Reading Room 2

Saturday, November 3, 1860.

PICKPOCKETS.
   William Rawcliffe and Elizabeth Thompson were brought up charged with being suspicious characters. - A woman named Martha Farnworth, of Park Lane, stated that she was in Wigan yesterday, along with some friends, and went to a shop to purchase some tea. On coming out she observed the two prisoners standing together. She then proceeded to the Fishstones to purchase some herrings, and while there the female prisoner came up, and standing close to her asked the price of shrimps. Farnworth next went to a meat stall to make a purchase, and thither the two prisoners followed her. On paying for what she got there she put her purse, containing a sovereign and some small change, in her dress pocket. From the meat stall she proceeded to a toy stall, and was looking at some dolls, when she found the male prisoner leaning over her shoulder. She told him to stand back, and directly after put her hand in her pocket for her purse and discovered that both it and the sovereign had gone. She turned round to look for the male prisoner but he was gone, and the female she observed walking rapidly away. Farnworth gave information to the police, and Detective Whalley a short time afterwards apprehended the prisoners. - Mr. Walter Mayhew appeared for them, and endeavoured to show that Farnworth was mistaken as to the identity, but she swore positively to both. - No money or purse were found upon the prisoners, and the Chief-constable asked for their committal as vagrants. The male prisoner had been before the Wigan magistrates previously, and on one occasion was sent to gaol for a month. Of the female prisoner nothing was known. - The magistrates committed the man to hard labour for three months, and the woman for one month. On hearing her sentence she began to blubber most lustily, and said she had two little children at Bolton. She was removed to her cell screaming for mercy.

Saturday, November 3, 1860.

"ONLY A DROP."
   Richard Livingstone, a most scantily-clothed fellow, whose exceedingly large head, resting upon a pair of slender shoulders, gave one the idea of the gnomes met with in Christmas pantomimes, and which are the terror of juveniles, was placed in the dock as having no visible means of subsistence, Police-constable Whitcombe having picked him up between one and two that morning, in a state of drunkenness. In answer to the bench the fellow said he belonged to a circus in the town, and acted as groom, but got discharged yesterday. On being asked why he was discharged he replied that he got a drop of drink. He promised to leave the town if discharged, and was accordingly liberated.

Saturday, November 3, 1860.

ASSAULTS WITH BLUDGEONS.
   Thomas McMahon and John Hogan were charged with an assault upon John Curtin. - Mr. Mayhew appeared for the complainant, and Mr. Ashton for the defendants. - Complainant stated that on Sunday night, about eleven o'clock, he left the Swan Inn, Wallgate, in company with his wife, to go home. He had got a few yard when the defendants came up to him, and after a trifling altercation (some previous dispute having engendered a little ill blood) the defendant McMahon drew a bludgeon from his coat sleeve and dealt him a heavy blow upon the head, felling him to the ground, and while down both defendants attacked and beat him. Complainant's wife screamed out "murder," and the police coming up the defendants took to their heels, but Hogan was apprehended shortly after, and McMahon was arrested under warrant. - Mr. Ashton, for the defence, stated that complainant was in liquor when he met the defendants, one of whom he asked to pay for a quart of ale, and the request not being complied with a row ensued. - The bench considered the assault an unprovoked one, and to mark their disapprobation of the use of such instruments as bludgeons fined each defendant 40s. and costs, in default one month's imprisonment.

Saturday, November 3, 1860.

AN AFFECTIONATE (?) FATHER.
   Thomas Ashurst, a man about 50, was charged with neglecting his two children. Mr. Harrison, relieving officer for Pemberton, stated that Ashurst, on the 20th of October last, after receiving his wages went home to his children (who have lost their mother) and gave the eldest, a girl nine years of age, threepence to buy bread. He then left them in the house alone, with as much fire as a man could hold in his hand, and without anything to eat, remaining away till Monday, when it was ascertained that he had been drinking in a public-house in Gathurst. On the Sunday evening the two children, who were in a famishing state, and almost without clothing, called upon the relieving officer, who at once had them conveyed to the workhouse, where they still remain. Mr. Harrison also stated that the man was in the habit of inflicting severe corporal punishment upon his children, and that by his treatment he had made the eldest an idiot. He had previously been in prison for similar conduct, and at the present time a boy of his was at a Reformatory, and a girl undergoing a sentence in gaol. For this offence the magistrates sent him to hard labour for 21 days.

Friday, November 9, 1860.

THE FIFTH OF NOVEMBER.
   Monday last being the fifth of November, the bells of the Parish Church rung merry peals from an early hour in the morning. There was some little "letting off" of pistols and miniature artillery, but beyond this there was nothing to mark the recurrence of the anniversary of the gunpowder plot.

Friday, November 9, 1860.

ALLEGED THEFT OF A CONCERTINA.
   At the Borough Police-court, on Monday, Margaret Bibby, a respectable-looking married woman, was charged with stealing a concertina, the property of William Millard. The prosecutor stated that he was at his stall in the Market-place about half-past eleven on Saturday night, when he saw the prisoner, who was standing at the stall with her daughter, lift up a glass-case and take out a pair of ear-rings. He went to her and took them from her, saying he had not time to sell ear-rings then. A few minutes after the daughter purchased a pair of ear-rings, which she took away, and went and stood by Mr. Holmes's shop, a distance of ten yards from the stall. While the daughter was standing there the prisoner took up a concertina, which she took to her daughter. Prosecutor followed her and accused her of stealing the concertina, when she said, "Here's your concertina; I only took it to show my daughter." - The Chief-constable here interposed and asked prosecutor if that was the statement he had made to him before coming to the court that morning. Prosecutor hesitated to give an answer, when the Chief-constable, referring to the notes he had made, said the prosecutor stated to him, and also to the officer who received the prisoner into custody, that when he went to the woman and charged her with stealing the concertina she denied it, and had the instrument secreted under her shawl. Prosecutor, after more hesitation, admitted that he had said so; and in answer to the Mayor's direct question, said that prisoner had the concertina secreted under her shawl. Further questioning revealed the fact that after he had taken the prisoner to the police-office and given her in custody for felony, he went to his own house with her daughter, who had a cup of tea with him, and remained at his house till about two o'clock, when she was found there by her father, who was in search of her. The prisoner, however, remained in custody till seven on Sunday evening, when she was liberated on bail. - The bench dismissed the case, and ordered Millard to pay costs, at the same time commenting upon the position in which he had placed himself; for if what he had stated to the Chief-constable was true, he had committed perjury; and if not, he was liable to an action for false imprisonment.

Friday, November 9, 1860.

STEALING A SHAWL.
   At the Borough Police-court, on Monday, Maria Richardson, a middle-aged woman, of dissipated appearance, was charged with stealing a shawl. - Betty Cook, the prosecutrix, a woman who attends the fair with a shooting gallery, stated that she was in the Three Arrows beerhouse, Hallgate, on Sunday night, when the prisoner came in begging, and got some coppers and some beer from the company. The prisoner stayed some time, and prosecutrix was called out, when she handed her child, which was in her arms, wrapped up in the shawl, to the prisoner. When the prosecutrix returned in a few minutes she found the prisoner had gone and had taken the shawl from the child, afterwards handing the latter to a man. Prosecutrix followed the prisoner, and found her at the Guardians' beerhouse, with the shawl in her possession. - Prisoner denied taking the shawl, but was committed to hard labour for twenty-one days.

Friday, November 9, 1860.

CAUTION TO PIGEON FANCIERS.
   William Green was charged with obstructing Inspector Coates in the execution of his duty. On the 29th of September last the Inspector obtained an order against Green to remove immediately some pigeons which he kept in his bedroom. On the 27th of October the Inspector went to defendant's house to see if the order had been complied with, but defendant refused to allow him to go upstairs, and told him he had removed the pigeons. The Inspector did not believe him, for he both heard and smelt the pigeons, and told the defendant so, but he was still refused permission to examine the premises, and defendant said he should do as he liked, and told the Inspector that the warrant he produced was a forgery. - The Bench, as an example to other pigeon fanciers, inflicted a fine of 40s. and costs, in default two months' imprisonment.

Friday, November 16, 1860.

DISEASED PORK.
   At the Moot Hall, on Monday, James Welsh, a butcher, was summoned before the borough magistrates for having in his possession the carcase of a pig which was unfit for human food. - Inspector Coates stated that on Friday, the 2nd inst., he visited the defendant's slaughter-house, and found the carcase of a pig hung up and cleaned ready for market. He next went to the defendant at his stall, where he found the head of the pig, and asked him respecting it, when he said it was not his. - Mr. Cowell, one of the meat inspectors, deposed that the meat was unfit for food, and said that if the pig had not been killed, it would speedily have died from disease. - Defendant maintained that the meat was good, and said he had partaken of some of it, and if it had done him any harm, he was there. - The bench fined him 10s. and costs.