150 YEARS AGO THIS WEEK 1 - 7 APRIL 1874
This week's many stories include the breach of promise of marriage case, a policeman suffers a severe kicking in Parr Street, the dog that saved a Bridge Street family from fire, the vested interests of St Helens' councillors, the terrible combat in Parr over a stolen spoon and a man is given a kicking in the Griffin Inn in Bold.
Actions for breach of promise of marriage were quite common and huge sums of money could be awarded to the young woman disappointed in love. As many lovers sent each other letters, these routinely formed the main evidence of the couple's intention to marry and great interest was created when they were read out in court. In the case of Mills vs Haigh at Leeds Assizes on April 1st there was much laughter from those in the public gallery when the couple's love missives were read.
Martha Mills from Eccles had brought an action for breach of promise against William Haigh. He was the manager of a coalmine in St Helens and had met Martha when she was visiting some relatives in the town. Their first engagement had supposedly been broken off by mutual consent, although Martha said the experience had made her very ill.
Two years later when visiting St Helens, Martha and William had again accidentally met and, according to newspaper accounts, he'd "expressed a desire to resume the intimacy". And so their relationship was resumed but William again soon broke off the engagement, which prompted the court case.
It was a common tactic for such defendants to try and look poor in court and William was accused of deliberately wearing a dirty shirt and old coat to support his claim that he was not well off. He said he was not a manager and claimed to only receive 40 shillings a week for working down the mine but brought into court no evidence to support his claim.
When Martha's barrister addressed the jury he said: "I must protest against the trickery and miserable attempt on the part of this young man to appeal for mercy on the ground of poverty, and actually today, for the purpose of saving his pocket, comes in with a misrepresentation." Such attempts to look poor tended to backfire and the jury awarded Martha the huge sum of £350.
On the 2nd St Helens Town Council discussed a proposed memorial or petition that they planned to send to the Local Government Board "praying" for legislative action. It concerned a call for legislation to control acids in the atmosphere that mainly emanated from the chemical manufacturers in the town. The council's concern had been prompted by the recent report that the St Helens Medical Officer of Health had issued.
At a meeting of their Health Committee, Alderman David Gamble had objected to the memorial, which also called for a commission of inquiry to be set up. As he was the owner of a chemical works in Gerards Bridge, the man was hardly neutral. But neither were other members of the council as most of them were industrialists, including copper smelter John Fenwick Allen.
He suggested asking for a resident inspector to be appointed instead of a commission and listed dubious stats that supposedly showed St Helens had a low level of acids in its atmosphere compared to other towns. Ultimately, after a vote, the council decided to pray (i.e. ask the Local Government Board politely) for an inspector and not a commission.
The Maryport Advertiser described on the 3rd how a dog had saved a family in Bridge Street in St Helens from a fire. The blaze had broken out on the premises of Knight's draper's and the dog had burst open a bedroom door and roused the family. Mr Knight found the stairs burning and so he went into the drawing-room above the shop and using some bedclothes lowered his wife, child and servant to the ground.
He then descended himself by the iron spout carrying a baby by his teeth. By the time the fire had been extinguished, all the shop stock and fixtures had been destroyed. The fire had arisen in the sitting room by burning coal dropping on to the hearthrug. Incidentally, the Advertiser also published this piece, which shows that the home working scam has a very long history:
"The home-employment swindle, by which needy persons are deluded into confiding some of their too scanty funds into the hands of cunning advertisers, relying on the promise that they may earn two or three pounds weekly at their own homes, without any preliminary instruction, is a heartless fraud, and, where-ever it can be exposed, merits the severest punishment."
Back to St Helens and in the Petty Sessions on the 6th, Thomas Cumberland was charged with a violent assault on a police constable by kicking him severely with his clogs. The incident had occurred nine days before in Parr Street and the officer had been off work ever since. PC Gill told the court that the defendant had been drunk and wanted to fight.
He had requested him to leave the street but Cumberland said he would only go when he was ready, adding, "I'll not go home with any bobbies, for I can beat them all." Cumberland refused to give his name to the policeman and when told he was being taken to the police station began his assault. The attack was resumed when they approached the Raven Inn and when other officers arrived on the scene, they needed to take off Cumberland's clogs for their own safety.
The man's solicitor was the fiery Thomas Swift who said his client had simply resisted an illegal arrest and had suffered a knee injury at the hands of the police and also accused them of committing perjury. Despite Swift's intervention, Cumberland was fined a quite hefty £5 5s plus costs, or if in default of payment he had to serve two months in prison.
However, stealing clothes was considered a more serious crime than "purring" a policeman with clogs. Thomas Briers was also in court charged with entering the house of William Lucas in Lyon Street and stealing a couple of coats. The 29-year-old miner had previous convictions and he was committed for trial at the next assizes and later in the month was sentenced to seven years in prison.
In another case John Griffiths Snr, John Griffiths Jnr and William Makin were accused of assaulting Patrick Powell in the Griffin Inn in Bold. Powell said the threesome had invited him to join them in a room in the pub and in accepting their invitation he had bought them half a gallon of ale. The father and son then knocked him down and gave him a kicking as he lay on the floor.
Powell said he managed to get up and stagger to the lobby but Makin then knocked him down again. The elder Griffiths then resumed kicking his victim who claimed in court that he had not been able to lie down since the assault because of the bruises on his hips. However, his attackers were only fined 5 shillings and costs each and their motivation for the assault was not reported.
The magistrates even treated quite minor thefts more seriously than giving a man a kicking in a pub. Martha Johnson was also in court charged with stealing four balls of worsted wool that had been valued at just threepence. These were alleged to have been stolen from a market stall belonging to William Welsh of Tontine Street (which is pictured above).
A neighbouring stallholder called John Donnelly said he witnessed Martha Johnson take some articles from the stall and walk off without paying. He told William Welsh who went after the woman, searched her and placed her into the custody of the police. Martha told the court that she had intended to pay for the wool but was sent to prison for 14 days with hard labour.
In another case John Tarpey was charged with assaulting Margaret Noonan in Parr and he had cross-summoned his accuser charging Margaret with assaulting him. Rows between adults often began through the activities of their children and John Tarpey's child had begun the trouble by stealing a spoon from the Noonan's house. The Newspaper wrote:
"Mrs. Noonan sought its recovery, and a terrible combat was the result. Tarpey kicked her about in a very cruel way, and she in turn “reared up” at him, and brought him to the ground. While the fight was going on, with varied success – for Tarpey is old, and the woman young – one of the female relations of the former threw a brick which struck Mrs. Noonan on the forehead, cutting her severely. As a measure of retaliation, she got a poker, and smashed a number of sheets of glass in Tarpey's window." Both defendants were bound over to keep the peace.
St Helens Newspaper courtesy St Helens Archive Service at Eccleston Library
Next Week's stories will include the beaten wife who refused to give evidence against her spouse, the vast throng that watched a sham battle at Rainhill, more runaway apprentices face the music and the hobbyhorse accident at St Helens station.
Actions for breach of promise of marriage were quite common and huge sums of money could be awarded to the young woman disappointed in love. As many lovers sent each other letters, these routinely formed the main evidence of the couple's intention to marry and great interest was created when they were read out in court. In the case of Mills vs Haigh at Leeds Assizes on April 1st there was much laughter from those in the public gallery when the couple's love missives were read.
Martha Mills from Eccles had brought an action for breach of promise against William Haigh. He was the manager of a coalmine in St Helens and had met Martha when she was visiting some relatives in the town. Their first engagement had supposedly been broken off by mutual consent, although Martha said the experience had made her very ill.
Two years later when visiting St Helens, Martha and William had again accidentally met and, according to newspaper accounts, he'd "expressed a desire to resume the intimacy". And so their relationship was resumed but William again soon broke off the engagement, which prompted the court case.
It was a common tactic for such defendants to try and look poor in court and William was accused of deliberately wearing a dirty shirt and old coat to support his claim that he was not well off. He said he was not a manager and claimed to only receive 40 shillings a week for working down the mine but brought into court no evidence to support his claim.
When Martha's barrister addressed the jury he said: "I must protest against the trickery and miserable attempt on the part of this young man to appeal for mercy on the ground of poverty, and actually today, for the purpose of saving his pocket, comes in with a misrepresentation." Such attempts to look poor tended to backfire and the jury awarded Martha the huge sum of £350.
On the 2nd St Helens Town Council discussed a proposed memorial or petition that they planned to send to the Local Government Board "praying" for legislative action. It concerned a call for legislation to control acids in the atmosphere that mainly emanated from the chemical manufacturers in the town. The council's concern had been prompted by the recent report that the St Helens Medical Officer of Health had issued.
At a meeting of their Health Committee, Alderman David Gamble had objected to the memorial, which also called for a commission of inquiry to be set up. As he was the owner of a chemical works in Gerards Bridge, the man was hardly neutral. But neither were other members of the council as most of them were industrialists, including copper smelter John Fenwick Allen.
He suggested asking for a resident inspector to be appointed instead of a commission and listed dubious stats that supposedly showed St Helens had a low level of acids in its atmosphere compared to other towns. Ultimately, after a vote, the council decided to pray (i.e. ask the Local Government Board politely) for an inspector and not a commission.
The Maryport Advertiser described on the 3rd how a dog had saved a family in Bridge Street in St Helens from a fire. The blaze had broken out on the premises of Knight's draper's and the dog had burst open a bedroom door and roused the family. Mr Knight found the stairs burning and so he went into the drawing-room above the shop and using some bedclothes lowered his wife, child and servant to the ground.
He then descended himself by the iron spout carrying a baby by his teeth. By the time the fire had been extinguished, all the shop stock and fixtures had been destroyed. The fire had arisen in the sitting room by burning coal dropping on to the hearthrug. Incidentally, the Advertiser also published this piece, which shows that the home working scam has a very long history:
"The home-employment swindle, by which needy persons are deluded into confiding some of their too scanty funds into the hands of cunning advertisers, relying on the promise that they may earn two or three pounds weekly at their own homes, without any preliminary instruction, is a heartless fraud, and, where-ever it can be exposed, merits the severest punishment."
Back to St Helens and in the Petty Sessions on the 6th, Thomas Cumberland was charged with a violent assault on a police constable by kicking him severely with his clogs. The incident had occurred nine days before in Parr Street and the officer had been off work ever since. PC Gill told the court that the defendant had been drunk and wanted to fight.
He had requested him to leave the street but Cumberland said he would only go when he was ready, adding, "I'll not go home with any bobbies, for I can beat them all." Cumberland refused to give his name to the policeman and when told he was being taken to the police station began his assault. The attack was resumed when they approached the Raven Inn and when other officers arrived on the scene, they needed to take off Cumberland's clogs for their own safety.
The man's solicitor was the fiery Thomas Swift who said his client had simply resisted an illegal arrest and had suffered a knee injury at the hands of the police and also accused them of committing perjury. Despite Swift's intervention, Cumberland was fined a quite hefty £5 5s plus costs, or if in default of payment he had to serve two months in prison.
However, stealing clothes was considered a more serious crime than "purring" a policeman with clogs. Thomas Briers was also in court charged with entering the house of William Lucas in Lyon Street and stealing a couple of coats. The 29-year-old miner had previous convictions and he was committed for trial at the next assizes and later in the month was sentenced to seven years in prison.
In another case John Griffiths Snr, John Griffiths Jnr and William Makin were accused of assaulting Patrick Powell in the Griffin Inn in Bold. Powell said the threesome had invited him to join them in a room in the pub and in accepting their invitation he had bought them half a gallon of ale. The father and son then knocked him down and gave him a kicking as he lay on the floor.
Powell said he managed to get up and stagger to the lobby but Makin then knocked him down again. The elder Griffiths then resumed kicking his victim who claimed in court that he had not been able to lie down since the assault because of the bruises on his hips. However, his attackers were only fined 5 shillings and costs each and their motivation for the assault was not reported.
A neighbouring stallholder called John Donnelly said he witnessed Martha Johnson take some articles from the stall and walk off without paying. He told William Welsh who went after the woman, searched her and placed her into the custody of the police. Martha told the court that she had intended to pay for the wool but was sent to prison for 14 days with hard labour.
In another case John Tarpey was charged with assaulting Margaret Noonan in Parr and he had cross-summoned his accuser charging Margaret with assaulting him. Rows between adults often began through the activities of their children and John Tarpey's child had begun the trouble by stealing a spoon from the Noonan's house. The Newspaper wrote:
"Mrs. Noonan sought its recovery, and a terrible combat was the result. Tarpey kicked her about in a very cruel way, and she in turn “reared up” at him, and brought him to the ground. While the fight was going on, with varied success – for Tarpey is old, and the woman young – one of the female relations of the former threw a brick which struck Mrs. Noonan on the forehead, cutting her severely. As a measure of retaliation, she got a poker, and smashed a number of sheets of glass in Tarpey's window." Both defendants were bound over to keep the peace.
St Helens Newspaper courtesy St Helens Archive Service at Eccleston Library
Next Week's stories will include the beaten wife who refused to give evidence against her spouse, the vast throng that watched a sham battle at Rainhill, more runaway apprentices face the music and the hobbyhorse accident at St Helens station.
This week's many stories include the breach of promise of marriage case, a policeman suffers a severe kicking in Parr Street, the dog that saved a Bridge Street family from fire, the vested interests of St Helens' councillors, the terrible combat in Parr over a stolen spoon and a man is given a kicking in the Griffin Inn in Bold.
Actions for breach of promise of marriage were quite common and huge sums of money could be awarded to the young woman disappointed in love.
As many lovers sent each other letters, these routinely formed the main evidence of the couple's intention to marry and great interest was created when they were read out in court.
In the case of Mills vs Haigh at Leeds Assizes on April 1st there was much laughter from those in the public gallery when the couple's love missives were read.
Martha Mills from Eccles had brought an action for breach of promise against William Haigh.
He was the manager of a coalmine in St Helens and had met Martha when she was visiting some relatives in the town.
Their first engagement had supposedly been broken off by mutual consent, although Martha said the experience had made her very ill.
Two years later when visiting St Helens, Martha and William had again accidentally met and, according to newspaper accounts, he'd "expressed a desire to resume the intimacy".
And so their relationship was resumed but William again soon broke off the engagement, which prompted the court case.
It was a common tactic for such defendants to try and look poor in court and William was accused of deliberately wearing a dirty shirt and old coat to support his claim that he was not well off.
He said he was not a manager and claimed to only receive 40 shillings a week for working down the mine but brought into court no evidence to support his claim.
When Martha's barrister addressed the jury he said: "I must protest against the trickery and miserable attempt on the part of this young man to appeal for mercy on the ground of poverty, and actually today, for the purpose of saving his pocket, comes in with a misrepresentation."
Such attempts to look poor tended to backfire and the jury awarded Martha the huge sum of £350.
On the 2nd St Helens Town Council discussed a proposed memorial or petition that they planned to send to the Local Government Board "praying" for legislative action.
It concerned a call for legislation to control acids in the atmosphere that mainly emanated from the chemical manufacturers in the town.
The council's concern had been prompted by the recent report that the St Helens Medical Officer of Health had issued.
At a meeting of their Health Committee, Alderman David Gamble had objected to the memorial, which also called for a commission of inquiry to be set up.
As he was the owner of a chemical works in Gerards Bridge, the man was hardly neutral.
But neither were other members of the council as most of them were industrialists, including copper smelter John Fenwick Allen.
He suggested asking for a resident inspector to be appointed instead of a commission and listed dubious stats that supposedly showed St Helens had a low level of acids in its atmosphere compared to other towns.
Ultimately, after a vote, the council decided to pray (i.e. ask the Local Government Board politely) for an inspector and not a commission.
The Maryport Advertiser described on the 3rd how a dog had saved a family in Bridge Street in St Helens from a fire.
The blaze had broken out on the premises of Knight's draper's and the dog had burst open a bedroom door and roused the family.
Mr Knight found the stairs burning and so he went into the drawing-room above the shop and using some bedclothes lowered his wife, child and servant to the ground.
He then descended himself by the iron spout carrying a baby by his teeth. By the time the fire had been extinguished, all the shop stock and fixtures had been destroyed.
The fire had arisen in the sitting room by burning coal dropping on to the hearthrug.
Incidentally, the Advertiser also published this piece, which shows that the home working scam has a very long history:
"The home-employment swindle, by which needy persons are deluded into confiding some of their too scanty funds into the hands of cunning advertisers, relying on the promise that they may earn two or three pounds weekly at their own homes, without any preliminary instruction, is a heartless fraud, and, where-ever it can be exposed, merits the severest punishment."
Back to St Helens and in the Petty Sessions on the 6th, Thomas Cumberland was charged with a violent assault on a police constable by kicking him severely with his clogs.
The incident had occurred nine days before in Parr Street and the officer had been off work ever since.
PC Gill told the court that the defendant had been drunk and wanted to fight. He had requested him to leave the street but Cumberland said he would only go when he was ready, adding, "I'll not go home with any bobbies, for I can beat them all."
Cumberland refused to give his name to the policeman and when told he was being taken to the police station began his assault.
The attack was resumed when they approached the Raven Inn and when other officers arrived on the scene, they needed to take off Cumberland's clogs for their own safety.
The man's solicitor was the fiery Thomas Swift who said his client had simply resisted an illegal arrest and had suffered a knee injury at the hands of the police and also accused them of committing perjury.
Despite Swift's intervention, Cumberland was fined a quite hefty £5 5s plus costs, or if in default of payment he had to serve two months in prison.
However, stealing clothes was considered a more serious crime than "purring" a policeman with clogs.
Thomas Briers was also in court charged with entering the house of William Lucas in Lyon Street and stealing a couple of coats.
The 29-year-old miner had previous convictions and he was committed for trial at the next assizes and later in the month was sentenced to seven years in prison.
In another case John Griffiths Snr, John Griffiths Jnr and William Makin were accused of assaulting Patrick Powell in the Griffin Inn in Bold.
Powell said the threesome had invited him to join them in a room in the pub and in accepting their invitation he had bought them half a gallon of ale.
The father and son then knocked him down and gave him a kicking as he lay on the floor.
Powell said he managed to get up and stagger to the lobby but Makin then knocked him down again.
The elder Griffiths then resumed kicking his victim who claimed in court that he had not been able to lie down since the assault because of the bruises on his hips.
However, his attackers were only fined 5 shillings and costs each and their motivation for the assault was not reported.
The magistrates even treated quite minor thefts more seriously than giving a man a kicking in a pub.
Martha Johnson was also in court charged with stealing four balls of worsted wool that had been valued at just threepence.
These were alleged to have been stolen from a market stall belonging to William Welsh of Tontine Street (which is pictured above).
A neighbouring stallholder called John Donnelly said he witnessed Martha Johnson take some articles from the stall and walk off without paying.
He told William Welsh who went after the woman, searched her and placed her into the custody of the police.
Martha told the court that she had intended to pay for the wool but was sent to prison for 14 days with hard labour.
In another case John Tarpey was charged with assaulting Margaret Noonan in Parr and he had cross-summoned his accuser charging Margaret with assaulting him.
Rows between adults often began through the activities of their children and John Tarpey's child had begun the trouble by stealing a spoon from the Noonan's house. The Newspaper wrote:
"Mrs. Noonan sought its recovery, and a terrible combat was the result. Tarpey kicked her about in a very cruel way, and she in turn “reared up” at him, and brought him to the ground.
"While the fight was going on, with varied success – for Tarpey is old, and the woman young – one of the female relations of the former threw a brick which struck Mrs. Noonan on the forehead, cutting her severely.
"As a measure of retaliation, she got a poker, and smashed a number of sheets of glass in Tarpey's window." Both defendants were bound over to keep the peace.
St Helens Newspaper courtesy St Helens Archive Service at Eccleston Library
Next Week's stories will include the beaten wife who refused to give evidence against her spouse, the vast throng that watched a sham battle at Rainhill, more runaway apprentices face the music and the hobbyhorse accident at St Helens station.
Actions for breach of promise of marriage were quite common and huge sums of money could be awarded to the young woman disappointed in love.
As many lovers sent each other letters, these routinely formed the main evidence of the couple's intention to marry and great interest was created when they were read out in court.
In the case of Mills vs Haigh at Leeds Assizes on April 1st there was much laughter from those in the public gallery when the couple's love missives were read.
Martha Mills from Eccles had brought an action for breach of promise against William Haigh.
He was the manager of a coalmine in St Helens and had met Martha when she was visiting some relatives in the town.
Their first engagement had supposedly been broken off by mutual consent, although Martha said the experience had made her very ill.
Two years later when visiting St Helens, Martha and William had again accidentally met and, according to newspaper accounts, he'd "expressed a desire to resume the intimacy".
And so their relationship was resumed but William again soon broke off the engagement, which prompted the court case.
It was a common tactic for such defendants to try and look poor in court and William was accused of deliberately wearing a dirty shirt and old coat to support his claim that he was not well off.
He said he was not a manager and claimed to only receive 40 shillings a week for working down the mine but brought into court no evidence to support his claim.
When Martha's barrister addressed the jury he said: "I must protest against the trickery and miserable attempt on the part of this young man to appeal for mercy on the ground of poverty, and actually today, for the purpose of saving his pocket, comes in with a misrepresentation."
Such attempts to look poor tended to backfire and the jury awarded Martha the huge sum of £350.
On the 2nd St Helens Town Council discussed a proposed memorial or petition that they planned to send to the Local Government Board "praying" for legislative action.
It concerned a call for legislation to control acids in the atmosphere that mainly emanated from the chemical manufacturers in the town.
The council's concern had been prompted by the recent report that the St Helens Medical Officer of Health had issued.
At a meeting of their Health Committee, Alderman David Gamble had objected to the memorial, which also called for a commission of inquiry to be set up.
As he was the owner of a chemical works in Gerards Bridge, the man was hardly neutral.
But neither were other members of the council as most of them were industrialists, including copper smelter John Fenwick Allen.
He suggested asking for a resident inspector to be appointed instead of a commission and listed dubious stats that supposedly showed St Helens had a low level of acids in its atmosphere compared to other towns.
Ultimately, after a vote, the council decided to pray (i.e. ask the Local Government Board politely) for an inspector and not a commission.
The Maryport Advertiser described on the 3rd how a dog had saved a family in Bridge Street in St Helens from a fire.
The blaze had broken out on the premises of Knight's draper's and the dog had burst open a bedroom door and roused the family.
Mr Knight found the stairs burning and so he went into the drawing-room above the shop and using some bedclothes lowered his wife, child and servant to the ground.
He then descended himself by the iron spout carrying a baby by his teeth. By the time the fire had been extinguished, all the shop stock and fixtures had been destroyed.
The fire had arisen in the sitting room by burning coal dropping on to the hearthrug.
Incidentally, the Advertiser also published this piece, which shows that the home working scam has a very long history:
"The home-employment swindle, by which needy persons are deluded into confiding some of their too scanty funds into the hands of cunning advertisers, relying on the promise that they may earn two or three pounds weekly at their own homes, without any preliminary instruction, is a heartless fraud, and, where-ever it can be exposed, merits the severest punishment."
Back to St Helens and in the Petty Sessions on the 6th, Thomas Cumberland was charged with a violent assault on a police constable by kicking him severely with his clogs.
The incident had occurred nine days before in Parr Street and the officer had been off work ever since.
PC Gill told the court that the defendant had been drunk and wanted to fight. He had requested him to leave the street but Cumberland said he would only go when he was ready, adding, "I'll not go home with any bobbies, for I can beat them all."
Cumberland refused to give his name to the policeman and when told he was being taken to the police station began his assault.
The attack was resumed when they approached the Raven Inn and when other officers arrived on the scene, they needed to take off Cumberland's clogs for their own safety.
The man's solicitor was the fiery Thomas Swift who said his client had simply resisted an illegal arrest and had suffered a knee injury at the hands of the police and also accused them of committing perjury.
Despite Swift's intervention, Cumberland was fined a quite hefty £5 5s plus costs, or if in default of payment he had to serve two months in prison.
However, stealing clothes was considered a more serious crime than "purring" a policeman with clogs.
Thomas Briers was also in court charged with entering the house of William Lucas in Lyon Street and stealing a couple of coats.
The 29-year-old miner had previous convictions and he was committed for trial at the next assizes and later in the month was sentenced to seven years in prison.
In another case John Griffiths Snr, John Griffiths Jnr and William Makin were accused of assaulting Patrick Powell in the Griffin Inn in Bold.
Powell said the threesome had invited him to join them in a room in the pub and in accepting their invitation he had bought them half a gallon of ale.
The father and son then knocked him down and gave him a kicking as he lay on the floor.
Powell said he managed to get up and stagger to the lobby but Makin then knocked him down again.
The elder Griffiths then resumed kicking his victim who claimed in court that he had not been able to lie down since the assault because of the bruises on his hips.
However, his attackers were only fined 5 shillings and costs each and their motivation for the assault was not reported.
The magistrates even treated quite minor thefts more seriously than giving a man a kicking in a pub.
Martha Johnson was also in court charged with stealing four balls of worsted wool that had been valued at just threepence.
A neighbouring stallholder called John Donnelly said he witnessed Martha Johnson take some articles from the stall and walk off without paying.
He told William Welsh who went after the woman, searched her and placed her into the custody of the police.
Martha told the court that she had intended to pay for the wool but was sent to prison for 14 days with hard labour.
In another case John Tarpey was charged with assaulting Margaret Noonan in Parr and he had cross-summoned his accuser charging Margaret with assaulting him.
Rows between adults often began through the activities of their children and John Tarpey's child had begun the trouble by stealing a spoon from the Noonan's house. The Newspaper wrote:
"Mrs. Noonan sought its recovery, and a terrible combat was the result. Tarpey kicked her about in a very cruel way, and she in turn “reared up” at him, and brought him to the ground.
"While the fight was going on, with varied success – for Tarpey is old, and the woman young – one of the female relations of the former threw a brick which struck Mrs. Noonan on the forehead, cutting her severely.
"As a measure of retaliation, she got a poker, and smashed a number of sheets of glass in Tarpey's window." Both defendants were bound over to keep the peace.
St Helens Newspaper courtesy St Helens Archive Service at Eccleston Library
Next Week's stories will include the beaten wife who refused to give evidence against her spouse, the vast throng that watched a sham battle at Rainhill, more runaway apprentices face the music and the hobbyhorse accident at St Helens station.