31 August 1901

Went to "See About a Dog"

At the Ashton County Police Court on Wednesday, Willoughby WOODIWISE, landlord of the Heroes of Waterloo Hotel, Mossley-road, Hartshead, was summoned for opening licensed premises for the sale of intoxicating liquors during prohibited hours, and the following were charged with being on licensed premises during prohibited hours — Edward CASTLE, Ralph ROBERTS, ASHWORTH and ROBINSON. All the defendants pleaded not guilty.

Superintendent HEWITT stated that on Sunday morning, the 7th inst, two constables were directed to watch the house occupied by the defendant, opposite the barracks.— Constable MARSHALL stated that at 9.15 on the morning in question he saw a man going in the direction of the back door of defendant’s house. At 10 minutes past 10 he saw defendants ROBINSON and ROBERTS going in the same direction. At 10.15, in company with Constable WALLS, he visited the house, and the defendants ROBINSON and ROBERTS were in the act of leaving the back door. ROBINSON was in the act of passing his hand across his mouth, as if he had just had a drink.

On asking them what business they had in the house, ROBERTS said they had been about a dog. Witness and the other officer went in at the back door, which was open at the time, and a man named OLDFIELD was in the bar. Asked why the defendants had been there he hesitated for some time whereupon ROBERTS said "about a dog" and the barman replied "Yes, about a dog." There was a pint pot on a form containing a small quantity of beer and some froth on the top. The barman’s attention was drawn to it and he said it had been left there the night previous. Asked where the landlord was, the barman replied that he was in bed.

Whilst the names of the two defendants were being taken CASTLE and ASHWORTH came in, and on being asked what business they had in the house CASTLE replied, "We’ve come about a ferret," and ASHWORTH pulled out some nets from his pocket. Another man came in, went straight to the bar, called for a pint of beer, and produced some coppers. The barman took no notice of him and witness went to him and took his name, which was John WILLIAMS. The address which he gave was unsatisfactory, and they looked him up, and he had since been dealt with.

The landlord came downstairs and there were several others in the parlour, but they appeared to be bona-fide travellers, and they took their names. The landlord made no reply when told he would be reported. All the defendants lived within the three miles’ limit. ASHWORTH’s proper name was William KNIGHT. The barman afterwards said he only came on that morning, and was not waiting on the previous night.— Constable WALLS gave corroborative evidence.

Defendant WOODIWISE said that the dog referred to belonged to Colonel SPURGIN, and he had it under treatment for a disease. ROBERTS was the colonel’s groom and had simply been to see how the dog was progressing.— Defendant CASTLE said he always went to the house on Sunday mornings to clean up, and this statement was corroborated by a labourer named JOHNSON.— Defendant ASHWORTH said he was there in the capacity of a professional rat catcher, and ROBINSON said he went with ROBERTS to see about the dog.— The cases were dismissed, defendants being warned to be exceedingly careful in future.

Proposed Closing and Resignation of the Superintendent

A repetition of the disorderly scenes which occurred at the Soldiers’ Convalescent Home, Fairfield, a year ago, took place recently, and as a result it was thought probable the institution would be closed. Complaints have been made of the conduct of the soldiers, and on several occasions police officers on the Manchester-road beat have discovered drunken men lying on the footpath. A rule of the home is that all inmates should be in by eleven o’clock, but this has frequently been transgressed.

Sergeant-major ASTON, the superintendent, remonstrated with the delinquents, and several men were dismissed. A discharged militiaman entered the home a fortnight ago, and when asked to take his turn in the washing up of crockery he refused and left the house. With two other men he returned after eleven o’clock in an intoxicated condition. He refused to go to bed and assaulted the superintendent. At one o’clock he retired, but unfortunately — it was afterwards ascertained — he took with him a bottle of whisky.

He partook liberally of the liquid, and in the morning was in a worse state than ever. Upon seeing Sergeant-major ASTON he grappled with him and dragged him over the home. He also twisted a servant’s arm and struck her several times. Eventually he was ejected. Superintendent ASTON reported the matter to the committee, and he also tendered his resignation. This was accepted, and a motion that a meeting be held next week to consider whether the home should be closed was also carried.

The meeting was held at the Home on Monday evening. Mr James SAXON presided, and there were present Councillor James POLLITT (Fairfield), Councillor J JONES (Longsight), Councillor John WHITEHEAD (Ashton), Messrs DOOTSON, GARDNER, AXON, McDERMOTT, DYSON, BRADSHAW, HULLY, McGOWAN, LEES, SCHOFIELD, WINROW; and later on, the Rev W A PARRY and JACKSON.

It was purely a business meeting. The question of closing the Home was discussed fully and temperately, and it was ultimately resolved that as the unruly inmate had been discharged, and there was now no likelihood of the turbulent scenes, it was not necessary to proceed to extremes. Mr James SAXON read letters from absent members of the committee expressing strong hopes that an effort would be made to keep the Home open for a few months longer, as the work, though difficult and delicate, was humane and patriotic in character. He pointed out, as his own opinion, that should the committee decide to close the Home difficulty would be experienced in disposing of the funds at present in the bank.

Mr JONES moved that the Home should be kept open and the decision was resolved.

An inquest was held at the Astley Arms, Ashton, on the body of John William MATHER, aged 63, hawker, of St Peter’s-street, who fell downstairs on Thursday morning at 2.30 and died about 10 pm the following day.

Clara Gertrude MATHER, the daughter of deceased, said her father was a hawker of drapery. A week on Saturday her mother had gone away and witness was alone at home with her father, who followed up his occupation as usual up till Wednesday night when he came home at eight o’clock. They both went to bed at the same time. Witness went to sleep, and at about half-past two on Thursday morning she was awakened by hearing a noise. She went towards her father’s room and said, "Of dada, where are you?" and he replied "I am here." He was groaning.

She got a light and went down the stairs. She found him then lying on his back, with his feet upward and his head leaning against the door at the bottom of the stairs. She asked him what he had been doing, and his reply was "I don’t know, love; your dada’s dying." He did not remember getting out of bed or anything till he found himself at the bottom of the stairs. She then called in Mrs BATTY and Dr GUNN, and he was put to bed suffering greatly. His spine was broken, and there was a bruise on the back of his head. He was conscious up till four o’clock on the Friday morning. He could not tell them why he got up as he did not remember what had happened. He was not in the habit of getting up in his sleep, and he was both sober and healthy. Witness was greatly affected while giving evidence, and had to be led from the room.

Mary Jane BATTY, residing at 24 St Peter’s-street said the deceased came to their door at eight o’clock on Wednesday night, and made a remark about the weather. He came again at 11 o’clock for a jug. At about 2.30 she was brought into the house and saw deceased lying at the bottom of the stairs. The Coroner said it seemed a very simple and straightforward case, and there was no doubt it was an accident. The only strange thing was the fact that he did not remember getting up.

A Hulme Man’s Terrible Experience

The proprietor of a fried fish and tripe shop in Medlock-street, Manchester, Alfred OAKLEY, is lying at the Infirmary suffering from injuries sustained in a most extraordinary railway accident. He had been paying a visit to some friends in Chorlton-cum-Hardy on Friday, and caught a train back to town about nine o’clock in the evening. He only succeeded in catching the train as it was leaving the station, and while putting his umbrella on the rack he overbalanced himself and fell through the door, which had been left open, on to the line. Almost before he was aware that an accident had taken place the wheels of the carriages had passed over the ankle of his right foot.

When the train had passed he scrambled on to the embankment as well as he was able, and though suffering agonising pain, he remained conscious. He shouted out to the drivers of passing trains, but his cries were unheard, and there he lay, with his foot nearly off, and suffering from the shock of the accident and the cold of the night until six o’clock in the morning — nine hours. It was fortunate that the night was so cold, for it was this and the man’s clumsily arranged bandages that prevented him from bleeding to death.

He was found in a very weak condition in the morning by a porter, and with the utmost sang froid he beseeched his rescuer to at once cut his foot off with his knife. Naturally, the porter refused to do this, and took immediate steps to have him removed to the Manchester Infirmary. He arrived at the institution in a cheerful state, and appeared quite relieved when he was told that his foot would have to be amputated. His progress since the operation has been highly satisfactory, and altogether the officials of the institution regard the man’s recovery as one of the most remarkable that has come under their notice.

Sad Matrimonial Case at the Stalybridge Police Court
Defendant Ordered to be Medically Examined

At the Stalybridge Police Court on Monday, John Wm ROWLEY, formerly a partner in a firm of ironfounders at Dukinfield, was placed in the dock on a charge of using threats towards his wife, Mary Hall ROWLEY, on 13th August. When the charge was read out, defendant replied, "It is wrong."

Mr Fred THOMPSON appeared on behalf of Mrs ROWLEY, and said the case was an unfortunate domestic dispute, and it would be necessary to go into details in order to explain matters. Mrs ROWLEY was known to all of them as the daughter of a highly respectable tradesman in Stalybridge, whilst her husband, the defendant in the dock, was ten years ago a gentleman in a very good way of business, he being a partner in a firm of ironfounders at Dukinfield Hall. He thought he need not say anything more on that point beyond mentioning that ROWLEY had nothing to do with the business now.

The defendant began to conduct himself in an improper manner, and three or four years ago he took to drink. When sober ROWLEY was a good husband and good father, but unfortunately he was nearly always drunk. He would not work, though when he did he could earn good money. Matters came to a climax when Mrs ROWLEY, for her own protection, left him and the house of furniture just as it was, and went to live in Stalybridge.

Defendant was at that time "on the racket" and later on turned up at Stalybridge very penitent, and his wife took pity on him and received him back. They lived together two years but matters had become so bad that she would not live with him any longer. When defendant had money in his pocket he "went the game large"; when he had no money he was penitent.

A week last Tuesday he came home drunk about three o’clock in the afternoon. His dinner — the same as that which was prepared for the family — he took exception to, and he commenced to prepare some concoction for himself. Mrs ROWLEY remonstrated with him, whereupon he pitched the crust through the window into the yard.— (Defendant: The window was open.) He also ran at her with a pan in his hand, and threatened to smash it on her head. Naturally, complainant was in fear, and a neighbour coming into the house defendant went away.

Mrs ROWLEY then consulted him and a letter was sent to defendant telling him to keep away from the house which was in his wife’s name. He kept away until last Saturday morning about one o’clock when he again appeared on the scene and created a row. He gave his wife two minutes in which to come downstairs to let him in, and as she did not do so he proceeded to smash the windows. Having done this, he cleared off.

The same day Mrs ROWLEY came to Mr THOMPSON’s office and whilst there defendant turned up. Mr THOMPSON asked him to go away half a dozen times and also told him that his wife was afraid to leave the office while he stood there. Defendant declined to go away, and when told that a warrant would be secured for his arrest he still refused to go. Mr THOMPSON went to the magistrate’s clerk’s office, and having secured the signature of a magistrate to a warrant, defendant was approached, and he voluntarily went across to the police office.

He was then told that as far as his wife was concerned she was quite agreed that he should have bail, and if he could secure a surety for his good behaviour he could be set at liberty. Defendant was indifferent, and he was accordingly locked up. Mrs ROWLEY did not want her husband punishing; she did not want him sending to prison; all she desired was that the defendant should be bound over to be of good behaviour.

And I’m afraid at this point, my copy of the story gets difficult to read, but I would be happy explore it further if it means anything to anyone.— Ed.

At the Ashton Borough Police Court on Monday, Phillip NORMINTON, Margaret-street, was summoned for selling a pint of milk no of the quality demanded on the 16th July.— Mr Harold HYDE said he appeared on behalf of Mr POTTER, in whose name the information was laid, under section 6 of the Food and Drugs Act, 1875, the provisions of which would be familiar to their worships: "No person shall sell to the prejudice of the purchaser any article of food or any drug which is not of the nature, substance, and quality of the article demanded by such purchaser, under a penalty not exceeding 20."

In this case Mr POTTER, the sanitary superintendent, visited the premises of the defendant on the 16th July last and purchased a pint of milk, paying 11/2d, for the purpose of analysis. The milk was divided in the normal way into three samples, one of which he left with the defendant, the second he sent to the borough analyst, and the third he now produced, from the dairyman or farmer from whom the defendant obtained the milk. He did so with the result that the sample from the dairyman contained 8.85 per cent of non fatty solids. These were shortly the facts of the case.

He need not point out the petty meanness of the offence, but it struck at the poorer class of people who were unable to defend themselves. It also affected the efficacy of the doctors and medical men. If the Bench were satisfied from the evidence that an offence had been committed he asked them to mark their sense of it and inflict such a penalty as would deter the defendant and other persons from committing offences of this character in future.

Mrs NORMINTON appeared to answer the charge, and she said she thought it would have been fairness to her if Mr POTTER had taken the dairyman’s milk at the door when he took her own. It would have taken the blame off her shoulders. It was nothing they had done to the milk.— Mr HYDE pointed out there was 16 per cent of added water.— The Chairman, in fining the defendant 10s and costs remarked that it was a case of a very serious character. People were entitled to have what they believed to be right.

Magisterial Proceedings at Hyde

At Hyde County Police Court on Monday, George RADY, of Dukinfield, was summoned by James NIELD, also of Dukinfield, for assault on the 23rd August.— RADY, in company with NIELD and others, went to the Staff of Life Inn, and it appeared there had been an old grievance between them which had been reaped up on the date in question with the result that a scuffle took place in which it was alleged that RADY was kicked over the eye with a pair of clogs. Information was given to the police, but the prisoner in the meantime had absconded.

The next morning the prisoner came to the police station and said to witness (Superintendent COOPER) "I have come to give myself up through the bother I had last night." Witness sent a constable to the complainant to say that if he wished to take any proceedings he could do so. The result was that a warrant was taken out by the complainant and RADY was apprehended.

James NIELD, of 27 Cooper-street, Dukinfield, said that on Friday he was in the Staff of Life Inn, Dukinfield, at twenty minutes to eleven. There would be about nine persons in the tap room. About nine o’clock there had been some little difference between them, which led up to the difference which took place at 10.40. About that time the prisoner said to him "You have got a lot of lip, and if you use it to me I shall thump you." Witness replied "If it was anybody else as big as yourself you would not thump him." Prisoner then struck him with his clenched fist. He (witness) got hold of his (prisoner'’) right leg, but prisoner "shoved" his head down and punched him with his clog. He had hold of prisoner’s right leg, and he (prisoner) kicked him with his left foot.

The clogs produced were similar to those which the prisoner had on when he kicked him. He was about two and a half yards from the fender. He was stunned by the kick, and Charles GREAVES picked him up, bathed his eye, and afterwards took him home. He was attended by Dr PARK, who put several stitches in his head.

Charles GREAVES, 39 St Mark’s-street, Dukinfield, said he was in the tap room on the day named. There would be about 18 of them in the room. He heard angry words pass between RADY and NIELD. The latter said to the prisoner "Tha conna lick me." He had never heard any previous conversation. They had a set to and closed immediately. They both fell on the floor together. He was sure about any kicking. He saw some blood and concluded that there must have been some kicking. NIELD’s eye was covered in blood, and he took him into the back yard and bathed it in water. He afterwards accompanied him home and placed him on the sofa.

Continuing, witness stated that he could not say that RADY had clogs on. NIELD ran at him a second time, and both fell a second time near the fender in a corner of the room. They were both bleeding. There was blood on the floor of the house. He never saw blood on the fender.

George NIELD, of 2 Hill-street, Dukinfield, said that he heard words passed between James NIELD and the prisoner. RADY was wearing a pair of clogs with round toes. They were narrower toes than the clogs produced. He was a brother of the complainant. John BULLOCK, 27 Cooper-street, a collier, said he saw NIELD and RADY. They seemed on good terms for some time. RADY was wearing round toed clogs. The reason he noticed the clogs was because he got up to light his pipe and slipped. He was a relations of NIELD’s.

Mr WESTBROOK: What relation are you? Witness: I married his sister and he married mine. Mr GARFORTH: You are a double-barrelled brother-in-law.— (Laughter)

Elijah OSBALDISTON said he was the licensee of the Staff of Life Inn, and was in the room during the quarrel. NIELD ran at RADY and they had a scuffle, and he went out to see if he could find a policeman. It was over when he went back. RADY was wearing shoes. Both were bleeding over the eye.

Detective-Constable MOTTERSHEAD gave evidence as to serving the summons and when he charged RADY he replied "I didn’t kick him." He asked the prisoner where his clogs were and he replied "At my lodgings." Asked what kind of clogs they were he said they had round toes and fastened with a clasp. He went to prisoner’s lodging, and the landlady handed him the clogs produced in his presence, and prisoner said they were the only pair he had.

George RADY said he was wearing his shoes. There were several people in the tap room. NIELD had scorned the singing of one man and had often interfered. NIELD had been asked several times to be quiet. About twenty minutes to eleven witness was standing in the middle of the floor lighting his pipe when NIELD got hold of both his legs and they fell, witness being at the bottom. He did not kick NIELD. When they got up NIELD ran at him a second time. Both were bleeding when they got up.

Edward WALKER said that he lived at 2 Leech-street, Dukinfield. NIELD had been wranglesome all the evening and was repeatedly asked to be quiet. NIELD called RADY "a soft b——————" and he and NIELD had a scuffle during which NIELD fell on the fender and cut his eye.

Mr KERFOOT said that they had decided to dismiss the case. The quarrel had evidently arisen through drinking in a public house, and that sort of thing was very discreditable to the landlord. The bench hoped that it would be a warning to all those who were concerned in the case, and that nothing similar would occur again.

We regret that on Sunday morning an accident befell Mr James MAWDSLEY, general secretary of the Operative Spinners’ Amalgamation, at his residence, Taunton Bank, Ashton-under-Lyne. Just before dinner he had one leg in the washbowl when the bottom gave way, letting him through, owing, it is supposed, to the bath being cracked. Dr TWOMEY was at once sent for, and on his arrival it was found that Mr MAWDSLEY had been very badly cut about the legs and body by the jagged edges of the bath, several of the wounds requiring stitching, and the bone being bared on the right knee. The injuries are of such a severe nature that it is expected Mr MAWDSLEY will be confined to his house for some weeks before the wounds are sufficiently healed to permit of his getting about again.

The results of the summer examination in pianoforte playing and musical theory, held in Manchester last month, have come to hand. Among the candidates sent in for the examination from this district, and prepared by Mr WRIGLEY, the organist of the Parish Church, there are no failures.

The following are the names of the pupils who contributed to this excellent result:— Preparatory: Florence ASPDEN (honours), Gladys BYROM (honours), Dorothy HAMPSON, Marion SMETHURST. First grade: Lizzie LEARMOUTH (honours), Evelyn FOXALL, Olive BECKHURST. Second grade: Suzie BARBER. Third grade: Annie ADAMS.

As it is well known that the examinations are both thorough and fair, the presence of two examiners in the room preventing the decision upon the merits of a candidate from being left to the caprice of a single individual, the success of Mr WRIGLEY’s pupils is one which both they and their teacher have every reason to be proud.

How They are Doctored for the Market

At the Ashton Borough Police Court on Monday, an Irish cattle dealer from County Roscommon, named Edward HANSON was summoned for cruelty to two cows on the 8th instant.— On the name being called the defendant, a typical Irish cattle jobber, came briskly forward with a jaunty air, and said with a pronounced brogue, "Here sorr, where oive nivver been in my life before."— The Deputy-Clerk: You are charged with cruelty to two cows.— Defendant: An’ it is two ye say. I thought it was only one, bedad.— The Deputy-Clerk: There are two separate summonses. Are you guilty or not guilty.— Defendant: Sure, oi don’t know phat; the man is talkin’ about — two cows. Tell the gentlemin phat it is for.— The Deputy-Clerk: He is going to do.

Inspector POCOCK, RSPCA, informed the bench that the offences occurred on one day, but at two different periods of the day.— The Deputy-Clerk: They are two separate offences.— Inspector POCOCK said that was so, and proceeded to say the prosecution was taken by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals against a practice which, he was sorry to say, was getting practically the upper hand of him at the local cattle fairs. It was the practice of allowing too much milk to accumulate in the udders of the cows offered for sale in order to enhance their value in the eyes of the purchasers.

During the time he had been stationed in this district he and the Ashton police had cautioned the whole of these Irish dealers that this practice must be stopped, as it was cruelty to the cows. It had not had any effect, and they had taken advantage of his leniency. The facts of the present case were that on the 8th August he was on the Ashton fair ground, and saw the defendant there with a number of cows. Amongst them was a white cow very much overstocked with milk. He told defendant the cow must be eased at once, and he said he would see to it. Instead of doing so he sent the cow away, and did not do anything to ease her at all.

The defendant knew perfectly well the law and the consequences, for he had explained it to him. The bench had power to send him to prison for three months without the option of a fine. He wished these cattle dealers to keep within the bounds of the law. It was not for him to catch them; they should keep themselves right.

On asking the defendant where the white cow was he replied "Well, sor, I’ve sold it." The cow was overstocked, the udder was very much distended, and the teats looked almost as if they had been polished. Its back was arched, and it had been bellowing at intervals as if in great pain. In the opinion of the witness the cow had not been milked since the previous day. He asked defendant when it had been milked, and he said "You know enough."— Defendant: I’m thirty years coming to this country, my lord, an’ never appeared in a polis court before in England or Oireland. Oi have three witnesses, one is here, and there’s three more.

A witness, evidently a drover, was sworn, and he gave evidence that after the inspector had seen the cow witness took her behind the Ashton Hotel, borrowed a bucket from the ostler, and milked her. The ostler stood there and saw her milked.— Inspector: When you took the cow behind the Ashton Hotel what condition was she in? She wanted milking.— You say you borrowed a bucket off the ostler, and he saw you milk her? Yes.— Is he here? No.— If he told me he never saw you milk the cow is he telling the truth? No, he is speaking an untruth.

Thomas LOMAS, farmer, Mottram, said he purchased the cow and milked her himself, not clean out, but milked her. He took sufficient out for the cow to walk comfortably home. The cow was in the yard of the Ashton Hotel an hour and a half.— Inspector POCOCK: If that be so how was it that the cow was gone when I came with Dr NEW half an hour after I saw it on the Market Ground?— Witness: I don’t know, but I say it was there an hour and a half.

Defendant was then next charged with cruelty to a second cow.— Inspector POCOCKL said that at one o’clock the same day he saw the defendant on the Market Ground with a red cow. He told defendant he had spoken to him about the cow before, and as he had done nothing with it he should have to report the matter. Defendant then said, "Well, sir, you have caught me properly with the red cow." Witness asked defendant "What about that plug?" He said "It’s a fair catch, and I’m not going to tell you anything." He saw that plugs had been put upon the teats, and they were put there for the purpose of preventing milk coming away from the cow.

The udder was distended, and the hind legs outstretched, and the animal seemed to be suffering excruciating pain. The whole idea was to make the animal more valuable in the eye of the purchaser. He requested defendant to take the plugs out of the teats, but some other man had slipped round to the opposite side of the cow and taken them out.— Defendant: Oh, Lord, what kind of plug do ye say? Sure, it was no plug at all, yer honour. The cow had a bit of a sore tate through scrapin’ it wid a woire fence at home. I am thirty years coming to Ashton market and never summoned before.

Constable MORTON said he was with Inspector POCOCK, and saw a man take something off the hind teat of the cow.— Defendant: Sure, these younger people are getting’ smarter. The poorer a man is, the more wather there is thrown upon him.— The Chairman told defendant he would be fined 10s and costs in each case.— When told that the total fines and costs amounted to 2 4s, defendant opened his daylights, dived into his breast, pulled out a bag containing a lot of gold, paid the amount and spat on the change as he received it, and retired, saying "It won’t go far until I drink it to-night."

Creative Commons License Rhodes Family History by Ian Rhodes (© 1999-2021) is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Based on a work at https://rhodesfamily.org.uk.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available by contacting me.