150 YEARS AGO THIS WEEK 15 - 21 JUNE 1876
This week's many stories include the Rainford wife beating case, the three pit sinkers that drowned in Ashton, the attempted rape of a 7-year-old girl, the criticism of the arrangements for the opening of the Town Hall, the gun firing at Brown Edge and the wife beating in the street that outraged neighbours.
We begin on the 16th when John Smith appeared in the St Helens Petty Sessions charged with committing a breach of the peace in Rainford. PC Cownie stated that shortly after midnight on Saturday he had been standing near the defendant's house when he heard screams and cries of "murder" and "police". He said he dashed to the door and heard more screams and the sound of someone chasing another person down the stairs.
The screams were repeated and the officer said he then heard blows being struck and so he broke open the door. Inside he found Smith holding his wife down with one hand and striking her with the other. Surprisingly, the constable did not arrest the man and take him into custody. Instead he accepted Smith's word that he would not hit his wife again and PC Cownie summoned the man to appear in court for breaching the peace.
But he failed to turn up and so a warrant for his arrest was issued, leading to Smith giving himself up. He was ordered to find bail for three months, himself in the sum of £20 and two sureties of £10 each or go to prison for a month. These would have been impossible sums to raise and so a prison sentence seems inevitable.
However, I can't help but think that the magistrates were motivated to impose such a stiff sentence mainly through their annoyance over the man's failure to appear in court when first summoned – rather than for the violence that Smith meted out to his wife, for which he had not even been charged. If Smith did go to prison as I expect, his wife would have received no income for a month and so the sentence was probably of no help to her.
The St Helens Newspaper on the 17th described how three deaths had occurred at High Brooks Colliery at Ashton-in-Makerfield. The men had been pit sinkers and were drowned as the result of a simple mistake by an engine winder. The threesome had been in a large bucket called a hoppett and had sent a signal to the engine winder asking to be raised to the surface. But the man turned his lever the wrong way, which plunged the hoppett to the bottom of the shaft where much water had amassed and the sinkers all drowned before help could reach them.
The paper also wrote how the interior of Lowe House Church had been renovated and redecorated which had led to a "most wonderful improvement" in its appearance.
There was a letter in the Newspaper from someone calling himself "One Of The People", who was not totally enamoured with the proceedings when the new Town Hall had been opened a few weeks before. The 25 shillings cost of admission to the banquet that took place after the opening ceremony was a particular bone of contention, although the author did admit that some working men might have found the money. But that, he wrote, was only so that they might "cut a dash". The letterwriter then said:
"But these, sir, are only brainless blockheads who would lick the dust beneath the heels of greatness, and who have caught the trick of trying to make one believe they are what they really are not."
The day of the opening had been a Bank Holiday, but as usual it was an unpaid one. That led to the correspondent writing: "The working men of St. Helens are convinced that their money has paid and is paying for the hall [through the rates], and the only benefit they received at the opening of it was a holiday at their own expense."
Under the headline "Attempted Rape Of A Child", the St Helens Newspaper also wrote: "Michael Varley was charged with attempting to ravish Mary Ann Martindale, seven years and seven months old, on Monday night last, in St. Thomas' street, and was sentenced to six months' imprisonment with hard labour." And that was the complete report, just five lines in the paper.
There was a much longer report describing the case of William Leyland who was charged with illegally firing a gun in Thatto Heath. The regulation of firearms was quite minimal in the 1870s. As long as guns were licensed, in the same way that dog owners were supposed to have a licence for their pet, firearms could legally be possessed and even some churchmen owned them. In a lottery run by St Anne's RC Church in Sutton, a revolver had been the star prize. But you were not supposed to fire guns in the street and in other public places.
In court this week PC Jones told how at 8:15 pm on a Monday evening he had heard a disturbance at Brown Edge and upon going to the place found William Leyland on the public footpath that led to Sutton Heath, past Rainhill Asylum. The constable said the man had a double-barrelled gun which he had just fired and when told that he must not do so again, Leyland replied that he would fire it as often as he liked.
PC Jones took the gun off him, although not without a scuffle taking place. The affair had been near the house of bottlemaker Francis Dixon Nuttall and he told the court that Leyland had fired his gun about 20 times before the constable had arrived.
Some of the shots, Nuttall said, had entered his conservatory and alarmed members of his family who were inside. Leyland's solicitor contended that his client had not been on a public highway when he fired his gun but the magistrates overruled his objection and fined William Leyland 5 shillings and costs.
Stories of wife beating were commonplace in St Helens courts, although I expect they only scratched the surface of what took place behind closed doors. But David Stanley had committed his crime against his wife in the street and had outraged his neighbours.
When he appeared in St Helens Petty Sessions charged with violently assaulting his wife in Arthur Street, PC Conner told the magistrates that there had been a great crowd of about 600 people around the man's house. Upon making enquiries he said he learnt that the cause of the disturbance was that Stanley had been beating his wife in the street.
The man had then locked himself in his house with his wife left outside and the furious crowd that had assembled was attempting to break into the house to lynch Stanley. The defendant's wife explained that she was currently under medical treatment and the trouble had begun when her husband had come home from work and wanted her to wash him.
When she refused, he began to abuse her, although he did not strike her then. On the following morning her husband recommenced his abuse and turned her out of the house, throwing his wife's medicine bottles after her. And then he had gone outside and struck her once on the side of the head and twice in the mouth, causing it to bleed.
Mrs Stanley said her husband was a lazy fellow who would not work half of the time and added that during the present week she had been beholden to her neighbours for food. The magistrates said they considered it to be a bad case and fined the man 20 shillings and costs or 28 days imprisonment.
St Helens Newspaper courtesy St Helens Archive Service at Eccleston Library
Next Week's stories will include the call for a choral society to be created in St Helens, the house robberies in Parr, the brutal kicking attack near the Raven and the row in a Parr pub caused by a wife wanting her boozing husband to come home.
We begin on the 16th when John Smith appeared in the St Helens Petty Sessions charged with committing a breach of the peace in Rainford. PC Cownie stated that shortly after midnight on Saturday he had been standing near the defendant's house when he heard screams and cries of "murder" and "police". He said he dashed to the door and heard more screams and the sound of someone chasing another person down the stairs.
The screams were repeated and the officer said he then heard blows being struck and so he broke open the door. Inside he found Smith holding his wife down with one hand and striking her with the other. Surprisingly, the constable did not arrest the man and take him into custody. Instead he accepted Smith's word that he would not hit his wife again and PC Cownie summoned the man to appear in court for breaching the peace.
But he failed to turn up and so a warrant for his arrest was issued, leading to Smith giving himself up. He was ordered to find bail for three months, himself in the sum of £20 and two sureties of £10 each or go to prison for a month. These would have been impossible sums to raise and so a prison sentence seems inevitable.
However, I can't help but think that the magistrates were motivated to impose such a stiff sentence mainly through their annoyance over the man's failure to appear in court when first summoned – rather than for the violence that Smith meted out to his wife, for which he had not even been charged. If Smith did go to prison as I expect, his wife would have received no income for a month and so the sentence was probably of no help to her.
The paper also wrote how the interior of Lowe House Church had been renovated and redecorated which had led to a "most wonderful improvement" in its appearance.
There was a letter in the Newspaper from someone calling himself "One Of The People", who was not totally enamoured with the proceedings when the new Town Hall had been opened a few weeks before. The 25 shillings cost of admission to the banquet that took place after the opening ceremony was a particular bone of contention, although the author did admit that some working men might have found the money. But that, he wrote, was only so that they might "cut a dash". The letterwriter then said:
"But these, sir, are only brainless blockheads who would lick the dust beneath the heels of greatness, and who have caught the trick of trying to make one believe they are what they really are not."
The day of the opening had been a Bank Holiday, but as usual it was an unpaid one. That led to the correspondent writing: "The working men of St. Helens are convinced that their money has paid and is paying for the hall [through the rates], and the only benefit they received at the opening of it was a holiday at their own expense."
Under the headline "Attempted Rape Of A Child", the St Helens Newspaper also wrote: "Michael Varley was charged with attempting to ravish Mary Ann Martindale, seven years and seven months old, on Monday night last, in St. Thomas' street, and was sentenced to six months' imprisonment with hard labour." And that was the complete report, just five lines in the paper.
There was a much longer report describing the case of William Leyland who was charged with illegally firing a gun in Thatto Heath. The regulation of firearms was quite minimal in the 1870s. As long as guns were licensed, in the same way that dog owners were supposed to have a licence for their pet, firearms could legally be possessed and even some churchmen owned them. In a lottery run by St Anne's RC Church in Sutton, a revolver had been the star prize. But you were not supposed to fire guns in the street and in other public places.
In court this week PC Jones told how at 8:15 pm on a Monday evening he had heard a disturbance at Brown Edge and upon going to the place found William Leyland on the public footpath that led to Sutton Heath, past Rainhill Asylum. The constable said the man had a double-barrelled gun which he had just fired and when told that he must not do so again, Leyland replied that he would fire it as often as he liked.
PC Jones took the gun off him, although not without a scuffle taking place. The affair had been near the house of bottlemaker Francis Dixon Nuttall and he told the court that Leyland had fired his gun about 20 times before the constable had arrived.
Some of the shots, Nuttall said, had entered his conservatory and alarmed members of his family who were inside. Leyland's solicitor contended that his client had not been on a public highway when he fired his gun but the magistrates overruled his objection and fined William Leyland 5 shillings and costs.
Stories of wife beating were commonplace in St Helens courts, although I expect they only scratched the surface of what took place behind closed doors. But David Stanley had committed his crime against his wife in the street and had outraged his neighbours.
When he appeared in St Helens Petty Sessions charged with violently assaulting his wife in Arthur Street, PC Conner told the magistrates that there had been a great crowd of about 600 people around the man's house. Upon making enquiries he said he learnt that the cause of the disturbance was that Stanley had been beating his wife in the street.
The man had then locked himself in his house with his wife left outside and the furious crowd that had assembled was attempting to break into the house to lynch Stanley. The defendant's wife explained that she was currently under medical treatment and the trouble had begun when her husband had come home from work and wanted her to wash him.
When she refused, he began to abuse her, although he did not strike her then. On the following morning her husband recommenced his abuse and turned her out of the house, throwing his wife's medicine bottles after her. And then he had gone outside and struck her once on the side of the head and twice in the mouth, causing it to bleed.
Mrs Stanley said her husband was a lazy fellow who would not work half of the time and added that during the present week she had been beholden to her neighbours for food. The magistrates said they considered it to be a bad case and fined the man 20 shillings and costs or 28 days imprisonment.
St Helens Newspaper courtesy St Helens Archive Service at Eccleston Library
Next Week's stories will include the call for a choral society to be created in St Helens, the house robberies in Parr, the brutal kicking attack near the Raven and the row in a Parr pub caused by a wife wanting her boozing husband to come home.
This week's many stories include the Rainford wife beating case, the three pit sinkers that drowned in Ashton, the attempted rape of a 7-year-old girl, the criticism of the arrangements for the opening of the Town Hall, the gun firing at Brown Edge and the wife beating in the street that outraged neighbours.
We begin on the 16th when John Smith appeared in the St Helens Petty Sessions charged with committing a breach of the peace in Rainford.
PC Cownie stated that shortly after midnight on Saturday he had been standing near the defendant's house when he heard screams and cries of "murder" and "police".
He said he dashed to the door and heard more screams and the sound of someone chasing another person down the stairs.
The screams were repeated and the officer said he then heard blows being struck and so he broke open the door.
Inside he found Smith holding his wife down with one hand and striking her with the other.
Surprisingly, the constable did not arrest the man and take him into custody.
Instead he accepted Smith's word that he would not hit his wife again and PC Cownie summoned the man to appear in court for breaching the peace.
But he failed to turn up and so a warrant for his arrest was issued, leading to Smith giving himself up.
He was ordered to find bail for three months, himself in the sum of £20 and two sureties of £10 each or go to prison for a month.
These would have been impossible sums to raise and so a prison sentence seems inevitable.
However, I can't help but think that the magistrates were motivated to impose such a stiff sentence mainly through their annoyance over the man's failure to appear in court when first summoned – rather than for the violence that Smith meted out to his wife, for which he had not even been charged.
If Smith did go to prison as I expect, his wife would have received no income for a month and so the sentence was probably of no help to her.
The St Helens Newspaper on the 17th described how three deaths had occurred at High Brooks Colliery at Ashton-in-Makerfield.
The men had been pit sinkers and were drowned as the result of a simple mistake by an engine winder.
The threesome had been in a large bucket called a hoppett and had sent a signal to the engine winder asking to be raised to the surface.
But the man turned his lever the wrong way, which plunged the hoppett to the bottom of the shaft where much water had amassed and the sinkers all drowned before help could reach them.
The paper also wrote how the interior of Lowe House Church had been renovated and redecorated which had led to a "most wonderful improvement" in its appearance.
There was a letter in the Newspaper from someone calling himself "One Of The People", who was not totally enamoured with the proceedings when the new Town Hall had been opened a few weeks before.
The 25 shillings cost of admission to the banquet that took place after the opening ceremony was a particular bone of contention, although the author did admit that some working men might have found the money.
But that, he wrote, was only so that they might "cut a dash". The letterwriter then said:
"But these, sir, are only brainless blockheads who would lick the dust beneath the heels of greatness, and who have caught the trick of trying to make one believe they are what they really are not."
The day of the opening had been a Bank Holiday, but as usual it was an unpaid one. That led to the correspondent writing:
"The working men of St. Helens are convinced that their money has paid and is paying for the hall [through the rates], and the only benefit they received at the opening of it was a holiday at their own expense."
Under the headline "Attempted Rape Of A Child", the St Helens Newspaper also wrote:
"Michael Varley was charged with attempting to ravish Mary Ann Martindale, seven years and seven months old, on Monday night last, in St. Thomas' street, and was sentenced to six months' imprisonment with hard labour."
And that was the complete report, just five lines in the paper.
There was a much longer report describing the case of William Leyland who was charged with illegally firing a gun in Thatto Heath.
The regulation of firearms was quite minimal in the 1870s.
As long as guns were licensed, in the same way that dog owners were supposed to have a licence for their pet, firearms could legally be possessed and even some churchmen owned them.
In a lottery run by St Anne's RC Church in Sutton, a revolver had been the star prize.
But you were not supposed to fire guns in the street and in other public places.
In court this week PC Jones told how at 8:15 pm on a Monday evening he had heard a disturbance at Brown Edge and upon going to the place found William Leyland on the public footpath that led to Sutton Heath, past Rainhill Asylum.
The constable said the man had a double-barrelled gun which he had just fired and when told that he must not do so again, Leyland replied that he would fire it as often as he liked.
PC Jones took the gun off him, although not without a scuffle taking place.
The affair had been near the house of bottlemaker Francis Dixon Nuttall and he told the court that Leyland had fired his gun about 20 times before the constable had arrived.
Some of the shots, Nuttall said, had entered his conservatory and alarmed members of his family who were inside.
Leyland's solicitor contended that his client had not been on a public highway when he fired his gun but the magistrates overruled his objection and fined William Leyland 5 shillings and costs.
Stories of wife beating were commonplace in St Helens courts, although I expect they only scratched the surface of what took place behind closed doors.
But David Stanley had committed his crime against his wife in the street and had outraged his neighbours.
When he appeared in St Helens Petty Sessions charged with violently assaulting his wife in Arthur Street, PC Conner told the magistrates that there had been a great crowd of about 600 people around the man's house.
Upon making enquiries he said he learnt that the cause of the disturbance was that Stanley had been beating his wife in the street.
The man had then locked himself in his house with his wife left outside and the furious crowd that had assembled was attempting to break into the house to lynch Stanley.
The defendant's wife explained that she was currently under medical treatment and the trouble had begun when her husband had come home from work and wanted her to wash him.
When she refused, he began to abuse her, although he did not strike her then.
On the following morning her husband recommenced his abuse and turned her out of the house, throwing his wife's medicine bottles after her.
And then he had gone outside and struck her once on the side of the head and twice in the mouth, causing it to bleed.
Mrs Stanley said her husband was a lazy fellow who would not work half of the time and added that during the present week she had been beholden to her neighbours for food.
The magistrates said they considered it to be a bad case and fined the man 20 shillings and costs or 28 days imprisonment.
St Helens Newspaper courtesy St Helens Archive Service at Eccleston Library
Next Week's stories will include the call for a choral society to be created in St Helens, the house robberies in Parr, the brutal kicking attack near the Raven and the row in a Parr pub caused by a wife wanting her boozing husband to come home.
We begin on the 16th when John Smith appeared in the St Helens Petty Sessions charged with committing a breach of the peace in Rainford.
PC Cownie stated that shortly after midnight on Saturday he had been standing near the defendant's house when he heard screams and cries of "murder" and "police".
He said he dashed to the door and heard more screams and the sound of someone chasing another person down the stairs.
The screams were repeated and the officer said he then heard blows being struck and so he broke open the door.
Inside he found Smith holding his wife down with one hand and striking her with the other.
Surprisingly, the constable did not arrest the man and take him into custody.
Instead he accepted Smith's word that he would not hit his wife again and PC Cownie summoned the man to appear in court for breaching the peace.
But he failed to turn up and so a warrant for his arrest was issued, leading to Smith giving himself up.
He was ordered to find bail for three months, himself in the sum of £20 and two sureties of £10 each or go to prison for a month.
These would have been impossible sums to raise and so a prison sentence seems inevitable.
However, I can't help but think that the magistrates were motivated to impose such a stiff sentence mainly through their annoyance over the man's failure to appear in court when first summoned – rather than for the violence that Smith meted out to his wife, for which he had not even been charged.
If Smith did go to prison as I expect, his wife would have received no income for a month and so the sentence was probably of no help to her.
The men had been pit sinkers and were drowned as the result of a simple mistake by an engine winder.
The threesome had been in a large bucket called a hoppett and had sent a signal to the engine winder asking to be raised to the surface.
But the man turned his lever the wrong way, which plunged the hoppett to the bottom of the shaft where much water had amassed and the sinkers all drowned before help could reach them.
The paper also wrote how the interior of Lowe House Church had been renovated and redecorated which had led to a "most wonderful improvement" in its appearance.
There was a letter in the Newspaper from someone calling himself "One Of The People", who was not totally enamoured with the proceedings when the new Town Hall had been opened a few weeks before.
The 25 shillings cost of admission to the banquet that took place after the opening ceremony was a particular bone of contention, although the author did admit that some working men might have found the money.
But that, he wrote, was only so that they might "cut a dash". The letterwriter then said:
"But these, sir, are only brainless blockheads who would lick the dust beneath the heels of greatness, and who have caught the trick of trying to make one believe they are what they really are not."
The day of the opening had been a Bank Holiday, but as usual it was an unpaid one. That led to the correspondent writing:
"The working men of St. Helens are convinced that their money has paid and is paying for the hall [through the rates], and the only benefit they received at the opening of it was a holiday at their own expense."
Under the headline "Attempted Rape Of A Child", the St Helens Newspaper also wrote:
"Michael Varley was charged with attempting to ravish Mary Ann Martindale, seven years and seven months old, on Monday night last, in St. Thomas' street, and was sentenced to six months' imprisonment with hard labour."
And that was the complete report, just five lines in the paper.
There was a much longer report describing the case of William Leyland who was charged with illegally firing a gun in Thatto Heath.
The regulation of firearms was quite minimal in the 1870s.
As long as guns were licensed, in the same way that dog owners were supposed to have a licence for their pet, firearms could legally be possessed and even some churchmen owned them.
In a lottery run by St Anne's RC Church in Sutton, a revolver had been the star prize.
But you were not supposed to fire guns in the street and in other public places.
In court this week PC Jones told how at 8:15 pm on a Monday evening he had heard a disturbance at Brown Edge and upon going to the place found William Leyland on the public footpath that led to Sutton Heath, past Rainhill Asylum.
The constable said the man had a double-barrelled gun which he had just fired and when told that he must not do so again, Leyland replied that he would fire it as often as he liked.
PC Jones took the gun off him, although not without a scuffle taking place.
The affair had been near the house of bottlemaker Francis Dixon Nuttall and he told the court that Leyland had fired his gun about 20 times before the constable had arrived.
Some of the shots, Nuttall said, had entered his conservatory and alarmed members of his family who were inside.
Leyland's solicitor contended that his client had not been on a public highway when he fired his gun but the magistrates overruled his objection and fined William Leyland 5 shillings and costs.
Stories of wife beating were commonplace in St Helens courts, although I expect they only scratched the surface of what took place behind closed doors.
But David Stanley had committed his crime against his wife in the street and had outraged his neighbours.
When he appeared in St Helens Petty Sessions charged with violently assaulting his wife in Arthur Street, PC Conner told the magistrates that there had been a great crowd of about 600 people around the man's house.
Upon making enquiries he said he learnt that the cause of the disturbance was that Stanley had been beating his wife in the street.
The man had then locked himself in his house with his wife left outside and the furious crowd that had assembled was attempting to break into the house to lynch Stanley.
The defendant's wife explained that she was currently under medical treatment and the trouble had begun when her husband had come home from work and wanted her to wash him.
When she refused, he began to abuse her, although he did not strike her then.
On the following morning her husband recommenced his abuse and turned her out of the house, throwing his wife's medicine bottles after her.
And then he had gone outside and struck her once on the side of the head and twice in the mouth, causing it to bleed.
Mrs Stanley said her husband was a lazy fellow who would not work half of the time and added that during the present week she had been beholden to her neighbours for food.
The magistrates said they considered it to be a bad case and fined the man 20 shillings and costs or 28 days imprisonment.
St Helens Newspaper courtesy St Helens Archive Service at Eccleston Library
Next Week's stories will include the call for a choral society to be created in St Helens, the house robberies in Parr, the brutal kicking attack near the Raven and the row in a Parr pub caused by a wife wanting her boozing husband to come home.