17 August 1901
EVASION OF ALMA BRIDGE TOLL BAR, DUKINFIELD
At the Dukinfield Police Court on Thursday,
Maurice E SHAW, of Springwood Hall, Bardsley,
a member of the firm of Messrs SHAW and BENTLEY,
brewers of Bardsley, was summoned for passing
through the toll bar of the Ashton and Dukinfield
Bridge Company without paying the 2d toll, and
also with declining to pay this when demanded
by the collector, Mr Joseph SAMPSON. Mr J A GARFORTH
represented the Bridge Company, and Mr J B POWNALL
Mr GARFORTH said the defendant was
summoned for an offence on the 6th of July, but
gave instances to show that he was well known
to the collector, as he had on previous occasions
passed the toll bar, and in October last he refused
at first to pay the toll demanded. On the 6th
of July he passed the toll in a vehicle accompanied
by a lady. The horse was being driven at great
speed, so much so that the lady in the vehicle
was leaning forward and holding her hat to prevent
it falling off.
When asked for the toll he declined
to pay. A letter was sent to him by the collector,
asking for the toll, but he did not reply to this,
nor did he do so to a letter sent by him (Mr GARFORTH)
over a fortnight later. He had received a letter
from Mr POWNALL saying that his client had stated
that the prosecutors were mistaken in the matter,
and that he was most emphatic in his declaration.
He (Mr GARFORTH) had been told that defendant
was ill at the time of the offence was alleged
to have been committed, but he had only heard
that latterly. However, the evidence he was going
to call would say positively that it was the defendant
who passed through the bar.
The collector had seen him before
and was positive it was Mr SHAW who passed on
that occasion.Ì Joseph SAMPSON gave corroborative
evidence, and stated positively that it was the
defendant who passed through and refused to pay
when he demanded the toll.Ì The defence was an
absolute denial that Mr SHAW passed through the
bar, it being contended he was ill in bed on the
day the alleged offence was committed.Ì Evidence
was called to prove this, and the bench, believing
the weight of evidence to be in favour of the
defendant, decided to dismiss the case.
UNHAPPY MARRIED LIFE AT
Shocking Treatment of a Wife
At the Dukinfield Police Court on Thursday,
a shocking case of desertion of wife and child neglect
was investigated. The defendant was Joseph BRADLEY,
and he was summoned for wife desertion, persistent
cruelty and neglect of wife and child. Complainant,
who was represented by Mr GARFORTH, had applied
for a judicial separation.
Mr GARFORTH said the parties were
married on 20th of August last. Since that time
defendant had scarcely ever worked, and during
that time he had only given complainant 11s 6d
to keep on the house. Sometime ago, he received
compensation for an injury he had sustained, and
whilst the money lasted, he occupied his time
drinking. He had been in the habit of ill-using
his wife for a considerable time, and his conduct
had been absolutely revolting. Defendant had led
her a lazy, slothful and drunken life, and there
had been frequent quarrels which he (Mr GARFORTH),
who did not live more than 150 yards away, was
quite aware of.
He had refused to give her money,
had behaved in a most shockingly violent manner
to her,, had ill-used her when in bed, and had
made the complainant's face almost like a jelly,
being savagely bruised.Ì Complainant gave evidence
to this effect, and admitted in cross-examination
that she had had an opportunity of using some
of the compensation money which had been placed
in a cupboard. Some of the money had been used
to pay off their debts. Re-examined, she declared
she was afraid of him, as he had threatened her
The mother of the complainant said
the parties had lived a most unhappy and miserable
life. He had ill-used her most shamefully, and
one occasion he had treated her in such a manner,
blacking her eyes. In fact, when witness saw her
afterwards, she could not recognise her.Ì Defendant
said he had only struck her once in his life.Ì
The bench granted a separation order and a maintenance
allowance of 1s per week, the complainant to have
the custody of the children of the former marriage,
who were at present living with her.
Although there has been a fairly
plentiful rainfall since the advent of the present
month, the reserves of the Ashton &c, Joint
Waterworks Committee still contain 212 million gallons
of water less than in August last year. The total
storage is only equal to 111/2 weeks'
supply, and consumers have need to be careful not
to waste the precious liquid.
CRUELTY TO A HORSE Ì John SHAW, carter, was
fined 5s and costs for working a horse whilst in
an unfit condition. A constable saw the defendant
in charge of a horse which was suffering from a
sore on the shoulder, He pleaded guilty.
BEGGING Ì At a special police
court on Wednesday, a man of the tramping fraternity,
who gave the name of John KING, was sent to prison
for seven days for begging in Lodge-lane on Tuesday.
The prisoner walked into the lion's den, namely
the house of Constable BROOME, and solicited alms.
On being searched 3d was found upon him.Ì Superintendent
COOPER said the prisoner was a strong, able-bodied
man, and there was plenty of work for such as
he to do. His hands were as smooth and soft as
those of a lady.
CASE DISMISSED Ì Thomas ASHTON,
of Brazier Farm, Dukinfield, was summoned for
leaving his horse and milk cart unattended a longer
time than was allowed.Ì A constable deposed to
seeing a horse and cart belonging to defendant
standing outside the Lodge Hotel unattended for
15 minutes.Ì For the defence, the offence was
denied, it being contended that the vehicle was
only left outside the hotel for four or five minutes.Ì
Evidence to this effect was advanced and the Bench
dismissed the case.
ALLEGED WHOLESALE THEFT
OF COMPO AT DUKINFIELD
At a special sitting of the Dukinfield Police
Court on Wednesday morning, George DEWSNAP, warehouseman,
70 Cambridge-street, Ashton, was in custody charged
with stealing 102 boxes of compo soap, value £25
10s, and one gross bag of blue, of the value of
4s 6d, the property of Henry PRATT, Compo Works,
Dukinfield, between the 1st of January and 13th
of August. Ambrose ADDISON, 71 Hill-street, Ashton,
grocer, was charged with feloniously receiving 100
boxes of compo soap, value £25, well knowing the
same to have been stolen. James Edward TAYLOR, 21
Hill-street, carter, was charged with receiving
42 boxes of compo, value £10 10s, and one gross
bag of blue, value 4s 6d.
Superintendent COOPER said he did
not propose to go fully into the details of the
case that morning. He would offer sufficient evidence
for a remand until the following morning. The
prisoner, DEWSNAP, had been employed as a warehouseman
for Mr PRATT for the last 11 years, and every
confidence had been placed in him. Certain facts
came to the knowledge of Mr Arthur PRATT on Tuesday
which caused the prisoner DEWSNAP to be apprehended
and charged with the offence with which he was
now before the court. He would not put Mr PRATT
into the witness-box, also Inspector DUTTON, who
apprehended the three prisoners.
Arthur PRATT said: I reside at 3
Chapel Hill, and am manager for my father at his
Compo Works, Crescent-road, Dukinfield. The prisoner,
DEWSNAP, had full access to the Compo and was
responsible for what went out. For some considerable
time there had been a noticeable leakage, and
we could not make things balance. We had reason
to believe that some of the boxes of Compo were
missing and our suspicions were aroused. On Tuesday,
I concealed myself in a building in the yard opposite
the warehouse leading place. About half-past twelve
I saw DEWSNAP go out of the yard to the front
gate. He returned in ten minutes.
Shortly afterwards, the prisoner
TAYLOR drew into the yard with a horse and cart.
He back the cart up to the warehouse loading place.
DEWSNAP, who was smoking near the warehouse, then
went inside and I saw him bring a truck laden
with boxes of soap to the warehouse doorway. These
he handed to the prisoner TAYLOR. After seeing
three boxes put into the cart I left my hiding
place and went round to the front of the building
to wait until prisoner TAYLOR came out of the
yard. I waited five minutes, and thinking I had
missed him, I entered the yard and saw TAYLOR
and the horse and cart still at the warehouse.
I said to DEWSNAP "Hello, who
is this for," alluding to the boxes in the
cart. He replied, "They are for Mr Allen
SHAW Ì 40 boxes Ì and the order is here."
I said "Has he sent specially for them?"
and prisoner replied "Yes, and your brother
Harry has gone for the delivery note." I
told DEWSNAP that the prisoner TAYLOR would have
to sign for it. I asked TAYLOR how many boxes
he had in the cart, and he replied "Forty-three."
Shortly after that, TAYLOR left
the yard with the cart containing the boxes. I
followed him and he drove to Mr Allen SHAW's shop
in Market-street, Ashton. I saw Mr SHAW and asked
him if he expected this consignment of soap. He
replied that he did not, and did not know that
any had been ordered. He, however, said his son
might have ordered them the previous day.
Superintendent COOPER: So far as
Mr SHAW is concerned, he was ignorant of it? Yes.Ì
With reference to the prisoner ADDISON, have you
had any transactions with him? No, I don't think
his name is on our books.Ì ADDISON: No, it is
Inspector DUTTON said: I apprehended
DEWSNAP about 4.30 p.m. on Tuesday at the Compo
Works. I took him to the police station, and,
after cautioning him, charged him with stealing
the quantity of compo mentioned in the warrant.
He replied, "Well, I can only make a clean
breast of it, and tell you like I have told Mr
PRATT." He then made a statement which he
wrote down and he signed it.
The prisoners were remanded while
Monday when the case will be heard at Hyde.
GAMBLING AMONGST DUKINFIELD
Stern Police Action for Suppression
At Hyde on Monday, Tom WOOLLEY, John BENTON
and Thomas DAVIES, three Ashton youths, were brought
up in custody charged with gambling on the Peak
Forest Canal at Dukinfield on Sunday.
Superintendent COOPER stated that
the practice of gambling amongst the youths and
young men of Dukinfield was getting far too prevalent.
Scarcely a court day passed but there was a batch
of small boys brought up for gambling with cards
or playing pitch and toss. They were taking their
lessons from men of similar standing, and he asked
the magistrates to inflict severe penalties in
all cases. When the present prisoners were brought
to the police station they behaved in such an
impudent manner that he ordered his constables
to lock them up for the night. He might say too,
in passing, as a warning to others, that he intended
locking men of their age up for the night when
brought to the station charged with gambling on
a Sunday. They were the first batch that had been
locked up, and he hoped it would be a warning.
Constable MOTTERSHEAD proved the
case, and stated that prisoners were playing brag.
He saw the cards, and also money pass between
the prisoners. After a severe reprimand by the
chairman of the magistrates, prisoners were fined
5s and costs.
AWFUL FATALITY AT AUDENSHAW
Two Men Suffocated in a Sewer
On Saturday John Edward ROTHWELL (32), of 15
Bridge-street, Dukinfield, descended a 64 feet deep
sewer in Stamford-street, Audenshaw, to recover
a saw which had fallen to the bottom. He was lowered
by means of a travelling crane, but was overcome
by foul gas. A man named HODGES attempted to rescue
him, but was raised to the surface with difficulty
in an unconscious state. John STRODE, a neighbour,
then went down, but was also overcome. Efforts were
made to recover both men and STRODE was breathing
when brought to the top, but died shortly afterwards.
ROTHWELL was dead when he reached the surface. He
leaves a widow and three children, and STRODE a
widow and seven children. The shaft in which the
fatality occurred is in connection with the new
sewage scheme under the Urban District Council of
A STALYBRIDGE MAGISTRATE
AND AN ANTI-VACCINATOR
Refusal to Sign an Exemption Certificate
On Monday at the Stalybridge Police Court Ì
before Colonel SIDEBOTTOM and Alderman NORMAN Ì
Robert BOWDEN came forward and made an application.
He said he desired a vaccination exemption certificate
in respect to his child. He had a conscientious
objection to vaccination.
Colonel SIDEBOTTOM: Well, is that
all you have to say?
Applicant: I have a conscientious objection.
Colonel SIDEBOTTOM: We want to be satisfied that
you have a conscientious objection; it is very
easy for a man to say that; that is not sufficient.
Applicant replied that he had a conscientious
objection, and he did not believe in vaccination.
Colonel SIDEBOTTOM: Don't you hear what I say?
I tell you it is not sufficient to satisfy the
Applicant: I apply for an exemption certificate,
and I have a conscientious objection.
Alderman NORMAN: Do you think it would be injurious
to your child's health?
Applicant: I do.
Colonel SIDEBOTTOM: What proof have you to say
that it would be injurious?
Applicant: Well, I think it will.
Colonel SIDEBOTTOM: You think?
Applicant: Yes, I think it will.
Colonel SIDEBOTTOM: Have you any medical evidence?
Applicant: No, but I have something to go by.
Colonel SIDEBOTTOM: What's that?
Applicant: We have had one ÌÌÌÌÌ
Colonel SIDEBOTTOM: We have a right to know, because,
as I tell you, we must be satisfied, and a "frivolous"
objection to vaccination is not good enough!
Witness then said he had a brother who was perfectly
right when born. He was vaccinated and then his
flesh came off his bones.
Colonel SIDEBOTTOM: And you think it was from
Colonel SIDEBOTTOM: Did the medical man who attended
him say so?
Applicant: I don't know what he said.
Colonel SIDEBOTTOM: Oh, no, no, no! I am not satisfied
with your application, and you will have to appear
before two magistrates who will sign the certificate.
You will require two signatures, and there are
only two magistrates this morning.
Applicant: I have got off my work to come here
Colonel SIDEBOTTOM: That does not matter.
Applicant, apparently disgusted, stepped down
and left the court.
THE VACCINATION ACT, CONSCIENTIOUS
OBJECTORS, AND OUR LOCAL MAGISTRATES.
To the Editor of the Reporter
Sir,Ì In your issue of this day's date, I see a
report of a case in which an exemption was asked
for and which was refused. In consequence of the
way in which such applicants have been treated by
some of our magistrates, I think it is time it should
be realised that Parliament had recognised that
any parent who does not believe in vaccination shall
have the right to be exempt, and not be prosecuted
for non-vaccination That being so, it must be patent
to all that when a man loses his work to attend
court, and is prepared to pay 2s for the order Ì
the price charged here in Stalybridge Ì that he
is in earnest when he desires the right to exempt
his child from vaccination, and is entitled to enjoy
what the Act provides for him, without being subject
to a lecture.
If members of the Bench who hold
strong opinions in favour of vaccination will
say when and where, and upon what conditions they
are prepared to discuss the question of the value
of vaccination, an opportunity shall be afforded
them for the fullest possible discussion with
men who have studied the question. As to the mode
of obtaining exemptions the Act is very clear.
I have a copy before me, and quote from it. Section
2 says that no parent or person shall be liable
to any penalty under section 29 or 31 of the Vaccination
Act 1897, if within four months from the birth
of the child he satisfies two justices or a stipendiary
in Petty Sessions "that he conscientiously
believes that vaccination would be prejudicial
to the health of the child, and within seven days
thereafter delivers to the vaccination officer
for the district a certificate by such justices
of such conscientious objection."
This should be quite clear to all
interested, but in order to meet the case of possible
misinterpretation of the section the opinions
of two eminent barristers have been obtained,
namely R A LEACH and C H LEACH, and they say most
distinctly that "It is the existence of conscientious
belief, and not the grounds on which the belief
is founded that is to satisfy the justices or
magistrates," and what is more conclusive
of the existence of a conscientious objection
than the loss of work in making the application,
and paying the 2s for the certificate?
I admit that many applicants do
not make the application in the strict letter
of the law, but allowance should be made, and
I am pleased that we have some magistrates who
realise the position, and assist the applicants
to complete the requirements of the Act. In conclusion
I would point out that the Act is not a permanent
one. It was passed on the 12th of August for a
term of five years only, so that at the end of
that time it may possibly not be renewed, and
most assuredly so, if our sanitary authorities
do their duty; for undoubtedly the proper course
to exterminate smallpox, which is a zymotic or
preventable disease, is to place the sanitary
condition of the people on the highest possible
grade. Having done this, smallpox will disappear,Ì
Yours respectfully, J CROASDALE, August 12th.
THE NATIONAL TELEPHONE COMPANY
Action at the Stalybridge County Court
At Stalybridge County Court on Thursday, the
National Telephone Co., brought an action against
Albert D KITCHEN, of Ashton, lately landlord of
the Bowling Green Inn, Denton, to recover £3 10s
0d for rent of telephone which was ordered to be
fixed at the defendant's home at Denton, or in the
alternative a like amount to liquidate damages for
breach of an agreement which was entered into with
the plaintiff company on the 21st December, 1899.
Mr A LEES, solicitor, of Ashton,
appeared for the plaintiffs, and said the defendant
was at the time licensee of the Bowling Green
Hotel Denton. In the ordinary way one of the company's
agents waited upon the defendant at his home,
and there made an agreement for the rental of
a telephone for one year. That agreement was signed
by the defendant, and he agreed to hire a telephone
apparatus and pay to the company £3 10s 0d to
cover one year's maintenance from the Bowling
Green to the Denton Exchange, within the company's
Stockport area. Subsequently the lines were prepared
and everything got ready, but when the workmen
went to fix the machine the defendant objected,
saying that it was not an automatic machine, viz.
A penny in the slot machine, by which people might
use the telephone by putting money in the slot.
There was nothing in the agreement
to show that an automatic machine was to be fixed,
and he did not lead anyone to believe that such
a machine was wanted. Defendant would not allow
the ordinary machine to be fixed up. The representative
of the company said he would see the manager,
and no doubt they would send an automatic machine.
They had not any in at the time, but when the
man went to fix the automatic machine it was found
that the defendant had left the Bowling Green
and removed to Ashton.
He would point out to his Honour,
and lay stress on the fact, that in the agreement
no mention was made that an automatic machine
should be put in. Since the plant had been enlarged,
the solicitor had received a letter from the defendant's
wife offering to pay the money, but it had not
been paid.Ì Defendant said he was ill in bed at
that time and did not know anything about that.Ì
His Honour pointed out there was a delay of nearly
a year between the ordering of the telephone and
the man going to the place with the automatic
machine. He asked what was the explanation? Ì
Mr LEES replied that at the time, the company
were not fixing automatic telephone machines.Ì
Defendant said he distinctly told the agent that
he must have an automatic machine, otherwise it
would not be of any use to him, because he could
not attend to his business and the machine as
His Honour said the agreement specified
"one instrument and telephone circuit."
There was nothing to show that was an automatic
machine.Ì Mr MONOGHAN, district manager, said
that meant an ordinary wall instrument, unless
otherwise specified. If it were a table instrument
it would be 5s extra.Ì His Honour: Is an automatic
telephone a table instrument? No.Ì Supposing an
agreement had been entered into for an automatic
instrument, would it have been expressed in a
different way to this equipment? No, the company
reserved the right to fix an automatic or walled
instrument. An ordinary instrument may be made
into a penny-in-the-slot machine by fixing a box
in the side.Ì Have you any authorised agreement
where you fix an automatic machine? No.
What you have to show that your
agent did not agree to put in an automatic machine?
He had no authority to go beyond the agreement.Ì
Are you going to call the agent? I cannot, sir,
he is no longer in our employ.Ì Defendant said
he wrote to the company to take the machine from
his premises because it was not according to his
agreement, They did not fetch it away or attempt
to fix it. He signed the agreement on the understanding
that it was to be an automatic machine. When the
man brought the machine, he was told it was not
the sort required. He asked permission to leave
it, as he was going to Hyde, and he would call
on his way back. He, however, never called.Ì His
Honour said in the absence of the person who took
the order he must give judgement for the defendant
THE VOLUNTEERS SHAM FIGHT
The Cheshire Volunteers were in action amongst
the hills around Conway on Thursday, the 3rd and
4th being pitted against the 1st and 5th battalions.
The day was beautifully fine, and rendered the movements
very enjoyable. The idea was that the 3rd and 4th
were attempting to embark at Holyhead, and the remainder
were trying to prevent them getting through the
pass. Forty rounds of blank ammunitions were served
The troops marched out of camp about
eight o'clock to take up positions among the hills,
which proved a long march. The 5th battalion
formed the right flank under Colonel SHAKERLEY,
and the left under Colonel BLOOD, the left flank.
Firing commenced about 10.30 and continued until
one o'clock. The officers, who dispensed with
their swords for rifles, showed considerable skill
in handling the men, and the fight was a keen
one. Eventually the best position was claimed
by the 3rd and 4th battalions.
A Stalybridge Volunteer writes to
say that the food during the sham fight consisted
of bully beef, dry bread and cold water. He adds
that an average of four out of every hundred in
camp have been ill during the week. Stalybridge
Volunteers are expected home between seven and
eight o'clock to-night (Saturday).
A STALYBRIDGE NOTORIOUS CHARACTER
His Strange Plea for Clemency
James CONNOLLY again made his appearance before
the magistrates at Stalybridge on Monday. He was
in custody on the simple charge of "lodging
in the open air," to which he pleaded guilty,
adding in a weak voice, "Yes, sir, I was there
right enough, but I hope you will be so good as
to let me go to the workhouse."
Constable HULME said that at midnight
on Sunday he was on duty in Queen-street, when
he found CONNOLLY fast asleep near the carriage
company's stables.Ì Colonel SIDEBOTTOM: Asleep
in the street?Ì Constable: Yes, sir. I brought
him to the Town Hall, where he was locked up.Ì
Alderman NORMAN: How long is it since he came
out of prison?Ì Inspector BAMFORTH: On Wednesday
CONNOLLY pleaded that he was poorly,
and he hoped that the Bench would send him to
the workhouse to die. I am 65 years of age (he
went on to say), and it is a pity. I have never
stolen anything in my life.Ì Colonel SIDEBOTTOM:
What did you leave the workhouse for?Ì CONNOLLY
replied that Mr CROASDALE got him into the workhouse
for six months and he would go back again if they
would let him. He was poorly.
Alderman NORMAN: It is your usual
tale.Ì CONNOLLY: I cannot live, gentlemen, for
I am 65 years of age, and I cannot eat anything.
If I sup water, it comes back. I shall never trouble
you any more; I am going to die! Ì The Magistrates'
Clerk: You have made that promise before.Ì CONNOLLY:
Yes, but God bless you, let me go back to the
The Clerk asked Inspector BAMFORTH
if it was not a fact that when in the workhouse,
CONNOLLY was unruly, and the reply was that he
always left that institution on his own accord.Ì
The Clerk: Exactly; he will not stay in.Ì CONNOLLY:
Oh yes, I will stop in this time. I am going to
die! Ì Colonel SIDEBOTTOM: The report is that
when you are there you do not do as you are told.
You must "go down" again for three months.
CONNOLLY, who had been before the court verging
on a hundred times, was thereupon removed to Strangeways.