150 YEARS AGO THIS WEEK 4 - 10 DECEMBER 1873
This week's many stories include Saints' first training session, the St Helens Newspaper claims persecution, the new men-only Newsroom for newspaper readers, the railway row in Rainford over an open window, there's a sequel to the violent assault on the St Helens Junction stationmaster and the curious case of the drawers stolen from a Liverpool Road draper's shop.
It was common for female shop and market thieves to place their stolen goods under their shawl. That was what Catherine Garrity was accused of doing in the Petty Sessions this week with what was described as a pair of drawers that she'd stolen from Green's draper's in Liverpool Road. A furnaceman called William Barnett gave evidence of witnessing the woman acting suspiciously and taking down the drawers that had been hanging up inside the shop's open door.
Barnett said he saw Catherine put them under her shawl and she was walking away with them when he ran up to her, pushed her back into the shop and informed the shopkeeper. The proprietor John Green explained to the court that a pin and a needle had secured the underwear to where they'd been hung and it would not have been easy to remove them. Upon her arrest Catherine Garrity told the police that she had simply been pricing up the drawers when the witness Barnett pushed her back into the shop and accused her of theft.
However, while giving evidence in court Mrs Garrity changed her story, claiming that Barnett had at first asked her to have a glass of beer with him. She said she had refused his offer but he'd continued to pester her and when she'd placed her hand on the drawers to examine them, they had fallen down. Mrs Garrity claimed that as she picked up the underwear, Barnett had pushed her back into the shop and accused her of theft – implying it had been an act of spite because she would not go with him.
But that was not the tale that Inspector Whiteside had been told and didn't explain how the drawers had got under the woman's shawl. However, the magistrates came up with a curious judgment. They decided that they would give her the benefit of the doubt on the theft, despite the unlikeliness of her version of events. But they did not like the public spirited William Barnett being defamed, saying:
"You have taken the impudent course of making an imputation upon the witness Barnett, a respectable man, and the bench will send you to prison for ten days." A complaint was also made in the court case that while in custody the police would not allow Mrs Garrity to keep her baby in the cell with her. But Inspector Whiteside explained that the child was over 12 months old and only babies under a year were allowed to stay with their mothers in the police station.
A bust up in a train carriage over an open window was also described in court when Maria Ingram charged John and Margaret Thompson with assault and, in a counter-suit, Mrs Thompson charged Maria Ingram with assaulting her. Mrs Ingram told the court that she had been to St Helens to do some shopping and was returning to her home in the Crank district by train. As she had a sore throat and the day was a cold one, she explained how she had asked Mr and Mrs Thompson – who were sat in the same compartment – if they would close a window that was open.
But they had refused and when the train reached the Rookery station in Rainford (pictured above), Mrs Ingram said she could stand the draught no longer and had risen from her seat to shut the window herself. The St Helens Newspaper described what next occurred: "Margaret Thompson resented the act by seizing her throat and assaulting her. John Thompson, delighted with his wife's spirit, encouraged her to “go in left and right,” a little quarrel ensued, and Mr. Thompson became so excited, as he surveyed it, that he was induced to “go in left and right” himself, until his better half recovered sufficient sense and discretion to restrain his anger."
In cross-examination Mrs Ingram admitted having been in two pubs in St Helens but had only taken three glasses of drink. A witness called Mrs Unsworth corroborated Mrs Ingram's account and when questioned about the amount of drink consumed on that day, said very few country folk went into St Helens to market without taking a drop of whiskey. Mrs Unsworth caused laughter in court when she said she always drank her own whiskey neat with a little water, adding, “Of course the publicans always take care that I drink a little water in the whiskey as well." The case was dismissed.
Rarely when magistrates or judges sent defendants to prison was any thought given to the effect of the imprisonment on their family. The loss of a male breadwinner for a period could be a huge problem for the man's wife and in many cases she had no choice but to turn to the Relieving Officer for help. He doled out small amounts of subsistence cash on behalf of the Guardians of the Prescot Union but where possible wanted his money repaid – or for some other family member to take on the responsibility.
In October blacksmith Thomas Rigby had been one of two men sentenced to three months in prison for violently attacking James Bush, the stationmaster at St Helens Junction. That left Rigby's wife having to go cap in hand for help from the "parish", as it was called. James Fowler, the Relieving Officer, subsequently awarded Mrs Rigby four shillings a week for her three children.
That was probably only one-fifth of her husband's weekly wage but the pittance would stop them from starving. However, Thomas Rigby's father, Peter, was in employment earning 25 shillings a week and he also owned two cottages. And so the Relieving Officer wanted Peter Rigby to be made to pay his grandchildren's maintenance money and he had made an application to the court for such an order to be imposed. Rigby claimed that he had other dependants but was ordered to make the payments.
Clothes stealing was usually treated very harshly by the magistrates – more severely than many violent assaults. In St Helens Petty Sessions on the 2nd Mary Moore was sent to prison for three months for stealing a cape from the hosiery shop of Henry Lacey of Church Street and a pair of boots from Joseph Riley's shop in Naylor Street.
The libel action that Thomas Thomson was bringing against the St Helens Newspaper for £500 damages was only days away from being heard at Liverpool Assizes. In November, soon after the annual local elections had taken place, the Newspaper had claimed that the Water Street tailor had received a suspect payment of £24, with the hint that the payment had been a bribe. In an editorial published on the 6th the Liberal supporting Newspaper went into Joan of Arc mode claiming persecution and describing "the battle we are being compelled to fight for the freedom of the press of St. Helens".
The paper claimed that they had widespread support amongst the people of the town, adding: "Many, both Liberals and Tories, rejoice, that after the many attempts to gag the Press, we had the manliness to lay before the public the doings connected with the late Windle Election. It will long be a matter for regret to us, and to all true Liberals, that men so intimately, so prominently, and for so many years connected with the Liberal party, could so entirely forget their antecedents, and their avowed love of purity in election matters, should fall from their high estate to grovel in the gutter with the lowest, and to soil their hands, if not with downright bribery, at least with practices that the pure of heart would scorn."
I’d like to be able to write that the St Helens Newspaper also heralded the dawn of a new sporting club that would in time become as synonymous with the town as glass and pill making. But they could not see into the future and so the paper's report of the founding of what we know as Saints rugby league club was very underwhelming. This is all they wrote about the club's first training session:
"The newly established foot ball club came out last Saturday for the first time. They have been successful in getting the use of the cricket field in Boundary lane, and they assembled there to the number of about twenty, for a friendly game amongst themselves for the sake of practice. The day was most unfavourable for the sport, on account of the high and bitter wind which prevailed, and it was quite apparent that several of the players were but novices in the game. Play went on for a couple of hours, and was maintained at a lively pace throughout."
A notice placed in the Newspaper called for "gentlemen" who wanted to join the new St Helens Reading and News Room that was going to be set up in the old Town Hall to submit their names to its secretary. Women clearly need not apply! Such newsrooms were clubs in which its subscribers had access to a wide range of daily and weekly newspapers, as well as other publications. It was a cost-effective way of widening your knowledge, although the reading matter could not be removed from the room. The subscription fee for the new facility was going to be ten shillings a year, which works out at just over 2d a week.
St Helens Newspaper courtesy St Helens Archive Service at Eccleston Library
Next Week's stories will include the poker bashing in Bold Street, why the village of Rainhill was en fete, the minstrel show at the Volunteer Hall in St Helens and the cow that took on a St Helens train – and lost.
It was common for female shop and market thieves to place their stolen goods under their shawl. That was what Catherine Garrity was accused of doing in the Petty Sessions this week with what was described as a pair of drawers that she'd stolen from Green's draper's in Liverpool Road. A furnaceman called William Barnett gave evidence of witnessing the woman acting suspiciously and taking down the drawers that had been hanging up inside the shop's open door.
Barnett said he saw Catherine put them under her shawl and she was walking away with them when he ran up to her, pushed her back into the shop and informed the shopkeeper. The proprietor John Green explained to the court that a pin and a needle had secured the underwear to where they'd been hung and it would not have been easy to remove them. Upon her arrest Catherine Garrity told the police that she had simply been pricing up the drawers when the witness Barnett pushed her back into the shop and accused her of theft.
However, while giving evidence in court Mrs Garrity changed her story, claiming that Barnett had at first asked her to have a glass of beer with him. She said she had refused his offer but he'd continued to pester her and when she'd placed her hand on the drawers to examine them, they had fallen down. Mrs Garrity claimed that as she picked up the underwear, Barnett had pushed her back into the shop and accused her of theft – implying it had been an act of spite because she would not go with him.
But that was not the tale that Inspector Whiteside had been told and didn't explain how the drawers had got under the woman's shawl. However, the magistrates came up with a curious judgment. They decided that they would give her the benefit of the doubt on the theft, despite the unlikeliness of her version of events. But they did not like the public spirited William Barnett being defamed, saying:
"You have taken the impudent course of making an imputation upon the witness Barnett, a respectable man, and the bench will send you to prison for ten days." A complaint was also made in the court case that while in custody the police would not allow Mrs Garrity to keep her baby in the cell with her. But Inspector Whiteside explained that the child was over 12 months old and only babies under a year were allowed to stay with their mothers in the police station.
A bust up in a train carriage over an open window was also described in court when Maria Ingram charged John and Margaret Thompson with assault and, in a counter-suit, Mrs Thompson charged Maria Ingram with assaulting her. Mrs Ingram told the court that she had been to St Helens to do some shopping and was returning to her home in the Crank district by train. As she had a sore throat and the day was a cold one, she explained how she had asked Mr and Mrs Thompson – who were sat in the same compartment – if they would close a window that was open.
In cross-examination Mrs Ingram admitted having been in two pubs in St Helens but had only taken three glasses of drink. A witness called Mrs Unsworth corroborated Mrs Ingram's account and when questioned about the amount of drink consumed on that day, said very few country folk went into St Helens to market without taking a drop of whiskey. Mrs Unsworth caused laughter in court when she said she always drank her own whiskey neat with a little water, adding, “Of course the publicans always take care that I drink a little water in the whiskey as well." The case was dismissed.
Rarely when magistrates or judges sent defendants to prison was any thought given to the effect of the imprisonment on their family. The loss of a male breadwinner for a period could be a huge problem for the man's wife and in many cases she had no choice but to turn to the Relieving Officer for help. He doled out small amounts of subsistence cash on behalf of the Guardians of the Prescot Union but where possible wanted his money repaid – or for some other family member to take on the responsibility.
In October blacksmith Thomas Rigby had been one of two men sentenced to three months in prison for violently attacking James Bush, the stationmaster at St Helens Junction. That left Rigby's wife having to go cap in hand for help from the "parish", as it was called. James Fowler, the Relieving Officer, subsequently awarded Mrs Rigby four shillings a week for her three children.
That was probably only one-fifth of her husband's weekly wage but the pittance would stop them from starving. However, Thomas Rigby's father, Peter, was in employment earning 25 shillings a week and he also owned two cottages. And so the Relieving Officer wanted Peter Rigby to be made to pay his grandchildren's maintenance money and he had made an application to the court for such an order to be imposed. Rigby claimed that he had other dependants but was ordered to make the payments.
Clothes stealing was usually treated very harshly by the magistrates – more severely than many violent assaults. In St Helens Petty Sessions on the 2nd Mary Moore was sent to prison for three months for stealing a cape from the hosiery shop of Henry Lacey of Church Street and a pair of boots from Joseph Riley's shop in Naylor Street.
The libel action that Thomas Thomson was bringing against the St Helens Newspaper for £500 damages was only days away from being heard at Liverpool Assizes. In November, soon after the annual local elections had taken place, the Newspaper had claimed that the Water Street tailor had received a suspect payment of £24, with the hint that the payment had been a bribe. In an editorial published on the 6th the Liberal supporting Newspaper went into Joan of Arc mode claiming persecution and describing "the battle we are being compelled to fight for the freedom of the press of St. Helens".
The paper claimed that they had widespread support amongst the people of the town, adding: "Many, both Liberals and Tories, rejoice, that after the many attempts to gag the Press, we had the manliness to lay before the public the doings connected with the late Windle Election. It will long be a matter for regret to us, and to all true Liberals, that men so intimately, so prominently, and for so many years connected with the Liberal party, could so entirely forget their antecedents, and their avowed love of purity in election matters, should fall from their high estate to grovel in the gutter with the lowest, and to soil their hands, if not with downright bribery, at least with practices that the pure of heart would scorn."
I’d like to be able to write that the St Helens Newspaper also heralded the dawn of a new sporting club that would in time become as synonymous with the town as glass and pill making. But they could not see into the future and so the paper's report of the founding of what we know as Saints rugby league club was very underwhelming. This is all they wrote about the club's first training session:
"The newly established foot ball club came out last Saturday for the first time. They have been successful in getting the use of the cricket field in Boundary lane, and they assembled there to the number of about twenty, for a friendly game amongst themselves for the sake of practice. The day was most unfavourable for the sport, on account of the high and bitter wind which prevailed, and it was quite apparent that several of the players were but novices in the game. Play went on for a couple of hours, and was maintained at a lively pace throughout."
A notice placed in the Newspaper called for "gentlemen" who wanted to join the new St Helens Reading and News Room that was going to be set up in the old Town Hall to submit their names to its secretary. Women clearly need not apply! Such newsrooms were clubs in which its subscribers had access to a wide range of daily and weekly newspapers, as well as other publications. It was a cost-effective way of widening your knowledge, although the reading matter could not be removed from the room. The subscription fee for the new facility was going to be ten shillings a year, which works out at just over 2d a week.
St Helens Newspaper courtesy St Helens Archive Service at Eccleston Library
Next Week's stories will include the poker bashing in Bold Street, why the village of Rainhill was en fete, the minstrel show at the Volunteer Hall in St Helens and the cow that took on a St Helens train – and lost.
This week's many stories include Saints' first training session, the St Helens Newspaper claims persecution, the new men-only Newsroom for newspaper readers, the railway row in Rainford over an open window, there's a sequel to the violent assault on the St Helens Junction stationmaster and the curious case of the drawers stolen from a Liverpool Road draper's shop.
It was common for female shop and market thieves to place their stolen goods under their shawl.
That was what Catherine Garrity was accused of doing in the Petty Sessions this week with what was described as a pair of drawers that she'd stolen from Green's draper's in Liverpool Road.
A furnaceman called William Barnett gave evidence of witnessing the woman acting suspiciously and taking down the drawers that had been hanging up inside the shop's open door.
Barnett said he saw Catherine put them under her shawl and she was walking away with them when he ran up to her, pushed her back into the shop and informed the shopkeeper.
The proprietor John Green explained to the court that a pin and a needle had secured the underwear to where they'd been hung and it would not have been easy to remove them.
Upon her arrest Catherine Garrity told the police that she had simply been pricing up the drawers when the witness Barnett pushed her back into the shop and accused her of theft.
However, while giving evidence in court Mrs Garrity changed her story, claiming that Barnett had at first asked her to have a glass of beer with him.
She said she had refused his offer but he'd continued to pester her and when she'd placed her hand on the drawers to examine them, they had fallen down.
Mrs Garrity claimed that as she picked up the underwear, Barnett had pushed her back into the shop and accused her of theft – implying it had been an act of spite because she would not go with him.
But that was not the tale that Inspector Whiteside had been told and didn't explain how the drawers had got under the woman's shawl.
However, the magistrates came up with a curious judgment. They decided that they would give her the benefit of the doubt on the theft, despite the unlikeliness of her version of events.
But they did not like the public spirited William Barnett being defamed, saying:
"You have taken the impudent course of making an imputation upon the witness Barnett, a respectable man, and the bench will send you to prison for ten days."
A complaint was also made in the court case that while in custody the police would not allow Mrs Garrity to keep her baby in the cell with her.
But Inspector Whiteside explained that the child was over 12 months old and only babies under a year were allowed to stay with their mothers in the police station.
A bust up in a train carriage over an open window was also described in court when Maria Ingram charged John and Margaret Thompson with assault and, in a counter-suit, Mrs Thompson charged Maria Ingram with assaulting her.
Mrs Ingram told the court that she had been to St Helens to do some shopping and was returning to her home in the Crank district by train.
As she had a sore throat and the day was a cold one, she explained how she had asked Mr and Mrs Thompson – who were sat in the same compartment – if they would close a window that was open.
But they had refused and when the train reached the Rookery station in Rainford (pictured above), Mrs Ingram said she could stand the draught no longer and had risen from her seat to shut the window herself. The St Helens Newspaper described what next occurred:
"Margaret Thompson resented the act by seizing her throat and assaulting her. John Thompson, delighted with his wife's spirit, encouraged her to “go in left and right,” a little quarrel ensued, and Mr. Thompson became so excited, as he surveyed it, that he was induced to “go in left and right” himself, until his better half recovered sufficient sense and discretion to restrain his anger."
In cross-examination Mrs Ingram admitted having been in two pubs in St Helens but had only taken three glasses of drink.
A witness called Mrs Unsworth corroborated Mrs Ingram's account and when questioned about the amount of drink consumed on that day, said very few country folk went into St Helens to market without taking a drop of whiskey.
Mrs Unsworth caused laughter in court when she said she always drank her own whiskey neat with a little water, adding, “Of course the publicans always take care that I drink a little water in the whiskey as well." The case was dismissed.
Rarely when magistrates or judges sent defendants to prison was any thought given to the effect of the imprisonment on their family.
The loss of a male breadwinner for a period could be a huge problem for the man's wife and in many cases she had no choice but to turn to the Relieving Officer for help.
He doled out small amounts of subsistence cash on behalf of the Guardians of the Prescot Union but where possible wanted his money repaid – or for some other family member to take on the responsibility.
In October blacksmith Thomas Rigby had been one of two men sentenced to three months in prison for violently attacking James Bush, the stationmaster at St Helens Junction.
That left Rigby's wife having to go cap in hand for help from the "parish", as it was called.
James Fowler, the Relieving Officer, subsequently awarded Mrs Rigby four shillings a week for her three children.
That was probably only one-fifth of her husband's weekly wage but the pittance would stop them from starving.
However, Thomas Rigby's father, Peter, was in employment earning 25 shillings a week and he also owned two cottages.
And so the Relieving Officer wanted Peter Rigby to be made to pay his grandchildren's maintenance money and he had made an application to the court for such an order to be imposed.
Rigby claimed that he had other dependants but was ordered to make the payments.
Clothes stealing was usually treated very harshly by the magistrates – more severely than many violent assaults.
In St Helens Petty Sessions on the 2nd Mary Moore was sent to prison for three months for stealing a cape from the hosiery shop of Henry Lacey of Church Street and a pair of boots from Joseph Riley's shop in Naylor Street.
The libel action that Thomas Thomson was bringing against the St Helens Newspaper for £500 damages was only days away from being heard at Liverpool Assizes.
In November, soon after the annual local elections had taken place, the Newspaper had claimed that the Water Street tailor had received a suspect payment of £24, with the hint that the payment had been a bribe.
In an editorial published on the 6th the Liberal supporting Newspaper went into Joan of Arc mode claiming persecution and describing "the battle we are being compelled to fight for the freedom of the press of St. Helens".
The paper claimed that they had widespread support amongst the people of the town, adding:
"Many, both Liberals and Tories, rejoice, that after the many attempts to gag the Press, we had the manliness to lay before the public the doings connected with the late Windle Election.
"It will long be a matter for regret to us, and to all true Liberals, that men so intimately, so prominently, and for so many years connected with the Liberal party, could so entirely forget their antecedents, and their avowed love of purity in election matters, should fall from their high estate to grovel in the gutter with the lowest, and to soil their hands, if not with downright bribery, at least with practices that the pure of heart would scorn."
I’d like to be able to write that the St Helens Newspaper also heralded the dawn of a new sporting club that would in time become as synonymous with the town as glass and pill making.
But they could not see into the future and so the paper's report of the founding of what we know as Saints rugby league club was very underwhelming. This is all they wrote about the club's first training session:
"The newly established foot ball club came out last Saturday for the first time. They have been successful in getting the use of the cricket field in Boundary lane, and they assembled there to the number of about twenty, for a friendly game amongst themselves for the sake of practice.
"The day was most unfavourable for the sport, on account of the high and bitter wind which prevailed, and it was quite apparent that several of the players were but novices in the game. Play went on for a couple of hours, and was maintained at a lively pace throughout."
A notice placed in the Newspaper called for "gentlemen" who wanted to join the new St Helens Reading and News Room that was going to be set up in the old Town Hall to submit their names to its secretary. Women clearly need not apply!
Such newsrooms were clubs in which its subscribers had access to a wide range of daily and weekly newspapers, as well as other publications.
It was a cost-effective way of widening your knowledge, although the reading matter could not be removed from the room.
The subscription fee for the new facility was going to be ten shillings a year, which works out at just over 2d a week.
St Helens Newspaper courtesy St Helens Archive Service at Eccleston Library
Next Week's stories will include the poker bashing in Bold Street, why the village of Rainhill was en fete, the minstrel show at the Volunteer Hall in St Helens and the cow that took on a St Helens train – and lost.
It was common for female shop and market thieves to place their stolen goods under their shawl.
That was what Catherine Garrity was accused of doing in the Petty Sessions this week with what was described as a pair of drawers that she'd stolen from Green's draper's in Liverpool Road.
A furnaceman called William Barnett gave evidence of witnessing the woman acting suspiciously and taking down the drawers that had been hanging up inside the shop's open door.
Barnett said he saw Catherine put them under her shawl and she was walking away with them when he ran up to her, pushed her back into the shop and informed the shopkeeper.
The proprietor John Green explained to the court that a pin and a needle had secured the underwear to where they'd been hung and it would not have been easy to remove them.
Upon her arrest Catherine Garrity told the police that she had simply been pricing up the drawers when the witness Barnett pushed her back into the shop and accused her of theft.
However, while giving evidence in court Mrs Garrity changed her story, claiming that Barnett had at first asked her to have a glass of beer with him.
She said she had refused his offer but he'd continued to pester her and when she'd placed her hand on the drawers to examine them, they had fallen down.
Mrs Garrity claimed that as she picked up the underwear, Barnett had pushed her back into the shop and accused her of theft – implying it had been an act of spite because she would not go with him.
But that was not the tale that Inspector Whiteside had been told and didn't explain how the drawers had got under the woman's shawl.
However, the magistrates came up with a curious judgment. They decided that they would give her the benefit of the doubt on the theft, despite the unlikeliness of her version of events.
But they did not like the public spirited William Barnett being defamed, saying:
"You have taken the impudent course of making an imputation upon the witness Barnett, a respectable man, and the bench will send you to prison for ten days."
A complaint was also made in the court case that while in custody the police would not allow Mrs Garrity to keep her baby in the cell with her.
But Inspector Whiteside explained that the child was over 12 months old and only babies under a year were allowed to stay with their mothers in the police station.
A bust up in a train carriage over an open window was also described in court when Maria Ingram charged John and Margaret Thompson with assault and, in a counter-suit, Mrs Thompson charged Maria Ingram with assaulting her.
Mrs Ingram told the court that she had been to St Helens to do some shopping and was returning to her home in the Crank district by train.
As she had a sore throat and the day was a cold one, she explained how she had asked Mr and Mrs Thompson – who were sat in the same compartment – if they would close a window that was open.
"Margaret Thompson resented the act by seizing her throat and assaulting her. John Thompson, delighted with his wife's spirit, encouraged her to “go in left and right,” a little quarrel ensued, and Mr. Thompson became so excited, as he surveyed it, that he was induced to “go in left and right” himself, until his better half recovered sufficient sense and discretion to restrain his anger."
In cross-examination Mrs Ingram admitted having been in two pubs in St Helens but had only taken three glasses of drink.
A witness called Mrs Unsworth corroborated Mrs Ingram's account and when questioned about the amount of drink consumed on that day, said very few country folk went into St Helens to market without taking a drop of whiskey.
Mrs Unsworth caused laughter in court when she said she always drank her own whiskey neat with a little water, adding, “Of course the publicans always take care that I drink a little water in the whiskey as well." The case was dismissed.
Rarely when magistrates or judges sent defendants to prison was any thought given to the effect of the imprisonment on their family.
The loss of a male breadwinner for a period could be a huge problem for the man's wife and in many cases she had no choice but to turn to the Relieving Officer for help.
He doled out small amounts of subsistence cash on behalf of the Guardians of the Prescot Union but where possible wanted his money repaid – or for some other family member to take on the responsibility.
In October blacksmith Thomas Rigby had been one of two men sentenced to three months in prison for violently attacking James Bush, the stationmaster at St Helens Junction.
That left Rigby's wife having to go cap in hand for help from the "parish", as it was called.
James Fowler, the Relieving Officer, subsequently awarded Mrs Rigby four shillings a week for her three children.
That was probably only one-fifth of her husband's weekly wage but the pittance would stop them from starving.
However, Thomas Rigby's father, Peter, was in employment earning 25 shillings a week and he also owned two cottages.
And so the Relieving Officer wanted Peter Rigby to be made to pay his grandchildren's maintenance money and he had made an application to the court for such an order to be imposed.
Rigby claimed that he had other dependants but was ordered to make the payments.
Clothes stealing was usually treated very harshly by the magistrates – more severely than many violent assaults.
In St Helens Petty Sessions on the 2nd Mary Moore was sent to prison for three months for stealing a cape from the hosiery shop of Henry Lacey of Church Street and a pair of boots from Joseph Riley's shop in Naylor Street.
The libel action that Thomas Thomson was bringing against the St Helens Newspaper for £500 damages was only days away from being heard at Liverpool Assizes.
In November, soon after the annual local elections had taken place, the Newspaper had claimed that the Water Street tailor had received a suspect payment of £24, with the hint that the payment had been a bribe.
In an editorial published on the 6th the Liberal supporting Newspaper went into Joan of Arc mode claiming persecution and describing "the battle we are being compelled to fight for the freedom of the press of St. Helens".
The paper claimed that they had widespread support amongst the people of the town, adding:
"Many, both Liberals and Tories, rejoice, that after the many attempts to gag the Press, we had the manliness to lay before the public the doings connected with the late Windle Election.
"It will long be a matter for regret to us, and to all true Liberals, that men so intimately, so prominently, and for so many years connected with the Liberal party, could so entirely forget their antecedents, and their avowed love of purity in election matters, should fall from their high estate to grovel in the gutter with the lowest, and to soil their hands, if not with downright bribery, at least with practices that the pure of heart would scorn."
I’d like to be able to write that the St Helens Newspaper also heralded the dawn of a new sporting club that would in time become as synonymous with the town as glass and pill making.
But they could not see into the future and so the paper's report of the founding of what we know as Saints rugby league club was very underwhelming. This is all they wrote about the club's first training session:
"The newly established foot ball club came out last Saturday for the first time. They have been successful in getting the use of the cricket field in Boundary lane, and they assembled there to the number of about twenty, for a friendly game amongst themselves for the sake of practice.
"The day was most unfavourable for the sport, on account of the high and bitter wind which prevailed, and it was quite apparent that several of the players were but novices in the game. Play went on for a couple of hours, and was maintained at a lively pace throughout."
A notice placed in the Newspaper called for "gentlemen" who wanted to join the new St Helens Reading and News Room that was going to be set up in the old Town Hall to submit their names to its secretary. Women clearly need not apply!
Such newsrooms were clubs in which its subscribers had access to a wide range of daily and weekly newspapers, as well as other publications.
It was a cost-effective way of widening your knowledge, although the reading matter could not be removed from the room.
The subscription fee for the new facility was going to be ten shillings a year, which works out at just over 2d a week.
St Helens Newspaper courtesy St Helens Archive Service at Eccleston Library
Next Week's stories will include the poker bashing in Bold Street, why the village of Rainhill was en fete, the minstrel show at the Volunteer Hall in St Helens and the cow that took on a St Helens train – and lost.