Yorkshire Almanac 2026

Unedited excerpt

If an excerpt is used in the book, it will be shorter, edited and, where applicable, translated.

[West Riding Assizes]
SHEFFIELD SLANDER ACTION
Damages – One Sovereign

Ethel Hawkins, of 139, Howard Road, Walkley, Sheffield, brought an action against Percy Broomhead, fish dealer, of 137 Howard Road, Sheffield. L. Andrew (instructed by Messrs Taylor and Emmett) appeared for plaintiff, and Mr S Fleming (instructed by Mr J.E. Wing) for defendant.

The plaintiff, said Mr Andrew, was a domestic servant in the employ of Mrs Bland, who keeps a grocer’s shop, and the defendant lived next door. The alleged slander arose in this way. The defendant and his wife were in their house on the 28th September, and the defendant went out and invited Mrs Bland to come inside. Mrs Bland went into the house, and found that there had been a quarrel, and the wife at once began to make complaints, in the presence of Mrs Bland and the defendant, in regard to plaintiff’s character. She remarked that it was not the first time that she had had to complain about the matter and she “knew now where the money was going”. It was at a subsequent interview at which the slander which was the subject of this action took place.

On the evening of the 6th October the defendant entered Mrs Bland’s shop, and demanded to know where the plaintiff was. The girl came into the shop, and Broomhead then used abusive epithets to the girl, who asked him what grounds he had to complain of her conduct, and what made his wife jealous of her, adding that, if she had the money, she would make his wife pay for it. Defendant then put his hand in his pocket, and drew out some coins, which he threw on the counter, saying. “You are a little —. You will take either married or single men’s money.” The expression, of course, bore the obvious meaning that the girl was unchaste.

The next day the girl consulted a firm of solicitors, who wrote to defendant, giving him an opportunity of making an apology for the expression which he had made use of. There was no answer to the letter, and though the defendant lived next door, he never once denied making use of the expression until the pleadings in the action, and he never offered an apology. He (counsel) now again gave the defendant an opportunity of apologising and paying the plaintiff’s out-of-pocket expenses in coming to bring the action, when there would be an end of the proceedings. The plaintiff did not ask for vindictive damages. She came before the court as a perfectly chaste girl, whose character and reputation Mrs Bland would tell the jury were unblemished, and that character she wished to vindicate. Mrs Bland was the first witness, and she described what happened when she went into defendant’s house. The defendant then told her that his wife was jealous of the plaintiff, and witness replied that she had never seen anything wrong with the girl. Defendant’s wife remarked that she had seen enough of her. A week later the defendant entered witness’s shop and demanded to see plaintiff. The latter came forward, and asked him what he wanted, and he replied that he would soon show her if she insulted his wife. Plaintiff replied that she had done nothing to cause Mrs. Broomhead, to be jealous of her, and declared that it would serve her (Mrs Broomhead) right if she summoned her. Defendant then threw ten shillings onto the counter and said, “There’s the money. Fetch her up.” Plaintiff replied that she had money of her own, upon which defendant said she was not particular whether it was a married man’s money or a single man’s money.

The plaintiff then entered the box, and corroborated the substance of Mrs Bland’s evidence with regard to what took place in her shop, besides speaking to an interview which she had previously had with Mrs Broomhead in consequence of what had been said at the latter’s home the week before. This was the case for the plaintiff.

The defendant gave evidence, and swore that he did not make use of the expression referred to. In the interview which plaintiff had with his wife, she (plaintiff) called her “a stinking nuisance,” and defendant subsequently went to Mrs Bland’s shop to complain to plaintiff as to that. He admitted calling her “a little —” for pushing his child out of the house after “the bother,” and also showing her the money, but he denied placing it on the counter, or making use of the expression alleged against him. In reply to Mr Andrew, he denied having used further abusive language after the issue of the writ.
Have you got a revolver? — Yes.
Did you fire a revolver at the back door of Mrs Bland’s house? — I fired it off but not at the back door.
Do you recognise this bullet as fitting your revolver? — Yes.
Do you know that one went through Mrs Bland’s window? — Yes.
And you offered to pay for the glass? — Yes, I had it put in.
You don’t dispute the fact that a great many bullets were picked up at the back door? — I heard about it afterwards (Laughter.) I didn’t aim at the back door.
What were you doing, firing a six-chambered revolver? — It was the 6th of November. (Laughter.)
I could understand it if it had been the 5th but why the 6th of November? — I did it to amuse the children. I hadn’t time to do it on the 5th, so I did it on the 6th. (Laughter.)
The Commissioner, in summing up, pointed out that the jury must consider whether the words alleged to have been used were mere abuse, or were meant to be an imputation on the girl’s chastity. He called to the jury’s attention to the fact that the girl had suffered no pecuniary loss on account of what had been said.
The jury, without retiring, returned a verdict for the plaintiff for £1.
Judgement was entered accordingly, cost to follow.

Order the book:

Subscribe to the free daily email:

To facilitate reading, the spelling and punctuation of elderly excerpts have generally been modernised, and distracting excision scars concealed. My selections, translations, and editions are copyright.

Comment

Comment

Via Chris Hobbs.

Something to say? Get in touch

Tags

Tags are assigned inclusively on the basis of an entry’s original text and any comment. You may find this confusing if you only read an entry excerpt.

• Defamation (4) W/G ·
• Firearm (15) W/G ·
• Guy Fawkes Night (4) W/G ·
• 📌Sheffield (80) W/G ·
• 📌Walkley (3), predominantly Victorian suburb of Sheffield, west of Burngreave, south of Hillsborough and north-east of Crookes. W/G ·

All tags.

Order the book:

Subscribe to the free daily email:

To facilitate reading, the spelling and punctuation of elderly excerpts have generally been modernised, and distracting excision scars concealed. My selections, translations, and editions are copyright.

Comment

Comment

Via Chris Hobbs.

Something to say? Get in touch

Similar

Order the book:

Subscribe to the free daily email:

To facilitate reading, the spelling and punctuation of elderly excerpts have generally been modernised, and distracting excision scars concealed. My selections, translations, and editions are copyright.

Comment

Comment

Re this wave of unofficial strikes:

Major-General Sir Noel Holmes, chairman of the north-eastern division of the National Coal Board, in a statement yesterday on the strike at Grimethorpe Colliery, said that 140 coal-face workers, out of 2,682 employed at the pit, were not doing a fair day’s work. A committee representing management and workmen had decided that the stint for the 140 workers should be increased by 2ft., but they refused to accept its findings and came out on strike. The other coal-face workers came out in sympathy. “As much as I dislike mentioning this fact,” said Sir Noel Holmes, “it is only right to recall that at Grimethorpe since January 1, 1947, and before the present strike, there have been 26 sectional unofficial stoppages, which have lost 33,000 tons of coal to the nation. The present stoppage up to date represents a further loss of more than 40,000 tons.” (Times 1947/08/27)

Holmes’s Wikipedia article curiously doesn’t mention this phase of his career.

I’m guessing that the Welsh ex-Puritan authoritarian Communist Arthur Horner is the voice of the NUM in the above – see e.g. the Times for 9 September.

Interesting comments on the wartime coal boards by T.S. Charlton, colliery manager at Cortonwood:

The management of the collieries is in the hands of men trained primarily in management of mines and miners. They have a working knowledge of all the machinery available and how best it can be used, but the details of this side are left to the mechanical and electrical engineer. Labour costs are two-thirds of production costs, and therefore the handling and the best use of men are of the greatest importance to managers. Why it should have been decided that labour leaders should be good labour directors is, apart from the political issue, difficult to understand, unless it is on the old adage of “poacher turned gamekeeper.” Unless and until the production director has control of his labour side, I can see little hope of his schemes proving effective.

The miners have put forward suggestions to improve output, but they appear to do no more than improve the position of the miner. Can it be said that any suggestion already put forward by the men has put up the output figure? Why should it be assumed the men’s side of the pit production committees should be able to improve output in any way? Their training, inclinations, and very job depend upon their obtaining the best for their electors rather than for production.
(Charlton 1943/12/01)

Charlton was clearly a clever and capable man – it would be good to know more about him.

Something to say? Get in touch