Articles

The below articles have been written and researched by Bob and Matt Pooler, and have featured in various publications.

The only Murder of a Worcestershire Policeman

 The policeman was James Davies, a former miner from Stourbridge. He was, at 5’ 7”, quite a short man of stocky build, sporting a full, bushy black beard.  In 1874 he married Elizabeth Burness from Richmond in Surrey, and a year later joined the Kidderminster borough police force, where he served for three years.

Following his discharge he started his own business, dealing in glass and china at Stourport.

He gave up trading three years later and joined the Worcestershire Constabulary on 15th April, 1880 at the age of twenty-eight. His first posting was Beoley, near Redditch.

At about 11.30pm on Friday 27th February 1885, PC Davies set out to patrol his beat on foot. He left his heavily pregnant wife and three children at their police cottage on the outskirts of the village. As with all local policemen of the time, he had a twenty-four-hour responsibility and would often make his rounds at irregular and unsociable hours.

The following morning, at about 8.30a.m., John Twigg, a farmer from Rowney Green, was on his way to work at Weatheroak Hill, when he came across a body in Eagle Street Lane (also known as Icknield Street), Weatheroak. The body was that of James Davies. He had been viciously mutilated with a knife and had suffered stab wounds about the head and throat. Whilst trying to defend himself, two fingers on his left hand and one on his right were almost severed. Mr Twigg reported what he had found to a nearby farm and the police were called. The body was then removed to the premises of a local wheelwright.

Superintendent William Jeffrey, from Bromsgrove, led the murder enquiries and set about tracing the route that PC Davies had taken that night. It was established that, at about 1.00am, he had met PC Frederick Whitehouse from Wythall. They conferred together in a shed near to the Rose and Crown pub. It may well have been that they were keeping observations for poachers. After about an hour they resumed patrol together until they got to Portway at about 2.15a.m. There they separated and went their own ways. Davies was due to meet PC Sheppard from Alvechurch, at Seecham near Rowney Green at about 4.00am, but Sheppard was sick and did not go on duty that night.

Local enquiries soon revealed that there had been a theft of poultry from a Weatheroak farm. The woodland near to where the body of the dead officer was found was known to be a haunt for poachers and fowl stealers. The scene of the murder was carefully examined and it was obvious that there had been a violent struggle. There were chicken feathers everywhere and the policeman’s whistle and an oak stick were found about two hundred yards from the body.

Superintendent Jeffrey’s local knowledge, and marks found in the lane, led him to suspect that the offender was a known local poacher. He circulated the man’s details, by telegraph, to surrounding police stations, and the enquiry was then taken up by Superintendent Alfred Tyler based at Kings Heath. Accompanied by officers from the Birmingham police, he went to a garret at 9 Bartholomew Street, Birmingham. There they found the suspect, Moses Shrimpton, in bed with Jane Morton, with whom he had been living for some time. Morton was forty years old and the wife of a Redditch bricklayer. She was known to use more than one name, and newspapers later described her as a prostitute.

An examination of Shrimpton’s clothes revealed that they were extensively bloodstained, although some effort had been made to clean them. A knife found in Morton’s possession appeared to have been wiped by plunging the blade into the ground. Shrimpton exhibited signs of a recent head injury, which he attributed to a fall when he was drunk about a month before, then later claimed that it had happened the previous week. The wound was examined by a doctor, who found that it had been inflicted within the previous twenty-four hours by a blunt instrument. When PC Davies’ staff was discovered, it was bloodstained and had hair on it.

As the investigation developed, it was revealed that the watch PC Davies usually carried with him was missing. Enquiries showed that Jane Morton had tried to sell or at least raise money against a watch. It was never established whether the watches were one and the same. Neither watch was traced and there is a suggestion that the watch in Morton’s possession was thrown into a furnace to destroy it.

Moses Shrimpton was a man of about sixty-five, but similar in stature to James Davies. In spite of his age he was described as being a strong man who had operated outside the law for most of his life. His previous convictions ran well into double figures and he was no stranger to the inside of gaols. It was said that on more than one occasion he had taken steps to ensure that he had the benefit of a short sentence in gaol around Christmas time. Some newspapers described Shrimpton as a local man whilst others said he came from Buckinghamshire. He certainly had family links in Redditch and had worked as a needle maker at Hunt End, in his early life.

James Davies was not the first policeman to be injured by Shrimpton. In 1868 he had attacked PC Moses Haynes of Webheath. The incident arose when PC Haynes had occasion to seize a gun from Shrimpton. The officer locked the gun away at Redditch police station, and later the same day Shrimpton lay in wait for him to return home through Tilehouse Woods. As the officer passed by, Shrimpton struck, and began beating Haynes about the head with a gun barrel. The attack was so violent that passers-by had to help the officer to take the poacher into custody. The affair earned Shrimpton four years’ penal servitude.

The funeral of James Davies took place at Beoley and the cortege included representatives from many of the surrounding police forces. The Birmingham police band played the “Dead March” from Handel’s “Saul” as the procession followed the coffin. The murder had moved many local people, who were eager to assist in any way they could, both at the funeral and by contributing to a fund set up for Mrs Davies and her children. The proceeds from the sale of black-bordered remembrance cards printed in large numbers and sold for 6d (2 ½p) each, were also added to the fund. Money began to roll in from all over the country. The final tally was more than £1,400 which was supplemented by a gratuity of £60.16.8d (£60.82) from the police authority.

Moses Shrimpton was tried at Worcestershire Assizes. Counsel for the defence warned the jury against finding his client guilty solely upon circumstantial evidence, but the jury was convinced, and Shrimpton was convicted of the murder of James Davies. It was the practice to allow three Sundays to elapse between the passing of sentence and its implementation. On Monday 25 May 1885, at 8.00am, Shrimpton was executed.

The newspapers produced countless column inches on the whole affair. Some reporters were allowed to view the execution and a Redditch journalist graphically described how the noose tore at Shrimpton’s neck, creating a spectacle similar to that of his victim as he lay dead in Eagle Street Lane.

The story does not end there. Thomas Bayliss, a local surveyor and inspector of nuisances, was employed to draw a plan of the murder scene. When he submitted his account for payment, the Court of Quarter Sessions considered it excessive and refused to authorise payment in full. There were murmurings of legal action to recover the outstanding balance of £30.1.7d (£30.08), but in the end the Court relented and agreed to clear the account completely.

The memory of PC James Davis lives on. His body was laid in Beoley churchyard and is still marked by a headstone. At the scene of his murder lies a simple stone inscribed ‘J.D. 1885’.

The Bella Mystery

On Monday 19th April 1943, four teenage boys from Lye went to Hagley Wood, just off the main Kidderminster to Birmingham road, near to Hayley Green. They were trying to supplement their wartime rations with a bit of poaching. Whilst in the woods they looked inside a hollow hazel tree, which later became known as the ‘Wych Elm’. The tree had a short trunk with wispy branches growing out of its perimeter at the top and from the sides. Inside the trunk it was dark, but the boys were able to make out a human skull, which one of them hooked out with a piece of wood. The youths were concerned that their reason for visiting Hagley Wood was likely to cause them more trouble than reporting what they had found, and so they agreed not to mention the skull. The agreement didn’t last long, when one of them told his father. The police were informed and Sergeant Richard Skerratt from Clent police station went to the scene the next day.

An examination of the tree and surrounding area by pathologist Professor Webster revealed an incomplete skeleton, together with some partial items of clothing. The right shin bone, a ‘U’ shaped bone from the neck, a kneecap, and some small bones from the hands and feet were missing from the remains.

The remains and the clothing were taken for examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory in Birmingham, where it was established that the skeleton was that of a woman aged around thirty-five years. She was quite short at between 4’ 9½” (144cms) and 4’ 10½” (146cms), but would have been about 5’ 0” (150cms) when wearing the blue, size 5½ Gibson shoes found near the tree.

 It was estimated that the subject had been dead for between eighteen months and three years, although eighteen months was favoured. The cause of death was likely to have been asphyxiation when part of the female’s clothing was forced into her mouth. In later years, one of the youths who found the skull expressed the view that he had forced the material into the base of the skull as he prodded inside the trunk with the piece of wood. This possibility was discounted by Professor Webster during his initial examination.

Armed with this limited information the police commenced their enquiries

under the direction of Detective Superintendent Sidney Inight. Several avenues were pursued at once. Missing persons’ lists were checked for women of a similar age.

There had been a gipsy encampment in Hagley Wood Lane, near to the Wych Elm. Extensive enquiries were made to establish if a gipsy woman had gone missing, but without success. This line of enquiry was further complicated by two letters written to the police by two apparently distraught soldiers, and a further letter written by an Army padre on behalf of another soldier. The letters each related to a gipsy woman named Mary Lee and suggested that she was at risk and likely to commit suicide. In reality each of the letters had been originated by one soldier who had, at the beginning of the war, formed an association with Mary Lee, but had lost contact with her. He hoped that the police would trace her for him so that he could rekindle their affair. A lot of police time was wasted tracing Mary Lee, alias Wenman, alias Beaver, who turned out to be quite safe and in another relationship.

There was more encouraging news on the shoe front. Detective Inspector Thomas Williams visited Leicester and established that the relevant batch of shoes had been manufactured by Clarence Bray Limited of Silesby, between April and June 1940.

They had been supplied to two retailers, a mail order company and a footwear wholesaler. Enquiries at these outlets looked very promising initially, but eventually petered out to nothing. In fact, the police had followed up every possible lead, but none had produced any useful information to help identify the dead woman, or establish a motive for her murder. 

The whole affair attracted a great deal of press attention. The publicity gave members of the public ample opportunity to exercise their minds concerning the background to the incident. One of the most prominent views was that the murder was part of a witchcraft ritual or a black-magic slaying. This opinion was given more credence by a rumour, which circulated rapidly, that one of the dead woman’s hands had been severed and buried elsewhere, apparently the hallmark of witchcraft rites.

Mysterious writings began to appear at various locations in the West Midlands. The first appeared in March 1944 at Upper Dean Street, Birmingham. Scrawled on a brick wall was, “Who put Bella down the Wych Elm — Hagley Wood”. Later, other messages appeared in a similar vein. Bella, it transpired, was a witchcraft or black-magic term. The writer or writers of these remarks were never traced.

There was a more down-to-earth answer concerning the missing hand, which, incidentally, was not referred to as such in Professor Webster’s report. Several bones of the skeleton had been removed from the tree, not just the small bones from the hands. A search in the vicinity had recovered most of them; in all likelihood they had probably been carried away by animals.

Whilst the murder enquiry was never closed, the opportunity to investigate new information dwindled to nothing and police activities eventually ceased.

More than ten years later a journalist with the Express and Star newspaper, Lieutenant Colonel Wilfred Byford-Jones, who wrote under the nom-de-plume ‘Quaestor’, received a letter that opened up the enquiry once more, and drew the detectives in a new direction. The author of the letter signed herself ‘Anna (Claverley)’. She dismissed the witchcraft theory completely and described the victim as a Dutch national who had entered the country illegally in 1941.

Anna was eventually traced and senior police officers interviewed her. Her real name was Una and she had married her former husband, Jack Mossop, in 1932. She had subsequently left Mossop and later settled with her new husband near Claverley in Shropshire. She described to the detectives how, in 1938, Jack started work at the Armstrong Siddeley factory in Coventry, but quickly moved to the Standard Aero works, also at Coventry. In 1940 Jack struck up a friendship with a Dutchman named Van-Ralt. Van-Ralt began to visit the Mossop’s home at Kenilworth. Although he always carried plenty of money Van-Ralt did not appear to have a job. Una noticed that whenever her husband and Van-Ralt had been together, Jack always had plenty of money as well. She concluded that the Dutchman was a spy, and she suspected that her husband was passing secrets to him.

In March or April of 1941, Jack Mossop arrived home one evening in a very agitated state and the worse for drink. He told Una that he had been to the Lyttleton Arms, which is a public house at Hagley, with Van-Ralt and a Dutch woman. The Dutch man and woman began to argue, and after a while they all left the pub in a motor car driven by Mossop. After a short distance, Mossop saw the woman slump forward in the front passenger seat as if she had passed out. The Dutchman directed Mossop to drive to a nearby wood where they pushed the woman into a hollow tree. A few months later Una left Mossop, but they did meet occasionally. At one meeting, Jack Mossop told his wife that he thought he was losing his mind because he kept seeing the face of the woman in the tree leering at him. Mossop died in a mental institution in August 1942.

Armed with this new information the detectives once again set about trying to identify the deceased woman. There is no clue in the police records, to establish the conclusion of these enquiries, but, during a television interview in 1958, Professor Webster insisted that the police had identified the murdered woman. If they did, why are the papers not with the file? Certainly, no one seems to have been charged with the offence. Perhaps wartime secrecy means the whole story will never be known.

More recently BBC investigative journalist Nicola Goodwin has conducted an in depth research into the mystery but has been unable to reach a satisfactory conclusion (listen to the podcast below.

The Wild West comes to Worcestershire

On a cold and wintry Monday in January 1895, veteran Detective Inspector Thomas Wallace of the Worcester City Police was on duty in the town. He had his eye on a man who was attempting to sell a pony and trap. Wallace approached the man, who gave his name as Frank Evans, and enquired further regarding the items for sale. The Inspector then led Evans to the City Police Station and once there, Chief Constable Thomas Byrne interviewed him. Evans told Byrne that he came from Broughton, near Pershore, and that was where the pony and trap were kept. When the Chief Constable said he would telegraph Pershore to confirm this, Evans pleaded with him not to contact anyone as he was in arrears with the rent on his farm, and if the owner got to hear about his current situation he might foreclose. Instead Evans offered to take Wallace to Pershore and would cover any costs. The Chief Constable agreed to this arrangement.

Inspector Thomas Wallace Oct. 1894 (Worcestershire Police History Archive)

Wallace and Evans immediately set off for the Worcester railway station, but on arriving they discovered they had just missed the train, so were forced to take a cab instead. During a long and convoluted journey, Wallace seems to have relaxed towards Evans and on arrival at Pinvin crossroads, on the outskirts of Pershore; they made their way to an inn for some refreshments.

After leaving the inn, Evans said his farm could be reached by a shortcut across some fields and so both men left the road and took a footpath into the snowy countryside running alongside the partly flooded and icy Bow Brook. When they came to a gate, Wallace was just in front of Evans, and as he climbed over, he heard the crack of a pistol and felt a bullet enter his lower back. Turning to Evans, Wallace asked if he had brought him to that spot to kill him. Evans responded by firing again, hitting Wallace in the shoulder. Fearing the worst, Wallace begged Evans not to kill him and to go where he wanted but Evans then aimed at his head and fired again. The bullet grazed the policeman’s left temple exposing the surface of his skull.

Wallace was now covered in blood and starting to weaken, but he picked up a stick despite a further shot hitting his shoulder. On rushing Evans, he managed to strike the end of the pistol so it discharged into the ground, breaking the stick in the process. Evans was now backing away and as he did so, he fell through the ice into the brook. He gained his footing and pointed the gun at Wallace threatening to fire again. Wallace told him he was a coward and tried to strike him with his handcuffs, but was unable to reach. Evans struggled to the other side of the brook and before getting out and disappearing amongst some trees shouted “If I had got you in here I would drown you.”

Wallace staggered in the opposite direction to find help and met three men who, after taking Wallace to a Doctor, began following Evans by his footprints left in the snow.  He was followed right into the outskirts of Worcester where he stopped at an Inn and was caught and arrested. Evans made no comment at the time of his arrest or later at the Police Station where he was given a change of clothes and a meal.

Wallace had meanwhile been transferred to the Worcester Infirmary and as he was undressed, the first bullet fell from his trousers. Subsequent examination showed that each of the bullets had penetrated the skin obliquely and though they had caused serious injuries, they were not life threatening.

At the subsequent Worcester City Magistrates Court hearing, Evans was remanded for eight days to appear before Pershore Magistrates in the county. From his cell, Evans set about writing a letter of apology to Wallace, in which he “hasten[ed] to convey… [his] sincere sorrow that through any act……wilful or otherwise, a gallant officer should be hurt.” Meanwhile Worcestershire Constabulary’s Chief Constable, George Carmichael, felt that the man in the dock was familiar. On interviewing him a few days later, Carmichael confirmed that he was in fact, former Worcestershire Police Sergeant, Charles Young.

**************

Charles Young circa 1895 (Worcestershire Police History Archive)

Charles Young had joined the Worcestershire Constabulary at the beginning of September, 1862. He was described in the police registers as a well-built man, five feet nine inches tall, aged 22, and a native of Finstock, Oxfordshire. Even at this stage, he was already mixing fact with fiction which has made it very difficult to find him in official documents. Throughout his life he has often given different ages meaning he could have been as young as 14 when he joined the police although more likely he was 17 or 18. His place of birth may not have even been Finstock, as there is no corresponding birth record. It was a place he often mentioned as his home, but sometimes he referred to other villages in the locality for his origin.

After spending his first three weeks training at the Police Headquarters in Worcester, he was posted to King’s Heath, on the outskirts of Birmingham and at the time part of the county of Worcestershire. Within nine months he was given a country beat at Pinvin near Pershore and over the course of the next five years or so he moved around the Pershore area covering various beats. Towards the end of 1870 he was promoted Sergeant and posted to Broadway on the edge of the Cotswolds.

This was a relatively rapid advancement for a police officer at this time and newspaper reports from the period do not suggest that Charles’s career was anything out of the ordinary although in later life Charles suggested he had saved a politician’s life at riots in Evesham during the elections of 1868. Newspaper reports of the time advise that there was a “strong force of constabulary” present to deal with a “noisy throng” but Young is not mentioned by name. Could this be another embellishment of the truth? We will never know, although Young afterwards is shown as an Acting Police Sergeant.

Throughout his service Charles had a growing family, having married Wednesbury native, Caroline Chatten, shortly before joining the police. Over the next ten years they would have 3 girls and 2 boys together but by 1873 the relationship sadly seemed to be in trouble and subject to local gossip. In November Sergeant Young arrested a man named William Holmes for being drunk and riotous at Broadway. The following morning, he was released but warned he would be summoned for the offence. When the case was heard at the Evesham County Petty Sessions, the defendant had made a counter-claim. He said that the Sergeant had struck him when he told Young of a rumour circulating in the village that he (Young) was having an affair with a local married woman. Both cases were heard together, with the Magistrates dismissing the case against Young, but not before sharing concerns regarding his indiscrete behaviour and exceeding his duty. The Bench also considered that although the case against Holmes was proved, as he had “been indiscreetly locked up, they thought he had been sufficiently punished”.

The Constabulary’s own punishment went further, with the defaulters’ book entry noting he was “Severely reprimanded and cautioned and removed from Broadway.” On 11th December, 1873, Sergeant Young and family moved to Wychbold, a small village a few miles from Droitwich and part of the Bromsgrove police division. His new beat covered an area now dissected by the M5 motorway at Junction 5.

What had been ascribed to village gossip, six months later became fact. Young’s second entry in the Constabulary’s defaulters’ book shows he had “Absent[ed] himself without permission from his district on 12th April 1874 and [was] found in the house of a married woman with whom he had established improper relations. To be dismissed [from] the force from 14th April 1874.”

It seems that the family decided to put some distance between themselves and recent events as by 1881 they were living in Rotherham, Yorkshire and had probably been there for some time. Charles was now working for a Wine and Spirit Company as a shop manager, but he was later promoted to a travelling salesman and seems to have travelled across Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire and South Yorkshire.

By 1888, Young’s financial situation seemed to be in a mess – in Nottingham he was declared bankrupt whilst police in Wirksworth, Derbyshire, suspected him of embezzling money. It was too late for them to act. Young had already fled to Australia and according to a later report in the Nottingham Evening Post of 22nd July, 1895, he then travelled around the world [later reports also mention India], before eventually arriving in America.  Sadly, evidence suggests he had abandoned his family by this point as they remained in Rotherham and do not seem to have had any further contact with him.

By mid-1889, Charles Young was shown as a saloon owner and grocer in the city of Rochester, Monroe County, New York. Later that year he began offering his services as an auctioneer and valuer, and by 1890 was offering hotels and saloons for sale or rent. Adverts like this would continue for the next few years although it has not been possible to establish how Young came to be in possession of these properties or whether they actually existed, but the “History of the Police Department of Rochester” by William F. Peck, written around 1900, suggested that Young would buy “out saloons and their fixtures, then [sell] them, partly for cash and partly on time [to pay the balance], taking the property back when the purchasers failed to pay up, which they generally did, and shooting at them when they came back to get what belonged to them”.

 Young became a familiar face at court and well known to the Rochester police as he undertook a self-appointed mission to seemingly antagonise and frustrate the law enforcement agencies and individual judges whilst at the same time becoming a celebrity in the local press who at one point described him as “the special antipathy of the Rochester police”. He would also be described as “possessed of sufficient education to enable him to affect a polish of manner that is a good enough imitation of the real article to deceive the average man… and is said to have done legal pettifogging on the side.” Young later claimed on multiple occasions, often whilst safely in England, to have been arrested between 19 and 23 times and each time to be “honourably discharged”, a figure which is clearly not supported by contemporary records.

 In May 1890, Rochester Police Detective Thomas Lynch shot and killed Samuel Stoddard and his wife when Stoddard began chopping down a fence Lynch had built between their two properties. Stoddard was said to be drunk and had tried to kill Lynch with an axe and a saw and was shot in self-defence whilst Mrs. Stoddard was accidentally killed during the struggle. Young, describing himself to The Rochester Democrat and Chronicle as a former “inspector of police for seventeen years…and therefore knew what he was talking about”, became a regular at mass protest meetings and demanded further action be taken against the detective.  Young felt Lynch had acted improperly by attempting to arrest a man without a warrant, with no criminal act being committed and ultimately shooting an elderly couple. The authorities ignored his protests and dismissed his demands as “a citizen and taxpayer…to have this matter sifted to the bottom.”

In January 1891, Joseph Samuels had moved from Texas and answered one of Charles Young’s many newspaper adverts regarding purchasing a saloon. Samuels’ wife was not happy with the arrangement that was reached and sent her husband back to ask Young to buy back the saloon. During the negotiations, Samuels maintains he was set upon by Young and other men and beaten up. It later transpired that Samuels’ wife’s concerns were correct as Young did not own the saloon in the first place. A warrant was issued first for assault and then a further one for stealing Samuels’ money. Young responded by swearing out a warrant for petit larceny against Samuels for stealing furniture from him and also a further warrant for perjury against Samuels for swearing that Young had robbed him of $45. At the trial in April, Young defended himself as “he didn’t consider the case of sufficient import to employ a lawyer” and won, with the jury not convinced by the claims of Samuels which had been tainted by Young’s counter-claims.

This victory led to the first of many unsuccessful actions that Young brought against Justice Bartholomew Keeler and the Chief of Police for damages over the next few years. In particular, Young felt that Keeler was persecuting him and described Keeler as “not only ignorant, but coarse and brutal [and that he couldn’t] hope to go before him either as a complainant, defendant or prisoner and expect justice.”

Young was not alone at these court cases, accompanied by what papers described as his wife – a “blonde-haired woman” called Anna or Annie who was “considerably younger than [Young]” and also from England. Anna/Annie would also later accompany Charles to court in Southampton (travelling from America) and Worcester (travelling from Leicester). There is some confusion over the actual relationship, with Young’s defence lawyer in 1893 observing that he did not know whether she was his wife or not. Young himself was also confused – describing himself in the Samuels case as not “a man of family” and then when asked if single responding “I suppose so”. Young subsequently clarified his comments to the Democrat and Chronicle by saying he had also said he was married during other questioning and he was “sorry the police have thought fit to insult [his] wife because of this blunder”.   Whatever the situation, no evidence for marriage has been found and there is no further information on Anna/Annie after 1895.

The year 1892 continued for Charles Young where 1891 left off. Cases would be bought against him that he would then counter sue the officials leading the case or the original plaintiffs – often for thousands of dollars. Young would represent himself and withdraw cases before they reached a conclusion.  In May a local paper wearily proclaimed that “If the police were half as keen after some people as they are after Charles Young, Rochester would be a more orderly city”.

The situation for Charles and Annie was becoming financially difficult with a sale of chattels including many household items to pay off their mortgage arrears in June, whilst Young offered his services as a Private Detective – “Handled with ability and dispatch by Charles Young, for 16 years an officer of the English police …. all difficult or delicate cases requiring practical knowledge, dealt with”.  Unfortunately, it was this “practical knowledge” that would get Young in further trouble with the authorities.

In September 1892, Young witnessed an arrest made by Officer John Moran “and showed his disapproval of it in a manner so marked that he himself was arrested - charged with disorderly conduct and interfering with an officer in the discharge of his duty”. The Democrat and Chronicle felt that this arrest was due to the “somewhat silly course the department has pursued in its treatment of Mr. Young ever since the stand he took in regard to Detective Lynch’s trial [and that] officers in general are very much more anxious that Mr. Young shall behave himself in an orderly and becoming manner”. Young as always represented himself and called upon his wife and other witnesses as part of his defence. At the hearing the more serious charges against Young failed and he was only fined for disorderly conduct. Young then procured a warrant against Moran for assaulting him during the arrest and conduct unbecoming an officer. Moran was exonerated and Young pursued a further unsuccessful civil suit for $1000 damages for false imprisonment. 

Officer John Moran circa 1900 (History of the Police Department of Rochester – William J Peck 1903)

The Sun (published in New York) on Friday March 9th, 1894 reported Charles Young sailed on the Majestic, with a police escort and occupied a state room in the first cabin. The Democrat and Chronicle also advised he had had “the liberty of the ship” and “been having a good time” with his fellow gentlemen passengers.

When he arrived back in New York, Charles Young appeared before a Court charged with shooting with intent to murder. Instead the Jury found him guilty of a lesser offence - intent to do grievous bodily harm and he was sentenced to four years and five months’ imprisonment. Young appealed on the grounds this was not the offence he had been extradited for, and his conviction was quashed.

This seems to have been a landmark case with a number of subsequent pieces written in the local press to explain what had happened and the legal ins and outs of why Young had to be released. Surprisingly it seems that Young had managed to get some clever legal support with this case and a later article sheds some light on this as a Mrs Sullivan accused her husband (a member of Young’s legal team) of helping Young to escape imprisonment on the proviso he returns to England and does not stand as a supporting witness in her upcoming divorce trial.

Young celebrated his victory by having a reception at his attorney’s offices before penning his “Farewell Letter” published in the Democrat and Chronicle where he thanked people and then criticised and threatened them with equal measure. Nevertheless, Young told anyone who would listen that he was expecting various amounts of compensation from the United States for false imprisonment ranging from $5,000 to $100,000. He then got on a ship, funded by the British Consulate in New York, and was back in England by the end of the year.

In early January, he arrived at Doncaster, adopted the name Frank Evans, and visited a local livery stable claiming to be a “wine and spirit traveller for a well-known firm [and] put up in one of the best hotels”. He asked to borrow a pony and trap, so he could visit his customers, stipulating he didn’t want to be seen in “any kind of a turn-out”. Suspicion was aroused when Evans (Young) didn’t return and it was found he had left town - in fact, he had gone to Sheffield and put the pony and trap into an auction. Doncaster Police circulated a description and photograph across the country where it reached the Worcester City Police and Detective Inspector Wallace.

On the 8th February, the trial for the shooting of Inspector Wallace began at Worcester Assizes before Mr Justice Grantham. Young as usual represented himself. He listened carefully to the Prosecution’s case and questioned all the witnesses before presenting his own version of events in defence. He said that as he was getting over the gate at Broughton, the pocket of his coat caught on the post and the gun “exploded.”  Then Wallace, thinking he was being shot at, attacked him with the stick and the other shots were caused accidentally with the blows from the stick onto the gun which was “self-acting.”  

Young painted himself as an uneducated, friendless individual who had had an exceptionally difficult life including a scar from a wagon wheel wound on his head that meant he was not responsible for his actions. He then moved on to weave an alternative series of events to the prosecution case ending with the proposition that if he had intended to attack and kill the Policeman there had been plenty of other more suitable opportunities available to him.

In summing-up, the Judge “expressed his sympathy with the wounded officer, and said that Worcester people must feel proud that a member of their police force would have acted with the marvellous courage shown by the Inspector.” He followed on by asking “Was the attempt of the prisoner accidental? With regard to the first shot they could not say whether it was not accidental because Wallace had his back to the prisoner. But was the second shot which wounded the officer also an accident? Then Wallace saw the prisoner deliberately hold the pistol and aim it at his head and fire. Another accident?”.

Young’s version of events failed to convince the Jury, who found him guilty, but as Justice Grantham was about to pass sentence Young demanded that a Doctor should attend to confirm his wagon injuries. This, he contended, would evidence his “mental disturbance at times.” Mr. L. J. Wilding, a surgeon, didn’t agree, he stated that “the injuries he (the defendant) had received had not had the slightest effect on the prisoner's brain. He could not say he had found many marks.”

Young was sentenced to 20 years’ penal servitude and within a few days he was taken from Worcester Gaol to Exeter Prison before his transfer to Dartmoor Prison where he served his sentence. 

Inspector Wallace remained in hospital until March when he sent a letter thanking the “medical and nursing staff of the Infirmary; and also to the public for the kind and sympathetic interest which has been shown towards me in my misfortune.”

In July 1895, Wallace was the guest at a ceremony attended by many city police and local dignitaries where he was presented with £71 5s (almost £10,000 in today’s money) subscribed by the citizens of Worcester in “recognition of the Inspector’s gallant conduct on the occasion of arresting an alleged horse thief, who fired at him several times with a revolver.”

 Wallace retired on a pension a year later and died in 1910.

********

In July 1901, District Attorney Warren received a letter from Young, published in the Democrat and Chronicle, where he applauds American Judges as being “more patient, painstaking and approachable” than their British equivalent. Warren was described as an obvious “budding genius”, whilst the Rochester police department and the former District Attorney, Forsyth are “impartially roasted”. He ends by asking about other specific individuals and the results of the Reiger bail case before announcing he has the intention of lecturing on the English civil service system.

Upon his release in 1909 he wrote the following letter to the Western Morning News of November 1st, 1909.

Sir.

Kindly permit me space in your widely read journal for a few words in reference to my long stay in the above great prison. I was discharged on Wednesday last, having completed a twenty years’ sentence for having wounded a policeman with revolver. “happily not serious." It has been my first experience of penal servitude. I have been fifteen years in Dartmoor and during the whole of that long period have been justly and, so far as the rules permit, even kindly treated. During the last six years great and important improvements have been made in the treatment of prisoners, both as to dietary and management. As an old Radical politician l am bound to affirm that these desirable reforms were passed during the last two years of the late Conservative Government. These and other like measures were due mainly to the combined actions of a "powerful free Press." So that this giant department of the public service is governed with justice, mildness, and humanity. Every prisoner gets good and ample food, and no reasonable requests are ever refused. I propose shortly to write a few papers or essays on this prison, the results of experience and observations of the several departments. I will here close expressing sincere gratitude to Captain Guyon, the Governor, and Captain Moore, the Deputy-Governor, both dignified, cultured English gentlemen in the true sense of the word; and the chief warder and large staff I need only say that they will compare favourably with any similar body in the Civil Service, both to intelligence and humanity; indeed, they are, with two or three exceptions, good fellows; of these few exceptions I will only say they are bears trained to lock and unlock.

CHARLES YOUNG (V 50)

In January 1910, a letter arrived at the office of the Editor of the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle. This was published in full under the headline “Warm Welcome Is in Store for Well-Remembered Man if He Returns to Rochester”.

Having been for some years in retirement in my native country, I purpose returning to my adopted country. I had many friends in your city who nobly stood by me in my many successful fights with the then “City Hall gang,” notably in the great extradition case in which I was defended by H.J. and W.H. Sullivan, who proved themselves to be the ablest lawyers in the state. I was the victor in twenty-three legal battles fought in the city courts. America is 100 years ahead of England in matters of law and progress. When I was in your city I never tired of praising England and everything English. I was in error and now I frankly admit it. I am about to prove my sincerity by returning to the Flower City. My address is Charles Young, fruiter, draper, etc., Walkeringham, near Gainsborough, Lincoln, England.

Rochester’s Inspector of Police, Zimmerman, responded to the letter by saying “Keep that man away from here. The minute he arrives there will be trouble…We don’t want him back here”. District Attorney Howard Widener added “You may tell Mr. Young for me that if he returns to Rochester I will have him arrested and make him serve out his sentence [for assault] … before he will be able to enjoy the delights of the Flower City once more.”

Having seemingly burnt all his bridges, Charles Young disappeared without a trace.

Sources:

Democrat and Chronicle Newspaper, Rochester.

The New York Sun Newspaper.

The New York Times.

The Sheffield Independent Newspaper.

The Southern Echo.

Berrows’ Worcester Journal.

The Yorkshire Herald.

The Worcestershire Chronicle.

The Nottingham Evening Post.

http://www.libraryweb.org/~digitized/books/History_of_the_Rochester_Police_Department.pdf

We are particularly grateful for the help given by Investigator Francis Camp of the Rochester Police Department and Amy Young, Communications Director for the Monroe County Sheriff’s Office in Rochester, NY.

Bob and Matt Pooler research Worcestershire Police History and are always interested to hear from anyone who can contribute information.

The Prime Affair

Geoffrey Arthur Prime - A Russian Spy

Geoffrey Prime in 1982

Geoffrey Prime was born in 1938 and was brought up in Staffordshire. His early life was fairly uneventful, but he had a strained relationship with his father. He had an unhappy time at school, and when he left he became a junior wages clerk at Thomas Bolton of Frognall, a copper and brass company famous for the quality of its wire which was used in the first transatlantic telegraph cable.

When he was eighteen he joined the Royal Air Force for his two years National Service and was appointed to a role in the stores.

At this time the R.A.F. were actively looking to recruit linguists. Prime had shown a particular aptitude for foreign languages at school and this was recognised by his senior officers. When the opportunity arose he signed on for a nine year engagement and was posted to a training centre in Scotland to learn Russian. He was then sent on a course to study the Russian language at a London University but he failed to achieve adequate progress and was returned to the R.A.F. stores. This rejection left him with a feeling of considerable failure and inadequacy.

Following a posting to Kenya he began to form strong, positive views about Russia and was particularly outspoken about them.

Upon his return to the U.K. Prime was given another opportunity to study Russian at the Joint Services Language School in Surrey and this time he succeeded in obtaining a GCE O level in the language. He then received a posting to R.A.F. Gatow in Berlin where he was a signals intelligence voice radio operator listening in to Russian radio broadcasts. By the time he came to leave Germany he had been promoted to the rank of Sergeant.

He decided, extremely suddenly it appears, to leave the Air Force and during a resettlement course he was approached to work as a linguist for the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ). A post he was pleased to accept. Initially he was based in London but in 1976 he was transferred to the main communications centre at Cheltenham in Gloucestershire.

Whilst working at Cheltenham he formed a relationship with his landlady and they eventually married. It appeared to his new wife that he was engrossed in his work and she also saw that he immersed himself all things Russian including Russian language publications and broadcasts.

Once again, without warning he resigned from his security post and became a taxi driver, a role which halved his previous salary. His explanation to his wife was that he “couldn’t tolerate the place a moment longer.”

Whilst operating as a taxi driver Prime was identified by a colleague as the person who tried to entice two young teenage girls into his taxi by offering them fifty pence each. Prime visited the girls’ mother before the matter was reported to the Police and he managed to convince her not to make a complaint.

In 1982 he became a wine salesman, a role for which he was temperamentally totally unsuited.

Meanwhile, over a period of the previous two years three disturbing incidents had occurred in the adjacent counties of Worcestershire, Gloucestershire and Herefordshire. A man, on the pretext of preparing a quotation for plumbing or decorating, had visited three houses where he believed young girls to be alone. Once inside the house he would make the girls remove their clothing. Whilst there was no sexual interference the encounters were becoming more violent. Police were becoming increasingly concerned that the perpetrator would commit an even more serious offence

The third and final attack took place in Herefordshire and the father of the girl attacked was returning home as Prime was leaving the area and remembered his appearance and was able to describe a two tone brown Ford Cortina that was parked nearby.

Enquiries revealed that there were 426 Ford Cortina motor cars of that description registered to keepers in the three counties. Enquiries were immediately put in hand to visit each of the owners.

About a week after the most recent offence a Detective Sergeant and a female police officer attended Prime’s home and they were struck by his similarity to a photo-fit that had been produced of the offender. They asked if he would allow them to take his fingerprints and he agreed. The police visit must have unnerved Prime because he rang Hereford Police Station the next day wishing to confess to the assault in that case.

Officers searched Prime’s motor car and discovered a card index with details of over two thousand young girls. The information had been carefully gleaned from local newspapers and included the age of the child, her family members, and brief details of the newspaper account or advertisement together with relevant dates. In some cases he was able to get a photograph of the girl he had researched. Whenever he made a telephone call to a potential victim he carefully recorded the details including the name he had used. As he built a picture of his target he would sometimes indulge in some childish sexual comments during telephone conversations with the youngsters and these exchanges appear to have given him some gratification. The number of children he spoke to on the telephone in this manner is unknown but nothing happened sufficiently to trigger reports to the Police.

After the first Police visit to Prime’s home he confessed to his wife that he was indeed responsible for the attack on the young girl. He also confessed to her that he was a spy.

Mrs. Prime found the second admission very difficult to comprehend and it was a little while before she convinced herself that she should tell the Police.

As the story unfolded it became clear that Prime had committed espionage on an industrial scale. It all started when he was serving in Germany in the R.A.F.  In 1968, whilst passing through a Russian checkpoint, (when Berlin was divided into zones) he threw a note out to a Soviet guard, expressing his interest in spying for Russia.

It was about a fortnight later that Prime returned to his car one day and found a metal cylinder fixed to the door with a note in English asking him to go to an underground railway station in East Germany at a given date and time. When he attended the location he was approached by a young woman and then a man who were members of the Russian Intelligence Service.

When the Soviets were satisfied that Prime was not a plant, he was invited to a flat in East Germany on his afternoons off. During each visit he was entertained with food and alcohol and he was questioned closely about everything he did at R.A.F. Gatow as well as day to day events on the base. He was provided with a Minox miniature camera and he began to copy documents for his controllers. It is believed that he copied more than 500 top secret Government documents.

It appears that Prime was undergoing training in espionage techniques in the East Berlin flat at the same time as he was being positively vetted by the British authorities. During the subsequent Police enquiries it was established that Prime had been spying for the Soviets for at least fourteen years.

Prime communicated with his handlers by numerous secret methods. Pre-addressed envelopes were sent to addresses in East Germany, he also used dead letter drops in the London area. The letters contained secret writings covered by apparently innocent correspondence. The full-stops were often microdots containing information only viewable under a microscope.

As his work for the Russians continued he was provided with a powerful radio transmitter/receiver together with a time schedule for him to listen to and transmit messages. He was also supplied with one time coding pads. One time pads are an encryption technique which requires a single use pre-shared key. When used correctly they are considered unbreakable. He had two types of pad, one coloured blue, was for his use to encipher messages to Moscow while a red pad was used to decipher incoming messages. The pads were water soluble so that they could be destroyed in an emergency.

A tape recorder (rear left), powerful radio (rear centre) and other items seized by Police from Prime’s home.

GCHQ had monitored Prime’s radio transmissions but had had insufficient time to establish where he was.

These items were amongst a number of incriminating items found at Prime’s home following the execution of a warrant. An item of particular interest was an ordinary looking brief case. The briefcase had a false bottom and it had been given to him by the K.G.B. It enabled him to transport highly sensitive GCHQ documents to his home where he photographed them before returning them to his workplace. There was also a space for money. The false bottom was accessed by detaching the handle, then the inner frame before finally lifting out the bottom tray. It is not known exactly how much money he was paid for his work but it amounted to thousands of pounds.

Prime’s brief case in its dismantled form.

On 10 November 1982, Geoffrey Arthur Prime pleaded guilty to seven espionage charges and three sex offences against children. The heinousness of his crimes is reflected in the 38-year prison sentence he received at the Old Bailey, 35 of those years were for offences under Section 1 of the Official Secrets Act 1911, with Lord Justice Lawton commenting that “In a time of war, such conduct would have merited the death penalty”.

He was released from HM Prison Rochester in March 2001 having served half his term and was placed indefinitely on the Sexual Offence Register.

At the conclusion of the case in 1983, the then Chief Constable of West Mercia Constabulary, Robert Cozens, invited witnesses who had assisted in the enquiry to Police Headquarters for a private gathering along with the investigating officers. A commemorative paperweight was presented to each witness and the officers each received a commendation.

The trial and conviction of Prime brought GCHQ into the public domain for the first time. Prior to this, GCHQ’s existence and function had not been acknowledged by the British Government.

The publication of the Security Commission’s report into the Prime case together with a statement from the Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher on 12 May 1983 constituted an avowal that Her Majesty’s Government practices Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) in peacetime and that SIGINT is one of the functions of GCHQ.

Sources:

Geoffrey Prime – The Imperfect Spy by D. J. Cole – Robert Hale 1998.

Notes by former Chief Superintendent Peter Picken.

Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ.)

West Mercia Police Officers who led the investigation - Det Supt Allen Mayo (left), Det Chief Supt David Cole (centre) and Det Chief Insp Peter Picken 

(Worcester News)

The Blockley Riot

The Blockley district is a largely rural area, but for a good part of the nineteenth century a number of silk mills offered employment in the village. As these mills began to close, jobs in the locality became scarce. Farmers were also feeling the pinch because of cheap grain imports from the United States, and the health of the community had taken a battering following an outbreak of small-pox.

It was against this background that some of the locals turned to poaching to supplement their meagre food resources. Not surprisingly they crossed swords with gamekeepers and policemen who were strict in their enforcement of the law.

The resident police sergeant was Charles Drury, a native of Bretforton, a village not too far away. He lived in a police cottage in Lower Street, Blockley with his wife Mary.

An influential resident and business man, Richard Boswell Belcher, takes up the story in his autobiography. “Two innocent young men fled from the village and never returned because they had picked up a rabbit they had found in a snare. Another as arrested for picking three partridge eggs which had been placed on the bare ground by the keeper. Yet another who was charged with poaching was put to the expense of £8 for a lawyer and a cartload of witnesses to establish his innocence. Oliver Booker was stopped on his way home by a bough blown off a tree, which had obstructed the traffic for many days. He took the bough into his trap and openly put it into his garden. Our zealous policeman obtained a warrant and Booker was locked up in a police cell for two days and nights and then committed to Worcester Sessions, where he was acquitted.”

Events were approaching a climax when, on a Friday in March 1878, Sergeant Drury attempted to arrest a Blockley man named Jones for an offence of assault involving a servant girl. As so often happens in these cases, the couple in question ‘made up’ before the policeman was able to deal with the offender, who fought strongly with Drury to avoid arrest. In the ensuing struggle, a crowd gathered and was amused to see the wanted man escape and the policeman suffer a black eye.

Whilst on duty the following evening, Drury paid a routine visit to the Crown public house in the village. It was a most inopportune moment to call in. Earlier that day he had been to Shipston on Stour magistrates court to give evidence against a number of local men. No doubt this was the topic of conversation in the pub and feelings were running high. The story goes that as he appeared through the door he was jeered and ridiculed about his black eye, and then beer mugs were thrown at him.

The sergeant beat a hasty retreat, but the incident was the signal for a mob to form and he was chased through the High Street into the churchyard. The crowd pursued him into Lower, Street, where he got to the police station and locked the door. In what, must have been a terrifying experience, his pursuers began to bombard the station with a variety of missiles before breaking in. Drury was dragged outside, being beaten about the head, and then stoned, kicked and trampled on. Some locals eventually came to his rescue and he was taken to a nearby house so that his wounds could be treated.

There were a number of villagers who took part in the riot and they were soon rounded up, however, some of the troublemakers were not local. They had been brought to the area to fell trees at nearby Springhill. These men were not traced.

Belcher became the self-appointed spokesman for the people of Blockley who believed that the real offenders had got away. He wrote to the Evesham Journal newspaper in June 1878 and was extremely critical of the police and their reactions towards the villagers after the riot. He accused policemen of using unnecessary force to prevent the loitering of persons in the streets. He called for enquiries into the operation of the Shipston magistrates court and asked why magistrates allowed a disproportionate number of public houses to operate in a village the size of Blockley, one so far off the beaten track. The letter struck a nerve at the Quarter Sessions, and members sought the advice of Counsel to establish whether it was libellous. Legal proceedings were not attempted, but there was a futile exchange of letters between Belcher and the Clerk to the Court of Quarter Sessions before the matter was finally laid to rest.

Meanwhile, extra police were drafted into Blockley until the police station had been repaired and fears of a further disturbance had subsided.

Sergeant Drury continued to work at Blockley until 1879. He later moved to Malvern where he became the superintendent.

An Embarrassing Affair For The Worcestershire Constabulary

When the Local Government Act of 1888 arrived on the statute book, the process of the police becoming publically accountable took a small step forward. For the first time, elected councillors joined the magistrates on the police authority and overall responsibility for the police moved away from the Court of Quarter Sessions to the Worcestershire County Council.

The police authority in its fresh guise and with a new title, the Standing Joint Committee (SJC), met for the first time on Saturday 13th April 1889, at 11.30a.m., under the chairmanship of W. George Woodyatt MP.

Unfortunately the change in the constitution of the police authority did little to help the force when it was soon rocked by a scandal. Press interest in the incident ensured that the authorities rapidly lost control of the war of words, in the face of a concerted campaign of support for a police officer who was perceived to have been wronged by ‘the system’. The unwritten doctrine of the police force to resist, at all costs, any attempt to have its dirty linen washed in public resulted in it having a severe mauling in newsprint.

The incident which triggered the press attention occurred at Pershore in 1892 and the story contains enough intrigue to become a novel in its own right. The policeman in question, Superintendent Henry Kemp, was alleged to have behaved in a manner which breached Victorian moral principles, just when they were at their strongest.

Kemp had been a superintendent for almost twenty years, serving at Halesowen before taking charge at Pershore in May, 1881. He was a married man with seven children.

Born in Leicester, he had worked as a warehouseman before joining the Birmingham borough police force in 1864 at the age of twenty-three, serving at Staniforth Street. In February 1868, apparently at the request of the chief constable, Richard Harris, he transferred to Worcestershire, to deal with a crime wave at Balsall Heath. He was immediately appointed as a detective sergeant and served at Balsall Heath for nine months. He later moved to Ombersley, Bromsgrove, Redditch, Broadwas, and again to Ombersley. In 1872 he was posted to Halesowen as a newly promoted superintendent.

In January 1883, Kemp, together with William Hinton, an Inland Revenue officer, was awarded the Albert Medal in Bronze for gallantry, following an incident in 1881. They had both entered a burning ironmongers store at Halesowen and removed canisters of gunpowder and blasting powder. Rumours circulating at the time suggested Kemp had accepted the award when it should have gone to a constable who was at the scene.

It was not the first time that Kemp had acted bravely at a fire. When he worked in Birmingham he received press acclaim following a rescue he had undertaken from an upper room of a burning house. Once again, there were suspicions in certain quarters that he was not entitled to the recognition.

Kemp had his sights set on greater things and made at least two unsuccessful applications for chief constable posts at Kidderminster and Leicester. Each one was supported by the then chief constable, George Carmichael.

In the late summer of 1892, Stephen Winwood, a gardener, told his employer that he had seen Kemp out walking in Pershore meadows in the company of a Mrs Champken. Her husband worked as a baker in a general store in the town, and at the time was training Kemp’s son, Victor, in the bakery trade. Winwood’s employer was Pershore miller and Worcester City justice of the peace, George Goodwin. Shocked by what he had heard, he made a point of informing the chief constable, who opened an enquiry into the matter. During the course of his investigation, Carmichael was told by members of the Pershore Bench that Kemp’s relationship with Mrs Champken was common knowledge in the town and the magistrates no longer had any confidence in him. The chief constable concluded, after an interview with Kemp, that the superintendent had lied to him and his behaviour amounted to misconduct. He dismissed Kemp in November 1892, shortly before he was due to retire, and, as a consequence, Kemp lost his pension.

At the SJC meeting the following month, Kemp submitted a petition, which was read over to the committee members. The correspondence repeated assertions, made by Kemp to the chief constable, that he was innocent of the allegations, and pleading for his dismissal to be reconsidered. He made a request for the grant of his pension and supported his application with a petition of signatures from residents of Pershore and the surrounding villages. It was all to no avail; his applications were refused.

The Archdeacon of Worcester, who was at the meeting, urged the committee to, at the very least, allow a pension to Mrs Kemp, but that was refused as well.

Over the next twelve months or so, Kemp kept up the pressure on the police authority with more letters and petitions asking to be reinstated and allowed his pension, but he was unsuccessful.

Kemp then took action for slander against both Stephen Winwood and George Goodwin, with a view to obtaining damages of £2,000. The hearing was set down for 16th March 1894, at Birmingham Assizes, and the press was there in force.

Contemporary newspaper reports indicate that the proceedings were not focussed solely on the incident that gave rise to the action, but on some of Kemp’s other activities. A policeman and an ex-policeman were called to blacken the plaintiff’s character. If the newspaper accounts were anything to go by, this case gave these men the opportunity to express long-suppressed grievances for past occurrences, dealing with little more than tittle tattle. The evidence exposed the police force to a public examination of a most disagreeable kind. Meanwhile, Counsel for Kemp, Mr A. R. Jelf QC, attacked the chief constable for failing to interview Mr and Mrs Champken during the enquiry which led to Kemp’s dismissal.

When all the evidence had been heard, the jury retired for only twenty minutes before returning to find in favour of Henry Kemp and to make an award of £500 damages. The jury was of the view, in the light of their finding, that Kemp should now receive his pension, and had set the figure for damages with that expectation in mind.

The press coverage and support from the police magazine, Police Review and Parade Gossip, ensured Kemp received support from far and wide, whilst Mr Goodwin, Mr Winwood and particularly the chief constable were given an extremely difficult time. This pressure increased when it was disclosed that Goodwin had declared himself bankrupt and unable to pay the damages and costs of the proceedings.

At the same time (April 1894), Carmichael found himself drawn into correspondence with the Birmingham Gazette, but nothing eased the extremely uncomfortable atmosphere.

In the meantime the police authority was at a complete loss to know what to do.

At a meeting on Saturday 14th March 1894, two days before the hearing had commenced, it had already pinned its colours to the mast. After much wrangling and deliberation, the thirty-one members present put together two resolutions. In the first, the authority expressed its confidence in the chief constable. The second made it clear that the circumstances surrounding Kemp’s dismissal could not be reviewed. This decision was based upon legal advice given to the authority, in accordance with the Police Act of 1890.

By this time the press were baying for blood and calling for action to be taken against the SJ C, and particularly against Carmichael, even though the chairman of the SJ C, Mr J .W. Willis Bund, had insisted that the decision to sack Kemp was his.

It was not all hostility towards the chief constable, however. Within the force there were letters of support from both serving and former members of the constabulary. Some of the comments, if viewed in current parlance, were completely over the top. An example being “...you are beloved and respected by the whole of your humble servants.” Across the county, divisional lists were drawn up, to which policemen added their names in support of the chief constable. Included on the Bromsgrove divisional list was a signature from PC Albert Wargent of Feckenham. He had been stationed at Elmley Castle for part of the time that Superintendent Kemp had been in charge at Pershore. He was also the serving police officer who gave evidence against his former superintendent in the civil proceedings.

A month after the hearing had concluded, Mr Kemp wrote to the chief constable, enclosing a transcript of the judge’s summing up and the jury’s verdict. Again he asked for reinstatement and his pension or the refund of his pension contributions. Carmichael drew the letter and the transcripts to the attention of the SJ C, who were once again advised that legally they could not change the situation.

On 16th July 1894, Mr Schwann, Member of Parliament for Manchester North, asked the Home Secretary, Mr Herbert Asquith MP, if he would allow an independent investigation into the dismissal of Henry Kemp. Schwann was President of the Police and Citizens Association, a group set up to look after the interests of policemen. The Home Secretary refused an investigation but said, “I have caused inquiry to be made, and it is reported to me that the dismissal of Kemp was for untruthfulness more than once repeated; and that the order of dismissal was given by the Chairman of the Worcestershire Standing Joint Committee. The conduct of the chairman is reported to have been approved by a unanimous vote of the Standing Joint Committee.”

Twelve months to the day that the matter was raised in the House of Commons, Henry Kemp died at the age of fifty-four. His death raised even more questions about the whole affair. A policeman discovered Kemp’s body at about 5.30a.m., in a field at Bricklehampton, a village some three or four miles outside Pershore. The body was lying under a hedge, stiff and cold and away from any footpath. The doctor who examined Kemp said he had died of a heart attack after some exertion, and described the deceased as having some scratches and abrasions on him. Amongst other items, a box, half full with matches, a tobacco pouch and a cigar end were found in Kemp’s clothing

The policeman who found the body was attending a fire at Bricklehampton Hall Farm. The fire had started at about 12.30a.m., and had destroyed several ricks, a dutch barn and two wagons. The seat of the fire was about two hundred yards from the spot where Kemp was found. The owner of the farm, Robert Hinshaw, was a member of the SJ C responsible for turning down Kemp’s requests. Rumours abounded that Kemp was responsible for the fire. However, those in authority, including HM Coroner, took steps to distance him from the cause of the fire in the absence of conclusive evidence.

There are so many questions left unanswered in this sad affair. Most of them went to the grave with Kemp, leaving the reader to draw his or her own conclusions. At that time there were few checks and balances in place to help a policeman who had been unfairly dealt with, but, did Kemp deserve the treatment he received?

Perhaps he was not all that he seemed. Less than a year before the alleged incident in Pershore meadows, Kemp had a pay cut for four months and was reduced in rank to a lower grade superintendent. The force discipline book shows an entry which reads, “Gross neglect of duty in not having his divisional books made up from 28th August 1891 to 7th October 1891. Giving false certificates every week during that time, that the charges in his division had been entered and indexed. Being untruthful in his replies to the chief constable.”

Kemp had a market gardening business operating in Pershore, and on occasions he employed his policemen in horticultural work when they should have been carrying out police duties. For example, Kemp reported to the chief constable that the shaft on the police cart had broken as he stood on it to climb into the driving seat. It subsequently transpired that the shaft had broken whilst Kemp’s groom, PC Alfred Sandells, was carrying a load of hay in connection with the superintendent’s business.

Kemp instructed Sandells to tell lies to the chief constable if questioned about the damage. The police force sometimes takes a liberal view of many misdemeanours committed by its officers, but rarely treats lying in the same way.

Kemp attributed his errors and inadequacies to his failing mental and physical health combined with an increased workload, and he produced doctors notes in support of his claims. For his part, Carmichael appears to have given Kemp considerable latitude in view of his impending retirement. The Champken incident brought matters to a head and he was obliged to act. Throughout the civil proceedings against Goodwin and Winwood, the chief constable was privately convinced that perjured evidence was being given on behalf of Kemp. It seems reasonable to assume that Superintendent Kemp was extremely lucky to keep his job after the first episode. The second incidence of lying to the chief constable was bound to have terminal consequences.

Former Superintendent Henry Kemp - circa 1894

On Patrol In The 1920's and 30's

The responsibilities of a policeman working nights in the 1920s and 30s were quite different to those of a modern day police officer, particularly in the towns. When the pubs closed and the drunks disappeared from the streets, the night bobby was king of his beat. He would begin to check the shops and other lock-up premises for security. The night shift was the time when the policeman would work eight consecutive hours instead of the split shifts endured by his daytime colleagues. He was expected to check property on his beat, once before and once after his break. The routine would be to try door handles and examine all windows for security. When he found premises that were insecure, the officer would contact the owner or keyholder to inspect the premises with him. If that was not possible, the officer would have his own methods of securing the premises, or at least marking the entrance in such a way that it would be easy to detect whether a person had entered. This might be a piece of paper wedged between the door and the frame, or a wetted strand of hair from his head, stuck across a window and its frame. Some of the methods he used were quite ingenious, fuelled by the fact that it was in the officer’s own interest to ensure that there was no crime on his beat. If something occurred and he failed to find it, then the next morning he would be called from his bed to explain why it had happened.

In the daytime, policemen were called upon to deal with a wide range of incidents, but few could be more dangerous than a runaway horse, as new recruit PC George Skerratt found when he distinguished himself at Redditch on 13th July 1927. The incident happened in Hewell Road, where George was patrolling on foot. He saw a horse harnessed to a float come galloping into view, heading for the town centre. The horse was terrified and had already travelled about a quarter of a mile at full speed. Four men stood in the horse’s path but were unable to slow it down and there was a near tragedy as the horse almost struck a motor car travelling in the opposite direction. The officer tried to stop the horse by using his cape but this failed. He managed to grab the back of the float as it went past. In a scene more suited to a western movie, he was dragged behind the vehicle before climbing on board. He managed to take hold of the reins and eventually brought the horse and float to a halt. George was not injured and was later specially commended for his conduct.

Traffic control was a fairly routine activity. On Whit Monday, 27th May 1928, the force was saddened when an extremely popular officer was killed whilst controlling traffic in Malvern. At about 8.45p.m. PC Sidney Overton was helping crowds of people to cross the main road, to and from Malvern Link railway station. The officer was standing in the centre of the road when he caught sight of a two and a half year old boy, running from a drinking fountain to his mother on the other side of the road. As the boy ran in front of a motor car, Sidney stepped forward to push him back and they were both struck by the car. The boy received a glancing blow, but the policeman was knocked into the path of a car travelling in the opposite direction. The injuries he received from this collision proved fatal.

The residents of Malvern Link were sufficiently moved by PC Overton’s death to ask that the following be read at the inquest: “The residents express their sympathy with Mrs Overton and family on losing one who always did his duty cheerfully and with a smile and was a protector and friend to us all.”

Sidney Overton left a widow, Barbara, and a daughter, Marjorie, aged twenty-one. Barbara received a widow’s pension of .£82.12.3d (£82.61) per annum.

Generally, the death of a husband and father could prove to be catastrophic for the family left behind. Police families faired marginally better with the provision of a pension and allowances for those children under the age of fifteen. Unfortunately, even these payments were often insufficient to keep a family together. Extra help came in the form of the Gurney Fund.

The Gurney Fund was founded in 1890 by Catherine Gurney and was financed by donations and regular contributions from most policemen.

Miss Gurney established a children’s home at Redhill in Surrey for children of police families, including orphans, or the youngsters of a remaining parent who could not look after them. A number of children from county police families benefited from their time at the home, including those of PC Benjamin Round who died at Stourbridge in 1924. He had six children; Benjamin, Edith, Frederick, Samuel, Edna and Olive. Their ages ranged from five to eighteen when he died, and because their mother was unable to support them all the younger ones found a new home at Redhill.

PC 55 George Skerratt (1927) and PC 158 Howard Overton (c1927/28)