Mrs Jane Smith was aged 35 when she was taken into custody on Tuesday 24 October, charged with wilfully murdering the newly born female child of her daughter Sarah Annie on 1 September 1893. The child had been illegitimate and its body had been recovered from the canal by a collier’s dog on Monday 23 October. An inquest was held on the remains on Wednesday 25 October by Coroner Mr D Wightman. The jury was empanelled and after viewing the remains of the child, they returned back to the inquest room. Police Sergeant Lyttle told the coroner that it was known that the child had been illegitimate and that its mother was a resident of Swinton.

The body had been found two days earlier by a collier called George Reader who had been walking with his dog at the side of the canal. He had been throwing stones into the water for the dog, when it brought out a parcel wrapped in rags. Reader opened the parcel and to his horror found the de-composing body of a child. It was immediately handed over to Police Constable Shuttleworth, who in turn handed the remains over to Swinton surgeon Mr W Craik, in order for him to complete a post mortem. The surgeon told the inquest that he had done so and estimated that the body had been in the water for more than a month.

Needless to say, the decomposition was in such an advanced state, that he had been unable to pinpoint the cause of death. However, he gave his opinion that the child had led a separate existence from the mother [it had taken a breath independently after birth] but had not lived for more than 24 hours. Major Hammond, the superintendent of police asked for a remand for the prisoner to the following Monday. Mr Wightman asked him what was known about the child and Police Sergeant Lyttle told him that the child was suspected of being the illegitimate child of a woman at Swinton.

He then stated that an unnamed witness, who he intended to call, had gone to the house as requested by Jane Smith. He had seen the dead body of the child on the bedroom floor and had been asked to dispose of the remains, but had refused. She told him that the child had just cried once before she drowned it in a bucket of cold water. A short time afterwards, the officer related that this same person saw the prisoner Smith walking through Swinton with a covered basket. She indicated the basket saying that she was going to ‘throw it in the canal.’ At that time police enquiries were still continuing so the jury returned an ‘open’ verdict in order that further enquiries could continue to be made.

The child’s grandmother Jane Smith had been arrested on 24 October, so needless to say the courtroom was crowded to excess when she was brought before the magistrates at the West Riding Police Court on Friday 27 October 1893. She was charged with the wilful murder of a newly born illegitimate female child of her daughters on 1 September. Police Sergeant Lyttle described how he had made enquiries at Swinton and quickly established a rumour that a local woman had recently given birth. Major Hammond said that when charged, Jane Smith’s response had been that she ‘did nothing of the sort’.

On Monday 30 October the prisoner was brought before the magistrates again. Prosecution Mr Hickmott outlined the case and said that ‘on or about the 1 September last, Jane Smith did feloniously did kill and murder a certain illegitimate child of Sarah Annie Smith, her daughter.’ The first witness was a man called George Townsend, a miner of Swinton who said that he knew both the prisoner and her husband. He said that he had met Jane in Swinton on 1 September and she asked him to undertake a little job for her. The prisoner had then took him up to the bedroom of the cottage and showed him the child’s body, which was lying on the floor. Jane had asked him to get rid of it, but he witness told the court that he ‘wanted nothing to do with it.’

The court was silent as he spoke his next words. He said that Jane had told him that the child was her daughter’s and when it was born, she had drowned it. When the witness said this, Jane Smith interrupted and said ‘do you say I took you upstairs’ when Townsend answered in the affirmative, she told him ‘you are a false man. You never were in our house that day.’ The prisoner was about to ask more questions of the witness, when acting on the advise of the magistrates she desisted.

Continuing with his evidence, Townsend said that he later saw her later carrying the basket in Bridge Street, Swinton and that’s when she told him that she intended throwing ‘it’ into the canal.

She later told him that she had done so by placing the infant into a pillowcase and weighted it down with stones. Jane also described how it had sunk to the bottom near the Midland railway bridge.

Townsend was then asked why he had not reported the conversation to the police, but the man simply prevaricated and did not answer. The magistrate Mr Wright told him if he had reported it at the time, medical evidence could have shown exactly how the baby had died. Because the body was not recovered for another few weeks, that vital evidence had been destroyed. The case was then adjourned.

At the next case hearing Townsend again repeated his former evidence, but added that after the coroners inquest when the open verdict was given, he had bumped into the prisoner again at Swinton. She threatened him ‘I hope you have not split on me’ warning him that he must keep his mouth shut. Since then he had seen her several times and each time she had warned him again. After hearing this witnesses evidence, the case was adjourned yet again for another fortnight. When the court reconvened on Monday 14 November, Mr Hickmott stated that he had sent the details of the case to the Treasury [the forerunners of the Crown Prosecution Service.] They had instructed him to place the case in front of the magistrates in order to send the prisoner for trial at the Assizes.

Witness, George Townend once again gave the same evidence as he had previously. When describing seeing the ‘dead bairn’ on the floor of the bedroom, Mr Hickmott asked him if Sarah Annie had told him who the father was. He said that she had told him it was a man called Harry Deighton. The prosecution then asked him if anyone else knew about the birth of the child and he said that Jane had said that only herself, her daughter and the witness knew about it. At this Jane had again called him a liar and said that when she met him carrying the basket, she only had her husbands supper in it. At this Townend challenged her ‘you said when you came out of the yard that you were going to make away with it, meaning the baby.

Again the prisoner accused him of ‘being a false man.’ William Henry Taylor, a grocer and beer seller of Bridge Street, Swinton was the next to give evidence. He stated that Townsend had been helping him remove barrels of beer into the cellar around 2.30 pm on 1 September. Whilst the men were working, he saw the prisoner and she shouted out to Townsend and he went over to her. They exchanged some words, which he could not hear, before he went back and carried on working. Later the same day he saw him speak to the prisoner again. There was a rustle of interest in the court room when the next witnesses’ name was called out, it was the putative father Harry Deighton himself.

He told the court that he lived at William Street, Swinton and admitted that he had been keeping company with Sarah Annie Smith. However he had ceased doing so the previous July. Shortly after that she told him she was pregnant, but she would not say if he was the father or not. He had met her several times since then and she had been most abusive to him and told him he ‘ought to drown himself.’ However he could not confirm that the child was his. A midwife also called Sarah Smith admitted that she had attended the girl at the birth. PC Shuttleworth confirmed receiving the body of the child from Reader on 23 October and he said that he had handed it to Mr W Craik surgeon.

On 26 October he apprehended the prisoner on a warrant. He said that when charged with murdering the child, Jane had replied that she ‘did nothing of the sort’. The prisoner was then asked if she had anything to say but just replied ‘Townsend is a false man’. She was then formally charged and sent to take her trial at the next Assizes. Jane Smith was brought before the Yorkshire Autumn Assizes on Thursday 7 December 1893 in front of the judge Mr Justice Vaughan Williams. The prosecution opened the proceedings by outlining the case for the Grand Jury. The same witnesses gave evidence, but the prisoners defence Mr T Wright challenged George Townsend’s story.

Under cross examination the witness admitted that he had been ‘thick’ [intimate] with the prisoner and that there had been grounds for her husbands jealousy of him. He added that plenty of people in Swinton were well aware of the relationship and admitted that Mr Smith had threatened him and had even attacked him for it. Mr Wright asked the judge if he felt that there was a case to answer and pointed out that for the case to be murder it was necessary to prove that the child had a separate existence from the mother. He said that in this case, because of decomposition such evidence was missing.

In his summing up of the case, Mr Justice Vaughan Williams agreed. Consequently, the jury were only away a short while before they returned a verdict that the prisoner was not guilty of murder. However they found her guilty of the minor charge of concealment of birth. The judge then dismissed Jane Smith, leaving the sentencing to the following day. Accordingly on Friday 8 December 1892 the prisoner was brought before Mr Justice Williams once more. He told her:

‘Jane Smith, the jury found you guilty of the minor charge of concealment of birth. Whether you actually took part in the disposition of the body or not, I do not know, but it is quite clear that you were a party to it.’

He then sentenced her to six months imprisonment with hard labour.

It all started on Sunday 14 February 1904 when a forty-nine year old man called John James was found dead, lying across a hearthrug at his rented home. Doctors were called to the house where they found several other people in a very poorly condition. They had all been ill since the previous Friday and were in a very sad state. Consequently those exhibiting such symptoms were removed to the Royal Infirmary, whilst the body of James was taken to the Sheffield Mortuary. Those removed were identified as being Georgina Parry and her fourteen year old daughter Ethel May, who had both lived in the same house for the past two years.

A next door neighbour forty-seven year old John Smith had also been affected and he too was taken to the Infirmary. They all complained that they had started feeling ill on the Friday with an attack of dizziness, followed by fainting, excessive vomiting and finally losing consciousness altogether. It seems that Mrs Parry had a neighbour called Mrs Hopewell, who had gone to call on her on the Friday night. The two women had been chatting when suddenly Georgina stood up and clutched at the kitchen table. She told her neighbour that she felt ‘funny.’ Mrs Hopewell gently guided her to the sofa and urged her friend to lie down for a minute, which she did.

However, she no sooner lay down than she started vomiting. Her daughter, Ethel was sent to buy some whiskey and brandy from the local shop in order to try to settle Georgina’s stomach. Later, around 10 pm, Ethel herself started to have the very same symptoms. The next day being Saturday, neighbours again went to the house to find out how the pair had fared during the night. Georgina said she had slept on the sofa, whilst Ethel had managed to go upstairs to bed. John James at that point seemed to be in his usual health, although he admitted to having a hangover from going out drinking alcohol the night before.

Local surgeon Dr Byrne was called out on Saturday but he was unable to give an opinion as to the cause. Both mother and daughter had complained of feeling very muddled and confused and were still complaining of pains in their heads. Dr Byrne was at a loss to explain their symptoms and simply prescribed warmth and nourishment. The lodger John James was very concerned about Georgina and little Ethel and he and the neighbour John Smith decided to stay up all night and check on the pair occasionally. Later that day Georgina’s married daughter, Florence also went to attend to her mother and sister

She arrived at the house and had not been inside long, when Florence too began to feel strange. She complained about hearing a strange noise in her ears before she too fell down unconscious. The following day around 8 am, yet another neighbour called Mrs Summers went to the house. There she found Smith sitting upright in a chair foaming from the mouth. James was also there lying on the hearthrug, but he was clearly already quite dead. When news of this sudden tragedy began to circulate, Inspector Hebb of the Sheffield police was sent to the house to investigate, but he too could not detect fumes of any kind.

He and a sergeant searched the house from top to bottom, but there was no suggestion of anything poisonous, either by foul air or gas to be found. Both men spent some time especially in the kitchen where most of the attacks had taken place, but thankfully neither suffered any ill effects whatsoever. However the Inspector noted that the air in the kitchen seemed very bad, but still confirmed that there was no smell of gas. He discussed the case with Dr Hargit who had sent the sufferers to the Infirmary. He stated that he had also examined the people at the house for signs of any narcotics by checking the pupils of their eyes but found none of the usual symptoms were present.

An inquest on the body of John James was arranged for Wednesday 17 February 1904 to be held at the Sheffield Mortuary by the Deputy Coroner, Mr Kenyon Parker. Neighbour Mrs Mary Ann Chapman told the jury that on Saturday, James came into her house and asked her to come and stay the night with Georgina and her daughter who were all ill. However the witness mentioned that his own manner was very strange indeed and as he talked, he threw his arms around and exclaimed that he was ‘going mad.’ She finally persuaded James to lie down and he did so on the hearthrug in front of the fire.

Another neighbour, Mary Summers confirmed her account when she too went to the house in the early hours of Sunday morning and saw James on the floor. However, by this time Mrs Chapman too was foaming at the mouth. The witness said that around 3.30 am she took the afflicted neighbour back to her own house, although she had vomited on the way home. Georgina’s married daughter, Florence told the inquest that at 9 am she had gone to her mothers house where she found John James still on the floor, but he was quite dead. She stated that whilst she was at the house she had to keep going to the door for fresh air.

She described it as being ‘no smell but the air of the house was stifling, especially in the kitchen’. Whilst the inquest was ongoing however, it was not the Inspector or the surgeons who finally came up with the conclusion to this puzzling case. Instead it was a suggestion which had been put forward earlier that same day by the Sheffield Daily Telegraph dated Wednesday 17 February 1904. The report indicated that James’ house abuts on the end wall of the Star Steel Works which contain Siemans steel furnaces. The premises had been empty until the previous Thursday, the day before Georgina and her daughter were taken ill.

They had since been taken over by another firm and it had been supposed that when the furnaces were re-lit, that the stale gas would be set in motion and carbonic oxide was formed. This might have caused the illnesses which had also affected a house fronting onto Attercliffe Road occupied by a family named Baxter. It was suggested that when the furnaces were in full production there was no danger from carbonic oxide as it usually escapes up the chimney. However the theory suggested that unused gas in the chimney had caused the outbreak.

Accordingly, after hearing from all the witnesses, the inquest jury came to the conclusion that both the death of John James and the other persons illnesses came from this carbon monoxide gas. It was suggested that it may have come into the house via the cellars from the brickworks of the underground flues of the steelworks next door. The Sheffield Medical Officer of Health, Dr Scurfield confirmed this giving his opinion that the brickworks might have contracted through being out of action for so long, before being started up again, leaving open joints.

Dr Scurfield said that he had communicated with the Siemens Company and they reported that the furnaces were indeed started up again on Thursday 11 February after being idle for some months. Georgina and her daughter became ill the next day. The surgeon concluded that the house was now to be left empty, although he said it was to be rented by the steelworks next door. It was hoped that after six months to erect a concrete wall to a depth below the foundations of the house, in order to prevent such an occurrence happening again.

On 9 March 1889, two officers, Police Constables Gurney and Southern had been on duty in Westgate, Rotherham. It was around ten minutes before midnight and they had been standing on Oil Mill Fold opposite a lodging house which was run by a woman called Mrs Curtis. Southern poked his colleague in the ribs before pointing out a drunken man, who was so inebriated that he could barely stand. The two officers knew he was a lodger of Mrs Curtis, a man called John Evans, who had lived in Derby although he since had come to Rotherham when he got a job working as a puddler.

On the day in question he had been drinking since around 4 pm, so by the time the two officers saw him, he was visibly not sober. Southern challenged his colleague to ‘lift him’ in other words to arrest the drunken man. However what happened afterwards was a matter of great dispute, although the outcome was that Evans received injuries which, for some time afterwards, resulted in his life being despaired of. As a result, his dying deposition was taken by a Justice of the Peace. It was widely believed that no person in a dying condition would lie, shortly before meeting his Maker. So such depositions were taken very seriously by the legal authorities.

John Evans had not been in Rotherham long and had lived at Mrs Curtis’s lodging house for just a week before the incident had happened. It was later established that his drunken condition had resulted in him not seeing his attacker, although he remembered being thrown to the ground and being kicked savagely on the lower part of his body. All he could remember afterwards was that the man concerned had a dark beard. Consequently, he knew nothing until the next day when he woke up and found his bed full of blood. Only much later did a passing tramp tell him that ‘he had been kicked by a bobby’.

However, it was some days later before the matter was brought to the attention of the Chief Constable of Rotherham himself, Captain Burnett. He immediately went to the workhouse hospital and spoke to Evans. As a result of their conversation, the Police Surgeon, Alfred Robinson was called to examine the injured man. Consequently, Police Constable James Gurney was charged with ‘occasioning actual bodily harm on 9 March to John Evans.’ It seems that the enquiry had caused the officer to be dismissed as he was now being described as ‘an ex-police officer.’ Nevertheless the incident had caused such a stir in the town, that the courtroom was packed with people anxious to see the result.

Accordingly, when Gurney appeared before the magistrates, he was described as being smart and disciplined officer, sporting a dark beard. The case was prosecuted by Mr Hickmott on behalf of the Rotherham Watch Committee. He told the court that the deceased, Evans had been leading and somewhat roving life and that on the night in question he was indeed considerably the worse for liquor. The next witness was police surgeon, Alfred Robinson who told the court that he had first seen John Evans on Wednesday 20 March at the workhouse hospital. He said the man had some serious bruising and was suffering from a haemorrhage in the stomach where had been kicked.

The surgeon said that the bruise was a large one and was approximately the size of a man’s hand. His injuries were so severe that it was assumed that he would die and accordingly his deposition had been taken. When asked why he hadn’t sought medical attention earlier, Evans had no answer to give. The prosecution admitted that there had been no witnesses as to what had actually happened and then told the court that Constable Southern was unable to attend that day as he had gone down with a case of measles. When it was time for John Evans to give his testimony, he said that after the attack he was in the workhouse hospital on Wednesday 24 April when he was approached by a man he did not know.

The man asked him if, during the attack he had recognised his attacker and Evans stated that he did not know him. The man who, he said was sporting a dark beard, told him that he had seen the incident and that his attacker had a much darker beard than he had himself and had a much rougher voice. Then to Evans surprise the man told him that if he would say as much to the legal authorities when questioned that he would ‘make him a present when the trial was over.’ Another police officer, Police Constable Boler was the next to give evidence. He stated that around 3.30 am on 9 March he had met Constable Gurney at the police station who told him that ‘he had kicked a man.’

However that officer told him that he could not lock him up, as he had been on private property at the time. Also later they had discussed the condition of the man in the workhouse hospital, although Gurney again denied that it was the man that he had kicked. Nevertheless he also told his colleague ‘for Gods sake don’t say anything about it.’ Captain Burnett was the next witness and he stated that after hearing what had happened on 9 March, he had sent for the two officers concerned, who again denied any knowledge of the man who was at that time lying injured in the workhouse hospital.

Three days later Gurney stated that he did remember seeing the drunken man on that night, but knew nothing of him being kicked. After hearing this evidence, the case was adjourned until 13 May in order that principal witnesses could give their evidence. Captain Burnett stated that on March 22 he and a Justice of the Peace, Alderman Wragg had taken John Evan’s deposition. There he stated that ‘he was unable to describe his attacker and could not describe whether he had a beard or not.’ After hearing all the evidence James Gurney was committed for trial at the Yorkshire Spring Assizes where he appeared on Tuesday 21 May 1889.

However the Grand Jury returned a no bill against the former police officer and he was discharged. However if he hoped that the whole sorry affair was over James Gurney was soon to be disabused of this notion. This time it was the victim John Evans who had brought him into court, claiming £50 damages for his injuries. When Gurney was giving evidence, he stated he would not be able to find the costs in the case. He admitted that since losing his job, he could not find money for food, let alone this action.’ After a short consultation the jury found took pity on the ex-officer and he was discharged.

Although he was now retired, ex-Police Sergeant James Maxwell had been a most well known figure as, after he retired, he was employed as a ticket taker at the Alexander Opera House in Sheffield. There he was a regular sight, often greeting old comrades who patronised the Opera House. When PC Meggitt recognised him, he called out his name, but there was no response from the lifeless figure. That officer could see that Maxwell had been viciously attacked, resulting in a severe cut above his right eye. Blowing his whistle, Meggitt soon attracted the help of another officer, Police Constable Newton.

Together the two men managed to get him back to his home on Westbar Green, Sheffield, where he lived with his daughter and her husband Thomas Dooley. There Maxwell was laid out on his bed whilst his daughter tried to clean his injuries, and Dooley went to fetch surgeon, Dr Booth of Paradise Square. That surgeon tried hard to save the elderly man, but from the start he held out no hope that he would survive. Nevertheless Maxwell was made of sterner stuff and he lingered for another four days before finally succumbing to his injuries. The motive for the attack was plain to see, as every pocket had been turned inside out and missing was his knife and his spectacles.

Maxwell had lived in Sheffield for most of his life and had been employed in the police force for more than twenty-eight years. Twenty of those years had been as a sergeant, but about four years previously he felt he was getting too old and infirm to continue. Accordingly, at the time of his death he was in receipt of a pension from the Police Superannuation Fund. Maxwell died on Thursday 1 December 1870 and it seems that the last time he had been seen was on the Sunday evening when he had visited an old chum, Charles Thompson. He was the landlord of the Acorn public house in Shalesmoor, which Maxwell left around 10 pm.

The ex-sergeant then went to the Greyhound in Gibraltar Street and had another drink there, only leaving at 11 pm when the landlord called time. It seems that he was not intoxicated, and seemed fit enough to make his own way home, until he was found by PC Meggitt. The Sheffield Daily Telegraph dated Friday 2 December summed up the shock of local people on hearing the news of this popular man’s demise. The reporter stated that:

‘It is rather suspected that the outrage had been committed by some of the many night prowlers who had been attracted to Sheffield on account of it being the Fair Week. Whoever they are, it is to be hoped their sins will find them out, but as yet, no clue has been obtained.’

An inquest on the deceased man was held later the same day at the White Lion in Queen Street, Sheffield by Coroner, Mr. J. Webster Esq. However he said that police enquiries were still incomplete and so just evidence of identification would be heard that day. The coroner told the jury that the post mortem had revealed that Sergeant Maxwells injuries could not have been received from a fall, so it seems that he had died from the head wound above his eye. His son-in-law Thomas Dooley identified the remains before the inquest was adjourned for a fortnight.

Meanwhile Sergeant Maxwells funeral took place on Sunday 4 December at the Roman Catholic Cemetery at Rivelin, before a large crowd of mourners. A procession was formed in which there were many existing and superannuated members of the Sheffield police force anxious to pay their last respects. When the adjourned inquest was reconvened on Friday 16 December 1870, the coroner remarked that the inquest may have to be adjourned once more, as the police were still following their enquiries. Police Constable Meggitt was the first witness and he, once again, described finding the injured man. The landlord of the Greyhound public house, Charles Thompson said that whilst the deceased man had been at his house, he just had about three penny worth of whiskey.

He told the coroner that he thought Sergeant Maxwell was rather the worse for liquor when he arrived, he judged him to ‘still know what he was about.’ Thompson said that the deceased man left his establishment around a quarter to eleven with someone called Paramour. Mr Paramour was attending the inquest, however when he was called to give his evidence, he could add little more. He simply said that they both went out of the Greyhound together, but once outside they separated and went their own way. Dr Booth gave the medical evidence and stated that the man was in a deep state of insensibility when he was called out to see him.

He said that the deceased had no feelings in his arms and legs and his sight had gone. The surgeon described the deep wound over the man’s right eye which was half an inch and length, and exposed the bone below. However Dr Booth said that there was no wound on the back of Sergeant Maxwells head, although there had been plenty of blood. He therefore concluded that the injury to the front part of his head was the cause of death. When Mr Webster asked the surgeon if the injuries could have been caused by a fall, the surgeon stated that the wound over his right eye could have been caused by a fall, but that he had lost a lot of blood.

The coroner told the jury that at this stage that he intended adjourned the inquest for another month. However when the inquest was finally re-convened on Monday 16 January 1870, it was clear that the Sheffield police were no further forward in their enquiries. Accordingly, the jury had no option but to deliver a verdict of ‘wilful murder against some person or persons unknown.’ Who had killed this popular officer, who it seemed was well liked by those who came in contact with him. Was it indeed simply a robbery which had gone drastically wrong?

On the evening of 5 September 1893 the first case of cholera was found in the town. The victim was a thirty-five year old collier, named William Burnand who lived on Tummon Street, Holmes, Masborough. He was found to be infected and soon afterwards sadly died. It seems that William had awoken that morning in normal health and had gone to Greasborough to do some fishing. Despite seeming to be in good spirits at the time, he returned home around 3 pm seriously ill. So ill in fact that he died about 7 pm. In an attempt to prevent panic spreading, the local health authority immediately took possession of his house and disinfected everything inside.

The house walls were whitewashed and the occupants were quickly isolated in the hospital. Within two hours of his death, Williams body was encased in a strong coffin and removed to the local Mortuary before he was swiftly interred in a grave. Portions of his stomach were sent to Dr Klein, a bacteriologist of Sheffield who confirmed the diagnosis that he had indeed died of cholera. Needless to say there were many suggestions as to how the disease had arrived in the town. At the time it was thought that such infections were caught from smell or ‘miasma’ coming from sewers. In a parish council meeting therefore, Alderman Marsh blamed the infection on the stench arising from the River Don.

He stated that for the past six weeks the smell had been ‘almost unbearable.’ He complained that nine tenths of the drainage from both towns of Rotherham and Sheffield were poured into the river Don as well as its sewage. Needless to say as the towns people panicked, and there was an upsurge in remedies against such diseases. It was reported that the sales of ‘KEEP-AWAY CHOLERA POWDERS’ selling at local chemists shops had gone through the roof. These powders were cheap enough to use as a precaution to even the poorest of families, selling at just a shilling a packet. Although how effective they were has not been recorded. Thankfully as the month of September progressed, it would seem that cholera was finally going away from the town as increased cases were now being reported from Doncaster and Derbyshire.

But then, just as local people were beginning to relax, on the 13 September a second case of cholera was established in Rotherham. In the early hours of Tuesday 12 September 1893, a fifty year old man called John Wall died at his home in Arthur Street, Thornhill, Masborough. He was diagnosed by his doctor Mr. A. Statter, which was soon confirmed by the Medical Officer of Health for Rotherham, Dr Alfred Robinson. Wall had been employed by Rotherham Corporation as a foreman stonemason with a team of men who pitched (tarred) the streets of the town. It was said that for some time he had shown signs of failing health, but just thirteen hours before his death, he went into a decline.

Once again when cholera was diagnosed, the house was carefully disinfected by the sanitary authorities. Walls internment took place at the Masborough Cemetery later that same day, before an enquiry as to how the man had contracted the disease was started. However, despite many of his friends and family being closely questioned, there was no conclusion as to how he had contracted the disease could be established. He lived quite a distance from William Burnand and the two men were not acquainted with either him or his family. Then another victim was found. On October 18, a man simply referred to as George M who lived in Sales Yard, Rotherham had been diagnosed.

In order not to spread panic, his full name was not given, however, thankfully he did survive. Nevertheless the outbreak of cholera continued. Between September 15 to October 18 there were another eighteen cases reported in the town which were certified as choleric diarrhoea. From January 1 to November 15 there were fifty nine cases of enteric fever which Dr Robinson attributed not to cholera, but to the poor sanitary conditions of the district. The surgeon believed that was due to the fact that the medical authorities had acted with commendable promptitude and energy when it appeared in their district.

Thankfully, this final epidemic to hit Rotherham was of short duration, although the surgeon was unable to give any evidence on how it had been introduced to the town in the first place. Nevertheless, the people of Rotherham have long memories, hence the cholera burial ground in East Dene which was restored recently to commemorate local victims of this most dreadful and infectious disease.

In August of 1855 a woman called Matilda Jane Naylor acted as housekeeper to her brother William Henry. He was a local auctioneer of Sheffield and the pair lived together at his house in Hanover Street. Sadly Matilda suffered from chronic and painful facial tics which she described as ‘periodic stabbing pains.’ Eventually she found that these were only relieved by an inhalation of chloroform. On Wednesday 22 August 1855, Matilda had been suffering badly throughout the day and around 11 pm had gone to bed. She had been in the custom of locking her bedroom door when she retired for the night, so when one of the servants went to rouse her the following morning, she could not gain entrance.

The servant, Fanny Barber shouted through the door for almost an hour, but could not rouse the girl. Finally she spoke to her master William, who also shouted to his sister to come to open the door. Eventually fearing the worst, he was force to break down the door and was horrified to find his sister dead in bed. A handkerchief smelling of chloroform lay beside her on the pillow and an uncorked empty bottle also lay within the bedclothes. A surgeon, Dr Bartoleme was called who confirmed that the deceased had been dead for some hours. He surmised that the young girl had used a moderate dose in order to fall asleep, but having left the bottle uncorked, the chloroform had continued to work.

On the evening of Friday 24 August, the Coroner Mr T Badger Esq., held an inquest on the deceased girl at the house on Hanover Street. The first witness was the maid servant Fanny who told the jury that Miss Naylor had asked her to make sure she was called up around 7 am. She wanted to see her brother who was due to return home in the early hours of the following morning. Fanny stated that Miss Naylor had returned home around 8 pm and complained that she had the ‘tic’ so bad that she ‘scarcely knew what to do with herself.’ Finally she had taken some brandy and water hoping to relieve the pain, but it returned just after supper.

When the witness was asked by Mr Badger if she was aware that her mistress took chloroform to ease her pain, the servant admitted that she had known. Fanny stated that she was aware that Miss Naylor had taken as many as forty drops at a time, sometimes as often as two or three times a week. One of the jury asked her if she had known that there was chloroform in the house that night, but the servant girl shook her head. When asked if she could give any reason why her mistress would wish to take her own life, Fanny referred to knowing about a previous relationship with a young man, who had been paying his addresses to Miss Naylor.

However, she admitted that she could not think that was any reason for her mistress to end her life as, although the intimacy had ceased at some time around Christmas, Miss Naylor appeared not to care about it very much. The coroner forced the servant to repeat her statement, and asked her once again, if she thought that the deceased had intended to end her life, but Fanny again shook her head. She stated most confidently that she was convinced that Miss Naylor had only taken the chloroform to relieve the tic, and not with the intention of destroying herself. She also added that Mr Naylor and his sister had lived very comfortably together and they had always treated her most kindly.

William Naylor was the next witness, and told Mr Badger that he had got home around 1 am on the Thursday morning. He had been awakened a few hours later by Fanny Barber shouting through his sister’s bedroom door. He described finding Matilda lying on her left side in bed, quite dead and cold. William described how the bed clothes had covered her head and the handkerchief which had been soaked in chloroform, lay on the pillow beside her. The coroner asked him if he had been aware that his sister was in the habit of taking chloroform, but the witness denied it. He said he knew nothing about it until the servant informed him on the Thursday morning.

The witness stated that some years ago when the ‘tic’ first started, he was aware that Matilda had taken laudanum. However he did not for a moment believe that his sister took as much as forty drops of chloroform at a time. William admitted to knowing that there had been some tension about her relationship with the young man spoken of by the servant. However, he told the jury that he had spoken to her about it and shortly afterwards ‘the intimacy was terminated at her wish.’ Therefore he did not see that having anything to do with causing his sisters death.

Dr Bartoleme was the next to appear and the surgeon told the inquest that he had known the deceased professionally for around three years. He stated that earlier that morning he had undertaken a post mortem along with Mr Tinsley, the house surgeon at the Infirmary. Dr Bartoleme said that he had discovered that no stomach contents had been removed after death. Without those, it was impossible to pinpoint the cause of death accurately, However, having examined the remains, he had no doubt that it was caused by the inhalation of chloroform. Nevertheless the surgeon stated that he too thought death was accidental and that Miss Naylor had no intention of ending her own life.

The doctor illustrated this by saying that he had last seen Miss Naylor the previous Wednesday when she had been a great good humour. They had both joked about an amusing book that she had been reading and she had been in high spirits. However the witness said that when he went into the bedroom to see the deceased, the smell of chloroform was still very powerful. Dr Bartoleme said that if he had remained in the room for any length of time, it would have affected him. The surgeon stated clearly that he truly believed that the deceased had taken the proper dose of chloroform in the first instance. However having left the bottle uncorked it had continued to ooze out, filling the bedroom and causing her death.

Dr Bartoleme stated that just a few weeks previously, he had been informed by the servant that her mistress was in the habit of taking chloroform for the relief of the tic. He had strictly advised Miss Naylor that the practice was a very dangerous one. Consequently, the last time he saw his patient, she had told him that she had stopped inhaling the chloroform. Having recently been told by the servant, Fanny that her mistress had resumed doing so, he had intended again to speak to her on the subject. After hearing all the evidence and the coroners summing up, the jury retired to consider their verdict. They returned a verdict that Miss Naylor’s death had been accidental, as a result of an inhalation of an excess of chloroform.

In the early hours of Saturday 16 June 1860, a man called Jarvis heard a noise in the street below his bedroom window. It was around 1.45 am in the morning and his house was situated in a small yard in New Zealand Lane off Bridgegate, Rotherham. Looking outside, he saw opposite some men descending a ladder from the window of Mr William Bray’s pawnbrokers shop. The property was situated on the corner of Bridgegate and New Zealand Lane, although Mr Bray lived elsewhere in the town. Jarvis immediately shouted out ‘police’ as the men fled. Two passing young men asked what the matter was, and he told them that some thieves had broken into the pawnshop. They, in turn notified the Sheffield Police at their office at the Town Hall.

Meanwhile Jarvis, now dressed, went after the robbers. He knew they had gone up New Zealand Lane as there was items scattered along the route. Later it was estimated that in total the men had stolen around £350 to £400 worth of jewellery. Stopping only to pick stolen items off the ground, Jarvis found a watch and around 20 rings lying about. Later that day, Sheffield police officers searching the area, also found evidence which proved the flight of the men concerned. From the dropped items they established that the robbers had probably crossed some waste land into Effingham Street. There they proceeded behind the Mechanics Institute towards a footbridge that crossed over the canal leading into Rawmarsh Lane.

A gold pin and some brooches were quickly picked up and it was presumed that the robbers had headed towards Masbrough and on towards Sheffield. Accordingly an hour later three officers, Detective Officer Sills, Office keeper Laughton and Sergeant Burgess from the Sheffield police force were on the site of Mr Bray’s pawnbrokers shop. Detective Sills had by this time carefully examined the evidence, so he could estimate how the gang had made their entrance inside the building. The detective noted that the thieves had at first tried to enter the shop by breaking the chain across the cellar grate. But once inside found no access into the shop itself, so were forced to retreat back outside.

Fortunately, they had not noticed a trap door in the cellar which would have led them directly into the shop premises. Next, the robbers tried to prise open the heavy shutters placed over the shop windows, but upon removing them, found strong iron bars behind, preventing them from going any further. Probably by now getting quite frustrated, they next obtained a ladder from some houses which were being built in Effingham Street. This they leaned against the second floor bedroom window and climbing up the ladder, managed to open the window using a sharp knife. Inside the building, Detective Sills found that the thieves had gone into the pledge shop and had been unsuccessfully in attempting to open the desk.

Finally the thieves were reduced to simply ransacking the pawn shop window where items were offered for sale. They finally absconded with around fifty-nine items including fourteen gold watches, as well as silver watches and guards. They also took between £40 to £50 worth of rings amongst other items such as, snuff boxes, brooches and gold and silver pins. The same day three local notorious thieves, John Jackson, William Grist and Luke Thorpe were arrested and charged with the robbery. Nevertheless, there was little evidence against them and even though a careful search of their lodgings was made, none of the stolen property had been found.

The men had been suspected simply because one of them, Thorpe, had been carrying a large carpet bag that night. However he seemed to be at pains to conceal the bag, at times sitting on it. The men had also been bragging about their latest ‘escapade’ at Rotherham. That, combined with the fact that they had also been seen in many of the low ‘dives’ of Rotherham on the night in question, had been enough to condemn them. But what absolutely proved their guilt was the fact that they had first been seen at one particularly low dive. A beer shop known as the ‘New Zealand Chief’ which was situated within a few yards of Mr Bray’s shop.

The fact that they were known thieves and were acting suspiciously was enough for the landlord, a man called Windle. He had spotted the men entering and fearing that they intended to rob his own house went looking for a police officer. He reported his suspicions to Police Constable Fletcher who was patrolling along Westgate. The Chief Constable of Rotherham, Mr Jackson sought a warrant from the magistrates, assuring them that he would succeed in making out a case against the accused men. Another local thief called Richard Campbell alias ‘King Dick’ was also suspected, as he had been seen hanging around Mr Bray’s shop on the night of the robbery. However by the time it was found that he had fled to Leeds.

Shortly afterwards he was taken into custody by the Leeds Constabulary and brought back to Rotherham. He too was charged with robbing the pawnshop. That combined with the fact that Campbell was in possession of more than £14 in gold and silver and dressed in a good suit of clothes when arrested, had been enough to condemn him. Prior to his arrest, his garb had been reported to be ‘of somewhat mean appearance.’ Campbell was taken before JP Mr Fullerton Esquire at Thrybergh the following day and remanded. Accordingly, all four men were taken before the magistrates on Tuesday 19 June 1860. Not surprisingly, due to the lack of evidence, they were all discharged.

Local newspapers reported the case at length, which only served to establish the fact that the robbery at Mr Brays shop had created a strong feeling against the Sheffield police force. At a meeting of the Rotherham Board of Health on Wednesday 18 July 1860 the question of re-establishing the old system of policing was brought before the consideration of the Board. This was when constables and night watchmen were appointed by local magistrates to walk around the streets of the town in the hope of deterring criminals. However the Board decided to adjourn the question for the time being.

What was decided however was that the fact that the robbery had been the final touch for the pawnbroker Mr Bray. In October the premises in Bridgegate were being put up for rent. The advertisement read:

‘To be LET, with immediate possession, a SHOP with DWELLING-HOUSE adjoining, in Bridgegate, Rotherham, lately occupied by Mr William Bray, Pawnbroker.’

Particulars were to be obtained from another tradesman, Mr Saville, a hosier of Bridgegate

On Tuesday 7 January 1891, Coroner Mr D Wighthead attended an enquiry into the death of a Sheffield woman called Agnes Broadhead which was held at the Bath Hotel, Broomhall Street. Agnes, had been just thirty-one years of age when she died the previous Saturday. The first witness was her husband, William who had a very sad tale to tell. He stated that he and his wife had lived at Aberdeen Street, which was just off Broomhall Street, Sheffield. The witness admitted that during the previous six years, Agnes had been addicted to excessive drinking and taking laudanum. On that Saturday alone she had drunk a quantity of whisky.

William told the inquest jury that his wife had been in the daily habit of taking two pennyworth of laudanum and a penny worth of paregoric, which was a camphorated tincture of opium. He reported that on the night of Friday 4 January 1891, he had left his wife who was ‘beastly drunk’ and took their youngest child, a girl also called Agnes, to his mothers house. All that day his wife had been drinking gin and whisky and the witness described himself as being ‘sick at heart’ of seeing her in such a condition. Around 5.40 pm a female neighbour came and told him that his wife was dead.

When William returned, he found his wife in the kitchen lying on a hearthrug and he could not help but notice that there was an empty laudanum bottle on a shelf in the kitchen. When one of the jury asked the witness if he had any employment, the poor man told him that he was consumptive and was therefore forced to receive money every week from a sick club. However, he did mention that Agnes was employed at a tin makers in Arundel Street, Sheffield and that she earned a ‘great deal of money there.’ Mr Wightman then asked him if Agnes had any insurance and he told him that she had. He said his mother had insured her life for £14, exactly twenty-two years previously.

Describing his married life, William said that his wife would ‘drink like a fish’ for weeks on end. When she did manage to have a day without alcohol however, she could not sleep and that’s how she got into the habit of taking laudanum in order to sleep. As an illustration he said that on New Years Eve, Agnes came home helplessly drunk and continued to drink all night and the following day. Another juror asked William whether he had tried to prevent his wife from drinking so much. The witness told him that he had tried to do so, but she had threatened him and the children with a poker on several occasions when he had.

A neighbour, a woman called Florence Cockayne confirmed Williams account and said she had known the deceased for about two years. Over the Christmas and New Year period, she had only seen Agnes sober once. Florence told the coroner that around 6 o clock the previous Friday, little Agnes came to her house and told her that her mother was dying. The witness stated that she went straight away next door and found her mother unconscious and very white in the face. Florence called a surgeon, but the poor woman was dead before he arrived. She too reported seeing the empty laudanum bottle on a shelf near her and little Agnes told her that her mother had drunk from the bottle before she died.

The coroner summed up for the jury calling it a ‘very bad case’ before the jury retired for a short while. When they finally came back into the courtroom, it was evident that they had some deep discussions on the case. To admit that they possibly suspected that the poor woman had ended her own life, would have led to some serious concerns for William and his family. Therefore when the coroner asked them for their verdict, they simply recorded that ‘in their opinion death was from excessive drinking of alcohol, aggravated by the use of laudanum.’

One of these navvies was a ganger or foreman called Charles Trimm who employed a gang of labourers working on the railway that was, at that time, being constructed between Laughton and Anston. For a long time the labourers huts had been erected around Crampit Bridge, Anston which caused some problems to the local police force, and the activities of these navvies were a constant source of trouble to them. So when Superintendent McDonald heard about one of the labourers selling alcohol without a licence (known as shebeening) he was forced to take action. The superintendent quickly obtained a warrant, not only for the arrest of Charles Trimm, but also for that of his wife Annie

Consequently in the early hours of the following morning, 2 February 1904 they carried out a raid at the site of the huts. Two police officers, Police Constables Ward and Stennett, were dressed in their ordinary clothes when they went to Trimm’s hut and asked him if he wanted to purchase some rabbits. Trimm told them he would take two of the rabbits which he bought for a shilling each, before he invited the pair inside the hut to take a seat. When he asked the two men if they would like a drink, they agreed. Accordingly, Trimm supplied the two men with a pint of beer each telling them that ‘it is on me. Anytime you come this way, I will always have a couple of rabbits from you.’

The police followed up this initial visit by another one on 14 February, once again in plain clothes and bringing the pair some rabbits. Once again another couple of pints was bought and paid for, this time by supplied by Annie. During the visit, the two plain clothed police officers noted other men in the hut being supplied and paying for both beer and spirits. always supplied by both Charles and Annie Trimm. Needless to say, after this visit the pair were arrested and charged with having sold intoxicating liquors without a licence. On Monday 22 February the couple were brought before the magistrates at the Rotherham West Riding Court.

In total there were three charges of ‘shebeening’ brought again Charles Trimm, but just one charge against his wife and their defence solicitor was Mr Gichard. Superintendent McDonald was the first to give evidence and he described how, after the arrests, his men had seized an eighteen gallon cask containing beer, three gallons of bottled beer, a quart bottle containing whisky and another marked ‘port wine.’ The next witness was Police Constable Ward, who described the raid on the hut. He stated that there had been around twenty men all drinking in the hut at the time of the visit. Then it was time for Mr Gichard to defend his clients.

He immediately expressed his disgust at how the officers had dressed in their ordinary clothes in order to purposely mislead the two Trimms. The solicitor also argued that in neither case was the intoxicating liquor ‘pushed’ onto any of the officers in disguise. Instead he maintained that they had openly asked to be served alcohol. However, after hearing all the evidence, the bench were having none of it. They showed no sympathy for the prisoners who were both fined. Charles Trimm was fined £10 and costs for each of the three charges. Thankfully in this instance Annie Trimm was dealt with more sympathetically, as her offences were simply merged with those of her husband and the case against her was dismissed.

Mr George Ottaway had run a most successful jewellers and pawnbroking business at Rotherham for several years by December of 1892. Most of his business success came from the shops popular situation on Masbrough Bridge, which was just on the outside of the town. People wishing to pawn objects would be less likely to be seen, as those using pawnbrokers in the centre of the town itself. Also the building itself was of such a higgledy-piggledy nature which would seem to attract thieves. On the night of Thursday 2 December, pawnbroker George was away on business in London. He had therefore left the premises in the charge of his son Richard and a shop assistant, Thomas Smithers.

More than likely taking advantage of his fathers absence, Richard and Thomas decided to shut the premises early at 1 pm before going into Rotherham itself. They returned around ten o clock and shortly afterwards went to bed. Around 2 a.m. Richard woke suddenly after hearing the shop dog barking downstairs. He called the assistants attention to the sound, but Thomas commented that the dog barked easily at passers-by, so the pair gave little thought to getting out of bed and investigating. So it was around 8 am the following morning, when the two men were preparing to open the shop, when Thomas approached the front door. To his alarm he found that it had been unlocked from inside the building.

He called Richard’s attention to it and a careful search was made. Only at that point did both men realise that a most serious robbery had taken place. They found that entry into the building had been made through one of the sitting room windows, which was situated above the shop premises. This particular window overlooked an open passage leading to the back door, which was easily reached by a low roof covering a small extension. It was later found that the thieves had opened the window by simply inserting a sharp knife and pushing back the catch which kept the window closed. Inside was a room which was protected by an iron gate, however this was easily removed from the wood frame surrounding it.

Once inside, Richard found that the thieves had opened a large cabinet and taken drawers out from which several, valuable items were missing. These consisted of gold and silver watches, brooches, and gold chains, which had all been carried off. Thankfully the robbers had ignored the windows of the shop which also held expensive items, where nothing looked to have been disturbed. Richard and his assistant made an inventory and found that the thieves had absconded with stolen booty which was to the value of more than £500. This was a massive amount of jewellery to have been stolen.

The following day that Sheffield Daily Telegraph dated Saturday 3 December 1892 noted:

‘One of the most extensive burglaries committed in Rotherham for several years was brought to light yesterday morning. It was impudent in its character, and careful planning to avoid observation, which leads to the conclusion that cracksmen of more than ordinary experience have been at work’.

Sadly that was not the end to Mr George Ottaway’s troubles. On Friday 20 January of the following year a thief called William Thomas Clegg of Westgate, Rotherham was brought before the Rotherham magistrates. He was charged with stealing goods which had been hung on shop doorways and pawning them. In this manner Clegg had stolen a jacket worth 7s 6d from the shop doorway of Mr George Ottaway and pawned it at another shop in the town, claiming it to be his own. Nevertheless the shopman’s suspicions were aroused and Clegg was arrested and sentenced to a months prison. In court, George Ottaway asked for the costs of the jacket to be repaid back to him, but the bench refused.

The magistrates informed him that they considered that the hanging of good for sale on shops doors created a temptation for poor people. Therefore they suggested that all goods should be kept on the inside of the shops. This small theft however must have been the last straw for pawnbroker George Ottaway as by September of the same year his premises were advertised to be let as:

‘A large pawnbrokers sales shop and dwelling house in a good position, late owned by Mr Ottaway.’

Interested parties were advised to contact estate agent Mr W. Taylor, of Bridge Street, Rotherham. However the magistrates words had little effect as local shop keepers continued to hang goods on the outside doors of their shops.