150 YEARS AGO THIS WEEK (23 - 29 OCTOBER 1873)
This week's many stories include another drowning in the canal, the indifferent interest in supporting St Helens Hospital, the train ticket for a dog that caused a row at St Helens Station, the Park Road squabble that led to a dust up in court and the Water Street brothel keeper who turned to poaching in Bold.
We begin on the evening of the 23rd when the dead body of a woman named Mary Marsh was recovered from St Helens Canal. My rough estimate of the number of persons that drowned in the deep waterway since it was built is 2-3,000. Many deaths were by design but most fatalities appeared to be accidental when the person was drunk.
Often no one knew the real cause and the open verdict “Found Drowned” was routinely returned at inquests. In the case of Mary Marsh she was described as having been "somewhat deranged in intellect" and given to "occasional wandering at unseasonable hours". The death of the 74-year-old from Smithy Brow (Parr Street area) was thought to have been suicide – but again, nobody really knew.
Recently collections had been made in some churches and workplaces in aid of the St Helens Cottage Hospital (pictured above), which had opened in January in Peasley Cross. But the results had been mixed and on the 25th the St Helens Newspaper considered the reasons:
"The Hospital was but a new thing, imperfectly understood, and therefore indifferently appreciated. The clergy, who might be expected to respond to a call of charity, did not co-operate except in a few instances, some appearing actually unwilling to encourage such an institution. Some of the works subscribed well, and others where much was naturally expected contributed very indifferently."
Commenting on those who criticised the hospital – mainly because of its charges imposed on patients or their employers – the Newspaper wrote: "There are people who object to the system on which it [the hospital] is conducted, but there never was a more frivolous or remediable objection raised to any public institution." The newspaper argued that the new infirmary had to charge patients one shilling a day to cover its initial expenses. But once it was in a healthy financial position, they expected the hospital to provide treatment for free.
Of the court cases that took place this week, Eden vs. Chesworth was, I think, the most interesting and this is how the St Helens Newspaper described it: "Peter Chesworth pleaded not guilty to assaulting Eliza Eden, and retained Mr. Swift to defend him. Complainant said that she met the defendant accidentally, and he used scandalous language to her.
"His conduct was so offensive and unruly that she declared she would take proceedings against him, whereupon he thought he might as well take the worth of his money beforehand, and he beat her “shameful.” Mr. Swift cross-examined her, or tried to do it, and there was a lively scene while the pair confronted each other, the court deriving abundance of amusement.
"The suggestion that she had some drink at the time put her in high dudgeon. “I am not in the habit of taking drink, Mr. Swift,” she said in a furious tone. A woman named Kerfoot came up as a witness, and gave a version of the affair, repeating all the vile and disgusting language used, with the most impassable face.
"This witness bothered Mr. Swift, and drove him into several rages, so coolly did she take up her ground and push it forward in answer to all his questions. When half-a-dozen witnesses – all women of Park road – had been examined, Mr. Swift made a very serious speech to the bench, putting a number of questions to the magistrates intended to act as stumbling blocks in the way of a conviction.
"He ridiculed the females who sustained the prosecution as unworthy people who came into court with dirty hands; and then called up women from the same neighbourhood, who deposed to some very strong and vulgar language used by complainant to defendant's wife and to the defendant himself, before the latter said anything in return. The case was dismissed."
I've often commented on the many railway accidents in the St Helens district and how it could be dangerous to be a passenger. But being a stationmaster had its risks too. Last week the man in charge of the St Helens Junction station was badly beaten up and this week the stationmaster at St Helens, Charles Ashurst, was in court prosecuting a difficult passenger.
Thomas Hayes had been travelling to Southport on the previous Saturday evening but had kicked up a fuss when asked to pay an extra ninepence for his dog. He was highly abusive to Ashurst and a policeman had to be sent for. The stubborn Hayes refused to give PC Sewell his name and address and so he arrested him, although the constable only achieved it with some difficulty.
In court Hayes claimed that he did not know at the time that Ashurst was the stationmaster and surprised the court by producing a dog ticket that he said he'd bought on that day. The Bench decided not to convict Hayes, but advised him not to "conduct himself so intemperately" in future.
James Hughes had been arrested at the railway station on the same evening as Thomas Hayes. And as it was a Saturday he probably had to spend Sunday and two nights in the police cells until the court opened on the Monday.
His crime was travelling on the railway without a ticket and his excuse was that he had got on the wrong train, having thought it was going to Bolton. That did not explain why he did not have a ticket and, unlike Hayes, he was unable to magically produce one out of thin air. He was fined 2s 6d and costs.
Pony boys down coal mines could be quite rough with the animals in their charge and Henry Molyneux – who appeared to be 15 and from Elephant Lane – was also in court charged with kicking the pony that he was driving. The lad worked at Greengate Colliery and I expect had been given several warnings before court proceedings were taken.
Henry was let off upon payment of court costs but having to come to court would have also cost him a day's pay. That would likely have angered his parents, as boy workers routinely handed their wages to their mother.
The original Running Horses inn was situated at the bottom of Bridge Street in St Helens, by Liverpool Road. This week Thomas Mahoney appeared in the Petty Sessions charged with stealing half-a-dozen plates and a hymn book from the pub. He had been caught red-handed with the stolen items on an upper landing having taken them from a bedroom and he was sent to prison for a month.
And finally on the 27th Charles Rudd appeared in St Helens Petty Sessions charged with trespassing in pursuit of game. PC Clarke had seen him with two companions and a dog on Thomas Warburton's land in Bold carrying a double-barrelled shotgun. Rudd was very well known to St Helens police. His home in Water Street had served as a beerhouse until stripped of its licence in August 1869.
The police had claimed that his house was a brothel and since then he had run it supposedly as a temperance hotel but at one time he had been convicted of selling beer without a licence. Rudd was reported as offering no defence to the prospective poaching charge "except a careless denial" and he was fined £2 and costs.
St Helens Newspaper courtesy St Helens Archive Service at Eccleston Library
Next Week's stories will include the brothers' fight that led to a charge of manslaughter, the cruelty to a Boundary Road goat, the apathy of voters at local elections and the man that brutally beat up his mother-in-law.
We begin on the evening of the 23rd when the dead body of a woman named Mary Marsh was recovered from St Helens Canal. My rough estimate of the number of persons that drowned in the deep waterway since it was built is 2-3,000. Many deaths were by design but most fatalities appeared to be accidental when the person was drunk.
Often no one knew the real cause and the open verdict “Found Drowned” was routinely returned at inquests. In the case of Mary Marsh she was described as having been "somewhat deranged in intellect" and given to "occasional wandering at unseasonable hours". The death of the 74-year-old from Smithy Brow (Parr Street area) was thought to have been suicide – but again, nobody really knew.
"The Hospital was but a new thing, imperfectly understood, and therefore indifferently appreciated. The clergy, who might be expected to respond to a call of charity, did not co-operate except in a few instances, some appearing actually unwilling to encourage such an institution. Some of the works subscribed well, and others where much was naturally expected contributed very indifferently."
Commenting on those who criticised the hospital – mainly because of its charges imposed on patients or their employers – the Newspaper wrote: "There are people who object to the system on which it [the hospital] is conducted, but there never was a more frivolous or remediable objection raised to any public institution." The newspaper argued that the new infirmary had to charge patients one shilling a day to cover its initial expenses. But once it was in a healthy financial position, they expected the hospital to provide treatment for free.
Of the court cases that took place this week, Eden vs. Chesworth was, I think, the most interesting and this is how the St Helens Newspaper described it: "Peter Chesworth pleaded not guilty to assaulting Eliza Eden, and retained Mr. Swift to defend him. Complainant said that she met the defendant accidentally, and he used scandalous language to her.
"His conduct was so offensive and unruly that she declared she would take proceedings against him, whereupon he thought he might as well take the worth of his money beforehand, and he beat her “shameful.” Mr. Swift cross-examined her, or tried to do it, and there was a lively scene while the pair confronted each other, the court deriving abundance of amusement.
"The suggestion that she had some drink at the time put her in high dudgeon. “I am not in the habit of taking drink, Mr. Swift,” she said in a furious tone. A woman named Kerfoot came up as a witness, and gave a version of the affair, repeating all the vile and disgusting language used, with the most impassable face.
"This witness bothered Mr. Swift, and drove him into several rages, so coolly did she take up her ground and push it forward in answer to all his questions. When half-a-dozen witnesses – all women of Park road – had been examined, Mr. Swift made a very serious speech to the bench, putting a number of questions to the magistrates intended to act as stumbling blocks in the way of a conviction.
"He ridiculed the females who sustained the prosecution as unworthy people who came into court with dirty hands; and then called up women from the same neighbourhood, who deposed to some very strong and vulgar language used by complainant to defendant's wife and to the defendant himself, before the latter said anything in return. The case was dismissed."
I've often commented on the many railway accidents in the St Helens district and how it could be dangerous to be a passenger. But being a stationmaster had its risks too. Last week the man in charge of the St Helens Junction station was badly beaten up and this week the stationmaster at St Helens, Charles Ashurst, was in court prosecuting a difficult passenger.
Thomas Hayes had been travelling to Southport on the previous Saturday evening but had kicked up a fuss when asked to pay an extra ninepence for his dog. He was highly abusive to Ashurst and a policeman had to be sent for. The stubborn Hayes refused to give PC Sewell his name and address and so he arrested him, although the constable only achieved it with some difficulty.
In court Hayes claimed that he did not know at the time that Ashurst was the stationmaster and surprised the court by producing a dog ticket that he said he'd bought on that day. The Bench decided not to convict Hayes, but advised him not to "conduct himself so intemperately" in future.
James Hughes had been arrested at the railway station on the same evening as Thomas Hayes. And as it was a Saturday he probably had to spend Sunday and two nights in the police cells until the court opened on the Monday.
His crime was travelling on the railway without a ticket and his excuse was that he had got on the wrong train, having thought it was going to Bolton. That did not explain why he did not have a ticket and, unlike Hayes, he was unable to magically produce one out of thin air. He was fined 2s 6d and costs.
Pony boys down coal mines could be quite rough with the animals in their charge and Henry Molyneux – who appeared to be 15 and from Elephant Lane – was also in court charged with kicking the pony that he was driving. The lad worked at Greengate Colliery and I expect had been given several warnings before court proceedings were taken.
Henry was let off upon payment of court costs but having to come to court would have also cost him a day's pay. That would likely have angered his parents, as boy workers routinely handed their wages to their mother.
The original Running Horses inn was situated at the bottom of Bridge Street in St Helens, by Liverpool Road. This week Thomas Mahoney appeared in the Petty Sessions charged with stealing half-a-dozen plates and a hymn book from the pub. He had been caught red-handed with the stolen items on an upper landing having taken them from a bedroom and he was sent to prison for a month.
And finally on the 27th Charles Rudd appeared in St Helens Petty Sessions charged with trespassing in pursuit of game. PC Clarke had seen him with two companions and a dog on Thomas Warburton's land in Bold carrying a double-barrelled shotgun. Rudd was very well known to St Helens police. His home in Water Street had served as a beerhouse until stripped of its licence in August 1869.
The police had claimed that his house was a brothel and since then he had run it supposedly as a temperance hotel but at one time he had been convicted of selling beer without a licence. Rudd was reported as offering no defence to the prospective poaching charge "except a careless denial" and he was fined £2 and costs.
St Helens Newspaper courtesy St Helens Archive Service at Eccleston Library
Next Week's stories will include the brothers' fight that led to a charge of manslaughter, the cruelty to a Boundary Road goat, the apathy of voters at local elections and the man that brutally beat up his mother-in-law.
This week's many stories include another drowning in the canal, the indifferent interest in supporting St Helens Hospital, the train ticket for a dog that caused a row at St Helens Station, the Park Road squabble that led to a dust up in court and the Water Street brothel keeper who turned to poaching in Bold.
We begin on the evening of the 23rd when the dead body of a woman named Mary Marsh was recovered from St Helens Canal.
My rough estimate of the number of persons that drowned in the deep waterway since it was built is 2-3,000.
Many deaths were by design but most fatalities appeared to be accidental when the person was drunk.
Often no one knew the real cause and the open verdict “Found Drowned” was routinely returned at inquests.
In the case of Mary Marsh she was described as having been "somewhat deranged in intellect" and given to "occasional wandering at unseasonable hours".
The death of the 74-year-old from Smithy Brow (Parr Street area) was thought to have been suicide – but again, nobody really knew.
Recently collections had been made in some churches and workplaces in aid of the St Helens Cottage Hospital (pictured above), which had opened in January in Peasley Cross.
But the results had been mixed and on the 25th the St Helens Newspaper considered the reasons:
"The Hospital was but a new thing, imperfectly understood, and therefore indifferently appreciated.
"The clergy, who might be expected to respond to a call of charity, did not co-operate except in a few instances, some appearing actually unwilling to encourage such an institution.
"Some of the works subscribed well, and others where much was naturally expected contributed very indifferently."
Commenting on those who criticised the hospital – mainly because of its charges imposed on patients or their employers – the Newspaper wrote:
"There are people who object to the system on which it [the hospital] is conducted, but there never was a more frivolous or remediable objection raised to any public institution."
The newspaper argued that the new infirmary had to charge patients one shilling a day to cover its initial expenses.
But once it was in a healthy financial position, they expected the hospital to provide treatment for free.
Of the court cases that took place this week, Eden vs. Chesworth was, I think, the most interesting and this is how the St Helens Newspaper described it:
"Peter Chesworth pleaded not guilty to assaulting Eliza Eden, and retained Mr. Swift to defend him. Complainant said that she met the defendant accidentally, and he used scandalous language to her.
"His conduct was so offensive and unruly that she declared she would take proceedings against him, whereupon he thought he might as well take the worth of his money beforehand, and he beat her “shameful.”
"Mr. Swift cross-examined her, or tried to do it, and there was a lively scene while the pair confronted each other, the court deriving abundance of amusement.
"The suggestion that she had some drink at the time put her in high dudgeon. “I am not in the habit of taking drink, Mr. Swift,” she said in a furious tone.
"A woman named Kerfoot came up as a witness, and gave a version of the affair, repeating all the vile and disgusting language used, with the most impassable face.
"This witness bothered Mr. Swift, and drove him into several rages, so coolly did she take up her ground and push it forward in answer to all his questions.
"When half-a-dozen witnesses – all women of Park road – had been examined, Mr. Swift made a very serious speech to the bench, putting a number of questions to the magistrates intended to act as stumbling blocks in the way of a conviction.
"He ridiculed the females who sustained the prosecution as unworthy people who came into court with dirty hands; and then called up women from the same neighbourhood, who deposed to some very strong and vulgar language used by complainant to defendant's wife and to the defendant himself, before the latter said anything in return. The case was dismissed."
I've often commented on the many railway accidents in the St Helens district and how it could be dangerous to be a passenger.
But being a stationmaster had its risks too. Last week the man in charge of the St Helens Junction station was badly beaten up and this week the stationmaster at St Helens, Charles Ashurst, was in court prosecuting a difficult passenger.
Thomas Hayes had been travelling to Southport on the previous Saturday evening but had kicked up a fuss when asked to pay an extra ninepence for his dog. He was highly abusive to Ashurst and a policeman had to be sent for.
The stubborn Hayes refused to give PC Sewell his name and address and so he arrested him, although the constable only achieved it with some difficulty.
In court Hayes claimed that he did not know at the time that Ashurst was the stationmaster and surprised the court by producing a dog ticket that he said he'd bought on that day.
The Bench decided not to convict Hayes, but advised him not to "conduct himself so intemperately" in future.
James Hughes had been arrested at the railway station on the same evening as Thomas Hayes.
And as it was a Saturday he probably had to spend Sunday and two nights in the police cells until the court opened on the Monday.
His crime was travelling on the railway without a ticket and his excuse was that he had got on the wrong train, having thought it was going to Bolton.
That did not explain why he did not have a ticket and, unlike Hayes, he was unable to magically produce one out of thin air. He was fined 2s 6d and costs.
Pony boys down coal mines could be quite rough with the animals in their charge and Henry Molyneux – who appeared to be 15 and from Elephant Lane – was also in court charged with kicking the pony that he was driving.
The lad worked at Greengate Colliery and I expect had been given several warnings before court proceedings were taken.
Henry was let off upon payment of court costs but having to come to court would have also cost him a day's pay.
That would likely have angered his parents, as boy workers routinely handed their wages to their mother.
The original Running Horses inn was situated at the bottom of Bridge Street in St Helens, by Liverpool Road.
This week Thomas Mahoney appeared in the Petty Sessions charged with stealing half-a-dozen plates and a hymn book from the pub.
He had been caught red-handed with the stolen items on an upper landing having taken them from a bedroom and he was sent to prison for a month.
And finally on the 27th Charles Rudd appeared in St Helens Petty Sessions charged with trespassing in pursuit of game.
PC Clarke had seen him with two companions and a dog on Thomas Warburton's land in Bold carrying a double-barrelled shotgun.
Rudd was very well known to St Helens police. His home in Water Street had served as a beerhouse until stripped of its licence in August 1869.
The police had claimed that his house was a brothel and since then he had run it supposedly as a temperance hotel but at one time he had been convicted of selling beer without a licence.
Rudd was reported as offering no defence to the prospective poaching charge "except a careless denial" and he was fined £2 and costs.
St Helens Newspaper courtesy St Helens Archive Service at Eccleston Library
Next Week's stories will include the brothers' fight that led to a charge of manslaughter, the cruelty to a Boundary Road goat, the apathy of voters at local elections and the man that brutally beat up his mother-in-law.
We begin on the evening of the 23rd when the dead body of a woman named Mary Marsh was recovered from St Helens Canal.
My rough estimate of the number of persons that drowned in the deep waterway since it was built is 2-3,000.
Many deaths were by design but most fatalities appeared to be accidental when the person was drunk.
Often no one knew the real cause and the open verdict “Found Drowned” was routinely returned at inquests.
In the case of Mary Marsh she was described as having been "somewhat deranged in intellect" and given to "occasional wandering at unseasonable hours".
The death of the 74-year-old from Smithy Brow (Parr Street area) was thought to have been suicide – but again, nobody really knew.
But the results had been mixed and on the 25th the St Helens Newspaper considered the reasons:
"The Hospital was but a new thing, imperfectly understood, and therefore indifferently appreciated.
"The clergy, who might be expected to respond to a call of charity, did not co-operate except in a few instances, some appearing actually unwilling to encourage such an institution.
"Some of the works subscribed well, and others where much was naturally expected contributed very indifferently."
Commenting on those who criticised the hospital – mainly because of its charges imposed on patients or their employers – the Newspaper wrote:
"There are people who object to the system on which it [the hospital] is conducted, but there never was a more frivolous or remediable objection raised to any public institution."
The newspaper argued that the new infirmary had to charge patients one shilling a day to cover its initial expenses.
But once it was in a healthy financial position, they expected the hospital to provide treatment for free.
Of the court cases that took place this week, Eden vs. Chesworth was, I think, the most interesting and this is how the St Helens Newspaper described it:
"Peter Chesworth pleaded not guilty to assaulting Eliza Eden, and retained Mr. Swift to defend him. Complainant said that she met the defendant accidentally, and he used scandalous language to her.
"His conduct was so offensive and unruly that she declared she would take proceedings against him, whereupon he thought he might as well take the worth of his money beforehand, and he beat her “shameful.”
"Mr. Swift cross-examined her, or tried to do it, and there was a lively scene while the pair confronted each other, the court deriving abundance of amusement.
"The suggestion that she had some drink at the time put her in high dudgeon. “I am not in the habit of taking drink, Mr. Swift,” she said in a furious tone.
"A woman named Kerfoot came up as a witness, and gave a version of the affair, repeating all the vile and disgusting language used, with the most impassable face.
"This witness bothered Mr. Swift, and drove him into several rages, so coolly did she take up her ground and push it forward in answer to all his questions.
"When half-a-dozen witnesses – all women of Park road – had been examined, Mr. Swift made a very serious speech to the bench, putting a number of questions to the magistrates intended to act as stumbling blocks in the way of a conviction.
"He ridiculed the females who sustained the prosecution as unworthy people who came into court with dirty hands; and then called up women from the same neighbourhood, who deposed to some very strong and vulgar language used by complainant to defendant's wife and to the defendant himself, before the latter said anything in return. The case was dismissed."
I've often commented on the many railway accidents in the St Helens district and how it could be dangerous to be a passenger.
But being a stationmaster had its risks too. Last week the man in charge of the St Helens Junction station was badly beaten up and this week the stationmaster at St Helens, Charles Ashurst, was in court prosecuting a difficult passenger.
Thomas Hayes had been travelling to Southport on the previous Saturday evening but had kicked up a fuss when asked to pay an extra ninepence for his dog. He was highly abusive to Ashurst and a policeman had to be sent for.
The stubborn Hayes refused to give PC Sewell his name and address and so he arrested him, although the constable only achieved it with some difficulty.
In court Hayes claimed that he did not know at the time that Ashurst was the stationmaster and surprised the court by producing a dog ticket that he said he'd bought on that day.
The Bench decided not to convict Hayes, but advised him not to "conduct himself so intemperately" in future.
James Hughes had been arrested at the railway station on the same evening as Thomas Hayes.
And as it was a Saturday he probably had to spend Sunday and two nights in the police cells until the court opened on the Monday.
His crime was travelling on the railway without a ticket and his excuse was that he had got on the wrong train, having thought it was going to Bolton.
That did not explain why he did not have a ticket and, unlike Hayes, he was unable to magically produce one out of thin air. He was fined 2s 6d and costs.
Pony boys down coal mines could be quite rough with the animals in their charge and Henry Molyneux – who appeared to be 15 and from Elephant Lane – was also in court charged with kicking the pony that he was driving.
The lad worked at Greengate Colliery and I expect had been given several warnings before court proceedings were taken.
Henry was let off upon payment of court costs but having to come to court would have also cost him a day's pay.
That would likely have angered his parents, as boy workers routinely handed their wages to their mother.
The original Running Horses inn was situated at the bottom of Bridge Street in St Helens, by Liverpool Road.
This week Thomas Mahoney appeared in the Petty Sessions charged with stealing half-a-dozen plates and a hymn book from the pub.
He had been caught red-handed with the stolen items on an upper landing having taken them from a bedroom and he was sent to prison for a month.
And finally on the 27th Charles Rudd appeared in St Helens Petty Sessions charged with trespassing in pursuit of game.
PC Clarke had seen him with two companions and a dog on Thomas Warburton's land in Bold carrying a double-barrelled shotgun.
Rudd was very well known to St Helens police. His home in Water Street had served as a beerhouse until stripped of its licence in August 1869.
The police had claimed that his house was a brothel and since then he had run it supposedly as a temperance hotel but at one time he had been convicted of selling beer without a licence.
Rudd was reported as offering no defence to the prospective poaching charge "except a careless denial" and he was fined £2 and costs.
St Helens Newspaper courtesy St Helens Archive Service at Eccleston Library
Next Week's stories will include the brothers' fight that led to a charge of manslaughter, the cruelty to a Boundary Road goat, the apathy of voters at local elections and the man that brutally beat up his mother-in-law.