14 March 1903
OF A DAISY NOOK YOUNG COUPLE
Reminded Him of the American Lady Smasher
Details of the domestic troubles of a respectable, youthful
couple were related to the Ashton County Justices on Wednesday.
The complainant, Agnes SIMPSON, was the daughter of a
Daisy Nook farmer, and she summoned her husband, Harry
SIMPSON, apprentice at a Denton works, for persistent
cruelty. Mr T E GIBSON appeared for the complainant, and
Mr A LEES was for the defendant.
Mr GIBSON said the parties
in the case were married on February 15th, 1902, and there
was issue of the marriage one child, and the complainant
was again pregnant. They at first went to live with the
wife’s parents at Daisy Nook, and in September last
they went to live at Droylsden.
On Saturday night, January
3rd, defendant returned home about six o’clock the
worse for drink. He said he had been to a football match,
and then commenced cursing. He hit her and knocked her
about, and then got hold of her round the shoulders and
dragged her to the front door and threw her violently
out into the street. He threw her shawl out after her
and then shut the door. Since that time he had sent the
sum of 3s for the support of the child, and told her in
the presence of others that he would contribute nothing
to her, and that she would have to keep herself.
Owing to her delicate state
of health she was unable to work, and at present, she
was living with her parents. In November last defendant
threatened to cut his wife’s throat with a razor,
and owing to his frequent threats and violence, her life
had been unbearable and she was afraid to live with him.
It was a painful case, and in view of defendant’s
past treatment of his wife, it might become even more
infinitely painful and even tragical were she to live
any longer with him. He therefore asked for a separation
order, with a contribution towards the maintenance of
The complainant, Agnes SIMPSON,
corroborated the previous statement, and said the marriage
took place at Holy Trinity Church, Bardsley. They at first
lived with her parents at a farm at Daisy Nook, and subsequently
went to live in Albert-street, Droylsden. The last time
her husband ill used her was on January 3rd. He was in
a bad temper and got hold of her and tried to drag her
outside the house. He turned her out, and she went to
live with her parents at Daisy Nook.
He had told her many a time
he would lead her nothing but a miserable life. He smacked
her in the face a month before her baby was born. On November
8th he came home drunk and could hardly stand and had
to go to bed. When she went to bed he started using bad
language, and got up and went downstairs for a razor,
saying he would cut both their throats. When he went downstairs
she fastened the bedroom door, and on his return he commenced
making a noise at the door, and she opened it after a
time and stepped back into the room. He got hold of her
and she commenced screaming, and he again began to use
bad language. Just before Christmas he tried to strangle
By Mr LEES: She would be 23
years of age in May, and her husband would be 22 in June.
She left home on one occasion before marriage, and she
returned in the intercession of her husband. She had been
in the habit of getting up every morning to prepare his
breakfast. Nearly every Saturday he had been in the habit
of going to a football match and coming home drunk. The
reason she was not clean and tidy until after 6 o’clock
one day was that the water was turned off and she could
not wash herself. She had never lifted up a chair to throw
at her husband.
Mrs LOMAS, wife of John LOMAS,
farmer, Daisy Nook, said plaintiff was her daughter. On
the day the husband was stated to have turned out her
out the daughter came home crying, and she had been under
a doctor ever since. Witness went for her clothes, and
defendant helped her to pack them up. He told witness
that he had tried to set the bed on fire, and that his
wife had dragged it out of him when he went for a razor.
Whilst they lived with witness defendant broke a number
of pots one night.
Mr LEES submitted that complainant
had failed to make out her case satisfactorily because
she had not proved that the acts committed were such as
to injure her bodily or that injury to health had accrued.
The complainant was a strong, hearty young woman. It was
a trivial case. They were both young people, and scarcely
knew their own minds.
The defendant, Harry SIMPSON,
said he had not taken drink to the excess that the wife
and witnesses had stated. He had never been the worse
for drink since marriage. He was a beer drinker, and never
drank more than four or five glasses. He performed several
domestic duties whilst his wife was sitting in front of
the fire reading a novel.
One day after returning from
a football match he was sitting in front of the fire smoking
when his wife, who should have been ready for going shopping,
came walking in in her dirt. The water had been turned
off as stated, but he washed himself. He told his wife
that she reminded him of a woman in America called the
lady smasher. – (Laughter.) She picked up a chair,
and he got hold of her to throw her out. He did not strike
By Mr GIBSON: He had not told
his wife repeatedly that he would make her life miserable.
She asked him to throw her out, and he threw her out.
– (Laughter.) He did not hurt her. After what she
had done he thought it her place to come and humble to
him instead of his humbling to her. He did not get up
in the middle of the night and tell her he was fetching
The magistrates granted a separation
order, the wife to have the custody of the child, and
the husband to contribute 6s per week maintenance.
BOROUGH POLICE COURT
DRUNK AND DISORDERLY. – Archibald
DEVART was in the dock charged with being drunk and disorderly
in Bow-street on the 7th inst. He pleaded guilty. He had
been up six times. – The Chairman: You are not as
decent a man as your father was. – Defendant: My
father lived in Ashton 50 years and never was up. –
The Clerk: That is what the Chairman is saying. –
Fined 5s 6d and costs. – Emily SHEA was similarly
dealt with for being drunk and disorderly in Brook-street
on the 28th ult. She did not appear, but was represented
by a woman who pleaded guilty, but said the defendant’s
mother and sisters knocked her dazeless.
ALL ABOUT THE BABY.
– Eliza Ann KEMP summoned Susannah POTTER
for assaulting her on the 28th February. Defendant pleaded
guilty to hitting her, but she was struck first. –
Complainant said she was in the house when the defendant
came in with a baby eight months old, the child of a neighbour.
She took the child and in a playful way said, “You
little gallus.” – (Laughter.) The defendant
went and told the mother. The following day defendant
came into her house and struck her. – Defendant:
Did you not say the child was born for the gallows? –
Complainant: No. – Didn’t I tell you that
you ought to be ashamed of talking like that about a child
eight months old? No.
Mary Ann RIGG said the defendant
smacked the complainant several times, and Mrs KEMP did
not lift her head. – The mother of the child was
called and said it was her who struck the complainant
for saying that about her baby. – The Clerk (to
the defendant): Why did you go and tell the mother what
the complainant had said. Because I thought it my duty
to do so. – If you had not done so there would not
have been any bother. – The Chairman said the remark
might have been made innocently and without any evil meaning
about it. Defendant went and committed a deliberate assault,
and she must pay 5s 6d and costs, or 14 days.
AN UNPROVOKED ASSAULT.
– Sarah CLEMENTS summoned Squire LOWNDES
for assaulting on the 28th February. He pleaded not guilty.
– Complainant stated that a week on Saturday night,
she was at the corner of Fleet-street and Delamere-street
when she saw the defendant and his brother Sammy. The
latter was drunk and Squire was taking him home. Defendant
began to kick Sammy, and she called out, “Oh, Squire,
don’t kick him like that.” Defendant came
across the street to her, struck her, and knocked her
head against the wall, at the same time calling her some
Mrs PRESTON was called, and
proved the assault, as did also Samuel CLEMENTS, husband
of the complainant. After he had struck her, witness spoke
to him, and he turned upon him saying, “You monkey.
I will hit you,” at the same time striking him.
– Defendant said he was taking his brother home
because he had a drop of “summat sup.” –
Chief Constable said defendant had been up before for
a breach of the peace. – The Bench fined defendant
5s 6d and costs, or 14 days, and allowed the witness,
Samuel CLEMENTS, 2s 6d, and Mrs PRESTON 1s 6d. –
Defendant: Sammy half a crown! Why, he does no work a’
day o’ week.
TRAMWAY LABOURERS AT DUKINFIELD
Magisterial Advice to License Holders
At a special police court on Monday morning at Dukinfield,
before Alderman C H BOOTH and Mr W UNDERWOOD, six men
named John IRELAND, Michael BROWN, Francis GALLAGHER,
Thomas BURNS, Thomas O’MALLEY, and Thomas DORAN,
labourers on the new tramway, were charged with being
drunk and disorderly in Pickford-lane, on the 7th inst.
Superintendent CROGHAN called
Mr Edward BROOKES, who said he was the licensee of the
Angel Hotel, King-street. The prisoners came into the
house on Saturday about 12 o’clock noon. –
Were they all drunk? No, not that much. – They were
not in a state to be served? I refused to serve them,
and they kicked up a bit of bother. I have nothing against
the men at all. – Just simply answer the questions.
Did you request them to leave? Yes. – And did they
refuse? I requested them to leave after refusing them
drink. – Did they create a disturbance? They made
a bit of bother. – Was a window broken? A window
was broken in the scuffle.
Mr BOOTH: What you have got
to do is to speak the truth. Were they in a condition
fit to be served? They had some drink, true enough. –
And in consequence they became noisy and you asked them
to go? Yes. – Superintendent CROGHAN: Did you send
for the police? They had gone out when the police came.
– Did you send for the police? Yes. – They
did not go out when you asked them, and you sent for the
police? Yes. – Mr BOOTH: The window would not have
been broken if the men had not been misbehaving themselves?
In reply to BROWN witness said
he did not consider him to be drunk at all. He helped
him to get the other men out of the house. – GALLAGHER
said he had three pints in the house and walked quietly
out. – DORAN said he only had a small port. –
Mr BOOTH: Did you send for the police before they went
out? – Mr BROOKES: Just as they were going out.
– Mr UNDERWOOD: Do you say that whatever trouble
occurred with these men took place after they went out
of your house? Yes.
Mr BOOTH: Did you send for
the police before they left the house? They were out then.
– But you sent for the police in the first instance
because they were creating a row in the house, is that
it! – Yes. – Superintendent CROGHAN: Were
they kicking up a bother in the street? They were larking
– just playing.
Sergeant YOUNG was the next
witness. He stated that at 1.30 he was on duty in King-street,
and his attention was called to the prisoners fighting
one amongst the other. They turned up Pickford-lane. He
got the assistance of Acting-sergeant JACKSON and Constable
GREEN, and they got them into the police station. Their
conduct created great excitement and alarm amongst the
residents in the lane.
Superintendent CROGHAN: Did
Mr BROOKES send on King-street for the police to turn
out these men? Yes. – Acting-sergeant JACKSON corroborated,
and said the prisoners were staggering about the road.
They were all more or less drunk.
Mr BOOTH, addressing the prisoners,
told them they did not live in Dukinfield. They came and
went to different place, but because they happened to
be there temporarily they were not going to have Dukinfield
apart by such men as they. There was no doubt their class
of men were very much too fond of their drink. If they
would only save the money they earned instead of spending
it as they did in drink, they would be better off. They
got, if not absolutely drunk, fighting drunk, and quarrelling
one with another.
They would be a great deal
better without drink than with, because they apparently
could not control themselves. There was nothing known
against them, and they would be leniently dealt with –
2s 6d each and costs or seven days’ hard labour.
Superintendent CROGHAN: With
reference to the licensee, I think it was only fair to
bring him here this morning. The prisoners alleged that
whatever drink they had was obtained at the Angel Hotel.
He has now just stated that they were refused drink. –
Mr BROOKES: Yes, after I noticed their condition and they
wanted more. – Superintendent CROGHAN: He stated
they had no drink, and the Bench have this morning heard
him try and sit on the fence.
Mr BOOTH: One can understand
the licensee not caring to be brought into a case, but
I think it is the duty of the licensee where people are
behaving as these men were to send for the police. It
is also his duty to assist the police by giving evidence
when the case comes before the court. I hope not only
Mr BROOKES, but all licensees in the borough of Dukinfield,
will call in the assistance of the police to help them
to remove disorderly characters from their houses.
They ought to feel it is their
bounden duty to assist the police by giving evidence in
order to enable the magistrates to come to a proper decision
in cases of this kind. That is why I say no doubt Mr BROOKES
does not care about coming here, thinking, no doubt, it
might injure his business. I was going to say that was
a silly idea, but I won’t say that, but I sat it
is an erroneous idea to think his business will suffer
from what he ought to do in the proper conduct of it.
I hope license holders would
carefully consider these observations with regard to the
police assisting them in the proper conduct of their houses,
and they in turn assisting the police in proving any cases
that may occur. – Superintendent CROGHN: I thank
your worship for your remarks. – Mr BOOTH (to the
prisoners): You keep off drink and save your money. –
The prisoners were then removed.
Said He Would Drown Himself: No One to Stop Him
The body of a man unknown was taken out of the canal at
Bardsley at 8.40 on Saturday night. The following is the
description furnished by the police:- Age about 60, height
5ft 4in, well built, complexion sallow, hair and moustache
grey, dressed in dark navy blue jacket and vest, brown
cloth trousers, strong laced shoes, left hand contracted,
red and blue cotton striped shirt, blue cotton undershirt,
red waist belt, and had a joiner’s nail punch and
blacklead pencil in pockets.
The body was afterwards identified
as George DARLINGTON, joiner, residing at 7 Derwent-street,
Oldham. The inquest was held at the Dog and Pheasant,
Waterloo, on Tuesday forenoon, by Mr J F PRICE, district
William DARLINGTON, ironmonger,
45 Derwent-street, off Greenacres-road, said the deceased
was his father and was 59 years of age last birthday.
Witness last saw him alive on Friday night at his own
home about 10.30pm. During the time witness was there
a quarrel took place. Deceased had been out of work for
some time, and the younger son had been interfering and
telling the father that he must go away. The father said
he would go away, and told the family he would find them
a dirty job.
Witness said he was not surprised
at what he had done. Deceased was very much upset, but
witness did not think at the time that he intended to
make away with himself. Deceased left the house on Friday
night about 11.30, and did not return again. Two of his
sons, however, saw him in the street on the Saturday and
gave him some money. Both the mother and the younger son
had told deceased that he would have to go away.
The Coroner: Why? Witness:
I suppose because they did not feel that they could keep
him. – The Coroner: Why should he be turned away
when a younger son was out of work too? Witness: That’s
what I said at the time. The son should have been glad
that he had a home to go to. He had not a leg to stand
upon. – By a juryman: Deceased must have stayed
over night at a lodging-house. Witness was not there when
deceased left home. – By the Coroner: Witness could
not say whether deceased left the house of his own accord.
George DARLINGTON, wood turner,
8 Farm-street, Oldham, said deceased was his father, and
he last saw him alive on Saturday at 1pm at the Royal
Oak Inn. They had had a few words on the previous night,
and deceased was commenting upon them. The bother was
on account of deceased returning home after a lengthy
absence, and saying he would turn over a new leaf if they
would receive him. One of the brothers, who himself was
out of work, began interfering, and causing some bother,
and witness told him he should be the last to speak as
he was in a similar position himself. The result of it
was that deceased was told to go away.
Deceased seemed depressed,
and told witness that he would find them a dirty job,
and that they would find him before Tuesday. He said they
must not call him names for doing it. Witness did not
take him seriously, as he never thought a man like him
would do such a thing. Deceased had been working in different
parts of the country during the past four or five years
and had been absent from home during that time.
Jos. FIELDHOUSE, lamplighter,
292 Oldham-road, Bardsley, said that at 6.45 on Saturday
evening, he had just finished lighting the lamps when
he met deceased in Bardsley Brow, coming from the direction
of Oldham. He was on the opposite side of the road, and
he came across to witness and asked which was the way
to the canal. Witness asked him which part of the canal
he wanted, and he said the part which led to the crime.
He added, “I’m going to drown myself,”
and said he had trouble on his mind. Witness said he was
a very foolish man to think of such a thing.
Deceased smelled of beer, but
he was not drunk. Witness was on the point of leaving,
when deceased turned round and said, “Will you shake
hands with me?” “Certainly,” replied
witness, “I’ll shake hands with you.”
Deceased then walked away, and witness told some boys
in the road to “watch that man as he said he would
The Coroner: I never heard
of a sillier thing in my life than to leave a man 40 or
50 yards from the canal who said he was going to drown
himself. – Witness: I could not have stopped him.
– The Coroner: You allowed him to go and drown himself?
I didn’t think he would do such a thing. –
It doesn’t matter what you think. The man would
have been alive now if you had watched him. – Witness:
I told a girl and some boys. They were younger than me,
and I thought they would be able to get down to him. –
Didn’t you see him again? No; I didn’t see
him until Sunday when I recognized him as the same man.
A Juryman: Didn’t you
stop at all after he told you? No. I had left two lamps
in a street, and they grumble if I leave them. The Foreman
(Mr HIBBERT): Didn’t your conscience prick you when
you were going up the brow? I didn’t think he was
going to do such a thing. He said “just give me
a shake of your hand,” and went away smiling and
putting his pipe in his pocket. – Foreman: I think
you ought to have kept him in conversation until someone
Witness: I had my own work
to do; I could not do it. – The Coroner: Would your
own work stop you? If I had stopped he would perhaps have
pulled me in; you cannot tell what they are going to do.
– The Coroner: Perhaps it would have done you good
if he had done. If a man told me within thirty yards of
the canal that he was going to drown himself, I should
want to watch him.
Witness: I almost wish I had
done in a sense, but when you are on your own work. –
The Coroner: Which is most important, your own work or
preventing a man from drowning himself? I think it would
have been no use, as I could not have stopped him. –
The Coroner: I should have had a try, at any rate. –
A juryman: He evidently thinks more about his work than
most people do.
Clara SAXON, living in Woodpark-road,
Bardsley, said about five minutes to seven on Saturday
night she met the last witness on the canal bridge at
Bardsley. He said there was a man going to the canal side
to drown himself. Witness ran across to the other side
of the road and looked over the wall and saw a man jump
from the bank into the canal. It was not dark, and witness
could just discern him. She ran and broke the glass in
connection with the rescuing apparatus, and in the meantime
the man had disappeared. She remained on the spot for
about a quarter of an hour.
The Coroner: Did FIELDHOUSE
seem a bit frightened? He seemed a bit nervous. –
The Foreman: Where was he when you saw him? He was only
about 100 yards from the water. – Probably he thought
you better able to save the man’s life than himself?
I did not think anything about it at the time.
Constable POLLARD, stationed
at Waterloo, said that on Saturday night information came
to the police office that a man had thrown himself into
the canal. Witness went to the Bardsley canal and commenced
with grappling irons, and retrieved the body at 8.40pm.
Life was then extinct.
The jury returned a verdict
of suicide, there being no evidence to show the state
of the man’s mind.
Information was received at the Ashton Police Station
at 11.42 on Tuesday night that a fire had broken out at
the shop of Mr Thomas SIZER, pawnbroker, 27 and 29 Victoria-street,
Ashton. The fire alarm bells were rung, and such was the
activity of the fire brigade that in the short space of
three minutes the float with a contingent of firemen were
on their way to the fire.
On their arrival the
fire was found to be in the pledge office on the ground
floor at the rear of the building. The office was stocked
with clothing, which by some means had got on fire. A
jet of water was got to work from a main in Margaret-street,
and after working for a few minutes the fire was extinguished.
Considerable damage was done to the clothing by the fire,
the origin of which is at present unknown.