IOO YEARS AGO THIS WEEK 17 - 23 JUNE 1924
This week's many stories include the un-neighbourly fight in Thatto Heath, the Sutton Manor Colliery miner accused of falsely claiming compensation, the frightened horse in a Liverpool Road shop, the solution to the decapitating double-decker trams in Peasley Cross and the motorbike riders accused of dangerous driving in Greenfield Road.
We begin in St Helens County Court on the 18th when the Sutton Manor Colliery Company brought an action against Patrick Kearns for the repayment of £61. That had been the amount of money paid to Kearns over a 3½ month period as compensation for an injury supposedly suffered while working at their mine.
The company now said they had learnt that Kearns had been injured elsewhere, something the man denied. The judge in the East Street court ruled that he would have to repay the £61 within 14 days, which Kearns insisted was impossible, saying: "I have no money whatever." As this was a civil and not a criminal court, it was unclear as to what would happen to the man if he failed to pay the money back within a fortnight.
The recent incident when Household Cavalry horses bolted through central London used to be quite common in St Helens. However, the Lancashire nags were invariably attached to vehicles, such as carts or traps, which were capable of causing more damage and injuries. On the 19th a horse attached to a milk float took fright in Peter Street in St Helens and dashed into a shop in Liverpool Road, smashing two of its plate-glass windows and a quantity of crockery. The horse was much cut by the glass and the damage was estimated at £100.
During the summer months there were many bathing tragedies in St Helens, particularly of youths and young men who underestimated the dangers of deep waters. The inquest on Thomas Boardman heard on the 19th that the youth had been swimming with his mates in the Ravenhead Dam and got into difficulties in a deep section and drowned.
On the 20th William Heron was charged in St Helens Police Court with loitering for the purpose of betting in the streets. Referencing his war service, the labourer from Parr Street told the court that this had not been the only occasion in which he had taken part in gambling. "I gambled in 1900 in South Africa, and gambled in the greater gamble from 1914 to 1919," he said. Heron was fined £7 10 shillings.
A number of the double-decker trams and buses in St Helens were open-top, which presented a problem when passing under some bridges, particularly on the Dentons Green to St Helens Junction route. The bridge in Peasley Cross Lane used to have a large sign on it warning such passengers not to stand up or they might lose their heads! However, the Reporter on the 20th described a solution to the difficulty.
William Forber of St Helens Corporation's Tramways Department had designed a double-decker tram that would pass under what was described as awkward overhead railway bridges. The sleek new tramcar would also benefit from smooth and silent running and tramway authorities throughout the country were said to be expressing great interest in the vehicle.
Since the war there had been a huge growth in motorcycle ownership in St Helens. Although cars were still largely the preserve of business folk, motorbikes with or without sidecars were quite affordable on HP for those in work. However, concern was often expressed about the speed that young riders rode their machines, although estimating how fast they were travelling was highly subjective.
As a general rule the police would say bikers were going at twice the rate the riders claimed. However, without speedometers and such things as radar guns and with people's lack of experience at measuring speed – it was really anyone's guess! This week Thomas Leigh of Clock Face Road appeared in St Helens Police Court charged with driving his motorcycle to the danger of the public.
PC Spedding said he had been on duty in plain clothes with PC Kirk in Greenfield Road when they saw a motorcycle and sidecar travelling in the direction of Rainford Road. Riding on the pillion was the defendant's brother, and the latter's daughter was sat in the sidecar. They came round the bend of Greenfield Road by Rivington Road at a speed that the officer estimated at 30 miles an hour.
PC Spedding added that there was other traffic and pedestrians about and children were playing in the road. The constable said he signalled the defendant to stop and asked for an explanation and in response Mr Leigh claimed he was only doing 16 or 17 mph. PC Kirk corroborated and said there had been two motorcycles together who appeared to be racing each other. However, the defendant denied that and his brother backed him up and unusually the magistrates decided to dismiss the case.
However, William Hawkins from Gladstone Street when charged with committing the same offence in Greenfield Road was not so lucky. Again PCs Spedding and Kirk brought the case with the latter claiming that Hawkins had been travelling at 30 to 35 mph when he'd passed through a group of cyclists. Motor traffic had been approaching in both directions and children were again playing in the road. One might have thought that the police should have stopped children from playing on a busy highway but that does not seem to have been mentioned in court.
When Hawkins was about 40 yards away from the officers, PC Kirk said he and PC Spedding had stepped into the road to tell him to stop but he came along so fast that they needed to jump back onto the footpath. The driver then swerved and nearly fell off his machine before driving away into Rainford Road. But the officers had made a note of Hawkins' registration number and interviewed him on the following day.
It was then common for ordinary police constables to be in plain-clothes when undertaking routine police work. And when Hawkins was asked why he had not stopped for the police when ordered to do so, he gave this reply: "Any fool can do that. I did not know who you were in plain clothes." In court he queried the claimed speed saying: "You say it was a terrific speed. Why, I was only going about twelve miles an hour. How was I to know you were a police officer? I had never seen you before."
Mr Hawkins then asked PC Spedding how he came to estimate his speed as being over 30 mph. To that the officer replied: "Anyone with reasonable common-sense can estimate a speed." "Oh, no, they can't", came the reply from Mr Hawkins. "You want expert knowledge and training, which is a bit more than common sense." Mr Hawkins had a point but Superintendent Dunn said it was not really a question of speed but of dangerous driving. The defendant insisted that he always drove with care but when in the ensuing dialogue Mr Hawkins mentioned he'd had a young woman riding on his pillion, his chances of a discharge were ended.
Some magistrates felt pillion riding was dangerous and that passengers should always be in a sidecar. As helmets were not then used they might also have had a bit of a point. The Chairman of the Bench then said: "I don't think you can ever exercise much care if you are in the habit of carrying girls behind you. Carrying a girl behind aids dangerous driving." Mr Hawkins was fined £1.
I haven't reported on a good old neighbourly row for a while and this week's from Thatto Heath is a right corker! A common trait of such disputes was that in court only its latter stages were related, but I suspect that in most cases trouble had been brewing between the neighbours for some time. In the case heard this week, James Deacle summoned John Fenney and Mary Molyneux of Roughley Square to court accusing them both of assaulting him.
Deacle told the Bench that the two little boys that belonged to John Fenney and Mary Molyneux had thrown what he described as slush against his door and he had simply gone outside and spoken to them about it. Mary Molyneux had then come running up the yard with several stones in her hand. She struck him with one; a second stone went through a window and another missile hit his wife on her knee.
Then John Fenney came up with a handful of stones and attacked him. A group of four or five women subsequently arrived on the scene and one of them struck Deacle with a bat. James Deacle claimed someone then yelled, "Kill the Irish _______" and Mary Molyneux shouted: "I will give thee some more. I don't care how many summonses you bring." Sgt Latham then arrived on the scene and brought an end to the proceedings.
John Fenney, in his defence, said he had been sat on his doorstep when his 7-year-old lad had come running up claiming Deacle had chased him. Fenney then alleged that Mr Deacle's wife had thrown a "pail of foul refuse" at him. Of course, John Fenney claimed total innocence of the charge against him and said it had been Deacle that did all the threatening. He said he had recently been in hospital with part of his body encased in plaster, adding: "Am I the sort of man likely to assault anybody? As a matter of fact, it was Deacle who assaulted me and knocked me down."
And Mary Molyneux also claimed to be an innocent party, saying she hadn't exchanged a word with James Deacle, but she had said to his wife: "He is the biggest mollicot for miles round." Mrs Molyneux then told the Bench: "I was carrying half a pound of steak, but that was too good to throw at him or his wife. It's a forest he ought to be in. The children haven't to speak where he is."
However, Mrs Friar from Pennington Square, off Elephant Lane, told the court that when she arrived on the scene she had witnessed Fenney striking Deacle. The latter was fainting against a wall and she had advised him to go and show his bleeding face to the sergeant. And a Mrs Bromilow said that when James Deacle had rushed out towards the lads, one of the boys had run away "with a face like death". She added that Fenney had then told Deacle, "It will be you and me for it if you don't leave the boy alone", and then they started fighting and at that point Mrs Deacle threw the bucket of rubbish over Fenney.
And the last claim goes to Mrs Fenney who reckoned Deacle had threatened to "pull the liver out of the lads". I sometimes think the magistrates could have tossed a coin to decide on their verdicts with all the claims and counterclaims made in court – and perhaps they did! But in this case they decided that all the defendants would be bound over for six months.
And finally, on the 23rd a solicitor in St Helens Police Court made an unusual request for leniency for his client. He said Margaret Murphy of Russell Street pleaded guilty to a charge of using the house of her father for betting but a run by her punters on the winner of the Derby had left her broke. However, she was still fined £10 but a charge against her sister of assisting her and against the father for allowing his home to be used for gambling were both withdrawn.
St Helens Reporter courtesy St Helens Archive Service at Eccleston Library
Next Week's stories will include an update on the measles epidemic in St Helens, the Rainford village walking day, the run of car crashes in St Helens and the boy that tore off a reel of cinema film at Thatto Heath station.
We begin in St Helens County Court on the 18th when the Sutton Manor Colliery Company brought an action against Patrick Kearns for the repayment of £61. That had been the amount of money paid to Kearns over a 3½ month period as compensation for an injury supposedly suffered while working at their mine.
The company now said they had learnt that Kearns had been injured elsewhere, something the man denied. The judge in the East Street court ruled that he would have to repay the £61 within 14 days, which Kearns insisted was impossible, saying: "I have no money whatever." As this was a civil and not a criminal court, it was unclear as to what would happen to the man if he failed to pay the money back within a fortnight.
The recent incident when Household Cavalry horses bolted through central London used to be quite common in St Helens. However, the Lancashire nags were invariably attached to vehicles, such as carts or traps, which were capable of causing more damage and injuries. On the 19th a horse attached to a milk float took fright in Peter Street in St Helens and dashed into a shop in Liverpool Road, smashing two of its plate-glass windows and a quantity of crockery. The horse was much cut by the glass and the damage was estimated at £100.
During the summer months there were many bathing tragedies in St Helens, particularly of youths and young men who underestimated the dangers of deep waters. The inquest on Thomas Boardman heard on the 19th that the youth had been swimming with his mates in the Ravenhead Dam and got into difficulties in a deep section and drowned.
On the 20th William Heron was charged in St Helens Police Court with loitering for the purpose of betting in the streets. Referencing his war service, the labourer from Parr Street told the court that this had not been the only occasion in which he had taken part in gambling. "I gambled in 1900 in South Africa, and gambled in the greater gamble from 1914 to 1919," he said. Heron was fined £7 10 shillings.
William Forber of St Helens Corporation's Tramways Department had designed a double-decker tram that would pass under what was described as awkward overhead railway bridges. The sleek new tramcar would also benefit from smooth and silent running and tramway authorities throughout the country were said to be expressing great interest in the vehicle.
Since the war there had been a huge growth in motorcycle ownership in St Helens. Although cars were still largely the preserve of business folk, motorbikes with or without sidecars were quite affordable on HP for those in work. However, concern was often expressed about the speed that young riders rode their machines, although estimating how fast they were travelling was highly subjective.
As a general rule the police would say bikers were going at twice the rate the riders claimed. However, without speedometers and such things as radar guns and with people's lack of experience at measuring speed – it was really anyone's guess! This week Thomas Leigh of Clock Face Road appeared in St Helens Police Court charged with driving his motorcycle to the danger of the public.
PC Spedding said he had been on duty in plain clothes with PC Kirk in Greenfield Road when they saw a motorcycle and sidecar travelling in the direction of Rainford Road. Riding on the pillion was the defendant's brother, and the latter's daughter was sat in the sidecar. They came round the bend of Greenfield Road by Rivington Road at a speed that the officer estimated at 30 miles an hour.
PC Spedding added that there was other traffic and pedestrians about and children were playing in the road. The constable said he signalled the defendant to stop and asked for an explanation and in response Mr Leigh claimed he was only doing 16 or 17 mph. PC Kirk corroborated and said there had been two motorcycles together who appeared to be racing each other. However, the defendant denied that and his brother backed him up and unusually the magistrates decided to dismiss the case.
However, William Hawkins from Gladstone Street when charged with committing the same offence in Greenfield Road was not so lucky. Again PCs Spedding and Kirk brought the case with the latter claiming that Hawkins had been travelling at 30 to 35 mph when he'd passed through a group of cyclists. Motor traffic had been approaching in both directions and children were again playing in the road. One might have thought that the police should have stopped children from playing on a busy highway but that does not seem to have been mentioned in court.
When Hawkins was about 40 yards away from the officers, PC Kirk said he and PC Spedding had stepped into the road to tell him to stop but he came along so fast that they needed to jump back onto the footpath. The driver then swerved and nearly fell off his machine before driving away into Rainford Road. But the officers had made a note of Hawkins' registration number and interviewed him on the following day.
It was then common for ordinary police constables to be in plain-clothes when undertaking routine police work. And when Hawkins was asked why he had not stopped for the police when ordered to do so, he gave this reply: "Any fool can do that. I did not know who you were in plain clothes." In court he queried the claimed speed saying: "You say it was a terrific speed. Why, I was only going about twelve miles an hour. How was I to know you were a police officer? I had never seen you before."
Mr Hawkins then asked PC Spedding how he came to estimate his speed as being over 30 mph. To that the officer replied: "Anyone with reasonable common-sense can estimate a speed." "Oh, no, they can't", came the reply from Mr Hawkins. "You want expert knowledge and training, which is a bit more than common sense." Mr Hawkins had a point but Superintendent Dunn said it was not really a question of speed but of dangerous driving. The defendant insisted that he always drove with care but when in the ensuing dialogue Mr Hawkins mentioned he'd had a young woman riding on his pillion, his chances of a discharge were ended.
Some magistrates felt pillion riding was dangerous and that passengers should always be in a sidecar. As helmets were not then used they might also have had a bit of a point. The Chairman of the Bench then said: "I don't think you can ever exercise much care if you are in the habit of carrying girls behind you. Carrying a girl behind aids dangerous driving." Mr Hawkins was fined £1.
I haven't reported on a good old neighbourly row for a while and this week's from Thatto Heath is a right corker! A common trait of such disputes was that in court only its latter stages were related, but I suspect that in most cases trouble had been brewing between the neighbours for some time. In the case heard this week, James Deacle summoned John Fenney and Mary Molyneux of Roughley Square to court accusing them both of assaulting him.
Deacle told the Bench that the two little boys that belonged to John Fenney and Mary Molyneux had thrown what he described as slush against his door and he had simply gone outside and spoken to them about it. Mary Molyneux had then come running up the yard with several stones in her hand. She struck him with one; a second stone went through a window and another missile hit his wife on her knee.
Then John Fenney came up with a handful of stones and attacked him. A group of four or five women subsequently arrived on the scene and one of them struck Deacle with a bat. James Deacle claimed someone then yelled, "Kill the Irish _______" and Mary Molyneux shouted: "I will give thee some more. I don't care how many summonses you bring." Sgt Latham then arrived on the scene and brought an end to the proceedings.
John Fenney, in his defence, said he had been sat on his doorstep when his 7-year-old lad had come running up claiming Deacle had chased him. Fenney then alleged that Mr Deacle's wife had thrown a "pail of foul refuse" at him. Of course, John Fenney claimed total innocence of the charge against him and said it had been Deacle that did all the threatening. He said he had recently been in hospital with part of his body encased in plaster, adding: "Am I the sort of man likely to assault anybody? As a matter of fact, it was Deacle who assaulted me and knocked me down."
And Mary Molyneux also claimed to be an innocent party, saying she hadn't exchanged a word with James Deacle, but she had said to his wife: "He is the biggest mollicot for miles round." Mrs Molyneux then told the Bench: "I was carrying half a pound of steak, but that was too good to throw at him or his wife. It's a forest he ought to be in. The children haven't to speak where he is."
However, Mrs Friar from Pennington Square, off Elephant Lane, told the court that when she arrived on the scene she had witnessed Fenney striking Deacle. The latter was fainting against a wall and she had advised him to go and show his bleeding face to the sergeant. And a Mrs Bromilow said that when James Deacle had rushed out towards the lads, one of the boys had run away "with a face like death". She added that Fenney had then told Deacle, "It will be you and me for it if you don't leave the boy alone", and then they started fighting and at that point Mrs Deacle threw the bucket of rubbish over Fenney.
And the last claim goes to Mrs Fenney who reckoned Deacle had threatened to "pull the liver out of the lads". I sometimes think the magistrates could have tossed a coin to decide on their verdicts with all the claims and counterclaims made in court – and perhaps they did! But in this case they decided that all the defendants would be bound over for six months.
And finally, on the 23rd a solicitor in St Helens Police Court made an unusual request for leniency for his client. He said Margaret Murphy of Russell Street pleaded guilty to a charge of using the house of her father for betting but a run by her punters on the winner of the Derby had left her broke. However, she was still fined £10 but a charge against her sister of assisting her and against the father for allowing his home to be used for gambling were both withdrawn.
St Helens Reporter courtesy St Helens Archive Service at Eccleston Library
Next Week's stories will include an update on the measles epidemic in St Helens, the Rainford village walking day, the run of car crashes in St Helens and the boy that tore off a reel of cinema film at Thatto Heath station.
This week's many stories include the un-neighbourly fight in Thatto Heath, the Sutton Manor Colliery miner accused of falsely claiming compensation, the frightened horse in a Liverpool Road shop, the solution to the decapitating double-decker trams in Peasley Cross and the motorbike riders accused of dangerous driving in Greenfield Road.
We begin in St Helens County Court on the 18th when the Sutton Manor Colliery Company brought an action against Patrick Kearns for the repayment of £61.
That had been the amount of money paid to Kearns over a 3½ month period as compensation for an injury supposedly suffered while working at their mine.
The company now said they had learnt that Kearns had been injured elsewhere, something the man denied.
The judge in the East Street court ruled that he would have to repay the £61 within 14 days, which Kearns insisted was impossible, saying: "I have no money whatever."
As this was a civil and not a criminal court, it was unclear as to what would happen to the man if he failed to pay the money back within a fortnight.
The recent incident when Household Cavalry horses bolted through central London used to be quite common in St Helens.
However, the Lancashire nags were invariably attached to vehicles, such as carts or traps, which were capable of causing more damage and injuries.
On the 19th a horse attached to a milk float took fright in Peter Street in St Helens and dashed into a shop in Liverpool Road, smashing two of its plate-glass windows and a quantity of crockery.
The horse was much cut by the glass and the damage was estimated at £100.
During the summer months there were many bathing tragedies in St Helens, particularly of youths and young men who underestimated the dangers of deep waters.
The inquest on Thomas Boardman heard on the 19th that the youth had been swimming with his mates in the Ravenhead Dam and got into difficulties in a deep section and drowned.
On the 20th William Heron was charged in St Helens Police Court with loitering for the purpose of betting in the streets.
Referencing his war service, the labourer from Parr Street told the court that this had not been the only occasion in which he had taken part in gambling.
"I gambled in 1900 in South Africa, and gambled in the greater gamble from 1914 to 1919," he said. Heron was fined £7 10 shillings.
A number of the double-decker trams and buses in St Helens were open-top, which presented a problem when passing under some bridges, particularly on the Dentons Green to St Helens Junction route.
The bridge in Peasley Cross Lane used to have a large sign on it warning such passengers not to stand up or they might lose their heads!
However, the Reporter on the 20th described a solution to the difficulty.
William Forber of St Helens Corporation's Tramways Department had designed a double-decker tram that would pass under what was described as awkward overhead railway bridges.
The sleek new tramcar would also benefit from smooth and silent running and tramway authorities throughout the country were said to be expressing great interest in the vehicle.
Since the war there had been a huge growth in motorcycle ownership in St Helens. Although cars were still largely the preserve of business folk, motorbikes with or without sidecars were quite affordable on HP for those in work.
However, concern was often expressed about the speed that young riders rode their machines, although estimating how fast they were travelling was highly subjective.
As a general rule the police would say bikers were going at twice the rate the riders claimed.
However, without speedometers and such things as radar guns and with people's lack of experience at measuring speed – it was really anyone's guess!
This week Thomas Leigh of Clock Face Road appeared in St Helens Police Court charged with driving his motorcycle to the danger of the public.
PC Spedding said he had been on duty in plain clothes with PC Kirk in Greenfield Road when they saw a motorcycle and sidecar travelling in the direction of Rainford Road.
Riding on the pillion was the defendant's brother, and the latter's daughter was sat in the sidecar.
They came round the bend of Greenfield Road by Rivington Road at a speed that the officer estimated at 30 miles an hour.
PC Spedding added that there was other traffic and pedestrians about and children were playing in the road.
The constable said he signalled the defendant to stop and asked for an explanation and in response Mr Leigh claimed he was only doing 16 or 17 mph.
PC Kirk corroborated and said there had been two motorcycles together who appeared to be racing each other.
However, the defendant denied that and his brother backed him up and unusually the magistrates decided to dismiss the case.
However, William Hawkins from Gladstone Street when charged with committing the same offence in Greenfield Road was not so lucky.
Again PCs Spedding and Kirk brought the case with the latter claiming that Hawkins had been travelling at 30 to 35 mph when he'd passed through a group of cyclists.
Motor traffic had been approaching in both directions and children were again playing in the road.
One might have thought that the police should have stopped children from playing on a busy highway but that does not seem to have been mentioned in court.
When Hawkins was about 40 yards away from the officers, PC Kirk said he and PC Spedding had stepped into the road to tell him to stop but he came along so fast that they needed to jump back onto the footpath.
The driver then swerved and nearly fell off his machine before driving away into Rainford Road.
But the officers had made a note of Hawkins' registration number and interviewed him on the following day.
It was then common for ordinary police constables to be in plain-clothes when undertaking routine police work.
And when Hawkins was asked why he had not stopped for the police when ordered to do so, he gave this reply: "Any fool can do that. I did not know who you were in plain clothes."
In court he queried the claimed speed saying: "You say it was a terrific speed. Why, I was only going about twelve miles an hour. How was I to know you were a police officer? I had never seen you before."
Mr Hawkins then asked PC Spedding how he came to estimate his speed as being over 30 mph. To that the officer replied: "Anyone with reasonable common-sense can estimate a speed."
"Oh, no, they can't", came the reply from Mr Hawkins. "You want expert knowledge and training, which is a bit more than common sense."
Mr Hawkins had a point but Superintendent Dunn said it was not really a question of speed but of dangerous driving.
The defendant insisted that he always drove with care but when in the ensuing dialogue Mr Hawkins mentioned he'd had a young woman riding on his pillion, his chances of a discharge were ended.
Some magistrates felt pillion riding was dangerous and that passengers should always be in a sidecar. As helmets were not then used they might also have had a bit of a point. The Chairman of the Bench then said:
"I don't think you can ever exercise much care if you are in the habit of carrying girls behind you. Carrying a girl behind aids dangerous driving." Mr Hawkins was fined £1.
I haven't reported on a good old neighbourly row for a while and this week's from Thatto Heath is a right corker!
A common trait of such disputes was that in court only its latter stages were related, but I suspect that in most cases trouble had been brewing between the neighbours for some time.
In the case heard this week, James Deacle summoned John Fenney and Mary Molyneux of Roughley Square to court accusing them both of assaulting him.
Deacle told the Bench that the two little boys that belonged to John Fenney and Mary Molyneux had thrown what he described as slush against his door and he had simply gone outside and spoken to them about it.
Mary Molyneux had then come running up the yard with several stones in her hand. She struck him with one; a second stone went through a window and another missile hit his wife on her knee.
Then John Fenney came up with a handful of stones and attacked him. A group of four or five women subsequently arrived on the scene and one of them struck Deacle with a bat.
James Deacle claimed someone then yelled, "Kill the Irish _______" and Mary Molyneux shouted: "I will give thee some more. I don't care how many summonses you bring."
Sgt Latham then arrived on the scene and brought an end to the proceedings.
John Fenney, in his defence, said he had been sat on his doorstep when his 7-year-old lad had come running up claiming Deacle had chased him.
Fenney then alleged that Mr Deacle's wife had thrown a "pail of foul refuse" at him.
Of course, John Fenney claimed total innocence of the charge against him and said it had been Deacle that did all the threatening.
He said he had recently been in hospital with part of his body encased in plaster, adding:
"Am I the sort of man likely to assault anybody? As a matter of fact, it was Deacle who assaulted me and knocked me down."
And Mary Molyneux also claimed to be an innocent party, saying she hadn't exchanged a word with James Deacle, but she had said to his wife: "He is the biggest mollicot for miles round." Mrs Molyneux then told the Bench:
"I was carrying half a pound of steak, but that was too good to throw at him or his wife. It's a forest he ought to be in. The children haven't to speak where he is."
However, Mrs Friar from Pennington Square, off Elephant Lane, told the court that when she arrived on the scene she had witnessed Fenney striking Deacle.
The latter was fainting against a wall and she had advised him to go and show his bleeding face to the sergeant.
And a Mrs Bromilow said that when James Deacle had rushed out towards the lads, one of the boys had run away "with a face like death".
She added that Fenney had then told Deacle, "It will be you and me for it if you don't leave the boy alone", and then they started fighting and at that point Mrs Deacle threw the bucket of rubbish over Fenney.
And the last claim goes to Mrs Fenney who reckoned Deacle had threatened to "pull the liver out of the lads".
I sometimes think the magistrates could have tossed a coin to decide on their verdicts with all the claims and counterclaims made in court – and perhaps they did!
But in this case they decided that all the defendants would be bound over for six months.
And finally, on the 23rd a solicitor in St Helens Police Court made an unusual request for leniency for his client.
He said Margaret Murphy of Russell Street pleaded guilty to a charge of using the house of her father for betting but a run by her punters on the winner of the Derby had left her broke.
However, she was still fined £10 but a charge against her sister of assisting her and against the father for allowing his home to be used for gambling were both withdrawn.
St Helens Reporter courtesy St Helens Archive Service at Eccleston Library
Next Week's stories will include an update on the measles epidemic in St Helens, the Rainford village walking day, the run of car crashes in St Helens and the boy that tore off a reel of cinema film at Thatto Heath station.
We begin in St Helens County Court on the 18th when the Sutton Manor Colliery Company brought an action against Patrick Kearns for the repayment of £61.
That had been the amount of money paid to Kearns over a 3½ month period as compensation for an injury supposedly suffered while working at their mine.
The company now said they had learnt that Kearns had been injured elsewhere, something the man denied.
The judge in the East Street court ruled that he would have to repay the £61 within 14 days, which Kearns insisted was impossible, saying: "I have no money whatever."
As this was a civil and not a criminal court, it was unclear as to what would happen to the man if he failed to pay the money back within a fortnight.
The recent incident when Household Cavalry horses bolted through central London used to be quite common in St Helens.
However, the Lancashire nags were invariably attached to vehicles, such as carts or traps, which were capable of causing more damage and injuries.
On the 19th a horse attached to a milk float took fright in Peter Street in St Helens and dashed into a shop in Liverpool Road, smashing two of its plate-glass windows and a quantity of crockery.
The horse was much cut by the glass and the damage was estimated at £100.
During the summer months there were many bathing tragedies in St Helens, particularly of youths and young men who underestimated the dangers of deep waters.
The inquest on Thomas Boardman heard on the 19th that the youth had been swimming with his mates in the Ravenhead Dam and got into difficulties in a deep section and drowned.
On the 20th William Heron was charged in St Helens Police Court with loitering for the purpose of betting in the streets.
Referencing his war service, the labourer from Parr Street told the court that this had not been the only occasion in which he had taken part in gambling.
"I gambled in 1900 in South Africa, and gambled in the greater gamble from 1914 to 1919," he said. Heron was fined £7 10 shillings.
A number of the double-decker trams and buses in St Helens were open-top, which presented a problem when passing under some bridges, particularly on the Dentons Green to St Helens Junction route.
However, the Reporter on the 20th described a solution to the difficulty.
William Forber of St Helens Corporation's Tramways Department had designed a double-decker tram that would pass under what was described as awkward overhead railway bridges.
The sleek new tramcar would also benefit from smooth and silent running and tramway authorities throughout the country were said to be expressing great interest in the vehicle.
Since the war there had been a huge growth in motorcycle ownership in St Helens. Although cars were still largely the preserve of business folk, motorbikes with or without sidecars were quite affordable on HP for those in work.
However, concern was often expressed about the speed that young riders rode their machines, although estimating how fast they were travelling was highly subjective.
As a general rule the police would say bikers were going at twice the rate the riders claimed.
However, without speedometers and such things as radar guns and with people's lack of experience at measuring speed – it was really anyone's guess!
This week Thomas Leigh of Clock Face Road appeared in St Helens Police Court charged with driving his motorcycle to the danger of the public.
PC Spedding said he had been on duty in plain clothes with PC Kirk in Greenfield Road when they saw a motorcycle and sidecar travelling in the direction of Rainford Road.
Riding on the pillion was the defendant's brother, and the latter's daughter was sat in the sidecar.
They came round the bend of Greenfield Road by Rivington Road at a speed that the officer estimated at 30 miles an hour.
PC Spedding added that there was other traffic and pedestrians about and children were playing in the road.
The constable said he signalled the defendant to stop and asked for an explanation and in response Mr Leigh claimed he was only doing 16 or 17 mph.
PC Kirk corroborated and said there had been two motorcycles together who appeared to be racing each other.
However, the defendant denied that and his brother backed him up and unusually the magistrates decided to dismiss the case.
However, William Hawkins from Gladstone Street when charged with committing the same offence in Greenfield Road was not so lucky.
Again PCs Spedding and Kirk brought the case with the latter claiming that Hawkins had been travelling at 30 to 35 mph when he'd passed through a group of cyclists.
Motor traffic had been approaching in both directions and children were again playing in the road.
One might have thought that the police should have stopped children from playing on a busy highway but that does not seem to have been mentioned in court.
When Hawkins was about 40 yards away from the officers, PC Kirk said he and PC Spedding had stepped into the road to tell him to stop but he came along so fast that they needed to jump back onto the footpath.
The driver then swerved and nearly fell off his machine before driving away into Rainford Road.
But the officers had made a note of Hawkins' registration number and interviewed him on the following day.
It was then common for ordinary police constables to be in plain-clothes when undertaking routine police work.
And when Hawkins was asked why he had not stopped for the police when ordered to do so, he gave this reply: "Any fool can do that. I did not know who you were in plain clothes."
In court he queried the claimed speed saying: "You say it was a terrific speed. Why, I was only going about twelve miles an hour. How was I to know you were a police officer? I had never seen you before."
Mr Hawkins then asked PC Spedding how he came to estimate his speed as being over 30 mph. To that the officer replied: "Anyone with reasonable common-sense can estimate a speed."
"Oh, no, they can't", came the reply from Mr Hawkins. "You want expert knowledge and training, which is a bit more than common sense."
Mr Hawkins had a point but Superintendent Dunn said it was not really a question of speed but of dangerous driving.
The defendant insisted that he always drove with care but when in the ensuing dialogue Mr Hawkins mentioned he'd had a young woman riding on his pillion, his chances of a discharge were ended.
Some magistrates felt pillion riding was dangerous and that passengers should always be in a sidecar. As helmets were not then used they might also have had a bit of a point. The Chairman of the Bench then said:
"I don't think you can ever exercise much care if you are in the habit of carrying girls behind you. Carrying a girl behind aids dangerous driving." Mr Hawkins was fined £1.
I haven't reported on a good old neighbourly row for a while and this week's from Thatto Heath is a right corker!
A common trait of such disputes was that in court only its latter stages were related, but I suspect that in most cases trouble had been brewing between the neighbours for some time.
In the case heard this week, James Deacle summoned John Fenney and Mary Molyneux of Roughley Square to court accusing them both of assaulting him.
Deacle told the Bench that the two little boys that belonged to John Fenney and Mary Molyneux had thrown what he described as slush against his door and he had simply gone outside and spoken to them about it.
Mary Molyneux had then come running up the yard with several stones in her hand. She struck him with one; a second stone went through a window and another missile hit his wife on her knee.
Then John Fenney came up with a handful of stones and attacked him. A group of four or five women subsequently arrived on the scene and one of them struck Deacle with a bat.
James Deacle claimed someone then yelled, "Kill the Irish _______" and Mary Molyneux shouted: "I will give thee some more. I don't care how many summonses you bring."
Sgt Latham then arrived on the scene and brought an end to the proceedings.
John Fenney, in his defence, said he had been sat on his doorstep when his 7-year-old lad had come running up claiming Deacle had chased him.
Fenney then alleged that Mr Deacle's wife had thrown a "pail of foul refuse" at him.
Of course, John Fenney claimed total innocence of the charge against him and said it had been Deacle that did all the threatening.
He said he had recently been in hospital with part of his body encased in plaster, adding:
"Am I the sort of man likely to assault anybody? As a matter of fact, it was Deacle who assaulted me and knocked me down."
And Mary Molyneux also claimed to be an innocent party, saying she hadn't exchanged a word with James Deacle, but she had said to his wife: "He is the biggest mollicot for miles round." Mrs Molyneux then told the Bench:
"I was carrying half a pound of steak, but that was too good to throw at him or his wife. It's a forest he ought to be in. The children haven't to speak where he is."
However, Mrs Friar from Pennington Square, off Elephant Lane, told the court that when she arrived on the scene she had witnessed Fenney striking Deacle.
The latter was fainting against a wall and she had advised him to go and show his bleeding face to the sergeant.
And a Mrs Bromilow said that when James Deacle had rushed out towards the lads, one of the boys had run away "with a face like death".
She added that Fenney had then told Deacle, "It will be you and me for it if you don't leave the boy alone", and then they started fighting and at that point Mrs Deacle threw the bucket of rubbish over Fenney.
And the last claim goes to Mrs Fenney who reckoned Deacle had threatened to "pull the liver out of the lads".
I sometimes think the magistrates could have tossed a coin to decide on their verdicts with all the claims and counterclaims made in court – and perhaps they did!
But in this case they decided that all the defendants would be bound over for six months.
And finally, on the 23rd a solicitor in St Helens Police Court made an unusual request for leniency for his client.
He said Margaret Murphy of Russell Street pleaded guilty to a charge of using the house of her father for betting but a run by her punters on the winner of the Derby had left her broke.
However, she was still fined £10 but a charge against her sister of assisting her and against the father for allowing his home to be used for gambling were both withdrawn.
St Helens Reporter courtesy St Helens Archive Service at Eccleston Library
Next Week's stories will include an update on the measles epidemic in St Helens, the Rainford village walking day, the run of car crashes in St Helens and the boy that tore off a reel of cinema film at Thatto Heath station.