Category Archives: #OnePlacePolicing

The Cold Hatton Association for the Prosecution of Felons – Part 2

Posted on by
Reply

⇐ Back to Part 1

As we have seen, when the Cold Hatton Association was formed in 1769, drawing members from several small settlements including Waters Upton, it aimed “to prosecute all Felons, especially Horse-stealers”. In the years that followed, while horse thieves remained a priority, the Association (hereinafter referred to as the CHA) developed and diversified its mission, with the deterrence of other forms of felony falling more firmly within its remit.

There was a lot of variation in the notices published by the CHA in its early years, as the young organisation sought to define who, and what, it was for. There was also the matter of how best to present itself to the public, or at least that section of the public who either read the newspapers or had the papers’ news and notices conveyed to them. Within that part of the populace were potential new members, potential partners in crime-fighting, and quite probably some of the felons who might see themselves as potential defendants should they be collared by the CHA.

The CHA was not alone in this experimental phase of its existence, as I have seen the same variation in the notices published by similar Salopian societies around this time. I think there was a lot of ‘borrowing’ of ideas, with the various prosecution associations taking note of (and taking some of the wording from) what the others had published in the papers.

An illustration dating from 1804 of a Shorthorn Cow. The Cow is standing, and facing towards the left side of the image. In black on a buff background.
A Shorthorn Cow, by J Ward, about 1824. Public domain image from the Wellcome Collection ⇗.

In 1771, the CHA advertised that it was “a Society for Prosecuting House-breakers, Horse-stealers, and all other Kinds of Felony whatsoever.” 1773 saw a slightly more detailed agenda published. The CHA would “endeavour to apprehend and prosecute all Persons who shall be guilty of committing Felony or Larceny on the respective Properties” of it members, and it set out the actions to be taken by any member “who shall have his, her, or their House broken open, or Horse, Cattle, or other Property stolen”.

Hedge-tearers, and Springle-getters

The emphasis on equines returned in notices published from 1774 to the beginning of 1777. In September 1777 however, the following statement was added to the CHA’s notice: “They are also determined to prosecute all Hedge-tearers, and Springle-getters to sell, and others that cannot give Account of themselves.”

Hedge-tearers? George Roberts, in his 1856 publication The Social History of the People of the Southern Counties of England in Past Centuries ⇗, categorised hedge-tearers with wood-stealers, spoilers of hedges, “and to crown all, the pollers of trees.” These were poor folk who, in order to obtain fuel for their fires, would plunder the local woods and hedgerows (and presumably, in the case of wood-stealers, their wealthier neighbours’ wood piles). Roberts was writing about the late 1500s in Dorset and Somerset, but evidently hedge-tearers were also a problem two centuries later in Shropshire. Were the Salopian hedge-tearers of that time also looking for fuel, or were they simply vandals?

Springles could also have been a source of firewood, but were being stolen by ‘springle-getters’ so that they could be sold. In an 1894 issue of Notes and Queries ⇗, a correspondent stated that “’Thatching springles’ are willow or hazel rods four feet long, split and with the ends sharpened, and used to bind down the thatch.”

This was in reply to a query in an earlier issue, about the appearance of springles in the churchwardens’ accounts of High Ercall, the parish in which Cold Hatton lay and which Waters Upton was adjacent to. Springles were also mentioned in the eighteenth century accounts of the Overseers of the Poor, in the North Shropshire parish of Moreton Corbet. They were listed along with other items used in connection with “thetching” parishioners’ houses. I have an 1883 edition of the Transactions of the Shropshire Archaeological and Natural History Society ⇗ to thank for that snippet of information.

Clearly, the gentlemen freeholders and farmers of Waters Upton and nearby settlements valued their hedgerows, which helped to keep their cattle and other animals in the fields where they belonged. And it appears that a good number of people in that area had houses with thatched roofs.

An old, undated illustration of a thatcher at work. The thatcher, standing on a ladder, is adding material to the thatched roof of a small dwelling which has a smoking chimney and a sign, with a picture of bird on it, outside.. Another man stands next to the ladder. Two horses stand close by, a white horse with a bag on its back, and a darker horse behind it, with a rider. A boy wearing an apron is approaching the horses, holding a bowl. There is also a pig, at the bottom right of the image. A monochrome image, bearing the title "The Thatcher."
The Thatcher, by George Morland, undated. Based on an image from the Wellcome Collection ⇗ (public domain).

All Manner of domestic Fowls; Posts, Rails, Styles, Gates, &c.

The 1777 statement regarding hedge-tearers and springle-getters was retained in a notice published in 1778. That notice was repeated more or less verbatim along with the ever-changing list of CHA members, through to 1781. It specified that members would “pursue and prosecute any Offender or Offenders that shall be guilty of any Felony or Larceny, on any of our respective Persons or Properties; more especially House-breakers, Horse-stealers, and Sheep-stealers”.

The list of offences which the CHA sought to deter through pursuit and prosecution increased in 1783, when the following notice appeared in Aris’s Birmingham Gazette:

MARCH 3, 1783.
ASSOCIATION.
The Inhabitants of Cold Hatton, Rowton, Elerdine, Waters Upton, Crudgington, and Sleap, in the County of Salop, whose names are under-mentioned, have bound themselves by Articles, to prosecute all Felons, and Petit Larceny whatsoever; such as House-breakers, Horse-stealers, or any Kind of Cattle or Beasts, as Cows, Sheep, Pigs, &c. and robbing Orchards, or Gardens, Hedge-tearers, stealing of Springles, Turnips, and all Manner of domestic Fowls; Posts, Rails, Styles, Gates, &c., or any other Kind of Felony whatsoever; and to ride throughout England at the joint Expence of the Society, and prosecute according to Law and Justice.
THOMAS CLARKE, PHILIP WARDLEY, Treasurers.

In the years that followed, the content of the CHA’s notices broadly followed that of 1783, almost without exception (a horse-focused notice appeared in 1785). They typically began with the Association’s name, and an opening statement along the lines of: “WHEREAS several Burglaries, Felonies, Grand and Petit Larcenies, have frequently of late been committed in [the Townships covered by the Association]”.

In 1785 “Hooks and Thimbles” were added to the list of items which, if stolen, would attract the attention of the CHA. These were used in the hanging of gates, a subject I found way more information about than I expected in volume 1 of The Complete Farmer ⇗, published in 1807! According to The Dialect of Leicestershire ⇗, the thimble is the ring which receives the hook in the hinge of a gate.

The wording of the CHA’s notices became fixed from September 1795, with the notice being supplemented from 1799 by a list of rewards. (From 1801 it was clarified that the rewards were offered “on Conviction of Offenders”.)

The felonious burning any house, barn, or other building

The highest reward, of five guineas, was offered in respect of “The felonious breaking and entering any house in the night time” and also “The felonious burning any house, barn, or other building, or any rick, stack, mow, hovel, cock of corn, grain, straw, hay, or wood”. The next highest reward, of three guineas, was offered in respect of “The felonious stealing, killing, maiming, or wounding any horse, mare, or gelding” and in addition, for a new item: “Any servant unlawfully selling, bartering, giving away or embezzling any coal, lime, hay, or other his, her, or their master or mistresses property”.

A colour painting (watercolour and graphite) dating from the very late 1700s or early to early-mid 1800s, depicting trees and shrubs by a country lane. Between two of the trees in the middle of the picture there is a 5-bar wooden gate. To the left of the trees is a haystack with a flattened conical top.
A Country Lane with Haystack and Gate by Robert Hills (1769 – 1844), undated. Public domain image from the Yale Center for British Art ⇗.

Smaller rewards, down to a single guinea, were offered in respect of various other offences. Most of these we are familiar with from earlier CHA notices, but the term ‘hedge-tearers’ was abandoned. It was replaced, and combined with several related offences as “The breaking open, throwing down, leveling or destroying any hedges, gates, posts, stiles, pales, rails, or fences”. The range of crimes against crops falling with the CHA’s scope was also expanded, in “The stealing or destroying any fruit tree, root, shrub, plant, turnips, or potatoes, pease, &c. robbing any orchards or gardens”.

These notices, lists of rewards, and lists of members, continued to be published every year – with a few exceptions – up to 1812. The exceptions might be years in which, for whatever reason, the Association did not publish any notices. Or they might be the result of my failure to find search terms which would reveal them in the British Newspaper Archive’s collection!

From the CHA’s notices and lists of rewards, we gain insights regarding the lives of some of the people in Waters Upton and the surrounding area, who were members of the Association in the latter part of the 1700s and first decade or so of the 1800s. We see something of the livestock, crops and other property they owned, what was of value to them, and what was at risk of being stolen or damaged.

Who were the CHA members of Waters Upton though? We have seen their names (in Part 1), but what else is there we can learn about them? Were they all gentlemen and farmers? In Part 3 of this article I will begin my quest for answers to these questions. I will also look at what happened to the Cold Hatton Association for the Prosecution of Felons after 1812.

To be continued.


Top ⇑

The Cold Hatton Association for the Prosecution of Felons

Posted on by
Reply
THE Gentlemen, Freeholders, and Farmers as under mentioned, of the Neighbourhood of Cold-Hatton, in the Parish of Ercall Magna, in the County of Salop, have bound themselves in Articles of Agreement to prosecute all Felons, especially Horse-stealers; and by this Agreement any Person or Persons who shall lose a Horse, &c. shall give the earliest Notice possible to the Society, who shall set out different Roads, and ride at their own Expence 100 Miles endways: and if any of the Society shall gain Intelligence of the Horse, &c. that he is in pursuit of, shall ride England through at the Expence of the Society, exclusive of the 100 Miles above-mentioned.
– Aris’s Birmingham Gazette, 11 December 1769, page 2.
Illustration of a man riding a horse, created in the late 1700s or early 1800s. The man is wearing a hat, a long-tailed coat, and boots with spurs; one arm is outstretched, the had holding a whip. The horse, facing towards the left side of the image, has both forelegs off the ground and both hind legs on the ground.
Julius Caesar Ibbetson, 1759–1817, Rider on a Galloping Horse, undated.
Public domain image from Yale Center for British Art ⇗.

The above notice was followed by a list of 33 names arranged under their places of residence, and a request for gatekeepers (at turnpikes) to provide information in return for a reward. It was the first of many such notices from this society that I have found through searches of the British Newspaper Archive. They span a period of more than 40 years, up to and including 1812 (with another, isolated example in 1834), and my transcriptions of them can be found on a new page in the Crime section of this website: The Cold Hatton Association.

As the title of this article and of that new page suggest, the Society became known as the Cold Hatton Association (for the Prosecution of Felons). Its membership included men – and at least two women – from Waters Upton. In 1769 John Wase (who remained a member until 1803) was the sole representative from the parish. Over the whole of the period from 1769 to 1812 however, at least 21 inhabitants of Waters Upton ‘bound themselves’ in the organisation’s articles of agreement. Some subscribed only for a year or two, while others became long-term members. Joseph James’s association with the, um, Association, lasted for at least 38 years!

The deterrence of felonies

The names of the 21 members of the Association who lived in Waters Upton, and the years in which I have found notices featuring those names, are shown in the chart below. The names are listed from left to right in order of when they first appeared in a published membership list – but where one family member was succeeded by another, I have grouped those family members together. There are two cases where a man was succeeded in membership by his widow. In the second of those cases, the widow remarried and her second husband, who bore the same surname, then took her place in the Association. There was also a son who succeeded his father (and possibly one brother who succeeded another – I’m still looking into that!).

A chart showing Waters Upton residents who were members of the Cold Hatton Association (names across the top of the chart) and the years when they are known to have been members (years, from 1769 to 1812, down the left side of the chart).

The grey lines across the chart indicate years – nine in all – for which I have found no published notices from the Cold Hatton Association in the period from 1769 to 1812. Three of those nine are, unfortunately, successive years: from 1805 to 1807. Otherwise, thankfully, there are one or more years on either side of the various gaps in the record, for which published notices are known. Bringing all of them together provides a useful resource for researching the area and its people, towards the end of a long period lacking the more detailed records created in later decades.

I plan to come back to the Waters Uptonians of the Cold Hatton Association – and hopefully make them more than just names – in future articles. First however, I want to look in more detail at the early history of the Cold Hatton and other Shropshire associations, and shed light on why folk from Waters Upton were joining forces with their neighbours to prosecute felons. I am grateful to past me for carrying out research that has given me a head start on this.

Back in 2017, for my Atcherley one-name study, I wrote about John Atcherley and the deterrence of felonies ⇗. John was a member of another Shropshire society for prosecuting felons in the late 1700s, one centred on Kinnersley (or Kynnersley). The settlements from which its members were drawn included some of those covered by the Cold Hatton Association, including two in the parish of Ercall Magna: Rowton and Moortown. The latter place was where John Atcherley lived and farmed. His sons Samuel and John later joined the Cold Hatton Association.

For want of immediate pursuit

In my article, I noted that when a similar society was announced for Oswestry and nearby parishes in Shropshire in 1775, it was stated that offenders had “too often escaped Justice for want of immediate Pursuit, and effectual Prosecution”. To explain further why these local societies were formed, I also quoted from an online article ⇗ by Matthew White:

18th-century law enforcement was very different from modern-day policing. The prosecution of criminals remained largely in the hands of victims themselves, who were left to organise their own criminal investigations. Every parish was obliged to have one or two constables, who were selected every year from local communities, and were unpaid volunteers. These constables were required to perform policing duties only in their spare time, and many simply paid for substitutes to stand in for them.

I continued as follows (this is copied, with minor modifications, directly from my Atcherley article):

The failure of the parish (or township) constables to adequately protect people’s property was also highlighted by historian Jim Sutton in his well-researched paper of 2004, Protecting Privilege and Property: Associations for the Prosecutions of Felons (in: The Local Historian, volume 34, number 2 ⇗; see page 25 of the PDF download).
Jim traced the history of these associations from their origins in resolutions adopted at parish vestry meetings (which set out terms for using parish funds to prosecute felons), to the ‘mutual subscription societies’ which then arose and came to prominence in the late 1700s and early 1800s […]

Gentlemen, Freeholders, and Farmers

Another author writing on this subject, barrister Gregory J Durston (in Fields, Fens and Felonies, published 2016, page 220 ⇗), has noted that the history of prosecution associations can be traced back to the late seventeenth century. One was formed in Stoke-on-Trent in 1693 – and even that was probably not the first such society. The great majority however were formed after 1760.

1760, coincidentally, may well have been the year when the first association in Shropshire was started. The Chester Courant of 25 March 1760 included a notice naming 24 inhabitants of Hodnet and two adjacent parishes. Sir Rowland Hill of Hawkstone, Baronet, and nearly two dozen of his neighbours, had “come to an agreement to prosecute (at their joint Expence) all Kinds of Felony, Petty Larceny, &c. and more especially Horse-Stealing.”

A painting, from around 1790, of Hawkstone Hall in Shropshire. The main hall, a four-storey building constructed largely from reddish-coloured brick or stone, is on slightly higher ground to the right. Other buildings, of one- and two-storeys, extend towards the left from the far end of the main hall. On lower ground to the left is a further building, long and of two storeys. On a wide drive on the lower ground in the centre of the picture, at the foot of a flight of steps, is a coach and horses.
Unknown artist, Hawkstone Hall, Shropshire, ca. 1790.
Public domain image from Yale Center for British Art ⇗.

By 1765 the aforementioned Kinnersley association had also been launched (with members including Richard Belliss and Thomas Wood, who would later live at Waters Upton). The initial focus of this group, according to their notice in Aris’s Birmingham Gazette of 9 December 1765, was solely the prosecution of horse thieves.

In the same newspaper over the following few years, several other Salopian associations began to advertise. In 1768, two dozen “Inhabitants of the Parish of Shiffnall” announced that they had raised a subscription to fund the prosecution of “Horse-stealers, House-breakers, and other Felons”. In addition, 30+ “Gentlemen, Freeholders, and Farmers” in and around Edgmond parish had come together to prosecute people pinching their property. The following year saw the publication of notices on behalf of 38 gents, freeholders and farmers “of the Neighbourhood of Childs-Ercall” and, as we have seen, by the Society formed for the Cold Hatton area.

Through the 1770s and in the decades immediately thereafter, many more associations came into existence, in Shropshire and elsewhere in England and Wales. We will likely never know for sure exactly how many there were. John H Langbein, in The Origins of Adversary Criminal Trial, published 2005 (page 132), cites research ⇗ suggesting that the number was at least a thousand, but might have been four times that figure.

Horse, Mare, or Gelding

Thomas Barker, 1769–1847, Man Leading a Horse, undated.
Public domain image from Yale Center for British Art ⇗.

“Horse-stealers” were clearly the main target of the prosecution associations set up for the neighbourhoods of Cold Hatton and other Shropshire settlements. Horses were, in the words of Gregory J Durston, “valuable and relatively easy to transport long distances.”

Depending on the breed and the owner, a horse might be used for personal transportation (in the saddle, or in a trap or carriage); for pulling ploughs, drills, harrows, carts or waggons; or for following the chase when hunting with fox or otter hounds. (There were race horses too of course, but probably not many in the stables in and around Cold Hatton and Waters Upton.) The new prosecution societies were clearly a tempting proposition for some of the horse owners living in the areas where those organisations were set up.

As the Cold Hatton and other associations evolved however, there was an increased emphasis on theft, injury or damage to other livestock and property, and a greater range of rewards for information leading to convictions. I will look at these changes and other developments in the second part of this article.

On to Part 2 ⇒


Top ⇑

A fatal tricycle accident at Waters Upton – Part 2

Posted on by
3

⇐ Back to Part 1

PC Thomas Alexander Lee

Thos. Alexander Lee deposed: I am a police-constable, stationed at Waters Upton. On Tuesday night [11 August 1891], at 10-35, I saw William Matthews and the last witness at Matthews’s wicket [= gate]. There were two tricycles and a man on the ground. I asked “What’s up?” and Matthews said, “Sammy Dodd’s had a drop of beer and fallen off his machine.” I examined the deceased, but did not think he was hurt. The only mark I saw was a scratch on the hand. I saw that the machine was broken.
I went to my rooms, close by, and fetched some matches. Matthews also fetched light. While he was away I lit the lamp of the tricycle, and examined the deceased. I satisfied myself that no bones were broken. I told Matthews that if deceased was hurt it must be about his head, but I could find no marks. Deceased had been vomiting, and smelt strongly of drink. I asked him several times to get up, and he muttered that he should be all right directly if let alone. I was under the impression that he was drunk, and not hurt.
Matthews asked the deceased if he was going home, and he said something about bed. Matthews said, “What have you been doing, Sammy, to get into this state? I’ll not have you in my bed in this form, but I’ve plenty building, and will bed you down.” On that I left them. Owen followed me and said that deceased would be all right—that Matthews would look after him. I did not think deceased capable of going home, but I did think Matthews would take care of him.— [Questioned by] Mr. Superintendent Galliers: I knew deceased to be a friend of Matthews, and believed that Matthews would take him into his house.

Thomas Lee (Police Constable 107) was one of a number of people whose appearance on the 1891 census at Waters Upton was the only time they were enumerated at that place. He was a native of Whitchurch in Shropshire, where he was baptised ⇗ on 24 February 1864; his parents were farmer William Lee and his wife Mary, née Robinson.

Colour photo of 'The Old House' and neighbouring houses along a street in Whitchurch , Shropshire. Both The Old House and the adjoining house are lovely half-timbered buildings, with white- or lime-washed walls broken by vertical and horizontal black timbers.
The Old House in Whitchurch, Shropshire.

Newspaper reports of the proceedings of the Petty Sessions at Wellington in 1890 and 1891 give the (probably misleading) impression that PC Lee’s duties while stationed in Waters Upton revolved mainly around dealing with drunken patrons of the local hostelries. The earliest such report that I have found so far, in the Wellington Journal of 5 April 1890 (page 6), shows that PC Lee charged two men with drunkenness at Waters Upton on 22 March 1890. Later that year he charged one man with being drunk and disorderly at High Ercall on 11 September and two men for the same offence at Waters Upton on the 20th (Wellington Journal, 4 October 1890, page 3).

A variation on the regular theme was the man summoned by PC Lee to appear at the Petty Sessions on 15 December 1890 “for being drunk and asleep while in charge of a horse and trap on the 8th inst., on the road leading from Crudgington to Waters Upton”. It was ‘business as usual’ on Boxing Day however (two men drunk at Waters Upton, and in May 1891 Thomas charged two men with drunkenness in the village, and another with “being drunk and refusing to quit the Swan Inn, Waters Upton”. (Wellington Journal, 20 December 1891, page 6; 10 January 1891, page 2; 30 May 1891, page 3; and 13 June 1891, page 6.)

PC Lee was clearly used to seeing the effects of alcohol on people, but should he have known better in Samuel Dodd’s case? He did not remain stationed at Waters Upton for long after Dodd’s demise. A round-up of cases heard at the Wellington Petty Sessions on 28 September (Wellington Journal, 3 October 1891, page 2) indicates that he had been transferred to Wellington itself by then. I cannot help wondering whether this move was connected with his conduct on the night of Sam Dodd’s fatal accident, or if the timing was simply a coincidence.

At some point over the next ten years, Thomas and the Shropshire Constabulary parted company. He was enumerated in 1901 ⇗ at Whitchurch, his birthplace, where he was living with his sister (also unmarried) and working as a County Court Bailiff. The only thing that had changed when the 1911 census was taken (apart from Thomas’s age of course) is that he was living with his widowed mother Mary. The death of Thomas Alexander Lee, aged 68, was registered ⇗ in the Atcham Registration District of Shropshire in the last quarter of 1932.

Robert Nicholls, Joseph Jones, Walter Welsh and Jane Jones

Robert Nicholls said: I am a labourer, and live at Waters Upton. Yesterday morning, at five o’clock, I looked out of my bedroom window, and saw some one lying on the footpath. At half-past five I went out to see who it was, and found deceased lying on his side. He was then alive. I thought he was drunk. I spoke to him but he made answer. I called Joseph Jones, and he came and helped me to put him in a pigsty close by. Jones said thought deceased would be better after a lie down. Other people came and saw him, and I then left—[Questioned by] the Foreman: I have heard of deceased being drunk, and I thought he was drunk then. He breathed rather heavily.
Walter Welsh said: I am a blacksmith, and live at Waters Upton. Yesterday morning, shortly before six o’clock, I saw deceased in Matthews’s pigsty. He was breathing very heavily. I knew that Nicholls had put him in the pigsty. I did not know the deceased intimately, but have seen him drunk.
Jane Jones said: Yesterday morning I went into Matthews’s house. Deceased was there on sofa. Directly after I got into the house deceased passed away. I did not lay the body out I put him straight.

The 1891 census shows that Joseph Jones was a farm waggoner, and Jane was his wife. Both were residents of Waters Upton from the mid-1860s – I will return to them in another article. Robert Nicholls and Walter Welsh on the other hand were, like Samuel Owen and Thomas Lee, short-term inhabitants of the parish. I have written very briefly about Walter in Blacksmiths in Waters Upton – Part 2.

Robert Nicholls was born in the small settlement of Sleap, to the south of both Waters Upton and neighbouring Crudgington, and was baptised ⇗ at the parish church of Ercall Magna on 3 June 1855. He was named after his father, and like his dad he worked as an agricultural labourer.

The church of Rowton All Hallows. The stone-built church is partially obscured by a tree in the churchyard, but most of one end of the building, with a porch protecting its entrance and a small bell turret on the roof above, can be seen.
Rowton All Hallows.

Robert married Emma Teece in 1882, the wedding being registered ⇗ in the first quarter of that year in Wellington Registration District. (Emma, who was born and baptised in Waters Upton in 1856, has a story of her own to be told).

The 1891 census shows that the couple’s first two children were born at Rowton while the next two were born in Waters Upton, giving 1887 or thereabouts as an approximate timing for the family’s relocation. In similar fashion the 1901 census ⇗ suggests that the Nicholls family had moved to their next home, at Crudgington Green, in the middle of the 1890s; Robert was a waggoner at this time. They were still there in 1911, by which time Robert was a farm labourer again. The death of an 83-year-old Robert Nicholls, quite possibly this former Waters Uptonian, was registered in Wellington Registration District in the first quarter of 1939.

Medical evidence

Dr. George Hollies deposed: I am a physician and surgeon, practising in Wellington. Yesterday morning I received a telegram asking me to come to Waters Upton to a bicycle accident. I arrived about 11 o’clock. The man was then dead. He was lying on a couch in Matthews’s house. I made an external examination of the body. I found an abrasion on the back of the right hand, with sand and soil in the palm. There was also an abrasion on the left hand, and a slight abrasion on the left elbow. There was a slight scratch on the forehead, above the right eyebrow. I found blood mixed with sand and soil about three inches above the right ear. There was an abrasion of the scalp, larger than shilling. The scalp was swollen and bruised. I consider that such an accident as a fall from a tricycle would cause the injuries described.
From the evidence I have heard, and from the external examination I made, I should judge that the man died from compression of the brain, following concussion, but of course l am unable exactly say from mere external examination. It is difficult to say whether the exposure would have made any great difference in this case. No doubt the danger would be increased the fact of the deceased being moved about. I could not say that death was accelerated in this particular case. It is a common error to mistake the condition in which this man was for a state of drunkenness.

William Matthews’ deposition

William Matthews said: I am a sawyer, and live at Waters Upton. On Tuesday evening I and deceased went for a ride on our tricycles. We called at the Buck’s Head, Long Lane, had some drink there, and remained about an hour. We left about a quarter-past nine, and rode together to Crudgington Road. Deceased then went on in front of me.
I met Mr. Percival [Purcell] by the Post Office, and stopped to talk to him. Samuel Owen came to us by the Rectory, and told us that the deceased had been upset. I asked if he was hurt, and Owen said the machine was worse hurt than the man. I came down to my wicket. Deceased was then under the tree. I stayed with him for some time.
Afterwards Police-constable Lee came, and Owen left. I remained with the deceased until 11-30. I asked him stop with me, and he said he would go home. I did not think he was hurt. He had had some beer, but came as far as I rode with him all right, and I thought he was quite able to get home. I did not think that be wished to stop. I have seen him drunk before. I found him in my pigsty next morning about eight o’clock.
I went to try and get a conveyance to take him home, and sent a telegram to Dr. Hollies. I then got deceased into my house, and did all I could for him. I saw deceased’s father when he came. Dr. Hollies afterwards came, but the man was dead then. I have known and worked with the deceased for some time, and he was an intimate acquaintance of mine.
Colour photo of the Bucks Head at Long Lane. It appears that original two-bay, two-storey building was extended twice (to the left side as we look at it), with those extensions then having single storey extensions of their own (one of them very modern looking) added to to their fronts. The building for the most part has white- or lime-washed walls.
The Buck’s Head at Long Lane as it appears today.

The verdict, and a reprimand

The Coroner then summed up, and the jury, after a short deliberation, returned a verdict to the effect that the deceased died from the result of injuries received by accidentally falling from a tricycle. They added a rider the effect that the witness Matthews was greatly to blame for not taking the deceased into his house, and requested the Coroner to censure him.—Matthews was then called in, and the Coroner severely reprimanded him for his conduct.

Was the censure of Thomas Matthews fair – was he really at fault? What would you have done in his position, and would it have made a difference? Hypothetical questions aside, would you recognise the symptoms of head injury and concussion ⇗ (and know what to do) if you saw them today?

After the inquest

Two letters appeared in the Wellington Journal of 22 August 1891 (page 3). One was sent by Samuel Dodd’s sister, Margaret Wood, of Bolas Magna. She had “worked the tricycle” from which Sam had fallen, back to Bolas Magna – and found it was in good working order. She expressed, in terms which made her distress and bitterness clear, her disbelief that anyone examining the machine could say it was broken, “unless the witnesses kindly mended the machine, whilst leaving my brother to mend himself.”

The other letter was submitted by “one of the jurymen”, who was sympathetic to those who had not been able to tell that Samuel Dodd had been suffering from concussion rather than the effects of drink. Concerned that “Waters Upton is situate five miles from any medical man”, he suggested that “ambulance classes in country districts” should be established. How wonderful that his proposal was, in time, acted upon by the Waters Upton resident whose home was used for Sam Dodd’s inquest (and who may have been the anonymous juryman). The following report appeared on page 8 of the Wellington Journal of 22 October 1892:

WATERS UPTON.
Ambulance Class.—An ambulance class in connection with the Wellington Technical Instruction Committee has been established here by Mr. Wm. A. R. Ball, and the first lecture was delivered at the schoolroom on Monday evening by Dr. Hollies, Wellington. The register contains 25 members, and 22 of these answered to their names. The committee consists of Messrs. Walter Dugdale, H. F. Percival, J. N. Cornes, Humphreys, the Revs. J. B. Davies, L. V. Yonge, and H. T. Tetlow. The secretarial part of the duties are performed by Mr. William A. R. Ball.

Picture credits. The Old House in Whitchurch: Photo by Wikimedia Commons ⇗ contributor Jaggery; modified, used, and made available for reuse under a Creative Commons licence ⇗. All Hallows church at Rowton: Photo © A Holmes; taken from Geograph ⇗ and modified, used and made available for reuse under a Creative Commons licence ⇗. The Buck’s Head at Long Lane: Photo © Row17; taken from Geograph ⇗ and modified, used and made available for reuse under a Creative Commons licence ⇗ licence.