The Rawmarsh Burglars

ROTHERHAM'S

ROGUES & VILLAINS

Margaret Drinkall

Chris Drinkall

Introduction

Chapter One: The Strange Case of Samuel Beckett

Chapter Two: The Rawmarsh Burglars

Chapter Three: The Poisonings at Munsbrough

Chapter Four: 'King Dick' and the Jewel Heist.

Chapter Five: A Case of Astounding Credulity

Chapter Six: A Storm in a Solicitors Clerk's Teacup.

Excerpts from An Almanack of Crime in Victorian Rotherham

Introduction

Inside this book are six new cases,which have never been written about before, concerning some of the rogues and villains of the town of Rotherham. Some were people who thought they could get away with murder and others who perhaps did. Some of them were characters who were well known to the police in Rotherham, and other were innocent people just wanting to get on with their lives and make a living for themselves. Four of the crimes were never solved and the mystery remains about who actually committed them. I leave it to you, the reader, to draw your own conclusions from the evidence.

The first case is a completely unprovoked attack on an elderly man by a younger one in his twenties in Conisborough, for which no motive was ever given. The two men had formed an unlikely friendship for many years until the sudden, murderous attack which completely came out of the blue. The second case is one which broke a gang of robbers that had been operating in the area around Rawmarsh for many years. The Rotherham police force looked on helplessly as the crimes continued, and which was only broken when four men of the village took the law into their own hands.The third case also holds a mystery. Did a harassed servant girl take her revenge on her controlling mistress by poisoning her, or was she completely innocent pawn only you can decide. The fourth case is a massive jewel robbery of which a local rogue, a man called 'King Dick' was strongly suspected. Failure to catch the thieves for this crime, or the many other robberies that remained unsolved in the area, brought the reputation of the Rotherham police force into strong disrepute. The fifth case is a couple who lied and cheated people into supplying them with goods, on the understanding that they would be re-paid. The last case is that of a disaffected solicitors clerk from Wath. When his former employers refused to pay the money he felt he was owed, he maligned them in placards which were placed in the windows of his house, for all the world to see.

Also at the end you will find excerpts from a new book we intend to bring out in January. It is AnAlmanack of Crime in Victorian Rotherham. The book includes crimes for every day of the year. Taken from the magistrates court proceedingsfrom the years 1837 - 1901,readers will get a glimpse of what real life was like for Rotherham people living through the Victorian era.

We decided to offer a almost-free* bookto the people who have support my writings over the last few years. This is intended to be the first of several free kindle books, which we shall be publishing on different subjects throughout the year. These will, hopefully, be of interest to people who enjoy reading about the history of Rotherham. This book, which you can download instantly, is a small token of gratitude and a way of saying 'thank you'. We hope that you enjoy it and if you have, feel free to leave us some feedback in an Amazon Review.

(*) "almost-free" - it would have been free if Amazon Kindle did not insist on a minimum price.

Chapter One:The Strange Case of Samuel Beckett

On the evening of Monday February 29 1837an elderly man called John Goodlad sat down to write a letter to his wife, who was staying with their daughter. John was 60 years of age and was alone in the house where he lived at Conisborough. He missed his wife as they had been married for many years and was anxious to keep her up to date with matters affecting him. John was known as a respectable man who was industrious in his labours yet, like many people brought up in povertyit was said that he had a frugal side to his character. About 10 pm he was finishing off the letter when he was interrupted by a young man called Samuel Beckett. Although Samuel was only 21 years of age,the two men had formed a friendship that transcended the years. Samuel had almost finished his long apprenticeship to Mr Langley, a tailor of the same village. He went to see John as he was in the habit of doing almost every evening and the two men would usually exchange local gossip, as John enjoyed a last pipe full of tobacco before retiring to bed.Little did John know that the young man he had known for some time was about to subject him to a savage and murderous attack.

On entering the little cottage Samuel casually asked John what he was doing. John replied amiably that he was writing to his wife. Beckett then went over to where the old man was sitting, and putting one hand on the arm of the chair and one hand on his shoulders. Suddenly and without any warning Samuel took hold of Johnby the neck and drawing out a butchers knife from his pocket, he attempted to cut John's throat saying 'damn thee then'. John saw the knife and shouted 'what's amiss with thee Sammy' before recognizing that the man was intent on murdering him. With a strength he didn't know he possessed, John grabbed the young man's wrist and a violent struggle took place between them, in the course of which John received several wounds to the neck, face and hands. By now the old man was terrified and still not comprehending fully what had happened, he shouting out 'murder' at the top of his voice. Suddenly Samuel thrust his hands into the elderly man's mouth and attempted to seize his tongue and quieten him.

In the course of the struggle, the back of the chair on which John had been sitting, broke and he fell back upon the floor. Without thinking about it, he rolled under the large dining table on which he had been writing the letter to his wife. He thrust himself as far away from his attacker and into the corner as possible, to avoid the knife which Samuel was still waving about. Whilst huddled there he continued to shout 'murder' as loud as possible. Several neighbours had by now heard the commotion and dashed into the cottage in answer to his cries. The first to enter was a man called Joseph Watts. Samuel dropped the knife back into his pocket and coolly told him that a tall man had been in the cottage when he went in himself,and he had tried to attack the old man before running out of the back door. He claimed that he had simply gone to the old man's assistance. Watts checked the back door which he could see was already locked, and wondered how a thief could have exited that way. Although John Goodlad was by now completely exhausted, he declared emphatically that Samuel Beckett was the man who had attacked him.

Other neighbours were now in the cottage and a group of them seized Samuel.Watts took hold of him and marched him through the streets of Conisborough to the house of Mr Haywood the constable. A crowd of people had followed Samuel as he was being handed over to the constable and the wife of James Watts was one of them. She saw the prisoner surreptitiously take the knife out of his pocket and when he thought that no one was looking, he threw it away. She called out to her husband who was holding the prisoner by his arms, before shepicked up the knife which was covered in blood. Samuel Beckett was taken into custody and charged with the attempted murder of John Goodlad. Meanwhile back at the cottage, the shaken elderly man was recovering and barely able to talk for the damage to his mouth and tongue. There is little doubt that for the rest of the night he would have pondered on the sudden attack from a young man, to whom he had shown nothing but friendship.

The following morning Samuel was taken out of the cell in which he had been placed by constable Haywood and taken to Doncaster and placed in the gaol there. A local solicitor Mr F Fisher Esq., immediately notified one of the county magistrates Mr E Dennison Esq., who was at York and asked for a warrant. Mr Dennison was, at the time, acting as an official on the Grand Jury at the York Assizes. Mr Fisher informed him of the attempted murder and told him that the young man was currently in Doncaster gaol. Mr Fisher requested that Mr Dennison offer his opinion on what should be done in the matter. Mr Dennison wrote back immediately asking that the prisoner and all the witnesses were to be sent to York without delay, in order that the Grand Jury might have the case laid before them on Thursday 3 March. He enclosed a warrant and the prisoner was accordingly taken to York castle that morning. All the time he was in custody, the prisoner could give no reason for the sudden attack on the elderly man. The only motive he offered was that he had been drinking throughout the afternoon of the attack.

Samuel Beckett was taken into the Crown Court at York on9 March 1837charged with the attempted murder of John Goodlad. The Hon. J S Wortley and Mr Reade were the prosecution, and the prisoner was defended by Mr Milner. Mr Wortley claimed that it was clearly the intention of Samuel Beckett to kill the elderly man. In cross examination, Mr Milner stated that at the time the prisoner did not appear angry or upset and that 'if he had been so disposed he could have easily cut the old man's throat'. He pointed out that the only injuries the victim had received was on his hand's and a slight scratch to his face. At this point the judge asked the jury to bear with him until he had a conversation with Lord Denman on a point of law. Although he recognised that the case was a very significant one, he wanted to consult his colleague regarding the drawing up of the legal indictment. He accordingly left the court and on his return, he stated that he had consulted with Lord Denman and he thought that for the time being the prosecution should go no further. He explained that Lord Denman had said that in order to convict a person on the capital charge of intent to murder, it was necessary that a serious wound had been inflicted. His lordship said that it was clear that was not the case in this instant, and he instructed the jury to find the prisoner not guilty.

When Mr Milner offered to bring in witnesses as to the former good character of the prisoner, the judge retorted 'character, It is impossible that such a man can have any character'. He told the defence counsel 'I shall order him to be remanded till the next assizes, and a Bill shall be preferred against him for assault with intent to maim'.

Mr Milner stated that such a charge could be more easily dealt with at the West Riding Sessions instead of at the assizes, and the judge agreed saying it would be better to save the county the expenses, and the prisoner was indicted accordingly.

Samuel Beckett was finally brought into court at the Town Hall,Sheffield on Thursday 26 March 1837 in front of Mr Hugh Parker and a bench of magistrates. Mr Wortley once again stated the case for the jury, and began by described the events of the trial at York. He then said that the prisoner had appeared before them to answer a charge of assault with intent to murder, but there was also a second count of common assault. Naturally enough John Goodlad was the first witness. He told the court that he had known the prisoner for some years, and during that time he had been on very intimate terms with his family. He described the sudden, vicious attack and how the prisoner had thrust his hand into his mouth in an attempt to tear out his tongue as he shouted 'murder'. He explained that the assault was so fierce that the prisoner broke a tooth and greatly bruised the inside of his mouth and tongue. Under cross examination from the defence counsel, Mr Milner John admitted that the prisoner could have killed him outright if he had so desired. He also admitted that he had suspected that Samuel was drunk at the time. In a most forgiving manner he claimed that his experience of the young man was that he was particularly 'foolish' when in such a state.

Joseph Watts stated how he had dashed into the cottage and found the prisoner standing by the table and how John Goodlad was hiding underneath it. The poor victims face was all bloody and he also had blood was coming out of his mouth. As soon as he could talk, John had pointed at Samuel and claimed that the man had used him very ill, and begged Watts to take him into custody. When the witness was cross examined by Mr Milner, he agreed that prior to the attack, Samuel had a very good character, and it was a complete mystery as to why he had attacked the elderly man. He too had noted that the young man was intoxicated at the time and appeared to be very excited, but was still at a loss to explain his actions. Under Mr Milner careful questioning Watts admitted that the prisoner had not attempt to run away after the attack,but appeared 'all of a flutter'. His wife Betty was the next gave evidence. She said that when she picked up the knife that had been thrown away by the prisoner, he had told them that it was not his, but he had picked it up from the floor of Goodlad's cottage. Constable Haywood showed the knife to the court, but he admitted that although there was a dark stain on it, he could not claim that it was blood. Surgeon Mr Mowbray stated that he had examined the elderly man on the night of the attack. He had found that his hands were cut, his mouth was bruised and the roots of his tongue were also lacerated,

Mr Milner then addressed the jury for the prisoner. He stated that the case had been acquitted at York because no serious wound had been inflicted, and there he had hoped that the case would have stopped. Mr Milner claimed that at the time of the attack

'if the prisoner had any intent to murder Goodlad, why did he not do it? Since the old man admitted that he could not have prevented him, and that he was completely in the power of the prisoner and could not have actually resisted. There was no proof that the prisoner had ever had he knife. Not the slightest adequate motive for any attempt at murder, had been shown[...] There was no evidence of anything more than a foolish drunken spree. I have no witnesses to call to the facts, but I will bring his master and some other neighbours to speak to the prisoners character'. '

William Lawton the tailor came into the court room. He made a respectful obeisance to the bench, the jury and the bar before giving his evidence. He said that he was the master of the young man, to whom he gave a glowing character of humanity and honesty. Several other witnesses also spoke of his former good character, but no one could give any reason as to why this respectable young man had suddenly made an completely unprovoked attack. The bench summed up the case and the jury found Samuel Beckett guilty of the lesser second count of common assault. The chair of the bench stated that 'it was an aggravated case and the prisoner should be thankful to the jury for taking such a lenient view of the matter'. He said that nevertheless the court took a very serious view of it, and ordered that Samuel be sent to prison for 6 months, and afterwards to enter into recognizance's to keep the peace for twelve months.

There is little doubt that Samuel Beckett breathed a sigh of relief as he left the court facing such a short prison sentence. The lack of motive and the obscure legal procedures of the time, ensured that he would escape the gallows for what might easily have been a murderous attack on a defenceless older man. I have searched for a motive for this crime in vain, and the only conclusion that I can come to was that the young man was seriously unbalanced. But why he should attack a man who had simply befriended him, remains a mystery to this very day.