| 30
August 1902
SUICIDE OF A COLLIER AT DUKINFIELD
On Thursday the police received information
of the death by hanging of Abel POTTER, collier,
of 13 Palmer-street, aged 59, who was found suspended
from a beam in the cellar at eight o'clock that
morning. Ellen TRAVIS, who lives at the same house,
states that since the closing of Dukinfield Collieries,
which threw him out of work, deceased had been very
low spirited, especially since last Saturday.
At a quarter to seven o'clock on Thursday morning
she took him a cup of tea upstairs. He was then
apparently in his usual health. She then went to
her work, but asked off, and got home about eight
o'clock. She shouted upstairs to the deceased, but
getting no answer raised an alarm. Some men came
and found him hanging in the cellar from a beam,
a clothes line being round his neck. He was dead
when cut down by Walter HATTON, painter, who was
working on the property.
THE MEANING OF 'NOTHING'
At a school, a schoolmaster had been explaining
that "Nothing" is impossible, as something
must always be done or doing. Seeing one of the
boys engaged in playing instead of paying attention,
he pulled him up suddenly with: "Stand up,
and explain nothing." The boy stood up, looked
very straight, coloured up, and then suddenly burst
out, to the schoolmaster's amazement: "Please,
sir — a bung hole without a barrel."
SHOCKING NEGLECT OF
A CHILD AT WEST GORTON
The Mother Before the Magistrates
On Saturday a charge of child neglect was preferred
at the Manchester City Police Court against a woman
named Sarah Jane PINDLOW, the wife of a hawker with
whom she recently resided at 51, Gardner-street,
West Gorton. The case was really a sequel to proceedings
which took place this week in the coroner's court,
when strong remarks were made regarding prisoner's
conduct towards her twelve-month-old child, whose
death it was stated had been accelerated by neglect.
The jury expressed the hope that a prosecution would
follow. It was alleged that the prisoner's husband
had recently been left a legacy of £1,000,
the whole of which had been dissipated in drink.
Mr HOCKIN, who prosecuted now on behalf of the National
Society said the prisoner had lived with her husband
and four children in a house that that had been
condemned. The man was now in prison for another
offence, and it was only the circumstances which
prevented his being charged along with his wife.
The youngest of the four children had recently died,
and evidence went to show that in spite of warnings
and advice in respect of its dangerous condition,
the woman displayed great indifference, and when
seen by the police and others, was invariably drunk.
All the children were grossly neglected, the house
was in a filthy state, and the deceased never seemed
to have been attended during its illness. It only
weighed 11lbs instead of about 20., the normal weight.
After evidence confirmatory of this statement, Alderman
MAINWARING said the Bench intended to give the prisoner
the severest penalty in their power, for she richly
deserved it. She would be imprisoned for six months.
GORTON MAN'S SUICIDE
Nephew's Shocking Discovery
At the Dog and Partridge Inn, Gorton, on
Tuesday morning, Mr J F PRICE, the County Coroner,
held an inquest touching the death of William BOWKER
(49), outdoor labourer in the employ of the Gorton
District Council, and lately residing at 4, Garden-place,
who was found dead at his home on Sunday evening.
Deceased was stated to be a heavy drinker who often
went on the spree. He lost his situation, and his
nephew on going to Garden-place on Sunday evening,
found his uncle hanging from the bedpost by his
scarf. He was quite dead. — The jury returned
a verdict that deceased committed suicide, there
being no evidence to show what the state of his
mind was at the time.
FATAL FALL FROM A LURRY
Mr Sidney SMELT, city coroner, held an inquest,
on Thursday, on the body of William BUCKLEY, a carter,
54 years of age, late of Dyson-street, Newton Heath.
On Tuesday evening, BUCKLEY fell from the front
of a lurry which he was driving along Oldham-road,
near the Osbourne Theatre, and was run over. He
was picked up and taken to the Royal Infirmary,
where he was sufficiently conscious to give his
name. His injured were attended to, but as there
was no room to spare at the Infirmary the poor fellow
was removed first to the Guardian's offices at New
Bridge-street, and then to the Crumpsall Workhouse
Hospital, where he was admitted.
It was found that he was suffering from a fractured
rib and a cut head, from the effects of which he
grew worse and died on Wednesday morning. The deceased,
who was employed at Messrs BELLHOUSE's timber yard,
in Hulme Hall-lane, had been as far as Timperley
and back with his lurry on the day he met with the
accident, but there was no trace of drink upon him.
The jury returned a verdict of accidental death.
STONING THE POLICE
AT OPENSHAW
A Gang of Sunday Gamesters Neatly Caught
At the rear of Elizabeth-street, Openshaw, is a
great piece of waste land or "croft,"
as it is styled, and on the edge of this stands
some unoccupied property, old and dilapidated, which
has been condemned by Manchester Corporation as
unfit for tenancy. This place was the scene of a
fracas between a number of young men and the police
on Sunday, there being something like a riot caused
over a raid which two Openshaw policemen made on
a gang of Sunday gamblers who were surprised in
one of these houses, and three of them were arrested.
These three persons, named Richard DURHAM, Richard
RYAN, and Peter CASSIDY, were brought up at the
City Police Court on Monday, and it is likely that
others of the party will yet be brought before the
court.
Constable POINTON, in giving evidence against the
prisoners (who denied the charge), said that at
a quarter to three o'clock on Sunday afternoon he
and another officer took the three prisoners into
custody, and charged them with using an unoccupied
house for the purpose of playing a game of chance
for money in Elizabeth-street. In describing the
circumstances of the arrest, the constable said
they managed to get near the house, although a look-out
was kept, by creeping close to a blank wall, and
suddenly came upon the prisoners, effecting a complete
surprise.
As soon as the young men realised they were discovered
they made a dash for liberty, and a number escaped
by rushing upstairs and kicking out the glass and
framework of the front bedroom window. The two officers
managed to secure three of the men, however, and
were proceeding to take them to the police station
when they were beset by a gang of men. The croft
backed Gorton-lane on one side, and they had some
trouble in getting the prisoners to the lock-up.
By the Presiding Magistrate: How do you know these
men were gaming? Witness: I saw money pass between
some of them, and when they saw us they made a grab
for the money that they had put down on a square
of cardboard. They were playing a game called "Banker."
— Questioned by DURHAM, witness said in reply:
I saw you amongst the gamblers, and I saw you run
out of the house into the back kitchen. —
DURHAM: I had only just come out of the house. Hadn't
I a book in my hand? Yes, I saw a book in your hand.
— I had no money. How could you see me gambling
if I had no money? — The Presiding Magistrate:
It does not always follow that a man without money
does not gamble. — DURHAM: I had only just
walked into the house when the constable came in.
By CASSIDY: Did you find any money on me? —
Witness: I did not, but you were gambling. —
Constable COTTRILL (114C) said he was in company
with the last witness, and they succeeded in surprising
the gamblers, and arrested the three prisoners.
There was a house nearly full of them. Some escaped
by smashing the bedroom windows, and others by the
rear of the premises. When they were escorting their
prisoners across the croft they were attacked by
a gang of men with stones and bricks. They were
not hit, but were lucky to escape. — The Bench,
after consultation, fined the prisoners 2s 6d and
costs.
ALLEGED THEFT OF WATCHES
AT GORTON
A Mysterious Affair
The fact that a man was walking about with his waistcoat
adorned with a couple of watch chains is not prima
facie evidence that he has stolen them. One would
rather presume that a man who possessed stolen property
would not so flaunt it. It proved dangerous in the
case of John Daniel ELLIOTT, who was seen in Oldham-street
a few days since by Constable RINE. The constable
noticed, in addition to the two chains, that the
man's watch pocket was bulky, and he arrested him
with a couple of gold watches on him.
One of them corresponded with the description of
a watch and chain stolen from the house of James
ANDERSON, tobacconist, Gorton-lane, West Gorton,
on August 6. Mr ANDERSON was communicated with,
and he identified the articles as his property,
though he could not say how they were stolen. Prisoner
denied having stolen or received them knowing them
to have been stolen. As a matter of fact, he said
was in gaol when the robbery was alleged to have
been committed. He was remanded for a week.
ALLEGED BREACH OF THE
LICENSING ACT AT DUKINFIELD
Extraordinary Evidence
At the Dukinfield Police Court
on Thursday, John TAYLOR, licensee of the Bridge
Hotel, King-street, was summoned for selling intoxicating
liquors to a drunken person on the 18th instant.
Mr George HEATHCOTE, instructed by Superintendent
CROGHAN, prosecuted on behalf of the police, and
Mr H BOSTOCK, instructed by the Dukinfield Licensed
Victuallers, and Wine and Beersellers Association,
defended. At the request of Mr HEATHCOTE the witnesses
on both sides were ordered out of court.
Mr HEATHCOTE, in opening the case, said that at
a quarter to nine o'clock on Monday evening, the
18th inst, Constable DALE was asked to come down
to a shop at the bottom of King-street by a person
named GOULD. He went there, and found a man named
Ralph DEARDEN threatening to break the windows of
the shop. He was under the influence of drink, but
not too far gone to be unable to take of himself.
The officer asked DEARDEN to go away, and he left
the place quietly. The next morning a complaint
was lodged with the police that DEARDEN, although
he was ——.
Mr BOSTOCK objected and said his friend knew perfectly
well he could not relate anything that occurred
the following morning.
Mr HEATHCOTE said that in consequence of a complaint
the police made enquiries, and found that after
leaving GOULD's shop DEARDEN went into the Bridge
Inn kept by the defendant TAYLOR about ten past
nine o'clock and was served with some whiskey. At
a quarter to ten o'clock, DEARDEN's wife went into
the public-house and saw her husband sat in the
tap-room with a glass in front of him containing
whiskey. He was nodding and she tried to arouse
him, but failed to do so. She went out but returned
again in a few minutes to see if she could get him
out. Whilst in the tap-room the landlord's daughter
came into the room, and Mrs DEARDEN complained to
her that he had been served with drink although
he had had enough. The daughter said they would
get him out.
The barman, a man named BENNETT, took hold of DEARDEN,
and was helping him down the steps into the back-yard
when he fell, he being in a helpless state of drunkenness,
and pulled BENNETT down with him. A man named BRENNAN
from the tap-room came to BENNET'T's assistance,
and they got DEARDEN to his feet. He was afterwards
taken home by the two men and Mrs DEARDEN. Only
about half an hour elapsed between DEARDEN entering
the house and being taken away.
In consequence of complaints enquiries were made
next day by the police which resulted in the evidence
for the prosecution being obtained. On the landlord's
daughter being seen by Inspector DUTTON, she admitted
that DEARDEN had been there, and had to be taken
out of the house in a helpless state. She also admitted
that he was served, but said had she known his condition
he would not have been served. This was the case
he had to lay before the Bench. The Bench were aware
that the police could not be watching everywhere,
and when what they considered bona fide complaints
were made, they were bound to investigate them,
and if they thought there was a case to bring the
facts before the Bench.
Mrs DEARDEN was called by the prosecution. She said
her husband was "nowty drunk," but not
speechless. She asked for him to be put out of the
Bridge Hotel because she wanted to get him home,
and was afraid he might carry out his threat to
smash her father's shop window. She was living at
the shop, and apart from her husband. On the following
day she made a statement to the police, and signed
it as correct. She, however, denied telling the
police her husband was drunk. She did not tell Miss
TAYLOR that he was partly what drunk when he entered
the house, and that she had a good mind to fetch
the police. She did not tell Inspector DUTTON that
when they got her husband in the back-yard he was
helplessly drunk.
Mr BOSTOCK interposed, and said his friend Mr HEATHCOTE
was treating his own witness as hostile. The Clerk
said he had a right to call the attention of the
witness to her statement, and ask her reasons for
contradicting it now. Mr BOSTOCK said the charge
was selling whisky to a drunken person. Up to the
present the evidence, even for the prosecution,
was that DEARDEN was not drunk. Alderman BEELEY
pointed out that there was the evidence that her
husband was "nowty drunk.” That would
be sufficient for a common-sense person.
Mr HEATHCOTE: Did you go into the tap-room of the
Bridge Hotel and find your husband drunk? —
Mrs DEARDEN: No, he was not drunk. — Was he
nodding? No. — Did you sign this written statement
made to the police? Yes, but I was excited. —
You were not pressed to give this information, were
you? No reply. — It was written in your presence
and you signed it? Yes. — Has someone spoken
to you before coming to court? No.
Mr BOSTOCK: Up to the police coming to you, was
there a word said about your husband being drunk?
No, and he was not drunk. — Who came to you
about making this statement which you have signed?
Inspector DUTTON and Constable DALE. They asked
me to make a statement as to what I knew. —
Did the inspector tell you that your husband was
drunk? The policeman did. — Were the policemen
intimidating? Yes. — They struck terror into
your little heart, and upset your nerves? —
(Laughter.) I have never been right since. —
When your husband came out of the Bridge Inn, was
he drunk? No; he had some, but was not drunk. —
A few years ago he had an accident in the pit? Yes.
— And ever since that he has been weak on
his legs? Yes. — You swear that he was not
drunk? I do.
Thomas BRENNAN, Combermere-street, collier, said
he was in the Bridge Hotel when DEARDEN came in
at a quarter to nine o'clock. He called for a glass
of whiskey, and was served by the waiter, BENNETT.
Mr BOSTOCK said he did not deny the man was served
with intoxicating liquor. Witness said in his opinion
DEARDEN was sober enough when he came in. He did
not become excited until his wife came.
Mr HEATHCOTE produced a written statement made to
the police, and signed by the witness, in which
he was said to have stated that when DEARDEN came
in he had had drink. He denied telling the inspector
that. The inspector asked him if he thought DEARDEN
had had drink, but was fit to be served, and he
replied, "Yes, you can put that down."
He never told the inspector the man was helpless
drunk. The Clerk said the statement was in, and
they could take it for what it was worth.
Mr BOSTOCK: You say there are things in the statement
which you never told the inspector? Yes. —
Amongst others that he was helpless drunk? I did
not say that. — That is the inspector's invention?
Yes. — Whenever you said anything which did
not suit the inspector, he said something to you,
and put it down, that would suit him? Yes. —
(Laughter.) — You say DEARDEN only became
excited when his wife appeared on the scene? Yes.
— That is not an unusual thing is it? —
(Laughter.) — When DEARDEN came into the tap-room
was he a sober man? Yes. — Did he sit down
and give order like a sober man? Yes.
Albert HALL, 53, Church-street, next door to DEARDEN's,
stated that on the 18th, at about six o'clock, he
saw DEARDEN coming along the street from his work.
He was then all right. He saw him between half-past
eight and nine o'clock the same night in King-street.
He was not drunk. On the 19th Inspector DUTTON came
and asked him to make a statement. He did so, and
signed it as being correct.
Mr HEATHCOTE produced the statement, and the witness
denied saying DEARDEN was drunk at six o'clock.
He did say that at 8.30 he "looked drunk,"
because he was shouting. Mr BOSTOCK: You say the
man was not drunk? Yes.
Annie HALL corroborated her husband's statement.
When she told the police DEARDEN was not drunk Constable
DALE said he was drunk. — Mr BOSTOCK Whatever
appears in the statement written by the police,
DEARDEN was not drunk? No.
Alice TAYLOR, daughter of the defendant, said she
saw DEARDEN enter the house and go down into the
taproom. In her opinion he was not drunk. His wife
afterwards came to fetch him, and he went out straight
enough. On the following day Inspector DUTTON and
Constable DALE came to the house, and she made a
statement to them.
The Clerk observed that the police should not take
statements from the defendant's people and then
use them for the prosecution. Mr BOSTOCK said that
this was the very thing he objected to. It was evident
that the police went upon a fishing expedition.
The Clerk: They had no right to go. Mr BOSTOCK:
They ought to have said they wanted information
for a certain purpose. Mr HEATHCOTE: They were told
it would be wanted for a prosecution. Mrs DEARDEN:
Yes, the day after. The Clerk: If they did not tell
the defendant's daughter they were going to institute
a prosecution, then they had no right to take any
statement from her.
Mr BOSTOCK: When the police came to your house did
they say they wanted certain information for a prosecution?
— Miss TAYLOR: No. — Did they say a
single word about proceedings being taken? No. They
seemed to be joking about it. — (Laughter.)
Constable DALE was next called, and stated that
at a quarter to nine o'clock he saw DEARDEN in King-street
near Mr GOULD's shop. He was then drunk. Mr GOULD
told witness that DEARDEN had threatened to smash
his shop windows, and he (the officer) cautioned
him about it. On the following day, in consequence
of complaints he made inquiries, and went to the
Bridge Hotel with Inspector DUTTON. A conversation
took place ——.
Mr BOSTOCK: I object; this is a fishing expedition.
— (Laughter.) Mr HEATHCOTE: Was the defendant
TAYLOR told he would be reported? Yes. The Clerk:
You had no right to do it. Mr HEATHCOTE: Was the
licensee present when the conversation with Miss
TAYLOR took place Yes.
Alderman BEELEY: I wish to know if the licensee
was perfectly aware of the business you were about;
whether any information had been obtained from the
daughter previous to the licensee being spoken to.
Constable DALE said they got the information before
the licensee was told he would be reported. Mr BOSTOCK:
A most improper and irregular thing to do.
Alderman BEELEY: Did you tell them for what purpose
you were seeking this information? Did you warn
them there would be a prosecution? Constable DALE:
The inspector did all the taking. — (Laughter.)
Mr BOSTOCK: You did not say anything to DEARDEN
that night about his being drunk? — DALE:
No — If he was so drunk, why did not strain
him? — Do you think it my duty to watch people
about this street? — The Clerk: When they
are drunk it is. Mr BOSTOCK: What do we pay you
for? (Laughter.) Alderman BEELEY: We do not keep
policemen to watch drunken about the road. We have
got something else to do with our money.
Mr BOSTOCK: You say complaints were made about this
man? — DALE: Yes. — And you did not
consider it your duty to watch him? — No.
— Would you not have followed him if you considered
him was drunk? — Not if he went away quietly,
as he did. — What became of you after DEARDEN
went in the direction of the Bridge Inn? —
I went up King-street. — Sauntered up? I shall
not answer that; if you will ask me a civil question
I will answer you.
Superintendent CROGHAN told the witness to answer
the solicitor's questions. — The Clerk: And
in a civil manner.
Mr BOSTOCK: The father-in-law of DEARDEN did not
complain of any drunkenness, did he? No. —
Have you got Mr GOULD here today? I have not. If
you were satisfied on the night of the 18th that
DEARDEN was drunk, why did you and the Inspector
go and make inquiries on the following day? Tell
me that. Because I did not see him go into the Bridge
Inn. — Was not it not because you knew his
condition? No. I was satisfied about his condition
that night. — What led you to believe he was
drunk? Because he was staggering all over the road.
Inspector DUTTON next gave evidence, and spoke to
going to the Bridge Inn on the 19th and seeing the
licensee and his daughter. He told them he had come
to make enquiries about a man named DEARDEN, who
was there in a very drunken state on the previous
night. Mr TAYLOR said he did not see him. Miss TAYLOR
said, "Oh yes, the man whose wife came for
him. To save any bother I asked a man named BENNETT
to get him out." He asked her what state DEARDEN
was in, and she said "Oh, he was helpless."
He next asked her what drink he had been served
with, and she said "One glass of whisky, and
if I had seen the state he was in, he would not
have got that." During this conversation, the
landlord was present, and witness told him he should
report the matter.
Mr BOSTOCK: Why did you go to the house? To make
enquiries about a complaint. — From whom did
you receive a complaint? Constable DALE. —
When did you receive the complaint? At 12.30 on
the 19th, the day following the offence. —
When did you first learn there was an allegation
against this man's character? Then. — When
was he reported? On the 19th. — Was that after
you had been to the Bridge Inn? Yes. — I thought
so; by whom was he reported? By myself. —
Not Constable DALE? No. — So that I may take
it you went to the Bridge Inn on a fishing expedition?
You may take what you like; I went there to make
inquiries.
Do you not think it would have been more straightforward
had you said to the landlord, "Now I am making
these inquiries for a certain purpose?" No.
— You don't? No. — You think that is
a proper way to treat a licensee? Yes, I do. —
Very well, that is your idea? I told him what I
had come about. — How long did the interview
last? Five or six minutes. — Did you make
a note of the conversation at the time? You have
my evidence there. Mr HEATHCOTE has got it. —
Did you make a note of it at all, sir? Yes. —
When? That day. — At the interview in the
house? No, certainly not. — Why is it necessary
to take down the written statement of other people
and not of the licensee and his family? I cannot
say why I should do.
This was the case for the prosecution.
Mr BOSTOCK then addressed the Bench for the defence,
and submitted upon the evidence submitted there
was no case for him to answer. His friend had thought
fit to call certain witnesses, and he must take
the responsibility on his own shoulders, but having
adopted that course, what was the evidence before
the Bench. It all tended to show that DEARDEN was
not in a state of drunkenness at the time alleged,
and that being so, there was no case for him to
answer.
Alderman BEELEY said that so far as the Bench were
concerned they had persuaded themselves that this
man was drunk. Mr BOSTOCK: Do I understand the Bench
have made up their minds that the man was drunk?
The Clerk: Not at all until they have heard your
side. Alderman BEELEY: Up to the present, so far
as we can judge of the evidence, and until you have
shown us something else, the evidence is that the
man was drunk. The Clerk: They think you have a
case to answer.
Mr BOSTOCK pointed out that the charge was for having
sold intoxicating liquor, to wit, whiskey to a drunken
man, so that the Bench must be satisfied of two
things, firstly that DEARDEN was drunk, and secondly
that at the time he entered the Bridge Inn and was
served he was drunk. The charge was simply with
selling it. If DEARDEN were sober at the time he
entered the public-house, and subsequent to being
served with intoxicating liquor he became drunk,
the licensee would not be liable upon the offence
of selling. The Clerk: If he were drunk and you
served him you would be liable.
Mr BOSTOCK said in a case of this kind the onus
was on the police. They had heard the way in which
the police had gone about obtaining the written
statements of the witnesses. He did not care what
they told the police, the real question which the
Bench had to consider was what those witnesses had
stated upon oath in the box that morning. Everyone
of them, with the exception of the police of course,
had stated that DEARDEN was not drunk, and he asked
the magistrates to dismiss the case.
Henry GOULD, tobacconist, King-street, father-in-law
of DEARDEN, was called, and spoke to DEARDEN coming
to his shop and threatening to smash his windows.
The man was, in his opinion, sober, but somewhat
excited about his wife, from whom he was parted.
— In reply to Mr HEATHCOTE, witness denied
telling the police it was a shame that the licensee
should let a man like DEARDEN get so drunk in his
house, and the police ought to investigate it.
Alice TAYLOR was the next witness, but the Clerk
ruled that Mr BOSTOCK could not call her, because
the prosecution objected, and she had already given
evidence and been cross-examined by Mr BOSTOCK.
Mr BOSTOCK said the course he had decided to adopt
was this. He had already called an independent witness,
and if that did not satisfy the court he would leave
the case there and take his own course afterwards.
The Clerk: That is your case? Mr BOSTOCK: Yes.
Alderman BEELEY then said the Bench were quite satisfied
this man was drunk. It was not necessary to state
their reasons for that decision. The written statements
signed by the witnesses left no doubt whatever upon
the subject, and whether there had been perjury
or not they could all judge between the lines. They
were there to exercise as far as they know their
own judgment on a matter of this sort. Those who
has signed the statements had in some points corroborated
what was contained therein, and other parts they
had denied. If that stood alone they might have
been satisfied to give the defendant the benefit
of the doubt; but there was the fact that DEARDEN
had to be helped out of the house, a fact which
had never been denied. The assumption was that the
man was drunk.
They, however, felt that the licensee should not
be unduly blamed at a time like that, the Wakes,
and perhaps the condition of the man was not noticed.
They had no hesitation about his being drunk, and
inflicting a small fine they made no allegation
about the conduct of the house. They felt they would
not be doing justice if they did not impose a fine
of 5s and costs. The Clerk: The license not to be
endorsed? Alderman BEELEY: No.
Mr BOSTOCK said he should advise his clients to
appeal the case. Alderman BEELEY said that was the
reason why he had said what he had, were there was
so much money.
Mr BOSTOCK said the money was on the other side.
His clients went in for what was right, and it was
not a matter of money at all. Alderman BEELEY: It
is all right so far as we are concerned.
Ralph DEARDEN was next charged with being drunk
on the licensed premises of the Bridge Inn, and
pleaded not guilty. — Constable DALE was called,
and repeated the evidence that DEARDEN was drunk
on the night of the 18th. — For the defence
five witnesses were called, who swore that he was
not drunk. — In reply to the Bench, Superintendent
CROGHAN read three previous convictions against
DEARDEN for being drunk and disorderly, malicious
damage, and felony. — The Bench imposed a
penalty of 2s 6d and costs.
The magistrates were Aldermen Thos BEELEY, J KERFOOT
and J PICKUP. |
