150 YEARS AGO THIS WEEK 13 - 19 APRIL 1876
This week's many stories include the man who claimed the police had beaten him black and blue, the landlord of the Lamb is charged with serving out of hours, the Parr Stocks boy that was slapped for stealing from a pigeon house, the female fish seller accused of using disgusting language to the market inspector and the woman who was told her husband could legally say anything he liked to her.
Pub landlords were regularly in court for serving beer out of hours. But almost always the illegal trading took place on a Sunday morning, as pubs were not allowed to open until noon on the Sabbath. A cat and mouse game was played with the police, with all kinds of excuses offered in court as to why beer was being dished out. But the case heard in St Helens Petty Sessions this week concerning Richard Davies was an unusual one.
The landlord of the Lamb Hotel in College Street had been summoned for selling alcohol during prohibited hours late at night and for refusing to admit the police into his house. PC Kelly told the court that on Sunday, March 12th at about 11 pm, a lot of people, including the defendant, had been drinking in a private house opposite the Lamb.
The constable said he had peeped through a hole in a window shutter and seen men collecting money for more drink. Shortly afterwards, Davies and another man left the house and went over the road to the Lamb. A few minutes later the other man came out of the pub carrying two bottles of beer and returned to the house across the way.
PC Kelly said the landlord Richard Davies was about to follow the man when he saw the constable was watching him. And so he went back into his pub, shut the door and fastened it. PC Kelly said he repeatedly knocked but failed to gain admission. One of the common features of such cases was that defence witnesses would refute much of the police evidence – seemingly lying through their teeth!
And that was what occurred in this case, with several witnesses swearing that Richard Davies had sold no drink after hours, that no money had been collected in the way described and that Davies had been in bed before 11 o’clock. But the magistrates rarely accepted such testimony and fined the landlord £5 and costs for selling drink at an illegal hour and £2 and costs for not admitting the police. That was a lot of money and his conviction might well lose Davies his licence at the next licensing hearing.
Allegations of police brutality were often made in court – but very rarely believed. And so when John Seary appeared in the Petty Sessions this week and claimed the police had beaten him black and blue, nobody was interested. The explanation was offered that before Seary had got into the police's hands, he had been fighting at the Theatre Royal and had fallen heavily on his back, which had caused his bruising.
I suppose with the police routinely taking heavy beatings from drunken thugs, it would take considerable discipline for a constable not to retaliate. But the evidence of someone like Seary was never going to be accepted. PC Long had found him drunk and very disorderly in Liverpool Road. He became violent and struck the policeman three or four times, knocking him to the ground and then kneed the officer in his breast.
Two officers came to PC Long's assistance and it took the three of them to drag Seary to the police station. In court he was fined 5 shillings and costs or 7 days in prison for the drunkenness and 20 shillings and costs, or one month in prison, for the assault on the constable.
Martin Nolan also appeared in court charged with assaulting Fanny Waywell and wilfully breaking a window of her home, along with a pair of her glasses. The window glass and the specs were only valued at 4s 6d in total, which suggests that the glasses were the cheap over-the-counter type that sometimes did more harm than good to people's eyes.
Fanny claimed that Nolan had entered her yard and called her to come out. But as he threatened what he would do to her if she did, Fanny wisely did not go. Nolan was then accused of knocking his fist through a window of her house and cutting his wrist on the broken glass. Fanny said she went outside and told Nolan she would make him pay for the damage that he had caused.
Nolan was then said to have struck her five times, breaking the spectacles the woman was wearing. As was often the case, what had led to the dispute was not reported and probably not even mentioned in court, as the magistrates only ever seemed interested in what had happened on the day in question.
But Nolan claimed the woman had a bottle in one hand and a knife in the other and had threatened to strike him with them. Fanny in reply insisted that she had no knife and the bottle had, in fact, only been a candlestick. Nolan was convicted and fined a total of 27 shillings plus costs, or he must serve a month in prison.
On the face of it Elizabeth Birchall issuing a summons against her husband Thomas accusing her separated spouse of using false and defamatory language about her was a run of the mill case and not particularly interesting. However, the husband's solicitor argued that a wife could not issue a summons against her husband.
He said legally speaking the couple was a single entity and the man was perfectly justified in saying anything that he liked to his wife, even if separated. The Bench accepted the point but ruled that the case could still be tried but only so far as it concerned the husband creating a breach of the peace. And so Elizabeth Birchall took the stand and gave her evidence. But upon its completion the magistrates decided that they could not try the defendant and so dismissed the case.
Thomas Gleave was the inspector in charge of St Helens Market (pictured above in the 1880s) but seems to have been an unpleasant man. In a court case in May 1875, his wife Jane had accused him of having beaten her "most unmercifully", as it was reported. Thomas was also said to have burned his wife on her forehead with a hot knife that had been lying in the fire and had even threatened to kill Jane.
Fish seller Mary Willett also appears to have been a difficult customer, with a number of convictions to her name. She had a stall in the market and was furious when she found that Thomas Gleave had placed another fishmonger next to hers. Mary appeared in court this week charged with using abusive and disgusting language to the market inspector, something that she was said to have had a habit of doing. Mary was discharged with a caution.
James Bradbury was summoned to court for assaulting a four-year-old boy called James Tinsley. Both parties lived in Parr Stocks and three female witnesses claimed to have seen the little lad near Bradbury's pigeon house being slapped in the face by the man. Upon being remonstrated by the women, Bradbury said he would do it again and threatened to do the same to them.
For the defence, witnesses were called who stated that Bradbury had caught the little boy coming out of his pigeon house with two of the birds in his hand, one of which was dead and he had said he was taking them to his father as he wanted a pigeon pie. James Bradbury denied slapping the boy, saying he had merely taken him by the shoulder in order to get the pigeons off him and the case was dismissed.
St Helens Newspaper courtesy St Helens Archive Service at Eccleston Library
Next Week's many stories will include the reopening for the season of the St Helens public baths, the death at Rainhill Railway Station, the man who stole tame rabbits and the sacking of the little girl nurses in St Helens Cottage Hospital.
Pub landlords were regularly in court for serving beer out of hours. But almost always the illegal trading took place on a Sunday morning, as pubs were not allowed to open until noon on the Sabbath. A cat and mouse game was played with the police, with all kinds of excuses offered in court as to why beer was being dished out. But the case heard in St Helens Petty Sessions this week concerning Richard Davies was an unusual one.
The landlord of the Lamb Hotel in College Street had been summoned for selling alcohol during prohibited hours late at night and for refusing to admit the police into his house. PC Kelly told the court that on Sunday, March 12th at about 11 pm, a lot of people, including the defendant, had been drinking in a private house opposite the Lamb.
The constable said he had peeped through a hole in a window shutter and seen men collecting money for more drink. Shortly afterwards, Davies and another man left the house and went over the road to the Lamb. A few minutes later the other man came out of the pub carrying two bottles of beer and returned to the house across the way.
PC Kelly said the landlord Richard Davies was about to follow the man when he saw the constable was watching him. And so he went back into his pub, shut the door and fastened it. PC Kelly said he repeatedly knocked but failed to gain admission. One of the common features of such cases was that defence witnesses would refute much of the police evidence – seemingly lying through their teeth!
And that was what occurred in this case, with several witnesses swearing that Richard Davies had sold no drink after hours, that no money had been collected in the way described and that Davies had been in bed before 11 o’clock. But the magistrates rarely accepted such testimony and fined the landlord £5 and costs for selling drink at an illegal hour and £2 and costs for not admitting the police. That was a lot of money and his conviction might well lose Davies his licence at the next licensing hearing.
Allegations of police brutality were often made in court – but very rarely believed. And so when John Seary appeared in the Petty Sessions this week and claimed the police had beaten him black and blue, nobody was interested. The explanation was offered that before Seary had got into the police's hands, he had been fighting at the Theatre Royal and had fallen heavily on his back, which had caused his bruising.
I suppose with the police routinely taking heavy beatings from drunken thugs, it would take considerable discipline for a constable not to retaliate. But the evidence of someone like Seary was never going to be accepted. PC Long had found him drunk and very disorderly in Liverpool Road. He became violent and struck the policeman three or four times, knocking him to the ground and then kneed the officer in his breast.
Two officers came to PC Long's assistance and it took the three of them to drag Seary to the police station. In court he was fined 5 shillings and costs or 7 days in prison for the drunkenness and 20 shillings and costs, or one month in prison, for the assault on the constable.
Martin Nolan also appeared in court charged with assaulting Fanny Waywell and wilfully breaking a window of her home, along with a pair of her glasses. The window glass and the specs were only valued at 4s 6d in total, which suggests that the glasses were the cheap over-the-counter type that sometimes did more harm than good to people's eyes.
Fanny claimed that Nolan had entered her yard and called her to come out. But as he threatened what he would do to her if she did, Fanny wisely did not go. Nolan was then accused of knocking his fist through a window of her house and cutting his wrist on the broken glass. Fanny said she went outside and told Nolan she would make him pay for the damage that he had caused.
Nolan was then said to have struck her five times, breaking the spectacles the woman was wearing. As was often the case, what had led to the dispute was not reported and probably not even mentioned in court, as the magistrates only ever seemed interested in what had happened on the day in question.
But Nolan claimed the woman had a bottle in one hand and a knife in the other and had threatened to strike him with them. Fanny in reply insisted that she had no knife and the bottle had, in fact, only been a candlestick. Nolan was convicted and fined a total of 27 shillings plus costs, or he must serve a month in prison.
On the face of it Elizabeth Birchall issuing a summons against her husband Thomas accusing her separated spouse of using false and defamatory language about her was a run of the mill case and not particularly interesting. However, the husband's solicitor argued that a wife could not issue a summons against her husband.
He said legally speaking the couple was a single entity and the man was perfectly justified in saying anything that he liked to his wife, even if separated. The Bench accepted the point but ruled that the case could still be tried but only so far as it concerned the husband creating a breach of the peace. And so Elizabeth Birchall took the stand and gave her evidence. But upon its completion the magistrates decided that they could not try the defendant and so dismissed the case.
Fish seller Mary Willett also appears to have been a difficult customer, with a number of convictions to her name. She had a stall in the market and was furious when she found that Thomas Gleave had placed another fishmonger next to hers. Mary appeared in court this week charged with using abusive and disgusting language to the market inspector, something that she was said to have had a habit of doing. Mary was discharged with a caution.
James Bradbury was summoned to court for assaulting a four-year-old boy called James Tinsley. Both parties lived in Parr Stocks and three female witnesses claimed to have seen the little lad near Bradbury's pigeon house being slapped in the face by the man. Upon being remonstrated by the women, Bradbury said he would do it again and threatened to do the same to them.
For the defence, witnesses were called who stated that Bradbury had caught the little boy coming out of his pigeon house with two of the birds in his hand, one of which was dead and he had said he was taking them to his father as he wanted a pigeon pie. James Bradbury denied slapping the boy, saying he had merely taken him by the shoulder in order to get the pigeons off him and the case was dismissed.
St Helens Newspaper courtesy St Helens Archive Service at Eccleston Library
Next Week's many stories will include the reopening for the season of the St Helens public baths, the death at Rainhill Railway Station, the man who stole tame rabbits and the sacking of the little girl nurses in St Helens Cottage Hospital.
This week's many stories include the man who claimed the police had beaten him black and blue, the landlord of the Lamb is charged with serving out of hours, the Parr Stocks boy that was slapped for stealing from a pigeon house, the female fish seller accused of using disgusting language to the market inspector and the woman who was told her husband could legally say anything he liked to her.
Pub landlords were regularly in court for serving beer out of hours.
But almost always the illegal trading took place on a Sunday morning, as pubs were not allowed to open until noon on the Sabbath.
A cat and mouse game was played with the police, with all kinds of excuses offered in court as to why beer was being dished out.
But the case heard in St Helens Petty Sessions this week concerning Richard Davies was an unusual one.
The landlord of the Lamb Hotel in College Street had been summoned for selling alcohol during prohibited hours late at night and for refusing to admit the police into his house.
PC Kelly told the court that on Sunday, March 12th at about 11 pm, a lot of people, including the defendant, had been drinking in a private house opposite the Lamb.
The constable said he had peeped through a hole in a window shutter and seen men collecting money for more drink.
Shortly afterwards, Davies and another man left the house and went over the road to the Lamb.
A few minutes later the other man came out of the pub carrying two bottles of beer and returned to the house across the way.
PC Kelly said the landlord Richard Davies was about to follow the man when he saw the constable was watching him.
And so he went back into his pub, shut the door and fastened it. PC Kelly said he repeatedly knocked but failed to gain admission.
One of the common features of such cases was that defence witnesses would refute much of the police evidence – seemingly lying through their teeth!
And that was what occurred in this case, with several witnesses swearing that Richard Davies had sold no drink after hours, that no money had been collected in the way described and that Davies had been in bed before 11 o’clock.
But the magistrates rarely accepted such testimony and fined the landlord £5 and costs for selling drink at an illegal hour and £2 and costs for not admitting the police.
That was a lot of money and his conviction might well lose Davies his licence at the next licensing hearing.
Allegations of police brutality were often made in court – but very rarely believed.
And so when John Seary appeared in the Petty Sessions this week and claimed the police had beaten him black and blue, nobody was interested.
The explanation was offered that before Seary had got into the police's hands, he had been fighting at the Theatre Royal and had fallen heavily on his back, which had caused his bruising.
I suppose with the police routinely taking heavy beatings from drunken thugs, it would take considerable discipline for a constable not to retaliate. But the evidence of someone like Seary was never going to be accepted.
PC Long had found him drunk and very disorderly in Liverpool Road. He became violent and struck the policeman three or four times, knocking him to the ground and then kneed the officer in his breast.
Two officers came to PC Long's assistance and it took the three of them to drag Seary to the police station.
In court he was fined 5 shillings and costs or 7 days in prison for the drunkenness and 20 shillings and costs, or one month in prison, for the assault on the constable.
Martin Nolan also appeared in court charged with assaulting Fanny Waywell and wilfully breaking a window of her home, along with a pair of her glasses.
The window glass and the specs were only valued at 4s 6d in total, which suggests that the glasses were the cheap over-the-counter type that sometimes did more harm than good to people's eyes.
Fanny claimed that Nolan had entered her yard and called her to come out.
But as he threatened what he would do to her if she did, Fanny wisely did not go.
Nolan was then accused of knocking his fist through a window of her house and cutting his wrist on the broken glass.
Fanny said she went outside and told Nolan she would make him pay for the damage that he had caused.
Nolan was then said to have struck her five times, breaking the spectacles the woman was wearing.
As was often the case, what had led to the dispute was not reported and probably not even mentioned in court, as the magistrates only ever seemed interested in what had happened on the day in question.
But Nolan claimed the woman had a bottle in one hand and a knife in the other and had threatened to strike him with them.
Fanny in reply insisted that she had no knife and the bottle had, in fact, only been a candlestick.
Nolan was convicted and fined a total of 27 shillings plus costs, or he must serve a month in prison.
On the face of it Elizabeth Birchall issuing a summons against her husband Thomas accusing her separated spouse of using false and defamatory language about her was a run of the mill case and not particularly interesting.
However, the husband's solicitor argued that a wife could not issue a summons against her husband.
He said legally speaking the couple was a single entity and the man was perfectly justified in saying anything that he liked to his wife, even if separated.
The Bench accepted the point but ruled that the case could still be tried but only so far as it concerned the husband creating a breach of the peace.
And so Elizabeth Birchall took the stand and gave her evidence. But upon its completion the magistrates decided that they could not try the defendant and so dismissed the case.
Thomas Gleave was the inspector in charge of St Helens Market (pictured above in the 1880s) but seems to have been an unpleasant man. In a court case in May 1875, his wife Jane had accused him of having beaten her "most unmercifully", as it was reported.
Thomas was also said to have burned his wife on her forehead with a hot knife that had been lying in the fire and had even threatened to kill Jane.
Fish seller Mary Willett also appears to have been a difficult customer, with a number of convictions to her name.
She had a stall in the market and was furious when she found that Thomas Gleave had placed another fishmonger next to hers.
Mary appeared in court this week charged with using abusive and disgusting language to the market inspector, something that she was said to have had a habit of doing. Mary was discharged with a caution.
James Bradbury was summoned to court for assaulting a four-year-old boy called James Tinsley.
Both parties lived in Parr Stocks and three female witnesses claimed to have seen the little lad near Bradbury's pigeon house being slapped in the face by the man.
Upon being remonstrated by the women, Bradbury said he would do it again and threatened to do the same to them.
For the defence, witnesses were called who stated that Bradbury had caught the little boy coming out of his pigeon house with two of the birds in his hand, one of which was dead and he had said he was taking them to his father as he wanted a pigeon pie.
James Bradbury denied slapping the boy, saying he had merely taken him by the shoulder in order to get the pigeons off him and the case was dismissed.
St Helens Newspaper courtesy St Helens Archive Service at Eccleston Library
Next Week's many stories will include the reopening for the season of the St Helens public baths, the death at Rainhill Railway Station, the man who stole tame rabbits and the sacking of the little girl nurses in St Helens Cottage Hospital.
Pub landlords were regularly in court for serving beer out of hours.
But almost always the illegal trading took place on a Sunday morning, as pubs were not allowed to open until noon on the Sabbath.
A cat and mouse game was played with the police, with all kinds of excuses offered in court as to why beer was being dished out.
But the case heard in St Helens Petty Sessions this week concerning Richard Davies was an unusual one.
The landlord of the Lamb Hotel in College Street had been summoned for selling alcohol during prohibited hours late at night and for refusing to admit the police into his house.
PC Kelly told the court that on Sunday, March 12th at about 11 pm, a lot of people, including the defendant, had been drinking in a private house opposite the Lamb.
The constable said he had peeped through a hole in a window shutter and seen men collecting money for more drink.
Shortly afterwards, Davies and another man left the house and went over the road to the Lamb.
A few minutes later the other man came out of the pub carrying two bottles of beer and returned to the house across the way.
PC Kelly said the landlord Richard Davies was about to follow the man when he saw the constable was watching him.
And so he went back into his pub, shut the door and fastened it. PC Kelly said he repeatedly knocked but failed to gain admission.
One of the common features of such cases was that defence witnesses would refute much of the police evidence – seemingly lying through their teeth!
And that was what occurred in this case, with several witnesses swearing that Richard Davies had sold no drink after hours, that no money had been collected in the way described and that Davies had been in bed before 11 o’clock.
But the magistrates rarely accepted such testimony and fined the landlord £5 and costs for selling drink at an illegal hour and £2 and costs for not admitting the police.
That was a lot of money and his conviction might well lose Davies his licence at the next licensing hearing.
Allegations of police brutality were often made in court – but very rarely believed.
And so when John Seary appeared in the Petty Sessions this week and claimed the police had beaten him black and blue, nobody was interested.
The explanation was offered that before Seary had got into the police's hands, he had been fighting at the Theatre Royal and had fallen heavily on his back, which had caused his bruising.
I suppose with the police routinely taking heavy beatings from drunken thugs, it would take considerable discipline for a constable not to retaliate. But the evidence of someone like Seary was never going to be accepted.
PC Long had found him drunk and very disorderly in Liverpool Road. He became violent and struck the policeman three or four times, knocking him to the ground and then kneed the officer in his breast.
Two officers came to PC Long's assistance and it took the three of them to drag Seary to the police station.
In court he was fined 5 shillings and costs or 7 days in prison for the drunkenness and 20 shillings and costs, or one month in prison, for the assault on the constable.
Martin Nolan also appeared in court charged with assaulting Fanny Waywell and wilfully breaking a window of her home, along with a pair of her glasses.
The window glass and the specs were only valued at 4s 6d in total, which suggests that the glasses were the cheap over-the-counter type that sometimes did more harm than good to people's eyes.
Fanny claimed that Nolan had entered her yard and called her to come out.
But as he threatened what he would do to her if she did, Fanny wisely did not go.
Nolan was then accused of knocking his fist through a window of her house and cutting his wrist on the broken glass.
Fanny said she went outside and told Nolan she would make him pay for the damage that he had caused.
Nolan was then said to have struck her five times, breaking the spectacles the woman was wearing.
As was often the case, what had led to the dispute was not reported and probably not even mentioned in court, as the magistrates only ever seemed interested in what had happened on the day in question.
But Nolan claimed the woman had a bottle in one hand and a knife in the other and had threatened to strike him with them.
Fanny in reply insisted that she had no knife and the bottle had, in fact, only been a candlestick.
Nolan was convicted and fined a total of 27 shillings plus costs, or he must serve a month in prison.
On the face of it Elizabeth Birchall issuing a summons against her husband Thomas accusing her separated spouse of using false and defamatory language about her was a run of the mill case and not particularly interesting.
However, the husband's solicitor argued that a wife could not issue a summons against her husband.
He said legally speaking the couple was a single entity and the man was perfectly justified in saying anything that he liked to his wife, even if separated.
The Bench accepted the point but ruled that the case could still be tried but only so far as it concerned the husband creating a breach of the peace.
And so Elizabeth Birchall took the stand and gave her evidence. But upon its completion the magistrates decided that they could not try the defendant and so dismissed the case.
Thomas was also said to have burned his wife on her forehead with a hot knife that had been lying in the fire and had even threatened to kill Jane.
Fish seller Mary Willett also appears to have been a difficult customer, with a number of convictions to her name.
She had a stall in the market and was furious when she found that Thomas Gleave had placed another fishmonger next to hers.
Mary appeared in court this week charged with using abusive and disgusting language to the market inspector, something that she was said to have had a habit of doing. Mary was discharged with a caution.
James Bradbury was summoned to court for assaulting a four-year-old boy called James Tinsley.
Both parties lived in Parr Stocks and three female witnesses claimed to have seen the little lad near Bradbury's pigeon house being slapped in the face by the man.
Upon being remonstrated by the women, Bradbury said he would do it again and threatened to do the same to them.
For the defence, witnesses were called who stated that Bradbury had caught the little boy coming out of his pigeon house with two of the birds in his hand, one of which was dead and he had said he was taking them to his father as he wanted a pigeon pie.
James Bradbury denied slapping the boy, saying he had merely taken him by the shoulder in order to get the pigeons off him and the case was dismissed.
St Helens Newspaper courtesy St Helens Archive Service at Eccleston Library
Next Week's many stories will include the reopening for the season of the St Helens public baths, the death at Rainhill Railway Station, the man who stole tame rabbits and the sacking of the little girl nurses in St Helens Cottage Hospital.