LANCSGEN-L Archives
Archiver > LANCSGEN > 2001-07 > 0994016233
From: "Ian Rhodes" <>
Subject: [LAN] Yesterdays - 29 June 1901 Part One
Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2001 20:37:13 +0100
For anyone new to my mailings, Yesterdays is a two-part summary of some of
the stories that appeared in the Ashton Reporter one hundred years ago. They
are mainly about the events in the lives of the people who lived in that
area of south east Lancashire and north east Cheshire.
Some odd tales this week, including a lethal toy pistol in Hooley Hill, a
riotous funeral in Chadderton and fraudulent head steaming in Hyde! But
first, a letter to the editor, illustrating that our forebears could be just
as cynical about local politicians
Previous summaries, with a separate search facility, can be found on my
website at http://www.gravelbank.co.uk/twww/home.html
Yesterdays 29 June 1901
LOCAL INTERESTS IN DUKINFIELD
Sir, A cartoon in a Manchester weekly a short time ago represented the
Dukinfield Corporation as being so jealous of local interests as to prefer
their £16,000 Town Hall being opened by a local alderman rather than seek
the aid of dukes, earls or MPs from far off. The policy of local interests
is to be highly commended, and if our representatives acted fairly and
squarely up to that policy, they would secure the approbation of every
ratepayer in Dukinfield; but it is very doubtful whether they do.
The average Dukinfield councillor, in asking the suffrage of the ratepayers,
is simply seeking to advance his own importance and the gratification of his
personal vanity. He seems to care no more for local interests than he does
for the interests of Choctaw Indians. He comes at election times smiling
and smirking and ready to promise anything from free clogs to pianos, but
when he reclines in the seats of the mighty, he looks down from his giddy
height and smiles disdainfully at the common herd which grovels in the dust
at his feet. Those who placed him in that exalted position are beneath his
notice until election time comes round again, when he makes his appearance
with more smiles, more smirks, and more promises.
You will invariably find in his election address a paragraph something like
the following: All contracts will (where possible) be given to local
firms. Bah! It is all bunkum! Local contracts dont interest him half so
much as a trip to London at the ratepayers expense. What thought does he
give to Dukinfields welfare whilst he is enjoying himself in some palatial
hotel, where he may be found smoking fat cigars and quaffing bumpers of
sparkling wine?
The majority of those on the Council, whether professional gentlemen or
tradesmen, are dependent upon the people of Dukinfield for a living, and yet
when public money is being spent they find it convenient to forget that
there is such a town in existence as poor old dirty Dukinfield. Orders which
would mean a great deal to the small Dukinfield trader are sent out of the
town and placed in the hands of large firms who have not the remotest
connection with the district. If there was any advantage to be gained,
either in price, quality of workmanship, one could understand the local man
being absolutely and completely ignored, but when it is otherwise, it is
neither more nor less than a public scandal.
Why, even when in the matter of the collation, it was deemed necessary to
send to Manchester for the provisions and wines to tickle the delicate
palates and tempt the dainty appetites of the snobs on the Council, whilst
the charge for tickets was so prohibitive that the ordinary ratepayer was
perforce excluded from participating.
ONLY A. RATEPAYER
***
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AND HEAD STEAMING
Hyde Customers Adventure
At the Bow-street Police Court on Friday, Lawrence COHEN, hairdresser, and
Samuel POW, his assistant, were charged on remand with fraud. The
allegations are that when customers went to the defendants shop to have
their hair cut, they were informed that they were suffering from a scalp
disease which would cause them to lose their hair unless they tried the
defendants remedy, which was to have the head steamed. When they consented
to this operation a charge of 3s 6d was made.
Thomas OLDHAM, of Gee Cross, Hyde, said that on 29th May he went to the
defendants shop for a shave. After this was done the assistant said, Three
shillings and six pence for head steaming. He retorted, Ill see you
further before I pay 3s 6d. He was not allowed to leave the shop, and after
some trouble, witness consented to have his head steamed, and paid 3s 6d. He
then left the shop and made a complaint to a policeman, after which his
money was returned. Mr DE RUTZEN said that in consequence of the numerous
complaints received by the police. He had sent the papers to the Public
Prosecutor, who on the next occasion would proceed with the prosecution. The
accused were again remanded on bail.
***
CHARGE OF UNLAWFUL WOUNDING AT DUKINFIELD
A Solicitors Clerk Assaulted Scene at a Levy
At the Dukinfield Police Court on Thursday, a married woman named Hannah
WOOD, of 10 Lamb-street, was charged on remand from the previous court (on
bail) with unlawfully wounding George Harold OKELL, on the 19th inst. There
was also a cross summons in which WOOD charged OKELL with assaulting her.
Mr J H POWNALL appeared for OKELL and Mr James BRADBURY for WOOD.
Mr POWNALL said his client was a clerk in the employ of Messrs HATON and
WATSON, solicitors, of Ashton-under-Lyne. The defendant and her husband
seemed to have a considerable number of County Court summonses against them,
with the result that it had been a difficult matter for the bailiffs to
obtain possession of their premises in order to levy upon the goods. In
consequence of the bailiffs being well known, it was found necessary to
resort to a little strategy.
Accordingly, on Wednesday morning week, Mr OKELL went to the defendants
house, the bailiffs being a short distance away. On arriving at the door, he
knocked. The defendant, however, made her appearance from a neighbouring
house in the same street. He told her that he had come from the office of
Messrs HATON and WATSON to see about the particular matter in which the firm
had an execution. She unlocked the door and invited him in. When they got
inside she locked the door. Shortly afterwards, the defendants brother, a
man named George DALE, knocked on the door. He was admitted and the door was
locked again.
The bailiffs then made their appearance at the front door. Defendant and her
brother saw them through the window and they rushed to the door and took out
the key. OKELL seemed to get alarmed and turned round to see whether the
door was still really locked and the next thing he knew was he received a
violent blow in the eye with a poker wielded by the defendant Mrs WOOD. She
threatened to do so and so for him, knife him, and used similar expressions.
He had to escape by the back door.
Mr Ralph BATES: Did he want to get out? Mr POWNALL: Yes, he wanted to get
out after the blow. Mr BATES: There was a deal of fixing to get in, why
was he so anxious to get out? Mr POWNALL: He got such a warm reception
that he was anxious, I suppose, to leave the premises alive. (Laughter.)
OKELL was found to have sustained a nasty cut over the eye. The wound was
bleeding, and he was taken into a neighbours house where the eye was
bathed. He afterwards went to Dr MILLERs surgery, and there the wound was
stitched. On arriving in Ashton he saw Dr COOKE, the family doctor, who
advised him to stay at home for a few days as he was not fit for work.
Since these proceedings were taken, a cross-summons for assault had been
taken out, no doubt at the suggestion of Mr BRADBURY. There was no assault
at all on the part of OKELL, and there were no marks of any kind. Even when
arrested, the woman never made any complaint whatever against OKELL. The
whole thing was preposterous, and he was not there for the purpose of
assaulting her.
Mr BRADBURY thought it would save the time of the court if they reduced the
charge to one of common assault. The Bench would come to the conclusion it
was a very trivial matter. Mr POWNALL said his was a case of unlawful
wounding at present, and it would be necessary to take the depositions.
After evidence was given, the defendant was committed to take her trial at
the Knutsford Quarter Sessions which were to be held the following week. The
assault case WOOD v. OKELL, it was agreed, should be heard after the
Sessions. Bail was allowed, defendant in £10, and two sureties of £5 each.
Part Two follows
This thread:
| [LAN] Yesterdays - 29 June 1901 Part One by "Ian Rhodes" <> |