150 YEARS AGO THIS WEEK (3rd - 9th AUGUST 1870)
This week's stories include the drunken armed soldier in Church Street, a fracas at the Eagle and Child in Rainford, criticism of the state of St Thomas' churchyard and the curious case of the policeman and the injured cucumbers.
We begin in the St Helens Petty Sessions on the 8th when John Holcuff was charged with drunkenness and indecent behaviour after being caught running naked on the canal bank. He was fined 5 shillings and costs.
John Abbott was charged with assaulting his stepmother, Elisabeth Abbott, at what was described as the "Knoggs" public house in Eccleston. I am not aware of any pub with that name. However I believe the Nags Head on the corner of Boundary Road and Knowsley Road was during the 20th century known as the "Bottom Nog", and the Eccleston Arms on Prescot Road was the "Top Nog".
Abbott was described in court as a man too lazy to work and who refused to pay his board. He had grabbed hold of his stepmother by the throat and told her what he would do to her if it was not for the law. Abbott was fined ten shillings and costs and advised to change his residence.
If defendants failed to appear in court to answer a summons, they would either be fined in their absence or a warrant issued for their arrest. The latter course would normally be taken if they were charged with a serious, imprisonable offence so as to give them an opportunity to defend themselves. However when George Connolly, Joshua Finney and George Bacon did now show up at the Sessions to answer charges of playing pitch and toss at Rainford, they were simply jailed for 7 days.
It must have been very difficult to have been a magistrate or judge in 1870, with different witnesses offering different versions of reality and with no forensic or CCTV evidence to provide guidance. Judgements were often based on the credibility of witness testimonies and whether defendants and prosecutors could afford a smooth-talking solicitor to represent them.
In the next case in the Petty Sessions, Thomas Jones brought a summons against William Birch accusing the man of assaulting him in Rainford. Birch then cross-summoned Jones, accusing him of assault. However Thomas Jones had hired Thomas Swift to act as his legal counsel – which immediately placed him at an advantage over the counsel-less Birch. Swift told the Bench that his client had been knocked down and kicked by Birch without any provocation and the defendant had also threatened to kill him.
William Jones was the brother of Thomas Jones and he gave corroborative evidence of witnessing the assault. And PC 607 said Jones had come to him covered in blood and he had recommended that he take out a summons against his attacker. Such police advice was common and was probably through the difficulty of the police being able to prove a case based on one person's word against another.
And of course William Birch had his own version of what had happened during that evening on August 1st in the Eagle and Child in Chapel Lane, Rainford (now Church Road). Birch said he had been working at the pub as a waiter and had been told by the landlady that a quarrel was taking place in the parlour. He said she was concerned that some glasses might get broken and when he entered the room Thomas Jones struck him in the face.
Jane Worthington corroborated his evidence but the Bench preferred Thomas Jones' version which had been delivered by his clever legal counsel and they fined Birch £1 and costs. I expect the magistrates could have tossed a coin to make their decision – and perhaps they did!
It appears that there is nothing new with complaints of churchyards not being well cared for. This letter was published in the St Helens Newspaper on the 9th criticising the state of the graveyard at St Thomas's:
"ST. THOMAS' CHURCHYARD – Sir, Allow me through the medium of your valuable paper to call public attention to the above yard, which is daily becoming more and more disgraceful to the neighbourhood. What are the feelings of those who have relatives or friends lying within the precints [sic], pen cannot describe. As they view the sod – sod did I say? Pardon the mistake. As they look at the stones and other rubbish scattered over the grave of the cherished one, can it be wondered at if they are seen turning away in tears?" VERITAS [Truth]."
A letter about a member of the town's part-time soldiers was also published. I don't think I'd want to get into an argument with a drunken soldier possessing guns and a bayonet (they don't like it up ‘em!). The missive began:
"Sir, On Sunday last, in passing through Church-street, I observed one of the 47th Rifle Volunteers in an advanced state of intoxication, carrying his rifle and side-arms. I suppose he had been camping on Saturday night, and had taken more than he could carry with safety, for he instantly got at loggerheads with a passer by, and after a few minutes of fierce wrangling he pulled out his bayonet, fastened it to his rife, and very rashly struck at the other with it.
"If it had not been that the other quickly stepped aside, and grasped the weapon with his hand (thus cutting his finger and thumb) he would certainly have been seriously wounded. I hope if his commanding officer sees this he will deal with the volunteer in the manner such unmanly conduct deserves; for, however he may have been attacked by the other, he was surely not justified in striking an unarmed man in such a cowardly way. I remain, Sir, yours, &c., L, St. Helens, Aug. 8, 1870."
The Newspaper also wrote about the drought that had been afflicting St Helens for some weeks during the summer: "The grass crops have, of course, suffered much, and, owing to the absence of moisture, grass lands are bare, and are almost as yellow as the grain. The farmers have been crying out for rain for some considerable time, as should the drought continue, there is a probability of a scarcity of water being added to that of a lack of food for cattle." However the good news was that the fine weather during the past week had been good for harvesting and much grain had been gathered in "in remarkably fine condition".
There was much coverage in the Newspaper of the war between Prussia and France with the French on the defensive after some "great Prussian victories". The Parisian men that were being "called to arms" was being extended to able-bodied citizens aged between 30 and 40 and the French Minister of War claimed the capital city would soon have two million defenders.
Britain was staying neutral in the conflict – which would last for six months – so British people could enjoy reading about the battles without too much concern. In fact Glenfield Starch was advertising in the Newspaper a map of the "seat of war" which was available free from grocers – as long as you bought some starch, of course.
Some employers treated their workers appallingly, sacking them on a whim. In St Helens County Court (shown above) on the 9th a man called Garratt brought an action against a chemical firm. He alleged that they had dismissed him for not agreeing to work a double shift on a Sunday and said the firm still owed him three days' wages. It was unlikely that the court could do anything about his dismissal – although it could order that he receive his back pay. However the case was adjourned for a fortnight for the production of a witness.
The number of people in dispute in St Helens County Court in East Street was quite extraordinary with 181 cases heard at the weekly Tuesday hearing – particularly when considering the much smaller population of the town at that time. The strangest case of the lot concerned Hill vs Allsop, with the latter being a police constable. It was as Hill's solicitor put it, an action to "recover damage for injury to cucumbers", caused by the officer allegedly rushing into the plaintiff's premises and leaving the door of his cucumber house open.
This supposedly had led to an admission of cold air, which did "considerable injury" to the young plants despite the door only being open for up to five minutes. Brickmaker Peter Hill demanded £4 15 shillings compensation – the equivalent of a month's wages for a labourer. A gardener from Prescot called James Jacques claimed that PC Allsop had "smashed" open the door to the 90 ft-long cucumber house and consequently 200 plants had to be removed – Hill's solicitor claimed 400 plants. The allegation was that the officer had entered the house looking for beer and he had recently been cleared of a drunkenness charge.
A number of market gardeners gave evidence of inspecting the damaged plants – one described their "wretched condition" as a consequence of their brief exposure to the air. However the judge was sceptical about so much damage being done through a door being opened for just five minutes – he described the claim as "startling". Although he did feel that the expert witness evidence had been strong and awarded £2 10 shillings damages plus costs.
Next week's stories will include a serious blaze on a Bold farm, a gas explosion takes place at a Church Street tailor's, a farm dispute at Rainhill and the man who ran a house of ill repute in Westfield Street returns to court.
We begin in the St Helens Petty Sessions on the 8th when John Holcuff was charged with drunkenness and indecent behaviour after being caught running naked on the canal bank. He was fined 5 shillings and costs.
John Abbott was charged with assaulting his stepmother, Elisabeth Abbott, at what was described as the "Knoggs" public house in Eccleston. I am not aware of any pub with that name. However I believe the Nags Head on the corner of Boundary Road and Knowsley Road was during the 20th century known as the "Bottom Nog", and the Eccleston Arms on Prescot Road was the "Top Nog".
Abbott was described in court as a man too lazy to work and who refused to pay his board. He had grabbed hold of his stepmother by the throat and told her what he would do to her if it was not for the law. Abbott was fined ten shillings and costs and advised to change his residence.
If defendants failed to appear in court to answer a summons, they would either be fined in their absence or a warrant issued for their arrest. The latter course would normally be taken if they were charged with a serious, imprisonable offence so as to give them an opportunity to defend themselves. However when George Connolly, Joshua Finney and George Bacon did now show up at the Sessions to answer charges of playing pitch and toss at Rainford, they were simply jailed for 7 days.
It must have been very difficult to have been a magistrate or judge in 1870, with different witnesses offering different versions of reality and with no forensic or CCTV evidence to provide guidance. Judgements were often based on the credibility of witness testimonies and whether defendants and prosecutors could afford a smooth-talking solicitor to represent them.
In the next case in the Petty Sessions, Thomas Jones brought a summons against William Birch accusing the man of assaulting him in Rainford. Birch then cross-summoned Jones, accusing him of assault. However Thomas Jones had hired Thomas Swift to act as his legal counsel – which immediately placed him at an advantage over the counsel-less Birch. Swift told the Bench that his client had been knocked down and kicked by Birch without any provocation and the defendant had also threatened to kill him.
William Jones was the brother of Thomas Jones and he gave corroborative evidence of witnessing the assault. And PC 607 said Jones had come to him covered in blood and he had recommended that he take out a summons against his attacker. Such police advice was common and was probably through the difficulty of the police being able to prove a case based on one person's word against another.
Jane Worthington corroborated his evidence but the Bench preferred Thomas Jones' version which had been delivered by his clever legal counsel and they fined Birch £1 and costs. I expect the magistrates could have tossed a coin to make their decision – and perhaps they did!
It appears that there is nothing new with complaints of churchyards not being well cared for. This letter was published in the St Helens Newspaper on the 9th criticising the state of the graveyard at St Thomas's:
"ST. THOMAS' CHURCHYARD – Sir, Allow me through the medium of your valuable paper to call public attention to the above yard, which is daily becoming more and more disgraceful to the neighbourhood. What are the feelings of those who have relatives or friends lying within the precints [sic], pen cannot describe. As they view the sod – sod did I say? Pardon the mistake. As they look at the stones and other rubbish scattered over the grave of the cherished one, can it be wondered at if they are seen turning away in tears?" VERITAS [Truth]."
A letter about a member of the town's part-time soldiers was also published. I don't think I'd want to get into an argument with a drunken soldier possessing guns and a bayonet (they don't like it up ‘em!). The missive began:
"Sir, On Sunday last, in passing through Church-street, I observed one of the 47th Rifle Volunteers in an advanced state of intoxication, carrying his rifle and side-arms. I suppose he had been camping on Saturday night, and had taken more than he could carry with safety, for he instantly got at loggerheads with a passer by, and after a few minutes of fierce wrangling he pulled out his bayonet, fastened it to his rife, and very rashly struck at the other with it.
"If it had not been that the other quickly stepped aside, and grasped the weapon with his hand (thus cutting his finger and thumb) he would certainly have been seriously wounded. I hope if his commanding officer sees this he will deal with the volunteer in the manner such unmanly conduct deserves; for, however he may have been attacked by the other, he was surely not justified in striking an unarmed man in such a cowardly way. I remain, Sir, yours, &c., L, St. Helens, Aug. 8, 1870."
The Newspaper also wrote about the drought that had been afflicting St Helens for some weeks during the summer: "The grass crops have, of course, suffered much, and, owing to the absence of moisture, grass lands are bare, and are almost as yellow as the grain. The farmers have been crying out for rain for some considerable time, as should the drought continue, there is a probability of a scarcity of water being added to that of a lack of food for cattle." However the good news was that the fine weather during the past week had been good for harvesting and much grain had been gathered in "in remarkably fine condition".
There was much coverage in the Newspaper of the war between Prussia and France with the French on the defensive after some "great Prussian victories". The Parisian men that were being "called to arms" was being extended to able-bodied citizens aged between 30 and 40 and the French Minister of War claimed the capital city would soon have two million defenders.
Britain was staying neutral in the conflict – which would last for six months – so British people could enjoy reading about the battles without too much concern. In fact Glenfield Starch was advertising in the Newspaper a map of the "seat of war" which was available free from grocers – as long as you bought some starch, of course.
The number of people in dispute in St Helens County Court in East Street was quite extraordinary with 181 cases heard at the weekly Tuesday hearing – particularly when considering the much smaller population of the town at that time. The strangest case of the lot concerned Hill vs Allsop, with the latter being a police constable. It was as Hill's solicitor put it, an action to "recover damage for injury to cucumbers", caused by the officer allegedly rushing into the plaintiff's premises and leaving the door of his cucumber house open.
This supposedly had led to an admission of cold air, which did "considerable injury" to the young plants despite the door only being open for up to five minutes. Brickmaker Peter Hill demanded £4 15 shillings compensation – the equivalent of a month's wages for a labourer. A gardener from Prescot called James Jacques claimed that PC Allsop had "smashed" open the door to the 90 ft-long cucumber house and consequently 200 plants had to be removed – Hill's solicitor claimed 400 plants. The allegation was that the officer had entered the house looking for beer and he had recently been cleared of a drunkenness charge.
A number of market gardeners gave evidence of inspecting the damaged plants – one described their "wretched condition" as a consequence of their brief exposure to the air. However the judge was sceptical about so much damage being done through a door being opened for just five minutes – he described the claim as "startling". Although he did feel that the expert witness evidence had been strong and awarded £2 10 shillings damages plus costs.
Next week's stories will include a serious blaze on a Bold farm, a gas explosion takes place at a Church Street tailor's, a farm dispute at Rainhill and the man who ran a house of ill repute in Westfield Street returns to court.
This week's stories include the drunken armed soldier in Church Street, a fracas at the Eagle and Child in Rainford, criticism of the state of St Thomas' churchyard and the curious case of the policeman and the injured cucumbers.
We begin in the St Helens Petty Sessions on the 8th when John Holcuff was charged with drunkenness and indecent behaviour after being caught running naked on the canal bank. He was fined 5 shillings and costs.
John Abbott was charged with assaulting his stepmother, Elisabeth Abbott, at what was described as the "Knoggs" public house in Eccleston. I am not aware of any pub with that name.
However I believe the Nags Head on the corner of Boundary Road and Knowsley Road was during the 20th century known as the "Bottom Nog", and the Eccleston Arms on Prescot Road was the "Top Nog".
Abbott was described in court as a man too lazy to work and who refused to pay his board.
He had grabbed hold of his stepmother by the throat and told her what he would do to her if it was not for the law.
Abbott was fined ten shillings and costs and advised to change his residence.
If defendants failed to appear in court to answer a summons, they would either be fined in their absence or a warrant issued for their arrest.
The latter course would normally be taken if they were charged with a serious, imprisonable offence so as to give them an opportunity to defend themselves.
However when George Connolly, Joshua Finney and George Bacon did now show up at the Sessions to answer charges of playing pitch and toss at Rainford, they were simply jailed for 7 days.
It must have been very difficult to have been a magistrate or judge in 1870, with different witnesses offering different versions of reality and with no forensic or CCTV evidence to provide guidance.
Judgements were often based on the credibility of witness testimonies and whether defendants and prosecutors could afford a smooth-talking solicitor to represent them.
In the next case in the Petty Sessions, Thomas Jones brought a summons against William Birch accusing the man of assaulting him in Rainford.
Birch then cross-summoned Jones, accusing him of assault.
However Thomas Jones had hired Thomas Swift to act as his legal counsel – which immediately placed him at an advantage over the counsel-less Birch.
Swift told the Bench that his client had been knocked down and kicked by Birch without any provocation and the defendant had also threatened to kill him.
William Jones was the brother of Thomas Jones and he gave corroborative evidence of witnessing the assault.
And PC 607 said Jones had come to him covered in blood and he had recommended that he take out a summons against his attacker.
Such police advice was common and was probably through the difficulty of the police being able to prove a case based on one person's word against another.
And of course William Birch had his own version of what had happened during that evening on August 1st in the Eagle and Child in Chapel Lane, Rainford (now Church Road).
Birch said he had been working at the pub as a waiter and had been told by the landlady that a quarrel was taking place in the parlour.
He said she was concerned that some glasses might get broken and when he entered the room Thomas Jones struck him in the face.
Jane Worthington corroborated his evidence but the Bench preferred Thomas Jones' version which had been delivered by his clever legal counsel and they fined Birch £1 and costs.
I expect the magistrates could have tossed a coin to make their decision – and perhaps they did!
It appears that there is nothing new with complaints of churchyards not being well cared for.
This letter was published in the St Helens Newspaper on the 9th criticising the state of the graveyard at St Thomas's:
"ST. THOMAS' CHURCHYARD – Sir, Allow me through the medium of your valuable paper to call public attention to the above yard, which is daily becoming more and more disgraceful to the neighbourhood. What are the feelings of those who have relatives or friends lying within the precints [sic], pen cannot describe.
"As they view the sod – sod did I say? Pardon the mistake. As they look at the stones and other rubbish scattered over the grave of the cherished one, can it be wondered at if they are seen turning away in tears?" VERITAS [Truth]."
A letter about a member of the town's part-time soldiers was also published.
I don't think I'd want to get into an argument with a drunken soldier possessing guns and a bayonet (they don't like it up ‘em!). The missive began:
"Sir, On Sunday last, in passing through Church-street, I observed one of the 47th Rifle Volunteers in an advanced state of intoxication, carrying his rifle and side-arms.
"I suppose he had been camping on Saturday night, and had taken more than he could carry with safety, for he instantly got at loggerheads with a passer by, and after a few minutes of fierce wrangling he pulled out his bayonet, fastened it to his rife, and very rashly struck at the other with it.
"If it had not been that the other quickly stepped aside, and grasped the weapon with his hand (thus cutting his finger and thumb) he would certainly have been seriously wounded.
"I hope if his commanding officer sees this he will deal with the volunteer in the manner such unmanly conduct deserves; for, however he may have been attacked by the other, he was surely not justified in striking an unarmed man in such a cowardly way. I remain, Sir, yours, &c., L, St. Helens, Aug. 8, 1870."
The Newspaper also wrote about the drought that had been afflicting St Helens for some weeks during the summer:
"The grass crops have, of course, suffered much, and, owing to the absence of moisture, grass lands are bare, and are almost as yellow as the grain.
"The farmers have been crying out for rain for some considerable time, as should the drought continue, there is a probability of a scarcity of water being added to that of a lack of food for cattle."
However the good news was that the fine weather during the past week had been good for harvesting and much grain had been gathered in "in remarkably fine condition".
There was much coverage in the Newspaper of the war between Prussia and France with the French on the defensive after some "great Prussian victories".
The Parisian men that were being "called to arms" was being extended to able-bodied citizens aged between 30 and 40 and the French Minister of War claimed the capital city would soon have two million defenders.
Britain was staying neutral in the conflict – which would last for six months – so British people could enjoy reading about the battles without too much concern.
In fact Glenfield Starch was advertising in the Newspaper a map of the "seat of war" which was available free from grocers – as long as you bought some starch, of course.
Some employers treated their workers appallingly, sacking them on a whim. In St Helens County Court (shown above) on the 9th a man called Garratt brought an action against a chemical firm.
He alleged that they had dismissed him for not agreeing to work a double shift on a Sunday and said the firm still owed him three days' wages.
It was unlikely that the court could do anything about his dismissal – although it could order that he receive his back pay.
However the case was adjourned for a fortnight for the production of a witness.
The number of people in dispute in St Helens County Court in East Street was quite extraordinary with 181 cases heard at the weekly Tuesday hearing – particularly when considering the much smaller population of the town at that time.
The strangest case of the lot concerned Hill vs Allsop, with the latter being a police constable.
It was as Hill's solicitor put it, an action to "recover damage for injury to cucumbers", caused by the officer allegedly rushing into the plaintiff's premises and leaving the door of his cucumber house open.
This supposedly had led to an admission of cold air, which did "considerable injury" to the young plants despite the door only being open for up to five minutes.
Brickmaker Peter Hill demanded £4 15 shillings compensation – the equivalent of a month's wages for a labourer.
A gardener from Prescot called James Jacques claimed that PC Allsop had "smashed" open the door to the 90 ft-long cucumber house and consequently 200 plants had to be removed – Hill's solicitor claimed 400 plants.
The allegation was that the officer had entered the house looking for beer and he had recently been cleared of a drunkenness charge.
A number of market gardeners gave evidence of inspecting the damaged plants – one described their "wretched condition" as a consequence of their brief exposure to the air.
However the judge was sceptical about so much damage being done through a door being opened for just five minutes – he described the claim as "startling".
Although he did feel that the expert witness evidence had been strong and awarded £2 10 shillings damages plus costs.
Next week's stories will include a serious blaze on a Bold farm, a gas explosion takes place at a Church Street tailor's, a farm dispute at Rainhill and the man who ran a house of ill repute in Westfield Street returns to court.
We begin in the St Helens Petty Sessions on the 8th when John Holcuff was charged with drunkenness and indecent behaviour after being caught running naked on the canal bank. He was fined 5 shillings and costs.
John Abbott was charged with assaulting his stepmother, Elisabeth Abbott, at what was described as the "Knoggs" public house in Eccleston. I am not aware of any pub with that name.
However I believe the Nags Head on the corner of Boundary Road and Knowsley Road was during the 20th century known as the "Bottom Nog", and the Eccleston Arms on Prescot Road was the "Top Nog".
Abbott was described in court as a man too lazy to work and who refused to pay his board.
He had grabbed hold of his stepmother by the throat and told her what he would do to her if it was not for the law.
Abbott was fined ten shillings and costs and advised to change his residence.
If defendants failed to appear in court to answer a summons, they would either be fined in their absence or a warrant issued for their arrest.
The latter course would normally be taken if they were charged with a serious, imprisonable offence so as to give them an opportunity to defend themselves.
However when George Connolly, Joshua Finney and George Bacon did now show up at the Sessions to answer charges of playing pitch and toss at Rainford, they were simply jailed for 7 days.
It must have been very difficult to have been a magistrate or judge in 1870, with different witnesses offering different versions of reality and with no forensic or CCTV evidence to provide guidance.
Judgements were often based on the credibility of witness testimonies and whether defendants and prosecutors could afford a smooth-talking solicitor to represent them.
In the next case in the Petty Sessions, Thomas Jones brought a summons against William Birch accusing the man of assaulting him in Rainford.
Birch then cross-summoned Jones, accusing him of assault.
However Thomas Jones had hired Thomas Swift to act as his legal counsel – which immediately placed him at an advantage over the counsel-less Birch.
Swift told the Bench that his client had been knocked down and kicked by Birch without any provocation and the defendant had also threatened to kill him.
William Jones was the brother of Thomas Jones and he gave corroborative evidence of witnessing the assault.
And PC 607 said Jones had come to him covered in blood and he had recommended that he take out a summons against his attacker.
Such police advice was common and was probably through the difficulty of the police being able to prove a case based on one person's word against another.
Birch said he had been working at the pub as a waiter and had been told by the landlady that a quarrel was taking place in the parlour.
He said she was concerned that some glasses might get broken and when he entered the room Thomas Jones struck him in the face.
Jane Worthington corroborated his evidence but the Bench preferred Thomas Jones' version which had been delivered by his clever legal counsel and they fined Birch £1 and costs.
I expect the magistrates could have tossed a coin to make their decision – and perhaps they did!
It appears that there is nothing new with complaints of churchyards not being well cared for.
This letter was published in the St Helens Newspaper on the 9th criticising the state of the graveyard at St Thomas's:
"ST. THOMAS' CHURCHYARD – Sir, Allow me through the medium of your valuable paper to call public attention to the above yard, which is daily becoming more and more disgraceful to the neighbourhood. What are the feelings of those who have relatives or friends lying within the precints [sic], pen cannot describe.
"As they view the sod – sod did I say? Pardon the mistake. As they look at the stones and other rubbish scattered over the grave of the cherished one, can it be wondered at if they are seen turning away in tears?" VERITAS [Truth]."
A letter about a member of the town's part-time soldiers was also published.
I don't think I'd want to get into an argument with a drunken soldier possessing guns and a bayonet (they don't like it up ‘em!). The missive began:
"Sir, On Sunday last, in passing through Church-street, I observed one of the 47th Rifle Volunteers in an advanced state of intoxication, carrying his rifle and side-arms.
"I suppose he had been camping on Saturday night, and had taken more than he could carry with safety, for he instantly got at loggerheads with a passer by, and after a few minutes of fierce wrangling he pulled out his bayonet, fastened it to his rife, and very rashly struck at the other with it.
"If it had not been that the other quickly stepped aside, and grasped the weapon with his hand (thus cutting his finger and thumb) he would certainly have been seriously wounded.
"I hope if his commanding officer sees this he will deal with the volunteer in the manner such unmanly conduct deserves; for, however he may have been attacked by the other, he was surely not justified in striking an unarmed man in such a cowardly way. I remain, Sir, yours, &c., L, St. Helens, Aug. 8, 1870."
The Newspaper also wrote about the drought that had been afflicting St Helens for some weeks during the summer:
"The grass crops have, of course, suffered much, and, owing to the absence of moisture, grass lands are bare, and are almost as yellow as the grain.
"The farmers have been crying out for rain for some considerable time, as should the drought continue, there is a probability of a scarcity of water being added to that of a lack of food for cattle."
However the good news was that the fine weather during the past week had been good for harvesting and much grain had been gathered in "in remarkably fine condition".
There was much coverage in the Newspaper of the war between Prussia and France with the French on the defensive after some "great Prussian victories".
The Parisian men that were being "called to arms" was being extended to able-bodied citizens aged between 30 and 40 and the French Minister of War claimed the capital city would soon have two million defenders.
Britain was staying neutral in the conflict – which would last for six months – so British people could enjoy reading about the battles without too much concern.
In fact Glenfield Starch was advertising in the Newspaper a map of the "seat of war" which was available free from grocers – as long as you bought some starch, of course.
He alleged that they had dismissed him for not agreeing to work a double shift on a Sunday and said the firm still owed him three days' wages.
It was unlikely that the court could do anything about his dismissal – although it could order that he receive his back pay.
However the case was adjourned for a fortnight for the production of a witness.
The number of people in dispute in St Helens County Court in East Street was quite extraordinary with 181 cases heard at the weekly Tuesday hearing – particularly when considering the much smaller population of the town at that time.
The strangest case of the lot concerned Hill vs Allsop, with the latter being a police constable.
It was as Hill's solicitor put it, an action to "recover damage for injury to cucumbers", caused by the officer allegedly rushing into the plaintiff's premises and leaving the door of his cucumber house open.
This supposedly had led to an admission of cold air, which did "considerable injury" to the young plants despite the door only being open for up to five minutes.
Brickmaker Peter Hill demanded £4 15 shillings compensation – the equivalent of a month's wages for a labourer.
A gardener from Prescot called James Jacques claimed that PC Allsop had "smashed" open the door to the 90 ft-long cucumber house and consequently 200 plants had to be removed – Hill's solicitor claimed 400 plants.
The allegation was that the officer had entered the house looking for beer and he had recently been cleared of a drunkenness charge.
A number of market gardeners gave evidence of inspecting the damaged plants – one described their "wretched condition" as a consequence of their brief exposure to the air.
However the judge was sceptical about so much damage being done through a door being opened for just five minutes – he described the claim as "startling".
Although he did feel that the expert witness evidence had been strong and awarded £2 10 shillings damages plus costs.
Next week's stories will include a serious blaze on a Bold farm, a gas explosion takes place at a Church Street tailor's, a farm dispute at Rainhill and the man who ran a house of ill repute in Westfield Street returns to court.