Liverpool Mercury April 19th, 1890

Alleged Extensive Forgery

Clever capture in Liverpool by Detective THORNTHWAITE of the Liverpool police in company of Sergeant RANDALL and Detective OLDHAMSTEAD of the Scotland-yard Metropolitan police, upon charges of forgeries on several English banks.

It will be remembered that some time since, at the Central Criminal Court in London, William WALTERS was sentenced to 20yrs penal servitude, Edward HUNT to 15yrs, Henry GARRETT to 10yrs and William WARDLEY to 5yrs for having committed a series of forgeries upon the Bank of England and other banks in this country. It was ascertained at the time that James MILLER, alias MAXWELL, who was alleged to have been previously convicted of a similar offence at New York, was still at large in this country, and it was believed he had taken a prominent part in these ingenious and extensive forgeries.

In consequence of certain information obtained by the metropolitan police, Sergeant RANDALL and Detective OLDHAMSTEAD were sent down from London to Liverpool to make inquiries and after having had an interview with Mr Superintendent George WILLIAMS of the Liverpool Detective department, they went out in the early part of last week, accompanied by Detective THORNTHWAITE, in search of the MILLER. The result was that yesterday afternoon they arrested him as he was leaving his lodgings in Netherfield Rd, North and they at once took him to the central police station, where he was searched and it was found in his possession, and also at his lodgings a number of papers containing particulars referring to several local banks.

The prisoner was conveyed to London by train and he will be charged this morning at Bow St, police court with forgeries among which are included a charge of altering a cheque upon a bank at Maldonhead, from 3-10s to 1400, another in the same neighbourhood from a small sum to 700 and another at a bank at Reading from 4-9s-8d to 500. The prisoner MILLER alias MAXWELL, is about 40 yrs of age, of sallow complexion and is known recently to have shaved off his moustache and whiskers. He is described as a man of good address, and is believed by the police to be the last of a number of men of whom they have been for some time in search in connection with forgeries of the character referred to, extending to all parts of the country.


Liverpool Courier from Friday 2 May 1890

Kindly donated by Tony

Disgraceful Conduct in the Mersey Tunnel

Yesterday, at Birkenhead Police Court, before Mr. Preston, stipendiary magistrate, Captain Hill, who gave the address of 3, Hamilton street, was summoned for assaulting Mrs Sarah Johnson, 22 Old Chester Road, Tranmere, on the 28th April, in a carriage on the Mersey Railway, whilst the train was proceeding from Liverpool to Birkenhead. The parties were not legally represented, but Mr. Greer, barrister, watched the case on behalf of the Mersey Railway Company.

Mrs. Johnson, wife of William Johnson, stated that on the night of the date mentioned she and a friend named Mrs. Godsell had been to the Shakespeare Theatre, and returned to Birkenhead by the train from James Street. When they got to the latter place the lift had gone, and they ran down the steps to try and catch the train going out at half-past eleven o’clock. When they reached the platform they had just time to jump into a first class compartment, but their tickets were second-class. Defendant and a friend of his were in the carriage, and scarcely had complainant and her companion got in when defendant began to use filthy language to them, at which his friend commenced to laugh. She asked defendant whom he was talking to, but he continued his bad language, and attempted to strike her. She held up her arm to guard her face, whereupon defendant pulled her hat off her head and threw it back in her face. When the train got to Hamilton square witness and her friend got out and complained to the inspector of the defendant's conduct.

In cross examination by the defendant, complainant denied that when she got into the carriage she said "Come and sit here, dear," or that she put on a "fascinating smile". She struck him with her satchel because he was striking at her. When at the top of the stairs at Hamilton square Station she did not ask him to give her a few shillings and she would make it square.

Corroborative evidence was given by Mrs. Elizabeth Godsall, who said such language as the defendant used she had never heard in her life before.

Inspector Kinsey deposed that he was on duty at Hamilton square platform on the night in question, when Mrs. Johnson charged the defendant with insulting her whilst coming through the tunnel. Defendant denied it, and said the lady spoke to him first. The defendant appeared to be excited, and called both ladies abusive names. They then left the station and went up the lift to the top. Defendant had had drink, but he was not intoxicated.

Police constable Shirley stated that about a quarter to twelve on Monday night he was called to Burton's Restaurant opposite the Mersey Station. The defendant had by this time entered the restaurant and had come on to the balcony over the front door, and was using very offensive language to the complainant and her friend, who were outside.

In cross-examination, witness said he did not see a man there wanting to fight the defendant, nor did he see another man whom the ladies were trying to "get on" to the defendant. A gentleman, who was passing, gave the ladies his card and offered to come as a witness with regard to defendant's language if required.

The guard of the train was also called, and stated that when the train got to the square one of the ladies complained that the defendant had assaulted her, when the defendant said that she wanted to "pal on" to him, but he would not have it. Defendant appeared to be sober.

In reply to the magistrate, defendant said he had never heard so many falsehoods concocted in so short a time as they had just listened to. He did not say he was on that night exactly sober, but he was not drunk. As soon as the train began to move complainant and her friend began to smile and leer in his direction. He was not in a frame of mind to speak to them, and he merely sneered at the women, upon which Mrs. Johnson said, "Come and sit here, dear." He replied that he wished to have nothing to do with her. He turned his back on her, upon which she struck him with her satchel over the eye. He told her she might go too far, upon which she used filthy language to him, and called him abusive names. She struck him with her umbrella, and he guarded her blows off with his arm. In her excitement her hat came off, but not from any violence on his part. He thought the complainant, when she got to the station, would have been glad to have run away home after what she had said, and he was very much surprised when she gave him in charge for assaulting her, whereas the assault was all on her part and not on his. He admitted that he might have used offensive language to the complainant, but it was because of being annoyed by her conduct.

Albert M'Lean, defendant's companion to Hamilton square, said as soon as complainant and her friend got into the compartment they commenced laughing and giggling at Captain Hill and witness. Complainant asked defendant to sit beside her, but he would have nothing to do with her. She became vexed and swore at defendant, and on the latter making some reply she struck him with her satchel, and used very bad language. Defendant was "rather fresh" but not drunk, and he replied to complainant's abuse, which made her very mad. She also struck defendant with her umbrella.

Inspector Moore, in reply to the magistrate, said so far as he was aware both women were respectable people, against whose character nothing could be said.

Mr. Preston considered defendants account of what took place was a most unlikely one. His conduct had been most improper, and he would have to pay a penalty of 5 and costs.

Mr. Greer said the railway company were always anxious to do what was necessary to preserve order on their line, and would have taken up this case had not the complainant done so while they were investigating the matter.


Liverpool Weekly Courier Saturday 17 May 1890

Kindly donated by Tony


These assizes were opened at St. George's hall, on Monday, before Baron Huddleston and Mr. Justice Laurance. The calendar contained the names of 33 prisoners, whose educational status is put down as follows :- Well educated, 4; imperfectly, 20; able to read, 2; neither able to read nor write, 5; and not stated, 2.


Edward Hughes, 21, labourer, pleaded guilty to a charge of burglary at a house in Mulgrave street, Liverpool, in March last, and stealing a quantity of articles. Mr. Segar prosecuted. His Lordship, in sentencing the prisoner, said he found that in 1879 he was sent to St. Georges Industrial Schools, and afterwards to a reformatory, where he took a leading part in an attack upon the officers. Since then he had been convicted of wounding and burglary, and he was a person in whom he recognised the habitual criminal. To such persons he never felt justified in extending mercy, and he sentenced him to seven years penal servitude.


Charles Wood, 31, described in the calendar as a commercial traveller, pleaded guilty to an indictment charging him with having maliciously set fire to a stack, the property of Thomas Mawdsley, at Maghull, on the 24th April. The prisoner declined to give an account of himself, and handed up a statement to his Lordship, in which he stated that it was indifferent to him whether he received sentence of five years or twenty five years.

His Lordship, in passing judgment, said he did not sit there to gratify the jaundiced feelings of persons who might be discontented with the world. It was his duty, in the prisoner's interest, not to accede to the suggestion he made, although he might be disappointed at not being sent into penal servitude. He ordered him to be imprisoned for eighteen calendar months.


Edward Lee, 39, labourer, pleaded guilty to an indictment charging him with having committed bigamy with Jane Johnson, at Manchester, on the 8th November, 1886. The prisoner stated that in 1879 he was sent into penal servitude, and when he came out he found that his wife had married again. Subsequently he was sent to gaol again, and during his absence his wife committed bigamy with a second man. By the two men his wife had had five children. His Lordship sentenced him to three months imprisonment. Eliza Lee, his wife, also pleaded guilty to a charge of bigamy with John Turner, at Salford, on the 27th Nov., 1871. His Lordship, in sentencing her to three days imprisonment, advised her not to go about the country marrying other people. (Laughter)


Henry Hall, 24, labourer, and Edward Houghton, 28, labourer, pleaded guilty to a charge of burglary at Widnes on the 20th April, and stealing a quantity of wearing apparel, the property of David John Brookes. His Lordship remarked that they were proficients in housebreaking, and sentenced Hall, whom he described as a desperate character, to seven years penal servitude. Houghton he sent to gaol for nine months.


Robert Richardson, 34, labourer, was charged with the manslaughter of Jeffrey Lomax, at Heywood, on the 1st May. Mr. Overend Evans prosecuted. According to the evidence the deceased and the prisoner had a wrestle, and Richardson threw Lomax on to the ground. He then bent his legs up until his feet almost touched his face, and in that way his neck was broken, his death resulting some time after from the injury. The witnesses stated that by the rules of wrestling before "a fall" could be claimed both the shoulders of the man down must touch the ground, and it was in endeavouring to obtain a fall that Lomax obtained his fatal injury. His Lordship, in summing-up, said he often wished they could introduce into English jurisprudence that which was of very great benefit to Scotland, namely, the three verdicts of guilty, not guilty, or not proven. The jury found the prisoner not guilty, and he was discharged.


William M'Connell, 20, fireman, and Thomas Lindsay, 20, labourer, were indicted for maliciously wounding Richard Wignall, at Liverpool, on the 26th April. The case for the prosecution was that on the night of the 26th April the prisoners went to the lodgings of the prosecutor, whom they asked to be allowed to see. They were shown to his room, and there Lindsay struck with the buckle end of a belt a lamp which was suspended from the ceiling. The lamp was broken, and falling on to a table set fire to it. As Wignall was endeavouring to extinguish the fire Lindsay struck him twice with the buckle end of the belt and caused wounds, from which the blood flowed freely. He made an effort to escape from the room, and M'Connell stabbed him three times with a knife on the head. When arrested M'Connell denied using a knife, but admitted striking the prosecutor with a belt. Lindsay said he did not strike Wignall. The prisoners, who still adhered to the defence they had previously made, were found guilty of unlawful wounding. His Lordship, in passing sentence, said he was afraid they were both loose people. M,Connell was a very bad character, having been twice previously convicted of wounding. His conduct was most atrocious, and the sentence passed upon him must be in marked distinction to the sentence upon Lindsay. He was sentenced to 18 calendar months imprisonment and Lindsay to six calendar months.


James Albert Mason, 35, engineer, was brought up for sentence, he having pleaded guilty, on Tuesday, to committing bigamy, at Leeds, on the 23rd April, with Annie Clara Taylor. The prisoner handed to his Lordship a testimonial from a lady in Manchester as to his character. The testimonial described the prisoner as a person who has a Christian character, gentlemanly in appearance, of good address, and his heart is all aglow with love for Christ. It further stated that he had been a teacher in her Sunday school, was a thorough devoted Christian, and ever showed a cheerful willingness to take part in cottage and other meetings, and that he was likely to prove a real blessing to any parish or district wherever he might be sent.

His Lordship remarked that he was afraid the lady did not know his inner life. The prisoner explained that that testimonial referred to the period of his life from 1875 to 1883. At that time he was a Scripture reader, and lived a good Christian life for some years, but his first wife turned out to have an uncontrollable temper, and an unhappy union was the result. She was also addicted to falling from the truth, and ultimately he left and went to lodge with Taylor and her aunt. After marrying Taylor he lived a good life until he was arrested.

His Lordship said that Taylor in her evidence stated the prisoner represented himself as a single man, and got 140 of her money.

The prisoner denied that he got 140 of Taylor's money, but admitted that he concealed from her the fact of his previous marriage.

His Lordship sentenced the prisoner to six calendar months with hard labour.

The prisoner's first wife, a lady-like person, who was sitting behind the dock, shook her fist at her husband as he was going down the steps, and exclaimed, "May God forgive you."


Patrick Dunn, 38, labourer, and John Dunn, 28, labourer, were indicted for the manslaughter of Malachi Dooley at Liverpool, on the 20th March. Mr. M'Connell was for the prosecution, and Mr. Segar represented the prisoners. The case for the prosecution was that on the 20th March the prisoners, the deceased, and a fourth man named Legg, were drinking together in a public house in Ennerdale street. The deceased and Legg left the house, and were followed shortly by the prisoners. Dooley was knocked to the ground, and, it was alleged, Patrick Dunn took hold of him by the ears and bumped his head on the pavement, causing injuries which subsequently resulted in his death, whilst his brother kept back the crowd. Mr. Segar, for the defence, submitted that when the men went out of the public house Dooley struck one of the Dunns, and a fight ensued, and the cause of the death was the result of a fall. In any case, he said they could not find John Dunn guilty unless they were of opinion they were acting together. The jury found both prisoners guilty.

His Lordship said he found that both the prisoners had been in the army, and one was now in the enjoyment of a pension in the reserves. They only worked casually, and were both of drunken, dissipated habits, and violent disposition. Nothing could be more brutal or horrible than the course they took with that unfortunate man Dooley. It was true that John Dunn was not shown to have been guilty of that excess of violence that Patrick had, but he assisted to keep back the crowd. Conduct like this must be suppressed for the protection of society, and he sentenced Patrick Dunn to five years penal servitude. John Dunn was sent to gaol for 12 months with hard labour.


Edward Murgatroyd, 50, engineer, was put upon his trial for having, at Southport, on the 24th January and 17th April, maliciously sent to Mary Ann Butterworth certain letters threatening to kill and murder her. A further indictment charged him with having sent a letter to Harriet Hobson threatening to kill her. Mr. Little appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Shee represented the prisoner, who pleaded guilty.

Mr. Little, in stating the facts of the case, said the man had been acting under the belief that these ladies knew where his wife was, and he had had recourse to this mode of compelling them to tell him. On behalf of the ladies, however, he had to say that they wished the prisoner to be dealt with as leniently as possible under the circumstances.

Mr. Shee, for the prisoner, said that he was once in a prosperous position, but he had had reverses and then taken to drinking, the result of which was that he and his wife were separated. That had all been forgotten, and now his wife had gone away again, and he was very anxious to find her, and had been all over the country looking for her. He was under the impression that these ladies knew where she was, and although he wrote the letters he had no intention of carrying out the threats.

His Lordship read the letters, which commenced: "Prepare to meet your God, for there is cold lead waiting the opportunity." They contained statements to the effect that he was on the watch for the recipients of the letters, and were signed "An Injured One"

Mrs. Butterworth and Mrs. Hobson were called, and deposed that they were unaware where the prisoner's wife was.

His Lordship intimated that he would consider what sentence to pass upon the prisoner, who was accordingly put back until next day.

Edward Murgatroyd, 50, engineer, who pleaded guilty, on Monday, to sending threatening letters to Ann Butterworth and Harriet Hobson, at Southport, in the months of January and April last, was brought up for sentence.

Mr. Shee, for the defence, asked to be allowed to further address his Lordship on behalf of the prisoner. He said he could assure his lordship, from inquiries he had made, that the expressions of regret which the prisoner had made were really and truly sincere. He also understood that the ladies who were for the prosecution were themselves anxious that the court should take the most merciful view possible.

His Lordship said the greatest curse a woman could have was a husband who gave way to temptation and yielded to the desire for drink. He thought that was the cause of the prisoner's present degraded position. He hoped he was justified in coming to the conclusion that the letters he had written contained idle threats, threats that he never intended to carry out, and probably were uttered because of the irritation and disappointment of not being able to get tidings of his wife. He proposed to adopt a course to him which he hoped would earn from him his gratitude to those ladies whom he insulted, and who were the strongest persons pleading in his favour. He should pass on him the sentence that he enter into his own recognisances to come up to receive judgment if called upon.


Charles Fredrick Gaster, 25, letter carrier, pleaded guilty to stealing at Liverpool, on the 3rd April last, a postal letter containing two postal orders for the sums of 20s. and 5s. He was sentenced to 12 calendar months imprisonment.

Martin Buckley, 30, labourer, who pleaded guilty to an indictment charging him unlawfully wounding John Henry Nickson, at Windle, on the 26th April, was ordered to be imprisoned for six calendar months.

George M'Hugh, 18, labourer, and John Proctor, 19, pleaded guilty to burglariously breaking and entering the dwelling house of John Toll, at Liverpool, on the 6th April, and stealing a quantity of wearing apparel. They were each sentenced to twelve months imprisonment.

Mary Ellen Molyneux, 22, of no occupation, pleaded guilty to stealing a chemise of the value of 9d., the property of John White, at Eccleston, on the 8th May, and she was sent to gaol for three calendar months.

John Conroy, 29, blacksmith, was found guilty of having, at Windle, on the 1st February, stolen a jacket, vest, pair of trousers and other articles, the property of Joseph Connor. Previous convictions were recorded against him, and he was sentenced to 12 calendar months imprisonment with hard labour.

William Dixon, 30, stoker, was found guilty of burglariously breaking and entering the dwelling house of Albert Milloy at Salford on the 5th May, and stealing a pair of boots, and also of having damaged a window of an amount exceeding 5. The prisoner had been several times convicted of felony, and was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment with hard labour.

William John Monks, 21, shopman, pleaded guilty to committing a burglary at Toxteth Park on the 5th April, and stealing jewellery of the value of 150, the property of Joseph Brown. He was sent to gaol for 12 calendar months.

John Entwistle, 24, cotton spinner; Peter Crompton, 21, collier; and John Hodgson, 32, collier, pleaded guilty to committing a burglary at Westleigh on the 10th April, and were sentenced respectively to six months, four months, and two months imprisonment.


Edward Shaw, 20, labourer, Thomas Bell, 35, bricklayer, James Adams, 29, labourer, and James Feeney, 29, labourer, were put on their trial on a charge of receiving two coats, the property of Charles Gildea. Shaw was also charged with burglary at Gildea's house at Liverpool on the 5th April, but owing to the absence of a witness the case could not be proceeded with against him. The jury found prisoners not guilty and they were discharged. His Lordship remarked that their characters were not good ones, and he cautioned them as to their future behaviour.

Ephraim Cooksey, 23, brass finisher, and Richard Worrall, 23, brass finisher, were indicted for having committed a rape on Mary Ann Casson, at Dalton, on the 3rd May. The jury, after a trial which lasted all day, returned a verdict of not guilty, and the prisoners were at once ordered to be discharged, his Lordship remarking that he entirely agreed with the verdict.

Baby Farming, 1890

Copyright 2002 / To date