Saltley Reformatory Inmates

Thomas Partington

[Return to Index]

Notes:

15 March 1873 There are two related reports in the same newspaper, one where the boy is a defendant, and the other as a witness. The first is in the Staffordshire Advertiser Saturday 15 March 1873 p.6 col.2: A MISCHIEVOUS ACT. - NARROW ESCAPE OF A TRAIN, RICHARD HEATLEY, aged 11, and JOHN THOMAS PARTINGTON, 11 [first names given thus], were indicted for feloniously removing a certain signal upon a certain railway belonging to the London and North Western Railway Company, at the parish of Colton, on the 29th of December, with intent thereby to obstruct a certain engine and carnages travelling thereon, also to unlawfully and wilfully placing a trolly upon the said railway on the same day. , The charges were varied in several counts, and the prisoners pleaded guilty to those for misdemeanour. Mr MOTTERAM, who had been instructed for the prosecution, said the offences were of a most serious nature, and must have been designated as atrocious had they not been committed by children. It would appear that on Sunday, the 29th of December, the express train from London, containing no less than 200 passengers, was near Rugeley station, when it came upon a trolly, which had been placed on the line by the prisoners. Fortunately the weight of the train was so great that it did not leave the rails, but the engine caught the trolly and threw it off the track, smashing it to pieces, and scattering the wood in all directions. The prisoners had also removed a signal. The company had no desire to press the case against the two boys, but it was necessary that thir passengers should be protected against such dangerous acts. He left it with his Lordship to say what should be done with the prisoners. Mr UNDERHILL, who had been instructed for the defence said the real explanation of the matter was that these little boys had placed the trolly upon the line for the purpose of having a ride. It had been left on a siding and secured, but they had unfastened the padlock and pushed it on the main line. In reply to his LORDSHIP, it appeared that the prisoners were connected with a case heard on Saturday, in which one of their companions was charged with setting fire to a stack of hay. His LORDSHIP thought that the best thing that could be done was to send the boys to a Reformatory, but he would think the .matter over. On Thursday the boys were again placed in the dock, and his LORDSHIP said he had carefully considered what should be done with them. He did not like to keep boys in gaol, but they must remain there until the visiting justices could make arrangements for their admission into a Reformatory, which he was told look more time than in other counties. Mr.MOTTERAM said he believed it was a matter of more difficulty that in any other county. His LORDSHIP went on to observe how sad it was that boys so clever and intelligent should have proved themselves so mischievous. Not only had they committed this offence, but from the evidence they gave on Saturday against another little boy charged with setting fire to a stack there was no doubt that they were quite as bad as he. In this case they had shown considerable ingenuity and skill in placing the trolly on the line at a time when the Scotch express train was due, and ii was perfectly shocking to think of the loss of life which would have been caused had the train left the rails. He was very sorry he could not order the boys a good whipping, which would have been the best thing to do, but it was not in his power. They must be imprisoned for one month, and at the end of that time sent to a Reformatory School for five years. His Lordship directed that the boys should not be associated with the adult prisoners, and was told that this was never done in the case of boys so young, but that they would receive instruction in the prison school. His Lordship expressed his approval of this practice.

The second report is in the same issue of the Staffordshire Advertiser, p.10 col.1: ALLEGED ARSON AT RUGELEY. EDWARD HEATHERLEY, a little boy eleven years of age, was indicted for feloniously and maliciously setting fire to a stack of hay, at the parish of Rugeley, on the 3rd of December. Mr. C. Smith, who conducted the prosecution, observed, in opening the case, that it was lamentable that so grievous a charge should have to be preferred against so young a boy, but if the jury were satisfied with the evidence, it would be their duty to say that he was guilty. It was not necessary that they should believe that the prisoner bore any malice towards the prosecutor, but if they were satisfied that he wilfully and mischievously set fire the rick, they would justified in convicting him. The evidence would show that the prisoner and some other boys of his own age had made a fire of wood at some little distance from the prosecutor's rick, from which they afterwards took hay to bum. The prisoner took some lighted hay and tried to set fire to the stack. At first the light he carried went out, and he then returned the to bonfire several times to get fresh lights. He first threw the burning hay over the fence, and then got over himself and put it to the rick, which then took fire. The prisoner's companions, seeing the mischief he had done, did all in their power to extinguish the fire, but the rick was nearly all destroyed. Thomas Golding, the owner of the rick, stated that it contained more than two tons of hay, and was worth about £10. Joseph Brown, son of Jeremiah Brown, and John Thomas Partington, another boy, who were in the prisoner's company at the time, also gave evidence. Partington, who is only eleven years of age, was brought from the gaol, being in custody awaiting his trial at these Assizes on the charge of placing a trolly on the railway and removing the signal. From these boys' evidence it appeared that the prisoner assisted them in endeavouring to extinguish the fire. His LORDBHIP, in summing up, told the jury that the prisoner being under fourteen years of age the law presumed that he was incapable of that degree of malice necessary to constitute a felony of this kind, but this presumption coiild, of course, be rebutted by strong evidence. In this case there appeared an absence of malice. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty. Hit LORDSHIP, before the prisoner was discharged, advised him never to play with fire again.

13 February 1877 Licensed to work for [sentence ends here]

[Return to Index]

This web page © 2020 Fred Miller