IOO YEARS AGO THIS WEEK 7 - 13 JULY 1925
This week's many stories include the Blackbrook canal tragedy, the dog fight in Gaskell Street that led to disorder taking place, the disabled man who was warned to keep away from drink, the game of cricket that led to an assault and the female fight in Elliot Street in which a woman claimed a huge amount of hair had been yanked off her head.
People thought nothing of little children running about the streets unsupervised – sometimes with disastrous consequences. On the 7th the inquest was held on James Naughton of Old Whint Road in Haydock who had drowned in the canal at Blackbrook. Three days before a carnival had been held in Haydock and the four-year-old had watched a band march past his house.
James and his 3-year-old brother Vincent decided to follow the band, which in those days were like magnets to little kids and two other 4-year-old boys joined them. They ended up at the canal bridge and James decided to squeeze through a hole in the railings and go down to the water to catch some fish with his hands. Fellow 4-year-old Joseph Shuttleworth of West End Road told the inquest that his friend had bent down, slipped and fallen into the water.
He said he had tried to reach him but was not able to and so ran to tell Joseph Holding of Blackbrook Road what had occurred. The 14-year-old told the inquest that he went to the side of the canal and saw bubbles rising up from the water and two hands. Joseph Holding ran to get his father who was a disabled former soldier and he dived into the canal. But too much time had elapsed and despite John Holding spending 15 minutes searching for the boy, he could not find him. It was some before James Naughton's body could be recovered from within six feet of water.
The feeling that it was quite all right for little kids to then be running round the streets despite the dangers of traffic and much more open water than today was borne out by the comments of coroner Samuel Brighouse who said at the end of James' inquest:
"I am very sorry for the father in the loss of his lad. It makes you very sorry when you see this nice little lad aged four come to give evidence. It makes you appreciate the distress of both father and mother. Of course, these unfortunate things do happen, and it couldn't be helped. We have all been boys ourselves, and you don't put wise heads on young shoulders. It is a case of misadventure."
On the 8th King George V was briefly in Widnes as he passed through the town on his way from Knowsley Hall to the Royal Agricultural Show in Chester. Despite him only stopping for a few minutes at Widnes Town Hall, a massive fuss was made of him with the streets reported as "gaily decorated with festoons and flags".
Eight thousand children lined the streets to cheer the Royal party and people stood up to 10 deep on pavements. And his entourage included mayors from other boroughs, including Alderman Thomas Hamblett, the Mayor of St Helens.
When the mother of a boy who had been summoned to appear in the Juvenile Court but hadn't shown up was asked to explain her son's absence, she said: "I did not like him to come here; I read in the paper there were some very unpleasant cases here last week, and I thought it no place for him to be and to hear."
The clerk to the court explained to the woman that each case was heard separately with defendants and witnesses only called into the courtroom when required. The unnamed boy had been summoned for throwing stones in the Parr Recreation Ground.
I wouldn't have thought that having disabilities necessarily meant you should avoid alcohol, unless, of course, you were taking medication. But this is how the Reporter described one case this week which involved a disabled man:
"He is a stranger and there is nothing known against him," said Supt. Dean of Moses Andrews, who is greatly deformed, when charged with having been drunk and incapable on Baldwin-street on Saturday night. You will be fined half a crown," said the Chairman. "You should keep away from drink. A man with such disabilities as you should not look at it, let alone be taking it."
A man was not deemed fully dressed if he did not wear a coat or jacket and waistcoat within some indoor place. Hats would also be considered a necessity, but not in court, of course. The appearance of William Yates minus the usual attire in St Helens Police Court drew this comment from the Reporter:
"William Thomas Yates, a glass-hand, of 126, Lyon-street, appeared in the dock minus coat, waistcoat and braces. He was charged with having committed a breach of the peace." It was another case where a drunken man had been in the street outside his home shouting for somebody to fight him.
When the police appeared on the scene, Yates was asked to go inside his house. But ten minutes later he reappeared throwing what was described as two chip potato utensils into the middle of the road and threatening to cut his wife's throat. In court Yates denied the truth of the police statement and sarcastically called for the officer involved to be given a medal. But the coatless man was still bound over to keep the peace for 12 months.
Questioning the honesty of the police was quite common. In another case a chap called Thomas Lea from Foster Street said: "It is scandalous. I should like to ask P.C. Phillips if he is speaking the truth and not a lot of lies." He and Ernest Tatlock from Gaskell Street had been charged with having committed a breach of the peace at midnight.
The constable said he had seen the two defendants in Gaskell Street surrounded by a crowd and they had been shouting and threatening each other, the fracas being caused by a discussion over two dogs. But Thomas Lea gave the odd excuse that they had simply been watching two dogs having a fight:
"I have been under a doctor for eighteen months owing to heart trouble," Lea told the Bench. "We had been watching the dogs, and P.C. Phillips didn't know the dogs had been fighting until we told him in the house." The Bench said as there was an element of doubt in the case it would be dismissed but warned the pair to be more careful in future.
Playing any game in the streets could lead to a prosecution, with football being the most popular. Playing cricket in the street does not seem to have been particularly common but that was the charge facing John O’Neill from Duke Street, Ernest Bebbington from York Street and Thomas Bibby, also of York Street, who were using a lamppost as a wicket. Superintendent Dunn told the court that the police were getting a lot of complaints about such behaviour but the charge against the pair was dismissed upon payment of costs.
Robert Holding and Stanley Harrison had also been playing cricket but the location was not stated in the newspaper report. However, their game led to Holding from Victoria Street in Gerards Bridge being charged with assaulting Harrison. The latter told the court that the dispute was because a ball had hit him on the head and, as the Reporter put it, "both exchanged forcible compliments and the defendant hit Harrison in the eye."
The forcible compliment that Holding claimed Harrison had used to him was to call him a hunchback and his mother "Deaf Bet". "It was because he spoke like that of my mother that I hit him," explained Holding. But the Bench said they considered the assault to have been cowardly and fined Robert Holding 10 shillings.
It was now less common for people in court to produce items as evidence of wrongdoing. During the 19th century many complainants and some defendants produced stones, bricks and pokers that they claimed had been used against them, assuming the Bench would simply take their word.
This week in court Elizabeth Potter of Elliot Street was accused of assaulting Ada Gething but Mrs Potter claimed she was the real victim displaying a large ball of hair that she reckoned had been yanked from her head. The two women had fought each other outside Mrs Potter's home and the magistrates decided it was six of one and half a dozen of the other and bound both women over to keep the peace.
St Helens Reporter courtesy St Helens Archive Service at Eccleston Library
Next Week's stories will include the man who told a provable lie in St Helens Police Court, the silly squabble that took place in Phythian Street and the Bentinck Street man who threw his wife and kids out of his house late at night.
People thought nothing of little children running about the streets unsupervised – sometimes with disastrous consequences. On the 7th the inquest was held on James Naughton of Old Whint Road in Haydock who had drowned in the canal at Blackbrook. Three days before a carnival had been held in Haydock and the four-year-old had watched a band march past his house.
James and his 3-year-old brother Vincent decided to follow the band, which in those days were like magnets to little kids and two other 4-year-old boys joined them. They ended up at the canal bridge and James decided to squeeze through a hole in the railings and go down to the water to catch some fish with his hands. Fellow 4-year-old Joseph Shuttleworth of West End Road told the inquest that his friend had bent down, slipped and fallen into the water.
He said he had tried to reach him but was not able to and so ran to tell Joseph Holding of Blackbrook Road what had occurred. The 14-year-old told the inquest that he went to the side of the canal and saw bubbles rising up from the water and two hands. Joseph Holding ran to get his father who was a disabled former soldier and he dived into the canal. But too much time had elapsed and despite John Holding spending 15 minutes searching for the boy, he could not find him. It was some before James Naughton's body could be recovered from within six feet of water.
The feeling that it was quite all right for little kids to then be running round the streets despite the dangers of traffic and much more open water than today was borne out by the comments of coroner Samuel Brighouse who said at the end of James' inquest:
"I am very sorry for the father in the loss of his lad. It makes you very sorry when you see this nice little lad aged four come to give evidence. It makes you appreciate the distress of both father and mother. Of course, these unfortunate things do happen, and it couldn't be helped. We have all been boys ourselves, and you don't put wise heads on young shoulders. It is a case of misadventure."
Eight thousand children lined the streets to cheer the Royal party and people stood up to 10 deep on pavements. And his entourage included mayors from other boroughs, including Alderman Thomas Hamblett, the Mayor of St Helens.
When the mother of a boy who had been summoned to appear in the Juvenile Court but hadn't shown up was asked to explain her son's absence, she said: "I did not like him to come here; I read in the paper there were some very unpleasant cases here last week, and I thought it no place for him to be and to hear."
The clerk to the court explained to the woman that each case was heard separately with defendants and witnesses only called into the courtroom when required. The unnamed boy had been summoned for throwing stones in the Parr Recreation Ground.
I wouldn't have thought that having disabilities necessarily meant you should avoid alcohol, unless, of course, you were taking medication. But this is how the Reporter described one case this week which involved a disabled man:
"He is a stranger and there is nothing known against him," said Supt. Dean of Moses Andrews, who is greatly deformed, when charged with having been drunk and incapable on Baldwin-street on Saturday night. You will be fined half a crown," said the Chairman. "You should keep away from drink. A man with such disabilities as you should not look at it, let alone be taking it."
A man was not deemed fully dressed if he did not wear a coat or jacket and waistcoat within some indoor place. Hats would also be considered a necessity, but not in court, of course. The appearance of William Yates minus the usual attire in St Helens Police Court drew this comment from the Reporter:
"William Thomas Yates, a glass-hand, of 126, Lyon-street, appeared in the dock minus coat, waistcoat and braces. He was charged with having committed a breach of the peace." It was another case where a drunken man had been in the street outside his home shouting for somebody to fight him.
When the police appeared on the scene, Yates was asked to go inside his house. But ten minutes later he reappeared throwing what was described as two chip potato utensils into the middle of the road and threatening to cut his wife's throat. In court Yates denied the truth of the police statement and sarcastically called for the officer involved to be given a medal. But the coatless man was still bound over to keep the peace for 12 months.
Questioning the honesty of the police was quite common. In another case a chap called Thomas Lea from Foster Street said: "It is scandalous. I should like to ask P.C. Phillips if he is speaking the truth and not a lot of lies." He and Ernest Tatlock from Gaskell Street had been charged with having committed a breach of the peace at midnight.
The constable said he had seen the two defendants in Gaskell Street surrounded by a crowd and they had been shouting and threatening each other, the fracas being caused by a discussion over two dogs. But Thomas Lea gave the odd excuse that they had simply been watching two dogs having a fight:
"I have been under a doctor for eighteen months owing to heart trouble," Lea told the Bench. "We had been watching the dogs, and P.C. Phillips didn't know the dogs had been fighting until we told him in the house." The Bench said as there was an element of doubt in the case it would be dismissed but warned the pair to be more careful in future.
Playing any game in the streets could lead to a prosecution, with football being the most popular. Playing cricket in the street does not seem to have been particularly common but that was the charge facing John O’Neill from Duke Street, Ernest Bebbington from York Street and Thomas Bibby, also of York Street, who were using a lamppost as a wicket. Superintendent Dunn told the court that the police were getting a lot of complaints about such behaviour but the charge against the pair was dismissed upon payment of costs.
Robert Holding and Stanley Harrison had also been playing cricket but the location was not stated in the newspaper report. However, their game led to Holding from Victoria Street in Gerards Bridge being charged with assaulting Harrison. The latter told the court that the dispute was because a ball had hit him on the head and, as the Reporter put it, "both exchanged forcible compliments and the defendant hit Harrison in the eye."
The forcible compliment that Holding claimed Harrison had used to him was to call him a hunchback and his mother "Deaf Bet". "It was because he spoke like that of my mother that I hit him," explained Holding. But the Bench said they considered the assault to have been cowardly and fined Robert Holding 10 shillings.
It was now less common for people in court to produce items as evidence of wrongdoing. During the 19th century many complainants and some defendants produced stones, bricks and pokers that they claimed had been used against them, assuming the Bench would simply take their word.
This week in court Elizabeth Potter of Elliot Street was accused of assaulting Ada Gething but Mrs Potter claimed she was the real victim displaying a large ball of hair that she reckoned had been yanked from her head. The two women had fought each other outside Mrs Potter's home and the magistrates decided it was six of one and half a dozen of the other and bound both women over to keep the peace.
St Helens Reporter courtesy St Helens Archive Service at Eccleston Library
Next Week's stories will include the man who told a provable lie in St Helens Police Court, the silly squabble that took place in Phythian Street and the Bentinck Street man who threw his wife and kids out of his house late at night.
This week's many stories include the Blackbrook canal tragedy, the dog fight in Gaskell Street that led to disorder taking place, the disabled man who was warned to keep away from drink, the game of cricket that led to an assault and the female fight in Elliot Street in which a woman claimed a huge amount of hair had been yanked off her head.
People thought nothing of little children running about the streets unsupervised – sometimes with disastrous consequences.
On the 7th the inquest was held on James Naughton of Old Whint Road in Haydock who had drowned in the canal at Blackbrook.
Three days before a carnival had been held in Haydock and the four-year-old had watched a band march past his house.
James and his 3-year-old brother Vincent decided to follow the band, which in those days were like magnets to little kids and two other 4-year-old boys joined them.
They ended up at the canal bridge and James decided to squeeze through a hole in the railings and go down to the water to catch some fish with his hands.
Fellow 4-year-old Joseph Shuttleworth of West End Road told the inquest that his friend had bent down, slipped and fallen into the water.
He said he had tried to reach him but was not able to and so ran to tell Joseph Holding of Blackbrook Road what had occurred.
The 14-year-old told the inquest that he went to the side of the canal and saw bubbles rising up from the water and two hands.
Joseph Holding ran to get his father who was a disabled former soldier and he dived into the canal.
But too much time had elapsed and despite John Holding spending 15 minutes searching for the boy, he could not find him.
It was some before James Naughton's body could be recovered from within six feet of water.
The feeling that it was quite all right for little kids to then be running round the streets despite the dangers of traffic and much more open water than today was borne out by the comments of coroner Samuel Brighouse who said at the end of James' inquest:
"I am very sorry for the father in the loss of his lad. It makes you very sorry when you see this nice little lad aged four come to give evidence. It makes you appreciate the distress of both father and mother.
"Of course, these unfortunate things do happen, and it couldn't be helped. We have all been boys ourselves, and you don't put wise heads on young shoulders. It is a case of misadventure."
On the 8th King George V was briefly in Widnes as he passed through the town on his way from Knowsley Hall to the Royal Agricultural Show in Chester.
Despite him only stopping for a few minutes at Widnes Town Hall, a massive fuss was made of him with the streets reported as "gaily decorated with festoons and flags".
Eight thousand children lined the streets to cheer the Royal party and people stood up to 10 deep on pavements.
And his entourage included mayors from other boroughs, including Alderman Thomas Hamblett, the Mayor of St Helens.
When the mother of a boy who had been summoned to appear in the Juvenile Court but hadn't shown up was asked to explain her son's absence, she said:
"I did not like him to come here; I read in the paper there were some very unpleasant cases here last week, and I thought it no place for him to be and to hear."
The clerk to the court explained to the woman that each case was heard separately with defendants and witnesses only called into the courtroom when required.
The unnamed boy had been summoned for throwing stones in the Parr Recreation Ground.
I wouldn't have thought that having disabilities necessarily meant you should avoid alcohol, unless, of course, you were taking medication.
But this is how the Reporter described one case this week which involved a disabled man:
"He is a stranger and there is nothing known against him," said Supt. Dean of Moses Andrews, who is greatly deformed, when charged with having been drunk and incapable on Baldwin-street on Saturday night.
"You will be fined half a crown," said the Chairman. "You should keep away from drink. A man with such disabilities as you should not look at it, let alone be taking it."
A man was not deemed fully dressed if he did not wear a coat or jacket and waistcoat within some indoor place.
Hats would also be considered a necessity, but not in court, of course.
The appearance of William Yates minus the usual attire in St Helens Police Court drew this comment from the Reporter:
"William Thomas Yates, a glass-hand, of 126, Lyon-street, appeared in the dock minus coat, waistcoat and braces. He was charged with having committed a breach of the peace."
It was another case where a drunken man had been in the street outside his home shouting for somebody to fight him.
When the police appeared on the scene, Yates was asked to go inside his house.
But ten minutes later he reappeared throwing what was described as two chip potato utensils into the middle of the road and threatening to cut his wife's throat.
In court Yates denied the truth of the police statement and sarcastically called for the officer involved to be given a medal. But the coatless man was still bound over to keep the peace for 12 months.
Questioning the honesty of the police was quite common. In another case a chap called Thomas Lea from Foster Street said:
"It is scandalous. I should like to ask P.C. Phillips if he is speaking the truth and not a lot of lies."
He and Ernest Tatlock from Gaskell Street had been charged with having committed a breach of the peace at midnight.
The constable said he had seen the two defendants in Gaskell Street surrounded by a crowd and they had been shouting and threatening each other, the fracas being caused by a discussion over two dogs.
But Thomas Lea gave the odd excuse that they had simply been watching two dogs having a fight:
"I have been under a doctor for eighteen months owing to heart trouble," Lea told the Bench. "We had been watching the dogs, and P.C. Phillips didn't know the dogs had been fighting until we told him in the house."
The Bench said as there was an element of doubt in the case it would be dismissed but warned the pair to be more careful in future.
Playing any game in the streets could lead to a prosecution, with football being the most popular.
Playing cricket in the street does not seem to have been particularly common but that was the charge facing John O’Neill from Duke Street, Ernest Bebbington from York Street and Thomas Bibby, also of York Street, who were using a lamppost as a wicket.
Superintendent Dunn told the court that the police were getting a lot of complaints about such behaviour but the charge against the pair was dismissed upon payment of costs.
Robert Holding and Stanley Harrison had also been playing cricket but the location was not stated in the newspaper report. However, their game led to Holding from Victoria Street in Gerards Bridge being charged with assaulting Harrison.
The latter told the court that the dispute was because a ball had hit him on the head and, as the Reporter put it, "both exchanged forcible compliments and the defendant hit Harrison in the eye."
The forcible compliment that Holding claimed Harrison had used to him was to call him a hunchback and his mother "Deaf Bet".
"It was because he spoke like that of my mother that I hit him," explained Holding.
But the Bench said they considered the assault to have been cowardly and fined Robert Holding 10 shillings.
It was now less common for people in court to produce items as evidence of wrongdoing.
During the 19th century many complainants and some defendants produced stones, bricks and pokers that they claimed had been used against them, assuming the Bench would simply take their word.
This week in court Elizabeth Potter of Elliot Street was accused of assaulting Ada Gething but Mrs Potter claimed she was the real victim displaying a large ball of hair that she reckoned had been yanked from her head.
The two women had fought each other outside Mrs Potter's home and the magistrates decided it was six of one and half a dozen of the other and bound both women over to keep the peace.
St Helens Reporter courtesy St Helens Archive Service at Eccleston Library
Next Week's stories will include the man who told a provable lie in St Helens Police Court, the silly squabble that took place in Phythian Street and the Bentinck Street man who threw his wife and kids out of his house late at night.
People thought nothing of little children running about the streets unsupervised – sometimes with disastrous consequences.
On the 7th the inquest was held on James Naughton of Old Whint Road in Haydock who had drowned in the canal at Blackbrook.
Three days before a carnival had been held in Haydock and the four-year-old had watched a band march past his house.
James and his 3-year-old brother Vincent decided to follow the band, which in those days were like magnets to little kids and two other 4-year-old boys joined them.
They ended up at the canal bridge and James decided to squeeze through a hole in the railings and go down to the water to catch some fish with his hands.
Fellow 4-year-old Joseph Shuttleworth of West End Road told the inquest that his friend had bent down, slipped and fallen into the water.
He said he had tried to reach him but was not able to and so ran to tell Joseph Holding of Blackbrook Road what had occurred.
The 14-year-old told the inquest that he went to the side of the canal and saw bubbles rising up from the water and two hands.
Joseph Holding ran to get his father who was a disabled former soldier and he dived into the canal.
But too much time had elapsed and despite John Holding spending 15 minutes searching for the boy, he could not find him.
It was some before James Naughton's body could be recovered from within six feet of water.
The feeling that it was quite all right for little kids to then be running round the streets despite the dangers of traffic and much more open water than today was borne out by the comments of coroner Samuel Brighouse who said at the end of James' inquest:
"I am very sorry for the father in the loss of his lad. It makes you very sorry when you see this nice little lad aged four come to give evidence. It makes you appreciate the distress of both father and mother.
"Of course, these unfortunate things do happen, and it couldn't be helped. We have all been boys ourselves, and you don't put wise heads on young shoulders. It is a case of misadventure."
Despite him only stopping for a few minutes at Widnes Town Hall, a massive fuss was made of him with the streets reported as "gaily decorated with festoons and flags".
Eight thousand children lined the streets to cheer the Royal party and people stood up to 10 deep on pavements.
And his entourage included mayors from other boroughs, including Alderman Thomas Hamblett, the Mayor of St Helens.
When the mother of a boy who had been summoned to appear in the Juvenile Court but hadn't shown up was asked to explain her son's absence, she said:
"I did not like him to come here; I read in the paper there were some very unpleasant cases here last week, and I thought it no place for him to be and to hear."
The clerk to the court explained to the woman that each case was heard separately with defendants and witnesses only called into the courtroom when required.
The unnamed boy had been summoned for throwing stones in the Parr Recreation Ground.
I wouldn't have thought that having disabilities necessarily meant you should avoid alcohol, unless, of course, you were taking medication.
But this is how the Reporter described one case this week which involved a disabled man:
"He is a stranger and there is nothing known against him," said Supt. Dean of Moses Andrews, who is greatly deformed, when charged with having been drunk and incapable on Baldwin-street on Saturday night.
"You will be fined half a crown," said the Chairman. "You should keep away from drink. A man with such disabilities as you should not look at it, let alone be taking it."
A man was not deemed fully dressed if he did not wear a coat or jacket and waistcoat within some indoor place.
Hats would also be considered a necessity, but not in court, of course.
The appearance of William Yates minus the usual attire in St Helens Police Court drew this comment from the Reporter:
"William Thomas Yates, a glass-hand, of 126, Lyon-street, appeared in the dock minus coat, waistcoat and braces. He was charged with having committed a breach of the peace."
It was another case where a drunken man had been in the street outside his home shouting for somebody to fight him.
When the police appeared on the scene, Yates was asked to go inside his house.
But ten minutes later he reappeared throwing what was described as two chip potato utensils into the middle of the road and threatening to cut his wife's throat.
In court Yates denied the truth of the police statement and sarcastically called for the officer involved to be given a medal. But the coatless man was still bound over to keep the peace for 12 months.
Questioning the honesty of the police was quite common. In another case a chap called Thomas Lea from Foster Street said:
"It is scandalous. I should like to ask P.C. Phillips if he is speaking the truth and not a lot of lies."
He and Ernest Tatlock from Gaskell Street had been charged with having committed a breach of the peace at midnight.
The constable said he had seen the two defendants in Gaskell Street surrounded by a crowd and they had been shouting and threatening each other, the fracas being caused by a discussion over two dogs.
But Thomas Lea gave the odd excuse that they had simply been watching two dogs having a fight:
"I have been under a doctor for eighteen months owing to heart trouble," Lea told the Bench. "We had been watching the dogs, and P.C. Phillips didn't know the dogs had been fighting until we told him in the house."
The Bench said as there was an element of doubt in the case it would be dismissed but warned the pair to be more careful in future.
Playing any game in the streets could lead to a prosecution, with football being the most popular.
Playing cricket in the street does not seem to have been particularly common but that was the charge facing John O’Neill from Duke Street, Ernest Bebbington from York Street and Thomas Bibby, also of York Street, who were using a lamppost as a wicket.
Superintendent Dunn told the court that the police were getting a lot of complaints about such behaviour but the charge against the pair was dismissed upon payment of costs.
Robert Holding and Stanley Harrison had also been playing cricket but the location was not stated in the newspaper report. However, their game led to Holding from Victoria Street in Gerards Bridge being charged with assaulting Harrison.
The latter told the court that the dispute was because a ball had hit him on the head and, as the Reporter put it, "both exchanged forcible compliments and the defendant hit Harrison in the eye."
The forcible compliment that Holding claimed Harrison had used to him was to call him a hunchback and his mother "Deaf Bet".
"It was because he spoke like that of my mother that I hit him," explained Holding.
But the Bench said they considered the assault to have been cowardly and fined Robert Holding 10 shillings.
It was now less common for people in court to produce items as evidence of wrongdoing.
During the 19th century many complainants and some defendants produced stones, bricks and pokers that they claimed had been used against them, assuming the Bench would simply take their word.
This week in court Elizabeth Potter of Elliot Street was accused of assaulting Ada Gething but Mrs Potter claimed she was the real victim displaying a large ball of hair that she reckoned had been yanked from her head.
The two women had fought each other outside Mrs Potter's home and the magistrates decided it was six of one and half a dozen of the other and bound both women over to keep the peace.
St Helens Reporter courtesy St Helens Archive Service at Eccleston Library
Next Week's stories will include the man who told a provable lie in St Helens Police Court, the silly squabble that took place in Phythian Street and the Bentinck Street man who threw his wife and kids out of his house late at night.