150 YEARS AGO THIS WEEK (19th - 25th OCTOBER 1870)
This week's stories include the 15-year-old Thatto Heath girl who claimed a Manchester publican made her pregnant, Pilkingtons adopt a hard-line attitude to striking glassmakers, a woman claims sexual assault by a Prescot policeman and the old offenders given harsh prison terms.
We start on the 19th when the Pilkington glassmakers – who had now been on strike for almost seven months – made a vain attempt to open negotiations with their masters. The strike had begun after the company reduced the wages of its skilled workers by as much as 25%, in order to make the price of glass more competitive. A delegation of three of the men – a glassblower, a gatherer and a glass flattener – wanted to begin talks about talks. They met the four directors to ascertain whether they were prepared to discuss resolving the dispute by either meeting the strikers in a body or in a deputation.
The men were told that they were not prepared to do either – although the "masters" would consider individual applications for reinstatement. However there was no guarantee that the men would be given their old jobs back and any employment would be at the new, reduced rates. The deputation reported Pilkingtons hard-line approach to the 200 or so assembled strikers and they resolved to continue the strike and appealed to the St Helens public for more support.
On the 20th a serious charge of felonious assault was brought against a policeman in Prescot – although I think we would call it sexual assault. The court case was extensively reported by the St Helens Newspaper, although precisely what was alleged was, as usual, not deemed fit for the public to read. The prosecution had been brought by Barbara Davies whose husband George ran a nursery in Fall Lane. That was then a major road in Prescot, approximately where Derby Street is today.
Two days earlier Mrs Davies had arranged to meet her husband in Liverpool after undertaking some shopping in the city and visiting a female friend. However she said he failed to turn up at the railway station to catch the 11:15pm train back to Prescot as arranged. So the woman instead took the 1am train to Huyton, with the intention of getting a cab to take her the rest of the way home.
No cabs were at the station as it was so late. However PC Richard Rutherford was on hand and he offered to escort the 22-year-old woman to the house of a local cab driver. However getting the taxi man and his horses ready for the journey would have taken 90 minutes and so the constable offered to escort Mrs Davies part of the way back to Prescot along some very dark roads. This is how the St Helens Newspaper reported her detailed testimony to the court:
"The prisoner [PC Rutherford] went on with me, and began to pull me about. We crossed the road, and I told him to be quiet, adding that if that was the way he was going to treat me I would not have come along the road with him. Prosecutrix went on to say that the prisoner pulled her several times, dragged her against the wall, and made use of improper language, and although she threatened to scream he committed the offence complained of.
"She then got away from him, but, missing her purse, she turned back to look for it, and the prisoner asked her what was the matter. She told him, and the prisoner struck a great many matches to look for it. She found it, and when they went on a little way the prisoner commenced to pull her again, and made improper overtures a second time, when she began to cry. He again used violence, and criminally assaulted her."
There seemed little reason why she should fabricate such a story against a constable that had kindly taken her home. However the officer's defence counsel revealed discrepancies in the woman's account that undermined her case. Most notably Mrs Davies insisted that she had not seen her husband in Liverpool or had drunk much while she was there.
However the friend that she had seen in the city explained to the court that the reason Mrs Davies had gone to Liverpool was to search for her husband. She had got drunk and after finding him drinking in an inn had attacked him and George Davies in retaliation had apparently knocked his wife down. This evidence was omitted from Mrs Davies's version of events probably because she considered her behaviour unladylike and embarrassing but, of course, once a lie is laid bare the whole case collapses.
There were other more minor contradictions in her evidence and in his favour PC Rutherford had an unblemished reputation in the force. So the magistrates dismissed the case against the officer without bothering to hear his defence counsel's closing statement. "Rutherford leaves [this court] without a stain of any kind on his character", said the Chairman of the Bench. We'll never know the truth but I doubt it was that clear cut.
In St Helens Petty Sessions on the 24th, Henry Duffy was given a stiff sentence for drunkenly knocking people's hats off. The man was considered an "old offender" having been five times charged with drunkenness and twice for a "felonious assault". Duffy could not find bail and so was sent to prison for three months. An even "older" offender was John Plunkitt, who had thirty convictions to his name. He had been drunk in Bridge Street and was treated more leniently than Duffy, receiving a fine of 14 shillings or 7 days in prison.
A 15-year-old girl called Elizabeth Swift brought an action in the St Helens Sessions against John Sugden for the maintenance of her illegitimate child. He was the proprietor of the Union Tavern in Manchester and Elizabeth had briefly worked for him as a domestic servant. The girl gave evidence that on the second day of her employment Sugden had "taken liberties" with her and done the same on several further occasions.
She had subsequently become pregnant but the man gave a total denial of responsibility, telling the Bench he had dismissed the girl from his service as he suspected her honesty. Without modern-day DNA or blood tests, proving paternity was extremely hard and in this case it came down to a young girl's word against a respectable businessman.
Elizabeth had no realistic chance of success and the magistrates predictably dismissed her claim. However I’m pleased to see that in the 1871 census, Elizabeth and her baby Margaret were living with her parents in Victoria Street, which used to be near Elephant Lane. Her family had clearly not washed their hands of their daughter, as many mothers and fathers then did.
This is how the Newspaper described another so-called affiliation case in the court: "Peter Doolan was summoned by Margaret O’Brien for the support of her illegitimate child. Peter, a simple looking fellow, denied the impeachment of his morality. He said that one night he had taken a drop too much, and the following morning he found himself lying on the same bed with the plaintiff, the bed having been laid by her on the floor. He was so shocked at her behaviour, that he told her there should be an end to all intercourse between them thenceforward. The case was dismissed."
It doesn't sound as if Peter Doolan was all that simple after all – he certainly managed to weasel his way out of paying Margaret a few bob a week maintenance! She thus becomes the third female this week that the male system appears to have badly let down.
Many poachers were also labelled old offenders, not seemingly being able to resist the lure of going onto other people's land with guns – in spite of the severe sentences that could be handed out in court. Jonathan Lawrenson and Thomas Lucas had quite a record and were sent to prison for three months with hard labour for poaching rabbits from Knowsley Park.
And finally Catherine Howard from Raglan Street summoned Margaret McDonald to court accusing her of assaulting her and kicking her. The Newspaper wrote: "The defendant said that the plaintiff was endeavouring to seduce the affections of her husband from her. A fine of 10s. and costs was imposed."
Next week's stories will include the Parr grocer who impugned a woman's chastity, the corrupt local elections, the boy thieves at Whiston and the mother of a future St Helens MP calls another son good-for-nothing.
The men were told that they were not prepared to do either – although the "masters" would consider individual applications for reinstatement. However there was no guarantee that the men would be given their old jobs back and any employment would be at the new, reduced rates. The deputation reported Pilkingtons hard-line approach to the 200 or so assembled strikers and they resolved to continue the strike and appealed to the St Helens public for more support.
On the 20th a serious charge of felonious assault was brought against a policeman in Prescot – although I think we would call it sexual assault. The court case was extensively reported by the St Helens Newspaper, although precisely what was alleged was, as usual, not deemed fit for the public to read. The prosecution had been brought by Barbara Davies whose husband George ran a nursery in Fall Lane. That was then a major road in Prescot, approximately where Derby Street is today.
Two days earlier Mrs Davies had arranged to meet her husband in Liverpool after undertaking some shopping in the city and visiting a female friend. However she said he failed to turn up at the railway station to catch the 11:15pm train back to Prescot as arranged. So the woman instead took the 1am train to Huyton, with the intention of getting a cab to take her the rest of the way home.
No cabs were at the station as it was so late. However PC Richard Rutherford was on hand and he offered to escort the 22-year-old woman to the house of a local cab driver. However getting the taxi man and his horses ready for the journey would have taken 90 minutes and so the constable offered to escort Mrs Davies part of the way back to Prescot along some very dark roads. This is how the St Helens Newspaper reported her detailed testimony to the court:
"The prisoner [PC Rutherford] went on with me, and began to pull me about. We crossed the road, and I told him to be quiet, adding that if that was the way he was going to treat me I would not have come along the road with him. Prosecutrix went on to say that the prisoner pulled her several times, dragged her against the wall, and made use of improper language, and although she threatened to scream he committed the offence complained of.
"She then got away from him, but, missing her purse, she turned back to look for it, and the prisoner asked her what was the matter. She told him, and the prisoner struck a great many matches to look for it. She found it, and when they went on a little way the prisoner commenced to pull her again, and made improper overtures a second time, when she began to cry. He again used violence, and criminally assaulted her."
There seemed little reason why she should fabricate such a story against a constable that had kindly taken her home. However the officer's defence counsel revealed discrepancies in the woman's account that undermined her case. Most notably Mrs Davies insisted that she had not seen her husband in Liverpool or had drunk much while she was there.
However the friend that she had seen in the city explained to the court that the reason Mrs Davies had gone to Liverpool was to search for her husband. She had got drunk and after finding him drinking in an inn had attacked him and George Davies in retaliation had apparently knocked his wife down. This evidence was omitted from Mrs Davies's version of events probably because she considered her behaviour unladylike and embarrassing but, of course, once a lie is laid bare the whole case collapses.
There were other more minor contradictions in her evidence and in his favour PC Rutherford had an unblemished reputation in the force. So the magistrates dismissed the case against the officer without bothering to hear his defence counsel's closing statement. "Rutherford leaves [this court] without a stain of any kind on his character", said the Chairman of the Bench. We'll never know the truth but I doubt it was that clear cut.
In St Helens Petty Sessions on the 24th, Henry Duffy was given a stiff sentence for drunkenly knocking people's hats off. The man was considered an "old offender" having been five times charged with drunkenness and twice for a "felonious assault". Duffy could not find bail and so was sent to prison for three months. An even "older" offender was John Plunkitt, who had thirty convictions to his name. He had been drunk in Bridge Street and was treated more leniently than Duffy, receiving a fine of 14 shillings or 7 days in prison.
A 15-year-old girl called Elizabeth Swift brought an action in the St Helens Sessions against John Sugden for the maintenance of her illegitimate child. He was the proprietor of the Union Tavern in Manchester and Elizabeth had briefly worked for him as a domestic servant. The girl gave evidence that on the second day of her employment Sugden had "taken liberties" with her and done the same on several further occasions.
She had subsequently become pregnant but the man gave a total denial of responsibility, telling the Bench he had dismissed the girl from his service as he suspected her honesty. Without modern-day DNA or blood tests, proving paternity was extremely hard and in this case it came down to a young girl's word against a respectable businessman.
Elizabeth had no realistic chance of success and the magistrates predictably dismissed her claim. However I’m pleased to see that in the 1871 census, Elizabeth and her baby Margaret were living with her parents in Victoria Street, which used to be near Elephant Lane. Her family had clearly not washed their hands of their daughter, as many mothers and fathers then did.
This is how the Newspaper described another so-called affiliation case in the court: "Peter Doolan was summoned by Margaret O’Brien for the support of her illegitimate child. Peter, a simple looking fellow, denied the impeachment of his morality. He said that one night he had taken a drop too much, and the following morning he found himself lying on the same bed with the plaintiff, the bed having been laid by her on the floor. He was so shocked at her behaviour, that he told her there should be an end to all intercourse between them thenceforward. The case was dismissed."
It doesn't sound as if Peter Doolan was all that simple after all – he certainly managed to weasel his way out of paying Margaret a few bob a week maintenance! She thus becomes the third female this week that the male system appears to have badly let down.
Many poachers were also labelled old offenders, not seemingly being able to resist the lure of going onto other people's land with guns – in spite of the severe sentences that could be handed out in court. Jonathan Lawrenson and Thomas Lucas had quite a record and were sent to prison for three months with hard labour for poaching rabbits from Knowsley Park.
And finally Catherine Howard from Raglan Street summoned Margaret McDonald to court accusing her of assaulting her and kicking her. The Newspaper wrote: "The defendant said that the plaintiff was endeavouring to seduce the affections of her husband from her. A fine of 10s. and costs was imposed."
Next week's stories will include the Parr grocer who impugned a woman's chastity, the corrupt local elections, the boy thieves at Whiston and the mother of a future St Helens MP calls another son good-for-nothing.
This week's stories include the 15-year-old Thatto Heath girl who claimed a Manchester publican made her pregnant, Pilkingtons adopt a hard-line attitude to striking glassmakers, a woman claims sexual assault by a Prescot policeman and the old offenders given harsh prison terms.
We start on the 19th when the Pilkington glassmakers – who had now been on strike for almost seven months – made a vain attempt to open negotiations with their masters.
The strike had begun after the company reduced the wages of its skilled workers by as much as 25%, in order to make the price of glass more competitive.
A delegation of three of the men – a glassblower, a gatherer and a glass flattener – wanted to begin talks about talks.
They met the four directors to ascertain whether they were prepared to discuss resolving the dispute by either meeting the strikers in a body or in a deputation.
The men were told that they were not prepared to do either – although the "masters" would consider individual applications for reinstatement.
However there was no guarantee that the men would be given their old jobs back and any employment would be at the new, reduced rates.
The deputation reported Pilkingtons hard-line approach to the 200 or so assembled strikers and they resolved to continue the strike and appealed to the St Helens public for more support.
On the 20th a serious charge of felonious assault was brought against a policeman in Prescot – although I think we would call it sexual assault.
The court case was extensively reported by the St Helens Newspaper, although precisely what was alleged was, as usual, not deemed fit for the public to read.
The prosecution had been brought by Barbara Davies whose husband George ran a nursery in Fall Lane.
That was then a major road in Prescot, approximately where Derby Street is today.
Two days earlier Mrs Davies had arranged to meet her husband in Liverpool after undertaking some shopping in the city and visiting a female friend.
However she said he failed to turn up at the railway station to catch the 11:15pm train back to Prescot as arranged.
So the woman instead took the 1am train to Huyton, with the intention of getting a cab to take her the rest of the way home.
No cabs were at the station as it was so late. However PC Richard Rutherford was on hand and he offered to escort the 22-year-old woman to the house of a local cab driver.
However getting the taxi man and his horses ready for the journey would have taken 90 minutes and so the constable offered to escort Mrs Davies part of the way back to Prescot along some very dark roads.
This is how the St Helens Newspaper reported her detailed testimony to the court:
"The prisoner [PC Rutherford] went on with me, and began to pull me about. We crossed the road, and I told him to be quiet, adding that if that was the way he was going to treat me I would not have come along the road with him.
"Prosecutrix went on to say that the prisoner pulled her several times, dragged her against the wall, and made use of improper language, and although she threatened to scream he committed the offence complained of.
"She then got away from him, but, missing her purse, she turned back to look for it, and the prisoner asked her what was the matter. She told him, and the prisoner struck a great many matches to look for it.
"She found it, and when they went on a little way the prisoner commenced to pull her again, and made improper overtures a second time, when she began to cry. He again used violence, and criminally assaulted her."
There seemed little reason why she should fabricate such a story against a constable that had kindly taken her home.
However the officer's defence counsel revealed discrepancies in the woman's account that undermined her case.
Most notably Mrs Davies insisted that she had not seen her husband in Liverpool or had drunk much while she was there.
However the friend that she had seen in the city explained to the court that the reason Mrs Davies had gone to Liverpool was to search for her husband.
She had got drunk and after finding him drinking in an inn had attacked him and George Davies in retaliation had apparently knocked his wife down.
This evidence was omitted from Mrs Davies's version of events probably because she considered her behaviour unladylike and embarrassing but, of course, once a lie is laid bare the whole case collapses.
There were other more minor contradictions in her evidence and in his favour PC Rutherford had an unblemished reputation in the force.
So the magistrates dismissed the case against the officer without bothering to hear his defence counsel's closing statement.
"Rutherford leaves [this court] without a stain of any kind on his character", said the Chairman of the Bench. We'll never know the truth but I doubt it was that clear cut.
In St Helens Petty Sessions on the 24th, Henry Duffy was given a stiff sentence for drunkenly knocking people's hats off.
The man was considered an "old offender" having been five times charged with drunkenness and twice for a "felonious assault". Duffy could not find bail and so was sent to prison for three months.
An even "older" offender was John Plunkitt, who had thirty convictions to his name.
He had been drunk in Bridge Street and was treated more leniently than Duffy, receiving a fine of 14 shillings or 7 days in prison.
A 15-year-old girl called Elizabeth Swift brought an action in the St Helens Sessions against John Sugden for the maintenance of her illegitimate child.
He was the proprietor of the Union Tavern in Manchester and Elizabeth had briefly worked for him as a domestic servant.
The girl gave evidence that on the second day of her employment Sugden had "taken liberties" with her and done the same on several further occasions.
She had subsequently become pregnant but the man gave a total denial of responsibility, telling the Bench he had dismissed the girl from his service as he suspected her honesty.
Without modern-day DNA or blood tests, proving paternity was extremely hard and in this case it came down to a young girl's word against a respectable businessman.
Elizabeth had no realistic chance of success and the magistrates predictably dismissed her claim.
However I’m pleased to see that in the 1871 census, Elizabeth and her baby Margaret were living with her parents in Victoria Street, which used to be near Elephant Lane.
Her family had clearly not washed their hands of their daughter, as many mothers and fathers then did.
This is how the Newspaper described another so-called affiliation case in the court:
"Peter Doolan was summoned by Margaret O’Brien for the support of her illegitimate child. Peter, a simple looking fellow, denied the impeachment of his morality.
"He said that one night he had taken a drop too much, and the following morning he found himself lying on the same bed with the plaintiff, the bed having been laid by her on the floor.
"He was so shocked at her behaviour, that he told her there should be an end to all intercourse between them thenceforward. The case was dismissed."
It doesn't sound as if Peter Doolan was all that simple after all – he certainly managed to weasel his way out of paying Margaret a few bob a week maintenance!
She thus becomes the third female this week that the male system appears to have badly let down.
Many poachers were also labelled old offenders, not seemingly being able to resist the lure of going onto other people's land with guns – in spite of the severe sentences that could be handed out in court.
Jonathan Lawrenson and Thomas Lucas had quite a record and were sent to prison for three months with hard labour for poaching rabbits from Knowsley Park.
And finally Catherine Howard from Raglan Street summoned Margaret McDonald to court accusing her of assaulting her and kicking her.
The Newspaper wrote: "The defendant said that the plaintiff was endeavouring to seduce the affections of her husband from her. A fine of 10s. and costs was imposed."
Next week's stories will include the Parr grocer who impugned a woman's chastity, the corrupt local elections, the boy thieves at Whiston and the mother of a future St Helens MP calls another son good-for-nothing.
The strike had begun after the company reduced the wages of its skilled workers by as much as 25%, in order to make the price of glass more competitive.
A delegation of three of the men – a glassblower, a gatherer and a glass flattener – wanted to begin talks about talks.
They met the four directors to ascertain whether they were prepared to discuss resolving the dispute by either meeting the strikers in a body or in a deputation.
The men were told that they were not prepared to do either – although the "masters" would consider individual applications for reinstatement.
However there was no guarantee that the men would be given their old jobs back and any employment would be at the new, reduced rates.
The deputation reported Pilkingtons hard-line approach to the 200 or so assembled strikers and they resolved to continue the strike and appealed to the St Helens public for more support.
On the 20th a serious charge of felonious assault was brought against a policeman in Prescot – although I think we would call it sexual assault.
The court case was extensively reported by the St Helens Newspaper, although precisely what was alleged was, as usual, not deemed fit for the public to read.
The prosecution had been brought by Barbara Davies whose husband George ran a nursery in Fall Lane.
That was then a major road in Prescot, approximately where Derby Street is today.
Two days earlier Mrs Davies had arranged to meet her husband in Liverpool after undertaking some shopping in the city and visiting a female friend.
However she said he failed to turn up at the railway station to catch the 11:15pm train back to Prescot as arranged.
So the woman instead took the 1am train to Huyton, with the intention of getting a cab to take her the rest of the way home.
No cabs were at the station as it was so late. However PC Richard Rutherford was on hand and he offered to escort the 22-year-old woman to the house of a local cab driver.
However getting the taxi man and his horses ready for the journey would have taken 90 minutes and so the constable offered to escort Mrs Davies part of the way back to Prescot along some very dark roads.
This is how the St Helens Newspaper reported her detailed testimony to the court:
"The prisoner [PC Rutherford] went on with me, and began to pull me about. We crossed the road, and I told him to be quiet, adding that if that was the way he was going to treat me I would not have come along the road with him.
"Prosecutrix went on to say that the prisoner pulled her several times, dragged her against the wall, and made use of improper language, and although she threatened to scream he committed the offence complained of.
"She then got away from him, but, missing her purse, she turned back to look for it, and the prisoner asked her what was the matter. She told him, and the prisoner struck a great many matches to look for it.
"She found it, and when they went on a little way the prisoner commenced to pull her again, and made improper overtures a second time, when she began to cry. He again used violence, and criminally assaulted her."
There seemed little reason why she should fabricate such a story against a constable that had kindly taken her home.
However the officer's defence counsel revealed discrepancies in the woman's account that undermined her case.
Most notably Mrs Davies insisted that she had not seen her husband in Liverpool or had drunk much while she was there.
However the friend that she had seen in the city explained to the court that the reason Mrs Davies had gone to Liverpool was to search for her husband.
She had got drunk and after finding him drinking in an inn had attacked him and George Davies in retaliation had apparently knocked his wife down.
This evidence was omitted from Mrs Davies's version of events probably because she considered her behaviour unladylike and embarrassing but, of course, once a lie is laid bare the whole case collapses.
There were other more minor contradictions in her evidence and in his favour PC Rutherford had an unblemished reputation in the force.
So the magistrates dismissed the case against the officer without bothering to hear his defence counsel's closing statement.
"Rutherford leaves [this court] without a stain of any kind on his character", said the Chairman of the Bench. We'll never know the truth but I doubt it was that clear cut.
In St Helens Petty Sessions on the 24th, Henry Duffy was given a stiff sentence for drunkenly knocking people's hats off.
The man was considered an "old offender" having been five times charged with drunkenness and twice for a "felonious assault". Duffy could not find bail and so was sent to prison for three months.
An even "older" offender was John Plunkitt, who had thirty convictions to his name.
He had been drunk in Bridge Street and was treated more leniently than Duffy, receiving a fine of 14 shillings or 7 days in prison.
A 15-year-old girl called Elizabeth Swift brought an action in the St Helens Sessions against John Sugden for the maintenance of her illegitimate child.
He was the proprietor of the Union Tavern in Manchester and Elizabeth had briefly worked for him as a domestic servant.
The girl gave evidence that on the second day of her employment Sugden had "taken liberties" with her and done the same on several further occasions.
She had subsequently become pregnant but the man gave a total denial of responsibility, telling the Bench he had dismissed the girl from his service as he suspected her honesty.
Without modern-day DNA or blood tests, proving paternity was extremely hard and in this case it came down to a young girl's word against a respectable businessman.
Elizabeth had no realistic chance of success and the magistrates predictably dismissed her claim.
However I’m pleased to see that in the 1871 census, Elizabeth and her baby Margaret were living with her parents in Victoria Street, which used to be near Elephant Lane.
Her family had clearly not washed their hands of their daughter, as many mothers and fathers then did.
This is how the Newspaper described another so-called affiliation case in the court:
"Peter Doolan was summoned by Margaret O’Brien for the support of her illegitimate child. Peter, a simple looking fellow, denied the impeachment of his morality.
"He said that one night he had taken a drop too much, and the following morning he found himself lying on the same bed with the plaintiff, the bed having been laid by her on the floor.
"He was so shocked at her behaviour, that he told her there should be an end to all intercourse between them thenceforward. The case was dismissed."
It doesn't sound as if Peter Doolan was all that simple after all – he certainly managed to weasel his way out of paying Margaret a few bob a week maintenance!
She thus becomes the third female this week that the male system appears to have badly let down.
Many poachers were also labelled old offenders, not seemingly being able to resist the lure of going onto other people's land with guns – in spite of the severe sentences that could be handed out in court.
Jonathan Lawrenson and Thomas Lucas had quite a record and were sent to prison for three months with hard labour for poaching rabbits from Knowsley Park.
And finally Catherine Howard from Raglan Street summoned Margaret McDonald to court accusing her of assaulting her and kicking her.
The Newspaper wrote: "The defendant said that the plaintiff was endeavouring to seduce the affections of her husband from her. A fine of 10s. and costs was imposed."
Next week's stories will include the Parr grocer who impugned a woman's chastity, the corrupt local elections, the boy thieves at Whiston and the mother of a future St Helens MP calls another son good-for-nothing.