Case Number One
William Massey had served with the 52nd Foot in Canada before being pensioned off in 1834 with bad eyesight, many missing teeth, varicose veins in his right leg and a broken constitution. He was about 35 and had served nearly 15 years. He returned to his native town of Rugeley with his pregnant Irish wife, Elizabeth, although they lived on Brereton Hill which was in the parish of Armitage and Handsacre. His pension was 6d per day and his daughter, Mary, was born 4 months later. He eventually managed to get a job down the pit but couldn’t (yet) afford a baptism – that would have to wait for another four years. By 1841 the census shows him simply as an Army Pensioner but over the next few years he began working as a farm labourer. As soon as she was old enough Mary left home to work as a live-in house servant to an attorney, Frederick Crabb, in Market Street, Rugeley and William’s wife began to take in washing.
Until the invention of the electric-powered washing machine in the early 1900’s, washing clothes was a long, laborious task. The Masseys had no running water so first of all the water had to be fetched up from a well and a full wash required many gallons of water. The water was then heated in a copper, a large metal boiler set in a brick firebox in the corner of the scullery, until it was hot enough to dissolve the soap and the grease on the clothes. The fire was lit very early in the morning so that the water was ready for the laundry after breakfast. The clothes (which were generally quite smelly) were sorted, soaked if necessary, treated for stains, then washed in a wooden tub, using a bar of lye soap and a wooden ‘dolly’ to agitate and pound them. White clothes and sheets, as well as tougher, dirtier work clothes, were often boiled (separately) in the copper itself. After being put through a wringer and rinsed, preferably twice, the wet clothes were wrung out and flattened using a mangle. They then had to be dried and, if at all possible, they were dried outside – Elizabeth, like a lot of people in rural areas at that time, hung her washing on the garden hedge, even in the depths of winter.
In January 1851 Elizabeth washed clothes as usual and as there was no rain or snow she put a dozen or more clothes out on the hedge to dry. On the evening of 10th January at about 6pm a couple of noisy drunks came down the hill. Like William their neighbours were farm workers and always looked out for each other and the drunks’ progress didn’t go unnoticed. About 50 yards or so past William’s house Jim Hackett came out into the road from his house and on seeing him one of the men, a local shoemaker from Longdon, threw something over the hedge. Jim went to see what had been thrown and found a bundle of damp clothes and guessed they must have been washing put out by Elizabeth and he ran after the men and accused them of stealing. The men ignored him so he took the bundle of clothes up the road and found Elizabeth at Frank Millward’s house and she confirmed that she had put them out to dry earlier. The next day William went to the police and informed them of the attempted theft.
On Monday 13th January Daniel Craddock was arrested at his home in Gentleshaw. His response was “ I was very drunk when I came home. I recollect a man coming up to me on my way home, and telling me that I had stolen some things; but I was so drunk that I did not know whether I had taken them or not”. After being charged with theft Craddock was given bail and a court case was arranged for March.
On Thursday 6th March, at the Adjourned Epiphany Sessions, the case was held before Francis Twemlow Esq. as Chairman, and Craddock was defended by Mr. Ings. The clothes in question were identified by Elizabeth as six shirts, two chimise, a night gown and a flannel petticoat. Elizabeth stated that she had put them out on the hedge to dry along with some other clothes. Frank Millward stated that he had seen Craddock and another man, both seemingly drunk, go past his house and towards Massey’s house and Jim Hackett also gave his statement.
Mr Ings addressed the jury at some length on behalf of the prisoner, contending that there was no direct proof that the prisoner stole the property, and suggested the probability that the man who was in company with the prisoner had stolen the articles and given them to him to carry.
Barnaby Craddock of Burntwood was called as a character witness as was Samuel Baker of Hamstall Ridware (Mary Baker worked for Craddock as housekeeper). Cross examination of these witnesses by Mr Wade for the prosecution, according to the newspaper reports, ‘did not benefit his (Craddock’s) moral character’.
The Chairman briefly summed up the evidence and the jury retired to consider their verdict. Guilty or not guilty?
Case Number Two
On Monday 22nd August 1887 at Rugeley Petty Sessions before Mr T. J. Birch and Mr. F. Bonney, Catherine Conway was accused of damaging a fence belonging to George Waltho. The fence was a cut and laid hawthorn hedge in Boathouse Lane and Waltho claimed that on 1st August he saw Conway in the act of pulling sticks out of his hedge and that he shouted at her “Kit, don’t pull the fence” but she took no notice. Dorothy Ann Waltho, aged 15, George’s daughter, was also sworn in and she corroborated her father’s story, stating that Conway took sticks out of the hedge. Peter Sefton was called as a witness for the defence and he stated that he was about 200 yards away from the incident and he didn’t see anyone pulling the hedge. Damages claimed was 6d.
Guilty or not guilty?
Case Number Three
Herbert Carthy lived near the brook in Old Road and he kept a few cows on a smallholding as well as working as a coal loader at the canal wharf. On Sunday evening 9th May 1891 he was taking his cows along Old Road to milk them at his house. The cows wandered slowly along the road as usual and he chivvied them along whenever they stopped to graze the grass growing down the lane. Tom Hiden came down the road with a spade in his hands and hit two of the cows with it and then hit Carthy. Carthy pushed Hiden into the hedge and took the spade off him with both men swearing at the top of their voices. Carthy threw the spade over Hiden’s hedge hitting a tree and just missing the parlour window. Hiden rushed back to his house and fetched his scythe claiming he was going to cut Carthy’s legs off at the knees but Hiden’s wife managed to get him to put down the scythe.
Carthy sued Hiden for assault and the case was heard on Monday 25th May at Rugeley Petty Sessions before the Hon. A. C. Littleton and F. Bonney, Esq. Carthy was extremely hard of hearing and very excitable throughout the case, not helped by his deafness – P.C. Murray stood by his side throughout the hearing. Hiden claimed that the cows were in his hedge and he drove them away but denied striking Carthy.
William Davis was called as a witness for Carthy and stated that, from his garden about 200 yards away, he heard all the commotion and saw Hiden take the scythe out from the house and threaten to cut Carthy’s legs off He saw no one else at the scene.
Sarah Ann Sutton was called as a witness for Hiden and she stated that she saw the whole thing – Hiden was clearing out a ditch by his door and the cows stopped to eat grass in the lane, (not the hedge), right opposite Hiden’s door. She heard a lot of swearing and saw Carthy push Hiden into the hedge and throw the spade over the hedge. She saw Hiden fetch the scythe but he left it inside his gate. Hiden hit neither the cows nor Carthy.
Guilty or not guilty?
The verdicts
Case number one – Daniel Craddock. The jury returned a verdict of acquittal. Craddock was then removed from the dock and arraigned on an indictment for receiving the articles knowing them to be stolen.
The receiving stolen property case was held a week later with the same evidence presented. At the conclusion of the evidence the Chairman remarked that there had been nothing stated to prove a charge of receiving; the evidence given went only to support a charge of stealing. The Court then directed a verdict of acquittal which was given accordingly.
Case number two – Catherine Conway. The case was dismissed with both parties having to pay costs – Conway (defendant) 2s and Waltho (claimant) 6s 6d
Case number three – Thomas Hiden v Herbert Edmund Carthy. The case was dismissed with each party paying their own costs.
It would be interesting to know if Herbert Carthy is part of my family and connected in anyway to William Carthy who I believe was born in 1890 in Armitage and also died there in mid 1970s.
Hi Roy, I hope that you read this although 2 years after your comments on Richard’s pages. You might have answered your questions by now of course. My grandmother Minnie was born a Carthy. Her family tree shows a great-uncle, Edmund, who had a son, Herbert E Carthy, who had a son, William. I haven’t checked so far into William’s offspring – known to you?
Colin