IOO YEARS AGO THIS WEEK 25 NOV - 1 DEC 1924
This week's many stories include the fan light that fell on to a Church Street shop's customer, the election shindy in Napier Street, the novel plan to hire out electric fires and cookers, the bowling club for women, the frank love letters read out in a court case, the sacred concert at the Hippodrome and the electricity promotion in the Reporter.
We begin with my award for the unluckiest St Helens man of the week, which has to go to Frank Downie of Charles Street. As the young man began to enter the Argenta meat shop in Church Street, a huge fanlight in the doorway measuring 5 ft by 4 ft crashed down on top of him. Fortunately he'd heard the sound of it starting to come down and instinctively put up his arm to protect his head.
But Downie still sustained a long and severe gash across the back of his hand. PC Murrant was on point duty at the top of Bridge Street and went to render first aid to the young man. After being taken to Providence Hospital it was decided that Downie required an operation on his hand, although just what had caused the collapse of the fanlight was not known.
And the most curious court case of the week involved a row between two rival supporters of candidates in the recent general election. George Gutheridge of Napier Street was a supporter of the Labour candidate, James Sexton. While his neighbour, Elizabeth Wills, was a fan of Evelyn Pilkington, who represented the Conservative Party.
On the day after the election, which Sexton had won, Gutheridge had walked past the house of Mrs Wills on his way to the cinema. But as he passed he could not resist taunting his neighbour by shouting "Three cheers for Jimmy Sexton". And Mrs Wells had immediately replied "Aye, and three cheers for Miss Evelyn".
Then, as the Reporter put it, "The band played, and the balloon went up, so to speak, with the result that Gutheridge received a pressing invitation on a “bit of blue paper” to attend the Police Court." In other words, there had been trouble, an assault was claimed and a summons was issued.
In court Mrs Wills claimed that when Gutheridge had shouted to her he had been in a quarrelsome mood and the man had marched across the road and asked, "Is it bother you're wanting?" "No", Mrs Wills said she had replied, adding, "I think it is you who wants bother." At that point she claimed that despite holding a baby in her arms, Gutheridge had struck her on the jaw, which caused her mouth to bleed, and then he had threatened her son.
Mrs Wills also stated that she had heard Gutheridge fall out with some other woman at 1am on the morning following the general election in another row over politics. Nelly Friar gave witness evidence and told the court that she had seen Gutheridge "thump" Mrs Wills under her jaw and said the woman had been so "flabbergasted" after receiving the blow that she couldn't get her breath.
But, unsurprisingly, George Gutheridge had a totally different version of events! In his parallel world he had been the innocent victim of an unprovoked assault when on his way to the pictures. He reckoned that Mrs Wills was angry because she had supported the losing candidate. After handing her baby to a neighbour, Gutheridge claimed she had crossed the road and struck him half-a-dozen times on his face.
He insisted that he had wanted nothing at all to do with the woman and completely denied striking her – and even claimed that after being attacked he had sent for a policeman. After hearing the evidence of several more witnesses, the Bench retired for a lengthy consultation but in the end decided to fine Gutheridge 10 shillings and said he would have to pay all the witnesses' costs.
Slowly but surely leisure and sporting pursuits for women were expanding. Of course, the activities had to be sedate and lady-like – and so no boxing or rugby league! But bowling fitted the bill quite nicely and this week it was announced that a new club for females had been created at Queen's Recreation Ground which was being called Queen's Park Ladies B.C.
I've often written about court cases in which wives accused their husbands of persistent cruelty and requested a separation order. These were in reality applications for maintenance payments for the man's wife and children. The court was essentially giving its blessing to a couple living apart with the husband ordered to pay a certain weekly sum to his wife.
A repeated failure to do so could ultimately mean prison, although the magistrates did not sign such separation orders easily. They often needed a lot of persuasion that the marriage had irretrievably broken down and they were particularly reluctant to sanction separation if the couple had not been wed very long.
Many husbands did not like to be perceived as wife beaters or have to pay maintenance and so would deny every accusation levelled against them. And the local newspapers had a field day in reporting all the details of the couple's muck throwing. Out of all the many reports of such cases that I have seen, I have never read one before like the McGuiness's battle that was detailed in the Reporter on the 28th. The extensive coverage seemed never ending and it was as if they were reporting on the crime of the century.
In brief William and Mary McGuiness had married in 1920, had two young children and had initially lived at her mother's house in Wilson Street in St Helens (near Boundary Road). But after her son-in-law's acts of violence against her daughter, the mother had ordered the couple to leave her home and they went to live in Oxford Street for 7 or 8 months before being allowed to return to Wilson Street.
Mary claimed William often came home in the early hours without explanation and after she complained to him about his lateness he'd strike her. He was a tailor's assistant and had been transferred from St Helens to work in Liverpool. There, his wife said William had taken up with a woman called Dorothy Blunt and four of her love letters were read out to the court for the titillation of those in the public gallery.
The letters that began "My darling (or dearest) boy" incorporated expressions like "Hoping to see your bonny wee face on Saturday night" and in wondering what he had done on his half-day off, she wrote: "I should have just loved to have been loved by you". That particularly letter was signed off, "With heaps and heaps of love and kisses. Yours as ever, Dorothy".
It seemed straightforward that the separation order would be signed. But William denied all the claims made against him. Upon being questioned about the claim that he had struck his wife two days after she had given birth, he said: "Never, on my honour; as true as there is a God above, I never struck her. It is absolutely false."
He could not refute any of the letters but claimed that his wife had received similar ones from men. These were not produced in court and Mary McGuiness stated that they dated from before their marriage. But the six magistrates who heard the lengthy case refused to sign the separation order leaving Mary completely in the lurch.
Her only hope would be gather more evidence of her husband's wrongdoings and prove her claim that the letters that she had received from other men were from a long time ago. But she was told that she had to pay her own court costs incurred so far and further action would mean more expense that she probably could not afford.
The Reporter had an extensive advertising feature promoting electricity which they said was "rapidly coming into its own in St. Helens". They wrote that since the Croppers Hill power station had been opened in 1899 (pictured above), the development of electricity in the town had been hindered by:
"…public prejudice and indifference to the great utility of electricity, not only as a clean, convenient and comparatively inexpensive means of illumination, but as an efficient, practical and economic motive power for all kinds of large and small machinery."
The truth was that although its cost was now coming down, electricity had been expensive and few landlords were prepared to pay for it to be installed in the homes of their tenants. And as electricity originally had little purpose other than to facilitate lighting, others had not been motivated to install it.
The feature stated that in 1900 the Electricity Department of St Helens Corporation – which generated and distributed the power – had less than 200 customers but there were now more than 3,100. That last figure, presumably, included the use of electricity by industry and businesses, such as shops, that were heavy users – and so the domestic market had still barely been tapped.
Electric-powered items like cookers, fires, kettles, irons etc. were now available, expanding the use of electricity from simply being a source of light. But purchasing these products added to the cost of obtaining and using electric power. However, a solution to this problem was described in the article.
The Electricity Department was hiring out electric fires for an annual rental of between 5 and 15 shillings and an electric cooker, plus a kettle, for only £1 per year. Getting people to switch from traditional coal fires to an electric one would not be easy and so the report had to explain how they worked and persuade potential users of their merits:
"There is no doubt that the latest electric fire, adapted for drawing rooms and dining rooms, is a thing of beauty and great utility. It is a masterpiece of modern invention, whereby the impression of a red hot coal fire is obtained immediately by the touch of a switch, combined with a heat sufficient for any ordinary sized room."
And finally, Sunday entertainment in the cinemas and theatres of St Helens was banned – with one exception. The licensing magistrates did permit so-called sacred concerts on the Sabbath and on the 30th one was held at the Hippodrome Theatre. The event was in aid of the spiritual breaks run by Fr. Pollen at Loyola Hall in Rainhill.
In 1923 Rainhill Hall – or "The Hall, Rainhill", as it was officially known – and its 44 acres of land had been taken over by the Society of Jesus (more commonly known as Jesuits) and renamed Loyola Hall.
St Helens Reporter courtesy St Helens Archive Service at Eccleston Library
Next Week's stories will include the Parr woman who used a trick to steal from children, the shocking pit death in Haydock, the schoolchildren's Christmas parties, the desperate need for homes in St Helens and Cholerton's special wireless offer.
We begin with my award for the unluckiest St Helens man of the week, which has to go to Frank Downie of Charles Street. As the young man began to enter the Argenta meat shop in Church Street, a huge fanlight in the doorway measuring 5 ft by 4 ft crashed down on top of him. Fortunately he'd heard the sound of it starting to come down and instinctively put up his arm to protect his head.
But Downie still sustained a long and severe gash across the back of his hand. PC Murrant was on point duty at the top of Bridge Street and went to render first aid to the young man. After being taken to Providence Hospital it was decided that Downie required an operation on his hand, although just what had caused the collapse of the fanlight was not known.
And the most curious court case of the week involved a row between two rival supporters of candidates in the recent general election. George Gutheridge of Napier Street was a supporter of the Labour candidate, James Sexton. While his neighbour, Elizabeth Wills, was a fan of Evelyn Pilkington, who represented the Conservative Party.
On the day after the election, which Sexton had won, Gutheridge had walked past the house of Mrs Wills on his way to the cinema. But as he passed he could not resist taunting his neighbour by shouting "Three cheers for Jimmy Sexton". And Mrs Wells had immediately replied "Aye, and three cheers for Miss Evelyn".
Then, as the Reporter put it, "The band played, and the balloon went up, so to speak, with the result that Gutheridge received a pressing invitation on a “bit of blue paper” to attend the Police Court." In other words, there had been trouble, an assault was claimed and a summons was issued.
In court Mrs Wills claimed that when Gutheridge had shouted to her he had been in a quarrelsome mood and the man had marched across the road and asked, "Is it bother you're wanting?" "No", Mrs Wills said she had replied, adding, "I think it is you who wants bother." At that point she claimed that despite holding a baby in her arms, Gutheridge had struck her on the jaw, which caused her mouth to bleed, and then he had threatened her son.
Mrs Wills also stated that she had heard Gutheridge fall out with some other woman at 1am on the morning following the general election in another row over politics. Nelly Friar gave witness evidence and told the court that she had seen Gutheridge "thump" Mrs Wills under her jaw and said the woman had been so "flabbergasted" after receiving the blow that she couldn't get her breath.
But, unsurprisingly, George Gutheridge had a totally different version of events! In his parallel world he had been the innocent victim of an unprovoked assault when on his way to the pictures. He reckoned that Mrs Wills was angry because she had supported the losing candidate. After handing her baby to a neighbour, Gutheridge claimed she had crossed the road and struck him half-a-dozen times on his face.
He insisted that he had wanted nothing at all to do with the woman and completely denied striking her – and even claimed that after being attacked he had sent for a policeman. After hearing the evidence of several more witnesses, the Bench retired for a lengthy consultation but in the end decided to fine Gutheridge 10 shillings and said he would have to pay all the witnesses' costs.
Slowly but surely leisure and sporting pursuits for women were expanding. Of course, the activities had to be sedate and lady-like – and so no boxing or rugby league! But bowling fitted the bill quite nicely and this week it was announced that a new club for females had been created at Queen's Recreation Ground which was being called Queen's Park Ladies B.C.
I've often written about court cases in which wives accused their husbands of persistent cruelty and requested a separation order. These were in reality applications for maintenance payments for the man's wife and children. The court was essentially giving its blessing to a couple living apart with the husband ordered to pay a certain weekly sum to his wife.
A repeated failure to do so could ultimately mean prison, although the magistrates did not sign such separation orders easily. They often needed a lot of persuasion that the marriage had irretrievably broken down and they were particularly reluctant to sanction separation if the couple had not been wed very long.
Many husbands did not like to be perceived as wife beaters or have to pay maintenance and so would deny every accusation levelled against them. And the local newspapers had a field day in reporting all the details of the couple's muck throwing. Out of all the many reports of such cases that I have seen, I have never read one before like the McGuiness's battle that was detailed in the Reporter on the 28th. The extensive coverage seemed never ending and it was as if they were reporting on the crime of the century.
In brief William and Mary McGuiness had married in 1920, had two young children and had initially lived at her mother's house in Wilson Street in St Helens (near Boundary Road). But after her son-in-law's acts of violence against her daughter, the mother had ordered the couple to leave her home and they went to live in Oxford Street for 7 or 8 months before being allowed to return to Wilson Street.
Mary claimed William often came home in the early hours without explanation and after she complained to him about his lateness he'd strike her. He was a tailor's assistant and had been transferred from St Helens to work in Liverpool. There, his wife said William had taken up with a woman called Dorothy Blunt and four of her love letters were read out to the court for the titillation of those in the public gallery.
The letters that began "My darling (or dearest) boy" incorporated expressions like "Hoping to see your bonny wee face on Saturday night" and in wondering what he had done on his half-day off, she wrote: "I should have just loved to have been loved by you". That particularly letter was signed off, "With heaps and heaps of love and kisses. Yours as ever, Dorothy".
It seemed straightforward that the separation order would be signed. But William denied all the claims made against him. Upon being questioned about the claim that he had struck his wife two days after she had given birth, he said: "Never, on my honour; as true as there is a God above, I never struck her. It is absolutely false."
He could not refute any of the letters but claimed that his wife had received similar ones from men. These were not produced in court and Mary McGuiness stated that they dated from before their marriage. But the six magistrates who heard the lengthy case refused to sign the separation order leaving Mary completely in the lurch.
Her only hope would be gather more evidence of her husband's wrongdoings and prove her claim that the letters that she had received from other men were from a long time ago. But she was told that she had to pay her own court costs incurred so far and further action would mean more expense that she probably could not afford.
"…public prejudice and indifference to the great utility of electricity, not only as a clean, convenient and comparatively inexpensive means of illumination, but as an efficient, practical and economic motive power for all kinds of large and small machinery."
The truth was that although its cost was now coming down, electricity had been expensive and few landlords were prepared to pay for it to be installed in the homes of their tenants. And as electricity originally had little purpose other than to facilitate lighting, others had not been motivated to install it.
The feature stated that in 1900 the Electricity Department of St Helens Corporation – which generated and distributed the power – had less than 200 customers but there were now more than 3,100. That last figure, presumably, included the use of electricity by industry and businesses, such as shops, that were heavy users – and so the domestic market had still barely been tapped.
The Electricity Department was hiring out electric fires for an annual rental of between 5 and 15 shillings and an electric cooker, plus a kettle, for only £1 per year. Getting people to switch from traditional coal fires to an electric one would not be easy and so the report had to explain how they worked and persuade potential users of their merits:
"There is no doubt that the latest electric fire, adapted for drawing rooms and dining rooms, is a thing of beauty and great utility. It is a masterpiece of modern invention, whereby the impression of a red hot coal fire is obtained immediately by the touch of a switch, combined with a heat sufficient for any ordinary sized room."
And finally, Sunday entertainment in the cinemas and theatres of St Helens was banned – with one exception. The licensing magistrates did permit so-called sacred concerts on the Sabbath and on the 30th one was held at the Hippodrome Theatre. The event was in aid of the spiritual breaks run by Fr. Pollen at Loyola Hall in Rainhill.
In 1923 Rainhill Hall – or "The Hall, Rainhill", as it was officially known – and its 44 acres of land had been taken over by the Society of Jesus (more commonly known as Jesuits) and renamed Loyola Hall.
St Helens Reporter courtesy St Helens Archive Service at Eccleston Library
Next Week's stories will include the Parr woman who used a trick to steal from children, the shocking pit death in Haydock, the schoolchildren's Christmas parties, the desperate need for homes in St Helens and Cholerton's special wireless offer.
This week's many stories include the fan light that fell on to a Church Street shop's customer, the election shindy in Napier Street, the novel plan to hire out electric fires and cookers, the bowling club for women, the frank love letters read out in a court case, the sacred concert at the Hippodrome and the electricity promotion in the Reporter.
We begin with my award for the unluckiest St Helens man of the week, which has to go to Frank Downie of Charles Street.
As the young man began to enter the Argenta meat shop in Church Street, a huge fanlight in the doorway measuring 5 ft by 4 ft crashed down on top of him.
Fortunately he'd heard the sound of it starting to come down and instinctively put up his arm to protect his head. But Downie still sustained a long and severe gash across the back of his hand.
PC Murrant was on point duty at the top of Bridge Street and went to render first aid to the young man.
After being taken to Providence Hospital it was decided that Downie required an operation on his hand, although just what had caused the collapse of the fanlight was not known.
And the most curious court case of the week involved a row between two rival supporters of candidates in the recent general election.
George Gutheridge of Napier Street was a supporter of the Labour candidate, James Sexton.
While his neighbour, Elizabeth Wills, was a fan of Evelyn Pilkington, who represented the Conservative Party.
On the day after the election, which Sexton had won, Gutheridge had walked past the house of Mrs Wills on his way to the cinema.
But as he passed he could not resist taunting his neighbour by shouting "Three cheers for Jimmy Sexton".
And Mrs Wells had immediately replied "Aye, and three cheers for Miss Evelyn".
Then, as the Reporter put it, "The band played, and the balloon went up, so to speak, with the result that Gutheridge received a pressing invitation on a “bit of blue paper” to attend the Police Court."
In other words, there had been trouble, an assault was claimed and a summons was issued.
In court Mrs Wills claimed that when Gutheridge had shouted to her he had been in a quarrelsome mood and the man had marched across the road and asked, "Is it bother you're wanting?"
"No", Mrs Wills said she had replied, adding, "I think it is you who wants bother."
At that point she claimed that despite holding a baby in her arms, Gutheridge had struck her on the jaw, which caused her mouth to bleed, and then he had threatened her son.
Mrs Wills also stated that she had heard Gutheridge fall out with some other woman at 1am on the morning following the general election in another row over politics.
Nelly Friar gave witness evidence and told the court that she had seen Gutheridge "thump" Mrs Wills under her jaw and said the woman had been so "flabbergasted" after receiving the blow that she couldn't get her breath.
But, unsurprisingly, George Gutheridge had a totally different version of events!
In his parallel world he had been the innocent victim of an unprovoked assault when on his way to the pictures.
He reckoned that Mrs Wills was angry because she had supported the losing candidate. After handing her baby to a neighbour, Gutheridge claimed she had crossed the road and struck him half-a-dozen times on his face.
He insisted that he had wanted nothing at all to do with the woman and completely denied striking her – and even claimed that after being attacked he had sent for a policeman.
After hearing the evidence of several more witnesses, the Bench retired for a lengthy consultation but in the end decided to fine Gutheridge 10 shillings and said he would have to pay all the witnesses' costs.
Slowly but surely leisure and sporting pursuits for women were expanding. Of course, the activities had to be sedate and lady-like – and so no boxing or rugby league!
But bowling fitted the bill quite nicely and this week it was announced that a new club for females had been created at Queen's Recreation Ground which was being called Queen's Park Ladies B.C.
I've often written about court cases in which wives accused their husbands of persistent cruelty and requested a separation order.
These were in reality applications for maintenance payments for the man's wife and children.
The court was essentially giving its blessing to a couple living apart with the husband ordered to pay a certain weekly sum to his wife.
A repeated failure to do so could ultimately mean prison, although the magistrates did not sign such separation orders easily.
They often needed a lot of persuasion that the marriage had irretrievably broken down and they were particularly reluctant to sanction separation if the couple had not been wed very long.
Many husbands did not like to be perceived as wife beaters or have to pay maintenance and so would deny every accusation levelled against them.
And the local newspapers had a field day in reporting all the details of the couple's muck throwing.
Out of all the many reports of such cases that I have seen, I have never read one before like the McGuiness's battle that was detailed in the Reporter on the 28th.
The extensive coverage seemed never ending and it was as if they were reporting on the crime of the century.
In brief William and Mary McGuiness had married in 1920, had two young children and had initially lived at her mother's house in Wilson Street in St Helens (near Boundary Road).
But after her son-in-law's acts of violence against her daughter, the mother had ordered the couple to leave her home and they went to live in Oxford Street for 7 or 8 months before being allowed to return to Wilson Street.
Mary claimed William often came home in the early hours without explanation and after she complained to him about his lateness he'd strike her.
He was a tailor's assistant and had been transferred from St Helens to work in Liverpool.
There, his wife said William had taken up with a woman called Dorothy Blunt and four of her love letters were read out to the court for the titillation of those in the public gallery.
The letters that began "My darling (or dearest) boy" incorporated expressions like "Hoping to see your bonny wee face on Saturday night" and in wondering what he had done on his half-day off, she wrote: "I should have just loved to have been loved by you".
That particularly letter was signed off, "With heaps and heaps of love and kisses. Yours as ever, Dorothy".
It seemed straightforward that the separation order would be signed. But William denied all the claims made against him.
Upon being questioned about the claim that he had struck his wife two days after she had given birth, he said:
"Never, on my honour; as true as there is a God above, I never struck her. It is absolutely false."
He could not refute any of the letters but claimed that his wife had received similar ones from men.
These were not produced in court and Mary McGuiness stated that they dated from before their marriage.
But the six magistrates who heard the lengthy case refused to sign the separation order leaving Mary completely in the lurch.
Her only hope would be gather more evidence of her husband's wrongdoings and prove her claim that the letters that she had received from other men were from a long time ago.
But she was told that she had to pay her own court costs incurred so far and further action would mean more expense that she probably could not afford.
The Reporter had an extensive advertising feature promoting electricity which they said was "rapidly coming into its own in St. Helens".
They wrote that since the Croppers Hill power station had been opened in 1899 (pictured above), the development of electricity in the town had been hindered by:
"…public prejudice and indifference to the great utility of electricity, not only as a clean, convenient and comparatively inexpensive means of illumination, but as an efficient, practical and economic motive power for all kinds of large and small machinery."
The truth was that although its cost was now coming down, electricity had been expensive and few landlords were prepared to pay for it to be installed in the homes of their tenants.
And as electricity originally had little purpose other than to facilitate lighting, others had not been motivated to install it.
The feature stated that in 1900 the Electricity Department of St Helens Corporation – which generated and distributed the power – had less than 200 customers but there were now more than 3,100.
That last figure, presumably, included the use of electricity by industry and businesses, such as shops, that were heavy users – and so the domestic market had still barely been tapped.
Electric-powered items like cookers, fires, kettles, irons etc. were now available, expanding the use of electricity from simply being a source of light.
But purchasing these products added to the cost of obtaining and using electric power. However, a solution to this problem was described in the article.
The Electricity Department was hiring out electric fires for an annual rental of between 5 and 15 shillings and an electric cooker, plus a kettle, for only £1 per year.
Getting people to switch from traditional coal fires to an electric one would not be easy and so the report had to explain how they worked and persuade potential users of their merits:
"There is no doubt that the latest electric fire, adapted for drawing rooms and dining rooms, is a thing of beauty and great utility. It is a masterpiece of modern invention, whereby the impression of a red hot coal fire is obtained immediately by the touch of a switch, combined with a heat sufficient for any ordinary sized room."
And finally, Sunday entertainment in the cinemas and theatres of St Helens was banned – with one exception.
The licensing magistrates did permit so-called sacred concerts on the Sabbath and on the 30th one was held at the Hippodrome Theatre.
The event was in aid of the spiritual breaks run by Fr. Pollen at Loyola Hall in Rainhill.
In 1923 Rainhill Hall – or "The Hall, Rainhill", as it was officially known – and its 44 acres of land had been taken over by the Society of Jesus (more commonly known as Jesuits) and renamed Loyola Hall.
St Helens Reporter courtesy St Helens Archive Service at Eccleston Library
Next Week's stories will include the Parr woman who used a trick to steal from children, the shocking pit death in Haydock, the schoolchildren's Christmas parties, the desperate need for homes in St Helens and Cholerton's special wireless offer.
We begin with my award for the unluckiest St Helens man of the week, which has to go to Frank Downie of Charles Street.
As the young man began to enter the Argenta meat shop in Church Street, a huge fanlight in the doorway measuring 5 ft by 4 ft crashed down on top of him.
Fortunately he'd heard the sound of it starting to come down and instinctively put up his arm to protect his head. But Downie still sustained a long and severe gash across the back of his hand.
PC Murrant was on point duty at the top of Bridge Street and went to render first aid to the young man.
After being taken to Providence Hospital it was decided that Downie required an operation on his hand, although just what had caused the collapse of the fanlight was not known.
And the most curious court case of the week involved a row between two rival supporters of candidates in the recent general election.
George Gutheridge of Napier Street was a supporter of the Labour candidate, James Sexton.
While his neighbour, Elizabeth Wills, was a fan of Evelyn Pilkington, who represented the Conservative Party.
On the day after the election, which Sexton had won, Gutheridge had walked past the house of Mrs Wills on his way to the cinema.
But as he passed he could not resist taunting his neighbour by shouting "Three cheers for Jimmy Sexton".
And Mrs Wells had immediately replied "Aye, and three cheers for Miss Evelyn".
Then, as the Reporter put it, "The band played, and the balloon went up, so to speak, with the result that Gutheridge received a pressing invitation on a “bit of blue paper” to attend the Police Court."
In other words, there had been trouble, an assault was claimed and a summons was issued.
In court Mrs Wills claimed that when Gutheridge had shouted to her he had been in a quarrelsome mood and the man had marched across the road and asked, "Is it bother you're wanting?"
"No", Mrs Wills said she had replied, adding, "I think it is you who wants bother."
At that point she claimed that despite holding a baby in her arms, Gutheridge had struck her on the jaw, which caused her mouth to bleed, and then he had threatened her son.
Mrs Wills also stated that she had heard Gutheridge fall out with some other woman at 1am on the morning following the general election in another row over politics.
Nelly Friar gave witness evidence and told the court that she had seen Gutheridge "thump" Mrs Wills under her jaw and said the woman had been so "flabbergasted" after receiving the blow that she couldn't get her breath.
But, unsurprisingly, George Gutheridge had a totally different version of events!
In his parallel world he had been the innocent victim of an unprovoked assault when on his way to the pictures.
He reckoned that Mrs Wills was angry because she had supported the losing candidate. After handing her baby to a neighbour, Gutheridge claimed she had crossed the road and struck him half-a-dozen times on his face.
He insisted that he had wanted nothing at all to do with the woman and completely denied striking her – and even claimed that after being attacked he had sent for a policeman.
After hearing the evidence of several more witnesses, the Bench retired for a lengthy consultation but in the end decided to fine Gutheridge 10 shillings and said he would have to pay all the witnesses' costs.
Slowly but surely leisure and sporting pursuits for women were expanding. Of course, the activities had to be sedate and lady-like – and so no boxing or rugby league!
But bowling fitted the bill quite nicely and this week it was announced that a new club for females had been created at Queen's Recreation Ground which was being called Queen's Park Ladies B.C.
I've often written about court cases in which wives accused their husbands of persistent cruelty and requested a separation order.
These were in reality applications for maintenance payments for the man's wife and children.
The court was essentially giving its blessing to a couple living apart with the husband ordered to pay a certain weekly sum to his wife.
A repeated failure to do so could ultimately mean prison, although the magistrates did not sign such separation orders easily.
They often needed a lot of persuasion that the marriage had irretrievably broken down and they were particularly reluctant to sanction separation if the couple had not been wed very long.
Many husbands did not like to be perceived as wife beaters or have to pay maintenance and so would deny every accusation levelled against them.
And the local newspapers had a field day in reporting all the details of the couple's muck throwing.
Out of all the many reports of such cases that I have seen, I have never read one before like the McGuiness's battle that was detailed in the Reporter on the 28th.
The extensive coverage seemed never ending and it was as if they were reporting on the crime of the century.
In brief William and Mary McGuiness had married in 1920, had two young children and had initially lived at her mother's house in Wilson Street in St Helens (near Boundary Road).
But after her son-in-law's acts of violence against her daughter, the mother had ordered the couple to leave her home and they went to live in Oxford Street for 7 or 8 months before being allowed to return to Wilson Street.
Mary claimed William often came home in the early hours without explanation and after she complained to him about his lateness he'd strike her.
He was a tailor's assistant and had been transferred from St Helens to work in Liverpool.
There, his wife said William had taken up with a woman called Dorothy Blunt and four of her love letters were read out to the court for the titillation of those in the public gallery.
The letters that began "My darling (or dearest) boy" incorporated expressions like "Hoping to see your bonny wee face on Saturday night" and in wondering what he had done on his half-day off, she wrote: "I should have just loved to have been loved by you".
That particularly letter was signed off, "With heaps and heaps of love and kisses. Yours as ever, Dorothy".
It seemed straightforward that the separation order would be signed. But William denied all the claims made against him.
Upon being questioned about the claim that he had struck his wife two days after she had given birth, he said:
"Never, on my honour; as true as there is a God above, I never struck her. It is absolutely false."
He could not refute any of the letters but claimed that his wife had received similar ones from men.
These were not produced in court and Mary McGuiness stated that they dated from before their marriage.
But the six magistrates who heard the lengthy case refused to sign the separation order leaving Mary completely in the lurch.
Her only hope would be gather more evidence of her husband's wrongdoings and prove her claim that the letters that she had received from other men were from a long time ago.
But she was told that she had to pay her own court costs incurred so far and further action would mean more expense that she probably could not afford.
The Reporter had an extensive advertising feature promoting electricity which they said was "rapidly coming into its own in St. Helens".
"…public prejudice and indifference to the great utility of electricity, not only as a clean, convenient and comparatively inexpensive means of illumination, but as an efficient, practical and economic motive power for all kinds of large and small machinery."
The truth was that although its cost was now coming down, electricity had been expensive and few landlords were prepared to pay for it to be installed in the homes of their tenants.
And as electricity originally had little purpose other than to facilitate lighting, others had not been motivated to install it.
That last figure, presumably, included the use of electricity by industry and businesses, such as shops, that were heavy users – and so the domestic market had still barely been tapped.
Electric-powered items like cookers, fires, kettles, irons etc. were now available, expanding the use of electricity from simply being a source of light.
But purchasing these products added to the cost of obtaining and using electric power. However, a solution to this problem was described in the article.
The Electricity Department was hiring out electric fires for an annual rental of between 5 and 15 shillings and an electric cooker, plus a kettle, for only £1 per year.
Getting people to switch from traditional coal fires to an electric one would not be easy and so the report had to explain how they worked and persuade potential users of their merits:
"There is no doubt that the latest electric fire, adapted for drawing rooms and dining rooms, is a thing of beauty and great utility. It is a masterpiece of modern invention, whereby the impression of a red hot coal fire is obtained immediately by the touch of a switch, combined with a heat sufficient for any ordinary sized room."
And finally, Sunday entertainment in the cinemas and theatres of St Helens was banned – with one exception.
The licensing magistrates did permit so-called sacred concerts on the Sabbath and on the 30th one was held at the Hippodrome Theatre.
The event was in aid of the spiritual breaks run by Fr. Pollen at Loyola Hall in Rainhill.
In 1923 Rainhill Hall – or "The Hall, Rainhill", as it was officially known – and its 44 acres of land had been taken over by the Society of Jesus (more commonly known as Jesuits) and renamed Loyola Hall.
St Helens Reporter courtesy St Helens Archive Service at Eccleston Library
Next Week's stories will include the Parr woman who used a trick to steal from children, the shocking pit death in Haydock, the schoolchildren's Christmas parties, the desperate need for homes in St Helens and Cholerton's special wireless offer.