Mercuriosities

Is a coconut dangerous? This was the question faced by Boston magistrates when an over-eager policeman charged a docker for throwing one across a street. Perhaps he had wanted the nut for himself? In any case, at the start of the second world war, this must have been a slow news day!

FOOLISH INCIDENT AT BOSTON

NUT WAS NOT CAUGHT

One man asked for a coconut, another threw one across the road and the result was police court proceedings.

The case was heard at the Boston borough petty sessions on Friday, before Dr. R. E. E. South and other magistrates when Cyril Dawson, of Fountain-Lane, Boston, a dock labourer, was summoned for throwing a coconut in Wide-bargate, Boston to the danger of persons or animals or damage to property, on 20 August.

The defendant denied the offence.

The evidence of P.S. Hodson was to the effect that he was in Wide-bargate when he saw defendant throw a coconut across the road. It fell about 20 yards away and smashed to pieces.

COULD NOT CATCH

Dawson had nothing to say but called a witness, Curil Betts, 13, Kyme-road, Boston, who said he saw the defendant the other side of the road with two coconuts in his hand. Witness shouted asking the defendant to give him one of the nuts and the defendant threw one. Witness, however, could not catch it.

The magistrates’ clerk informed the defendant that the magistrates were inclined to take a lenient view of the circumstances. Was he prepared to pay the costs, 4s.

Defendant expressed his willingness and the magistrates dismissed the case.

The Stamford Mercury, 8th September, 1939.

An accomplice turned Queen’s evidence to save his own skin. Although, reading between the lines, he might have been, in fact, the mastermind behind this string of robberies.

WEDNESDAY. – before Chief Baron Alexander.

THE KESTEVEN GANG.

Robberies in the Neighbourhood of Bourn & Stamford.

GEORGE COLLINS, aged 24, late of Edenham, laborer, was indicted for stealing a sheep, the property of Mr. Robert Stubley, of Edenham, on the night of the 5th December last. The principal witness was an accomplice, of the name of Wm. Osborn, of Carlby, in whose house the prisoner lodged; they slaughtered the sheep in a field, and hiding the skin in some furze, carried the carcass to an old house which Osborn had at Carlby: on the following Sunday the prisoner was married, and part of this stolen sheep furnished forth the wedding feast. ~When the prisoner was apprehended in February, he said that he ” did not kill the sheep, but only helped to fetch it away; he should not have gone but for Osborn, who had been his ruin.” – Guilty – The Judge said it was not his intention to press judgement against the prisoner to the utmost; but he must be removed from this country, and never expect to see it again.

The prisoner was then arraigned on an indictment charging him with having stolen a gun from Mr. Stubley’s house on the 9th of November; and WILLIAM (alias Corporal) WRIGHT, aged 34, late of Stamford, was charged with having feloniously received the gun. – The principal witness in the case also was Osborn, the accomplice in the theft; whose evidence was conclusive as to the guilt of Collins; but the Judge thought there was not evidence of a guilty knowledge on the part of Wright sufficient to warrant a conviction. – Collins guilty, Wright not guilty.

The Same WM. WRIGHT was indicted for stealing two iron bars, the property of the Trustees of the Bourn turnpike-road, from the stone-pits 6 miles from Stamford, on the 23rd of November last. – He was found guilty on this charge, and sentenced to seven years’ transportation.

JOHN JIBB, aged 40, late of Stamford, was indicted for burglariously breaking into the dwelling house of Mr. Robt. Stubley, at Edenham, in the night of the 24th of January, and stealing a quantity of bacon, lard and other articles. – The principal witness in this case likewise was the accomplice Osborn, who detailed the plan and execution of the robbery: from his statement it appeared that he and Jibb met at the house of Corporal Wright a few days before the robbery, when Jibb asked Osborn where they could go to get any thing, and he suggested Stubley’s. On the evening of the robbery, Jibb went to Osborn’s house at Carlby, and after staying some time in Mr. Bank’s barn at that place, they went about 11 at night to Stubley’s, and broke through the wall into the cellar; they took tow forks out of the stable, to carry away their spoil with. One of these forks, and a pig’s head, were found by Blades, the constable, at Jibb’s house in February. – Jibb protested his innocence, and declared that Osborn had requested him to join in various robberies, which he had refused. – the Jury immediately returned a verdict of guilty, and judgement of death was recorded against Jibb. – The Judge intimated that is was unnecessary to proceed with those charges against Jibb wherein he was indicted alone, for his Lordship was already satisfied that he must be sent abroad for life – the country must be for ever freed from his depredations.

The same prisoner was again arraigned, with JAMES SQUIRES, aged 35, late of Barnack, laborer on a charge of stealing, on the 19th of January last, from the dwelling-house of Thos. Miller , of Barnack, a quantity of wearing apparel. Osborn was an accomplice in this robbery also, and the principal evidence for the prosecution. Jibb and he proceeded together from STamford to the house of the prisoner Squires at Barnack, who, with Wm. Squires, joined them in the robbery, which they effected by taking off the thatch, and making a hole through the ceiling. Jibb entered the shop, and reached the goods through the hole to Jas. Squires, who handed them to Osborn, whilst Wm. Squires kept watch: the goods were conveyed to Osborn’s house at Carlby, which appears to have been the general rendezvous for this daring gang, and on the following Sunday night they met there to divide the spoil: Jibb purchased Jas. Squires’ share for 15s , and Mw. Squires’ was left at Osborn’s house. Some of the goods were found at Jibb’s house on the 7th February, but none at Squires’. – Guilty.

WM. WIRGHT, aged 34, late of ~Edenham, butcher, was charged with breaking into the shop of Mr. Thos. Burrows, at Edenham, on 21st December, and stealing 150lbs. of beef. Jibb was charged with feloniously receiving the same. – For the seventh time in one day, Osborn appeared again as the accomplice and principal witness. He stated that on the Friday before Christmas-day he went to the public house at Thurlby, where he was joined by the prisoner, Wright and Corporal Wright. the former and witness left between 11 and 12 at night, and went to Edenham, where Wright said “Here’s the shop of a butcher, well to do, hs has good friends, and a deal of good beef for this Christmas.” In this instance also they effected an entry by taking off the thatch and breaking a hole through the ceiling. The accomplice was corroborated in some particulars by other witnesses. – There was no evidence to affect Jibb, consequently he was acquitted; but Wright was found guilty.

Thus terminated the trials of as desperate and successful gang of depredators as ever infested the county, and whose apprehension and conviction is a subject of congratulations to all in the neighbourhood to which they have so long been a terror: there is but one circumstance to regret, namely, that the ends of justice could not be accomplished without suffering the ringleader to save his own neck by giving evidence against those who have probably been deluded by his evil example.

The Stamford Mercury, 14th March, 1828.

To have ‘a smoke’ was a common enough pastime before the First World War, but popularity increased greatly after the War started. Most servicemen smoked and cigarettes were becoming more convenient than a pipe. This German tobacco, however, sounds thoroughly disgusting.

“Men who have a taste for beer and other stimulants have now found other grievances in the shortage of tobacco and matches, and the smoker who has said for years that he could only smoke a certain brand of the fragrant weed now feels pleased if he is allowed to purchase something for his pipe in any other form.  Germans are evidently troubled with a similar shortage, and there is a standard cigarette on the market there which is not relished.  “Vorwaerts” * says : “When one lights this cigarette one feels at once that Germany’s strength much be tremendous to stand such awful stuff.  If one inhales the smoke, then the first feelings of sea-sickness set in.  If the paper be removed, a greyish mixture of substances is seen, and the smell is like that of a musty cellar dwelling in which there is a shoemaker’s workshop.”

The Stamford Mercury, 30^th August, 1918.

* A German newspaper.

The act which gave women over 30 a vote, had come into law in February, 1918. But it was not until the 1928 ‘equal franchise’ act that they were able to vote on the same terms as men. The attitudes expressed in the following item were, unfortunately, still common and thankfully, seem very outdated nowadays. Interestingly, Mr W. Holt-White does not appear to be a ‘well-known author’ today.

“Women who have made History.

In an interesting article written by Mr. W. Holt-White, the well-known author, in the November number of the Royal Magazine (C. A. Pearson, Ltd.), a review is given of women’s demands as embodied in a recent manifesto, and of the probate results should they be granted.  Dealing with “Women who have made History,” Mr. Holt-White says:-

“I hate to be unkind to women, I detest to appear unchivalrous, but, if woman forces the issue she must, at least, face the facts.  And the facts, so far as history goes, are not very much in her favour.  If you run through the names of women who have won to fame in this world – Helen of Troy, Cleopatra Beatrice, Catherine de Medici, Madame de Pompadour, and so on, one has to admit that their fame has rested entirely on their sex.  There are, of course, a few exceptions, such as Boadicea and Joan of Arc.  Poor dears! How they have been overworked!

For the rest, notable accomplishments on the part of woman have been neither frequent nor famous.  In art, literature, and music she has produced some notabilities but no geniuses who will live.  In science she can record Madame Currie (sic), but in medicine, for instance, beyond Dr. Garrett Anderson, she has produced few physicians or surgeons of lasting utility or note.  Then, though architecture urgently demands the attention of the female mind for the better planning of the home, architecture has no great charms for her.  The great domestic businesses such as Department Stores, have been created by men, and are run by men.  It is a horrible thought that the most beautiful gowns in the world are still designed by men.

“Woman may argue that she has not had time to make good, that it will take generations of education and progress to place her in a position when she can fairly, and with a decent chance, compete with man.  I do not dispute it. I would only remind the good lady that if this is so, she mistakes revolution for evolution, that she is trying to run before she has learnt to toddle, and that in formulation her present formidable demands she is really asking too much of poor man.””

The Stamford Mercury, 22^nd November, 1918.

Why do Oakham stocks have three holes? An intriguing question and an even more intriguing answer! Actually, Oakham stocks have five holes – four and a smaller one. Perhaps the story is of old Tommy is true, but the BBC found a more prosaic answer.

“A great deal has been written from time to time about the stocks which are still preserved in several places throughout the country. Among the best specimens to be seen now are those at Oakham, and in regard to these stocks a Leicester correspondent has discovered something puzzling, which no doubt has escaped the notice of many visitors, and probably residents. The writer says : “I have seen illustrations of stocks made to secure one or two persons, that is with two or four holes to fasten their legs, and others with holes for hands as well, but never one with three, and one of these very much smaller than the others. What was its purpose? I set out in search of information, and was fortunate enough to come into contact with one of the ‘ancient’ inhabitants of the quiet old town, who was able to satisfy my curiosity.” That little hole? Why that was made for old Tommy -‘s wooden leg! He was always getting tipsy or doing something for which he was sent to the stocks. For some time he got off because of his wooden leg. But he became such a nuisance that at last that little hole was made, and there he used to sit, the butt of all and sundry, with his sound leg through one of the larger holes and his wooden peg fastened in the small one!”

The Stamford Mercury, 16th August, 1918.

As we now know, Kaiser Wilhelm II (aka William Hohenzollern) never stood trial for his part in the first World War, but there was much speculation about it at the time and comparison with the trials of other great men and women.

‘From an article in “Chambers’s Journal,” entitled “Concerning State Trials,” we extract the following:-

Students of human nature and of history must look forward to the coming trial with intense interest. Do eminent and great men, fallen from their high estate and tried for their lives display this greatness by any special composure or dignity? In very many cases this has been so. King Charles was a gentleman always and never more so than at his trial. The same may be said of Louis XVI. Th trial of the French King and Queen does not deserve the august name of a State trial; but answer of Marie Antoinette to the scoundrels who sentenced her to death was simple, courageous and thoroughly queen-like. With the immeasurable contempt of an aristocratic woman. a haughty daughter of an empress-queen, for the rough, ill-clad rabble into whose hands she had fallen, she did not deign to discuss their rite to judge her or the validity of their verdict. In six, short stinging words she told them what she thought of them. “Vous etes tous de profonds scelerats!” (You are nothing but a lot of scamps.) And with this, without another word, she swept out of their presence.

Mary Stuart, always vehement, quick and passionate, but now aging, grey-haired met her doom calmly, quietly answering and herself interrogating her judges. Was her dignified conduct a proof that she felt herself to be innocent? Hardly that; but women have a wonderful power of deceiving themselves, and as twice a Queen she denied to anyone on earth the right to judge her. Charles Stuart and Louis Capet made the same ineffectual protest. Without doubt William Hohenzollern must honestly be of the same opinion, and, contrary to the general idea, he would have some right on his side. Human wisdom for what it is worth, has for ages past invested royalty with an inviolable sanctity, above all laws. And the Kaiser could go even a step further – he could advance the pleas of his vaunted partnership with the Almighty. which (if admitted) should absolve him of all blame. This claim may have its use where, and as long as, the imperial “ipse dixit”* was accepted as final; but a court of law is the most sceptic of bodies, and, as William will find does not accept unsupported testimony.

The Stamford Mercury, 16th January, 1920.

*he said it himself – i.e. an assertion without proof.

Middlemarch was screened on BBC 2 in 1994 and proved to be very popular with viewers. The designers chose Stamford for their setting, because very few Georgian houses survived the World War 2 bombing of Coventry (Eliot’s intended location). The influx of film crew was exciting for Stamfordians (many of whom were recruited as extras), but equally caused some headaches due to blocked roads.

“BBC sets up in town

Historic Stamford’s TV trip back to the past starts on Monday, when BBC cameras start filming a new star-studded drama serial.

Homes and streets will stand in for George Eliot’s fictional Middlemarch – and Barn Hill’s former clinic has been transformed into a fever hospital.

But the work could trigger traffic hold-ups, with roads set to be sealed in the town centre this month and next.

As many as 70 actors, crew and support staff could be involved at any one time in filming the six-part series, whose producers plumped for Stamford because of its similarity with 1830s Coventry.

Among the stars are Sir Michael Hordern and Patrick Malahide, most recently seen in the Inspector Alleyn Mysteries.

Locations include Barn Hill, the first venue for filming, plus All Saints’ Place, King’s Mill Lane, St Mary’s Street and St George’s Square.”

Stamford Mercury, 2nd July, 1993.

Today, we have Metropolitan Police Commissioner Dame Cressida Dick, in Boston in 1927 it was a very different story. . .

“WOMEN NOT WANTED

FOR POLICE DUTIES IN HOLLAND DIVISION.

A meeting of the Holland Standing Joint Committee was held at Boston on Wednesday, Mr. Fitzalan Howard presiding.

Twice as much Insobriety.

The Chief Constable (Capt. C. Mitchell-Innes) reported that the indictable crimes during the past quarter numbered 51, for which 31 persons were charged; for the corresponding period of last year 61 offences were reported and 34 persons charged. The number of persons dealt with for non-indictable offences during the quarter was 494, as compared with 520 in the corresponding period of last year. There had been an increase in cases of drunkenness from 43 to 88.

The Chairman regretted the increase in cases of drunkenness, but it was pointed out that they arose in the south of the division.

A grant of £457 4s. 6d., Holland’s proportion of £300, was made towards strengthening the Joint Police Superannuation Fund.

Sub-committees were appointed to deal with the provision of police cottages at Spalding, Long Sutton, Fleet, and Benington.

It was reported that £1039 was payable for police services during the coal strike by other authorities, half of which would go to this county and half to the government.

Not required.

A letter was read from the Home Office with reference to the employment of police-women, and the Chief Constable caused much laughter by remarking that if they gave him policewomen he would not know what on earth to do with them.

The Committee expressed themselves in favour of rear lights being used by cyclists.”

The Stamford Mercury, 21st January, 1927.

This touching tale of rehousing endangered newts was reported 27 years ago. Let’s hope the colony is still surviving in its Uffington idyll.

‘A rare species of newt has been found a new home by a major housing developer after it was discovered at an Uffington building site.

Around 70 to 80 Great Crested Newts, which are an endangered species, were found in a disused seasonal pond but are now living in water haven purpose-built by David Wilson Homes.

Th rescue operation was co-ordinated with the help of ecologist David Jones and English Nature who approved the new 100 metre square pond which features aquatic plants, shrubs and trees.

The company’s landscape architect, Margaret Leech, said: “It’s the first time the company has come across anything like this.

She added: “It was a nightmare transplanting them to the new pond. It took about four days with us catching them with nets and carrying them in buckets.”

Mrs Leech says the pond has been designed with gently sloping sides so it attracts other wildlife and when the newts were moved so were frogs and toads.

The rare newts which Mrs Leech likens to “little dinosaurs”, can grow to more that eight inches long and have a crest running down their backs.

The moist-textured reptiles are green and brown in colour and develop a blue and orange chest in the breeding season.

Most of the Great Crested Newt population lives in Europe and Mrs Leech said: “We have got to maintain our stocks for the rest of the world.”‘

The Stamford Mercury, 13th August, 1993.

Necessaries were the basic things needed to sustain life – food, clothing, shelter (see the lowest ‘rung’ of Maslow’s heirarchy of needs). This price fixing ensured that wages were in line with the cost of living. Today, however, necessaries seem to include all the needs Maslow lists, plus mobile telephones, cars, televisions . . .

“By the Statute of Richard II. Anno septimo*, all who sold wines and victuals, either wholesale or retail, were under the government of the Mayor of London; and by an Act of the 13th year of that reign, the Justices of the Peace were empowered to settle the price of wages of labourers and others, according to the prices of provisions, and to fix the value of provisions also. By an Act of the 25th of Henry the VIIIth, the Lord Chancellor and other great Officers had the authority of fixing the prices of necessaries, as had also the Magistrates in Cities and Corporations ; and there are various statutes which ascertained the value of beef, mutton, pork, veal, &c. by the pound.– Such a benign practice now, renewed by law, would be the greatest blessing which can descend from a legislature to the people.”

Stamford Mercury, 11th August, 1768.

*In the seventh year (of his reign)