| 12
April 1902
DEATH UNDER CHLOROFORM AT ASHTON INFIRMARY
An inquest was held at the Ashton District Infirmary
on Monday afternoon by J F PRICE, district coroner,
on the body of Geo TOOHEY, aged three years and
five months, son of Edward TOOHEY, shoemaker, of
111 Princess-street, Ashton, whose death took place
at the infirmary on Friday afternoon whilst under
chloroform.
Elizabeth TOOHEY said she was the wife of Edward
TOOHEY, and mother of the deceased, who was a full
grown child at birth and had enjoyed good health
up to being eleven months old, when he became relaxed
through teething for which he was attended by Dr
TWOMEY. About 16 months ago she got a recommend
to take the child to the infirmary as an out-door
patient, and about four months ago the right side
of the child’s neck began to swell. She again
took the child to Dr TWOMEY, who gave her a bottle
of medicine and told her to rub the affected part
with marshmallow ointment. The swelling seemed to
get larger, and Dr TWOMEY advised her to take the
child to the infirmary which she did on Wednesday,
April 2nd.
Dr JUDSON, house surgeon at the District Infirmary,
deposed to the child being admitted to the institution
on the 2nd instant suffering from an enlarged abscess
on the back of the throat, and had great difficulty
breathing. There was no other course left but to
operate, as the child could not have lived long
in the state that it was in. The child was taken
to the operating room at 1pm on Friday, and chloroform
was administered, but before being operated upon
the child died.
The jury returned a verdict of death from misadventure,
and that the chloroform was lawfully and skilfully
administered.
MORE LIGHT WANTED
To the Editor of the Reporter
Allow me to call attention of the Lighting Committee
to the want of a lamp at the corner of Cambridge-street
and Hertford-street. On dark nights it is very awkward,
and people who have business that way will go round
about before face the possibility of being insulted,
as several persons have been in this part of the
dark street. I wish one of the committee would take
a walk down and see for himself, and bring it before
the next meeting.
MORE LIGHT
SEQUEL TO AN ASHTON STREET
ACCIDENT
County Court Action
At the Ashton County Court on Thursday, before his
Honour Judge BROWN, Mrs Jane BARBER, 91 Moss-street,
Ashton, claimed from Mr James F GLOVER, carrier,
King-street, Hurst, the sum of £50 damages
for personal injuries sustained through the alleged
negligence of the defendant’s servant. Mr WILKINSON
appeared for the plaintiff and Mr T C P GIBBONS
for the defendant.
It appeared that on the 14th September, 1899, plaintiff
was a passenger in an electric tramcar which was
proceeding across Warrington-street, Ashton, when
a horse and lurry belonging to defendant, and driven
by his son, collided with the car, in consequence
of the negligent driving of the defendant’s
son. As a result of the accident plaintiff sustained
a serious nervous shock, and had been under medical
treatment for a considerable period. A Mrs MURRAY,
of Denton, who was a passenger in the same car as
plaintiff, had already brought an action against
defendant for damages for injuries she had sustained,
and had obtained a judgement against him.
Mr WILKINSON addressed the court on behalf of plaintiff,
and his case was supported by Dr TALENT, Mr and
Mrs MURRAY, George BLAIN, car driver, and Jane HARROP.
For the defence William MOSS, Charles H GLOVER (defendant’s
son), and Henry WHITTAKER, gave evidence, after
which Mr GIBBONS addressed His Honour.
His Honour, in summing up, said that under the circumstances
he must award plaintiff some damages, but he did
not feel inclined to give her more than £10
10s 0d, and there would accordingly be judgement
for that amount, payment at the rate of £1
per month.
ADVERTISEMENT SWINDLE
The Ashton Case
At Preston Quarter Session, on Wednesday, John Prince
GREY (29), a gentlemanly looking fellow, described
as a stockbroker, pleaded not guilty to obtaining
£10 by false pretences from George BACKHURST,
clerk, Ashton-under-Lyne.
In February the prosecutor answered an advertisement
in the Manchester papers for a clerk, competent
and trustworthy, to manage a large office. Prosecutor
wrote to Tyldesley-road, Blackpool, and two days
later received a reply from the prisoner. After
further communications prosecutor proceeded to Blackpool
and interviewed the prisoner, who represented himself
to be the chief agent for J and S MORGAN, widely-known
financiers. He stated that the firm was about to
open a branch in Blackpool, and offered prosecutor
a position at a progressive salary of £4 a
week in the first year to £5 in the third
year.
Prosecutor agreed to pay £10 down as security,
proceed to London and interview the principles of
the firm at 5 Frogmore-street. Prisoner further
stated that he had a house in London and kept several
horses, and that he was only staying in Blackpool
for the benefit of his wife’s health. Prosecutor
would have six clerks under him. A formal agreement
was drawn up engaging the prosecutor, and the couple
arranged to meet at London-road Station, Manchester,
and proceed to London. Prisoner, however, failed
to put in an appearance, and prosecutor thereupon
gave information to the police. There was no Frogmore-street
in London, and representative of the firm of Morgan
said the prisoner had no connection with them whatever.
Detective LEESON, of Blackpool, caused a sensation
by producing a huge bundle of 363 letters of application
answering the advertisements. The prisoner gave
evidence stating that the agreement was made entirely
on behalf of himself. He would have fulfilled the
contract if permitted.
The prisoner was found guilty and sentenced to 15
months’ hard labour, the Chairman saying that
a well-educated like accused could not be allowed
to prey upon society.
DUKINFIELD SCHOOL BOARD
Proposal to Spend £1,900 on Victoria Road
School
The monthly meeting was held on Thursday evening.
Present, Rev D R JAMES (chairman), Rev Hugh S TAYLOR
(vice-chairman), Rev J MAGEE, Rev W TITTERINGTON,
Rev P CLEARY, Dr PARK, Mr J D HIBBERT, Mr S FLETCHER,
Mr W UNDERWOOD, Mr John MOORHOUSE (clerk), and Mr
J H BEARD (assistant).
It was resolved to forward a letter to the Estate,
and also to write to the Board of Education, informing
them that the architects had received instructions
to prepare plans of proposed alterations and additions
to the Victoria-road Board School.– At a meeting
of the committee, held on the 3rd of April, the
architects amended plans were submitted, and the
probable cost of the alterations would be about
£1,900. After much consideration it was moved
by Mr UNDERWOOD, seconded by Mr MAGEE, and resolved
that the sub-committee again confer with the architects
as to further details re: boundary walls, closets,
lowering of the land, and all information relating
thereto.
(In the same issue)
CLARENDON-STREET SITE V ANOTHER
To the Editor of the Reporter
Sir,– In your last week’s Reporter my
name was brought into question by Mr MAGEE, a new
member of the School Board, pointing out that three
who had voted for my “amendment” at the
meeting held in the Dukinfield Hall School lived
beyond Charles-street. He should have gone further,
and pointed out that the mover of the “resolution”
lived on Chapel Hill, and the seconder at the bottom
of King-street.
Readers will be able to judge who had the greatest
claims to demonstrate their points. Clearly it has
been proved without doubt by the majority of the
School Board and the Board of Education that the
Clarendon-street site is the most suitable one.
It is likely that building operations will take
place in the vicinity of Clarendon-street.
The figures that Mr MAGEE disputes were obtained
from a reliable source, and are correct. The difference
arises because he takes the railway bridge instead
of the canal bridge, of which streets were named
where the children came from, but the reporters
did not mention them. I should have expected Mr
MAGEE, before he rushed into print, would have told
me of his intention, as I have no desire to enter
into controversy in School Board matters for the
town generally.
I intend to place my views before the Board of Education
at a later date. Thanking you in anticipation.–
I am, yours faithfully,
John STAFFORD,
Highfield House, Dukinfield
PRESENTAION TO MR JAMES
W SLACK
On Thursday last week an interesting function took
place at the annual distribution of profit-sharing
to the employees of the Richmond Gas Stove and Meter
Co Limited. After the distribution of about £350
to the workmen as their bonus for the year, the
chairman presented Mr James W SLACK, of Queen’s-road
(formerly of Ashton-under-Lyne and now of Tunbridge
Wells), with a handsome gold hunter watch. The inscription
inside the watch was as follows:– “Presented
to Mr J W SLACK by the directors and officials of
the Richmond Gas Stove and Meter Company Limited
on the occasion of his appointment as secretary
to the company. March 1902.” Mrs SLACK was
also the recipient of a lady’s watch as a manifestation
of the goodwill of the employees towards her.
DRUNK ON LICENSED PREMISES
AT HURST
A Reflection on the Magistrates and a Rebuke
A the Ashton County Police Court, on Wednesday,
George Henry HAGUE and James CROPPER were charged
with being drunk on licensed premises at Hurst on
March 7th.– Superintendent HEWITT said that
the defendants were before the court last week,
and the case was adjourned in consequence of statements
made by them to the court which were not very complimentary.
Louisa GOODWIN, niece of the landlady of the Royal
Oak Inn, Hurst, deposed to the defendants coming
to the Royal Oak Inn on the date in question, and
walking straight into the taproom. They were not
served with anything, and did not stay many minutes.
They had enough to drink.
Mr SUTTON, landlord, of the Church Inn, Hurst, deposed
to the two defendants coming to his house about
ten past nine on the night in question. They had
had sufficient to drink. He did not serve them and
advised them to go home. It was very hard to be
brought there to give evidence. It did him no good.
The Chairman (Mr Abel BUCKLEY): If you did not serve
them there is no aspersion upon you. People do not
always take it that way.– The Magistrates’
Clerk: He is suggesting that people won’t go
into his house because he has come to give evidence.–
Mr SUTTON: No one can blame me for coming; I have
been summoned.– Herbert WHITEHEAD deposed to
seeing the two defendants on the night in question,
and they had enough to drink.
The Magistrates’ Clerk (to defendants): What
have you to say? – HAGUE: Nowt.– The Chairman:
I am given to understand that last week you made
some remarks about the magistrates. Allow me to
tell you here that as far as I know and believe
every gentleman on the bench in this district will
do the fair thing, either for or against you or
for anyone else. I can assure you that you will
receive justice here, and if you were drunk you
will be fined, and if not you will be let off.
There is a kind of feeling amongst many people that
the magistrates go with the police. They do not
go with the police as is often proved. It is a most
disgraceful thing for you to think that you can
come here and throw dirt at any of the magistrates
on this bench. I can assure you that are as fair
as fair can be.
Defendants were each fined 5s 6d and costs or 14
days’ imprisonment, and 1s 6d and 3s respectively
for the witnesses GOODWIN and WHITEHEAD, Mr SUTTON
foregoing his claim.
A STREET ROBBERY AT ASHTON
At the Manchester Assizes, on Tuesday, John CAWLEY,
28, striker, William NOLAN, 45, labourer, James
WROE, 29, labourer, and John Knowsley CASSIDY, 35,
labourer, were indicted for robbing James William
FULTON of four shillings and a bunch of keys, and
at the same time using personal violence to him.
Mr TIPPING prosecuted.
On the night of the 20th March last the prosecutor,
who is a joiner, was going along Old-street, in
Ashton-under-Lyne. It was then just after eleven
o’clock. When he got near Delamere-street a
number of men were standing on the street corner.
They set upon him, pinned his arms behind him, held
his legs, and rifled his pockets of the money and
keys. He seized the prisoner CAWLEY, who was one
of his assailants, by the collar, and held him till
a policeman came up and took him into custody.
At that time CAWLEY had the keys in his hand. He
only spoke to the identity of COWLEY, who was the
man, he said, who held him.– A witness named
SCHOFIELD, a hawker, who said he had known all the
prisoners before, described what he saw of the robbery.
There were about seven men standing together, and
as FULTON came one of them said, “now is the
time for a ‘kip’,” by which was meant
lodging. The prisoner WROE did nothing, as far as
he saw, but pick up the money which fell on the
floor while the other prisoners were rifling the
witness’s pockets.
Another onlooker testified to the identity of CAWLEY,
who was scuffling with a young man,, but he did
not identify the other prisoners.– Constable
ROBERTS told how he saw CAWLEY running away and
the prosecutor following him. FULTON took some keys
from CAWLEY and gave the latter late into custody
for stealing them. The witness arrested NOLAN and
WROE next day at a common lodging-house, and afterwards
received CASSIDY into custody.
The jury found the prisoners guilty of stealing
from the person only. CASSIDY, who had a bad records,
was sentenced to three years’ penal servitude,
and CAWLEY, who had been previously convicted of
theft, to nine months’ imprisonment with hard
labour. NOLAN, whose convictions had only been for
drunk and disorderly conduct, was sentenced to six
months’ hard labour, and WROE, against whom
nothing was recorded, was ordered to coma up for
judgement when called upon.
SHOCKING NEGLECT OF CHILDREN
AT DUKINFIELD
An Unnatural Mother
A sad and painful case came before the county magistrates
at the Hyde Police Court on Monday, in which Margaret
Ann ELLIS, a married woman, of 45 Parliament-street,
Dukinfield, was charged in custody with wilfully
neglecting and abandoning her children, Martha Elizabeth,
aged 11; Walter, aged 8; Bertha, aged 7; and Clara,
aged 5 years, at Dukinfield, between the 22nd January
and 28th March of the present year. Prisoner pleaded
not guilty.
Eliza CARPENTER, wife of Robert CARPENTER, of 13
Ogden Square, Dukinfield, said she had known prisoner
about 12 years. She had four children. Witness remembered
the 28th March last when the four children named
came to her house and asked for some pieces of bread.
She gave them some but told them she could not pretend
to keep other people’s children, as she had
enough to do to keep her own.
They came again the same day and asked for more,
but she declined to give it. They were scantily
clothed and appeared to be very hungry. She had
occasionally seen the children pick up crumbs from
the street and backyards thrown down for the birds.
At about 11 o’clock at night on the 28th, she
found them asleep on the doorstep of a chip potato
shop in Dukinfield.
Prisoner: I was in Ashton at the time looking after
their father. The Magistrates’ Clerk: What
does prisoner do for a living? Witness: I do not
know that she does anything.
Ann MORAN, wife of William MORAN, of 85 Oxford-road,
Dukinfield, said she saw the children on the 28th
March on the doorstep of a chip shop after 11 o’clock
at night. She asked the eldest girl where her mother
was, and she replied that she was with a man in
Parliament-street.
About an hour afterwards witness saw them again
standing in the street. She took them into her house
and gave them some food and clothing. The boots
they were wearing were falling from their feet.
Prisoner and the children had been living with a
man named MELLOR, but MELLOR had declined to take
the children in with the mother. The children ate
the food she gave them most ravenously, and stated
they had had nothing to eat from eight o’clock
in the morning.
Constable DALE deposed that in consequence of what
the witness CARPENTER told him, he went on the night
of the 28th to Wild-street, and there found the
four children. They were very ill-clad. He asked
the eldest girl about her mother, and she stated
that she was in Parliament-street with a man and
was drunk. Witness went to Parliament-street, taking
the children with him, and found the mother in a
house with a man, both of them being drunk and tumbling
about the house. He knocked at the door, and immediately
prisoner left by a back door. After speaking to
the man, witness took the children to MELLOR’s
where they had been lodging, but MELLOR refused
to take them in. Mrs MORAN then took care of them.
On the following day, witness went to MELLOR’s
to see if the prisoner had brought the children
back, and finding that she had not done so, he went
for them and took them to the police station. He
then went in the direction of Parliament-street,
and on the way met the prisoner coming away. She
was then drunk. He asked her what she intended doing
with the children, when she replied, “I am
not going to do anything with the b–––––––.
You can do what you like with them.”
The children were subsequently taken to the workhouse
at Ashton. On Monday, the 31st, he went to Ogden
Square and examined the room where the children
had been accustomed to sleep. He found a lot of
dirty, hard flocks on the floor, and these were
used as a bed, with a filthy single blanket to cover
them. Prisoner got a lot of drink, and one hardly
ever saw her but that she was drunk or looking after
drink.
Sergeant MOTTERSHEAD said he had known the prisoner
a long time. On the 13th January of this year he
had occasion to execute a distress warrant on the
prisoner’s husband. He had great difficulty
in finding them, but he eventually caught them in
Peel’s Court where prisoner, her husband, and
the four children were living in a single house
along with two other men and their wives and two
children.
Prisoner was then told that the best place for her
was the workhouse, but she had since been travelling
up and down Dukinfield keeping a house here and
there. He had never known her to do a day’s
work; she was generally boozing. On Saturday, the
29th, he met her in Parliament-street when he told
her that her children were at the police station,
and she said “Keep the –––––––
there.”
An inspector of the NSPCC said he had this case
under his supervision for some time, and had cautioned
prisoner and told her to go to the workhouse.
Prisoner in reply to the charge asked if she could
have her husband prosecuted for desertion. The Magistrates’
Clerk: You had better deal with your own sins first
and then deal with your husband’s afterwards.
Prisoner: My husband has brought the children to
this. I have never neglected them. Magistrates’
Clerk: What about being in the house with the man
drunk? Prisoner: I was baking for him and looking
after the children.
Superintendent CROGHAN said prisoner was recently
summoned for wounding her husband, a charge which
was reduced to one of common assault She was fined
10s and costs. The Chairman of the magistrates said
the case was a very bad one, and prisoner would
have to go to prison for three months with hard
labour.
She: Why is it, I wonder, that
a bird never uses the same nest two years in succession?
It very frequently happens that one of last year’s
is just as good as new. He: Birds are like women,
in one way. She: I’d like to know how you draw
the comparison. He: Well, I never see you wearing
one of you last year’s hats, although some
of them must be about as good as new. |
