IOO YEARS AGO THIS WEEK (2nd - 8th NOVEMBER 1920)
This week's many stories include the Mount Street house that was not fit for a pig to live in, the man who gave evidence for his mate against his wife, the strange Ravenhead timber stealing case and the illiterate scissors grinder accused of being a benefit cheat.
We begin in the Police Court on the 5th with a remnant of the recent coal strike when Maurice Murphy and George Anders appeared before the Bench. During any dispute the miners' concessionary coal would end and so they or their wives would sometimes help themselves to some. This could be coal that was stored in railway wagons, in waste heaps or other places – including disused pits or where old mines outcropped at the surface.
The two men in the dock had been sourcing their coal from a place called Jockeys Brow in Ravenhead. However miner Maurice Murphy and haulage hand George Anders – who both lived in Eccleston Street – were not charged with taking coal but with stealing three posts. Six days earlier PC Moore had seen the men at half-past two in the morning carrying timber from a field. The pair said they had taken the wood out of a clay hole, however it was partly wet as if it had just been removed from the ground.
It transpired that the men were part of a group of miners who had removed thirty posts from a fence marking the boundary of some land belonging to Colonel Michael Hughes. The timber was being used as props to provide support when the men were digging for coal. The magistrates fined both defendants ten shillings each.
The "unemployment donation" was the official term for the out of work benefit – or "dole" as most would call it. Like today, there were a number of conditions restricting a claimant's entitlement, including not being allowed to claim if earning over 1s 10d a day. That led to Frederick Newman from Sandfield Crescent (pictured above and off Liverpool Road), appearing in court charged with obtaining £4 6s 8d by false pretences.
Fred was about 48 and could neither read nor write and ran his own scissors grinding business. That was not quite as grand an enterprise as it might sound. When the weather was fine (he stayed at home when it rained!), Fred went out on his rounds with a barrow and knocked on a few doors to see if people wanted their scissors sharpening. Being illiterate he kept no books but on his own admission would make 3 to 4 shillings a day when working. This came to about 10 to 12 shillings a week – assuming a couple of days of rain – which exceeded the permissible earnings limit.
Det. Con. Latus gave evidence to the hearing that Newman had said that he needed the £1 a week unemployment donation as it cost him £2 to live. Those in breach of the rules could be severely punished but there was some sympathy for the man. Being illiterate had not helped Fred understand the rules; he had served in the army during the war and his wife had died in June leaving him depressed. However he was still given a stiff fine of £5 but allowed time to pay. Perhaps Fred also needed to invest in an umbrella?
I've often wondered how low the original phone numbers went within the St Helens district; i.e. did they start at no. 1 or say, 100? It appears to have been the former, as Welsby Brothers at the Station Garage in Rainhill was advertising in the Reporter on the 5th and their phone number was simply 7. The mechanics' catchy slogan was: "Don't give up! Give Welsby Bros. a trial. That's it!"
A new shoe shop opened in St Helens on the 5th called The City Boot Co with premises at 72 Bridge Street. Their advert went: "Never in the history of St. Helens has such wonderful value been offered in Ladies, Gent's and Children's boots and shoes. Two of our special lines at 18/11 and 20/- will astonish you."
I had assumed that Esperanto had pretty much died out these days – but not so. Apparently the international language is still spoken by people living in more than 100 countries. This week a century ago, the recently revived St Helens Esperanto Society announced plans to extend the movement in the town by holding weekly beginners classes in the Parochial Hall in Ormskirk Street.
There was an unusual case in the Police Court on the 8th in which a man gave evidence for his pal against his wife. Elizabeth Weldon had summoned Evan Longlar from Hardshaw Street (pictured above) to court, accusing him of assault. Mrs Weldon told the Bench that she had been standing in the street when three men approached her. One of them was her husband and after the couple had exchanged some words, Evan Longlar then stepped forward and struck her across the face.
She claimed that a woman who had witnessed the assault told the man not to interfere and added that it was a nice thing for a husband to allow his wife to be assaulted in that way. However this person was not in court to corroborate the claim and Mrs Weldon added that in another argument Longlar had struck her twice. This appears to be yet another case where the plaintiff was offering selective evidence of what had occurred. The defendant denied the assault and claimed that Mrs Weldon had begun the row by striking him and he had simply pushed her to one side. Longlar also claimed that the woman had called him a Welsh "so and so".
One might have expected that Mrs Weldon's husband would have been a witness to the affray. Well he was – but not hers! In fact he backed up everything that his mate had said about the argument and the subsequent assault. Surprisingly the magistrates decided to take the woman's side and bound Evan Longlar over for six months upon payment of two sureties.
There were many house possession cases in the St Helens courts that virtually always followed the same pattern. The landlord wanted his tenant to leave so that they or their employee could live in the house. But the tenant always claimed that they could not find anywhere else to live due to the housing crisis in St Helens. However the case that the magistrates heard in the Police Court on the 8th was a little different.
It concerned a house in Mount Street (near Liverpool Road), which was tenanted by Michael Sweeney but he had sub-let part of it. For the last twelve months Sweeney had allowed John Brannon and his wife to live rent-free in a back bedroom of the house. The arrangement was on condition that they kept the property clean, did his washing and lit fires etc. The St Helens Reporter takes up the rest of the story beginning with Sweeney's solicitor describing the situation to the Bench:
"During the last five weeks, the defendant had refused to do any of the work he was engaged to do, and the result was the applicant [Michael Sweeney] had to send out his washing, light his own fires when he came home at nights, and other things. The defendant and his wife did absolutely nothing, and the house was in a dirty condition. The defendant's wife frequently got drunk, and she would annoy the neighbours by shouting and threatening them.
"He believed that the defendant left his wife on the previous Monday; at any rate he had not been in the house since a week ago, when he thrashed his wife so much that two police officers had to be called in. Even that morning Mrs. Brannon had threatened her next door neighbour. The rent of the house was 4s. 7½d. a week, but the defendant did not pay any rent.
"The applicant corroborated the opening statement. Owing to the refusal of the defendant and his wife to do what they undertook to do, he was very badly fixed, and he wanted to get them out. The part of the house he lived in was middling clean, because a woman came in and cleaned it, but the back bedroom occupied by the defendant and his wife was so dirty that it was not fit for a pig to live in. He intended to let the part of the house now occupied by the defendant to his (applicant's) son and daughter-in-law, who were prepared to look after it.
"After other evidence, Mrs. Brannon gave a flat denial to the statement that she never cleaned the house or that it was dirty. She cleaned it every day, and made the bed as usual. Her reputation would stand the strictest investigation. The Bench made an order for possession in a month."
Next week's stories will include the sailor who threw himself through a plate glass window, the Wilson Street couple accused of impersonating voters, how motor vehicles interrupted Armistice Day and there's good news about the Windlehurst council estate.
We begin in the Police Court on the 5th with a remnant of the recent coal strike when Maurice Murphy and George Anders appeared before the Bench. During any dispute the miners' concessionary coal would end and so they or their wives would sometimes help themselves to some. This could be coal that was stored in railway wagons, in waste heaps or other places – including disused pits or where old mines outcropped at the surface.
The two men in the dock had been sourcing their coal from a place called Jockeys Brow in Ravenhead. However miner Maurice Murphy and haulage hand George Anders – who both lived in Eccleston Street – were not charged with taking coal but with stealing three posts. Six days earlier PC Moore had seen the men at half-past two in the morning carrying timber from a field. The pair said they had taken the wood out of a clay hole, however it was partly wet as if it had just been removed from the ground.
It transpired that the men were part of a group of miners who had removed thirty posts from a fence marking the boundary of some land belonging to Colonel Michael Hughes. The timber was being used as props to provide support when the men were digging for coal. The magistrates fined both defendants ten shillings each.
Fred was about 48 and could neither read nor write and ran his own scissors grinding business. That was not quite as grand an enterprise as it might sound. When the weather was fine (he stayed at home when it rained!), Fred went out on his rounds with a barrow and knocked on a few doors to see if people wanted their scissors sharpening. Being illiterate he kept no books but on his own admission would make 3 to 4 shillings a day when working. This came to about 10 to 12 shillings a week – assuming a couple of days of rain – which exceeded the permissible earnings limit.
Det. Con. Latus gave evidence to the hearing that Newman had said that he needed the £1 a week unemployment donation as it cost him £2 to live. Those in breach of the rules could be severely punished but there was some sympathy for the man. Being illiterate had not helped Fred understand the rules; he had served in the army during the war and his wife had died in June leaving him depressed. However he was still given a stiff fine of £5 but allowed time to pay. Perhaps Fred also needed to invest in an umbrella?
I've often wondered how low the original phone numbers went within the St Helens district; i.e. did they start at no. 1 or say, 100? It appears to have been the former, as Welsby Brothers at the Station Garage in Rainhill was advertising in the Reporter on the 5th and their phone number was simply 7. The mechanics' catchy slogan was: "Don't give up! Give Welsby Bros. a trial. That's it!"
A new shoe shop opened in St Helens on the 5th called The City Boot Co with premises at 72 Bridge Street. Their advert went: "Never in the history of St. Helens has such wonderful value been offered in Ladies, Gent's and Children's boots and shoes. Two of our special lines at 18/11 and 20/- will astonish you."
I had assumed that Esperanto had pretty much died out these days – but not so. Apparently the international language is still spoken by people living in more than 100 countries. This week a century ago, the recently revived St Helens Esperanto Society announced plans to extend the movement in the town by holding weekly beginners classes in the Parochial Hall in Ormskirk Street.
She claimed that a woman who had witnessed the assault told the man not to interfere and added that it was a nice thing for a husband to allow his wife to be assaulted in that way. However this person was not in court to corroborate the claim and Mrs Weldon added that in another argument Longlar had struck her twice. This appears to be yet another case where the plaintiff was offering selective evidence of what had occurred. The defendant denied the assault and claimed that Mrs Weldon had begun the row by striking him and he had simply pushed her to one side. Longlar also claimed that the woman had called him a Welsh "so and so".
One might have expected that Mrs Weldon's husband would have been a witness to the affray. Well he was – but not hers! In fact he backed up everything that his mate had said about the argument and the subsequent assault. Surprisingly the magistrates decided to take the woman's side and bound Evan Longlar over for six months upon payment of two sureties.
There were many house possession cases in the St Helens courts that virtually always followed the same pattern. The landlord wanted his tenant to leave so that they or their employee could live in the house. But the tenant always claimed that they could not find anywhere else to live due to the housing crisis in St Helens. However the case that the magistrates heard in the Police Court on the 8th was a little different.
It concerned a house in Mount Street (near Liverpool Road), which was tenanted by Michael Sweeney but he had sub-let part of it. For the last twelve months Sweeney had allowed John Brannon and his wife to live rent-free in a back bedroom of the house. The arrangement was on condition that they kept the property clean, did his washing and lit fires etc. The St Helens Reporter takes up the rest of the story beginning with Sweeney's solicitor describing the situation to the Bench:
"During the last five weeks, the defendant had refused to do any of the work he was engaged to do, and the result was the applicant [Michael Sweeney] had to send out his washing, light his own fires when he came home at nights, and other things. The defendant and his wife did absolutely nothing, and the house was in a dirty condition. The defendant's wife frequently got drunk, and she would annoy the neighbours by shouting and threatening them.
"He believed that the defendant left his wife on the previous Monday; at any rate he had not been in the house since a week ago, when he thrashed his wife so much that two police officers had to be called in. Even that morning Mrs. Brannon had threatened her next door neighbour. The rent of the house was 4s. 7½d. a week, but the defendant did not pay any rent.
"The applicant corroborated the opening statement. Owing to the refusal of the defendant and his wife to do what they undertook to do, he was very badly fixed, and he wanted to get them out. The part of the house he lived in was middling clean, because a woman came in and cleaned it, but the back bedroom occupied by the defendant and his wife was so dirty that it was not fit for a pig to live in. He intended to let the part of the house now occupied by the defendant to his (applicant's) son and daughter-in-law, who were prepared to look after it.
"After other evidence, Mrs. Brannon gave a flat denial to the statement that she never cleaned the house or that it was dirty. She cleaned it every day, and made the bed as usual. Her reputation would stand the strictest investigation. The Bench made an order for possession in a month."
Next week's stories will include the sailor who threw himself through a plate glass window, the Wilson Street couple accused of impersonating voters, how motor vehicles interrupted Armistice Day and there's good news about the Windlehurst council estate.
This week's many stories include the Mount Street house that was not fit for a pig to live in, the man who gave evidence for his mate against his wife, the strange Ravenhead timber stealing case and the illiterate scissors grinder accused of being a benefit cheat.
We begin in the Police Court on the 5th with a remnant of the recent coal strike when Maurice Murphy and George Anders appeared before the Bench.
During any dispute the miners' concessionary coal would end and so they or their wives would sometimes help themselves to some.
This could be coal that was stored in railway wagons, in waste heaps or other places – including disused pits or where old mines outcropped at the surface.
The two men in the dock had been sourcing their coal from a place called Jockeys Brow in Ravenhead.
However miner Maurice Murphy and haulage hand George Anders – who both lived in Eccleston Street – were not charged with taking coal but with stealing three posts.
Six days earlier PC Moore had seen the men at half-past two in the morning carrying timber from a field.
The pair said they had taken the wood out of a clay hole, however it was partly wet as if it had just been removed from the ground.
It transpired that the men were part of a group of miners who had removed thirty posts from a fence marking the boundary of some land belonging to Colonel Michael Hughes.
The timber was being used as props to provide support when the men were digging for coal. The magistrates fined both defendants ten shillings each.
The "unemployment donation" was the official term for the out of work benefit – or "dole" as most would call it.
Like today, there were a number of conditions restricting a claimant's entitlement, including not being allowed to claim if earning over 1s 10d a day.
That led to Frederick Newman from Sandfield Crescent (pictured above and off Liverpool Road), appearing in court charged with obtaining £4 6s 8d by false pretences.
Fred was about 48 and could neither read nor write and ran his own scissors grinding business. That was not quite as grand an enterprise as it might sound.
When the weather was fine (he stayed at home when it rained!), Fred went out on his rounds with a barrow and knocked on a few doors to see if people wanted their scissors sharpening.
Being illiterate he kept no books but on his own admission would make 3 to 4 shillings a day when working.
This came to about 10 to 12 shillings a week – assuming a couple of days of rain – which exceeded the permissible earnings limit.
Det. Con. Latus gave evidence to the hearing that Newman had said that he needed the £1 a week unemployment donation as it cost him £2 to live.
Those in breach of the rules could be severely punished but there was some sympathy for the man.
Being illiterate had not helped Fred understand the rules; he had served in the army during the war and his wife had died in June leaving him depressed.
However he was still given a stiff fine of £5 but allowed time to pay. Perhaps Fred also needed to invest in an umbrella?
I've often wondered how low the original phone numbers went within the St Helens district; i.e. did they start at no. 1 or say, 100?
It appears to have been the former, as Welsby Brothers at the Station Garage in Rainhill was advertising in the Reporter on the 5th and their phone number was simply 7.
The mechanics' catchy slogan was: "Don't give up! Give Welsby Bros. a trial. That's it!"
A new shoe shop opened in St Helens on the 5th called The City Boot Co with premises at 72 Bridge Street. Their advert went:
"Never in the history of St. Helens has such wonderful value been offered in Ladies, Gent's and Children's boots and shoes. Two of our special lines at 18/11 and 20/- will astonish you."
I had assumed that Esperanto had pretty much died out these days – but not so.
Apparently the international language is still spoken by people living in more than 100 countries.
This week a century ago, the recently revived St Helens Esperanto Society announced plans to extend the movement in the town by holding weekly beginners classes in the Parochial Hall in Ormskirk Street.
There was an unusual case in the Police Court on the 8th in which a man gave evidence for his pal against his wife.
Elizabeth Weldon had summoned Evan Longlar from Hardshaw Street (pictured above) to court, accusing him of assault.
Mrs Weldon told the Bench that she had been standing in the street when three men approached her.
One of them was her husband and after the couple had exchanged some words, Evan Longlar then stepped forward and struck her across the face.
She claimed that a woman who had witnessed the assault told the man not to interfere and added that it was a nice thing for a husband to allow his wife to be assaulted in that way.
However this person was not in court to corroborate the claim and Mrs Weldon added that in another argument Longlar had struck her twice.
This appears to be yet another case where the plaintiff was offering selective evidence of what had occurred.
The defendant denied the assault and claimed that Mrs Weldon had begun the row by striking him and he had simply pushed her to one side.
Longlar also claimed that the woman had called him a Welsh "so and so".
One might have expected that Mrs Weldon's husband would have been a witness to the affray. Well he was – but not hers!
In fact he backed up everything that his mate had said about the argument and the subsequent assault.
Surprisingly the magistrates decided to take the woman's side and bound Evan Longlar over for six months upon payment of two sureties.
There were many house possession cases in the St Helens courts that virtually always followed the same pattern.
The landlord wanted his tenant to leave so that they or their employee could live in the house.
But the tenant always claimed that they could not find anywhere else to live due to the housing crisis in St Helens.
However the case that the magistrates heard in the Police Court on the 8th was a little different.
It concerned a house in Mount Street (near Liverpool Road), which was tenanted by Michael Sweeney but he had sub-let part of it.
For the last twelve months Sweeney had allowed John Brannon and his wife to live rent-free in a back bedroom of the house.
The arrangement was on condition that they kept the property clean, did his washing and lit fires etc.
The St Helens Reporter takes up the rest of the story beginning with Sweeney's solicitor describing the situation to the Bench:
"During the last five weeks, the defendant had refused to do any of the work he was engaged to do, and the result was the applicant [Michael Sweeney] had to send out his washing, light his own fires when he came home at nights, and other things.
"The defendant and his wife did absolutely nothing, and the house was in a dirty condition. The defendant's wife frequently got drunk, and she would annoy the neighbours by shouting and threatening them.
"He believed that the defendant left his wife on the previous Monday; at any rate he had not been in the house since a week ago, when he thrashed his wife so much that two police officers had to be called in.
"Even that morning Mrs. Brannon had threatened her next door neighbour. The rent of the house was 4s. 7½d. a week, but the defendant did not pay any rent.
"The applicant corroborated the opening statement. Owing to the refusal of the defendant and his wife to do what they undertook to do, he was very badly fixed, and he wanted to get them out.
"The part of the house he lived in was middling clean, because a woman came in and cleaned it, but the back bedroom occupied by the defendant and his wife was so dirty that it was not fit for a pig to live in.
"He intended to let the part of the house now occupied by the defendant to his (applicant's) son and daughter-in-law, who were prepared to look after it.
"After other evidence, Mrs. Brannon gave a flat denial to the statement that she never cleaned the house or that it was dirty.
"She cleaned it every day, and made the bed as usual. Her reputation would stand the strictest investigation. The Bench made an order for possession in a month."
Next week's stories will include the sailor who threw himself through a plate glass window, the Wilson Street couple accused of impersonating voters, how motor vehicles interrupted Armistice Day and there's good news about the Windlehurst council estate.
We begin in the Police Court on the 5th with a remnant of the recent coal strike when Maurice Murphy and George Anders appeared before the Bench.
During any dispute the miners' concessionary coal would end and so they or their wives would sometimes help themselves to some.
This could be coal that was stored in railway wagons, in waste heaps or other places – including disused pits or where old mines outcropped at the surface.
The two men in the dock had been sourcing their coal from a place called Jockeys Brow in Ravenhead.
However miner Maurice Murphy and haulage hand George Anders – who both lived in Eccleston Street – were not charged with taking coal but with stealing three posts.
Six days earlier PC Moore had seen the men at half-past two in the morning carrying timber from a field.
The pair said they had taken the wood out of a clay hole, however it was partly wet as if it had just been removed from the ground.
It transpired that the men were part of a group of miners who had removed thirty posts from a fence marking the boundary of some land belonging to Colonel Michael Hughes.
The timber was being used as props to provide support when the men were digging for coal. The magistrates fined both defendants ten shillings each.
The "unemployment donation" was the official term for the out of work benefit – or "dole" as most would call it.
Like today, there were a number of conditions restricting a claimant's entitlement, including not being allowed to claim if earning over 1s 10d a day.
Fred was about 48 and could neither read nor write and ran his own scissors grinding business. That was not quite as grand an enterprise as it might sound.
When the weather was fine (he stayed at home when it rained!), Fred went out on his rounds with a barrow and knocked on a few doors to see if people wanted their scissors sharpening.
Being illiterate he kept no books but on his own admission would make 3 to 4 shillings a day when working.
This came to about 10 to 12 shillings a week – assuming a couple of days of rain – which exceeded the permissible earnings limit.
Det. Con. Latus gave evidence to the hearing that Newman had said that he needed the £1 a week unemployment donation as it cost him £2 to live.
Those in breach of the rules could be severely punished but there was some sympathy for the man.
Being illiterate had not helped Fred understand the rules; he had served in the army during the war and his wife had died in June leaving him depressed.
However he was still given a stiff fine of £5 but allowed time to pay. Perhaps Fred also needed to invest in an umbrella?
I've often wondered how low the original phone numbers went within the St Helens district; i.e. did they start at no. 1 or say, 100?
It appears to have been the former, as Welsby Brothers at the Station Garage in Rainhill was advertising in the Reporter on the 5th and their phone number was simply 7.
The mechanics' catchy slogan was: "Don't give up! Give Welsby Bros. a trial. That's it!"
A new shoe shop opened in St Helens on the 5th called The City Boot Co with premises at 72 Bridge Street. Their advert went:
"Never in the history of St. Helens has such wonderful value been offered in Ladies, Gent's and Children's boots and shoes. Two of our special lines at 18/11 and 20/- will astonish you."
I had assumed that Esperanto had pretty much died out these days – but not so.
Apparently the international language is still spoken by people living in more than 100 countries.
This week a century ago, the recently revived St Helens Esperanto Society announced plans to extend the movement in the town by holding weekly beginners classes in the Parochial Hall in Ormskirk Street.
There was an unusual case in the Police Court on the 8th in which a man gave evidence for his pal against his wife.
Mrs Weldon told the Bench that she had been standing in the street when three men approached her.
One of them was her husband and after the couple had exchanged some words, Evan Longlar then stepped forward and struck her across the face.
She claimed that a woman who had witnessed the assault told the man not to interfere and added that it was a nice thing for a husband to allow his wife to be assaulted in that way.
However this person was not in court to corroborate the claim and Mrs Weldon added that in another argument Longlar had struck her twice.
This appears to be yet another case where the plaintiff was offering selective evidence of what had occurred.
The defendant denied the assault and claimed that Mrs Weldon had begun the row by striking him and he had simply pushed her to one side.
Longlar also claimed that the woman had called him a Welsh "so and so".
One might have expected that Mrs Weldon's husband would have been a witness to the affray. Well he was – but not hers!
In fact he backed up everything that his mate had said about the argument and the subsequent assault.
Surprisingly the magistrates decided to take the woman's side and bound Evan Longlar over for six months upon payment of two sureties.
There were many house possession cases in the St Helens courts that virtually always followed the same pattern.
The landlord wanted his tenant to leave so that they or their employee could live in the house.
But the tenant always claimed that they could not find anywhere else to live due to the housing crisis in St Helens.
However the case that the magistrates heard in the Police Court on the 8th was a little different.
It concerned a house in Mount Street (near Liverpool Road), which was tenanted by Michael Sweeney but he had sub-let part of it.
For the last twelve months Sweeney had allowed John Brannon and his wife to live rent-free in a back bedroom of the house.
The arrangement was on condition that they kept the property clean, did his washing and lit fires etc.
The St Helens Reporter takes up the rest of the story beginning with Sweeney's solicitor describing the situation to the Bench:
"During the last five weeks, the defendant had refused to do any of the work he was engaged to do, and the result was the applicant [Michael Sweeney] had to send out his washing, light his own fires when he came home at nights, and other things.
"The defendant and his wife did absolutely nothing, and the house was in a dirty condition. The defendant's wife frequently got drunk, and she would annoy the neighbours by shouting and threatening them.
"He believed that the defendant left his wife on the previous Monday; at any rate he had not been in the house since a week ago, when he thrashed his wife so much that two police officers had to be called in.
"Even that morning Mrs. Brannon had threatened her next door neighbour. The rent of the house was 4s. 7½d. a week, but the defendant did not pay any rent.
"The applicant corroborated the opening statement. Owing to the refusal of the defendant and his wife to do what they undertook to do, he was very badly fixed, and he wanted to get them out.
"The part of the house he lived in was middling clean, because a woman came in and cleaned it, but the back bedroom occupied by the defendant and his wife was so dirty that it was not fit for a pig to live in.
"He intended to let the part of the house now occupied by the defendant to his (applicant's) son and daughter-in-law, who were prepared to look after it.
"After other evidence, Mrs. Brannon gave a flat denial to the statement that she never cleaned the house or that it was dirty.
"She cleaned it every day, and made the bed as usual. Her reputation would stand the strictest investigation. The Bench made an order for possession in a month."
Next week's stories will include the sailor who threw himself through a plate glass window, the Wilson Street couple accused of impersonating voters, how motor vehicles interrupted Armistice Day and there's good news about the Windlehurst council estate.