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.

On the evening of Friday 16 July 1869 some men were drinking at the Castle Inn at Conisborough. Two of them were called Mark Barker, aged 48 and Charles Staton aged 54. They were both sickle makers and had been bragging about the numbers of sickles they could make at any one time. At first the conversation was amicable enough, but soon it had turned into an argument as each tried to outdo the other with their boasting. Annoyed at something his compatriot had said, Staton arose and struck Barker twice in the face. Angrily the blows were returned and as a result they both fell on the ground together.

The landlord of the Castle Inn told them to take the fight outside and so the two men went outside into the Inn yard, before stripping off to their waists. Other men gathered round to watch as the two protagonists proceeded to punch at each other. They had been punching steadily for about ten minutes when Staton admitted defeat and wanted to stop the fight. Barker wouldn’t however and continued lashing out at the older man. Suddenly Staton fell heavily onto the ground and did not get up. His friends rushed towards the prone body, but they found he was already unconscious. Efforts were made to try to revive him and he was carried into one of the Castle Inn bedrooms, but it was all in vain. Within a matter of minutes of lying him on the bed Charles Staton was dead.

The local police officer, Constable Ashton of Conisbrough was called to the scene, and after hearing from some of the assembled men he told Mark Barker that he was taking him into custody.

On the journey into Rotherham, Barker asked PC Ashton what he was going to charge him with. That officer replied that he was going to be charged with being concerned in the death of Charles Staton. The Rotherham Coroner, Edward Nicholson Esq., was notified of the man’s death and an inquest was arranged for the following evening, Saturday 17 July. The prisoner was present in the custody of two constables at the inquest, which was watched on his behalf by solicitor Mr C E Palmer of Doncaster.

The first witness was a man who had been present at the Inn when the altercation took place. He was called Joseph Lewis who also worked in the sickle industry as a grinder. He told the inquest that he had known both men for the past ten or eleven years and that he had identified the body of the deceased man. Lewis said that he had been sitting outside the door of the tap room, when he heard the two men arguing inside. The witness stated that both men had been drinking for most of the evening and that as a result, neither of them were particularly sober. He had gone into the tap room to try to prevent the row escalating, just in time to see Staton grab Barker around the throat.

He then struck him twice on the face and body in quick succession. Lewis said that both men fell to the ground and that was when the landlord told the men to ‘take it outside.’ It didn’t take long for a group of men to gather in a circle in the yard, as they watched the two men start to fight. After just a few moments, the witness said that he heard Barker admit defeat as he said ‘Give over Charles, I am done’ but his elderly opponent refused to give in. He told him ‘I can beat thee’ as he punched him once again. However, soon after that, it was Staton who fell to the floor and did not get up again.

Lewis said that a man who he did not know had unsuccessfully tried to revive the injured man. He told the crowd that Staton was in a bad way and he thought that he was dying. The witness said that the landlady told the men to carry him into one of the bedrooms at the Castle Inn, and he had helped to carry the now dying man. The solicitor Mr C Palmer asked Lewis if the two men had been friendly towards each other previous to this altercation. The witness replied that that he had not known them argue before, although there had been some friendly rivalry as they both worked at the same trade. Another witness to the fight was a man called George Heywood who also corroborated Lewis’s evidence.

Then it was the turn of the surgeon Mr R Hills to give evidence of undertaking the post mortem on the deceased man’s body earlier that same morning. He said that externally there were few marks on Charles Staton’s body, head or face. In fact the only bruise had been on his right elbow. However internally he had found a considerable effusion of blood between the scalp and the skull. When the coroner asked him what this meant, the surgeon told him that in his experience, such an effusion of blood usually happened as as a direct result of violence. However he clarified that it might have been the result of a heavy fall to the ground or a kick from an opponent.

His account of the findings of the post mortem was corroborated by another surgeon Dr Maclagen of Mexborough, who had also been present at the post mortem. After hearing from all the witnesses, the jury conversed together for just a short while before the foreman, Mr T H Simpson gave the verdict of manslaughter against Mark Barker. On Tuesday 20 July 1869 the prisoner was taken before the West Riding Magistrates Court at Doncaster. Once again the same witnesses gave their evidence, although the surgeon, Mr Hills now stated categorically that in his opinion the man’s death was probably caused by a fall. Police Constable Ashton gave evidence of the arrest of the prisoner in the yard of the Castle Inn at Conisbrough.

As a result, the magistrate, Captain Bower committed Mark Barker to take his trial at the next Assizes. His solicitor, Mr Palmer asked for bail which was allowed, with the prisoner giving one personal surety of £50 and two others of £25 each. Naturally the case had caused a large sensation in Rotherham, as the character of the two men were openly discussed. Newspapers reported that Mark Barker was known to be a very passionate man, who got excited very easily. It was therefore suggested that because of the argument, he might have been in such a state of passion when he attacked Charles Staton, that he did not quite know what he was doing.

Mark Barker was due to appear before judge Mr Baron Cleasby at the Leeds Assizes on Thursday 5 August 1869. Before the trial started however, it was the custom for the judge to go over the cases which were due to be heard with the members of the Grand Jury. Mr Baron Cleasby told them that at those particular Assizes there were five cases of manslaughter from the Yorkshire area. He particularly referred to the case of Mark Barker who had been charged with the death of Charles Staton.

He told the Grand Jury:

‘This was one of those deplorable cases in which men, not criminal in other respects, by going to places where drink was sold, got embroiled in quarrels. As a result, this case ended in a charge of manslaughter. It seems that, according to the evidence, the prisoner was compelled by the other man to fight over and over again. The only question was whether the man died from a fall or from a blow delivered by the prisoner. In other words, did death result from the direct act of the prisoner.’

His words seemed to have some effect as after discussing the other cases, the Grand Jury threw out the case against Mark Barker. As a result of this he was discharged and set free. There is little doubt that he would have been vastly relieved as he returned back to Conisbrough, a much wiser man.

Madame Enault was an Italian woman who had been touring all the major towns and cities across Britain in 1880. For just a few weeks she would reside in those towns holding surgeries, pulling out teeth and selling her wonderful medicines. Dressed to kill in robes of scarlet velvet and gold braid she caused quite a stir, as she took the reins and drove three black horses pulling a gilt caravan. On Monday 19 July 1880 she came to operate at the drill ground on Matilda Street, Sheffield and by the following week had attracted quite a following. It was reported that as Madame Enault drove along Cemetery Road towards Sheffield Moor, the streets were lined with people. She waved to the crowd who applauded as she drew near. Men took off their hats and waved them and women waved their handkerchiefs and cheered as she passed, bowing right and left like a visiting dignitary.

Accompanied by a troop of seven or eight band members in gaudy uniforms, she drove into the drill ground and facing the huge crowds of people she spoke to them in a foreign tongue. Her words were translated by a young man who was fashionably attired in a light suit and a white straw hat. Madame Enault confidentially told the crowd her daily routine started when she rose at 5 am before going through her vast correspondence from all parts of Europe. Then she held private consultations until she felt hungry and had to dine. After dinner, a few more consultations would be held, before going to her dressing room to change into one of her more exotic costumes, before driving to the drill ground. Madame freely admitted that by the time she returned back to the Union Hotel, she was so exhausted that she could barely get out of her carriage.

Local people could hardly believe their eyes, and as a result they flocked in their thousands to see this spectacle. It was estimated that in one day between ten and fifteen thousand people, many of them lame and some blind, were attracted by the cures which Madame was said to have effected. Once established, she would painlessly extract teeth to the sounds of a brass band (whose music was said to be painful to the ear) before selling bottles of her wonderful China Caustic or Indian Balm. Her morning schedule also attracted crowds as she held ‘surgeries’ in a room at the Union Hotel, Sheffield where, it was claimed, there were as many as 16 people waiting daily. At first local newspapers avidly reported Madame Enault’s miraculous cures.

One described a paralysed man who, after having been carried into her caravan, instantly threw away his crutches. He claimed that after only a brief trial of her wonderful remedies, he had been cured of all his previous afflictions. Those who were experiencing troublesome teeth were then encouraged to step forward before their molars were removed to the accompaniment of the terrible music of the brass band. It was suggested that perhaps the awful music covered the cries of pain from many of her customers. Nevertheless, using her powerful wrists, this delicate lady would extract teeth from children and grown men with such a speed and ease that was difficult to comprehend. The speed with which she managed these extractions made her boast that she would give £50 to any Sheffield dentist who could do the same. Then came the party piece of this glamorous operator.

She introduced a woman from the crowd from whom she claimed she had removed a tumour the previous day. Madame pointed out the back of the woman’s head from where the tumour had been removed. She told the mass of people in front of her that she had firstly applied some China Caustic. This, she stated would dissolve the base of the tumour in ten minutes or so, before she twisted the affected part off with her bare hands. She then revealed the extracted ‘tumour’ before throwing it up in the air and catching it again. This performance was greet by the mob with ‘unmeasured delight and excitement’. People in the crowd described her as ‘an angel from heaven’ whilst others saw her as ‘the very devil incarnate.’ This display was followed by the sale of the famous China Caustic and Indian Balm which were sold for just 2s a bottle. Madame sat before a huge chest, from which she dispensed such medicines to the crowd. Only after she had sold enough, would she then depart in her gilt carriage.

Despite this exciting start, it was not long before local newspapers began to demolish Madame Enault’s singular career. It was later reported that just the previous summer she had appeared at Warrington in Cheshire, telling local people that she intended to build a house and reside permanently among them. She actually lasted three weeks, before some of her customers demanded their money back and she suddenly disappeared. Then the Madame Enault roadshow appeared in St Helens where again she did a roaring trade. However it was soon revealed that a young woman who had paid 35s to have seven teeth drawn, found that six of them broke in the operation. Since that time the poor woman had been left so ill that she was still under medical treatment.

Another man had consulted Madame and she told him that he was suffering from a large hole in one of his lungs, and unless he followed her strict instructions to the letter, he would die. He paid her a guinea [£1.1s] for each consultation, and took a great deal of the medicine she had sold him, but there was no improvement. The man was so frightened that he was finally driven to consult a medical man who told him that his lungs were perfectly sound, before he finally admitted that he had been duped. He too joined the queue of local people wanting their money back, before Madame Enault packed up her gaudy caravan and left St Helens.

After hearing such stories circulating in the press about her sharp practice, one intrepid reporter decided to buy a bottle of China Caustic and had it analysed from a local chemist. He found the substance consisted of a few essential oils, such as could be bought at any local pharmacy at 6d a bottle. It was also rumoured that the woman who had appeared to be ‘cured’ of the tumour, was in fact, a member of Madame’s Enault’s own permanent entourage. Despite the fact that these stories were widespread in Sheffield, the following day even more crowds assembled at the old drill ground. It was estimated that there were said to be tens of thousands of people all wanting a cure of some kind or another. Some of them had travelled for miles in the hope of being cured by Madame Enault.

A man from the Sheffield Independent dated Monday 26 July 1880 reported the scene. It was noted that it was approaching 3.30 pm the previous day as Madame arrived at the drill ground in her gaudy caravan and horses, to the strains of the brass band which announced her approach. The reporter described how avisible thrill of excitement went through the assembled crowd, as all eyes turned towards the entrance to the grounds. One of the supplicants was a physically handicapped young boy who had been brought to the grounds in a basket carriage by his brother. They had waited patiently since 2 pm having heard of the fame of this great healer. The two boys had spoken to people crowded around them and they had encouraged the brothers, describing the magical attributes of Madame Enault.

In another cart sat a frail and elderly man and his wife who were both suffering from sciatica. Almost instantly another cart drew up alongside the elderly couple containing a man called Wood who lived on Greaves Street, Sheffield. He was paralysed and like thousands of the others that day, was hoping to be cured. Also in attendance was a man propped up on pillows. He had been bed-ridden for years and his friends hearing about the Madame had brought him to the drill ground in the hope that she would cure him. Another in the crowd was a mother carrying her child who had some kind of spinal affliction. They had come from Barnsley the previous day, but unable to get anywhere near to the woman, had been forced to stay overnight in Sheffield. They had come early in the hope to get a place at the front of the crowd.

As the gaudy caravan approached the drill grounds, the crowd applauded vigorously and pressed in towards her as she threw the reins towards one of her attendants. Once again she made a lengthy oration which her interpreter translated into the most execrable English. However on this occasion it seemed that Madame Enault was rather annoyed. She had read the recent article in the local newspaper where a reporter had the temerity to have some of her wonderful products analysed, and she requested the same reporter to step into her caravan where she would let him watch her as she worked. She offered to anyone to allow them to smash her carriage into a thousand pieces if they could prove any collusion between herself and any of the patients she claimed she had cured of tumours.

Having vent her spleen on the crowd, then once again she performed the operation of pulling teeth with much dexterity, to great applause from the crowd. However the reporter stated that those people in the carts were heard to say loudly that those healthy people who were crowded around Madame, should move aside to allow the afflicted ones to get near to her and be cured. When friends of the paralysed boy tried to push the cart towards her, the interpreter frantically shouted at them to desist. When told that the boy just wanted a cure, he was told to go to the Union Hotel on Monday, as Madame’s attendants instructed them to ‘take him away, take him away’.

After this heartless display, there was much anger expressed to wards Madame Enault as words such as ‘charlatan’ and ‘trickster’ were heard in the crowd. However, even the reporter was forced to admit that these condemnations were in the minority, as most of the great mass of people continued to listen to her own estimation of her wonderful abilities. At that point the interpreter announced that there would now be a sale of the miraculous products which had been used to cure people. Madame again seated herself beside a large chest containing bottles and on each side of her were attendants. The band struck up its liveliest tune and the business of selling began.

As fast as she handed the bottles out, they were snatched from her hands. Money changed hands so fast, that it was estimated that within a minute she had taken something in the region of £50 – £60. The rush had been so great that many people just could not get near enough to be served. Then, when she had exhausted her stock, the great show woman drew more teeth and removed another tumour. An old man, leaning on two sticks told her he had been dependent on using those sticks for 18 years and he begged her for help. She rubbed his aged limbs with her special lotion and then took his sticks and ordered him to ‘walk away’. The man did as he was told and looked delighted at the miracle she had just performed.

Madame asked him if he was cured, to which he answered ‘completely’ before she asked him how much she had charged him, to which he answered ‘nothing’. Looking at the crowd Madame Enault told them ‘this is what I do and still my enemies malign me.’ Then the band struck a lively tune as the old man executed a jib to the amusement of the crowd. The Sheffield Independent reporter concluded with the statement:

‘For more than half an hour Madame was fully engaged in taking the money, before she gathered up the reins and drove off the grounds; leaving as she had done on each previous occasions, all the poor paralytics and cripples and other similar cases, without so much as a look of recognition. It was distressing to observe their disappointed looks, as when the crowd had thinned, they were led off the grounds.’

However, it didn’t take long before the people of Sheffield were finally coming to their senses. On her next visit it was noted that there were less crowds than had been seen previously. The limited numbers at the drill ground had also been noticed by Madame who appeared to be exceedingly angry at the small turn out. On her journey to the drill grounds, she could not help but notice that less people had also turned out to watch her driving the three horses along Cemetery Road. Newspaper’s surmised that it was possible the people of Sheffield were finally beginning to see that there had been few real miracles. They suggested that Madame was more interested in selling her quack medicines, pulling teeth and extracting tumours than dealing with the more difficult cases which had come to see her.

Nevertheless it was reluctantly reported that her morning surgeries at the Union Hotel were still attracting much attention:

‘There the blind, the deaf and the lame were still crowding into all the reception rooms and in all the approaches to the hotel, still hoping to be seen and cured by Madame Enault.’

It seems that every morning at 10 am, a daily ritual was enacted when 15 free tickets were thrown into the crowd. There was a disorganised scramble for tickets and it was with disgust that one man managed to grab five, which he then proceeded to sell for 2s 6d each. A great many people hung wistfully about in the pouring rain, hoping that the miracle worker would relent and see them, but their hopes were dashed. On 31 July 1880 the Sheffield Independent devoted four full columns of Madame Enault’s deceptions. The report stated that prior to her visit to St Helens she had been in Warrington, before leaving in a great hurry, to the bewilderment of many people who had been told to return for further treatment.

At St Helens there was the same performance as had been seen at Sheffield, with the gorgeous carriage and gaping crowds. Now, it was reported:

‘The only people who followed her from Warrington were those bewildered persons who had been promised a cure in 15 days. They now found that the only thing they had been relieved of was their money.’

As more and more St Helens people demanded their money back, it was revealed that a solicitor had been instructed to commence proceeding to recover fee’s paid to her. Having been ordered to repay 30s and costs within a couple of days, Madame Enault simply decamped from St Helens and proceeded to Wigan. However the Corporation of Wigan refused to allow her to hire any portion of their market or fair ground, and she was forced to proceed to Birkenhead. As more and more stories of her deception continued to circulate in local newspapers, her reputation in Sheffield finally began to suffer. In the same newspaper the report of Mr Alfred Allen, the Public Analyst for West Yorkshire was printed on the analysis of the China Caustic and Indian Balm. The report read:

‘Gentlemen,

From the results of my examination I believe the China Caustic is a mixture of wax, oil, Vaseline and some variety of turpentine. I am unable to find any other constituent other than those mentioned above. The greenish liquid sold as Indian Balm consists essentially of glycerine and spirits of wine, scented with oils of peppermint cassia. The green colour is not due to copper as had been reported. However the quantity of liquid is too small to enable me to give a decided opinion as to the nature of the colouring matter. However I believe it to be one of the ordinary coal-tar dyes.

I am, gentlemen, yours faithfully,

ALFRED H. ALLEN’.

Suddenly a notice was inserted on the door of the Union Hotel stating that the Madame would see none of her patients that morning, however she was intending to be at the drill ground as usual later in the day. Sure enough she arrived and commenced with the charade of curing people, but nevertheless the damage had been done. The following Monday the crowds were disappointed when the carriage drew up as before in the centre of the ground driven by one of her ‘attendants’. He introduced himself as Dr Paul Deflot, the husband of the great Madame who said that he had studied under his wife, as he commenced to perform dental operations in her stead. He was closely questioned as to where his wife was and what had become of her. The interpreter stepped forward and explained that Madame had been forced to rest after her many exertions.

Despite the condemnation of the analysts results, the sale of China Caustic and Indian Balm seemed to be as popular as ever, and quite a few hours were spent by the supposed doctor in selling this elixir. Before he left, the interpreter stated that Madame would appear at the Sheaf House Gardens to commence her operations the next day. However followers were disappointed when the same gentleman appeared in her stead, and commenced his performance. The following day it was announced that Madame Enault had left Sheffield as silently and as mysteriously as she had arrived.

Despite this, several people still hoping for cures arrived at the Union Hotel throughout the day, wanting personal confirmation that their saviour had really gone. It was finally reported that there were many tears shed when they were finally told the truth.

Clifton Park had been opened to the people of Rotherham on 29 June 1891 by the then Prince of Wales, although the house and park had been in existence since 1783. It was part of the estate attached to Clifton House and its beautiful grounds were, and still are, a pleasure to behold. The park is central to the town and because of that is visited regularly by local people and tourists alike. It is a place where families gather, and so no one took much notice when a young mother entered with her three children on Tuesday 16 May 1916. Only one man noted her distress and decided to follow them.

Arthur Marsden lived in Whybourne Grove, Rotherham and he was walking in Clifton park near to the lake, when he was passed by the woman. She was carrying her young baby and had two other small children holding onto her skirts. Something about her gave him cause for concern and all he could say about it later was that ‘she looked troubled’. At that stage he was not to know that the baby she carried was called John who was just three months old, and the other two children were Edith aged five and Margaret aged three. Nevertheless he was concerned enough to watch as the young mother sat down at the side of the lake.

Marsden decided to sit down opposite and just watch the troubled woman for a while. He could not help but notice that she still appeared to be in some distress as she contemplated the lake. To his horror Marsden saw her suddenly leap up and catch hold of the two eldest children, throwing them bodily into the lake. She then took the small baby and jumped in the water, still holding him in her arms. Without hesitation, Marsden took off his jacket and jumped into the place where he had last seen the mother and child disappear under the water. Thankfully he quickly found them both a short distance from the edge of the lake, and managed to pull them clear.

He then jumped in again and found the two older children who were about further out from the edge and he carefully brought them also safely onto dry land. At this point a police officer named Sergeant Wilson, who had been taking a short cut through the park, also arrived on the scene. He could see that the family was now completely exhausted by their efforts, and the mother was in a semi conscious state. The baby had also been semi conscious when he was pulled from the water, so the sergeant wrapped all the children in his police overcoat, before taking them to a nearby shelter in the park.

Then he sent for medical help in the form of Dr Anderson. Whilst waiting for help to arrive, the mother seemed to come around and so the sergeant tried to question her, but to no avail. Shortly afterwards the police ambulance arrived to take the little family to the Rotherham workhouse infirmary where they were put to bed and cared for by the workhouse Matron. Dr Anderson told the sergeant that thanks to the swift intervention of Arthur Marsden, there were no serious concerns for the health of the family. However, if he had not been suspicious and taken immediate action, all the family would most certainly have perished.

It emerged that the mother’s name was Edith Thornton aged 36, and she was the wife of a soldier, John Thornton (who she called Jack) who had enlisted recently in the Royal Engineers. Left on her own, she had struggled to take care of the two children with a baby on the way. Even after she had given birth to little John in February, Edith felt unable to continue with the struggles of her daily life as she became more and more depressed. As she was being taken to the workhouse infirmary, Edith told Sergeant Wilson that she had written a letter to her husband, which she had left on the table at her home in Selborne Street.

After some consultation with the Chief Constable Mr. E. Weatherhogg, constables were dispatched to the house to gain admittance and to retrieve the letter. However the letter revealed little about the young mother’s real feelings. She wrote:

‘Dear Jack. Forgive me, but I feel I have not got the strength to battle with the children. You will find us in the lake. I have been up all night badly myself and all the children.’

At 10 am on Wednesday 17 May 1916, Edith was brought before the magistrates at the Rotherham Borough Court, charged with the attempted murder of her three children. She was also charged with attempted suicide, which at that time was seen as a crime. Throughout the hearing, the poor woman held a handkerchief to her face, sobbing as if her heart would break. Mr Weatherhogg, the Chief Constable outlined the case for the court, but stated that police enquiries were still continuing and asked for a remand for the prisoner for a week, which was agreed.

Despite the assurance of Dr Anderson, on Monday 22 May at the workhouse, Edith was informed that the baby, John had died earlier that morning. The Coroner, Mr W J Bradford had been informed, and he ordered that a post mortem was to be held on the child’s body later that same day. The inquest on little John Thornton was held at the Court House on the following day. Fortunately Private John Thornton had been sent home on compassionate leave, and thankfully he was with Edith throughout her ordeal. It was reported that during the enquiry, she simply rested her head on her husbands shoulders.

Private Thornton told the coroner that he had identified the body of his son who had been ‘chesty’ from birth. This had presented difficulties for his wife to have to deal with, as it was hard for the baby to settle. Dr Anderson was the next witness and he told the inquest that the other two children, were continuing to recover from their ordeal. The surgeon then gave details of the post mortem where he found bronchitis and a small patch of pneumonia on the child’s lungs. Mr Bradford asked him if that had contributed to his death, to which he admitted that it might have. Therefore the jury took little time in recording a verdict that death was ‘due to natural causes.’ The coroner ordered that Edith Thornton was to be remanded and during that time was sent to Leeds Gaol Hospital at Armley where she would be able to have more specialised help.

When the inquest re-convened the following week, the first witness was Edith’s mother, Mrs Caroline Simpson. She told the court that she had identified the body of her grandchild. She said that she had removed him from the workhouse on 18 May and had taken care of him up to the day he died. She told the court that her daughter had been ill ever since the birth, and had become very silent and despondent in her manner. Arthur Marsden was the next witness and he described passing the woman and noting that she looked so ill and down. He then described the rescue, for which he was praised by the coroner Mr Bradford who told him;

‘I should like to take this opportunity in commending you for your bravery and the presence of mind which you displayed in going into the water and rescuing the woman and her children from what, without the slightest doubt would have been their death. You must have the satisfaction of knowing that you have been the means of saving the lives of this mother and her children’.

Thankfully a solicitor Mr. Gichard had been engaged to watch the inquest for Edith and he asked the witness if he was prepared to say that the prisoner had jumped or had fallen into the lake. Marsden told the inquest that he was not prepared to swear that, so Mr Gichard then asked another question. He asked him ‘would you say that her actions in throwing the children into the lake were deliberate or impulsive’ but once again Marsden replied that he was not prepared to state either way. Dr Lodge, who was the family doctor was the next witness. He said that he had visited Edith at the workhouse after the ordeal, but at the time she had still been in a coma.

Although his patient had since recovered, he confirmed the fact that she had been ill ever since the birth of baby John. He said that he had prescribed medication for her health for the last four or five months. The jury considered for just a few moments before returning a verdict that Emily Thornton was guilty. The coroner then announced that the prisoner would be sent for trial to the Leeds Assizes. Her solicitor asked for bail, but the coroner thought that she would continue to be cared for better at Leeds Gaol ‘where she would have every care and attention’.

Mr. Gichard then asked for a certificate under the Poor Persons Defence Act stating that the prisoner’s husband, Private Thornton, was now back serving with the colours and therefore it would be difficult for him to make arrangements for his wife’s defence. The certificate was granted. The trial of Edith Thornton was held at the Leeds Assizes in July 1916. A reporter stated that the prisoner appeared to feel her position keenly, and she was obviously under a lot of stress. Thankfully once again the prisoner had her husband and her mother in the Court room to support her during her terrible ordeal. When asked how she pleaded Edith told the judge that she pleaded guilty.

One of the staff at Leeds Gaol, a Doctor Exley had the opportunity to observe her during her stay and he felt that she remained in a condition of being suicidal and depressed. It was his recommendation that she was never to be left on her own and that consequently a constant watch had been made on her during her stay at Leeds. The Judge after listening to the medical officer’s advice said that to send her back to her life in Rotherham with the two children would be inadvisable right now. He felt that she had suffered enough following the death of their youngest child, but nevertheless justice had to be done.

In sentencing her to just two months imprisonment, he felt that in prison she would hopefully receive the psychiatric help she so clearly needed. However there was little chance that Edith Thornton would have the kind of specialised help she would be offered today. I have often wondered what happened to her after finishing her term of imprisonment. Did she return back to Rotherham and take care of her two remaining children supported by her husband and her mother? I would like to think she did.

At some time around 1845 a Sheffield girl called Ann Laycock was being courted by a young man called Joseph Wadsworth. They had been going out together for some years when Ann got pregnant. Wadsworth swore that he would marry her and take care of her and the child, and at first all seemed well. Ann lived with her father at Charlton Brook, Ecclesfield, Sheffield and he was furious with her when she told him she was expecting Wadsworth’s child. Mr Laycock didn’t like him, and he thought that his daughter could do much better than to get involved with a man like him. Consequently he urged her to take Wadsworth before the magistrates in order to get a maintenance order against him.

Reluctantly Ann did as her father asked, and the magistrates ordered him to pay a sum of money each week for the little girl who was born soon after. With such opposition from her father, it was not long before the relationship between the two former lovers broke down. Consequently it was some time later when Wadsworth abandoned his promise to her and married another woman. Ann was left heartbroken and she became more and more depressed. After some months she appeared to recover and assured her father that she was over her romance with Wadsworth. Nevertheless he could see that it still played on her mind and he often found her quiet and withdrawn.

As time went by, these periods became more frequent and her father’s concern grew as Ann’s moods became much more violent and unpredictable. At some point towards the beginning of February 1850, she became so violent that Mr Laycock was forced to call in a medical man. The only advice the surgeon could offer was to have his daughter closely watched all the time. He strongly felt that it would be very unsafe to leave the girl on her own. Mr Laycock was devoted to his daughter, so he took some time off work in order to stay with Ann and tried to cheer her up. He patiently soothed her when her moods appeared to be down, and comforted her as much as he could.

Gradually Ann improved to the point where, around the last week in February, Mr Laycock felt able to leave her and go back to to work. He had that arranged that Ann and her little daughter would stay for a few days with her uncle, a man called John Smith who lived at Potters Hill, Ecclesfield. Ann assured her father that she would be fine and that she and the baby would enjoy the break, so Mr Laycock went back to work. Her brother also worked for Mr Smith in a workshop at the back of his house, so he knew that he would also be able to keep an eye on his sister. What neither men had anticipated however, was that Joseph Wadsworth and his now pregnant wife Jane, had taken over a shop nearby to their uncles house at Potters Hill.

At first Ann appeared to have fully recovered from her obsession, so her uncle never realised just how ill she still was. He had no idea that she was planning to extract revenge on the woman that she saw as having replaced her in Wadsworth’s affections. Consequently on Wednesday 27 February 1850 at some time around 10 am, Ann told her uncle that she fancied some oranges and went off with her little daughter to the shop run by Wadsworth’s wife. Entering, Ann was smiling as she asked Jane for some oranges. The woman leaned into the window of the shop to get some out, and taking her opportunity Ann struck out at her with a sharp razor she had hidden in the pocket of her dress.

Quick as a flash, she stepped behind the heavily pregnant woman and slashed her across the throat, inflicting a most serious cut. In order to save herself and the baby she was carrying, Jane made a grab for the razor and the two women scuffled together. At this point Jane was screaming at the top of her voice for help, realising how frenzied the girl was in her mad attack. As she screamed, Ann threw the injured woman onto the floor and leapt upon her determined to slash again at the pregnant woman’s throat. Still trying to get the razor away from the madwomen, Jane tried to grab the blade in her left hand. Finally she succeeded, and managing to hold onto the razor until neighbours came to her rescue.

Together they pulled Ann off the stricken woman on the floor, but her anger was so frenzied that it now took several men to hold onto her until the local constable, a man called Shaw arrived and took her into custody. Neighbours put clean handkerchiefs, towels and other cloths onto Jane’s cuts, in order to stem the blood pouring from her wounds. A surgeon. Mr Turton was hastily called and he found that the pregnant woman had received some very serious wounds to her throat. He examined her injuries, which he found to be most serious. In the frenzied attack one of the gashes across her throat was almost six inches in length, which had severed a large blood vessel. Jane’s hands had also been badly cut as she fought off her attacker.

The ends of two fingers and a thumb on one hand had been almost completely sliced off, as had four of the fingers on her left hand. These the surgeon saw with horror had been almost cut down to the bone. Most of these wounds had been caused as she had grabbed at the blade whilst trying to save herself. Due to the trauma the young girl had suffered, the following morning Jane Wadsworth was prematurely delivered of a child. Thankfully the baby miraculously survived the horrific attack made on its mother. Meanwhile Ann Laycock had been taken to the Town Hall where she was locked in a cell with a female wardress in constant attendance. The Chief Constable, Mr Raynor had quickly realised that the poor girl was quite demented.

He had no facilities for persons of unstable, mental health, and so he applied for a medical certificate to have Ann removed to, what in those days was called the Lunatic Ward of the Sheffield Workhouse. There she was locked away in a padded cell for her own protection. Later newspaper reports claimed that even being locked up had not eased the woman’s frenzy. It was stated that even in this state of absolute mania, she had made several frantic attempts to commit suicide. As a result of this, the master of the workhouse had been forced to keep her under constant watch by members of his own nursing staff.

On 23 March 1850 the Sheffield and Rotherham Independent reported that several statements had been taken from the workhouse medical staff to prove that the girl needed more specialised help than the workhouse was able to offer. These statements were forwarded to the Home Office in order to support an application to have Ann Laycock removed from the workhouse and taken to the Wakefield Asylum. There it was hoped that the poor woman could be taken care of by professionals. The first statement was from the victim herself, Jane Wadsworth who stated that she had been married for about 15 months. Prior to that she had been acquainted with her husband for two years before they married.

Jane stated that she knew Ann Laycock by sight, and also knew that she had an illegitimate child by her husband. However she claimed that she had never spoken to the woman until the date of the attack on 27 February and had not had any dealings with her prior to that date. Jane described how she had been alone working upstairs in the house above the shop, whilst her husband was at his work. Suddenly she heard someone knock at the shop door and came downstairs to find Ann Laycock and the little girl, who she introduced as her daughter. Jane knew quite well who the woman was, and so she smiled and tried to appear friendly. In the statement she described how the woman asked for some oranges, before attacking her for no reason with the razor. Jane said that the prisoner had said nothing to her, apart from asking for the oranges.

However during the attack she had screamed incomprehensibly at her in complete fury, whilst the two women struggled. A statement made by the prisoners brother, James Laycock was also included in the application, which said that he had heard that Jane had not been in good health. He explained that he had a workshop which was situated at the bottom of his uncle’s yard. Laycock’s statement revealed that on the morning of the attack, he had met his sister outside his uncle’s workshop, and had noted her frenzied agitation. He asked her what was the matter, but she didn’t answer. Laycock said that it was around 10.30 am and that his little niece, Ann’s daughter was with her mother, and so he was quite concerned for her. He had asked her where she was going and she told him she fancied some oranges.

His statement described how he had watched them enter the shop, before returning back to work. Laycock stated that about 3 or 4 minutes later, he heard screaming and ran back to see his sister fighting with a woman in the shop. The two women were both now on the ground and Jane was bleeding heavily from the slash in her neck. Seeing that the woman was heavily pregnant, Laycock dashed across and pulled his sister off her. Other witnesses made similar statements including Jane’s husband and Joseph and Ann’s uncle, John Smith. He said that having been shown the razor with which Ann had made the attack, he had identified it as being his own. Police Constable Thomas Shaw’s statement reported how he had apprehended the prisoner, and taken her into Sheffield.

The officer said that when he arrived he could see that the front of the prisoners gown was soaked with the blood of her victim. During the journey to the Town Hall the woman had rambled furiously to herself and PC Shaw had been forced to put on handcuffs on her to prevent her from hurting herself. The surgeon Mr Foster’s account said that he had attended to Jane Wadsworth and described the defence wounds which had been made to her hands, as she had valiantly tried to fend off her attacker. He then statedthat despite the victim’s terrible wounds, she had safely given birth to a child the following day. Thankfully he added that the child had survived the trauma and was alive and well and expected to thrive.

He concluded that he was still attending to Mrs Wadsworth, as she had not sufficiently recovered from both the birth of her child or the terrible ordeal which had prematurely led to its birth. As a result of these statements, the Secretary of State ordered that Ann Laycock would be removed to the Wakefield Asylum and to be kept confined there. Consequently on Monday 15 July 1850, under a writ of Habeas Corpus the prisoner was finally removed to York Castle to await her trial. Ann Laycock was brought before the judge Mr Justice Cresswell at the Yorkshire Summer Assizes on Tuesday 16 July 1850. She was charged with ‘cutting, stabbing and wounding Jane Wadsworth at Ecclesfield on 27 February 1850 with intent to murder her.’ However it was clear that the poor girl was not in a fit state to be tried.

When asked whether she pleaded guilty or not guilty, Ann simply replied ‘its right.’ The judge asked the matron of York Castle who accompanied the prisoner, if the prisoner understood what she was being tried for. However the matron simply shook her head. She added that she had only received the prisoner the night before, and had little time to observe her. Mr Justice Cresswell then asked if the prison surgeon, Mr W Anderson had been able to assess the prisoner, but again the matron said that he had not had time. However she maintained that during that time the prisoner had been under her watch, on occasions she had spoken quite rationally to her. The judge then ordered that the prisoner be removed and that Mr Anderson was to interview her in order to establish whether or not she was fit to plead.

The matron escorted Ann out of the dock and Mr Justice Cresswell proceeded with the next case. However Mr Anderson’s assessment of Ann Laycock’s sanity was not to be an ‘in depth’ analysis. Later the same day Ann was brought back before the Assizes and the indictment against her was read out once again. When the prisoner was asked whether she pleaded guilty or not guilty, she replied quite lucidly ‘No, I did not intend to murder her.’ The judge took this as a plea of ‘not guilty.’ The surgeon Mr Anderson was asked by Mr Justice Cresswell as to whether she was fit to stand trial. Thankfully the surgeon replied that in his opinion the prisoner was clearly insane.

However even though the surgeon had given his advice, a strict protocol had to be followed. Therefore the judge ordered that a Special Jury was to be sworn in and, untrained though they were, they would decide on the prisoner’s fitness to stand trial. In order for them to do this, the jury heard evidence from the medical staff that since Ann’s confinement in Wakefield Asylum, she had on several occasions tried to kill herself. Mr Justice Cresswell finally told the jury that after hearing all the evidence, they would not have much difficulty in coming to a decision.

The foreman after a short consultation with the other jurors agreed, and the judge ordered that Ann Laycock be kept in safe custody until her Majesty’s pleasure be known. The prisoner was then removed from the dock. I would like to think that Ann Laycock found a more professional treatment for her affliction in Wakefield Asylum but sadly, it is a slim hope.

The Sheffield Independent dated Saturday 16 August 1851 reflected the prejudiced views of many of the people of the town towards its Irish immigrants. It was entitles ‘An Irish Row’ when reporting a drunken riot which had taken place a week before in Millgate, Rotherham. The piece stated:

‘It happened about midnight on Saturday from some cause or other, when there was a regular riot in the neighbourhood. The Irish turned out armed with pokers, tongs and other weapons, and attacked indiscriminately every person that came their way.’

This riot was also notable because it involved the son-in-law of the notorious ‘Lady Barton’ of Rotherham, a woman who kept one of the most unruly of the lodging houses on Millgate. [For more info on Lady Barton see Margaret Drinkall’s Lockdown Book of Rotherham Criminals: Book One]

On 9 August 1851 James Heppenstall lived in Barton’s lodging house, and he later claimed that he had not been involved in the affray, but instead had been watching from the safety of the doorstep. It seems that an argument had started around 11.30 pm which ended up with in cursing and swearing. When he opened the door, he saw groups of men punching and kicking at each other with a variety of weapons.

Suddenly a man called Patrick Masterman who lived opposite Heppenstall in another lodging house in Millgate, ran over and stabbed him on the forehead. He then knocked him to the ground and kick out at him as he lay there. Other rioters joined in, but thankfully Heppenstall was rescued by his brother, Joseph and a fellow lodger called John Green. The badly bleeding man was taken back into the house, before the police arrived to finally break up the fighting. Heppenstall was questioned by the police and he described the events of the night as he was attacked by his neighbour. He said that when Masterman stabbed him on the forehead without any warning he asked the man ‘what has thou done this for’ Masterton told him ‘damn thee, I have given thee nowt yet, but I will do’ before knocking him to the floor.

He then told officers that he was forced to let go of Masterman who soon disappeared into another house on Millgate. The Chief Constable of Rotherham, John Bland then arrived and made arrangements for Heppenstall to be seen by surgeon Mr Wilkinson, who dealt with the wound. Meanwhile two constables called Shillitoe and Timms were sent to the house where Masterman had been seen entering. It was occupied by another Irish man called Barney Fury. The two officers hammered on the door, but when Fury opened it, just wide enough so that they could see that he was armed with a gun. They told him that they were going to search the house for Masterman who was wanted for the stabbing of James Heppenstall.

However brandishing the weapon, Fury told Shillitoe and Timms that he would shoot at anyone who came through the door. He warned them that he would ‘blow the brains out of the first man who tried to enter’ as he closed the door against them. Through the window the two officers could see him taking up a firing position, ready to shoot. It was later established that as Fury and the two constables were occupied, Masterman managed to escape through a back kitchen window. Finally the Chief Constable went to the house. Mr Bland spoke to Fury and persuaded him to lay down the weapon and let the two constables do their duty. After a short delay PC Shillitoe and Timms were admitted to the house.

There they reported to the Chief Constable that Masterman had gone. Mr Bland knew that the fugitive could not have gone far, as the area had been surrounded by his men. Almost immediately he ordered a search to be made, and Masterman was found hiding in the coal cellar of a house in the next yard. He was arrested and charged with the stabbing of James Heppenstall. Two days later on Monday 11 August 1851, Patrick Masterman was removed from his cell and brought up before magistrates Rev. A Fullerton and Mr H W Pickards Esq. The Chief Constable reported the events of the Saturday night riot and produced a knife which he said had been used in the attack on Heppenstall. He said that it had been found inside the coal cellar in which the prisoner had taken refuge.

The first witness to give evidence was James Heppenstall himself. He repeated that he had not been involved in the fighting when he was attacked by the prisoner. The lodger John Green was the next to give his testimony, and he too claimed to be an observer from the lodging house on Millgate. He had heard the noise of the riot around midnight and saw the mob in Millgate attacking each other, as if settling old scores. The witness told the bench that he saw Heppenstall who was about three yards from where he stood, and confirmed that he had taken no part in the affray. Green said that he had seen the prisoner attacking several other men in a most cowardly way. Masterman would lash out at anyone with a poker and other implements before rushing back to the safety of his own doorstep.

At one point the witness claimed that he saw him emerge out of his house with a weapon and that was when he rushed up to Heptonstall and hit him on the forehead. Green claimed that he was about to attack him a second time, when the implement was struck out of his hand. The witness concluded his statement by saying that was when Masterman took refuge in the house occupied by Barney Fury. The surgeon Mr Wilkinson was the next witness and he stated that he had attended to Heppenstall’s wound, which was deep and about two inches in length. The surgeon was shown the knife and he agreed that the wound might well have been inflicted with such a weapon.

In answer to the charge, the prisoners defence solicitor, Mr Badger minimised the involvement of his client and maintained that if there was any charge to be brought against him, it could only be one of common assault. But the Rotherham Magistrates were having none of it. They informed Patrick Masterman that he was found guilty and was to be sent to take his trial at the next Assizes. The case against Barney Fury was then heard and after hearing all the witnesses, he was fined 40s and costs.

Patrick Masterman appeared before judge Mr Baron Platt at York Assizes on Wednesday 17 December 1851. He was charged with cutting and wounding James Heppenstall at Rotherham on 9 August 1851 ‘with intent to maim and disfigure him.’ On behalf of the prosecution Mr Pickering outlined the case for the jury, before calling Heppenstall as the first witness. He told the court that he had known the prisoner for five years and up to the night of the riot, had never had a cross word with him. He stated that heard a row developing outside, but had initially taken little notice as it was such a common occurrence. He was followed onto the stand by the surgeon Mr Wilkinson, whose medical evidence now confused the case considerably.

He started by describing how he had examined the injured man, and found the wound in his head had been so deep that it had cut down to the man’s skull. He also described the bruises on the injured man’s body and arms from the kicking he had received. However there was some discrepancy on the type of weapon that had been used in the attack. At the Magistrates Court in Rotherham he had identified the knife shown to him, but now it seems that was in some doubt. When the surgeon was asked what kind of weapon would cause such a wound, Mr Wilkinson did not hesitate as he told the magistrate that it might have been inflicted by a poker.

The Chief Constable however, now thought that it was caused by a coal rake, as one had been found near to where the injured man lay. Mr Wilkinson was shown the coal rake and he agreed that such an implement might have caused the same wound. This confusion was not made clear and it concluded the case for the prosecution. Needless to say the prisoners defence, Mr Overend made much of this confusion. He referred to the imprecise nature of the evidence against the prisoner, in particular the weapon which had been used. The defence maintained that when Patrick Masterman was captured, he had no knife on his person and that was still ‘a declaration he persisted in maintaining’. Mr Overend claimed that Heppenstall was also mistaken in his identification of the prisoner.

He claimed that the night was dark and tempers were high, so it is not surprising that there was some confusion over the actual events and the weapon used. The defence concluded that such discrepancies therefore caused the whole case against his client to be invalid. However he asked the Grand Jury to give his client the benefit of the doubt, and to acquit him of the charge, which he said was, at the very least questionable. Sadly this very able defence made no impact on the jury’s decision. They returned a verdict which found Patrick Masterman guilty of the assault ‘with intent to do grievous bodily harm’. The judge Mr Baron Platt said that he had taken the amount of violence used into account, before sentenced Patrick Masterman to be transported for ten years.

When Sheffield’s new Medical School of Anatomy was opened in Eyre Street in 1829, it was met initially with much enthusiasm. The idea had been driven forward by surgeon Mr Hall Overend, who had been teaching anatomy to medical students in the town since 1811. So enthusiastic was he on the subject, that he had even opened an Anatomy Museum at his home in Church Street. There he gave lectures and demonstrations on the subject of medicine and the workings of the human body. However, the plain truth was that to demonstrate surgery in the new Medical School he needed bodies, and this was where opposition to the new ideas on medicine started.

No one wanted to think about exactly where the bodies given to the students for dissection, came from. Reports of Burke and Hare’s grave robbing exploits in 1828 had circulated in Sheffield, which created a fear that such a thing might happen in the town itself. Nevertheless those fears would manifest in January 1835, when a man called John Butler and his wife Ann were working in the Medical School as caretakers. During the day they were respectful of the lecturers and the students, but at night and at weekends they indulged in alcohol and disputes between each other.

On Sunday 26 January 1835 the trouble started when, against all the rules, Butler’s brother Thomas was admitted into the premises. Fuelled by alcohol, a quarrel broke out later that day when the two brothers threw Ann outside the school and locked the door against her. In her determination to cause trouble for the two men, Mrs Butler called out to passers-by that they were trying to ‘burke’ her before handing her body over to the students for dissection. A crowd of people assembled at the door of the school, ready to rescue the woman from such a fate. It has to be said that many of them were simply curious to look inside the building.

Mrs Butler’s cries were taken up and soon the disturbance was such that the Sheffield police were quickly notified. The two men were carted off to the police station charged with being drunk and disorderly. That should have been the end of the matter, however news of the woman’s claims had now spread like wildfire around the town. Within a matter of hours the building was surrounded by hundreds of people fired up on stories of grave robbers. They were determined to prevent such happenings taking place in Sheffield. The rioting started and continued throughout the night and by the early hours of the next day, around 7.30 am the doors to the Medical School were finally torn open by the mob. Inside the new school they found partially dissected cadavers, which inflamed them to such an extent that they were determined to tear the building down using just their bare hands.

Gangs of rioters entered into each room where furniture, books, floorboards, indeed anything flammable, was thrown out of the windows and doors into Eyre Street itself. A bonfire was made of these flammable objects, which alerted the town constables to the scene. However the mob turned on them, and they were so abused that they had no option but to just as quickly disappear. By this time the wind was fanning the flames of the fire, which also disturbed neighbours in nearby houses on Eyre Street. One of the Sheffield fire engines was called out, but when it arrived, the firefighters were welcomed with stones and pieces of slates which had fallen from the Medical School roof.

They too had no option but to drive quickly away from the rioting mob.

As news that the school had been broken into spread, more and more people joined in the rioting. Once again the police authorities were called upon, but they were still powerless to intervene without the presence of a magistrate who could read out the Riot Act. This would have at least given the police powers to disperse the mob. However the clerk to the magistrates, a man called Mr Albert Smith sent off two constables in cabs to find and urgently return with a magistrate from another town. The Superintendent of Sheffield’s police force, Mr Raynor finally took action by going to the local barracks to ask for a force of soldiers to be sent into town. As a result, a detachment of the 6^th Enniskillen Dragoons was dispatched to the site.

The soldiers gathered just above Howard Street on their horses, where they halted brandishing their sabres. At the sight of the Dragoons with drawn weapons, many in the mob disappeared fearing a charge by the cavalry. Others less afraid, threw stones at the horses and the mounted men. The sergeant in charge of the men persuaded the fire engines to return to the spot, and finally to extinguish the flames of the bonfire in Eyre Street. However, even with the presence of the cavalry the rioting continued, and the police authorities were still powerless to intervene without the presence of a magistrate. Thankfully a magistrate called Mr W J Bagshawe Esq., finally arrived, and he read out the Riot Act to the crowd. The crowd however at this point were having too much fun.

Indeed the mob were only dispersed when the mounted soldiers were ordered to charge at them wielding their sabres. Only then were police authorities actually able to reach the building itself. Inside they found it had been completely gutted, as it had been literally torn down almost to the ground. The back wall and many of the inner walls had been completely smashed open. Newspaper reports of the time stated that ‘from the ground floor up to the roof of the school, there was nothing to see but roof joists and beams.’ By 11 am it would seem that the soldiers had belatedly got the situation under control. This they managed by walking their horses up and down the principal streets around the school.

Finally the soldiers were thanked for their efforts and sent back to their barracks, leaving Mr Raynor and a small party of constables to protect what remained of the building. The soldiers may have breathed a sigh of relief when returned back to the barracks, but they did not have time to rest before they were called out again. By 1.30 pm yet another urgent request for the Dragoons to return was made, as the crowds had again collected in front of the torn down remains. Many of them were showing signs of intoxication and an order was sent out that all public houses in the area had to be closed. As the Dragoons entered back into the area, it was decided once again that the only method of dispersing the drunken rabble was for another charge.

Consequently the troops were divided into two, one force being commanded by the Rev. G Chandler and the second by Mr Bagshawe. At 2.30 pm they charged down Eyre Street scattering the crowd in all directions. One man was actually caught inside the building and he was promptly arrested. As he was taken to the cells under the Town Hall and to ensure he was not rescued en route, he was escorted by a party of Dragoons. Threats had also been made against Mr Overend’s Anatomy Museum on Church Street, and around 6 pm that building too was suddenly attacked. Within a matter of minutes there was not a window of the building left intact. Thankfully another party of Dragoons arrived and they quickly broke up the mob.

By 5 pm the soldiers were lined up in front of the remains of the Medical School on Eyre Street and only then did peace return. It was reported by 7.30 pm that everything was finally quiet. Nevertheless the soldiers continued to patrol the streets until around midnight, when they were sent back to their barracks. On Tuesday 23 January 1835, the caretaker John Butler and his brother Thomas were brought before the Sheffield Magistrates charged with disorderly conduct. The first witness was a man called James Belcher who lived on Eyre Street, a few doors away from the Medical School. He said that on the morning in question he had been passing about 12.30 pm, when he heard a cry of ‘murder’ from a woman who had just come out of the building.

Belcher stated that the caretakers drunken ways were well known in the neighbourhood and they usually happened at weekend when the man had been paid. The woman was clearly drunk and she shouted out that she was frightened of being ‘burked’ before turning and going back inside. Within a few minutes, the witness said a crowd of people had gathered around the door. Belcher claimed that among many others, he found himself being pushed inside the doors of the school by the crowd. He then described how two Butler brothers had tried to turn the mob out with oaths and curses. However the woman kept begging the crowd not to go, claiming that the men were intent on killing her. She claimed that as soon as everyone had gone, she would be murdered and her body would given to the students along with the other cadavers for dissection.

Belcher said that her husband dismissed the accusations of his wife, claiming that she was just drunk and didn’t know what she was saying. Then another neighbour gave evidence. He said his name was John Driver and confirmed Belcher’s account. He claimed that when Mr Raynor appeared, the two Butlers, ‘acting like furies’ grabbed hold of the Superintendent of Police and threw him to the ground. Thankfully two other men rescued him and finally managed to pull him to his feet. Then Driver described how Butler and his brother armed themselves, using a poker, a knife and a brush handle to protect themselves from the angry mob.

The witness described how at this point more constables arrived, and Mr Raynor arrested the two drunken brothers who were quickly removed. Initially Mrs Butler had been left safe inside the building, and a constable ensured that the doors were locked and bolted. The witness said that at this point he went home, but around an hour later he could hear that the mob had returned and went back outside. To his surprise there was an even greater crowd which now collected in front of the Medical School, and that many of them had clearly been drinking. Fuelled by alcohol, the witness described how a panel of the front door had been broken open by someone, and the crowd including the witness, was pushed inside. There they found the building empty, Mrs Butler having fled.

It seemed that she had heard the noise of the mob, and escaped from the building leaving the back door wide open. Driver said that it was not long before people were pouring into the school from both the back and front doors. Anxious to see what kinds of specimens the students were actually dissecting, the mob went into every room both downstairs and up. To their horror they found plenty of body parts. When they found any bones or full skeletons, they threw them out of the windows, inflaming the crowds who still collected below. In disgust they also threw out any items which would burn, including furniture. Two other witnesses gave similar evidence to the bench, which confirmed the fact that Mr and Mrs Butler were notorious for their drunken weekend arguments.

Mr Raynor was the next witness and he gave evidence of having being called to the Medical School, and how he had been manhandled by the Butler brothers. He said he had assigned some of his men to remain to protect the building, before returning back to his office. Therefore he could not believe it when he was told later that a full scale riot was taking place. As a result of this, the Superintendent requested that Mrs Butler had better be found and brought to the Town Hall for her own protection. She was found at the rear of the Medical School, now terrified at what she had started, and was escorted to the police office. However on the journey to the Town Hall she was recognised by a crowd of people. As a result she was hooted at and pelted with rubbish from the mob emerging onto Eyre Street.

Mr Raynor said that after he had made sure the woman was safe, he returned back to the school, where thankfully he found that the soldiers had now cleared the crowd. However bones and furniture were scattered in front of the building and all along Eyre Street. Going inside, the Superintendent described finding one human body, which he said that ‘although intact, it had been opened from breast to pubes’ and all the internal organs had been exposed. The witness stated that in many of the rooms of the school there were various body parts and limbs scattered around. Upstairs there was the same grisly sights, as well as several complete skeletons in the teaching and anatomy classrooms.

George Mason, a police sergeant confirmed that he had accompanied Mr Raynor in his search of the building, and he too described finding many body parts. The sergeant informed the bench that under Mr Raynor’s direction, the full and partially dissected bodies had been removed at 2 am on the Monday morning. They had been carefully placed in a sack and taken to the Sheffield Workhouse by two of Mr Overend’s students, before being respectfully interred that same afternoon. The next witness was the woman who had started the riot, Mrs Ann Butler herself. She told the magistrates that the pair had been caretakers at the Medical School for eight months.

They had previously lived in London and her husband was an ‘articulator’ who had worked for Mr Overend. Mrs Butler said that he had prepare limbs and bones which were then displayed in realistic poses behind glass, for display in his Anatomy Museum on Church Street. On Sunday 25 January 1835, her husband and his brother were very drunk and were annoyed at her because she would not give them more money. In retaliation, Mrs Butler told the bench that her husband John had knocked her down and kicked her, putting his hand over her mouth to stop her from screaming.

His brother had then helped him to put her out of the doors of the school, and she found herself in Eyre Street.

The witness was asked by one of the magistrates if she was aware that there were partially dissected cadavers inside the building. Mrs Butler said that there had been three bodies to her knowledge, that were kept at the medical school at that time being used for dissection. Her husband, John Butler was the next witness and he confirmed that to his knowledge, one body had been entire and the other two had been cut up in sections for the students to dissect. The caretaker admitted that he had been drunk at the time of the riot, but denied being involved in the assault on Mr Raynor. His brother Thomas Butler told the bench that he had only been in Sheffield for a fortnight and was an unemployed bricklayer. He too admitted being intoxicated at the time of the offence and denied attacking the Superintendent.

The magistrate, Mr Bagshawe asked that the two brothers and Mrs Butler be kept in custody for the time being. He pointed out that it would not be prudent for them to be discharged to that time. The magistrate claimed that an idea had spread around Sheffield that they too were involved with resurrectionists, and if they were recognised by a member of the public, their lives would be in great danger. Mr Raynor told the court that he had spoken to Mr Overend, who said that he had heard nothing of any of the neighbours complaints about the regular drunken rows between the caretaker and his wife. He said that if he had known that, he would never have left ‘those persons in charge of the school, not even for one day’.

The two Butler brothers were therefore remanded once more, although Mrs Butler was dismissed. When both men appeared in front of the magistrates again on Friday 6 February 1835 it seems that Mr Raynor had informed the bench that he did not intend to prosecute either of them for the assault made upon him. Nevertheless the two men were both severely censured for their actions which had led directly to the riot at the Sheffield Medical School. The chair to the magistrates told the men that for the time being they should both be discharged. However they would need to find recognizances of £20 each to appear before the magistrates again, if it should be required.

Mr Bagshawe told them both that they were responsible for the present hostility towards the Medical School, which was still being felt in Sheffield. He warned them both:

‘It is for your own benefit that you have both been kept in prison, and I would advise you to get out of town as soon as possible, in order to avoid any disturbance that might arise from your being recognised.’

So ended the Sheffield Medical School riot, although the fears against resurrectionists took much longer to disperse within the town.