George Parker was a fifty-four year old miner who worked at the Kiveton Park mine in 1902. Living with him was a housekeeper, Louisa Holmes aged thirty-eight and the couple had lived together quite amicably for the past nine years. However around November of 1900 George’s thirty-year old son Walter also came to live with them and that’s when the problems began. They lived in a cottage which was situated in part of the Waleswood parish known as Pigeon Bridge situated on the Rotherham to Mansfield Road. The couple had lived in the cottage for the previous eight or nine years, yet despite the fact that they were both married to other people, to all intents and purposes were generally regarded as husband and wife.

However it could not be said that the couple lived happily together as many quarrels and arguments were heard by neighbours, but these seemed to get much more violent after Walter moved in. At one time it was said that Louisa returned back to her discarded legal husband, claiming that George had ‘thrashed’ her. Nevertheless, prior to that day they were described as being a very hard working couple. George was said to being steady in his habits when sober and Louise was described as being clean and homely. However it appears that after Walter moved in, that jealousy of some imagined relationship between Walter and Louisa had haunted George’s thoughts.

On the last Sunday in June it was the Wales Feast, when George attacked Louisa with a poker and blacked both her eyes. Throughout the attack he was screaming out that he ‘would finish her.’ Finally on 9 July George moved out of the cottage and found lodgings in Worksop, leaving Louisa and Walter alone. However on 15 July he returned and George showed Louisa a pocket knife he had bought for his son. They were all drinking rather heavily, so that night George stayed over at the house, Louisa sleeping downstairs on the sofa and father and son sharing a bed upstairs. Around 4.30 am George left his son in bed saying that he was going to walk back to Worksop.

However another argument quickly developed in the kitchen when George told Louisa that he was going to leave, stating that ‘I suppose that Walter is going to stay with you.’ Louisa told him that ‘so long as he behaved himself, it did not matter to her.’ But when she turned to start to prepare some breakfast, that was when Louisa was attacked by George with the same penknife. He stabbed her four times in her back. Meanwhile upstairs, Walter, who had fallen back to sleep when his father left the bedroom, was awakened sharply by the sound of Louisa screaming. Dashing into the kitchen, he found his father stabbing at her arms and hands as she tried to protect herself.

George then went and picked up an old revolver, as Louisa opened the kitchen and ran outside. It was around 5.30 am when she was heard to be screaming for help at the top of her voice, as she ran down the road outside the cottage. Neighbours who looked out, described Louisa as being covered in blood and almost hysterical, as her cries aroused people from their sleep. Thankfully, several of them dashed outside to see what they could do. One neighbour, a man called William Green quickly took the hysterical woman inside his own cottage and a doctor and the police were called to the house. Police Constable Graham quickly attended and Dr Saunders of Aston was sent for.

Meanwhile George had taken possession of an old pistol and had tried to shoot himself, but the weapon was old and faulty and it simply burst when he pulled the trigger. All he succeeded in doing therefore was to injure the back part of his head. George then tried to cut his own throat with the penknife and was found in that condition by Dr Saunders when he arrived. He ordered the pair to be immediately sent to Sheffield Hospital and the Kiveton Park Colliery ambulance was called. Thankfully both injured parties slowly recovered, although George was unable to appear before the Rotherham magistrates at the West Riding Court until Monday 22 September 1902.

It was noted that he was still in a very weak condition, having just been discharged from the hospital that morning. The case was prosecuted by Mr Aizlewood, who gave details of the attempted murder to the court, where the prisoner was undefended. The first witness was Mr John Broadley of the Sheffield Royal Infirmary and he told the bench that on 16 July, around 10.30 am the prisoner was brought in. At some time between one and two o’clock, Louisa too arrived. He listed that she had ten wounds, four on the back of the left shoulder blade, which were clean cuts and went down to the bone. The rest were on her hands as she had desperately tried to protect herself.

Mr Aizlewood was shown the pocket knife and agreed that it was probably the weapon which inflicted the wounds. He then described George’s wound primarily as a gunshot wound to the head, just above and behind the right ear. The second wound was in his throat, and that was about four inches long. Thankfully it had missed the windpipe and the main artery. Louisa gave evidence about the attack made on her by the prisoner, before Walter was asked if he had anything to say. He confirmed Louisa’s account, before a neighbour, Frank Barker described hearing Louisa scream outside and how he had gone to fetch Constable Graham. He told the magistrates that as he and the constable returned they found George lying on the sofa.

He had a wound in his throat and a bloodstained clasp knife lay on the floor. He also saw a pistol which had burst and there was blood everywhere. PC Graham described arriving at the cottage and how he had taken possession of the blood stained knife and the burst pistol. He told the magistrates that he had charged the prisoner that morning with the attempted murder of Louisa Holmes. George was asked if he had anything to say in his own defence, but he made no reply. He was then committed for trial at the next Leeds Assizes. He was brought before judge, Mr Justice Channell on Friday 5 December 1902. After hearing all the evidence, George Parker was sentenced to ten years imprisonment for the attempted murder of Louisa Holmes.

To emphasise her skills, forty-four year old Mrs Hughes told Elizabeth Ann Wistow that she had been a midwife for the last twenty-three years, so she was very experienced. The pregnant mother, lived with her father Samuel on Coleridge Road, Sheffield, and was overjoyed therefore on 17 January 1896 when she gave birth to a healthy child. However her joy did not last, as just four days later Elizabeth Wistow herself died. An inquest was arranged to be held at the Coach and Horses Hotel in Attercliffe, Sheffield on Wednesday 22 January. Right from the beginning, it was quickly established that enquiries had been made which revealed that the midwife Elizabeth Hughes had ignored some crucial medical advice.

The coroner, Mr D Wightman told the inquest that she had ‘acted contrary to advice given to her by Dr Harvey Littlejohn, the Medical Officer of Health for Sheffield.’ Therefore at that point he had no option but to allow more enquiries to be made, so the inquest was adjourned until Friday 31 January 1896. When it was resumed, a local solicitor, Mr Albert Howe attended the enquiry on behalf of the midwife. Surgeon Mr D Pettigrew gave evidence that he had been called in to see the deceased on the night before her death. Mrs Wistow had a very high temperature and was obviously in a dying condition. After her death he signed the certificate stating that the death was due to puerperal fever.

When Mr Howe asked the surgeon about the state of the house on Coleridge Road, he had to admit that ‘the house was anything but satisfactory’ in his opinion. He agreed with Dr Howe that such conditions might have contributed to the deceased woman’s death. However, when the coroner asked Mr Pettigrew about another death, that of a Mrs Sarah Jane Lunn of Belmore Road, Attercliffe, he had to admit that she too had been attended to by Mrs Hughes. He added that she also died on 13 January. Another surgeon, Mr W Kerr Smith told the inquest that he had made a post mortem examination on Elizabeth Ann Wistow and found she had indeed died from puerperal fever.

He stated that two different women dying of the same thing clearly amounted to gross culpable neglect on the midwife’s behalf. The next witness was Dr Littlejohn and he stated that he had heard about the death of Mrs Lunn on 14 January and had appointed another inspector to investigate the case. He also requested Mrs Hughes to call on him and the midwife did so 15 January. She expressed sorrow on hearing about the death of Mrs Lunn. Dr Littlejohn informed Mrs Hughes that she was to be very careful about her own hygiene and instructed her on disinfecting herself and her clothing before attending to any other expectant mothers. In fact he warned her not to attend any more midwifery cases for the next three weeks, at the same time admitting that he had no power to make her obey his instructions.

Mrs Hughes appeared to accept his advice, but he also said that if any more mothers were to die at her hands, he would be writing to the coroner about the matter. One of the jury asked him if the condition of the house had any effect on the fever, but Dr Littlejohn just shook his head. He replied categorically that in his opinion the midwife appeared to him to have been the most probable person to have carried the puerperal fever to the deceased women. Then it was time for Elizabeth Hughes to speak for herself. She gave the opinion that she felt that Mrs Lunn had died, not from puerperal fever but from inflammation of the lungs.

However she admitted that she had seen the Medical Officer of Health on 15 January, although claiming that she had not heard him instruct her not to attend any more midwifery cases for three weeks. Then it was time for the coroner to sum up the case for the jury. Mr Wightman told them that Mrs Hughes was a very experienced midwife. Therefore she should have known that there was a risk in attending any other pregnant woman after any death from puerperal fever. The coroner stated that whether or not the midwife heard Dr Littlejohn instructing her not to attend any more births or not, should have no impact on the jury’s verdict. As a result they were absent for some time before bringing in a verdict of manslaughter against Elizabeth Hughes.

Immediately, Detective Officer Masterman took the midwife into custody and she was then remanded until the following Monday. Accordingly on Monday 10 February 1896, the midwife was brought before the stipendiary magistrate Mr E Welby at the City Police Court where she pleaded not guilty. However she was simply remanded for a week. The following Monday, the 17 February 1896 she was brought once more before the Sheffield magistrates, once again charged with manslaughter. Mr R Fairburn appeared for the prosecution and he told the court that it was alleged that the prisoner ‘on account of her own negligence, resulted in the contagion of puerperal fever being communicated to the patient who died.’

Mr Fairburn again described the advice given to the prisoner by Dr Littlejohn, which she had obviously ignored. The Medical Officer of Health for Sheffield himself was the next witness and the surgeon repeated his advice to Elizabeth Hughes not to attend any more cases for three weeks. However he told the jury that she attended the next childbirth case in less than a fortnight. The same witnesses gave the same evidence before the midwife was committed to take her trial at the next Assizes. Accordingly Mrs Elizabeth Hughes was brought before judge, Mr Justice Collins at the West Riding Assizes on Monday 16 March 1896.

Charged with manslaughter, she was defended by Mr C Mellor and the prosecution was undertaken by Mr Harold Thomas. He immediately opened the case by stating that in any indictment for manslaughter there needed to be a clear intention of motive. He reminded the court that the accused had been a practising midwife for twenty-three years and would therefore not be ignorant of how to deal with cases of puerperal fever. He said that any person who undertook to cure another, whether a medical practitioner or midwife must have a certain knowledge about diseases and what their effects were. So whether she heard Dr Littlejohn or not, she ought not to have put herself in a position where she might infect another woman.

When it was time for Dr Pettigrew to repeat his advice to the prisoner to wait at least three week, he was questioned by the defence. Mr Mellor asked him what other causes of puerperal fever might cause a woman’s death. The surgeon listed infection, dirt from insanitary condition and sewage gas etc. Dr Harvey Littlejohn was the next witness and he repeated the evidence given previously. He stated that he had fixed the time limit of three weeks, as he was well aware that being a midwife was Mrs Hughes calling. He said that if there had been another case of a mother treated by Mrs Hughes dying from puerperal fever, he would have fixed the time at two months.

However questioned by Mr Mellor, the Medical Officer of Health admitted that he saw no signs of puerperal fever in the post mortem. This was confirmed by another doctor, who had been also present at the post mortem. In the prisoners defence Mr Mellor claimed that the death of Mrs Wistow was due to ‘misadventure, rather then culpable negligence.’ He added that it was state of affairs which nobody regretted more than the accused midwife. He emphasised how she had earned and enjoyed the confidence of all of the women in her care. After her discussion with Dr Littlejohn, she had disinfected herself and her clothes most carefully, yet sadly Mrs Wistow still died.

Mr Mellor agreed that death was due to puerperal fever, but he told the jury that they had two issues to consider. They had to decide firstly whether the prisoner took the infection to the place of birth and secondly whether she took it recklessly and with culpable criminal carelessness. The prisoners defence concluded that ‘if ever there was a case in which a jury should exonerate a woman, this was the case.’ His Lordship in summing up, told the jury that they should be completely satisfied that the prisoner caused the death of Mrs Wistow. Assuming that they were satisfied of that, they must also be satisfied that it was a case of culpable negligence.

Thankfully after her long ordeal, the jury, after only a short consultation between themselves found Elizabeth Hughes not guilty and she was immediately discharged.

On 15 February 1888 a thirty-two year old man called Thomas Bywater found himself to be a pauper inmate at the Rotherham Workhouse. He remained there until Monday 28 February when he took his discharge from that institution and went to Mrs Curtis’s lodging house on Westgate. He could not afford a room, but he asked Mrs Curtis if he could sit by the fire until the following morning when he was going to Hoyland. Mrs Curtis kindly agreed and Bywater settled himself in for the night. The following day however, instead of Hoyland he went to Tinsley. The landlady at the Tinsley Hotel, Mrs Johnson noticed that he arrived around 7.30 am and that he was already drunk.

Despite the early time of day, he and another man were served with four penny glasses of rum and several pints of beer by landlord, Mr Joseph Johnson. He noted that all the money tendered had been in copper coins. In chatting to the landlords daughter, Bywater told her that he had come into some money and he showed her around £6 in gold which he casually pulled out of his trousers pockets. When she made a remark about it being unsafe to be carrying such a large amount, she suggested that her mother, could keep it safe for him. Consequently he handed over £8.1s to Mrs Johnson. After having some refreshment, Bywater then left the Hotel and headed for Carbrook, Sheffield.

However he never reached his destination, because he fell over a wall in his semi-drunken state and sustained a bad injury to his head. Thankfully he was quickly found and transported to the Rotherham Hospital. Whilst he was in bed being treated for his rather serious injury, on 30 February he sent a letter to the landlord at the Tinsley Hotel which read:

‘Mr Johnson,
Having had an accident just after leaving your house on Tuesday, if my memory serves me right, I left a small sum of money with your wife. If you would forward the money here to me at the Rotherham Hospital, you would greatly oblige me.
Yours truly
Thomas Bywater.’

Making enquiries, it did not take long for local police officers to connect the burglary at the workhouse, with a recent inmate who seems to have come into some money. Bywater was brought before the Rotherham magistrates at the Rotherham Police Court on Tuesday 6 March 1888 charged with having burglariously stolen the sum of around £10 from the workhouse masters office. The prosecution was Mr Barrass, who pointed out that the prisoner had been destitute when he entered the workhouse, although by the time he went to Tinsley, he obviously had some money in his possession.

Bywater was remanded until Thursday 8 March 1888 in order for the police to continue with their enquiries. The prisoner was described as having no fixed abode as he was charged with the burglary. When the magistrates reconvened, the master, Mr Walton was the first to give evidence and stated that he was aware that his office window had a faulty catch on it. However he was more sure that his office door had been locked at the time of the break in. The witness also stated that implements for the crime had been left inside. Besides the chisel, there was a poker on the desk and a shovel on the floor. The master then told the court that he had been shown two old boots by the police.

He identified them as those supplied by the workhouse to the prisoner. Mr Walton stated that he had compared one of the boots with some marks found under the office window and they were identical. However Bywater was condemned by the masters own final statement. He told the bench that the prisoner had been paid at the masters office and therefore was quite familiar with where the cash box had been kept. Then it was time for Bywater to defend himself. He said that despite the fact that paupers were regularly searched on arrival at the Rotherham workhouse, many of them managed to secrete money about their persons.

When one of the magistrates pooh poohed this statement, Bywater said that it was common practice at the time. He bragged that he had managed to secrete nine pounds in his belongings and knew of one inmate who had secreted twenty pounds upon entry. Barmaid Miss Johnson gave evidence that when the prisoner was in the tap room of the Tinsley Hotel, he kept pulling cash from his pockets and showing it to the men gathered around him. She told how, when a glass got broken in the room, the prisoner admitted that he had broken it, and again pulled out money to pay for it. Miss Johnson said that before he left he gave her mother the £8.1s.10d to keep for him.

Police Inspector Barham was the next to give evidence and he stated that he had been called to the workhouse after the robbery and found marks on the brickwork as if the thief had climbed up the wall. He had compared these with the prisoners boots and found that they matched. The Inspector stated that on the 9 March he had gone to the Rotherham Hospital and found the prisoner in bed. When he charged him, Bywater simply asked ‘what me!’ However staff reported that the patient had suffered a serious head injury and was too ill to be arrested. Accordingly, it was not until Monday 15 March before he was well enough to be taken into custody.

Needless to say that when Thomas Bywater finally made it to court, he was found guilty and sent to take his trial at the Quarter Sessions at Wakefield. However, his luck still held as before he could appear at the Sessions he was found to be suffering from small-pox. Thankfully he soon recovered and finally appeared at the West Riding Sessions held at Wakefield on Tuesday 3 April 1888 charged with the burglary at Rotherham Workhouse. After hearing all the evidence, the prisoner was quickly found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment for six months at the Wakefield House of Correction.

In December of 1855 a thirty-five year old man called Charles Sjoguist had a little upstairs workshop attached to the house and shop belonging to local jeweller and watchmaker, Isaac Guttman. These premises were situated on the High Street, Sheffield. However the ‘shop’ consisted of just one workroom in which Charles would clean and repair watches for his landlord and other customers. In order to save money, Mr Guttmann also allowed his assistant called Tudor Redlich to sleep in the same workshop during the night. It was most convenient for Charles who would lock up the workshop at night and leave the key downstairs with his landlord.

Every night Charles would lock all the clocks and watches he was working on in a cupboard in the workshop, an arrangement which suited all concerned. Nevertheless, on the morning of Thursday 28 December everything changed. As usual, Charles collected his keys before going upstairs to his workshop, but within seconds he returned downstairs breathing heavily. He told Mr Guttmann that during the night, the cupboard in his workshop had been broken into and that between thirty to forty watches amounting to around £200 had been stolen. Mr Guttmann advised him to call in the police and Charles ran all the way to the Town Hall in order to report the robbery.

He told one of the officers that there had been around twenty watches left in the cupboard overnight. A police officer went to his workshop, but it was not long before suspicion was raised that the jeweller had robbed himself of the watches entrusted to him for repair. This suspicions was mainly due to the fact that the cupboard was still locked, nor were there any signs that the lock had been forced open. The local police obviously jumped to the conclusion that the jeweller had indeed robbed himself and was charged and brought into custody.

Consequently on Friday 29 December Charles Sjoguist was brought before the Sheffield Magistrates Court charged with robbing his own place of business. However the prisoner was remanded to the following Thursday in order for the police to continue their investigations. Thankfully, by that time the watchmaker had acquired a defence solicitor, Mr Turner. Mr Broadbent prosecuted the case and told the court that police enquiries had clearly established the prisoners guilt. He stated that the Superintendent of police, Mr Raynor had found several local pawnbrokers, where seven or eight of the stolen watches had been pledged by the prisoner himself.

One gold watch was produced in the courtroom which had been identified by its original owner, a Mr Jacobs of Fargate, Sheffield. He stated that he had taken the watch to the workshop for repair around three months previously. However when shown the watch he stated that a gold chain with three gold seals had been attached when he left the watch for repair. These were now missing. But this is where it got tricky. Mr Broadbent stated triumphantly that the prisoner, by removing the chain from the watch itself, had now compounded his own theft. By doing so it had rendered the case to be one of larceny rather than illegal pawning.

The only prosecution witness was a young man called Jacob Jacobs, whose sister was the owner of the watch. He told the court that he assisted his father in his own jeweller’s shop in Fargate. He said that Charles Sjoguist had cleaned and mended watches for them for many years for their business. Jacobs said that on Thursday morning 28 December, he heard that the shop on the High Street had been robbed and he went to enquire about his sisters watch. The prisoner admitted that he had been robbed and that her watch had been taken with all the rest. When it was time for the defence, Mr Turner to make out his clients case, he pointed out that his workshop premises were in a very unique position.

They were situated above the shop of jeweller, Mr Guttmann. Mr Turner stated that consequently anyone entering the building would have access to the jewellers workshop simply by walking up the stairs. The next witness was a man called Henry Chapman whose evidence damned the prisoner’s fate. He told the bench that his father had a pawnbrokers business in Sheffield. Crucially, he identified the same watch as one which the prisoner himself had pledged on 3 November 1855, using the name of Anderson. The pawnbrokers assistant declared that he had given him £2 for the watch even though there were no chain or seals attached to it.

At that point, some legal discussions took place between the bench, the defence and the prosecution. Mr Broadbent admitted that there was a slight technical legal hitch to the proceedings against the prisoner for felony as regards many of the watches. He said that the statute books stated that when goods of any description were entrusted to an outworker, and he sold or disposed of them, he could not be charged with larceny, only be sued for damages for breach of trust. Therefore the watches, being voluntarily entrusted to him to repair, came within this category. However the only exception to this rule was the gold watch which had been produced at the first court appearance belonging to Mr Jacobs.

In that case, Mr Broadbent said that the law states that when a person sold part of the property entrusted to him to repair, that constituted a felony. The prosecution, Mr Broadbent told the court that he needed to take legal advice on this matter, so it was agreed that the prisoner would be remanded until the following Wednesday in order to clarify this legal conundrum. Accordingly on Wednesday 2 January the case was resumed. During that time period police officers had been busy visiting various pawn shops in Sheffield. They were accompanied by Jacob Jacobs who admitted that at the time of the so-called robbery, the prisoner was in possession of three gold watches and a silver one from his father to repair.

Jacobs said that his sister’s name had been engraved on the watch and identified the watch produced in court. He said that it had been on the Saturday night, the day after the prisoner’s first appearance in court that he found and identified the missing watch at the pawnshop belonging to Mr Chapman on Westbar. He indicated his sister’s name which had been engraved inside. However, more legal arguments took place before the magistrates clerk advised Mr Phillips the magistrate that a sufficient case had been made out to send the prisoner for trial. After further discussion the watchmaker was simply remanded again until the following day’

Even then however, the case was not clarified and following yet more legal arguments, it was finally decided to proceed with the charge of illegally pawning a watch. At the end of a very difficult and challenging investigation Charles Sjoguist was found guilty. He was therefore ordered to pay the cost of the watch (£3) and a fine of £8 or to go to prison for three months, which was accordingly paid. I often wonder what happened to the prisoner after the case had ended and he’s paid the fine. Incidents like this would have ruined the watchmakers career and his reputation in the town. Did he leave and go elsewhere? I would love to know!

We tend to think nowadays that drinking and driving is a modern phenomena, but in actuality it has been around for centuries. One of the most amusing cases I found, actually took place at Anston in 1877 when two eminent and most respectable of men were found in a drunken heap on the road on Tuesday 21 August. The curate of Anston, the Rev. Armand de Bordieux and a medical officer of the Rotherham Workhouse, Dr Charles Gowan were brought before the Rotherham Police Court the following day charged with being drunk. The magistrates decided to enquire into the cases of the two men as separate individuals and the first case was that of the surgeon, Dr Charles Gowan.

Police Constable Finlayson stated that he had received some information that two men had been seen lying in the road, having been thrown out of their trap. The incident had happened on the road between Wickersley and Morthern Lodge. He went immediately to the area and found the two men still lying on the ground and the trap on its side next to them. PC Finlayson asked Dr Gowan, who was bleeding from the head, if he was much hurt, but he told him that he wasn’t. He asked the same question to Rev. de Bordieux, who didn’t answer, but instead began a drunken sermon to the surrounding crowd. PC Finlayson said that eventually he put both men into his own trap and took them to Dr Gowan’s house and surgery at Anston.

Another witness was a stone mason called George Taylor who stated that the pony and trap had passed him a few minutes before the accident and the doctor had been driving. He estimated it to have been going at a speed of around fifteen minutes an hour. when suddenly the trap went over onto its side. The witness described them both as ‘both rolling around in the trap’ and obviously very drunk. Toll house keeper Mr George Beaumont also saw the two gentlemen pass the bar at Wickersley at ‘a furious rate. He said they did not stop as they should have done to pay the toll, but drove straight through. He got into his own trap to follow the speeding cart and that’s when he saw it overturn just ahead of him.

However the first witness for the defence was Mr Garrard a surgeon of Rotherham put forward a different alternative. He had attended Mr Gowan after the accident and said that previously the man had consulted him about his headaches. After the accident, he found that Mr Gowan was suffering from concussion of the brain. Mr Garrard told the court that the symptoms were very similar to inebriation and were often mistaken for that condition, as the main symptoms were slurring of the speech and vomiting. Another witness was a man called Joseph Birley said that instead of driving along the road, the trap had kept swaying from side to side, throwing up stones and gravel.

Another workhouse medical officer, Dr Hardwicke stated that the two men had been with him at his house for some hours before the accident. They had left around 2.15 pm when he swore that they were both ‘steady’ in their demeanour. Another witness to their sobriety was another Rotherham surgeon, Mr Pearce. He stated that the two gentlemen had called on him around three o’clock and had remained with him for an hour. He too stated that both men had been perfectly sober when they got into the trap to leave. The case of the curate of Anston Mr Armand de Bordieux was then looked into. He was also charged with being drunk at the same time and place.

PC Finlayson stated that when called to the scene he found the Reverend gentleman on his knees and about 50 or 60 people gathered around hooting at the pair. However the curate took no notice and continued with his sermon. When PC Finlayson finally put both men into his own trap to remove them from the scene, Rev. de Bordieux tried to jump out of the moving vehicle. Thankfully the constable managed to restrain him and ended up tying his hand to some metalwork at the back of the trap. Thankfully he then dropped both men off at Dr Gowan’s house. At this point a magistrate asked both men if they had anything to say in their defence and Dr Gowan stood up.

He told told the court that on the morning in question around 11 am he left South Anston. As previously arranged he collected Rev de Bordieux at his lodgings at North Anston and they went for a drive together. They headed towards Rotherham and after visiting some patients they arrived at the town around 11.30 am. They had a glass of brandy at the Crown Inn before going to Dr Hardwicke’s for lunch. He said that whilst there Rev. de Bordieux had two glasses of ale and one glass of wine. He claimed that he had only one glass of wine during lunch, before getting back into the trap and driving back towards South Anston. He blamed the accident on the horse that he was driving, saying that it was a vicious one which shied at the slightest thing.

An unnamed ostler employed at the Crown Hotel confirmed that the horse they had been driving was indeed a vicious one. The stableman said he had taken the trap outside so that both gentlemen could drive to Dr Hardwicke’s house and he too noted that both men were sober as Dr Gowan settled up his bill with him. Postman, Edward Pawson said that when he came up to the trap after the accident that Dr Gowan appeared to be insensible and his head was bleeding. The witness claimed that Rev. de Bordieux seemed to be ‘quite overcome’ at his friends condition, but he did not seem to be drunk. He also confirmed that Dr Gowan’s horse was an unruly one and that after the accident that he had ridden it that morning.

He stated that it would take a sober man to be able to control the beast at all. Cross examined by Mr Badger however, he would not confirm that Rev de Bordeaux was completely sober when he first saw him. The surgeon who had treated Dr Gowan said that he told the police officer at the scene that the reverend gentleman appeared to be slightly drunk. After hearing all the evidence the Rotherham magistrates discussed the matter between themselves. After some time they announced that ‘given the conflicting evidence placed before them that morning, that both charges would be dismissed.’ It would be interesting to compare this case with others of a similar nature. I would suggest that the two men were let off so lightly due simply to their status in the town.

In a trial held at Nottingham Assizes on Wednesday 18 July 1906 a forty-seven year old housekeeper of Bulwell, called Sarah Wardle was brought before the judge. It seems that the scandal caused by the distribution of diachylon pills in Sheffield was now spreading to other counties. Sarah Wardle was indicted on four occasions of selling diachylon pills to women ‘for an unlawful purpose’. More concerning was the fact that at the same Assizes, a second woman, twenty-six year old Hilda Atkins was also charged on the same count. Both women’s defence was that because the pills were not scheduled as a poison, they had no idea that the substance in the pills contained lead.

After hearing all the evidence, His Lordship summed up for the jury. He told them that they had to decide whether or not the pills were sold in order that they would bring on an abortion. Wardle was found to be guilty and was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment with hard labour. However no evidence was offered against Atkins and she was discharged. Nevertheless, back in Sheffield things were hotting up as once again as more and more local women were accused of selling diachylon pills. In the afternoon of Wednesday 3 October 1906, two Sheffield magistrates heard three such cases, including a charge against a certified midwife, fifty year old Sarah Elizabeth Carford.

She proudly told the bench that she had given birth to twenty one children and had been a practising midwife for the past twenty five years. The witness claimed that a married woman called Barbara Davies had visited her on 2 April 1906 and told her that she was pregnant again and could not afford another baby. She begged the midwife for help. Carford reluctantly admitted that she had sold her the pills and told her how to use them. Dr Scurfield, the Medical Officer of Health for Sheffield stated that at that time, there were still a great many women in the city of Sheffield that were suffering through the extensive use of diachylon pills.

The same prisoner also admitted giving the same pills to two other local women named Mary Anne Bagshawe and Eliza Anne Somerset. The prosecution on behalf of Sheffield Council, a Mr H. Lang Coath readily admitted that the two named women had purposely been sent to the house of the midwife in order to procure these pills. He stated that upon their return, the city analyst, Mr George Scott Smith had been given the box containing 14 diachylon pills to examine. Mr Scott Smith appeared as the next witness and he told the bench that the box of pills had been obtained from the midwife, Sarah Carford. He found that each contained lead.

He stated that any woman taking two of these pills, one at night and one in a morning would most certainly give rise to lead poisoning. He added ominously that it would also definitely procure an abortion in any pregnant woman. The surgeon admitted that he himself had witnessed the deaths of Sheffield women through the taking of this poison. Another local surgeon, Dr Carter gave evidence that in one case, the woman concerned had been told to take four diachylon pills a day, which obviously acted as a virulent metallic poison from which she died. His evidence was backed up by Dr Arthur Hall and both women were committed to take their trial at the next Sheffield Quarter Sessions.

Accordingly Sarah Elizabeth Carford appeared at the sessions on Tuesday 23 October 1906 where the prosecution Mr T Ellison condemned the habit of supplying such drugs. He told the court that ‘the proceedings had been brought with the object of checking the pernicious habit of supplying drugs of this kind. He pointed out that the practise was only too prevalent in the city of Sheffield at that time.’ He too admitted that Barbara Davies and Mary Anne Bagshawe had been engaged by the Chief Lady Sanitary Inspector of Sheffield. Her purpose was to uncover the sale of the pills in Sheffield.

The defence Mr Waddy condemned the practise of employing women to ‘act as spies’ who would then go on to influence another woman to commit a crime. Nevertheless the jury found Carford guilty before hearing a similar case of Mary Ellen Styring. She too had admitted selling diachylon pills to two women, a Mrs Davies and a Mrs Mary Ellen Fletcher. An unnamed assistant at the shop of J T Dobbs and Co., a pharmacist of Sheffield was the next to give evidence. He told the court that he had been supplying Mrs Styring with packets of diachylon for the past four years. The assistant admitted that he had sold her a pound and a half of the substance, just in the last three or four weeks alone.

However, the previous April he had refused to sell her any more once he established that she was making pills out of it. Mrs Styring told the court that for years her family had been involved in making up diachylon pills for people. She said that her uncle and then her aunt had made the pills which later bore her name. The witness stated that she had followed the same prescription and had called them ‘Nurse Oakley’s Female Corrective Pills’ which she supplied to the two women in May. However she was found not guilty and discharged. But if the Sheffield legal authorities hoped that she would be the last woman to deal in this obnoxious practise, they were wrong. The following day a forty-three year old woman called Polly West was brought before the bench.

She claimed that she had bought the diachylon pills from a man who sold tapes and cottons door to door. He had told her she was quite safe to sell them, as he had got the recipe from a doctor. Once again the two women Davies and Fletcher to whom she had sold the pills gave evidence. They told the court that when handed the pills she had told them to ‘keep it quiet, as they are not registered by the Government, and I’m not allowed to sell them.’ Once again the City Analyst gave evidence that the pills had each contained diachylon. After hearing from witnesses Polly West was found guilty and sentenced to prison for twelve months with hard labour.

It was reported that the prisoner seemed to be most surprised at being sentenced. The Recorder at this point reduced the sentence to six months as he believed that the prisoner truly thought that the pills were not dangerous. However nationally, the question about the diachylon pills would not go away. The subject of why the pills were not just listed as a poison was once more was raised in the House of Commons by the Home Secretary Mr Gladstone. He asked Mr Samuel Roberts the M.P. for Ecclesall why this had not happened. He was told that to have the substance declared a poison ‘would entail great inconvenience’ without going into any detail. Mr Roberts concluded therefore that heavy sentencing at the Assizes for women found selling the pills, would serve as a deterrent.

However this hope was doomed to failure, as the sale of diachylon continued to be reported. The following year on 7 August 1907 a case was found in Mexborough. The coroner Mr D Wightman held an inquest into the death of Matilda Crummack, a married women of Swinton who had died in the Mexborough Montague Hospital a few days previously. Following her death, a post mortem had been held and lead poisoning had been found. However, at the time the inquest was adjourned until Wednesday 7 August 1907 when Dr Ram, who had treated the deceased woman returned from his holiday. Despite the delay, Dr Ram was unable to state where the poisonous pills had come from.

Police Sergeant Matthews had also made enquiries, which had also drawn a similar blank. As a result the coroner was forced to conclude that he could throw no further light on the case. However he added that he only hoped that publicity around the diachylon pills would stop the practise of supplying them altogether. But if it was to be hoped that would bring and end to Rotherham and Sheffield’s terrible scandal, people were in for a great disappointment. Just a few days later another inquest on a woman called Mary Robotham who lived in Wadsley Bridge Sheffield was held.

The inquest was conducted by the coroner at Wadsley Asylum where the deceased woman had recently been admitted. After her death the Asylum surgeon, Dr William Vincent told the jury that he had conducted a post mortem where, once again lead poisoning was the cause. He reported that Mary Rowbotham had been admitted to the Asylum hospital in a feeble and exhausted state. However it was clear from the contents of her stomach that she had been taking the poison for some time before her death. Needless to say the verdict was that she had died as a result of lead poisoning.

Thankfully that was where the scandal around the distribution of diachylon pills fizzled out in Sheffield, although they continued to be reported in other parts of the country. It seems that Mr Samuel Roberts M.P. for Sheffield’s prediction that heavy sentencing would form a deterrent to Sheffield midwives, was enough to put an end to this terrible plague of deaths.

During the early years of the twentieth century birth control pills were non existent, so when local women heard of a pill which aborted a foetus, chemists were bombarded with requests for it. The matter was brought to light at an inquest held at the Sheffield Public Mortuary on Friday 23 March 1906 on the body of a young married woman called Maria Russell. She was just twenty years of age and lived at Norton, Sheffield. Also in attendance was Dr Arthur Hall (who was later knighted by Queen Victoria) and was one of the most influential members of Sheffield Medical School. He was well known in the town through his efforts to try to stop the sale of pills containing diachlyon.

It had been at first thought that Maria had died supposedly from shock from a tram car collision she had been involved in prior to her death. However when the family physician, Dr Gale undertook the post mortem, he found that death was due to what he presumed was lead poisoning. The chief evidence was there right in front of his eyes, indicated by the presence of blue lines on the woman’s gums. Curiously, he noted that the poison had been taken in large quantities for some time before her death. Questioned by the coroner, Mr D Wightman the surgeon admitted that the diachlyon pills containing lead were sometimes taken by young women and were generally sold by quack doctors.

The jury brought in a verdict that ‘the deceased woman had died from the effects of lead poisoning, but as to how or why it was administered there was no evidence to show.’ The jury also requested the coroner to forward a copy of the verdict to the Home Office, to which he agreed. However the fame of the substance was spreading. Just a week later, Mr Wightman was asked to hold another inquest on 31 March 1906 on yet another twenty year old married woman of Rotherham called Mrs Beatrice Newcomb. She had died the day before from exactly the same symptoms as Maria Russell. It seems that Beatrice had been married for two years and already had two children, so she did not wish to have any more.

She lived with her husband at Conisborough and since moving to Sheffield, often went back to visit her mother at Thrybergh. Mrs Julia Allen, Beatrice’s mother was asked questions about the pills which had been found in the girl’s bedroom, by one of the servants. When the coroner asked Mrs Allen where the pill had come from, she denied all knowledge of them. She said that she had never seen her daughter take any pills whatsoever. However, the deceased woman’s husband next gave his account and he stated that he was aware that Beatrice had some pills labelled as ‘Nurse Oaklands Female Pills’ which he had seen her take.

Dr J Mason of Darnall, Sheffield told the coroner that he had undertaken a post mortem on the deceased and found that she too had died from lead poisoning. He stated that no medical man would proscribe any kind of pills made with diachlyon, however he admitted that he was aware of the rumours of their use in procuring abortions. The surgeon stated that he had learned that lead pills were frequently taken by women to prevent conception or to procure abortions. He admitted that he had looked after the deceased woman for five days before her death. Continuing with his evidence, Dr Mason stated that in his own practice in Darnall, he had been called to many cases in which women suffered and died from taking this poison.

A servant of Mrs Julia Allen was the first witness and she introduced herself to the inquest and said that her name was Lily Ricketts. She said that Beatrice had stayed at her mothers house at Thrybergh, near Rotherham some time ago and they had both slept in the same bed. During that visit Lily had witnessed the deceased woman making up some pills to her own recipe, which included diachylon and aloes. When Beatrice told her the purpose of the pills, she told her that she kept them in a box, away from her mothers knowledge. However another servant, Mrs Hannah Clarke told the inquest that the truth was that the previous witness had given Beatrice the recipe for the pills in exchange for a guinea.

Lily Ricketts was re-called but she denied having done so, blaming Hannah Clarke instead. After hearing from the two domestic servants, the jury brought back a verdict that ‘death was due to lead poisoning, caused by diachlyon pills, administered by the deceased for a specific purpose.’ The coroner, Mr Wightman demanded that the substance should to be put on the poisons list. He explained that in such a manner, the pills would have to be entered in chemist’s Poison Register and the names of both purchaser and seller would have to be noted down. A few days later, the events in Sheffield had caused such a scandal that the British Medical Association was forced to step in.

A letter signed by Mr J Smith the Medical Secretary to the BMA writing from the Strand, London gave a statement which was printed in several local newspapers. The letter roundly condemned ‘the evil which has been found to be prevalent in your district.’ The letter, was published over several days following Wednesday 4 April 1906 and warned:

‘The attention of the British Medical Association has been drawn to the danger incurred through the use of diachlyon in pills or otherwise. The Council feels that the public should be made aware that ingesting this substance has resulted frequently in paralysis, blindness, insanity and death.’

In Parliament, a question on the subject was even asked by the Home Secretary, Mr Gladstone by Mr Samuel Roberts, the Member of Parliament for the Eccleshall Division of Sheffield. He said that following two deaths in Sheffield, there was a developing increasing in the use of these pills among many local women. He admitted however that many of these woman were ignorant of the properties of the drug. Mr Gladstone declared that ‘to schedule diachylon as a poison would not mitigate the evil complained of.’

However that was not the end of the matter. Suddenly it was found that the scandal of the pills was not just confined to Sheffield….

(To read about the second part of Sheffield’s diachlyon problem, check out this space on Wednesday 19 November 2025)

At around 5.15pm on the evening of Thursday 27 December 1888, Sergeant Hepworth of the Rotherham Police Force was called out to a house by some neighbours. They were concerned as they could hear children crying inside, although they knew that their mother had gone out drinking. The house was on Oil Mill Fold, a notoriously squalid courtyard off Westgate. The sergeant asked Police Sergeant Warrington to accompany him and the two officers found the door to the house was unlocked. As they entered they detected a really bad smell which emanated from a table where a foul, stinking blanket lay. Lying on top of the blanket was on was a naked male child aged around six months.

Going upstairs they found a second female twin in a cot with dirty sheets and noted that the only clothes the child was wearing was a dirty chemise. Both children looked starved and emaciated and seemed to have their bones protruding through their flesh. Neighbours soon informed the two officers that the children’s mother was a woman called Catherine Hazel, although she now called herself McHugh as she was now living with a man of that name. They said that she would be found drinking at the nearby Wellington Hotel on Westgate. Accordingly, Sergeant Hepworth went immediately to the public house and brought the negligent mother back to the house. It was evident that she was in an advanced state of inebriation.

Sergeant Hepworth immediately asked Sergeant Warrington to inform the Chief Constable of Rotherham and to his surprise, Captain Burnett arrived a few moment later. He had come himself to see the state of the house and the children. The chief constable indicated to the drunken woman an old dirty pillow which had lay under the little boy’s head. He said that it looked as if the pillow and the child had been laying there for over a week. Catherine did not reply or indicate any shock or remorse at the state of her little son. Now angry, Captain Burnett instructed her to bring down her daughter from the bedroom, but the woman was so drunk she could not remember which bedroom the little girl was in.

Even though it was by now eleven thirty pm, both children were immediately removed to the Rotherham Workhouse in a cab accompanied by the police surgeon Dr Cobban. Their removal had been delayed because he had refused to remove them in their dirty bed linen. Instead the surgeon had sent for clean sheets from the workhouse, in which to wrap the twins in, ready for their removal. Once at the workhouse, they were both weighed by the workhouse master. He found the girl weighed only 9lbs and the boy 8lbs. Instead of the 15lbs to 16lbs they should both weigh at that age. Dr Cobban also found that the twins were both suffering from bronchitis

Needless to say Catherine Hazel was arrested and brought in front of the magistrates the following day. She was charged with ‘unlawfully and wilfully neglecting to provide adequate food, lodgings or clothing and medical aid for her two infant children.’ Described as ‘a middle aged woman’ the prisoner was placed in the dock from where she pleaded guilty to the charge. She was prosecuted by Mr Neal on behalf of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children who outlined the case for the bench. He warned the magistrates however that this case was ‘as bad as it could possibly be, worse than any brought previously before the court’. The prisoner told the court that the children had been born on 14 July 1888 and were five and a half months old.

Mr Neal pointed out that that the prisoner had lived in a house, but that was hardly deserving of such a name. He said that she had got into the habit of begging children’s clothing from charitable persons in the town, which she then promptly pawned in order to buy drink. In searching the house where the children had lived, twenty nine pawn tickets had been found, all of them for children’s clothing. Mr Neal emphasised that such dealings led to the prisoner being in a constant state of drunkenness and that was the reason why the children had been neglected. Dr Cobban told the court that he had undertaken a post mortem on the children and stated categorically that:

‘Both children were in an emaciated state, however he had found no organic disease or wasting state to account for the lack of weight. The children were therefore in emaciated condition purely from neglect and want of food.

He told the court that ‘they were in a state of danger to their lives when I ordered their removal and I suspected that at least one would not recover.’

He showed the bench bottles which had been removed from the house which were ordinary pint beer bottles, each having a teat of sorts attached in order to feed the children. Dr Cobban stated that these bottles had been washed since coming from the house, as previously one had contained black sediment about two inches thick in the bottom. He said that the mixture smelt so bad that ‘it was enough to knock a person over.’ When he called the prisoners attention to the state of the children’s feeding bottles, she said that she would clean them. Catherine had also claimed that the children had been provided with plenty of fresh milk, although it was clear that few attending court would have believed this statement.

However then the reason for the neglect became very clear. The prisoner admitted to a horrified courtroom that the children had both been insured with the London, Edinburgh and Glasgow Insurance Company. Mr Neal said that he had found the insurance documents in the house and from which he deduced that the lives of the children would be worth around 30s each. When it was time for the prisoner to defend herself, she claimed that both the children had been suffering from ‘thrush’ which the medical officer soon discounted. Next, she said that the reason the children had no clothes on, was because she had been washing that day. However there were no signs that any washing had being done.

Dr Cobban also reminded the court that she had to be fetched from the public house and was drunk when he saw her. Police Sergeant Hepworth said that he knew the family and knew that McHugh allowed her on average around 18s a week to keep herself and the children. He said that she spent this money on alcohol and was accustomed to drinking every day. Charles Edwin Parkin the Nuisance Inspector reported that the prisoner had lived in the same house for about thirty years. He went onto described the filthy condition of the building, which he rendered as being unfit for human habitation. He informed the court that since the woman’s arrest, the landlord had ordered bedding to be burned, every room scoured, whitewashed and cleaned.

Police Sergeant Hepworth was recalled and he told the court that the prisoner was not married, but although she had adopted the name of McHugh, as the couple had been together for ten years. The Bench considered what to do with the prisoner, but they could do no more than sentence Catherine Hazel to four months imprisonment. The Mayor added that they regretted that they could do nothing as regard to the system of Infant Life Insurances ‘which was becoming a perfect pest.’

In January of 1893, a man called George Holmes was a travelling photographer who went to lodge at the house kept by Mr William Shales, his wife and family on Attercliffe Common, Sheffield. Shales had two daughters living with him, sixteen year old Isabella and thirteen year old Eliza. Some time later, on 6 March, William Shales returned home from his job as a picture framer to find his wife in tears. It seems that she had just found out that Holmes had had improper relations with Isabella, whilst living under their roof. It seems that the lodger had asked her daughter several times to run off with him, promising that if she did, he would ‘make a lady of her.’

Needless to say, when he heard this, Shales banished Holmes from the house, hoping that was the end of the matter. However, he soon found out that it wasn’t. On 3 April Isabella disappeared from the house, although most of her clothing was left behind. Only later did it become apparent that the forty-one year old former lodger had also gone missing. Despite the disparity in their ages it was obvious that the pair had run off together. A massive police search was instituted and on Monday 17 April, the North Shields police were informed that a couple answering the description of the two missing persons from Sheffield had been found.

A detachment of officers were sent to a local lodging house and the pair were taken into custody. It was quite clear that the couple had been living together as man and wife. The following day Holmes was arrested, charged with abduction and brought back to Sheffield and Isabella was returned back to her parents care. The following day the prisoner was brought before the Sheffield magistrates at the City Police Court. Mr Shales was the first to give evidence and he claimed that he had heard that the photographer had also assaulted his younger daughter before abducting her older sister. He stated that as being the reason he had banned him from the house.

Holmes angrily denied the charge, instead claiming that Shales had wanted him to go into business with him and when he refused had banished him from the house. Then it was Isabella’s turn to give her evidence. She told the bench that about a week after Holmes was sent away from her parents lodging house, she received a letter from him asking her to visit him at a house on Dunlop Street, Sheffield. There she met the prisoner again and once more Holmes had asked her to go away with him. When she objected because she had no clothes with her, he bought her a hat, a pair of gold earnings and a petticoat.

Isabella said that at first when the prisoner had asked her to go away with him, she had refused, telling him she was too young. However on 3 April they met at Tinsley station and walked along the canal until they got to Masbrough Station in Rotherham. In the end, worn down by his persuasions, Isabella agreed and he bought two tickets to Wakefield and then they went to Hemsworth, where they found lodgings together. Soon afterwards, the pair went to South Shields where they again took lodgings together. Isabella told the court that when she agreed, he bought her a dress and a new fur coat. He also presented her with a wedding ring and told her that they would get married.

The prosecution. Mr W E Clegg asked her if, at this time, she was well aware that Holmes was a married man, to which she agreed that she had known it. However when the prosecution asked her whether or not she had asked the prisoner to take her away, Isabella hotly denied this. Again Mr Clegg argued that she had told the prisoner that if he didn’t take her away that she ‘would jump in the water’ and that was the reason for the abduction. The next witness was a man called George Highfield who had premises on Dunlop Street, Sheffield. He said that he had known the prisoner for twenty years or more and was well aware that he was already married.

The witness admitted that it was him who had in fact informed William Shales of the matter. The next to give evidence was a woman called Charlotte Godfrey who introduced herself as the prisoners eldest daughter. She told the court that her father had not lived with her mother for the past thirteen years. Nevertheless when they heard that he was having relations with a young girl called Isabella, they came to Sheffield in order to warn her. The witness described going to the house on Attercliffe Common on 6 March and telling both William Shales and Isabelle that the prisoner was married.

It was some time after this when and she and her mother heard that the couple had already gone away together. After hearing the evidence, the prisoner was found guilty of abduction and sent to take his trial at the next Leeds Assizes. Consequently, George Holmes was brought before the judge, Mr Justice Gamsford Bruce on Friday 12 May 1893. When Isabella gave her evidence, she stated that Holmes was very aware that she was just sixteen years of age. The prisoners defence, Mr Middleton, told the jury that his client had every reason to believe that Isabella was over 18 years of age. In his summing up His Lordship said that:

‘It is very important that young children should be protected from acts of such a character. It is therefore the imperative duty of those who administered the law to punish with great severity the men who commit such offences.’

He then sentenced George Holmes to 15 months imprisonment with hard labour for the abduction of a girl below the age of 18

Towards the end of 1892 Masbrough Street, Rotherham was full of dubious courtyards containing closely squashed, poorly built houses. Overcrowding was rife and so anyone who had a spare room available would generally take in lodgers to maximise their weekly income. Such a woman was

widow Mrs Ann Wood who lived at number ten, Square Yard, Masbrough Street. This small house contained herself, her son Albert aged nineteen and provided lodgings for a seventy-two year old rat catcher called James Middleton. On Monday 31 October, Albert returned back home from his work at Messrs Harrison and Camm’s waggon works. His mother asked him what he wanted to eat and he thought for a minute before asking her for some ‘hasty pudding.’

This was a thick oatmeal porridge which was sweetened with treacle. So Ann smiled as she prepared it for him and mother and son enjoyed their meal together. Afterwards there was some left, so when the lodger James arrived back some time later, Ann watered it down into a gruel and served him the same. However the rat catcher couldn’t finish it. In fact he was just half way through when he lay down his spoon and complained that it tasted bitter. A few hours later all three people were vomiting and extremely ill and a local surgeon, Dr Alex Murray was summoned to the house. He immediately diagnosed poison and came to the conclusion that somehow the oatmeal had been to blame.

It had been bought for the family by the rat catcher about two weeks previously and had remained in the cupboard since that time. Ann Wood remembered how her lodger had pulled it out of his jacket pocket to give it to her. Then crucially, she also remembered that in his trade he often carried arsenic around in the same pocket. The rat catcher was so ill by this time that he was taken a couple of doors away to where his married sister, a Mrs Lockwood lived. She had arranged to look after her brother. Shortly before 3 am young Albert Wood died and the Rotherham Police were notified. Police Sergeant Powell went to the house and after hearing what had transpired, he searched James’s pockets.

In one of the them he found a bottle containing arsenic, which James used to kill rats. The officer also took possession of the large pan in which the porridge had been made, as well as the plates and basin which had contained the remains. Much later around 9.45 am, James Middleton also died at his sisters house. Both deceased men had demonstrated signs of being in complete agony just before their deaths. Therefore Police Sergeant Powell had both bodies removed to the Rotherham Mortuary and the Coroner for the district, Mr D Wightman was notified. Needless to say the matter soon became the talk of the neighbourhood, as both men were very well known around Masborough.

Albert had been a member of the Rotherham Volunteers and was due to be married shortly, and James was well known because of his trade. Thankfully, by this time Ann’s condition was reported as ‘improving’ although she was rightly devastated at the death of her only son. The inquest on the two men therefore was held at the Phoenix Hotel, Rotherham on Wednesday 2 November 1892. Dr Murray told the Coroner, Mr D Wightman that thankfully by this time it was thought that Ann would soon make a full recovery. He described for the jury how he had been called to the house on Monday evening and saw the deceased man, James vomiting near the back door. Inside the house was James Middleton lying on the sofa, also vomiting.

After the two deaths, the surgeon stated that he had completed the post mortem and externally saw no signs of violence. However, with the use of simple tests it was confirmed that the contents of the bottle found in the rat catchers pocket did contain arsenic. Mr Wightman, in his summing up, told the jury that as far as he could tell there was no suspicion of the poison being mixed with the food ‘with any felonious intent.’ He told them that the best proof of that was the fact that James Middleton ate some of the oatmeal himself. It therefore looked as though it was a case of neglect or thoughtlessness on the rat catchers part. Police surgeon, Dr Cobban told the inquest that he had attended the post mortem with Dr Murray and confirmed his conclusions.

He told the inquest that he had known James Middleton personally and was well aware that he often carried poison with him in his pockets. He also stated that although Ann Wood was still very poorly, he had high hopes of her full recovery. After hearing all the evidence the jury went out to consider their verdict. They eventually returned and passed a verdict that:

‘On the said November 1, the deceased James Middleton and the deceased Albert Wood both died from poisoning by arsenic. It had been inadvertently administered in food and without any felonious intention by any person or persons whatsoever.’

On Sunday 6 November 1892 the remains of Albert Wood were interred in the Kimberworth Cemetery with full military honours provided by his colleagues in the Rotherham Volunteer detachment. Major Hirst led the men in playing ‘the Dead March’ as the young man’s body was lowered into the ground. Thankfully it was also reported that his mother Ann was well on her way to recovery, although her private thoughts on losing her only son in this tragic manner were not described.