IOO YEARS AGO THIS WEEK (28th SEPT. - 4th OCT. 1920)
This week's stories include the woman who'd spent 27 years of purgatory with her violent husband, the drunken Eccleston woman's clothes-line thefts, the Prescot brothers who attacked their parents and the Liverpool Road woman who said she had been "knocked about shockingly" after coming to live in St Helens.
We begin on the 28th when William Ellis from Liverpool appeared in St Helens Police Court charged with "wandering abroad without visible means of subsistence." The police had been suspicious of Ellis when they spotted him at midnight standing around in Prescot Road. After watching the man for a while, the boys in blue arrested him at 1am.
Ellis told the police that he had walked from Liverpool and had no money. In court he told the magistrates that Pilkingtons had offered him a job but he had to go and see them that morning. However despite the fact that no real crime had been committed, William Ellis was not given the opportunity of getting any work – at least not in St Helens. Instead his suspicious behaviour earned him fourteen days in prison with hard labour.
In Prescot Police Court on the 28th, 23-year-old John Lunt and his 18-year-old brother Peter Lunt Jnr, were charged with carrying out a serious assault on their parents. The unhappy family all lived in Sutherland Road in Whiston and the brothers had been gambling with other men. When Peter Lunt Snr expressed his displeasure at what his sons were doing, John Lunt knocked his father down and then attempted to strangle him. The St Helens Newspaper wrote: "His hold was so tenacious that it took about four or five men to get him off his father."
When the 46-year-old miner finally stood up, Peter Jnr, his youngest son, then rushed through the crowd and struck his father across the mouth, knocking him unconscious. When Mary Lunt arrived on the scene, her eldest boy, John, gave her a "severe blow" to an eye, saying: "Take that!" and using "other language that was not fit to be reported in public court".
After again being attacked by her sons, Mary Lunt went to get help from the police. In court the boys pleaded guilty but claimed self-defence, arguing that their parents had first attacked them! The magistrates did not buy that excuse and fined the older brother a total of £9 and his younger sibling £6 5 shillings. Upon hearing the decision, John Lunt (the eldest son) sarcastically remarked to the Bench, "Thanks for being so lenient".
Although alcohol was deemed to have medicinal qualities and was even prescribed by doctors, the supposed sick were not supposed to get out of their heads on the stuff! But being poorly and so drinking lots of whisky was the defence of Ellen Thompson when she appeared in St Helens County Police Court on the 29th. The woman from Burrows Lane in Eccleston had stolen a shirt and a tablecloth off a neighbour's clothesline late at night.
The shirt was dumped in a hedge and on the following morning Mrs Thompson, pledged the tablecloth at Baker's pawnshop in Eccleston Street. I wonder whether anyone would bother reporting the stealing of such items off a clothesline today? However in 1920 the police took all thefts seriously and Constable Hunt was soon on the trail of the missing items.
Ellen Thompson was taken into custody but was allowed out on bail the same evening. That was "in view of her suffering from the effects of drink" – as the St Helens Newspaper put it. In court Mrs Thompson said she had no memory of stealing the things, as she had been poorly and so drunk lots of whisky. The magistrates were surprisingly generous, binding the woman over "to come up for judgement if called upon". In other words the offence would be taken into account if she ever appeared in court again.
The greater freedoms granted to women during the war – including the right for many to vote – were empowering an increasing number of females. Some made the difficult decision to no longer tolerate their abusive husbands. One was Elizabeth Ormrod of Brynn Street, who was also in court applying for a separation order from her husband. Elizabeth was already living apart from James but a separation order came with legally enforceable maintenance payments.
She told the Bench that the 27 years spent with her violent husband had been "a purgatory" and on August Monday the man had blacked both her eyes. The couple had seven children and in 1918 when they were living in Sutton Manor, James had turned Elizabeth and four of their children out into the rain. In October of last year while she was asleep in a rocking chair by the fire, James had struck Elizabeth with a spittoon, inflicting a wound 1½ inches long. Her husband then struck her with a teapot and when she screamed for help, James ran off and later returned with his throat cut.
It was common for wife beaters to put the blame on their spouse and even attempt to make themselves out to be the victim. James Ormrod's solicitor gave Elizabeth a particularly hard time in court. The questions she was asked included: "Since October last have you not been trying to get your husband to strike you?" And: "Haven't your sons been trying to make his home a hell?"
In answer to the last question, Elizabeth said: "It is a hell, but it is he who has brought it about." Mrs Ormrod did admit that two of her sons had "thrashed" her husband but she insisted it had been in self-defence. Of course the man opposed the order. He did not want to have to fork out good money and not have his dinner ready for him when he got home. However the magistrates granted the separation order to the relief, no doubt, of Mrs Ormrod.
Isaac Myers has been featured in these articles on many occasions. He was the man who the police once called a "loafer of no fixed abode" and who altered his army discharge papers so that his conduct was described as "magnificent" instead of "indifferent"! Well, Isaac made his 33rd appearance in the Police Court on the 29th charged with wandering abroad and lodging in the open air off Nuttall Street, near Greengate Brickworks.
Isaac told the Bench that if they allowed him to cultivate the land that he'd been kipping on, he would be prepared to "do something with it". The magistrates were not empowered to grant that request but they were able to return him to prison for a further 28 days with hard labour.
It used to be quite difficult to obtain compensation for workplace accidents as the employer had to be shown to have been at fault. Although "no fault" compensation had now been in place for some years, claimants were still obliged to prove that their injury or illness was instigated at work. In the County Court on the 29th, Harry Ince of Vincent Street brought a claim for compensation against Pilkingtons. He was a fitter and claimed that last December while drilling holes at the Sheet Works, a blister had formed on his hand, burst, and septic poisoning had subsequently set in.
The glass firm disputed liability. Pilks' solicitor told the judge that no accident had taken place and the germs that led to the poisoning could have been introduced in other ways. However the judge ruled that Mr Ince's incapacity had been through an injury to his hand while working for Pilkingtons. So he ordered compensation payments be made of 35 shillings a week for the five-week period he'd been unable to work.
On October 1st a married couple from Phythian Street appeared in the Police Court charged with committing a breach of the peace. The police said they had found Richard and Ellen Murphy fighting each other in a street off Liverpool Road. The couple were separated and blamed each other, with the husband saying: "It is her fault. She was going to stab me with a knife." However Ellen Murphy said her husband had been the cause of the trouble as he had been ill-treating her. They were both bound over to keep the peace.
On the 4th Nancy Wilson was charged with a breach of the peace within Liverpool Road (pictured above). PC Pugh told the court that on the previous Saturday night at 10:45pm, a crowd had assembled in the street and upon investigating he found some women quarrelling. Mrs Wilson came out of her house and started shouting and refused to be quiet and go back indoors. So she was taken into custody, telling the officer that she would rather be locked up than have to live with her neighbours.
In court Mrs Wilson explained that before coming to live in St Helens, she had had a good home but since arriving in the town had been "knocked about shockingly". Nancy was bound over. Also in court were two widows who had been seen by the police fighting each other at the corner of Rigby Street and they were similarly bound over to keep the peace.
And finally a curious story concerning Colonel Michael Hughes of Sherdley Hall was published in The Times on the 4th. The racehorse owner had got himself into bother by renaming one of his nags "William Hohenzollern". That was the full name of "Kaiser Bill" or Wilhelm II, the defeated German emperor. The controversial name-change was the result of a bet, Hughes told the Times, but the horse's name would now be changed.
Next week's stories will include the disabled ex-soldier forced to sing for hand-outs in Sutton Manor, criticism over plans for a public war memorial, the Church Street canal swing bridge in need of repair and bravery in Blackpool by a young Haydock miner.
We begin on the 28th when William Ellis from Liverpool appeared in St Helens Police Court charged with "wandering abroad without visible means of subsistence." The police had been suspicious of Ellis when they spotted him at midnight standing around in Prescot Road. After watching the man for a while, the boys in blue arrested him at 1am.
Ellis told the police that he had walked from Liverpool and had no money. In court he told the magistrates that Pilkingtons had offered him a job but he had to go and see them that morning. However despite the fact that no real crime had been committed, William Ellis was not given the opportunity of getting any work – at least not in St Helens. Instead his suspicious behaviour earned him fourteen days in prison with hard labour.
In Prescot Police Court on the 28th, 23-year-old John Lunt and his 18-year-old brother Peter Lunt Jnr, were charged with carrying out a serious assault on their parents. The unhappy family all lived in Sutherland Road in Whiston and the brothers had been gambling with other men. When Peter Lunt Snr expressed his displeasure at what his sons were doing, John Lunt knocked his father down and then attempted to strangle him. The St Helens Newspaper wrote: "His hold was so tenacious that it took about four or five men to get him off his father."
When the 46-year-old miner finally stood up, Peter Jnr, his youngest son, then rushed through the crowd and struck his father across the mouth, knocking him unconscious. When Mary Lunt arrived on the scene, her eldest boy, John, gave her a "severe blow" to an eye, saying: "Take that!" and using "other language that was not fit to be reported in public court".
After again being attacked by her sons, Mary Lunt went to get help from the police. In court the boys pleaded guilty but claimed self-defence, arguing that their parents had first attacked them! The magistrates did not buy that excuse and fined the older brother a total of £9 and his younger sibling £6 5 shillings. Upon hearing the decision, John Lunt (the eldest son) sarcastically remarked to the Bench, "Thanks for being so lenient".
Although alcohol was deemed to have medicinal qualities and was even prescribed by doctors, the supposed sick were not supposed to get out of their heads on the stuff! But being poorly and so drinking lots of whisky was the defence of Ellen Thompson when she appeared in St Helens County Police Court on the 29th. The woman from Burrows Lane in Eccleston had stolen a shirt and a tablecloth off a neighbour's clothesline late at night.
The shirt was dumped in a hedge and on the following morning Mrs Thompson, pledged the tablecloth at Baker's pawnshop in Eccleston Street. I wonder whether anyone would bother reporting the stealing of such items off a clothesline today? However in 1920 the police took all thefts seriously and Constable Hunt was soon on the trail of the missing items.
Ellen Thompson was taken into custody but was allowed out on bail the same evening. That was "in view of her suffering from the effects of drink" – as the St Helens Newspaper put it. In court Mrs Thompson said she had no memory of stealing the things, as she had been poorly and so drunk lots of whisky. The magistrates were surprisingly generous, binding the woman over "to come up for judgement if called upon". In other words the offence would be taken into account if she ever appeared in court again.
The greater freedoms granted to women during the war – including the right for many to vote – were empowering an increasing number of females. Some made the difficult decision to no longer tolerate their abusive husbands. One was Elizabeth Ormrod of Brynn Street, who was also in court applying for a separation order from her husband. Elizabeth was already living apart from James but a separation order came with legally enforceable maintenance payments.
She told the Bench that the 27 years spent with her violent husband had been "a purgatory" and on August Monday the man had blacked both her eyes. The couple had seven children and in 1918 when they were living in Sutton Manor, James had turned Elizabeth and four of their children out into the rain. In October of last year while she was asleep in a rocking chair by the fire, James had struck Elizabeth with a spittoon, inflicting a wound 1½ inches long. Her husband then struck her with a teapot and when she screamed for help, James ran off and later returned with his throat cut.
It was common for wife beaters to put the blame on their spouse and even attempt to make themselves out to be the victim. James Ormrod's solicitor gave Elizabeth a particularly hard time in court. The questions she was asked included: "Since October last have you not been trying to get your husband to strike you?" And: "Haven't your sons been trying to make his home a hell?"
In answer to the last question, Elizabeth said: "It is a hell, but it is he who has brought it about." Mrs Ormrod did admit that two of her sons had "thrashed" her husband but she insisted it had been in self-defence. Of course the man opposed the order. He did not want to have to fork out good money and not have his dinner ready for him when he got home. However the magistrates granted the separation order to the relief, no doubt, of Mrs Ormrod.
Isaac Myers has been featured in these articles on many occasions. He was the man who the police once called a "loafer of no fixed abode" and who altered his army discharge papers so that his conduct was described as "magnificent" instead of "indifferent"! Well, Isaac made his 33rd appearance in the Police Court on the 29th charged with wandering abroad and lodging in the open air off Nuttall Street, near Greengate Brickworks.
Isaac told the Bench that if they allowed him to cultivate the land that he'd been kipping on, he would be prepared to "do something with it". The magistrates were not empowered to grant that request but they were able to return him to prison for a further 28 days with hard labour.
It used to be quite difficult to obtain compensation for workplace accidents as the employer had to be shown to have been at fault. Although "no fault" compensation had now been in place for some years, claimants were still obliged to prove that their injury or illness was instigated at work. In the County Court on the 29th, Harry Ince of Vincent Street brought a claim for compensation against Pilkingtons. He was a fitter and claimed that last December while drilling holes at the Sheet Works, a blister had formed on his hand, burst, and septic poisoning had subsequently set in.
The glass firm disputed liability. Pilks' solicitor told the judge that no accident had taken place and the germs that led to the poisoning could have been introduced in other ways. However the judge ruled that Mr Ince's incapacity had been through an injury to his hand while working for Pilkingtons. So he ordered compensation payments be made of 35 shillings a week for the five-week period he'd been unable to work.
On October 1st a married couple from Phythian Street appeared in the Police Court charged with committing a breach of the peace. The police said they had found Richard and Ellen Murphy fighting each other in a street off Liverpool Road. The couple were separated and blamed each other, with the husband saying: "It is her fault. She was going to stab me with a knife." However Ellen Murphy said her husband had been the cause of the trouble as he had been ill-treating her. They were both bound over to keep the peace.
In court Mrs Wilson explained that before coming to live in St Helens, she had had a good home but since arriving in the town had been "knocked about shockingly". Nancy was bound over. Also in court were two widows who had been seen by the police fighting each other at the corner of Rigby Street and they were similarly bound over to keep the peace.
And finally a curious story concerning Colonel Michael Hughes of Sherdley Hall was published in The Times on the 4th. The racehorse owner had got himself into bother by renaming one of his nags "William Hohenzollern". That was the full name of "Kaiser Bill" or Wilhelm II, the defeated German emperor. The controversial name-change was the result of a bet, Hughes told the Times, but the horse's name would now be changed.
Next week's stories will include the disabled ex-soldier forced to sing for hand-outs in Sutton Manor, criticism over plans for a public war memorial, the Church Street canal swing bridge in need of repair and bravery in Blackpool by a young Haydock miner.
This week's stories include the woman who'd spent 27 years of purgatory with her violent husband, the drunken Eccleston woman's clothes-line thefts, the Prescot brothers who attacked their parents and the Liverpool Road woman who said she had been "knocked about shockingly" after coming to live in St Helens.
We begin on the 28th when William Ellis from Liverpool appeared in St Helens Police Court charged with "wandering abroad without visible means of subsistence."
The police had been suspicious of Ellis when they spotted him at midnight standing around in Prescot Road. After watching the man for a while, the boys in blue arrested him at 1am.
Ellis told the police that he had walked from Liverpool and had no money.
In court he told the magistrates that Pilkingtons had offered him a job but he had to go and see them that morning.
However despite the fact that no real crime had been committed, William Ellis was not given the opportunity of getting any work – at least not in St Helens.
Instead his suspicious behaviour earned him fourteen days in prison with hard labour.
In Prescot Police Court on the 28th, 23-year-old John Lunt and his 18-year-old brother Peter Lunt Jnr, were charged with carrying out a serious assault on their parents.
The unhappy family all lived in Sutherland Road in Whiston and the brothers had been gambling with other men.
When Peter Lunt Snr expressed his displeasure at what his sons were doing, John Lunt knocked his father down and then attempted to strangle him.
The St Helens Newspaper wrote: "His hold was so tenacious that it took about four or five men to get him off his father."
When the 46-year-old miner finally stood up, Peter Jnr, his youngest son, then rushed through the crowd and struck his father across the mouth, knocking him unconscious.
When Mary Lunt arrived on the scene, her eldest boy, John, gave her a "severe blow" to an eye, saying: "Take that!" and using "other language that was not fit to be reported in public court".
After again being attacked by her sons, Mary Lunt went to get help from the police.
In court the boys pleaded guilty but claimed self-defence, arguing that their parents had first attacked them!
The magistrates did not buy that excuse and fined the older brother a total of £9 and his younger sibling £6 5 shillings.
Upon hearing the decision, John Lunt (the eldest son) sarcastically remarked to the Bench, "Thanks for being so lenient".
Although alcohol was deemed to have medicinal qualities and was even prescribed by doctors, the supposed sick were not supposed to get out of their heads on the stuff!
But being poorly and so drinking lots of whisky was the defence of Ellen Thompson when she appeared in St Helens County Police Court on the 29th.
The woman from Burrows Lane in Eccleston had stolen a shirt and a tablecloth off a neighbour's clothesline late at night.
The shirt was dumped in a hedge and on the following morning Mrs Thompson, pledged the tablecloth at Baker's pawnshop in Eccleston Street.
I wonder whether anyone would bother reporting the stealing of such items off a clothesline today?
However in 1920 the police took all thefts seriously and Constable Hunt was soon on the trail of the missing items.
Ellen Thompson was taken into custody but was allowed out on bail the same evening.
That was "in view of her suffering from the effects of drink" – as the St Helens Newspaper put it.
In court Mrs Thompson said she had no memory of stealing the things, as she had been poorly and so drunk lots of whisky.
The magistrates were surprisingly generous, binding the woman over "to come up for judgement if called upon".
In other words the offence would be taken into account if she ever appeared in court again.
The greater freedoms granted to women during the war – including the right for many to vote – were empowering an increasing number of females.
Some made the difficult decision to no longer tolerate their abusive husbands.
One was Elizabeth Ormrod of Brynn Street, who was also in court applying for a separation order from her husband.
Elizabeth was already living apart from James but a separation order came with legally enforceable maintenance payments.
She told the Bench that the 27 years spent with her violent husband had been "a purgatory" and on August Monday the man had blacked both her eyes.
The couple had seven children and in 1918 when they were living in Sutton Manor, James had turned Elizabeth and four of their children out into the rain.
In October of last year while she was asleep in a rocking chair by the fire, James had struck Elizabeth with a spittoon, inflicting a wound 1½ inches long.
Her husband then struck her with a teapot and when she screamed for help, James ran off and later returned with his throat cut.
It was common for wife beaters to put the blame on their spouse and even attempt to make themselves out to be the victim.
James Ormrod's solicitor gave Elizabeth a particularly hard time in court. The questions she was asked included:
"Since October last have you not been trying to get your husband to strike you?" And: "Haven't your sons been trying to make his home a hell?"
In answer to the last question, Elizabeth said: "It is a hell, but it is he who has brought it about."
Mrs Ormrod did admit that two of her sons had "thrashed" her husband but she insisted it had been in self-defence.
Of course the man opposed the order. He did not want to have to fork out good money and not have his dinner ready for him when he got home.
However the magistrates granted the separation order to the relief, no doubt, of Mrs Ormrod.
Isaac Myers has been featured in these articles on many occasions.
He was the man who the police once called a "loafer of no fixed abode" and who altered his army discharge papers so that his conduct was described as "magnificent" instead of "indifferent"!
Well, Isaac made his 33rd appearance in the Police Court on the 29th charged with wandering abroad and lodging in the open air off Nuttall Street, near Greengate Brickworks.
Isaac told the Bench that if they allowed him to cultivate the land that he'd been kipping on, he would be prepared to "do something with it".
The magistrates were not empowered to grant that request but they were able to return him to prison for a further 28 days with hard labour.
It used to be quite difficult to obtain compensation for workplace accidents as the employer had to be shown to have been at fault.
Although "no fault" compensation had now been in place for some years, claimants were still obliged to prove that their injury or illness was instigated at work.
In the County Court on the 29th, Harry Ince of Vincent Street brought a claim for compensation against Pilkingtons.
He was a fitter and claimed that last December while drilling holes at the Sheet Works, a blister had formed on his hand, burst, and septic poisoning had subsequently set in.
The glass firm disputed liability. Pilks' solicitor told the judge that no accident had taken place and the germs that led to the poisoning could have been introduced in other ways.
However the judge ruled that Mr Ince's incapacity had been through an injury to his hand while working for Pilkingtons.
So he ordered compensation payments be made of 35 shillings a week for the five-week period he'd been unable to work.
On October 1st a married couple from Phythian Street appeared in the Police Court charged with committing a breach of the peace.
The police said they had found Richard and Ellen Murphy fighting each other in a street off Liverpool Road.
The couple were separated and blamed each other, with the husband saying: "It is her fault. She was going to stab me with a knife."
However Ellen Murphy said her husband had been the cause of the trouble as he had been ill-treating her. They were both bound over to keep the peace.
On the 4th Nancy Wilson was charged with a breach of the peace within Liverpool Road (pictured above).
PC Pugh told the court that on the previous Saturday night at 10:45pm, a crowd had assembled in the street and upon investigating he found some women quarrelling.
Mrs Wilson came out of her house and started shouting and refused to be quiet and go back indoors.
So she was taken into custody, telling the officer that she would rather be locked up than have to live with her neighbours.
In court Mrs Wilson explained that before coming to live in St Helens, she had had a good home but since arriving in the town had been "knocked about shockingly". Nancy was bound over.
Also in court were two widows who had been seen by the police fighting each other at the corner of Rigby Street and they were similarly bound over to keep the peace.
And finally a curious story concerning Colonel Michael Hughes of Sherdley Hall was published in The Times on the 4th.
The racehorse owner had got himself into bother by renaming one of his nags "William Hohenzollern".
That was the full name of "Kaiser Bill" or Wilhelm II, the defeated German emperor.
The controversial name-change was the result of a bet, Hughes told the Times, but the horse's name would now be changed.
Next week's stories will include the disabled ex-soldier forced to sing for hand-outs in Sutton Manor, criticism over plans for a public war memorial, the Church Street canal swing bridge in need of repair and bravery in Blackpool by a young Haydock miner.
We begin on the 28th when William Ellis from Liverpool appeared in St Helens Police Court charged with "wandering abroad without visible means of subsistence."
The police had been suspicious of Ellis when they spotted him at midnight standing around in Prescot Road. After watching the man for a while, the boys in blue arrested him at 1am.
Ellis told the police that he had walked from Liverpool and had no money.
In court he told the magistrates that Pilkingtons had offered him a job but he had to go and see them that morning.
However despite the fact that no real crime had been committed, William Ellis was not given the opportunity of getting any work – at least not in St Helens.
Instead his suspicious behaviour earned him fourteen days in prison with hard labour.
In Prescot Police Court on the 28th, 23-year-old John Lunt and his 18-year-old brother Peter Lunt Jnr, were charged with carrying out a serious assault on their parents.
The unhappy family all lived in Sutherland Road in Whiston and the brothers had been gambling with other men.
When Peter Lunt Snr expressed his displeasure at what his sons were doing, John Lunt knocked his father down and then attempted to strangle him.
The St Helens Newspaper wrote: "His hold was so tenacious that it took about four or five men to get him off his father."
When the 46-year-old miner finally stood up, Peter Jnr, his youngest son, then rushed through the crowd and struck his father across the mouth, knocking him unconscious.
When Mary Lunt arrived on the scene, her eldest boy, John, gave her a "severe blow" to an eye, saying: "Take that!" and using "other language that was not fit to be reported in public court".
After again being attacked by her sons, Mary Lunt went to get help from the police.
In court the boys pleaded guilty but claimed self-defence, arguing that their parents had first attacked them!
The magistrates did not buy that excuse and fined the older brother a total of £9 and his younger sibling £6 5 shillings.
Upon hearing the decision, John Lunt (the eldest son) sarcastically remarked to the Bench, "Thanks for being so lenient".
Although alcohol was deemed to have medicinal qualities and was even prescribed by doctors, the supposed sick were not supposed to get out of their heads on the stuff!
But being poorly and so drinking lots of whisky was the defence of Ellen Thompson when she appeared in St Helens County Police Court on the 29th.
The woman from Burrows Lane in Eccleston had stolen a shirt and a tablecloth off a neighbour's clothesline late at night.
The shirt was dumped in a hedge and on the following morning Mrs Thompson, pledged the tablecloth at Baker's pawnshop in Eccleston Street.
I wonder whether anyone would bother reporting the stealing of such items off a clothesline today?
However in 1920 the police took all thefts seriously and Constable Hunt was soon on the trail of the missing items.
Ellen Thompson was taken into custody but was allowed out on bail the same evening.
That was "in view of her suffering from the effects of drink" – as the St Helens Newspaper put it.
In court Mrs Thompson said she had no memory of stealing the things, as she had been poorly and so drunk lots of whisky.
The magistrates were surprisingly generous, binding the woman over "to come up for judgement if called upon".
In other words the offence would be taken into account if she ever appeared in court again.
The greater freedoms granted to women during the war – including the right for many to vote – were empowering an increasing number of females.
Some made the difficult decision to no longer tolerate their abusive husbands.
One was Elizabeth Ormrod of Brynn Street, who was also in court applying for a separation order from her husband.
Elizabeth was already living apart from James but a separation order came with legally enforceable maintenance payments.
She told the Bench that the 27 years spent with her violent husband had been "a purgatory" and on August Monday the man had blacked both her eyes.
The couple had seven children and in 1918 when they were living in Sutton Manor, James had turned Elizabeth and four of their children out into the rain.
In October of last year while she was asleep in a rocking chair by the fire, James had struck Elizabeth with a spittoon, inflicting a wound 1½ inches long.
Her husband then struck her with a teapot and when she screamed for help, James ran off and later returned with his throat cut.
It was common for wife beaters to put the blame on their spouse and even attempt to make themselves out to be the victim.
James Ormrod's solicitor gave Elizabeth a particularly hard time in court. The questions she was asked included:
"Since October last have you not been trying to get your husband to strike you?" And: "Haven't your sons been trying to make his home a hell?"
In answer to the last question, Elizabeth said: "It is a hell, but it is he who has brought it about."
Mrs Ormrod did admit that two of her sons had "thrashed" her husband but she insisted it had been in self-defence.
Of course the man opposed the order. He did not want to have to fork out good money and not have his dinner ready for him when he got home.
However the magistrates granted the separation order to the relief, no doubt, of Mrs Ormrod.
Isaac Myers has been featured in these articles on many occasions.
He was the man who the police once called a "loafer of no fixed abode" and who altered his army discharge papers so that his conduct was described as "magnificent" instead of "indifferent"!
Well, Isaac made his 33rd appearance in the Police Court on the 29th charged with wandering abroad and lodging in the open air off Nuttall Street, near Greengate Brickworks.
Isaac told the Bench that if they allowed him to cultivate the land that he'd been kipping on, he would be prepared to "do something with it".
The magistrates were not empowered to grant that request but they were able to return him to prison for a further 28 days with hard labour.
It used to be quite difficult to obtain compensation for workplace accidents as the employer had to be shown to have been at fault.
Although "no fault" compensation had now been in place for some years, claimants were still obliged to prove that their injury or illness was instigated at work.
In the County Court on the 29th, Harry Ince of Vincent Street brought a claim for compensation against Pilkingtons.
He was a fitter and claimed that last December while drilling holes at the Sheet Works, a blister had formed on his hand, burst, and septic poisoning had subsequently set in.
The glass firm disputed liability. Pilks' solicitor told the judge that no accident had taken place and the germs that led to the poisoning could have been introduced in other ways.
However the judge ruled that Mr Ince's incapacity had been through an injury to his hand while working for Pilkingtons.
So he ordered compensation payments be made of 35 shillings a week for the five-week period he'd been unable to work.
On October 1st a married couple from Phythian Street appeared in the Police Court charged with committing a breach of the peace.
The police said they had found Richard and Ellen Murphy fighting each other in a street off Liverpool Road.
The couple were separated and blamed each other, with the husband saying: "It is her fault. She was going to stab me with a knife."
However Ellen Murphy said her husband had been the cause of the trouble as he had been ill-treating her. They were both bound over to keep the peace.
PC Pugh told the court that on the previous Saturday night at 10:45pm, a crowd had assembled in the street and upon investigating he found some women quarrelling.
Mrs Wilson came out of her house and started shouting and refused to be quiet and go back indoors.
So she was taken into custody, telling the officer that she would rather be locked up than have to live with her neighbours.
In court Mrs Wilson explained that before coming to live in St Helens, she had had a good home but since arriving in the town had been "knocked about shockingly". Nancy was bound over.
Also in court were two widows who had been seen by the police fighting each other at the corner of Rigby Street and they were similarly bound over to keep the peace.
And finally a curious story concerning Colonel Michael Hughes of Sherdley Hall was published in The Times on the 4th.
The racehorse owner had got himself into bother by renaming one of his nags "William Hohenzollern".
That was the full name of "Kaiser Bill" or Wilhelm II, the defeated German emperor.
The controversial name-change was the result of a bet, Hughes told the Times, but the horse's name would now be changed.
Next week's stories will include the disabled ex-soldier forced to sing for hand-outs in Sutton Manor, criticism over plans for a public war memorial, the Church Street canal swing bridge in need of repair and bravery in Blackpool by a young Haydock miner.