150 YEARS AGO THIS WEEK (4th - 10th JULY 1872)
This week's stories include a claim of police brutality in Sutton, the Raven Hotel traveller conundrum, the fight that turned into a brick bashing, the indecent assault in Park Road and the Parr woman whose gossip landed her in court.
We begin on the 6th when Patrick Greeley appeared in St Helens Petty Sessions charged with unlawfully wounding Patrick O’Day from Marshalls Cross. The two men had quarrelled in a beerhouse over dominoes and then decided to fight it out in a neighbouring field. Greeley was getting the worst of the battle until he picked up a brick and used it to bash his opponent over the head, severing an artery.
The St Helens Newspaper described the blow as "fearful" and the Wigan Observer called it a "murderous assault", with the wounded man having been too ill to appear in court for some time. But, as I've often said, violence was largely tolerated in the 1870s and Patrick Greeley was only fined 30 shillings, with the magistrates commenting that they'd taken into consideration the fact he'd been "greatly provoked and ill-used." Now, if he'd done something really serious, like begging in the street (!), he would automatically have been sent to prison.
When these days we hear of rioting having taken place, our assumption is that a group of individuals had been involved. But, in the 1870s, it was common for just one person to be considered to have rioted. In reality the charge referred to a more serious case of being drunk and disorderly, in which, perhaps, the odd window was smashed and a helmet or two were knocked off policemen's heads!
Women behaving in such unladylike ways tended to get the worst of it from the magistrates. And so in the Sessions, Ann Harvey was sent to prison for a month for rioting in the street and Maria Callaghan got a fortnight at Kirkdale Gaol after having committed a separate offence. The St Helens Newspaper called her a "street pest".
Here's this week's "how long is a piece of string" question: How do you define what a traveller is? Is it someone who has journeyed 50 yards or 50 miles? It wasn't until 1910 that an Act of Parliament gave a proper answer by stipulating that a person seeking exemption from public house licensing laws needed to have travelled at least three miles. Until then licensees caught serving someone out of hours could use the traveller excuse and hope for a sympathetic hearing from the courts.
But the magistrates tended to employ common sense in their interpretation of the exemption and often stymied the defence case, as occurred this week in the Sessions. On the 8th John Phythian of the Raven Hotel was summoned to court for serving alcohol at half-past midnight on a Sunday. Horse-driven buses used to leave the Raven on regular services and also undertake special outings.
That Sunday a party had left for Speke Hall and upon returning at midnight, some had enjoyed supper and ale inside the pub. That was outside legally permitted drinking hours but Phythian claimed the traveller exemption – but the magistrates rejected it. They said the individuals did not qualify as travellers as they were all St Helens residents being served drink only a short distance from their homes. In other words, they had travelled but weren't travellers. The landlord John Phythian was fined £1 and said he would look to see if he could appeal the decision.
Another conundrum considered in court this week concerned pitch and toss. That was the game in which the player who pitched a coin closest to a mark got to toss all the players' coins, winning those coppers that landed heads up. Pretty innocuous by today's standards but such gaming was illegal and often referred to as evil by magistrates. But can you bring a pitch and toss prosecution without proving that both aspects had been played? Solicitor Thomas Swift thought not and when Henry Newton and Henry Molyneux were charged with playing the game in Elephant Lane (pictured above), Sgt Robinson had to admit that he'd only seen the defendants tossing and not pitching.
When he'd approached the pair, they'd run off leaving their coppers on the ground. Sometimes, when the number of participants was low, coins were simply tossed for cash and although a variant of pitch and toss, the solicitor argued it was not the same. So he argued for a dismissal of the case – but the Bench ruled against him. However, Swift then adopted Plan B, which was to claim mistaken identity by the police and by that means managed to get his clients off!
An allegation of police brutality was heard in the St Helens Petty Sessions this week. The claim was made when James Quinn was charged with being drunk and assaulting Police Constable Peter Worden of Junction Lane. The defendant lived in Taylor's Row in Sutton, which no longer exists but was bounded by Peckers Hill Road and Hoghton Road. The 29-year-old PC Worden gave evidence that at half-past midnight he'd heard a row coming from Taylor's Row. Upon arriving at the place – seemingly in plain clothes – he found a crowd had gathered with James Quinn standing against a wall with his face covered in blood.
Upon approaching Quinn, the man struck him violently in the face. The officer claimed a second blow was then aimed at him – but he managed to ward it off with a stick and took the man into custody. However, some of Quinn's relations attempted to rescue him and the prisoner briefly managed to escape. The police called Thomas Critchley as a witness but were clearly taken by surprise when the 50-year-old miner said:
"James Quinn was very ill drunk and quarrelling with a man. When the officer came up, Quinn took him to be the man he was quarrelling with and struck him. The policeman knocked him down with a blow of his stick, and when he got up knocked him down a second time. Quinn got to his knees, and the officer dragged him along about 20 yards, beating him with the stick the whole of the way. The mother and others interfered, and he struck them all. The mother said to me: “Are you going to see my son killed?” And I said to the policeman: “So help me God, officer, don't kill the man.” He used the stick just the same as if he was thrashing wheat."
Quinn's solicitor was Thomas Swift who told the magistrates that his client had been treated worse than a dog before adding: "By mistake he struck Worden, not knowing he was a policeman, but that did not justify the latter in taking out his staff and using it. He hit the man straight downwards, knocking him down; and when the man got up he knocked him down again, and beat him as he dragged him along. Was a mother to be put upon her defence for endeavouring to rescue her son for violence like that? Worden had no right whatever to meddle with Quinn when he was merely standing up against the wall."
The magistrates decided to fine Quinn five shillings for the drunkenness but the charge of assaulting a policeman was dismissed, as were the charges against the others, including Quinn's mother. The chairman said that was because of the evidence of Thomas Critchley, which the Bench had clearly found compelling.
Alice Hamer appeared in court charged with using defamatory language after spreading gossip about Eileen Banks. Alice had entered Lucy Hoole's house in Parr and told the woman she'd seen her husband enter a barn with Eileen Banks. The latter said that she had entered the barn to obtain some shavings from Mr Hoole but strongly denied any "improper familiarity" had taken place. Mrs Banks told the court that after hearing of the accusation, she had gone to see Mrs Hamer and had been provoked to strike her, so bad had been her language. The magistrates decided to bind Mrs Hamer over.
Edward Swift was charged with drunkenness and assaulting Alice McGrath, with the incidents taking part in Parr, seemingly in the Park Road area. PC Gill gave evidence of seeing Swift drunk in the street. As he approached the man, several persons took him away from the officer and pushed him inside a house. Upon going to the door of the house, the officer said he received very abusive language.
Alice McGrath told the court that she had been walking along the road carrying a bag of cinders when Edward Swift had approached her, knocked her down and attempted to commit an indecent assault upon her. A witness called Mrs Scott said the man had fallen on the woman after pushing her down and Elizabeth Mailey added that he had kissed her. Although the defence conceded the drunkenness charge, the assault was denied. It was claimed that the woman had stamped on Swift's foot and he had accidentally knocked her over. The magistrates did not buy that excuse and fined Swift a total of 10 shillings and costs.
Next week's stories will include the severe storm that caused immense flooding in St Helens, a Prescot curate is declared insane, the Sutton Heath explosions caused by careless miners and an utterly reckless Parr Flat girl is sent to prison.
We begin on the 6th when Patrick Greeley appeared in St Helens Petty Sessions charged with unlawfully wounding Patrick O’Day from Marshalls Cross. The two men had quarrelled in a beerhouse over dominoes and then decided to fight it out in a neighbouring field. Greeley was getting the worst of the battle until he picked up a brick and used it to bash his opponent over the head, severing an artery.
The St Helens Newspaper described the blow as "fearful" and the Wigan Observer called it a "murderous assault", with the wounded man having been too ill to appear in court for some time. But, as I've often said, violence was largely tolerated in the 1870s and Patrick Greeley was only fined 30 shillings, with the magistrates commenting that they'd taken into consideration the fact he'd been "greatly provoked and ill-used." Now, if he'd done something really serious, like begging in the street (!), he would automatically have been sent to prison.
When these days we hear of rioting having taken place, our assumption is that a group of individuals had been involved. But, in the 1870s, it was common for just one person to be considered to have rioted. In reality the charge referred to a more serious case of being drunk and disorderly, in which, perhaps, the odd window was smashed and a helmet or two were knocked off policemen's heads!
Women behaving in such unladylike ways tended to get the worst of it from the magistrates. And so in the Sessions, Ann Harvey was sent to prison for a month for rioting in the street and Maria Callaghan got a fortnight at Kirkdale Gaol after having committed a separate offence. The St Helens Newspaper called her a "street pest".
Here's this week's "how long is a piece of string" question: How do you define what a traveller is? Is it someone who has journeyed 50 yards or 50 miles? It wasn't until 1910 that an Act of Parliament gave a proper answer by stipulating that a person seeking exemption from public house licensing laws needed to have travelled at least three miles. Until then licensees caught serving someone out of hours could use the traveller excuse and hope for a sympathetic hearing from the courts.
But the magistrates tended to employ common sense in their interpretation of the exemption and often stymied the defence case, as occurred this week in the Sessions. On the 8th John Phythian of the Raven Hotel was summoned to court for serving alcohol at half-past midnight on a Sunday. Horse-driven buses used to leave the Raven on regular services and also undertake special outings.
That Sunday a party had left for Speke Hall and upon returning at midnight, some had enjoyed supper and ale inside the pub. That was outside legally permitted drinking hours but Phythian claimed the traveller exemption – but the magistrates rejected it. They said the individuals did not qualify as travellers as they were all St Helens residents being served drink only a short distance from their homes. In other words, they had travelled but weren't travellers. The landlord John Phythian was fined £1 and said he would look to see if he could appeal the decision.
When he'd approached the pair, they'd run off leaving their coppers on the ground. Sometimes, when the number of participants was low, coins were simply tossed for cash and although a variant of pitch and toss, the solicitor argued it was not the same. So he argued for a dismissal of the case – but the Bench ruled against him. However, Swift then adopted Plan B, which was to claim mistaken identity by the police and by that means managed to get his clients off!
An allegation of police brutality was heard in the St Helens Petty Sessions this week. The claim was made when James Quinn was charged with being drunk and assaulting Police Constable Peter Worden of Junction Lane. The defendant lived in Taylor's Row in Sutton, which no longer exists but was bounded by Peckers Hill Road and Hoghton Road. The 29-year-old PC Worden gave evidence that at half-past midnight he'd heard a row coming from Taylor's Row. Upon arriving at the place – seemingly in plain clothes – he found a crowd had gathered with James Quinn standing against a wall with his face covered in blood.
Upon approaching Quinn, the man struck him violently in the face. The officer claimed a second blow was then aimed at him – but he managed to ward it off with a stick and took the man into custody. However, some of Quinn's relations attempted to rescue him and the prisoner briefly managed to escape. The police called Thomas Critchley as a witness but were clearly taken by surprise when the 50-year-old miner said:
"James Quinn was very ill drunk and quarrelling with a man. When the officer came up, Quinn took him to be the man he was quarrelling with and struck him. The policeman knocked him down with a blow of his stick, and when he got up knocked him down a second time. Quinn got to his knees, and the officer dragged him along about 20 yards, beating him with the stick the whole of the way. The mother and others interfered, and he struck them all. The mother said to me: “Are you going to see my son killed?” And I said to the policeman: “So help me God, officer, don't kill the man.” He used the stick just the same as if he was thrashing wheat."
Quinn's solicitor was Thomas Swift who told the magistrates that his client had been treated worse than a dog before adding: "By mistake he struck Worden, not knowing he was a policeman, but that did not justify the latter in taking out his staff and using it. He hit the man straight downwards, knocking him down; and when the man got up he knocked him down again, and beat him as he dragged him along. Was a mother to be put upon her defence for endeavouring to rescue her son for violence like that? Worden had no right whatever to meddle with Quinn when he was merely standing up against the wall."
The magistrates decided to fine Quinn five shillings for the drunkenness but the charge of assaulting a policeman was dismissed, as were the charges against the others, including Quinn's mother. The chairman said that was because of the evidence of Thomas Critchley, which the Bench had clearly found compelling.
Alice Hamer appeared in court charged with using defamatory language after spreading gossip about Eileen Banks. Alice had entered Lucy Hoole's house in Parr and told the woman she'd seen her husband enter a barn with Eileen Banks. The latter said that she had entered the barn to obtain some shavings from Mr Hoole but strongly denied any "improper familiarity" had taken place. Mrs Banks told the court that after hearing of the accusation, she had gone to see Mrs Hamer and had been provoked to strike her, so bad had been her language. The magistrates decided to bind Mrs Hamer over.
Edward Swift was charged with drunkenness and assaulting Alice McGrath, with the incidents taking part in Parr, seemingly in the Park Road area. PC Gill gave evidence of seeing Swift drunk in the street. As he approached the man, several persons took him away from the officer and pushed him inside a house. Upon going to the door of the house, the officer said he received very abusive language.
Alice McGrath told the court that she had been walking along the road carrying a bag of cinders when Edward Swift had approached her, knocked her down and attempted to commit an indecent assault upon her. A witness called Mrs Scott said the man had fallen on the woman after pushing her down and Elizabeth Mailey added that he had kissed her. Although the defence conceded the drunkenness charge, the assault was denied. It was claimed that the woman had stamped on Swift's foot and he had accidentally knocked her over. The magistrates did not buy that excuse and fined Swift a total of 10 shillings and costs.
Next week's stories will include the severe storm that caused immense flooding in St Helens, a Prescot curate is declared insane, the Sutton Heath explosions caused by careless miners and an utterly reckless Parr Flat girl is sent to prison.
This week's stories include a claim of police brutality in Sutton, the Raven Hotel traveller conundrum, the fight that turned into a brick bashing, the indecent assault in Park Road and the Parr woman whose gossip landed her in court.
We begin on the 6th when Patrick Greeley appeared in St Helens Petty Sessions charged with unlawfully wounding Patrick O’Day from Marshalls Cross.
The two men had quarrelled in a beerhouse over dominoes and then decided to fight it out in a neighbouring field.
Greeley was getting the worst of the battle until he picked up a brick and used it to bash his opponent over the head, severing an artery.
The St Helens Newspaper described the blow as "fearful" and the Wigan Observer called it a "murderous assault", with the wounded man having been too ill to appear in court for some time.
But, as I've often said, violence was largely tolerated in the 1870s and Patrick Greeley was only fined 30 shillings, with the magistrates commenting that they'd taken into consideration the fact he'd been "greatly provoked and ill-used."
Now, if he'd done something really serious, like begging in the street (!), he would automatically have been sent to prison.
When these days we hear of rioting having taken place, our assumption is that a group of individuals had been involved.
But, in the 1870s, it was common for just one person to be considered to have rioted.
In reality the charge referred to a more serious case of being drunk and disorderly, in which, perhaps, the odd window was smashed and a helmet or two were knocked off policemen's heads!
Women behaving in such unladylike ways tended to get the worst of it from the magistrates.
And so in the Sessions, Ann Harvey was sent to prison for a month for rioting in the street and Maria Callaghan got a fortnight at Kirkdale Gaol after having committed a separate offence. The St Helens Newspaper called her a "street pest".
Here's this week's "how long is a piece of string" question: How do you define what a traveller is? Is it someone who has journeyed 50 yards or 50 miles?
It wasn't until 1910 that an Act of Parliament gave a proper answer by stipulating that a person seeking exemption from public house licensing laws needed to have travelled at least three miles.
Until then licensees caught serving someone out of hours could use the traveller excuse and hope for a sympathetic hearing from the courts.
But the magistrates tended to employ common sense in their interpretation of the exemption and often stymied the defence case, as occurred this week in the Sessions.
On the 8th John Phythian of the Raven Hotel was summoned to court for serving alcohol at half-past midnight on a Sunday.
Horse-driven buses used to leave the Raven on regular services and also undertake special outings.
That Sunday a party had left for Speke Hall and upon returning at midnight, some had enjoyed supper and ale inside the pub.
That was outside legally permitted drinking hours but Phythian claimed the traveller exemption – but the magistrates rejected it.
They said the individuals did not qualify as travellers as they were all St Helens residents being served drink only a short distance from their homes.
In other words, they had travelled but weren't travellers. The landlord John Phythian was fined £1 and said he would look to see if he could appeal the decision.
Another conundrum considered in court this week concerned pitch and toss.
That was the game in which the player who pitched a coin closest to a mark got to toss all the players' coins, winning those coppers that landed heads up.
Pretty innocuous by today's standards but such gaming was illegal and often referred to as evil by magistrates.
But can you bring a pitch and toss prosecution without proving that both aspects had been played?
Solicitor Thomas Swift thought not and when Henry Newton and Henry Molyneux were charged with playing the game in Elephant Lane (pictured above), Sgt Robinson had to admit that he'd only seen the defendants tossing and not pitching.
When he'd approached the pair, they'd run off leaving their coppers on the ground.
Sometimes, when the number of participants was low, coins were simply tossed for cash and although a variant of pitch and toss, the solicitor argued it was not the same.
So he argued for a dismissal of the case – but the Bench ruled against him. However, Swift then adopted Plan B, which was to claim mistaken identity by the police and by that means managed to get his clients off!
An allegation of police brutality was heard in the St Helens Petty Sessions this week.
The claim was made when James Quinn was charged with being drunk and assaulting Police Constable Peter Worden of Junction Lane.
The defendant lived in Taylor's Row in Sutton, which no longer exists but was bounded by Peckers Hill Road and Hoghton Road.
The 29-year-old PC Worden gave evidence that at half-past midnight he'd heard a row coming from Taylor's Row.
Upon arriving at the place – seemingly in plain clothes – he found a crowd had gathered with James Quinn standing against a wall with his face covered in blood.
Upon approaching Quinn, the man struck him violently in the face. The officer claimed a second blow was then aimed at him – but he managed to ward it off with a stick and took the man into custody.
However, some of Quinn's relations attempted to rescue him and the prisoner briefly managed to escape.
The police called Thomas Critchley as a witness but were clearly taken by surprise when the 50-year-old miner said:
"James Quinn was very ill drunk and quarrelling with a man. When the officer came up, Quinn took him to be the man he was quarrelling with and struck him.
"The policeman knocked him down with a blow of his stick, and when he got up knocked him down a second time. Quinn got to his knees, and the officer dragged him along about 20 yards, beating him with the stick the whole of the way.
"The mother and others interfered, and he struck them all. The mother said to me: “Are you going to see my son killed?” And I said to the policeman: “So help me God, officer, don't kill the man.” He used the stick just the same as if he was thrashing wheat."
Quinn's solicitor was Thomas Swift who told the magistrates that his client had been treated worse than a dog before adding:
"By mistake he struck Worden, not knowing he was a policeman, but that did not justify the latter in taking out his staff and using it. He hit the man straight downwards, knocking him down; and when the man got up he knocked him down again, and beat him as he dragged him along.
"Was a mother to be put upon her defence for endeavouring to rescue her son for violence like that? Worden had no right whatever to meddle with Quinn when he was merely standing up against the wall."
The magistrates decided to fine Quinn five shillings for the drunkenness but the charge of assaulting a policeman was dismissed, as were the charges against the others, including Quinn's mother.
The chairman said that was because of the evidence of Thomas Critchley, which the Bench had clearly found compelling.
Alice Hamer appeared in court charged with using defamatory language after spreading gossip about Eileen Banks.
Alice had entered Lucy Hoole's house in Parr and told the woman she'd seen her husband enter a barn with Eileen Banks.
The latter said that she had entered the barn to obtain some shavings from Mr Hoole but strongly denied any "improper familiarity" had taken place.
Mrs Banks told the court that after hearing of the accusation, she had gone to see Mrs Hamer and had been provoked to strike her, so bad had been her language. The magistrates decided to bind Mrs Hamer over.
Edward Swift was charged with drunkenness and assaulting Alice McGrath, with the incidents taking part in Parr, seemingly in the Park Road area.
PC Gill gave evidence of seeing Swift drunk in the street. As he approached the man, several persons took him away from the officer and pushed him inside a house.
Upon going to the door of the house, the officer said he received very abusive language.
Alice McGrath told the court that she had been walking along the road carrying a bag of cinders when Edward Swift had approached her, knocked her down and attempted to commit an indecent assault upon her.
A witness called Mrs Scott said the man had fallen on the woman after pushing her down and Elizabeth Mailey added that he had kissed her.
Although the defence conceded the drunkenness charge, the assault was denied. It was claimed that the woman had stamped on Swift's foot and he had accidentally knocked her over.
The magistrates did not buy that excuse and fined Swift a total of 10 shillings and costs.
Next week's stories will include the severe storm that caused immense flooding in St Helens, a Prescot curate is declared insane, the Sutton Heath explosions caused by careless miners and an utterly reckless Parr Flat girl is sent to prison.
We begin on the 6th when Patrick Greeley appeared in St Helens Petty Sessions charged with unlawfully wounding Patrick O’Day from Marshalls Cross.
The two men had quarrelled in a beerhouse over dominoes and then decided to fight it out in a neighbouring field.
Greeley was getting the worst of the battle until he picked up a brick and used it to bash his opponent over the head, severing an artery.
The St Helens Newspaper described the blow as "fearful" and the Wigan Observer called it a "murderous assault", with the wounded man having been too ill to appear in court for some time.
But, as I've often said, violence was largely tolerated in the 1870s and Patrick Greeley was only fined 30 shillings, with the magistrates commenting that they'd taken into consideration the fact he'd been "greatly provoked and ill-used."
Now, if he'd done something really serious, like begging in the street (!), he would automatically have been sent to prison.
When these days we hear of rioting having taken place, our assumption is that a group of individuals had been involved.
But, in the 1870s, it was common for just one person to be considered to have rioted.
In reality the charge referred to a more serious case of being drunk and disorderly, in which, perhaps, the odd window was smashed and a helmet or two were knocked off policemen's heads!
Women behaving in such unladylike ways tended to get the worst of it from the magistrates.
And so in the Sessions, Ann Harvey was sent to prison for a month for rioting in the street and Maria Callaghan got a fortnight at Kirkdale Gaol after having committed a separate offence. The St Helens Newspaper called her a "street pest".
Here's this week's "how long is a piece of string" question: How do you define what a traveller is? Is it someone who has journeyed 50 yards or 50 miles?
It wasn't until 1910 that an Act of Parliament gave a proper answer by stipulating that a person seeking exemption from public house licensing laws needed to have travelled at least three miles.
Until then licensees caught serving someone out of hours could use the traveller excuse and hope for a sympathetic hearing from the courts.
But the magistrates tended to employ common sense in their interpretation of the exemption and often stymied the defence case, as occurred this week in the Sessions.
On the 8th John Phythian of the Raven Hotel was summoned to court for serving alcohol at half-past midnight on a Sunday.
Horse-driven buses used to leave the Raven on regular services and also undertake special outings.
That Sunday a party had left for Speke Hall and upon returning at midnight, some had enjoyed supper and ale inside the pub.
That was outside legally permitted drinking hours but Phythian claimed the traveller exemption – but the magistrates rejected it.
They said the individuals did not qualify as travellers as they were all St Helens residents being served drink only a short distance from their homes.
In other words, they had travelled but weren't travellers. The landlord John Phythian was fined £1 and said he would look to see if he could appeal the decision.
Another conundrum considered in court this week concerned pitch and toss.
That was the game in which the player who pitched a coin closest to a mark got to toss all the players' coins, winning those coppers that landed heads up.
Pretty innocuous by today's standards but such gaming was illegal and often referred to as evil by magistrates.
But can you bring a pitch and toss prosecution without proving that both aspects had been played?
When he'd approached the pair, they'd run off leaving their coppers on the ground.
Sometimes, when the number of participants was low, coins were simply tossed for cash and although a variant of pitch and toss, the solicitor argued it was not the same.
So he argued for a dismissal of the case – but the Bench ruled against him. However, Swift then adopted Plan B, which was to claim mistaken identity by the police and by that means managed to get his clients off!
An allegation of police brutality was heard in the St Helens Petty Sessions this week.
The claim was made when James Quinn was charged with being drunk and assaulting Police Constable Peter Worden of Junction Lane.
The defendant lived in Taylor's Row in Sutton, which no longer exists but was bounded by Peckers Hill Road and Hoghton Road.
The 29-year-old PC Worden gave evidence that at half-past midnight he'd heard a row coming from Taylor's Row.
Upon arriving at the place – seemingly in plain clothes – he found a crowd had gathered with James Quinn standing against a wall with his face covered in blood.
Upon approaching Quinn, the man struck him violently in the face. The officer claimed a second blow was then aimed at him – but he managed to ward it off with a stick and took the man into custody.
However, some of Quinn's relations attempted to rescue him and the prisoner briefly managed to escape.
The police called Thomas Critchley as a witness but were clearly taken by surprise when the 50-year-old miner said:
"James Quinn was very ill drunk and quarrelling with a man. When the officer came up, Quinn took him to be the man he was quarrelling with and struck him.
"The policeman knocked him down with a blow of his stick, and when he got up knocked him down a second time. Quinn got to his knees, and the officer dragged him along about 20 yards, beating him with the stick the whole of the way.
"The mother and others interfered, and he struck them all. The mother said to me: “Are you going to see my son killed?” And I said to the policeman: “So help me God, officer, don't kill the man.” He used the stick just the same as if he was thrashing wheat."
Quinn's solicitor was Thomas Swift who told the magistrates that his client had been treated worse than a dog before adding:
"By mistake he struck Worden, not knowing he was a policeman, but that did not justify the latter in taking out his staff and using it. He hit the man straight downwards, knocking him down; and when the man got up he knocked him down again, and beat him as he dragged him along.
"Was a mother to be put upon her defence for endeavouring to rescue her son for violence like that? Worden had no right whatever to meddle with Quinn when he was merely standing up against the wall."
The magistrates decided to fine Quinn five shillings for the drunkenness but the charge of assaulting a policeman was dismissed, as were the charges against the others, including Quinn's mother.
The chairman said that was because of the evidence of Thomas Critchley, which the Bench had clearly found compelling.
Alice Hamer appeared in court charged with using defamatory language after spreading gossip about Eileen Banks.
Alice had entered Lucy Hoole's house in Parr and told the woman she'd seen her husband enter a barn with Eileen Banks.
The latter said that she had entered the barn to obtain some shavings from Mr Hoole but strongly denied any "improper familiarity" had taken place.
Mrs Banks told the court that after hearing of the accusation, she had gone to see Mrs Hamer and had been provoked to strike her, so bad had been her language. The magistrates decided to bind Mrs Hamer over.
Edward Swift was charged with drunkenness and assaulting Alice McGrath, with the incidents taking part in Parr, seemingly in the Park Road area.
PC Gill gave evidence of seeing Swift drunk in the street. As he approached the man, several persons took him away from the officer and pushed him inside a house.
Upon going to the door of the house, the officer said he received very abusive language.
Alice McGrath told the court that she had been walking along the road carrying a bag of cinders when Edward Swift had approached her, knocked her down and attempted to commit an indecent assault upon her.
A witness called Mrs Scott said the man had fallen on the woman after pushing her down and Elizabeth Mailey added that he had kissed her.
Although the defence conceded the drunkenness charge, the assault was denied. It was claimed that the woman had stamped on Swift's foot and he had accidentally knocked her over.
The magistrates did not buy that excuse and fined Swift a total of 10 shillings and costs.
Next week's stories will include the severe storm that caused immense flooding in St Helens, a Prescot curate is declared insane, the Sutton Heath explosions caused by careless miners and an utterly reckless Parr Flat girl is sent to prison.