20 March 1901
A WRONG
IMPRESSION ABROAD IN ASHTON
It seems that a mistaken idea has got abroad
with regard to an item of news that appeared in
the Reporter last week. It was headed "A
Doctor’s fatal Mistake". The doctor
was a practitioner named SMITH and the occurrence
took place at "Aston". Some people supposing
that "Aston" was a mistake for "Ashton"
have imagined most erroneously that Dr BENNETT-SMITH
of Ashton was the gentleman referred to. There
was no mistake about the name "Aston"
and well-informed people would recognise this
at once, but it is only proper that the absurd
error should at once be set right.
ALLEGED BREACH OF WARRANTY
This formed the subject of a trial at the Ashton
County Court on Thursday, before His Honour Judge
YATE-LEE. The parties concerned were Edward PRICE,
farmer, Twarl Hill Form (represented by Mr J B POWNALL),
and he was sued by George LLOYD, farmer, Lower Thorpe’s
Farm, Austerlands, for £15 damages — Mr J S
EATON was for the plaintiff, who stated that in
November last he needed a good milking cow.
His son attended Ashton fair and
saw the cow belonging to PRICE and after plaintiff’s
son had inspected some stirks at Austerlands,
an arrangement was made to buy defendant’s
cow, the son saying she would give 13 or 14 quarts
of milk per day. Defendant also said the cow was
"as sound as a bell and would do plaintiff
good". The sum of £5, together with a stirk,
valued at £6 10s, was struck as a bargain for
the cow, which however turned out to be poor and
only yielded five or six quarts a day. Plaintiff’s
wife had made the bargain, and he blamed her for
buying it.
Mr W HALL, veterinary surgeon, Royton,
gave evidence, and he said that the cow was in
an advanced stage of tuberculosis. The animal
died in January and plaintiff now claimed the
value and £3 special damages. The defence was
a denial that a warranty was given, or of any
knowledge that it was suffering from tuberculosis.
There was no complaint made until nine weeks after
the purchase. In the end, the Judge gave the verdict
for defendant.
CHARGE OF BIGAMY AT ASHTON
On Monday, at Ashton Borough Police Court, Sarah
DODD was in the dock charged with committing bigamy
by marrying John YOUNG, travelling linen dealer,
her first husband, Richard DODD, being alive and
to whom it was alleged she was married at the Ashton
Parish Church in the year 1889. — The Chief
Constable said he proposed to offer sufficient evidence
for a remand.
John YOUNG was then sworn and he
stated that he married the prisoner at St John’s
Church, Nelson, on 4th January 1896. She told
him she was a widow, her husband having died in
India two years previously. He recently met DODD
in Blackburn. He said to him "Richard, I
thought you were dead." He replied, "I
am worth a dozen dead ones." — Upon
this evidence, the prisoner was remanded until
Thursday.
Prisoner was brought up in custody
on Thursday morning — Jane VAREY, 99 Church-street,
Ashton, stated that she was present at St James’
Church, Ashton, on July 22nd 1889 and there saw
the prisoner married to a man named Richard DODD.
They lived together for 18 months. John YOUNG,
hawker, 5 Coulthart-street, Ashton, corroborated
the statements previously made by him.
Cross-examined by the prisoner:
He knew prisoner was a married woman, but believed
her husband was dead. He lived with her for four
years before he married her, and they had two
children. On his return after an absence of eight
months, he did not say that he had heard the prisoner’s
husband was dead, and there was nothing to stop
their getting married; he had only heard a rumour.
Sarah DODD, wife of Robert DODD
of Blackburn, said Richard DODD was her son. Witness
was not present when he married at St James’
Church. Detective-sergeant TOLSON stated that
he attended at St James’ Vicarage, Ashton,
on the 12th inst. Witness obtained
a copy of the certificate of marriage of Richard
DODD and Sarah ROBERTS. He also attended at the
vicarage of St John’s, Great Marsden, and
got a copy of the certificate of marriage of John
YOUNG and Sarah DODD.
He arrested the prisoner on the
12th April, and charged her with marrying YOUNG.
She replied "yes, if he’s alive"
— Prisoner said she was guilty of marrying
YOUNG on him telling her that her husband was
dead. Prisoner was committed to the Assizes.
A HURST WOMAN WANTING A
SEPARATION
Eighteen Months of Married Life
At the Ashton County Police Court, on Wednesday,
Henry Greenwood SMITH was summoned by his wife,
Selina SMITH, for desertion. Mr WATSON appeared
on behalf of the complainant and Mr BOSTOCK, solicitor,
Hyde, was for the defendant.
Mr WATSON said that the complainant,
Selina SMITH, Hurst Nook, was the wife of the
defendant, and she charged her husband with desertion.
The parties were married on August 9th 1899 at
St John’s Church, Hurst, and there were two
children of the marriage. One was born in November
1899 and the last in December 1900. On Easter
Monday last, Mrs SMITH thought that the defendant
was having improper relations with a certain person
who was in the house at the time, and she left
home and went to her mother’s house and stayed
during the night.
On the following morning, she returned
to her home, but the defendant told her to go
and took the key off her and said he did not want
her. She went again in the afternoon and he pushed
her out of the house. Since then, the defendant
had broken up the home, taken the furniture to
his mother’s, and at the present time, the
complainant had no place to go at all.
The defendant, Henry Greenwood SMITH
stated that his wife and he had lived together
happily. Complainant went to her work on Easter
Monday morning about 5.45. Defendant was not working
on that day, and he, along with his intended sister-in-law,
were left at home. Defendant took a cup of warm
tea up to his sister-in-law, who had been ill
the night before, and deposited the cup of tea
at her bedroom door. As he did so. A knock came
to the front door and he went down and found it
was his wife. His sister-in-law had had some drink.
He had been asleep on the sofa all the previous
night.
Mr BOSTOCK said here was a case
in which the parties were both young. Defendant
had been a good husband in every sense and was
prepared to take his wife back again. It was a
question whether the complainant had any grounds
for coming to the conclusion that her husband
had been committing adultery.
Chairman (Alderman HIGGINBOTTOM):
We think that complainant has certainly grounds
for complaint, but we think at the same time that
it is not sufficient for us to do otherwise than
dismiss the case. We advise you do the proper
thing and to come together again.
ASHTON BOROUGH POLICE COURT
Monday — before Messrs Henry HALL, C E
REDFERN, A SHAW, S KITCHEN and T D SEAL
ALLEGED THREATS —
A middle aged woman named Mary DEAN summoned a
young woman named Ann JENNINGS for using threats
on 5th April. Defendant denied it, and called
a witness after which the bench dismissed the
case.
DRUNK AND DISORDERLY —
Annie WEBSTER was summoned for being drunk in
Lower Wharf-street. She created some laughter
by saying that her husband had been teetotal for
two years and on the 30th inst she went to meet
him and got too much. It was her first appearance
and she was discharged with a caution. —
James CARROLL was sued 5s 6d costs for being drunk
and disorderly in Katherine-street on the 13th
inst and Elizabeth MONNIGAN was committed to prison
for seven days for disorderly conduct in Crickets
Brow.
SISTERS-IN-LAW AT VARIANCE
— Mary Ann McCLUSKEY was sued by
Rose Ann McCLUSKEY for wilful damage, 4s 10d two
panes of glass on the 9th April. She pleaded guilty.
— Complainant said the family were having
tea when there was a crash of glass and two windows
were broken. She went to the door and saw the
defendant who admitted that she had done it. —
Defendant told the Bench that complainant encouraged
her (defendant’s) husband to go to her house.
They married two brothers — Defendant was
ordered to pay the damage in addition to a fine
of 5s costs, in default seven days.
THE QUESTION OF THE CAPS
Sir, — I should like a few words in regard
to the confirmation at St Peter’s. I venture
to say that there have been a few ridiculous comments
made upon the Vicar in his choosing of the caps
to be worn at the service. In my opinion, the Vicar
should have the right to choose whatever he thinks
fit. Christianity seems to be on the wane when a
paltry trifle will cause persons to forget themselves
so far as to start slighting our Vicar. I cannot
see what difference clothing should make at a confirmation.
Some people seem to think more about dress than
the saving of souls. I think it would be wiser if
a few of us would make a start, and give him a helping
hand in the good work, than to start hindering one
who is trying to teach us there is something better
to live for in this life than quarrelling over a
few paltry likes and dislikes.
A TRUE PATRIOT
CONFIRMATION BY THE BISHOP
OF MANCHESTER
The Bishop of Manchester (Dr MOORHOUSE) held
a confirmation at St Peter’s Church on Friday
night when 152 candidates presented themselves —
78 from St Peter’s Church, 73 from St Stephen’s
and one from Roughtown. The nave of the church was
reserved for candidates, those from St Peter’s
wearing the regulation caps for their headgear,
being seated on the South side, whilst those from
St Stephen’s and Roughtown, wearing tulle caps,
were place on the North Side.
The Bishop occupied the pulpit and
delivered an address. He said that confirmation
was the gate of Holy Communion. Within their Church,
none were admitted to God’s table until they
had been confirmed or were ready and willing to
be.
CHILD KILLED AT ASHTON
A serious accident attended with fatal results
occurred in Katherine-street on Thursday afternoon,
when a little girl named May CLARK, of 9 Dale-street,
was run over by a passing cart, the injuries received
being of such a nature as to cause death. It appears
that a girl named Annie DAY took the child into
an ice cream shop and did not notice that she had
walked out into the roadway. On looking out of the
window, however, she saw the little one in imminent
danger of being run over by a coal cart. She rushed
out and made a heroic attempt to save her but the
wheel passed over the child, mutilating the lower
part of her body in a shocking manner. She was conveyed
to the surgery of Dr WALLACE who after attending
to her injuries, drove her himself to the Infirmary.
From inquiries made, we learned that death occurred
at about ten o’clock on Friday morning.
CHARGE OF DESERTION
At the Ashton County Police Court on Wednesday,
James EVANS was summoned by his wife, Mary E EVANS,
for desertion. — Complainant stated that she
and husband had been married twelve years, and they
had one child. Her husband deserted her three years
ago, although they had since been friendly, he had
allowed her nothing. — Defendant pleaded not
guilty, and said his wife had been living with a
"navvy." — Complainant denied this.
— The case was dismissed.
"TO THE WORKING MEN
OF ASHTON"
Sir, — Being not a "teetotal fanatic"
or a so-called temperance reformer, but only a plain
person with a sense of decency, I wish to express
in your columns my disgust, which I think will be
shared by your readers, at a placard which at present
defaces the walls of this town, and is an insult
to the intelligence of the persons to whom it is
nominally addressed. It is in its purport a vulgar
and scurrilous attack upon the bill to prevent the
sale of intoxicating liquors to children under the
age of 16 years, recently read a second time in
the House of Commons, and in its form is anonymous
— a fact which conveniently shelters the authors
of it from the public shame they merit.
It pretends to counsel "The
working men of England" on their rights,
which rights appear to be those of sending their
little children to taprooms and drinking bars,
and of introducing them to conditions of social
pleasure which have a tendency to degradation.
I have no objection to a working man drinking
his half pint in company, nor to his settling
the affairs of the nation in the parlour of mine
host, but I have most vigorous objection to permitting
for even a moment the presence of children in
any place where the drinking and the talk are
not likely to be fit for them to observe. And
I think there is not a single working man, worthy
of being called a man, who will not join in my
objection.
The right of Englishmen in this
matter is not a liberty to corrupt, or to aid
the corruption of their children; it is the duty
to protect, not a wanton license, but a moral
and social obligation. At a time when "professors"
are wagered to eat pigeons in order to draw men
and women into places of public drinking, and
less special attractions increase in number and
interest, there is a growing reason why the age
limit for the purchase of intoxicating refreshments
should be largely extended and rigidly considered
and reconsidered. We may not be able to make a
nation sober by acts of Parliament, but we may
leave it to grow more drunken and sordid for want
of them.
Now, sir, during my residence in
this town, I have read on its walls more than
one appeal to common selfishness and low prejudice,
but this placard contains the worst. Working men
are told that if they do not write in protest
to their member of Parliament — who presumably
has already voted for the measure — they
will come home some day, tired and thirsty, and
find that they cannot send their children to fetch
a pint of beer, but will have to fetch it themselves.
What a lamentable possibility. Well, working men
who have any respect — need I say love? —
for their children will fetch it themselves if
they want it particularly badly, and they will
not have very far to go for it in this town.
Yours respectfully,
WILLIAM C HALL
