24 January 1903
OF FIRST OFFENDERS’ ACT
Two men named George SHEPLEY, 18 Bank-street, Hyde, and
Samuel HANNIBLE, 1 Dawson-street, Hyde, were charged with
stealing a brass casting, 6lbs weight, value 11s, the
property of Herbert and Robert LEES, between the 1st and
6th January. George SPENCER, of Denton, engineer for Messrs
H and R LEES, at High-street Mills, Godley, identified
the brass casting produced as the property of his employers.
He last saw it safe on the 2nd inst, in a shed adjoining
Henry CHAPPELL, marine store
dealer, carrying on business at Perrin-street, and residing
in Russell-street, stated that about 10am on Thursday,
16th January, the prisoners came to his warehouse and
offered the brass casting produced for sale. Suspecting
something wrong, he refused to purchase it, and afterwards
gave information to the police. He told the prisoners
he did not like the look of the casting, and one of them
said they worked for Mr Tom ROBINSON, and had got it at
a place where they had been working. They also said they
had got plenty of other stuff.
Mr Herbert LEES, cotton manufacturer,
was next called. In answer to Sergeant DAIN, who conducted
the prosecution in the absence of the Chief Constable,
who was at the Woodley fire, witness said the prisoners
had no authority to take the casting away. The prisoner
HANNIBLE used to work for the firm, but witness did not
know the other prisoner. On the date in question, Mr ROBINSON
was not carrying out repairs at their mill, although some
repairs were being done. The shed was not locked, but
it was enclosed on the premises in the mill yard, and
had a door. They kept old castings and other material
in the shed.
Sergeant NUTALL stated that
about 10.30am on the 15th inst, from information received,
he apprehended the two prisoners in Market-street. He
brought them to the police station, and then went to the
house where SHEPLEY lived, and found the brass produced.
He found it in a drawer below the cupboard adjoining the
fireplace. Witness subsequently charged the prisoners
together with stealing the casting. SHEPLEY replied, “I
didn’t steal it; I found it on the roof.”
HANNIBLE replied, “I was at Droylsden, and have
not been in Alec’s factory for three years.”
The magistrates discharged
HANNIBLE, and the Clerk then read over the charge to SHEPLEY,
who pleaded guilty to fetching the brass away, but repeated
that he found it on the roof, and said he didn’t
think he was stealing it.
Mr Thos. Henry ROBINSON, contractor,
residing at 71 Travis-street, came forward and said he
had known SHEPLEY ten or eleven years. SHEPLEY had frequently
worked for him, and witness found him a decent, workman,
straight-forward and honest; and he had received no complaints
about SHEPLEY, who, so far as witness knew, had always
borne a good character. The bench gave the prisoner the
benefit of the First Offenders’ Act, and bound him
over, the Chairman hoping this case would be a lesson
FOR WAGES DURING ILLNESS
In this action Joseph COOPER, 49 Greenheys-lane, Manchester,
salesman, sued Ernest WOOD, trading as Wood and Co, who
has a shop at Haughton Green, for the recovery of £9
alleged to be due for wages during an illness that the
plaintiff had had. Mr RIDEAL appeared for the plaintiff,
and said the illness was temporary, while plaintiff was
in the employ of the defendant. It seemed that the defendant,
who had provision shops all over the country, engaged
the plaintiff as salesman nine months ago; and then on
29th September last, plaintiff was taken ill and at once
wrote and told defendant, who sent a man down, and satisfied
himself that the plaintiff was really ill and in bed.
After recovery, plaintiff communicated again with the
defendant, and told him he was prepared to resume his
work, and then defendant wrote to him a letter saying
there was no work for him.
The plaintiff, Joseph COOPER,
said he entered defendant’s service nine months
ago, as branch manager, and was to be paid 30s a week.
In answer to defendant, witness said that when ill he
had congestion of the liver, which was brought on by colds.
Witness was brought by defendant from Warrington to Stockport,
and from Stockport to Salford. Witness denied he had been
By His Honour: His wages were
paid weekly, and he did not receive any commission. He
travelled about and opened shops. Witness’s mother
wrote twice to defendant about his illness. – Defendant,
replying to His Honour, said he engaged someone else.
– His Honour: But if a servant is temporarily ill,
it does not necessarily say you should find someone in
Re-examined by Mr RIDEAL, the
plaintiff strongly denied that drink had anything whatever
to do with his illness. – A letter sent by defendant
to plaintiff immediately after the illness was handed
up to His Honour, who said it seemed from the letter that
the servant was on very good terms with the master. His
Honour said it was a very extraordinary thing if a person
on weekly wages was incapable of following his employment
for many weeks, and was entitled by law to recover for
many weeks, without having given notice to the employer,
or without doing a stroke of work. Supposing the illness
had lasted three months?
Mr RIDEAL said he expected
that after a couple of weeks’ illness, or so, the
defendant would say that as plaintiff continued ill he
would determine the agreement. Defendant had never in
any way communicated with them. – His Honour said
if a person was ill a short time it would be hard to say
he was not entitled to wages for that period; but if it
amounted to months it would be hard on the employer.
He thought he might adopt Mr
RIDEAL’s suggestion and hold that plaintiff’s
wages did not cease during the week in which he was giving
notice that he was temporarily ill, the employer not answering
that letter. He thought he might infer that during that
period the wages continued to run, so the plaintiff was
entitled to a week’s notice for the first week;
and then he thought, it was the duty of the employer to
have terminated the employment by a formal week’s
notice afterwards. As a result, he gave judgment for plaintiff
for £3, costs to follow.
A Wife’s Application Dismissed
Joseph BICKERDYKE, Cooper-street, a striker, was charged
with persistent cruelty towards his wife, Alice, residing
in Bank-street. Mr Joe COOKE, solicitor, appeared for
The Complainant said they were
married on the 12th November, 1893. They had two children,
the older one being eight years of age, the younger one
two. She left her husband a week last Wednesday, on account
of his cruelty. On Wednesday the 14th, bother started
through her sister’s little girl coming to their
house. Her husband swore at the girl and threw her out.
Witness went between them, whereupon her husband began
knocking her about. He gave her a good hiding, and knocked
her over a chair with his fist. His ill-usage had gone
on for several years.
They had been separated before,
for seven or eight months. Her husband came home drunk
three or four nights a week. When drunk, he kicked the
furniture about; broke pots, and ill-used the children.
He beat her and the children a week or two previously.
He beat witness three nights on running – Wednesday,
Thursday and Friday. It was a frequent occurrence. “No
sooner a word than a blow, and oftener than not the blows
came before the words,” she went on.
He had generally given her
6s or 7s a week. In Christmas week, he gave her 10s, and
had 5s back again. The last week her gave her anything
it was 9s 2¼d. She had to meet all the expenses
of the house with that, together with a few shillings
she made herself.
Cross-examined by Mr COOKE:
The witness said they had not been married long when she
first applied for a separation order, and the magistrates
made an order for 6s a week. She admitted the order was
afterwards reduced to 4s, but she said it was owing to
her husband getting less. In further cross-examination,
the complainant admitted having another child besides
the two she had mentioned, and that it was born while
she was living apart from her husband, and that her husband
was not the father of it She denied that her husband had
complained about her conduct in going out at nights.
Mr COOKE cross-examined the
complainant at some length as to her going to a home in
Travis-street with her sister. She declined to tell the
reason why she went, and said she would leave it to her
sister. Mr COOKE submitted a list of defendant’s
from his employer, Mr COOPER. Eighteen shillings was his
wage for a full week, but he had often broken time, and
the amounts submitted ranged as low as 10s 6d.
Eliza KEALING, wife of Henry
KEALING, and Ellen CLARKE, both of New Mills, and both
sisters of the complainant, were called, but it happened
that neither of them could speak of within the last six
months, so their evidence could not be taken.
Mr COOKE said he did not wish
to take advantage of the complainant, but was about to
submit there was no case, insomuch as the only evidence
was that given by the complainant. He was not going to
say that under the Act of Parliament they were bound to
have corroboration; but he thought, having regard to her
prior conduct, although it had been condoned by the defendant,
nevertheless they should not forget it, and it was there,
that the complainant was a woman of not the best of morals,
because during the time she was under the protection of
the bench, and defendant was going to his work and trying
to conform with the order, she went and got herself enceinte
with another man.
Although he did not put much
pressure in cross-examination, she did not go through
the ordeal very well. She admitted that her husband had
warned her about going to a certain house in Travis-street,
where her sister was, and she refused to tell what she
went for. From her evidence he took the impression that
the sister was living in the town, but it seemed she lived
in New Mills. The husband had frequently to complain of
her objectionable conduct. Mr COOKE submitted there was
The Chairman announced that
the Bench found there was not sufficient evidence, and
they dismissed the case.
ACCIDENT AT HYDE
Lurry Driver and Horse Injured
An accident of a somewhat serious character took place
about a quarter-past six on Thursday evening, near the
foot of Kingston Brow, Hyde. A mineral water lurry belonging
to Mr WHITE, mineral water manufacturer, Manchester, was
proceeding along the flat in the direction of Denton,
when a collision occurred between the lurry and a tramcar
in the opposite direction.
There were two horses in the
lurry, and the driver of the lurry was sitting on the
high box in front. The impact was so great that the driver,
named MEYERS, of Russell-street, Denton, was knocked off
the box. One of his knees was badly bruised, and he was
severely shaken, and was assisted into the grocer’s
shop close by.
The near shaft of the lurry
was knocked off by the collision with the car, and the
near horse was very severely cut on one of its forelegs,
but the other horse escaped unhurt, as did also the driver
of the tramcar. The injured horse fell and lay in the
roadway, and practically could not move, so it had to
be dragged away from the tramlines. It lay on the road
for several hours.
At ten o’clock on Thursday
evening, when one of our representatives visited the scene,
the horse still lay there, and it was feared it would
have to be killed; but we were glad to learn that the
driver of the lurry was getting round very nicely.
LICENSING ACT – HUSBAND’S APPLICATION FOR
A SEPARATION ORDER
Wife Alleged to be a Habitual Drunkard
Under the new Licensing Act, Sydney POVEY, 180 Dukinfield-road,
a sawyer, applied for a separation from his wife, Mary
POVEY, who was alleged to be a habitual drunkard. The
defendant, Mrs POVEY, only came out of gaol last Saturday,
having been down a week in default of paying a fine recently
imposed upon her at this Court for drunkenness.
The first witness called was
Police-Constable John RICHARDSON, of Cheadle, where the
parties used to live. His evidence was to the effect that
when the POVEYs lived at Cheadle, two or three years ago,
he was fetched to the defendant several times. He had
found her lying on the hearth drunk, and when the husband
came home at night there had been no tea and no fire.
Defendant had broken house
furniture and mugs, but she always kept in the house if
she expected the police coming, and they could not lock
her up. She was a woman of well-known drunken habits.
Her husband had complained in her presence about her having
pawned things out of the house, and she had admitted it.
Witness had seen the husband go to shops for provisions
and have them sent home, so as to avoid letting his wife
have any money.
Witness regarded the woman
as a habitual drunkard. She often had bruises on her face,
which appeared to be caused through falling. The husband,
during the time witness knew him, was a hard-working,
respectable man, and also a teetotaler.
The applicant next gave evidence.
They were, he said, married on the 21st October, 1899,
at a Registry Office in Stockport. The defendant was his
second wife. She had no children, but witness had three
by his first wife, the eldest being fourteen years of
age, and the youngest seven. Witness earned about 28s
a week as a sawyer.
His wife’s drunken habits
had gone on from about a month after they were married,
to the present time. Witness had regularly been compelled
to after the house and the children. Witness mentioned
two occasions on which his wife had smashed windows. When
in drink, his wife was violent towards the children. Witness
had not tasted drink for three years.
Defendant had often pawned
things – blankets and sheets off the bed had gone
that way, and it was no use getting them back, because
she took them again immediately. She had also pawned the
children’s clothing. Witness never illtreated her.
He had fetched her out of a field at two a.m., and on
one occasion she slept in a field all night, and would
not move. This was about nine months ago, at Chinley,
where they resided after leaving Cheadle, and before coming
Answering questions from his
wife, and from the bench, witness admitted he once told
her to pawn some things, but that, he explained, was when
he was out of work. He admitted that he had served three
months in gaol for neglecting his children, during the
lifetime of his first wife, who was sentenced to six weeks’
imprisonment for similar offence. His children at that
time had been placed under the protection of the workhouse
authorities, who proceeded against him.
His present wife before being
married to him was in service at Levenshulme. He admitted
seeing his wife drunk on one occasion during their courtship.
His first wife died in Hope Hospital, Salford, six or
seven years ago, and it was about six months afterwards
that he heard of her death. His work often took him to
different places. He was not in prison during the six
months named. – (Mr BARON: You’re a model
Clara POVEY, aged 13, daughter
of the applicant, was called, and gave evidence of the
defendant’s drunken habits.
Mrs POVEY was sworn, and in
course of her statement admitted getting a drop of drink,
but alleged she only got drunk when her husband ill-used
her. She got excited, and this caused her husband to say
she was drunk. She asserted that she had never pawned
things except when her husband told her. She admitted
having broken windows twice, and that her husband had
been a sober man during the last two or three years.
Mrs ELLIS, of 204 Dukinfield-road,
a married woman, who let the house in which the parties
had been living, was called by the defendant. She said
she had lately seen her several times a week, and had
noticed nothing wrong about her. Witness admitted having
recently seen two broken windows at the house of the parties,
but did not see them broken. The husband paid the rent.
Last Sunday week witness saw the husband pull defendant
about the flags, and the woman, who seemed hysterical,
cried to be locked up.
In reply to the bench, defendant
said she came out of Wales – Carnarnvonshire. She
had a poor old mother, who since she was married had sent
her two pairs of boots, and in one of the boots there
was a shilling. She gave one pair to Clara.
The magistrates granted the
husband a separation order, and the Chairman intimated
he must pay his wife 5s a week. The husband, of course,
retains custody of the children. The Chairman told defendant
that now was the time to turn over a new leaf.
Flashes from the Half-Moon
Notwithstanding the prejudice with which several members
of the Town Council view the Education Bill, a determined
and honest effort is to be made to put the Act in operation.
The Mayor (Alderman H PRATT) called a meeting of the General
Purposes Committee last week-end, and the various phases
of the Bill were freely discussed. The majority of the
members were undoubtedly in favour of the Council becoming
the local education authority, and a resolution was finally
moved by the Ex-Mayor (Councilor W E WOOD), and seconded
by Councilor J GRIME, that a committee be formed to prepare
a scheme to present to the Council. No further action
will be taken for some days to come.
There was a crowded attendance at St Mark’s Band
Institute, on Sunday forenoon, when a sacred concert was
given by Mr Titus CROPPER and party. Mr W CROPPER occupied
the chair, and the vocalists included Messrs H MAIDEN,
W HAGUES, Geo. CARTER, E ROYLES, and Bert RAYNOR. The
accompanist was Mr Dom FAVIER.
Mr HARVEY has been appointed secretary and convener of
the Joint Committee of trustees and members of the Foundry-street
Wesleyan congregation, which is charged with the duty
of carrying out the improved lighting of the school. The
following officers of the Sunday School have been elected
for 1903:- Messrs TAYLOR and SEABORNE, superintendents;
Mr J PICKUP, J.P., treasurer; and Mr Robt. BROWN, school
visitor. Alderman PICKUP has also been appointed senior
society steward in succession to Mr J H SNOWDON.
Mr F NEWTON, Cheshire County Coroner, held an inquest
at the Town Hall on Tuesday afternoon, on the body of
George WHITEHEAD, a retired miner, aged 76, of Church-street,
who died suddenly at his home the previous morning. Evidence
of identification was given by Isaac WHITEHEAD, who stated
that his father slept on the sofa on Sunday evening. About
ten minutes to four on Monday morning he was awakened
by his wife, and on going into the kitchen he found deceased
in a kneeling position against the sofa. Life was extinct.
– The jury returned a verdict of “Death from
natural causes, probably heart failure following bronchitis.”
Two old English “man-traps” came up for sale
at a London auction-room this week. These terrible engines
– 74in long from end to end and 3ft high –
would catch a man above the knees, and as it requires
two men to set the traps owing to a strong spring at either
end, the wretched poacher would be held a close prisoner
until the gamekeeper released him.