30 November 1901
STALYBRIDGE INEBRIATE AT THE ASHTON COUNTY POILICE
James Connolly Commences His Second Century
A Breeze in Court
At the Ashton County Police Court on Wednesday,
the name of James CONNOLLY, of Stalybridge, was
down on the list charged with being drunk and
disorderly at Hurst on November 11th. CONNOLLY
was unable to appear, his condition being so serious,
it was stated, that he had been taken to the Workhouse
Evidence was given by a constable
of having to take CONNOLLY to the police station
about a quarter to five o'clock on the morning
in question, through him being drunk and creating
a disturbance in Hurst. Councillor J CROSSDALE
(Stalybridge): This man is a notorious inebriate,
and I am here this morning at the request of the
magistrates on the Stalybridge Bench to ask you
to do what they did with him last Friday. Unfortunately
he was charged with sleeping out, and I went to
the court to ask them to send this man to a home
for inebriates, but on that charge they said they
could not send him, as he was not charged with
being drunk. They decided, after long consideration,
to remit him to the Workhouse. He is there now,
under the charge of Dr HUGHES, and the reason
he is not here this morning is on account of inability
owing to his condition.
The magistrates on Friday asked
me to ask the Bench this morning to do as they
had done, to dismiss the case, and to allow the
man to remain where he is, as he has undertaken
to stop there, and to keep out of the way of temptation
to drink. It is a most unfortunate case, and while
everybody is about tired of doing for this poor
man, still he is there and something has to be
done for him. To send him to prison is perfectly
useless; he has done nothing wrong to anybody
but himself. There is not the slightest doubt
he is suffering from the disease known as alcoholism,
and is not responsible.
The Magistrates' Clerk: You cannot
keep him in the Workhouse if he wants to come
out. Mr CROSSDALE: He has undertaken to
stop there. The Clerk: Suppose he breaks
his undertaking? I rather question. He is sixty-five
years of age, and I question whether he will live
very long; he is in a fearfully emaciated condition.
Superintendent HEWITT: So far as sending him to
an inebriates home, there is no place we can send
him to; there is no place for males in Lancashire.
This is the second time he has undertaken to remain
at the Workhouse. The man is not here, and if
he is unable to attend I have no wish to do anything
further but to let the matter slide.
Mr Tom PLATT (guardian of the poor):
Perhaps you will allow me. I do not want it to
appear here that Mr CROSSDALE is appearing on
behalf of the Guardians. Mr CROSSDALE: I
have not said that. Mr PLATT: The Guardians
are opposed directly to this idea, and not only
that, it has been dealt with by our clerk and
myself, as well as the Guardians, and it is distinctly
understood that it is foolish to keep sending
this man to the Workhouse because if he were committed
there to-day he could refuse to go in; not only
that, as soon as he has been in two days he can
claim his discharge, and he keeps doing this.
He also shows himself defiant to all supervision,
which is directly against the order of the Workhouse,
and it is not a right thing to do.
The penalty of the law should be
meted out to him if he keeps doing wrong until
there is an inebriates' home I should be
glad if there was an inebriates' home for
him to be sent to. It is wrong for the magistrates
to send disreputable characters to the Workhouse
to mix among people who are there through no fault
of their own. It is very objectionable, and I
as a Guardian object to Mr CROSSDALE appearing
here as a representative of the Guardians. It
is only to say that he is not here as a representative
of the Guardians that I got up to speak.
The Magistrates' Clerk: I think
we have had quite enough of this discussion.
Mr CROSSDALE: I beg your pardon. The Clerk:
The Bench are not here to listen to representatives
either for one side or the other. This man is
charged with an offence. The Bench have listened
very patiently to what you had to say. I did not
know there was anything to be said to the contrary
until Mr PLATT expressed a desire to speak. The
Bench can now deal with it. Mr CROSSDALE:
I was careful in what I said, and Mr PLATT's statement
was quite uncalled for. It has been stated that
I have no right to appear here in this case.
The Clerk: I don't know that you have; you are
not a solicitor. You are only allowed by courtesy
of the Bench to make a statement. If this man
wants a statement put before the Bench, he must
employ a solicitor, as other people have to do.
Mr CROSSDALE When a man is destitute, like this
man, he cannot have a solicitor. The Clerk:
I think now there ought to be an end of it.
Mr CROSSDALE: I have said The
Clerk: You have already said.
The Chairman: Is there anything
known about him? The Clerk: Of course.
Superintendent HEWITT: He has been up one hundred
times in Stalybridge, but we have not had him
before.. The Chairman: We do not want him
either. Superintendent HEWITT: I am sure
we don't. The Clerk (after consultation
with the magistrates): If they make an order for
him to go to prison whilst he is in the Workhouse,
Superintendent HEWITT would no enforce the order.
After another consultation, the Bench fined defendant
5s 6d, and costs, or fourteen days' imprisonment.
Mr CROSSDALE: It is to be left over as long as
he stops in the Workhouse? Superintendent
HEWITT: We cannot order that; the law compels
us to execute with all despatch. We cannot take
a man out of his sick bed, you know.
THE FRACAS IN CHARLESTOWN
Another Case of Unlawful Wounding
William MORRISEY, labourer, was in the dock
charged on remand with wounding James Henry LAMB
on the 10th November, under the following circumstances:
James Henry LAMB said: I live at 8 Pitt-street,
Ashton. On Saturday, the 9th, I was in my house
just before midnight when the prisoner came to the
door. He used some threats to me for complaining
about him cohabiting with my married daughter. I
ordered him away, and he went.
I went out shortly afterwards, and
when I got to the corner of City-street, the prisoner
met me. He said, "I have got you, you
now," and struck me across the forehead with a
piece of iron. The blow knocked me down and whilst
on the ground he struck me several times on the
head and shoulders. I was picked up by my wife
and others and they took me into the house. I
was attended to by Dr HUGHES, junior, and in a
day or two afterwards I was taken to the hospital
where I remained until this morning. I lost a
good deal of blood and suffered much pain. Prisoner:
Didn't you get that piece of iron to me? No. I
never saw it. I never threatened to drive you
out of he street. Prisoner: You have been
beaten with your own weapon.
Dr W H HUGHES, junior, said that
he was called to the Town Hall to see James Henry
LAMB. He had a contused wound on the forehead
half an inch across. On the top of the head, an
incised wound an inch in length. At the back of
the head, an incised wound an inch long. Also
a bruise on his left shoulder. The wounds and
bruises might have been caused by the piece of
iron produced. By the prisoner: I don't think
the buckle end of a soldier's belt could have
produced all the wounds.
Joseph GALLAGHER, 17 Pitt-street,
said: About ten minutes to twelve o'clock, I was
going down Pitt-street, and when near, I saw LAMB
coming up. I also saw the prisoner come running
out of a lodging house with a piece of iron in
his hand. He rushed at LAMB, struck him on the
head, and knocked him down. He again struck LAMB
with the iron. Prisoner was committed to take
his trial at the Quarter Sessions.
ASHTON BOROUGH POLICE COURT
BREACH OF THE PEACE.John CASSIDY was charged
with committing a breach of the peace at the Old
Cross on the 23rd. He pleaded guilty. Constable
MAYALL said the defendant struck a man in the face
and knocked him down. He then ran at him with a
kick. Bound over to keep the peace.
CHILDREN IN INDUSTRIAL SCHOOL.
Dominic FAVIER was summoned for £2 10s arrears
in his contribution to the support of his son
who is in an industrial school. Defendant
said he was willing to pay 2s 6d per week and
would pay the arrears off by Christmas.
The case was accordingly adjourned until the 6th
January. Edward SUTHERS was summoned to
show why an order should not be made upon him
to contribute towards the maintenance of his child
detained in an industrial school. Defendant
pleaded that he was not in regular work.
An order of 1s per week was made.
A WINDOW SMASHED. Thomas
McCARTHY was summoned for smashing certain windows
belonging to Winifrid CHADWICK and Henry A ATKINSON,
and doing damage to the extent of 1s and 5s 6d
respectively. Defendant did not appear and was
represented by his sister. CHADWICK stated
that on the 16th she was in bed, and heard two
windows smashed. A female said she was walking
along Cotton-street and heard a smash of glass.
Immediately afterwards McCARTHY came running past
her and nearly knocked her down. ATKINSON
stated that he was fetched out of the Theatre
and found his window broken.. He did not see them
broken, but he had been assisting the police and
McCARTHY had threatened him. The Clerk:
He seems to have a mania for window breaking.
Defendant's sister said he did not break the windows.
She knew who had done it, but would not tell.
The Chairman told her that in the first case defendant
would have to pay 1s damage and 5s 6d costs, or
seven days, and in the second case 5s 6d damage
and 10s costs or 14 days.
THEFT OF A WATCH AND CHAIN
Rosie DOWD and Elizabeth FINN, young women,
were in the dock charged with stealing one watch
and chain, one hat and one umbrella, the property
of Elizabeth WALSH, under the following circumstances.
Prosecutrix stated that she was the wife of Cephus(?)
WALSH, and resided in Water-street, Ashton. On Tuesday
the 12th inst she left the house in company with
the two prisoners. They said they would find her
private lodgings with a widow. At that time she
had her watch and chain with her. The prisoner DOWD
carried her umbrella and hat.
On the way they called at a public
house and had a drink together. After they had
been there a little time prisoners went out, saying
"We will return in a few minutes." She waited
half an hour, but they did not return, and she
did not see them again. When she came out of the
public house she missed her watch and chain. She
saw the prioress on the following day and asked
them where the stolen property was. FINN did not
make any reply. DOWD said, "I am sorry for what
I have done, but I have been led into it.
Mary RATHBONE proved that DOWD said
to her, "We pawned the watch and chain. FINN had
half the money and the ticket. If I go up, FINN
will have to go up." Mary FAHYE said she
was the wife of Wm FAHYE, of 9 Bottom-street,
Newton. About 7 o'clock on Tuesday evening, the
prisoners came to her house. DOWD was carrying
a ladies' hat under her shawl, and FINN had an
umbrella. They stayed about an hour and then left.
DOWD returned at ten o'clock, and stayed all night.
On the following evening James GREGORY came for
her and said to her, "You don't know what you
have done for yourself, Rosie." DOWD thereupon
took the hat, put it on the fire, and held it
down with the poker until it was consumed.
William LINGARD, manager for Mr
John Herbert MEAL, pawnbroker, Market Place, Hyde,
said: About 7.30 on the evening of the 12th instant
the prisoners came to the shop to place the watch
and chain with him. They asked £1 upon it, and
he advanced 15s. He asked DOWD, who handed the
watch to him, if it was hers, and she replied
"Yes." Constable ROLLINSON said that at
8.30 on the morning of the 14th he apprehended
the prisoners at GREGORY's lodging-house in Water-street,
Ashton. He charged them with stealing the watch,
hat and umbrella, but they did not make any reply.
Prisoners were committed for trial to the sessions.
SAD DESERTION CASE AT STALYBRIDGE
A Soldier's Unfaithfulness
An extremely sad matrimonial case occupied the
attention of the Mayor and other magistrates sitting
at Stalybridge Police Court on Monday. Defendant
was a man named John Henry BACKHOUSE, and he was
charged with deserting his wife, Esther BACKHOUSE.
In reply to the charge he said, "I would like to
know what constitutes desertion."
Mr J W SIMISTER, who appeared for
complainant, said this was an application for
an order for maintenance and was based upon defendant's
desertion of his wife. The parties were married
on November 5th, 1883, at the Ashton Parish Church,
and their union was an unhappy one, so far as
the wife was concerned. There were two children,
one of whom, an apprentice, was barely earning
enough to keep himself, whilst the other, a girl,
was not in any employment. Defendant had spent
a good portion of his time in the army, and whilst
stationed at Bury he became enamoured of a woman
From something which came to the
knowledge of Mrs BACKHOUSE eight weeks ago she
broke open her husband's box, and there found
a bundle of compromising letters and photographs.
Defendant was employed at Messrs SUMMERS' forge,
Stalybridge, at that time, and was earning good
wages. However, he appeared to be indifferent,
and matters reached a climax when he demanded
his box, the letters and photographs back, but
his wife refused the request, whereupon he left
her the following day, saying he did not intend
to come back to Stalybridge, and that "he would
make a hole in the water first.
A fortnight after Mrs BACKHOUSE
went to Bury, and there found her husband openly
living with the woman FITTON as man and wife.
A little while later defendant's conscience seemed
to have touched him, for he sent his wife a postal
order for half-a-crown. In order to constitute
desertion there must be evidence of intention
of breaking off matrimonial relations, but from
the fact of this man living apart from his wife
and in open adultery was full proof. The case
was doubly hard, inasmuch as Mrs BACKHOUSE was
fast losing her sight. She had been a faithful
wife, and taking into consideration defendant's
extremely bad conduct, he asked the magistrates
to grant a substantial sum for maintenance in
addition to the advocate's fee.
Esther BACKHOUSE said when she went
over to Bury she found her husband lodging with
FITTON's mother. Defendant accompanied witness
to see the girl FITTON, who was a servant at the
White Lion Hotel, Bury, and at the interview the
latter said defendant had led her to believe he
was a widower. FITTON, however, said she would
continue to live with NACKHOUSE. Complainant went
on to tell the Bench that her sight was becoming
so bad that she could hardly see to sew. Defendant
was an ironmonger, and could earn good wages.
He never told her what he actually earned, but
on one occasion she found a wage ticket which
showed that BACKHOUSE and his mate jointly drew
Defendant: I was labouring sir;
I never earned that money in my "puff."
Mr WILLIAMSON: Don't you think that that wages
note would be for a month? Complainant:
No, it was for a week.
The Mayor: Is it in the forge or
in the yard where you work? Defendant: In
the yard. The Mayor (to complainant): When
you married him was he a soldier? He was a deserter,
sir. What was his occupation then? He worked
at SUMMERS' as stocktaker. What was he earning?
I don't know What, not when you married him? No.
What did he give you? He gave me "tidy," but when
he was soldiering he could not give me much on
account of keeping Annie FITTON. Colonel
SIDEBOTTOM: What did he give you when he was working
at SUMMERS'? About 25s a week. Did you find
him clothes or did he buy them himself? I had
to find them. Defendant: Did I ever keep
you short of money when I lived with you?
The Clerk: You have no right to ask that question;
it is now a question of you deserting her. She
admits you gave her money when you lived with
Asked what he had to say in his
defence, BACKHOUSE now said he had nothing to
say beyond that he never wished to desert her.
She had told her tale of woe, but I have never
told anything. I should never have thought of
staying away from her but for her drinking habits
and her nasty tongue. I used to go home once a
month, and on several occasions she has been drunk
and had other people drunk in the house. I cannot
stop at a home on that account. Complainant: I
never took anything to drink only when you gave
it to me.
The Mayor: Is that all you have
to say? Defendant: Yes. I can prove it.
Have you any witnesses? I could only call my daughter,
and I don't want to. The Clerk: I don't
know that that is any defence. It may be an unfortunate
marriage, but you have no right to desert her.
Defendant: If it had been many a man he would
have been hung before now! Colonel SIDEBOTTOM:
What is your position in connection with the army;
have you completed your service? Yes, sir. Defendant
also added that he had no pension, and he asked
the Bench to take into consideration that he was
out of work at the present time. When he got work
he would send her money. He had never wished to
deprive her of any. Mr LOCKWOOD: How much
do you propose to send her? Defendant: As
much as I can. Replying to Colonel SIDEBOTTOM,
he said that the last work he did was a week as
an agent for an insurance company in Bury.
The magistrates retired, and upon
their return into court the Mayor announced that
a separation order would be granted, and BACHOUSE
would have to pay his wife 5s per week in addition
to the advocate's fee and court costs. Defendant
asked for the bundle of letters and photographs,
which he claimed as his property. Mr SIMISTER
said that was a matter entirely for a civil action.
If defendant thought he was entitled to the letters,
&c, he must sue his wife. The Bench declined
to interfere in the matter.
SINGULAR DEATH OF A STALYBRIDGE
How the Poor are Housed
On Saturday the Stalybridge police received
information of the death of Kate BATTERSBY, aged
13 years, of Cartwright's Place, Robinson-street.
The girl, it appears has been an inmate of the Manchester
Royal Eye Hospital, which institution she left only
recently. On Thursday last she became ill and as
she became gradually worse Dr BISHOP was communicated
with, but before the gentleman's arrival death had
The mother of deceased, Lavinia
BATTERSBY, whose husband was formerly a bookkeeper,
said the girl had been ailing about a year, and
was attended by Dr BISHOP. For three weeks she
was an inpatient at the Ashton Infirmary, suffering
from sore eyes and pains in the head. She had
also been in the Eye Hospital at Manchester for
a month, and was brought away from there on Thursday
last. Witness went for her, and the doctor said
if she were brought home she might have a chance
to get more strength.
She seemed all right until five
o'clock on Saturday morning, when she complained
again of pains in the head. At half past nine
witness sent for a doctor, but when Dr BISHOP
came, about quarter past ten o'clock, the deceased
was dead. For three months past the deceased had
been blind and the doctor at the Eye Institution
said her eyes would never be right again She had
never complained of anything except her eyes and
pains in her head. Her eyes were bad prior to
a slight accident which happened to the deceased
about 15 months ago.
The Coroner said it seemed strange
to him that the deceased should have been discharged
from the hospital. He had received a letter from
the house surgeon stating that he could not certify
the cause of death, as the deceased was in the
same state as she was during her stay in the hospital.
She suffered from inflammation of the optic nerve.
In his opinion probably some brain lesion was
the cause of inflammation and convulsions, which
caused death. The Coroner did not know why the
doctor could not have certified.
A Juryman remarked that the girl
looked as if she had been well treated. He did
not think there was anything wrong about the case.
Detective LEE said he had made careful inquiries,
and so far as he knew there was nothing suspicious.
A Juryman said the deceased's parents
seemed to be very poor. There was only one bedroom
in the house. Another Juryman: And there are seven
children. Detective LEE: The father is in
the hospital suffering from typhoid.
A Juror: They might well have typhoid
in such insanitary places as that. Another Juror:
What are they doing at the Town Hall that they
don't sweep such places away? Who is the agent,
and who belongs to the property? (Hear,
A verdict of "Death from natural
causes, probably inflammation of the brain," was
AN ASHTON FOREMAN DEFRAUDING
Two Months Hard Labour
Thomas EMERY was in custody on remand charged
with unlawfully by means of a certain pretence obtaining
from James RIDYARD, contractor, Ashton, the sum
of £14 with intent to defraud, sometime within six
months past. Mr J B POWNALL appeared to prosecute
and the prisoner was represented by Mr J S EATON.
Mr POWNALL said that the prisoner
was foreman in the employ of Mr RIDYARD, who employed
somewhere about 150 men, and anyone in prisoner's
position, if he should be sufficiently astute,
might defraud the employer to an extent which
one could hardly comprehend. He appears to have
done it in this case. Prisoner's method seems
to have been this: Mr RIDYARD was doing some work
at the National Gas Engine Co's works, and it
was the custom to make the wages up in packets
at the office every Saturday morning for the prisoner
EMERY to pay out to the employees.
Some three months ago he told a
boy named HARROP, employed at Mr RIDYARD's, that
there was an employee who was not able to write,
and asked him to make out the time sheet. The
boy was taken into the office, and made out a
time sheet in the name of J ANDREW, which seems
was an invention of EMERY's. The first week the
time-note was made out for £1 16s, and it went
on week by week at this rate until the boy got
suspicious and communicated it to another employee,
and it ultimately got to Mr RIDYARD's ears. Mr
RIDYARD considered it his duty in the interest
of the public and of other employers to bring
the case before the magistrates so that such a
systematic fraud as this should be punished.
Samuel HARROP, 18 Old-street, Ashton,
joiners' apprentice, said that about three months
ago he was at the shop when prisoner asked him
to make a time sheet out for a joiner who could
not write. Witness made out the time-note produced.
It was dated 15th August, 1901. On October 25th
he made out another time note (produced) in the
same name at prisoner's request, and on November
1st witness again at prisoner's request made out
another time-note (produced).
James GAYTER, 16 Church-street,
cashier, said it was the custom of the apprentices
on the job to bring the time-notes to him on Friday
nights. Each man's wage was then wrapped up in
the time sheet, and his name written on the back,
the packets being handed to the prisoner EMERY
to take to the workmen. One of the time-notes
for £1 19s was in witness's handwriting. On Saturday
last he was present when the coins representing
£1 13s 9d claimed to be due to J ANDREW were marked.
William TAGGART, 2 John-street,
Waterloo, sated that he was the foreman on the
National Gas Engine Company's job. EMERY had been
in the habit of bringing the wages on Saturday
mornings, and he sometimes gave them to the witness.
He gave them to him on Saturday morning. Amongst
those was one for J ANDREW. There was no one of
the name on the job.
Detective HEIGHWAY deposed to arresting
the defendant on Saturday at twelve o'clock noon,
and after taking him to the Town Hall and reading
over the warrant for his arrest he made no reply.
Witness searched him, and found the marked coins
produced in his possession, and a blank time sheet
dated Nov 29th, made out in the name of J ANDREW,
which appeared to have been made out to do duty
for the following Saturday. Prisoner, on being
formally charged, pleaded guilty.
Thomas EMERY then went into the
witness box., and said that he had been foreman
for Mr RIDYARD four years, prior to which he had
worked for a firm of contractors at Chorlton-cum-Hardy,
and was formerly in business himself. His wages
were £2 15s per week. His wife had had sickness
and had been periodically ill. He had a family
of four, all little and none working. He had left
previous employers with the very best of characters
and had never been in a police court on any charge
Mr EATON said that all he could
do in this painful case was to throw his client
on the mercy of the court. He asked the bench
to extend the utmost clemency to him. This was
a case which they might deal with under the First
Offenders' Act. He asked them to bind him over
to be of good behaviour in consideration of his
circumstances and previous good character.
The magistrates retired to consider
their decision, and on returning the Magistrates'
Clerk asked Mr POWNALL if his instructions were
to press the case. Mr POWNALL said his instructions
were to not consent to the case being dealt with
in the way suggested by Mr EATON. It was too serious.
Mr RIDYARD was very sorry for the man being so
foolish. He did not wish to press the case, but
he could not agree with Mr EATON's proposal.
The Chairman said the Bench did
not consider that the First Offenders' Act was
ever intended for a case of this character. It
was not a trivial offence; it had been going on
for three months, and it was fortunate that the
lad had been sharp enough to find it out, or it
would probably have gone on for another twelve
months. The Bench sentenced EMERY to two months'
imprisonment with hard labour, and ordered a sum
of £8 16s 4d, found on the prisoner to be given
up less court fees.
A JEST AND ITS SEQUEL
Blackburn Weaver's Chance Remark
It is a time honoured aphorism that many a true
word is spoken in jest, but seldom, indeed, is it
that the sequel of a jest has been fraught with
so much importance as the following case. The innocent
jest referred to was made by Mr JACKSON, 21 Fernhurst-street,
Ewood, Blackburn, and the importance consequences
that followed that chance remark were detailed to
a Blackburn Standard reporter by his wife.
"How did it all come about?" was the reporter's
"Well," said Mrs JACKSON, "when
I was married six years ago I was then in a very
poor state of health. I began slowly but surely
to grow worse and worse. I had a severe attack
of influenza some time previously which dragged
me down to an exceedingly weak state, and it seemed
as though I was never to recover enough strength
to get about without feeling utterly exhausted.
The effect on my spirits was serious, for I could
not shake off the intense melancholy which had
become part of my life. I was always miserable,
and could only look at the dark side of everything."
"You sought medical advice, I presume?"
"Yes, of course, but the doctors
told me little except that my complaint was a
general weakness, and that my kidneys were affected.
This state of melancholy told on my appetite and
digestive powers, and for a long time I was treated
also for indigestion without feeling the smallest
relief. I seemed to grow worse every day, although
I still trudged to work each morning feeling half
dead. The weavers at the mill where I worked used
to wonder what had come over me and I was urged
to give up two of the four looms I was running,
for I was like a ghost. All the colour had left
my cheeks, and I used to tell my husband that
I would not live much longer. I had no appetite;
food used to sicken me, and I got properly down-hearted.
My friends besought me to try first one doctor
and then another, but to tell you the truth, I
had lost heart and cared little what happened."
"You appear to take an interest
in life now," interrupted the reporter, "judging
by your appearance, which is anything but ghost-like."
"Yes," said Mr JACKSON, who was
present during the interview, "my wife looks healthy
enough now, doesn't she? Perhaps it will be as
well if I explain. It's due to me and Dr Williams'
pink pills for pale people that my wife is now
cured and looking so well. I saw the pills advertised
in the newspaper, and jestingly said to her, 'Well,
you had better get some of these pills. They are
for pale people, and you are pale enough anyhow.'
I got some, more to carry out my joke than anything,
and she took two or three pills every day. I am
not jesting when I tell you that she was better
in a week, and her relatives were surprised and
said, 'Whatever's making our Annie's colour come
back?' But what was more important than the colour
of her cheeks was the return of health and strength,
and a lively interest in life. The rapid change
"Then you honestly believe the cure
to be due entirely to Dr Williams' pink pills
for pale people, and you are quite willing the
public should have the benefit of your experience?"
"Of course," replied Mrs JACKSON,
"and I tell everybody to take them. They have
saved my life and pounds in doctors' bills."
Mrs JACKSON runs four looms
at Messrs LIVESEY's Ewood Mill, Blackburn, and
to use her own words, she was never in better
health in her life, and avows her husband's joke
has turned out a real blessing in disguise.