25 January 1902
CASE AT ASHTON
At the Ashton Borough Police Court on Monday,
John DEVLIN was in the dock on remand charged
with unlawfully wounding George TRAVIS on the
George TRAVIS said: I live at66
Swindells-street, Ashton-under-Lyne. At a quarter
to six on Friday, the 3rd inst, I was in Booth-street,
just off Stamford-street, speaking to my wife.
The prisoner, John DEVLIN, came and struck me
under the jaw with his fist. He did not say anything
and I had not said anything to him. He knocked
me down, and while on the ground he kicked me
over the left eye, on the forehead, on the bridge
of the nose, on the top lip, and on the back.
He jumped upon me and I became unconscious. I
did not remember any more until I was at the Town
Hall. I was afterwards sent up to the workhouse
hospital where I have remained until this morning.
I have suffered lots of pain and am very weak
this morning through loss of blood. Asked
if he had any questions to ask, prisoner said:
No. I don't know that it matters.
Bertha DAMARELL said: I live at
160, Catherine-street, Ashton. On Friday the 3rd,
about a quarter to six o'clock, I was coming along
Stamford-street on my way home. When I got to
the corner of Booth-street I saw TRAVIS on the
ground and the prisoner kicking him four or five
times. At this stage the Clerk told the prisoner
he need not laugh. It would perhaps not be a laughing
matter for him eventually. It would also be more
respectful to the court if he gave up grinning.
Witness: After that a woman came up and pulled
the prisoner away. Two men raised TRAVIS from
the pavement, and I saw his face was covered with
blood. I did not see the bother start.
John Edward WHITWORTH said: I live
at 122 Church-street, Ashton. At a quarter to
six o'clock on the 3rd January I was coming down
Stamford-street. When near Booth-street, I saw
TRAVIS lying on the pavement and a man kicking
him. Whilst he was kicking him I heard him say,
"You , I have catched
you on my own this time." I cannot swear that
prisoner is the man, but he resembles him. I went
to the corner for a constable, and when I got
back two men had TRAVIS reared up against the
Oddfellows Hall. I struck a match and saw his
face was covered with blood. Prisoner had no questions
to ask "as long as he didn't see it start."
The Chief Constable said TRAVIS's
wife was present. She had made a statement. The
Clerk: He does not practically deny the charge.
Perhaps he will have something to say at the other
TRAVIS was re-called and questioned:
Had you any grievance with the prisoner before
this? None whatever, between the prisoner and
me. You never spoke to him that night?
No, never. He struck you without speaking?
Yes. The Clerk: Who is the prisoner? Is
he a relative of yours? No. Do you know
him? Yes. Had you any words before? None
Constable WILD said: About 12.30
noon on the 4th January I arrested the prisoner
and brought him to the Town Hall, and charged
him with unlawfully wounding George TRAVIS by
kicking him about on the previous night. He replied,
"I hit him because he kicked my mother." Prisoner
had no questions to ask the officer. The Bench
asked that Mrs TRAVIS should be called as they
thought there was something in the case which
they ought to know.
Teresa TRAVIS said: I am the wife
of George TRAVIS. I am not living with my husband.
I separated from him about the end of December
and I lived at the house of the prisoner's mother.
I was returning from my work when I met my husband
in Booth-street. He came to me, and I said "Go
away, are you coming to kill me as you nearly
killed the old woman last Friday night." He had
made a kick at me, but I avoided it. The prisoner's
mother, who works at the same mill that I do,
and his wife were present in the street. We all
stood talking together when my husband came up.
He (TRAVIS) kicked at me, but I got out of his
way, and then he kicked the prisoner's mother.
I screamed and then the prisoner came up. He said,
"I have catched you kicking my mother," and then
he struck TRAVIS, and he fell on the ground. Prisoner
kicked him two or three times while he was on
the pavement. When my husband was picked up I
On being charged prisoner said,
"I plead guilty of assaulting him in my mother's
defence, and under great provocation." Prisoner
was committed for trial to the sessions, bail
BREACH OF THE LICENSING
ACT AT ASHTON
Safe(?) in the Queen's Arms
At the Ashton Borough Police Court on Monday,
James William NIELD, licensee of the Queen's Arms,
George-street, was summoned for keeping his licensed
premises open for the sale of intoxicating liquor
during prohibited hours on the 15th inst. Mr J B
POWNALL defended, and pleaded not guilty.
Inspector LUDLAM was sworn and stated
that he, along with Constable GODDARD, visited
the Queen's Arms, kept by the defendant. The door
in West-street was wide open and the light turned
on in the lobby. In a room on the right of the
lobby he saw two gentlemen named James Mercer
JONES and another who gave the name Francis MAIDEN.
They were sat at tables on which were two glasses,
one about one-third full, and the other nearly
empty, the contents of which appeared to be whiskey.
He asked the landlord what he was doing with the
house open at 18 minutes past 11 o'clock. He replied,
"I have only just come in from the banquet and
they have had nothing to drink since 11 o'clock."
JONES said he had some business to transact with
the landlord. Witness told the landlord he should
have to report him, and he said "All right."
The Chief Constable: Did MAIDEN
give any excuse for being there at that time?
None whatever, only gave his name and address.
Did they appear to be doing any business at all?
None whatever. There was no one in the room except
the two sitting at the table quite unconcerned.
Mr POWNALL: I have only one question. Was there
a cab at the door? Inspector LUDLAM: There was.
Mr POWNALL: I admit the evidence so far as it
Mr POWNALL said the facts as stated
by the officers were not in dispute, and the only
question he asked was whether there was a cab
at the door or not. That would very likely attract
attention, and it would go a long way in the mind
of the Bench as to whether there was any intention
to commit an offence. They all knew that the Queen's
Arms had an unblemished record. It was one of
the oldest houses in the town, and one of the
most respectably conducted. Mr NIELD had only
been the tenant for a few years and during that
time that time the way he had conducted the house
was entitled to commendation.
On this particular night defendant
did not get home until ten minutes past eleven
o'clock. Mr MAIDEN had walked up to the Old Square,
and arrived at the Queen's Arms shortly before
eleven o'clock. When he got inside, he met Mr
JONES. At that time defendant was not in. They
left the bar parlour and stood at the entrance
to the kitchen, and defendant came in as they
were standing there. Defendant would tell the
Bench that no drink was supplied after 11 o'clock,
and the fact that these two gentlemen remained
there until the time stated by the police was
more due to inadvertness than a wilful attempt
to infringe the Act of Parliament.
The gentlemen were well known in
the borough. Mr MAIDEN was connected with Bardsley
Brewery, and he would be the last man in the world
to do anything to jeopardise a licence. From their
knowledge of Mr JONES they might say the same
of him. From their knowledge of Mr JONES they
might say the same of him. If there had been any
attempt to defeat the Act of Parliament it was
not likely they would keep the front door of the
house open. Mr NIELD found that Mr JONES had stayed
there to talk over a particular matter, and Mr
MAIDEN, wanting to see him, also waited. The fact
that it had got eighteen minutes past eleven o'clock
had been overlooked. Of course, the law had been
laid down that if there means of access to customers
to the interior rooms from the outside, however
innocent the intention might be, that constituted
a technical offence He asked the Bench to accept
the explanation he had given.
SAD BURNING FATALITY AT
On Monday, at the Ashton District Infirmary,
Mr S BIRCH, deputy coroner, held an inquest touching
the death of Elizabeth CUNNINGHAM, a Stalybridge
girl, who died from the effects of burns. Mr Edwin
DIGGLE was foreman of the jury.
John CUNNINGHAM said: I live at
51 Mount-street, Stalybridge, but formerly resided
in Victoria-court in that borough, and am a cane
chair bottomer. Deceased was my daughter, and
was 13 years of age last November. She always
enjoyed good health. On Wednesday, January 1st,
my wife and I left the house about nine o'clock
in the morning, leaving deceased at home alone.
There was a fire in the grid in the house part,
which I lit before going out. We got home about
quarter past five in the evening, and were then
informed by my son (who works in the mill) that
Elizabeth had been burned, and had been taken
to the Infirmary. I came straight away and saw
her. She was just able to tell me that she had
been stirring the fire with the poker when the
wind blew down the chimney, her pinafore becoming
John WOODHEAD, of 4 Victoria Court,
off High-street, Stalybridge, said: I am a night
watchman at the Globe Ironworks. On Wednesday
morning, 1st instant, I was in bed when I heard
my wife screaming. I ran downstairs and saw deceased
in flames running out of the front door. She had
come in at the back. I picked up a rug, ran after
the girl, wrapped the rug round her, and put out
the flames. I could see deceased was badly burned
about the face, arms and body. I keep limewater
and oil in the house and this I quickly applied
to the burnt parts. I then sent for Dr BISHOP
who approved of what I had done, and then ordered
the girl's removal to the infirmary. Deceased
never told me how she got on fire.
Annie REYNOLDS, wife of Herbert
REYNOLDS, ironworker, of two Victoria Court, said:
On New Year's Day, shortly after 11am, I was outside
my own house when I heard screams outside, and
upon going to see what was the matter I saw smoke
issuing from WOODHEAD's door, and then saw deceased
running out running out of the house in flames.
Mr WOODHEAD was running after deceased with a
rug in his hand. I afterwards came along with
the girl to the infirmary, and on the way deceased
said she was poking the fire when her pinafore
ignited. By the Foreman: There was a fender
in front of the grid. When witness went into CUNNINGHAM's
house she found the poker near the cupboard. The
curtains and blinds were ablaze.
Dr PEMBERTON, house surgeon at the
District Infirmary, spoke as to deceased being
admitted into the institution suffering from the
effects of burns. Her face, both arms and chest
were badly burned. She was quite conscious, but
she gradually got weaker, and developed bronchial
pneumonia. Deceased told witness about poking
the fire, and so igniting her pinafore. Death
took place on the 16th inst.
A juror commented on the folly of
leaving a child 13 years in charge of a house.
The Deputy Coroner said the parents went out hawking.
It was not an uncommon thing to leave a child
13 years of age. In many cases they were left
at home at that age to look after younger children.
In his opinion there was no evidence of neglect
whatever. A verdict of "accidental death" was
MUTUAL COTTON CLASS. On Tuesday
evening a lecture was given by Mr J MOTTRAM, of
Oldham, who took for his subject, "A few practical
hints on the mule." Mr C E WARHURST presided. The
lecturer dealt with the settling of roller beam,
bevel of spindles, sector, and the lopping plates.
A good discussion followed. During the week two
of the members have received appointments as mule
overlookers. On Saturday Mr MOTTRAM's class from
Oldham paid the school a visit and the machinery
was set in motion. A pleasant afternoon was spent.
STILL ANOTHER ADJOURNMENT.
At the Police Court on Monday, William THORPE,
of Hyde, again appeared in respect to the charge
against him of neglecting to alter closets in
certain property in Stalybridge, contrary to the
provisions of the Public Healths' Act, 1875. Mr
John MILLER, town clerk, represented the prosecutors,
the Corporation. Mr THORPE came forward
and asked for a further adjournment of a month.
The work was now in hand, and was proceeding satisfactorily.
Mr MILLER said he consented to the application,
and he was glad to say a satisfactory arrangement
had that morning been arrived at concerning the
plans, about which there had been some dispute.
The adjournment was granted.
UNJUST WEIGHING MACHINE.
On Monday, at the police court, before the Mayor
and other magistrates, George SIDEBOTTOM, merchant,
King-street, was charged with having in his possession,
for use for trade, a weighing machine which was
false and unjust, contrary to the Weights and
Measures Act, 1878. Defendant was represented
by Mr R G IVES. Inspector BEAUMONT said
that on the 11th inst, he visited the railway
goods siding, and found defendant's son, along
with two labourers, filling bags of potatoes from
a truck and weighing them upon the machine produced
in court. An examination of the machine found
it to be 1 3/4 lbs against
the purchaser. Mr IVES, in mitigation of
the offence, pointed to the fact that defendant
had been in business a number of years, and had
ever borne a most exemplary character. The machine
in question was bought at a sale recently, and
through an oversight it was never tested.
The Bench held the case proved, and fined SIDEBOTTOM
10s 6d and costs.
FARMERS IN DISPUTE.
At the Ashton County Court on Thursday, before
his Honour Judge BROWN, a Droylsden farmer named
George HIBBERT sued John OLLERENSHAW, farmer,
of Ridgehill, Stalybridge, for damages
£4 for the keep of a cow nine weeks, and !3 for
the loss of a calf through misrepresentation of
date. Mr John WHITEHEAD defended. Plaintiff gave
evidence in support of his claim, but was told
that he could scarcely recover for the loss of
the calf, because it might have died under ordinary
circumstances. The defence set up by Mr
WHITEHEAD was that there was no misrepresentation
at all, and this statement received corroboration
from defendant, and a witness named FLINT. Defendant
made a practice of never giving dates in these
cases, and he actually offered to withdraw from
the deal, but plaintiff expressed his satisfaction
with the terms. In the end judgement was
given for OLLERENSHAW, and the Judge, in response
to Mr WHITEHEAD's claim for costs, said that as
plaintiff had alleged fraud on the part of defendant
he (HIBBERT) would have to pay the expenses.
A DUKINFIELD HORSE TRANSACTION
Sequel in Ashton County Court
At the Ashton County Court on Thursday, William
R CROMPTON, butcher, Town-lane, Dukinfield, sued
James POGSON, tripedresser, Town-lane, for £1 7s
3d, money lent. The defendant put in a counter claim
for £2 17s, said to be due to him out of his share
of £4, nett loss on a horse which it was alleged
he and plaintiff jointly purchased for £10, and
sold for £2, the sum having been reduced by a payment
of £1 3s. Mr G HEATHCOTE appeared for the plaintiff,
and Mr R COOKE was for the defendant.
Mr HEATHCOTE said that on September
10th defendant went to the house of the plaintiff
and told him he was about to purchase a horse.
An arrangement was made between them. Defendant
was to purchase a horse and the plaintiff was
to allow the use of his trap, harness and stable
free, and to contribute one half of the cost of
maintenance. A horse was purchased from Mr SHEPLEY,
horse dealer, Ashton, for £10, defendant paying
£6 and giving an IOU for the remaining £4. The
horse was subsequently taken away by the defendant
from plaintiff's stable, and after having it for
his own use he sold it for £2 and got another
horse in exchange.
William S CROMPTON gave corroborative
evidence, and his wife (Esther Ann CROMPTON) spoke
to defendant coming to the shop to see her husband
about a horse transaction, and her husband lending
him money.. Joe SHEPLEY, horse dealer, deposed
to selling the horse to POGSON for £10. The horse
he said was afterwards disposed of for £16..
Mr E COOKE: Are you prepared to prove that? Yes.
You are a well known gentleman here? And so are
you. (Laughter.) I'm a respectable business
man, selling from 20 to 50 horses a week, do you
Thomas TIDESWELL, mechanic, Dukinfield,
gave evidence in support of the plaintiff's statement.
Mr COOKE said his client felt that he had been
imposed upon by CROMPTON. The latter had not quite
sufficient work for a horse to do and keep it
himself, but he had a trap valued at £7. It was
arranged for plaintiff and defendant to purchase
and whatever difference there should be paid.
Therefore the trap and horse was joint ownership..
James POGSON deposed to CROMPTON and himself going
to buy the horse jointly.
Councillor W WILLIAMS, Dukinfield,
deposed to being in a club in company with plaintiff
and defendant hearing a conversation from which
he gathered there was joint ownership. His Honour,
in giving judgement, said that to entitle defendant
to succeed on the counter claim, he must establish
to his satisfaction that the plaintiff was half
owner of the horse, that he was liable for half
of the cost of the horse. The documents were directly
against the defendant on that point. It was evident
to his mind that POGSON alone bought the horse
from SHEPLEY. He believed the story in substance
given by plaintiff that he was to find the harness
and stable and to have use of the horse.
His Honour found for plaintiff for the amount
of his claim, and dismissed the counter claim,
defendant to pay the costs.