Northampton Mercury, November 7^th 1863, transcribed by Susan Manton

Trespass - Rushden – John Cuthbert and Charles Vorley, two young men of Irthlingborough, were charged by Mr. John Gross, of Rushden Lodge, with trespassing on a meadow in his occupation in search of game. Smith Wilmer, a labourer, deposed to seeing the defendants about three o’clock in the afternoon of Sunday the 25^th October, in the meadow. Cuthbert had a gun, and Vorley was beating the hedge with a stick. He went up to them, and told them they had no right to be there, when Vorley said “What is it to you, you ---“ and after some words had passed between them Vorley knocked him down and he was struck with a stick as he was on the ground. Both the defendants denied most positively that they were there, and produced several witnesses to prove that they were not from home at that particular time, but the witness swore positively to both of them as being the parties he had seen. He had known Vorley five or six years, and knew the other so as to be able to swear positively to his identity. As there was considerable discrepancy in the evidence brought to refute the charge, the Bench were of the opinion that the charge was fully proved and Vorley was fined 30s and costs and Cuthbert 15s and costs. They were committed to prison in default of payment, Vorley to six weeks and Cuthbert to three weeks, with hard labour.

Northampton Mercury, December 5^th 1863, transcribed by Susan Manton

Rushden – Jesse Underwood charged Joseph Lambert with assaulting him on the 23^rd of November, at the above village. The complainant said there was a band playing in the street, when defendant came behind him, pulled his nose, knocked him down and kicked him when he was down. The evidence of complainant was corroborated by Mary Betts, who saw the assault committed. Defendant denied that he knocked him down, but admitted tweaking his nasal organ. Fined 5s and 16s costs. Committed for 14 days hard labour in default of payment. The defendant was further charged with assaulting and beating Sarah Mayes, by knocking her down and injuring her side, and taking her breath away for a considerable period. She was ill for two days from the effects of the assault. This case was also fully proved and he was further fined £1 and costs 15s. He was committed in default of payment for one month hard labour.                       

Rushden - Joseph Palmer and Josiah Allen were charged with stealing straw value 2d from a stack, the property of F.U. Sartoris Esq. on the 26^th inst. The charge was proved by the evidence of Smith, Wilmer and police constable Hurst, and they were committed to prison for six weeks hard labour.

Northampton Mercury, 7^th May 1864, transcribed by Susan Manton

Vagrancy—A tramp who gave the name of James Phillips, but in whose every feature Patrick O’Sullivan was deeply engraved, was charged with vagrancy at Rushden on the 28^th of April. The prisoner was the most perfect specimen of an incorrigible vagabond we have ever set eyes upon. He was picturesque in the highest degree in his appearance. Salvator Ross would after an enthusiastic embrace have transferred him to canvas and immortalised him. He was a fine, tall, well built ruffian, with a delightful melodramatic scowl that ought to bring him in 50s per week in any East End theatre. His coat was admitted to be a mystery, even by the police. Behind and before nothing but a wreck presented itself; his neckerchief was tied in a Belsher knot, which was all on one side and pointed ominously to the burr of his ear. It appeared that on the previous day he had begged in Rushden and had also got gloriously drunk, and seeing the photograph of a policeman hanging outside a public house among other portraits, he smashed the frame with his shillelagh. The prisoner, although of such distinguished appearance, was a man of few words being uttered in a fine unctuous Hiberian brogue. The case of vagrancy was fully proved, and he was sentenced to one month’s imprisonment, with hard labour.

Northampton Mercury, 27^th August 1864, transcribed by Susan Manton

An unwelcome lodger. George Maddison, a shoemaker, of Rushden, was brought up in custody, charged with being, on Saturday morning, the 14^th instant, in the house of Robert Holland, labourer, for an unlawful purpose. Elizabeth Holland, wife of the prosecutor, deposed to being awakened out of her sleep by hearing a noise in her bedroom between one and two o’clock on the morning of the 14^th. The room is divided by a sheet hanging across and there is a window in each part. She and her husband sleep in one part and the family in the other. On hearing the noise she struck a light and went on the other side of the sheet and found a man lying down by the side of her eldest daughter’s bed. She said “Who are you and what do you want?” He said “Oh nothing, it’s all right; you know me I’m George Maddison; I only want lodgings. She said “If you don’t follow me down stairs directly, and be off, I’ll shoot you”; but instead of following her he jumped out of the front bed-room window, a distance of eight feet and made off. The talking woke her eldest daughter, who was very much frightened. She found the back bedroom window opened; it is only a little distance from the ground and could easily be reached by any one standing in the garden. A piece of paper stuck over a broken pane had been removed and the window unfastened. Police Constable Sergeant Bamford deposed to being on duty that morning. He was going past the cottage soon after and heard Mrs. Holland talking ou of the window and telling some of the neighbours what had happened. It was between one and two o’clock. When he got nearer she told him that George Maddison had broken into her house, and she wished he had been there a little sooner, for if there was any law she would have it. He examined the window at the back of the cottage and found it opened as described. He went the same morning to Rushden and found the prisoner in bed at ten o’clock. On being charged with the offence he denied that he had been there at all. He then took him into custody. Caroline Holland, eldest daughter of the prosecutor, a girl about 18 years old, gave corroborative evidence as to being awoke out of her sleep by the altercation between her mother and the prisoner. He was lying beside her bed. On being questioned by the Bench witness said that prisoner was not there by her knowledge or consent, and that she had not seen him to speak to for nine or ten months. The prisoner, a young man apparently about nineteen years old, was undefended and upon the usual questions being put to him declined to make any statement. He was fully committed to take his trial.

G. Garley v Hopkins and Church, trustees of a benefit society, held at Wymington, Mr. Murphy appeared for the plaintiff. The defendants did not appear. Mr. Murphy said his client was an aged man and lived at Rushden, and had been a member of the club for more than thirty years. Some time ago he had underwent an operation at the Opthalmic Hospital, which rendered him chargeable to the funds of the club, but they refused him the full benefit, and he then brought an action to recover a month’s sick pay, but His Honour, unfortunately, could not adjudicate, as the society was not enrolled, and plaintiff lost the action. Since that time the rules of the club had been certified by Mr. Tidd Pratt according to the Act. Plaintiff had sent his contributions as usual, the last time on the 3rd of April last, when he sent 1s 6d, a month’s money by his nephew. The money was taken, but the same evening the club voted him out, and the money was returned. Now that the club was enrolled he asked, on behalf of his client, that he might be re-instated in the society with privileges of membership. He called John Elson, a nephew of plaintiff, who was an unwilling witness, who gave evidence of having taken the contributions of plaintiff in April, of the money being accepted, returned and the plaintiff voted out. His Honour said the club had acted in a most unjust, harsh and cruel manner towards the plaintiff, and the trustees had not appeared to show any cause for their conduct. He should not be doing his duty if he did not order him to be re-instated in the society again, with all the privileges of membership and in default of the refusing to accept him, he should order it to pay a penalty of £60.

Northampton Mercury, October 21^st 1865, transcribed by Susan Manton

Edwin Chettle, horse dealer, was summoned by Mr. John Goss, farmer of Rushden Lodge, for having on several recent occasions permitted his horse to stray and graze roadside herbage over which he has the sole right. Complainant said the thing had happened so frequently of late that he felt compelled to put a stop to it. His horse had once shied, and he was very nearly thrown out of the gig through it taking fright at one of the defendant’s horses, as he was driving home at night. He had ordered them to be pounded several times, but the defendant swore so awfully at the pinner that the old man was in fear of him. Complainant withdrew on of the charges on defendant promising not to offend again and he was fined 5s and costs 13s. Paid.