150 YEARS AGO THIS WEEK 9 - 15 DECEMBER 1874
This week's many stories include the clever capture of alleged rapists in Westfield Street, the huge number of tramps visiting Whiston Workhouse, the heavy fines for using a trade vehicle privately, the miner arrested for taking time off work through rheumatism and the prosecution for assault after a 13-year-old girl was drenched by a bucket of water.
We begin on the 10th when the Prescot Guardians held a meeting in Whiston Workhouse (pictured above). Many of their boys were sent out to work in various trades and often to live in with their master who had other lads working for him. One of the guardians pointed out how the clothing they gave them to wear was "peculiar to the workhouse" and that was leaving "the little fellows" open to insults from others.
It was decided to change the pattern of the clothing and order a dozen new suits for boys that were sent out of the workhouse in future to wear. The St Helens Newspaper in its report headlined it "The Pauper Taint".
The guardians often had trouble with dishonest or disorganised officials and their relieving officer for Widnes – who also was in charge of collecting poor law rates contributions – was asked to resign after trouble with his books. The man was warned that further action might be taken against him but it rarely was.
As well as looking after individuals and families in dire straits for both the medium and long term, the workhouse was required by law to accommodate vagrants for what was often just a single night. Many of them might be regarded as professional tramps while others were simply on the move looking for work and needed somewhere to sleep.
The numbers of such persons deemed to have been in the workhouse "on tramp" was extraordinary, with the meeting told that during the past six months a total of 2,199 men had been accommodated. In the separate female room for tramps there had been 425 women, 112 boys and 107 girls.
The St Helens Newspaper on the 12th described how four youths aged between 16 and 19 that were on the run from Bury had early one morning been cleverly captured by St Helens police. The four were accused of having participated in a "diabolical" rape on three mill girls as part of a larger group and Bury police had notified other forces in Lancashire to be on the look out for them.
And so when PC McPetrie on duty in the vicinity of Westfield Street saw a group of youths sleeping inside an outhouse, his suspicions were immediately aroused. The constable went for help and found PC Fleetwood and they decided to make the arrests between them. McPetrie guarded the outhouse door while Fleetwood crept inside.
Moving very slowly he drew out his handcuffs and attached them to two of the young men who were sleeping close together. Neither woke while being handcuffed but one of the others did and raised the alarm. All five sprang up ready to try and escape from what they thought was a single bobby but PC Fleetwood fooled them into thinking they were surrounded.
He shouted out "Now, men, send in a few more handcuffs" and PC McPetrie standing outside shouted back, "Aye, aye, here's one set to begin with." Upon hearing that call the five settled down and the second pair was used to handcuff two more of the suspects and all five were escorted to the station.
A telegram was despatched to the Bury police and four of those arrested were later in the day taken to the town. The fifth man turned out to be a St Helens resident who was not wanted by the Bury police. All were eventually cleared of the shocking attacks on the young women who had been repeatedly raped. I'm not sure why but as such a large group participated in the crime it may have been difficult to prove their involvement in the dark.
This is the first line of a St Helens Newspaper report on a court case heard in the town this week: "Rachel Hewitt was charged with stealing a shawl the property of James Fenney, of Volunteer street." As far as I know James Fenney was not in the habit of walking round St Helens wearing a shawl – but his wife and daughter were, although as far as the law was concerned men owned their wife and children's property.
Fenney's wife had been in Moxon's shop when her child's shawl had disappeared. As Rachel Hewitt had been in and out of the shop when the shawl went missing, suspicion immediately fell upon her. The garment was found in Pennington's pawnshop where the thief had pledged it. It was a brainless theft for which Rachel Hewitt received 14 days in prison.
The Newspaper also described how two miners had rowed in a pub over their "muscular superiority", saying both had thrown half sovereigns down on to a table as bets and adding: "Complainant took his coin up again, repenting his rashness, whereupon defendant brought the thing to an issue by setting upon complainant and giving him a good beating."
John Bolton was the complainant and John Pennington was the defendant who had been charged with assault. The latter said that they had initially agreed to fight each other on the following morning but when he had expressed concern that the police might catch them, the pair decided to fight it out there and then. "Bolton got the worst of it and then had tried his luck with a summons", claimed Pennington who was fined ten shillings and costs.
Also in court was Elizabeth Turner who was charged with assaulting her young next-door neighbour, Eliza Marsh. The latter was about thirteen and the assault consisted of a drenching with a bucket of water. Mrs Turner claimed that her neighbours' children were constantly annoying her by climbing on and over her wall. She said that she had thrown some water at a boy sitting on top of the wall and she reckoned some must have gone onto Eliza who she claimed she had not seen. Mrs Turner was fined half-a-crown and costs.
Last week I described how arrest warrants had been issued for a couple of miners after they had taken three days off during one month and ignored a subsequent court summons. They were employed at what appears to have been Thatto Heath Colliery and the mine's owner, James Radley, claimed their absences had cost him 10 shillings each day.
This week one of the two, John Norman, was arrested and brought to court and the prosecutor told the Bench: "Defendant was away [from his work] for some time, and he was served with a summons. He took no notice of it, and would not have taken any had he not found that a warrant had been issued. Then, when brought up perforce [without choice], he pulled a long face, and said his absence was caused by illness."
It was now stated that Norman had taken off a total of five days for which, of course, he would not have been paid. The defendant explained to the court that he lived 3 miles away from the coalmine and when he became ill with rheumatism he was unable to send anybody to the colliery to let them know.
As well as not receiving any pay for those five days the man was now ordered to pay 50 shillings and costs, which would have been about a fortnight's wages. If he was unable to find that amount he would have been sent to prison and so the rheumatic John Norman had every right to pull a very long face.
If you had a horse-drawn carriage of your own you needed to have a licence – like today's road tax on motor vehicles. But trade vehicles were exempt from the fee, although they could not be used privately. In 1872 the law was modified but only so far as to allow a trader to take his family to and from church on a Sunday.
This week a couple of small traders were brought to book for committing the crime of using their trade vehicle privately. An excise officer told the court that he had seen James Lawrenson's shandry (a light carriage on springs) in Church Street in St Helens on August 31st with two men and a woman sitting in it. He also provided two other dates when the grocer's vehicle was being privately used.
In his defence Mr Lawrenson from Blackbrook produced a licence that he had taken out on September 17th but he was still fined the large amount of £5. A Parr butcher was also fined for committing the same offence and six others from Parr were given a penalty of 25 shillings each (probably at least a week's wages) for not having a licence for their dog. Last week a man was only given a fine of 2s 6d for battering a policeman. They certainly had strange values in the 1870s!
St Helens Newspaper courtesy St Helens Archive Service at Eccleston Library
Next Week's stories will include the fatal cart accident at Bold, the husband that threatened to knock his wife's neck out, the stabbing at a Sutton chemical works, the Cowley school concert and the fatal fall near Thatto Heath station.
It was decided to change the pattern of the clothing and order a dozen new suits for boys that were sent out of the workhouse in future to wear. The St Helens Newspaper in its report headlined it "The Pauper Taint".
The guardians often had trouble with dishonest or disorganised officials and their relieving officer for Widnes – who also was in charge of collecting poor law rates contributions – was asked to resign after trouble with his books. The man was warned that further action might be taken against him but it rarely was.
As well as looking after individuals and families in dire straits for both the medium and long term, the workhouse was required by law to accommodate vagrants for what was often just a single night. Many of them might be regarded as professional tramps while others were simply on the move looking for work and needed somewhere to sleep.
The numbers of such persons deemed to have been in the workhouse "on tramp" was extraordinary, with the meeting told that during the past six months a total of 2,199 men had been accommodated. In the separate female room for tramps there had been 425 women, 112 boys and 107 girls.
The St Helens Newspaper on the 12th described how four youths aged between 16 and 19 that were on the run from Bury had early one morning been cleverly captured by St Helens police. The four were accused of having participated in a "diabolical" rape on three mill girls as part of a larger group and Bury police had notified other forces in Lancashire to be on the look out for them.
And so when PC McPetrie on duty in the vicinity of Westfield Street saw a group of youths sleeping inside an outhouse, his suspicions were immediately aroused. The constable went for help and found PC Fleetwood and they decided to make the arrests between them. McPetrie guarded the outhouse door while Fleetwood crept inside.
Moving very slowly he drew out his handcuffs and attached them to two of the young men who were sleeping close together. Neither woke while being handcuffed but one of the others did and raised the alarm. All five sprang up ready to try and escape from what they thought was a single bobby but PC Fleetwood fooled them into thinking they were surrounded.
He shouted out "Now, men, send in a few more handcuffs" and PC McPetrie standing outside shouted back, "Aye, aye, here's one set to begin with." Upon hearing that call the five settled down and the second pair was used to handcuff two more of the suspects and all five were escorted to the station.
A telegram was despatched to the Bury police and four of those arrested were later in the day taken to the town. The fifth man turned out to be a St Helens resident who was not wanted by the Bury police. All were eventually cleared of the shocking attacks on the young women who had been repeatedly raped. I'm not sure why but as such a large group participated in the crime it may have been difficult to prove their involvement in the dark.
This is the first line of a St Helens Newspaper report on a court case heard in the town this week: "Rachel Hewitt was charged with stealing a shawl the property of James Fenney, of Volunteer street." As far as I know James Fenney was not in the habit of walking round St Helens wearing a shawl – but his wife and daughter were, although as far as the law was concerned men owned their wife and children's property.
Fenney's wife had been in Moxon's shop when her child's shawl had disappeared. As Rachel Hewitt had been in and out of the shop when the shawl went missing, suspicion immediately fell upon her. The garment was found in Pennington's pawnshop where the thief had pledged it. It was a brainless theft for which Rachel Hewitt received 14 days in prison.
The Newspaper also described how two miners had rowed in a pub over their "muscular superiority", saying both had thrown half sovereigns down on to a table as bets and adding: "Complainant took his coin up again, repenting his rashness, whereupon defendant brought the thing to an issue by setting upon complainant and giving him a good beating."
John Bolton was the complainant and John Pennington was the defendant who had been charged with assault. The latter said that they had initially agreed to fight each other on the following morning but when he had expressed concern that the police might catch them, the pair decided to fight it out there and then. "Bolton got the worst of it and then had tried his luck with a summons", claimed Pennington who was fined ten shillings and costs.
Also in court was Elizabeth Turner who was charged with assaulting her young next-door neighbour, Eliza Marsh. The latter was about thirteen and the assault consisted of a drenching with a bucket of water. Mrs Turner claimed that her neighbours' children were constantly annoying her by climbing on and over her wall. She said that she had thrown some water at a boy sitting on top of the wall and she reckoned some must have gone onto Eliza who she claimed she had not seen. Mrs Turner was fined half-a-crown and costs.
Last week I described how arrest warrants had been issued for a couple of miners after they had taken three days off during one month and ignored a subsequent court summons. They were employed at what appears to have been Thatto Heath Colliery and the mine's owner, James Radley, claimed their absences had cost him 10 shillings each day.
This week one of the two, John Norman, was arrested and brought to court and the prosecutor told the Bench: "Defendant was away [from his work] for some time, and he was served with a summons. He took no notice of it, and would not have taken any had he not found that a warrant had been issued. Then, when brought up perforce [without choice], he pulled a long face, and said his absence was caused by illness."
It was now stated that Norman had taken off a total of five days for which, of course, he would not have been paid. The defendant explained to the court that he lived 3 miles away from the coalmine and when he became ill with rheumatism he was unable to send anybody to the colliery to let them know.
As well as not receiving any pay for those five days the man was now ordered to pay 50 shillings and costs, which would have been about a fortnight's wages. If he was unable to find that amount he would have been sent to prison and so the rheumatic John Norman had every right to pull a very long face.
If you had a horse-drawn carriage of your own you needed to have a licence – like today's road tax on motor vehicles. But trade vehicles were exempt from the fee, although they could not be used privately. In 1872 the law was modified but only so far as to allow a trader to take his family to and from church on a Sunday.
This week a couple of small traders were brought to book for committing the crime of using their trade vehicle privately. An excise officer told the court that he had seen James Lawrenson's shandry (a light carriage on springs) in Church Street in St Helens on August 31st with two men and a woman sitting in it. He also provided two other dates when the grocer's vehicle was being privately used.
In his defence Mr Lawrenson from Blackbrook produced a licence that he had taken out on September 17th but he was still fined the large amount of £5. A Parr butcher was also fined for committing the same offence and six others from Parr were given a penalty of 25 shillings each (probably at least a week's wages) for not having a licence for their dog. Last week a man was only given a fine of 2s 6d for battering a policeman. They certainly had strange values in the 1870s!
St Helens Newspaper courtesy St Helens Archive Service at Eccleston Library
Next Week's stories will include the fatal cart accident at Bold, the husband that threatened to knock his wife's neck out, the stabbing at a Sutton chemical works, the Cowley school concert and the fatal fall near Thatto Heath station.
This week's many stories include the clever capture of alleged rapists in Westfield Street, the huge number of tramps visiting Whiston Workhouse, the heavy fines for using a trade vehicle privately, the miner arrested for taking time off work through rheumatism and the prosecution for assault after a 13-year-old girl was drenched by a bucket of water.
We begin on the 10th when the Prescot Guardians held a meeting in Whiston Workhouse (pictured above).
Many of their boys were sent out to work in various trades and often to live in with their master who had other lads working for him.
One of the guardians pointed out how the clothing they gave them to wear was "peculiar to the workhouse" and that was leaving "the little fellows" open to insults from others.
It was decided to change the pattern of the clothing and order a dozen new suits for boys that were sent out of the workhouse in future to wear. The St Helens Newspaper in its report headlined it "The Pauper Taint".
The guardians often had trouble with dishonest or disorganised officials and their relieving officer for Widnes – who also was in charge of collecting poor law rates contributions – was asked to resign after trouble with his books.
The man was warned that further action might be taken against him but it rarely was.
As well as looking after individuals and families in dire straits for both the medium and long term, the workhouse was required by law to accommodate vagrants for what was often just a single night.
Many of them might be regarded as professional tramps while others were simply on the move looking for work and needed somewhere to sleep.
The numbers of such persons deemed to have been in the workhouse "on tramp" was extraordinary, with the meeting told that during the past six months a total of 2,199 men had been accommodated.
In the separate female room for tramps there had been 425 women, 112 boys and 107 girls.
The St Helens Newspaper on the 12th described how four youths aged between 16 and 19 that were on the run from Bury had early one morning been cleverly captured by St Helens police.
The four were accused of having participated in a "diabolical" rape on three mill girls as part of a larger group and Bury police had notified other forces in Lancashire to be on the look out for them.
And so when PC McPetrie on duty in the vicinity of Westfield Street saw a group of youths sleeping inside an outhouse, his suspicions were immediately aroused.
The constable went for help and found PC Fleetwood and they decided to make the arrests between them. McPetrie guarded the outhouse door while Fleetwood crept inside.
Moving very slowly he drew out his handcuffs and attached them to two of the young men who were sleeping close together.
Neither woke while being handcuffed but one of the others did and raised the alarm.
All five sprang up ready to try and escape from what they thought was a single bobby but PC Fleetwood fooled them into thinking they were surrounded.
He shouted out "Now, men, send in a few more handcuffs" and PC McPetrie standing outside shouted back, "Aye, aye, here's one set to begin with."
Upon hearing that call the five settled down and the second pair was used to handcuff two more of the suspects and all five were escorted to the station.
A telegram was despatched to the Bury police and four of those arrested were later in the day taken to the town.
The fifth man turned out to be a St Helens resident who was not wanted by the Bury police.
All were eventually cleared of the shocking attacks on the young women who had been repeatedly raped.
I'm not sure why but as such a large group participated in the crime it may have been difficult to prove their involvement in the dark.
This is the first line of a St Helens Newspaper report on a court case heard in the town this week:
"Rachel Hewitt was charged with stealing a shawl the property of James Fenney, of Volunteer street."
As far as I know James Fenney was not in the habit of walking round St Helens wearing a shawl – but his wife and daughter were, although as far as the law was concerned men owned their wife and children's property.
Fenney's wife had been in Moxon's shop when her child's shawl had disappeared.
As Rachel Hewitt had been in and out of the shop when the shawl went missing, suspicion immediately fell upon her.
The garment was found in Pennington's pawnshop where the thief had pledged it. It was a brainless theft for which Rachel Hewitt received 14 days in prison.
The Newspaper also described how two miners had rowed in a pub over their "muscular superiority", saying both had thrown half sovereigns down on to a table as bets and adding:
"Complainant took his coin up again, repenting his rashness, whereupon defendant brought the thing to an issue by setting upon complainant and giving him a good beating."
John Bolton was the complainant and John Pennington was the defendant who had been charged with assault.
The latter said that they had initially agreed to fight each other on the following morning but when he had expressed concern that the police might catch them, the pair decided to fight it out there and then.
"Bolton got the worst of it and then had tried his luck with a summons", claimed Pennington who was fined ten shillings and costs.
Also in court was Elizabeth Turner who was charged with assaulting her young next-door neighbour, Eliza Marsh.
The latter was about thirteen and the assault consisted of a drenching with a bucket of water.
Mrs Turner claimed that her neighbours' children were constantly annoying her by climbing on and over her wall.
She said that she had thrown some water at a boy sitting on top of the wall and she reckoned some must have gone onto Eliza who she claimed she had not seen. Mrs Turner was fined half-a-crown and costs.
Last week I described how arrest warrants had been issued for a couple of miners after they had taken three days off during one month and ignored a subsequent court summons.
They were employed at what appears to have been Thatto Heath Colliery and the mine's owner, James Radley, claimed their absences had cost him 10 shillings each day.
This week one of the two, John Norman, was arrested and brought to court and the prosecutor told the Bench:
"Defendant was away [from his work] for some time, and he was served with a summons. He took no notice of it, and would not have taken any had he not found that a warrant had been issued.
"Then, when brought up perforce [without choice], he pulled a long face, and said his absence was caused by illness."
It was now stated that Norman had taken off a total of five days for which, of course, he would not have been paid.
The defendant explained to the court that he lived 3 miles away from the coalmine and when he became ill with rheumatism he was unable to send anybody to the colliery to let them know.
As well as not receiving any pay for those five days the man was now ordered to pay 50 shillings and costs, which would have been about a fortnight's wages.
If he was unable to find that amount he would have been sent to prison and so the rheumatic John Norman had every right to pull a very long face.
If you had a horse-drawn carriage of your own you needed to have a licence – like today's road tax on motor vehicles.
But trade vehicles were exempt from the fee, although they could not be used privately.
In 1872 the law was modified but only so far as to allow a trader to take his family to and from church on a Sunday.
This week a couple of small traders were brought to book for committing the crime of using their trade vehicle privately.
An excise officer told the court that he had seen James Lawrenson's shandry (a light carriage on springs) in Church Street in St Helens on August 31st with two men and a woman sitting in it.
He also provided two other dates when the grocer's vehicle was being privately used.
In his defence Mr Lawrenson from Blackbrook produced a licence that he had taken out on September 17th but he was still fined the large amount of £5.
A Parr butcher was also fined for committing the same offence and six others from Parr were given a penalty of 25 shillings each (probably at least a week's wages) for not having a licence for their dog.
Last week a man was only given a fine of 2s 6d for battering a policeman. They certainly had strange values in the 1870s!
St Helens Newspaper courtesy St Helens Archive Service at Eccleston Library
Next Week's stories will include the fatal cart accident at Bold, the husband that threatened to knock his wife's neck out, the stabbing at a Sutton chemical works, the Cowley school concert and the fatal fall near Thatto Heath station.
Many of their boys were sent out to work in various trades and often to live in with their master who had other lads working for him.
One of the guardians pointed out how the clothing they gave them to wear was "peculiar to the workhouse" and that was leaving "the little fellows" open to insults from others.
It was decided to change the pattern of the clothing and order a dozen new suits for boys that were sent out of the workhouse in future to wear. The St Helens Newspaper in its report headlined it "The Pauper Taint".
The guardians often had trouble with dishonest or disorganised officials and their relieving officer for Widnes – who also was in charge of collecting poor law rates contributions – was asked to resign after trouble with his books.
The man was warned that further action might be taken against him but it rarely was.
As well as looking after individuals and families in dire straits for both the medium and long term, the workhouse was required by law to accommodate vagrants for what was often just a single night.
Many of them might be regarded as professional tramps while others were simply on the move looking for work and needed somewhere to sleep.
The numbers of such persons deemed to have been in the workhouse "on tramp" was extraordinary, with the meeting told that during the past six months a total of 2,199 men had been accommodated.
In the separate female room for tramps there had been 425 women, 112 boys and 107 girls.
The St Helens Newspaper on the 12th described how four youths aged between 16 and 19 that were on the run from Bury had early one morning been cleverly captured by St Helens police.
The four were accused of having participated in a "diabolical" rape on three mill girls as part of a larger group and Bury police had notified other forces in Lancashire to be on the look out for them.
And so when PC McPetrie on duty in the vicinity of Westfield Street saw a group of youths sleeping inside an outhouse, his suspicions were immediately aroused.
The constable went for help and found PC Fleetwood and they decided to make the arrests between them. McPetrie guarded the outhouse door while Fleetwood crept inside.
Moving very slowly he drew out his handcuffs and attached them to two of the young men who were sleeping close together.
Neither woke while being handcuffed but one of the others did and raised the alarm.
All five sprang up ready to try and escape from what they thought was a single bobby but PC Fleetwood fooled them into thinking they were surrounded.
He shouted out "Now, men, send in a few more handcuffs" and PC McPetrie standing outside shouted back, "Aye, aye, here's one set to begin with."
Upon hearing that call the five settled down and the second pair was used to handcuff two more of the suspects and all five were escorted to the station.
A telegram was despatched to the Bury police and four of those arrested were later in the day taken to the town.
The fifth man turned out to be a St Helens resident who was not wanted by the Bury police.
All were eventually cleared of the shocking attacks on the young women who had been repeatedly raped.
I'm not sure why but as such a large group participated in the crime it may have been difficult to prove their involvement in the dark.
This is the first line of a St Helens Newspaper report on a court case heard in the town this week:
"Rachel Hewitt was charged with stealing a shawl the property of James Fenney, of Volunteer street."
As far as I know James Fenney was not in the habit of walking round St Helens wearing a shawl – but his wife and daughter were, although as far as the law was concerned men owned their wife and children's property.
Fenney's wife had been in Moxon's shop when her child's shawl had disappeared.
As Rachel Hewitt had been in and out of the shop when the shawl went missing, suspicion immediately fell upon her.
The garment was found in Pennington's pawnshop where the thief had pledged it. It was a brainless theft for which Rachel Hewitt received 14 days in prison.
The Newspaper also described how two miners had rowed in a pub over their "muscular superiority", saying both had thrown half sovereigns down on to a table as bets and adding:
"Complainant took his coin up again, repenting his rashness, whereupon defendant brought the thing to an issue by setting upon complainant and giving him a good beating."
John Bolton was the complainant and John Pennington was the defendant who had been charged with assault.
The latter said that they had initially agreed to fight each other on the following morning but when he had expressed concern that the police might catch them, the pair decided to fight it out there and then.
"Bolton got the worst of it and then had tried his luck with a summons", claimed Pennington who was fined ten shillings and costs.
Also in court was Elizabeth Turner who was charged with assaulting her young next-door neighbour, Eliza Marsh.
The latter was about thirteen and the assault consisted of a drenching with a bucket of water.
Mrs Turner claimed that her neighbours' children were constantly annoying her by climbing on and over her wall.
She said that she had thrown some water at a boy sitting on top of the wall and she reckoned some must have gone onto Eliza who she claimed she had not seen. Mrs Turner was fined half-a-crown and costs.
Last week I described how arrest warrants had been issued for a couple of miners after they had taken three days off during one month and ignored a subsequent court summons.
They were employed at what appears to have been Thatto Heath Colliery and the mine's owner, James Radley, claimed their absences had cost him 10 shillings each day.
This week one of the two, John Norman, was arrested and brought to court and the prosecutor told the Bench:
"Defendant was away [from his work] for some time, and he was served with a summons. He took no notice of it, and would not have taken any had he not found that a warrant had been issued.
"Then, when brought up perforce [without choice], he pulled a long face, and said his absence was caused by illness."
It was now stated that Norman had taken off a total of five days for which, of course, he would not have been paid.
The defendant explained to the court that he lived 3 miles away from the coalmine and when he became ill with rheumatism he was unable to send anybody to the colliery to let them know.
As well as not receiving any pay for those five days the man was now ordered to pay 50 shillings and costs, which would have been about a fortnight's wages.
If he was unable to find that amount he would have been sent to prison and so the rheumatic John Norman had every right to pull a very long face.
If you had a horse-drawn carriage of your own you needed to have a licence – like today's road tax on motor vehicles.
But trade vehicles were exempt from the fee, although they could not be used privately.
In 1872 the law was modified but only so far as to allow a trader to take his family to and from church on a Sunday.
This week a couple of small traders were brought to book for committing the crime of using their trade vehicle privately.
An excise officer told the court that he had seen James Lawrenson's shandry (a light carriage on springs) in Church Street in St Helens on August 31st with two men and a woman sitting in it.
He also provided two other dates when the grocer's vehicle was being privately used.
In his defence Mr Lawrenson from Blackbrook produced a licence that he had taken out on September 17th but he was still fined the large amount of £5.
A Parr butcher was also fined for committing the same offence and six others from Parr were given a penalty of 25 shillings each (probably at least a week's wages) for not having a licence for their dog.
Last week a man was only given a fine of 2s 6d for battering a policeman. They certainly had strange values in the 1870s!
St Helens Newspaper courtesy St Helens Archive Service at Eccleston Library
Next Week's stories will include the fatal cart accident at Bold, the husband that threatened to knock his wife's neck out, the stabbing at a Sutton chemical works, the Cowley school concert and the fatal fall near Thatto Heath station.