they came to a verdict. The jury took just a short time to deliberate, before the foreman of the jury stated that they had found Benjamin Smith guilty. The Chair told the prisoner:

‘You have been found guilty of a very infamous and disgusting offence, which the law required should be severely punished There is no doubt that you have been engaged largely in the traffic, and there was no limit to the evil likely to be produced by it. The Court therefore feels it to be our bounden duty to pass a very severe sentence upon you.’

He stated that the whole bench were disgusted that such a trade could be carried on under the noses of the legal authorities, and that they were unanimous that the prisoner Benjamin Smith should serve a sentence of 18 months imprisonment with hard labour. One local newspaper gave his opinion that the sentence had not gone far enough. He stated that ‘it was almost a matter of regret that it was not in the power of the Court to inflict upon Smith the further punishment of the ‘cat o’ nine tails.’ The reporter claimed that such ‘a panderer to this filthy vice, ought to be made to feel that he pursues his vocation at great risk.’

It all started when a young man of 32 years decided to kill himself. His name was John Hodgkinson and he had lived at home with his mother, sister and four brothers in Parkhead, Sheffield. He had moved back to his mother’s house since leaving his post as coachman to a Mrs Shore of Meersbrook, around February 1835. It had come to his mistresses attention that he had been paying his attentions to her lady’s maid, a young woman called Ann Clarke. As Mrs Shore was reluctant to lose the services of her lady’s maid, John had been asked to leave. He was sorry to lose his position, but his mistress’s decision was implacable, as she would not allow any of her servants to have male ‘followers.’

However John was a personable young man and he soon got another job, working as a coachman for Mr William Bradley. He employed him to drive his stagecoach, the Royal Union which ran from Sheffield to York every day. John loved the job and was quite content until he had a shooting accident, where he injured his thumb shooting birds out of a window. The injury simply would not heal and what made it worse, it prevented him from controlling the stagecoach horses properly, so Mr Bradley had reluctantly to let John go. As a result he had now lost two positions and was out of work again which left him most depressed. His family could not help but notice as the depression gradually took hold, but what they did not know was that John had decided to do away with himself.

He also made up his mind that he intended to give his watch to his former love, the lady’s maid Ann Clarke, to remember him by. Consequently John wrote her a letter, enclosing it in a box with the watch wrapped in moss to protect the workings. In the letter he spoke about his intention to kill himself due to the fact that he was unable to work any more. John explained to Ann that he was taking this drastic step as he did not wish to be a burden on his family. He then asked his mother to deliver the parcel at the collection office in Sheffield, although he did not tell her of the contents. This tragic young man then left the family home at Parkhead the next day around 4 pm on Saturday 20 November 1835, and taking his gun with him, went to Ecclesall Wood where he shot himself.

Sadly his body was found by his brother Samuel the next morning, who had gone into the woods to relieve himself. He was aware that his brother had not been home the previous night, nevertheless he was horrified when he found the body. A constable was called and the Sheffield Coroner Mr Thomas Badger was informed of the death. Meanwhile the family had noticed that John’s watch was missing and a search had been made for it. When they could not find it, only then was the link between the missing watch and the parcel his mother had delivered were connected. An inquest was arranged on the body of John Hodgkinson to take place at the Wheatsheaf Inn at Parkhead the following Tuesday.

The first witness to give evidence was the sister to the deceased man Ann Hodgkinson, who told Mr Badger that the last time she had seen her brother was at home at Parkhead after dinner the previous Saturday. She said that he had been very despondent since injuring his thumb in the shooting accident, which had happened a few weeks before. The witness said that around 4 pm her mother had gone into Sheffield and after she had gone, she noticed that her brother who was reading a book, was very despondent and quiet. When Ann asked him what was the matter, John told her that his thumb was hurting and he was beginning to think that it would never get better.

The coroner asked her if she had thought that her brother seemed like his normal self? She told him that she knew that John had been in low spirits for some time which had concerned her, but not to the extent that she thought that he intended to do something about it. Curiously, Mr Badger then asked her if she knew anything about her brothers watch or a letter which had been sent by him, which she quickly denied. Then there was a most strange occurrence when another brother of the deceased man came into the inquest room to give his evidence. Samuel Hodgkinson’s behaviour was reported to be openly contemptuous towards the inquest and the coroner. When he was shown a copy of the statement he had previously made about his brothers death, he threw it from him saying ‘I know nought about it.’

Mr Badger carefully warned the witness ‘I will not tolerate such conduct, which shows a complete disrespect towards myself and the jury’ and warned him to conduct himself with more decorum. Samuel was then also asked about John’s watch and a missing letter that his brother had written, to which he replied again that he ‘knew nought about it.’ At that point Mr Badger called a constable and ordered the witness to be confined in another room ‘until he came to his senses.’ Then the mother of the deceased man appeared to give her evidence, and told the coroner that her name was Deborah Hodgkinson. She too had last seen her son the previous Saturday afternoon and although she had known for some time that John had been disturbed in his mind, he had simply blamed it on the accident to his thumb.

The witness said that she had suspected that there was more to his depression of spirits, but although she had tried to talk to John about it, he would not admit it. Deborah said that her son had complained for sometime of an ‘uneasiness in his mind’ but then she too made a most curious statement. When in turn, she was asked about the missing watch or letter, the woman told the inquest that ‘I am insane; my memory is bad and I am not fit to be asked such questions.’ The witness was then asked by Mr Badger if she was aware that her son had possessed a gun and Deborah admitted that she had known that. A gun was produced and shown to her, but she said that she could not confirm or deny that it was her son’s gun.

By now it was becoming obvious that Mr Badger was getting very irritated at the lack of co-operation from the victim’s family members and she too was abruptly dismissed. The coroner then ordered that Samuel Hodgkinson should now be brought back into the inquest room. It was reported that the witness had sent a message to the coroner to the effect that he was ready to answer any questions that might be put to him. Samuel seemed to be a little bit more in control of himself, but it was reported that ‘nevertheless he still exhibited the greatest indifference and apparent contempt of the jury’. In fact throughout the questioning, he kept cracking open some nuts which had been placed on the table in front of him. Finally the Coroner demanded that he desist.

Only then did the witness made the following statement:

‘I saw my brother on Friday night at home, about a quarter before eleven. I left him standing on the hearth and he seemed much as usual. Sometime he was solid and at other times full of jesting, but that night he never spoke at all. I left home at five on the Saturday morning and was at work before six at Mr Spencers in Pea Croft. I worked until four o’clock. I then went to meet my mother at the Ball in Campo Lane. My mother and me returned home about eight o’clock. I went into the wood on Sunday morning at eleven o’clock to ease myself, I did not expect to find my brother.

I found him about three hundred yards down the wood, by the gate side. He was laid on his back, his hat was by his side and his gun lay across his legs. The butt end was off him and the muzzle lay in a slanting direction upwards. This was about twelve o’clock. Samuel Smith the constable and others assisted me to remove the body to the Wheatsheaf Inn at Parkhead. The gun found by him, I know to be his. He has been lately depressed. I do not think any one would injure him. I never saw any letter he wrote, nor never heard of one.’

Another brother of the deceased man called Thomas Hodgkinson then gave his his evidence. However he added nothing to the enquiry, beyond simply stating that he had not noticed anything strange about John on the Friday and they had both slept together that night. The next witness was a gardener at the house of John Hodgkinson’s previous employer Mrs Shore and he gave his name as William Waters. He told Mr Badger that on Saturday 20 November 1835, he had been given information that a small parcel was waiting to be collected at Meersbrook post office. The parcel was addressed to Ann Clark, the lady’s maid at the house and he had been instructed to collect it. Accordingly William told the inquest that he had delivered the parcel to Miss Clark and she opened it in his presence.

Inside was a letter and a watch which she told him had come from John Hodgkinson. William then said that later that afternoon, he was back at work when he was told that John’s other brother Joseph Hodgkinson had arrived at his employers house. He had asked to see Ann Clarke, and Mrs Shore knowing that her former coachman had been found dead in distressing circumstances, gave her permission. Consequently Joseph Hodgkinson and Ann Clarke were allowed to have a private meeting. The witness then told the inquest the reason for the visit, and offered some clue as to the mystery which had surrounded the inquest, and the suspicious behaviour of some of the witnesses.

William Waters said that Joseph Hodgkinson was taking his leave of Ann Clarke, when he heard him say to her ‘I want my brother’s watch back.’ The witness said that he had told Mrs Shore about Joseph Hodgkinson’s request, but she would not let Miss Clarke hand over the watch and the letter to John’s brother. Instead she had asked William to take them to his family at their home. Then William Waters dropped a bombshell. He stated categorically that he had delivered the watch, the letter and the box it came in, to the deceased man’s sister Ann at the home she had shared with her mother and brothers. What’s more, he added that the whole family had been in the room at the time and were well aware of it. He also related how on the journey to the house, he had met with Joseph Hodgkinson and shown the parcel and the letter to him.

Mr Badger explained to the jury that Joseph was due to attend the inquest, but had sent a message saying that he had been delayed. Nevertheless the coroner was clearly annoyed as he ordered that the deceased man’s mother, sister and two brothers were to be brought back into the inquest room, Once more the witness repeated his claim that he had handed over the letter and the watch to the family, however they still persisted in not knowing anything about them. It was noted that even when confronted with William’s evidence, the family did not look at all abashed at being caught out in their lies. They simply stared at the witness, William Waters with perfect composure as he repeated his damning evidence. Mr Badger could barely hide his disgust as he ordered them all to be taken into custody, threatening them all with perjury. Accordingly they were removed from the inquest room.

The coroner was obviously losing patience as then told the jury that the only option to get to the crux of the matter was to interview the one witness who had not been able to attend the inquest. He was the fourth brother called William Hodgkinson, who had been bedridden through sickness. Mr Badger and the jury then made arrangements to travel to the home of the man they hoped would reveal this obnoxious family’s greed. At first William too denied having seen the letter, but when the coroner explained William Waters statement and the importance of speaking the truth, he readily admitted it. The sick man stated that on the Monday night the watch had been delivered by William Waters and after he had gone, the letter had been read out in the presence of all the family. They all agreed to say that they knew nothing about it, before William finally gave the reasons why.

William Hodgkinson said that the family were aware that the outcome of the inquest on his brother would lead to a verdict of felo de se. This was an archaic custom which applied to persons who took their own life. In the eyes of the law at that time, the crime was seen as one of ‘self murder.’ As punishment the deceased would be buried late at night, without any mourners in attendance or any prayers being said or hymns being sung. The crucial part however for this grasping family was that with such a verdict, all the dead man’s possessions would then be returned back to them. The sad part about this case was that the only wealth that John Hodgkinson had to give, was a few pounds in savings and the watch which he wanted his former love to have to remember him by!

William Hodgkinson said that he had been urged to lie by his family, because it was the only way to ‘get him [John] into the churchyard and secure his property.’ Mr Badger thanked William for his honesty, before he and the jury returned back to the inquest room at the Wheatsheaf Inn. Now it was time to deal with the grasping relatives. Mr Badger and a deputation of jurymen went to the room in which the four members of the Hodgkinson family, Deborah the mother, Ann his sister and two brothers had been confined in the custody of two constables. There they tried to convince them that they were aware that the watch had been handed over to them. However they all persisted in the lie that they had not seen it or knew anything about it. Finally when confronted with William Hodgkinson confession, Deborah exclaimed that her son was lying!

Finally the last brother Joseph Hodgkinson arrived at the inquest, after being delayed. Only when he was sworn in, was a light finally shone onto the whole mystifying matter. Joseph said that he was the elder brother to the deceased man, and that he had indeed met William Waters on the road from Banner Cross. He had shown him the letter and the parcel containing the watch, but the witness had asked Waters to deliver them to his mother as he would be away for some time. Then Joseph actually produced the missing letter from his pocket and it was given to Mr Badger before being shown to the jury. Joseph said that he had found the letter lying on the floor of his mother’s bedroom on the Sunday afternoon, after his brothers body had been discovered in the woods.

The letter, which John Hodgkinson had sent to Ann Clarke, was then returned back to the witness to read out. In a clear voice Joseph read out his brothers last words which were addressed to Ann Clarke, who he called ‘my dear friend.’ In the letter John had written:

‘I am sorry that I have not always fulfilled my promises but as you know, I have always promised that I would leave you my watch. I hope you will accept of it, as it is the last token of my respect for you. I know my poor mother will be very much distressed when she hears of my untimely end, and all my brothers and my sister too, even my poor brother William who is very ill. I am afraid that it will be more than he can bear, but I feel so unhappy that my life is quite a burden to me. I have not had one moment of happiness since I left Meersbrook, and I feel forsaken of all my friends. What is worst of all at the same time, is the loss of strength of my right hand. I should have liked once more to have seen you, before I had gone to return no more. So farewell for ever, my most dear friend. Poor unhappy John Hodgkinson is no more.’

Joseph Hodgkinson then condemned his grasping relatives even further when he stated that the family knew that as well as the watch, his deceased brother had a small amount of money in a Savings Bank account, which they hoped also to have handed over to them. Finally the surgeon Mr James Walker stood to give his evidence. He told the inquest that he had completed the post mortem on the deceased man and he listed all the wounds which the gun-shot to the chest had inflicted. He said that never in his whole experience had he seen such injuries, which in his judgement had led to the man’s instant death. From the injuries he had deduced that the barrel of the gun had been held closely to his chest, as the waistcoat and shirt showed signs of being singed and nearly burnt.

The surgeon concluded that in his opinion, the disease to the man’s thumb might have affected his mind enough to produce a temporary insanity, which led him to commit the act which had taken his life. Mr Badger began his summing up as he told the jury that there was no doubt that the dead man had killed himself, therefore the only question that the jury had to consider was as to the state of his mind at the time. He also asked them to consider whether some of the witnesses who had committed perjury should also be prosecuted. The jury deliberated for a while before returning back into the inquest room. They had little option but to return a verdict on John Hodgkinson of felo de se. However they asked that the relatives ‘whether acting from stupidity or ignorance in their desire for their relatives property’ should be severely reprimanded by the coroner.

Mrs Hodgkinson, her daughter Ann and her two sons Samuel and Thomas were then brought into the room and were duly castigated by Mr Badger. However it was reported that ‘the reprimand seemed to have little effect on them as they left the inquest room with anything but humility or contrition.’ Mr Badger then concluded the inquest. According to the rules of felo de se the body of John Hodgkinson was ordered to be interred between the hours of nine and twelve the same evening. The interment took place in the Ecclesall Church yard according to the custom.

There had been much condemnation at the time of this archaic burial ritual, which was despised by most of the population. After the death of John Hodgkinson, Sheffield newspaper editors criticised local juries and coroners for still bringing in felo de se as a verdict. The deceased man it seems, unlike the rest of his family, had previously held a good standing in the community and perhaps the conclusion of this case should be left in the description of an unnamed reporter from the Sheffield Iris. In his report dated 1 December 1835 he concluded:

‘The deceased was a well made and good looking man, indeed the whole family in that respect, were rather superior. When Hodgkinson was found in the wood, he had a small bundle by his side containing books. These were “Doddridges Rise and Progress of Religion in the Soul” and a tract entitled “Today” with two hymns “The Final Sentence and Misery of the Wicked” and “Now is the Accepted Time.”’

The fact that the deceased man had such elevated books with him as he chose to kill himself, illustrates how far removed John Hodgkinson had been from the rest of his most grasping family.