UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (1525, KIRTLINGTON)

In 1525, the Manor Court of Kirtlington ensured that those who partook in 'unlawful' activities were duly punished; local men Robert Andrews, William Bath and William Keynsham were each fined two pence for playing tennis. Richard Keynsham, Nicholas Gardiner and John Hall were also fined the same amount for keeping dice and painted playing cards in their homes. Interestingly, this occurred 16 years before the Unlawful Games Act was officially implemented.

During this period, games such as backgammon, cards, dice, football, tennis, bowls, quoits, ninepins and 'shovegroat' (a popular pub game) were essentially outlawed, mostly due to the negative connotations of gambling, and 'the adverse effects' that certain sports could have on those who participated (i.e. violence). In 1349, King Edward III banned football - his main reason being that he felt that it was 'distracting men from practising their archery'! All sports, without exception, were expressly forbidden from taking place on Christmas Day, until the Act was officially repealed as recently as 1960.

Gambling was a massive problem, particularly as it saw an alarming number of peasants getting themselves into debts which would be nigh on impossible for them to pay.

John Warleman of St Mary Magdalen, Oxford, was also prosecuted for fixing a game of 'le tenyse' (tennis) during Tudor times; he was sentenced to 6 days' imprisonment. Naturally, those of particularly noble or privileged birth were allowed to play on without fear of consequence!

THE ATTEMPTED MURDER OF MRS TOWNSEND (BICESTER, 1910)

In 1910, coachbuilder William Townsend of Bicester was charged with the attempted murder of his wife; evidence showed that his wife had made arrangements to leave him and take their daughter abroad. In his rage, Townsend struck his wife twice with a poker. Luckily, two workmen overheard the altercation, and intervened before anymore damage could be inflicted!

THE ATTEMPTED MURDER OF ROSE JANE BEASLEY (ARDLEY, 1905)

On 15th August 1905, William Cook, alias William Addison, attempted to murder his 24 year old fiancé Rose Jane Beasley at his parents' home in Ardley.

Thankfully, Rose made a full recovery; she claimed that they'd been discussing their upcoming nuptials, when Cook had suddenly put his arm around her neck, and then proceeded to cut her throat. Cooks' parents happened to walk in at that exact moment, and intervened just in time.

At the trial, Rose presented a letter to the court, sent to her by Cook from his prison cell. In the letter, he "expressed his sorrow for the cruel way in which he had treated her, and attributed his action to Miss Beasley's father and mother, especially the latter, who had spoken badly of him."

According to Mrs Beasley, she had merely told Cook that he "ought not to have delayed in getting the certificate of the banns until the eve of the wedding", which was to take place the day after the incident occurred.

After a fairly long trial, the judge eventually sentenced Cook to 15 months' imprisonment with hard labour. Poor Rose was understandably 'in a state of anxiety', although the doctor confirmed that the wound was not a particularly serious one.

THE CASE OF THE 'OXFORD RIPPER'? - THE MURDER OF ANN PREEST, ALIAS CRUTCHLEY (OXFORD, 1827)

On the morning of 12th December 1827, a night-watchman made a grim discovery in a street behind Christ Church, Oxford.

A 23 year old woman known as Ann Crutchley was found 'in a state of insensibility', lying in the street. She was covered in devastating injuries. The poor woman recovered her senses just enough to disclose that she had spent the previous evening in the company of two men, and that they'd been drinking until the early hours of that morning. The men had then led the by then extremely drunk Ann down the street in which she was found, and set about inflicting 'such wounds as left no chance of her life being saved'.

Ann was then left for dead, and although she lingered on for a few hours afterwards, she eventually succumbed to her horrific injuries.

An inquest was quickly held, during which it transpired that although the victim was known in the locality as Ann Crutchley, her real surname was actually Preest. She had come from a respectable and well-off family in Herefordshire, when a young man had seduced her to leave her parents' house, and run away with him to Oxford. Ann's beau had subsequently abandoned her.

Depressed, alone and vulnerable in a strange city, Ann had begun drinking and socialising with some decidedly dodgy characters, although many who knew of her remarked upon her 'mildness of manners'. She was described as being 'of great personal beauty', and thus many of the gentlemen residing in the city's various colleges would regularly pass liquor to her through the bars of their windows.

On the night of her tragic demise, students from Brasenose College admitted passing Ann a teapot full of strong brandy, rendering her 'intoxicated to insensibility'.

The post-mortem revealed that there were two cuts, both around two inches long, inside Ann's womb; these were probably inflicted with some sort of double-edged instrument. The lacerations were enough to cause haemorrhage, and ultimately, death. There were also multiple external injuries, and on her left breast was a discoloured mark in the shape of a man's four fingers and thumb. She was described as being 'much disfigured'.

Some witnesses came forward and told police that another watchman called Mr Field had apparently refused to help Ann prior to her death, when passers-by had told him that she was too drunk to stand; Field's alleged response was: "No, I'll see her dead first!".

Another person by the name of Williams was noted as being in Ann's company at some point on the night in question, but there was insufficient evidence with which to charge him. Due to a lack of any concrete evidence, the jury returned a verdict of 'willful murder by person or persons unknown'.

A reward of 200 guineas was offered to anyone who would come forward with information leading to the apprehension of the culprit(s), but it was never claimed.

Poor Ann Preest, alias Crutchley, was buried in the cemetery of St Thomas' Church, Oxford, 3 days later; her mother travelled from Herefordshire to lay her to rest.

The Oxford Journal reported the following:

"We learn from the medical gentleman who saw the body that the murder must have been committed with the utmost deliberation. It could not have been a stab; indeed, it appears that the light of the moon was necessary for what we may call 'the operation'. Had she not been so much intoxicated, it could not have been effected. The girl was seduced from her friends and brought to Oxford by a young gentleman. Crutchley, who brought her to Oxford, is a notorious pickpocket, and has been once transported. The deceased had lived for some time at Hereford as a prostitute, and was discharged from the Magdalen about 9 months since. Many examinations have taken place, but most certainly nothing has been proved, either from circumstantial or positive evidence, which could authorise the magistrates to affix the guilt upon any individual whatsoever."

Around a week after Ann's burial, the magistrates issued a warrant to have her coffin exhumed in order to confirm her cause of death; the findings corroborated the results of the initial post-mortem, although it did raise the possibility of a different weapon being involved, and some extra injuries were also noticed.

A few days after the exhumation, a man named John Williams was apprehended, and sent to Oxford Gaol. He had apparently been seen with blood stains upon his clothing on the morning that Ann was found, and could not satisfactorily account for this. He was described as 'about 30 years of age, working as a picture-frame maker, and with the exception of the indiscretions of youth, generally a good character'.

Williams' washerwoman attested to the fact that she had washed similarly stained garments of his before, and that she did not find it unusual. He himself vehemently denied all involvement.

Another account of that fateful night mentions that Ann was a prostitute, and had been in the company of another called Harriet Mitchell when she had accepted brandy from the students of Brasenose College. One of these students was Houstonne John Radcliffe, who left the college at around the same time that Ann was killed, returning to his room shortly afterwards. Radcliffe was expelled from Brasenose College in their fear of a scandal, and died in 1829.

Ultimately, John Williams was released, and no one was ever convicted for this abhorrent crime; but I have to say, I am curious as to why the police seemingly disregarded Crutchley - Ann's former boyfriend - as a possible suspect! Radcliffe also appears to have been a very strong contender, as was Field if his incriminating speech was indeed factual!

The story was followed nationwide, and a report published by The Times said the following:

"Within the passage called the vagina, leading to the mouth of the womb, there were most evident marks of two wounds - one on the left, the other on the right side; which wounds appear to have been made either by a blunt and powerful instrument or by a sharp instrument, which had been forcibly moved in different directions after the wounds had been inflicted."

The Times also implied that Radcliffe had been expelled due to leaving Oxford 2 days after the murder of his own volition...

It also transpired that the exact street in which Ann met her fate was Blue Boar Street, pictured below. The two men Ann told the night-watchman about were never found.

Who do you think was responsible for Ann's murder?

ARSON IN BAINTON (1861)

In May 1861, two men by the name of Hitchman were riding close to the hamlet of Bainton, near Bicester, when they noticed smoke issuing from the corner of a barn belonging to Mr William Mansfield of Hethe.
The barn adjoined a dwelling which belonged to Mr Mansfield's servant, Mr Thornton.

Just as they noticed the smoke, a man called Robert Mansfield - presumably a relative of William - went up to the two men, and implored them to split up, with one riding to Hethe to inform William Mansfield, and the other to Bicester to ask for the fire engine to be brought to the site. The two Hitchman men obliged.

Many Bicester folk followed the fire engine as it made its way to the scene of the fire, and once they arrived, they took it upon themselves to help to remove all bedding and furniture etc. from Mr Thornton's house, in the hope of saving the items from the fire, should it spread from the barn to the adjacent dwelling. A local newspaper reported that "the new fire-engine arrived, and drawing its water from a pool in front of the barn on fire, poured a continuous stream with great force."

The roof of the barn fell in, and its contents were completely destroyed. Shortly after the firemen had successfully managed to put out the blaze, Superintendent Moulden and P.C Jones arrived on the scene. Upon inspection, they came to the conclusion that an 'incendiary' was used to deliberately start the fire.

Arson was clearly a growing and worrying problem in the locality, as the Bicester Herald wrote the following: "Incendiarism has assumed a fearful aspect in the neighbourhood of Bicester. The cause of the vile offence is a mystery. Is it because, as one fire was accidentally caused, that, yielding to a vitiated taste, some wretches have not had enough of it? Is it that they delight in the destruction of the property of their fellow men, without any definite feeling of revenge, but merely from a diabolical pleasure and a morbid excitement in creating damage? In short, are certain people madly and heedlessly infatuated with it?".

The newspaper also implied that it may have been the doing of disgruntled farm labourers, who resented the fact that their jobs were rapidly being replaced by machines. In response to this theory, the journalist added in his report: "The world MUST progress, despite these suicidal attempts at retrograde. We unhesitatingly assert that machinery has added to the country's greatness, and that the use of it is evidence of progress."

They concluded the article thusly: "That the offenders will, on conviction, be severely dealt with, there is no question. They will assuredly find the law too strong for them, and they, in themselves, in durance vile."

Unfortunately, I cannot find any evidence of the perpetrators being apprehended; thankfully, Mr Mansfield had insurance to cover the approximately £100 worth of damage, and Mr Thornton's home received only minimal damage!

The image below depicts a 'reaper' - used to cut grain; these horse-drawn machines were invented circa the 1840's, and led to many agricultural labourers losing their jobs. (Image courtesy of Pinterest).

BONFIRE NIGHT MAYHEM (BICESTER, 1874)

On 5th November 1874, the Bicester Herald newspaper reported that "Bicester streets were occupied to an unusual extent with noisy fire-raisers and gunpowder-exploders"! The journalist who wrote the article also added the following at the end: "If some of them escape an appearance before the magistrates, they may think themselves very fortunate."!

Picture courtesy of The Victorianist.

THE MANSLAUGHTER OF JAMES PRESTON (MURCOTT, 1874)

On 14th November 1874, a butcher called John Goddard of Fencott was charged with manslaughter.

On 3rd October, Mr Goddard had thrown a stone, which has struck the head of a resident of nearby Murcott called James Preston, ultimately killing him. The altercation had occurred outside the marvellously named Ramping Cat public house in Fencott, and all concerned were a little worse for drink!

Mr Preston was taken to the Radcliffe Infirmary in Oxford, but died about a month later from his injuries. Witnesses included Mary Tew (landlady of the pub) and George Norris (postman, of Islip).

Mr Goddard was committed, but was able to afford bail. The landlady of the Ramping Cat was charged with 'allowing drunkenness' there on the evening in question, too.

Mr Goddard did show a lot of remorse after the incident, crying and expressing how sorry he was for harming the deceased.

THE ASSAULT ON MARY HOPCRAFT (FRITWELL, 1859)

In September 1859, William Jennings - landlord of The George & Dragon, Fritwell - and his wife Ann were charged with assaulting an elderly woman called Mary Hopcraft (also of Fritwell) on the 15th August.

Ms. Hopcraft's version of events was that she had gone to the pub in search of her son, when Mr & Mrs Jennings had suddenly set about beating her up without warning. Apparently, they'd pushed and struck her, making her mouth bleed and tearing her bonnet in the process.

If there was more to the incident than this (which I strongly suspect is the case!), then it was not reported in the newspapers. Mr & Mrs Jennings were found guilty, and ordered to pay a 10s and 13s costs, or face 3 weeks' imprisonment; the fine was paid.

(Photo below shows the pub, taken in 2006, courtesy of Colin Bates/Geograph website).

A QUESTION OF PATERNITY (BRILL, 1864)

In December 1864, Benjamin Wakelin - landlord of The Rose & Crown Inn, Brill - was charged by Eliza Ann Greenwood (also of Brill), with being the father of her illegitimate child, born on 21st October that year.

According to the Bicester Herald, "this case excited great interest in Brill, owing to the position of the parties concerned, and the painful circumstances connected with the question of paternity".

The courtroom was apparently crowded with spectators, and "a genuine feeling of sympathy was manifested for the unfortunate young woman and her relatives".

The solicitor acting on behalf of Miss Greenwood stated that "this case was one of the most painful character that he had ever met with in the course of his professional experience".

During the trial, it transpired that Miss Greenwood and Mr Wakelin had known each other for a period of about 2 years, "during which time he had paid her the most assiduous marks of attention, and was generally regarded as her accepted suitor". Apparently, Mr Wakelin had driven Miss Greenwood to Thame, where he had commissioned a book of portraits featuring her; he had also bought her several substantial gifts, including a gold watch-chain, and had even bought their wedding rings.

Miss Greenwood, "having implicit faith in his honour, and repeated protestations of his intention to marry her, had surrendered her virtue to the defendant, who had seduced her and cast her off in the most cruel and profligate manner".

Wakelin, who was 26 years old, had pursued a relationship with Greenwood ("a young woman of ladylike manners, around 18 or 19 years of age"), despite her family being very much against the idea. Apparently, Mr Greenwood (father of Eliza) had "greatly opposed its continuance". The couple walked out openly together, and it was generally assumed that they were engaged. By her own admission, Greenwood had "admitted him to marital privileges on several occasions".

Suddenly, Wakelin had stopped visiting Miss Greenwood, and seemed reluctant to make contact with her. After a while, Miss Greenwood decided to return the gifts he'd given her, telling him "that their connection had better cease". Shortly afterwards, the banns of marriage were published in the local church, between the defendant (Wakelin) and another woman, called Miss Kate Smith! It was also revealed that Miss Smith was "living with the defendant in a capacity which gave rise to great scandal in the local neighbourhood"!

When poor Eliza Greenwood discovered that she was pregnant, she went to him in order to tell him, and Wakelin had rather callously told her to "go home and keep the matter quiet".

After quite a lengthy trial, during which Miss Greenwood was "visibly distressed" and Wakelin appeared "uncaring", the jury ordered that Wakelin pay 1s 6d maintenance towards the child.

DRUNK & DISORDERLY (BICESTER, 1859)

In August 1859, William Baldwin of Bicester and Charles Coles of Bucknell were summoned to court, charged with 'having been drunk and fighting at Bicester'. The pair - both labourers - were fined 5s, and ordered to pay an extra 8s costs each.

DRUNK & RIOTOUS (1867, BICESTER)

In 1867, Colin Casemore (shoemaker), Samuel Howes (tailor), and another man called John Collins appeared in court, charged with "being drunk and riotous in the streets" at Bicester on the night of Saturday 20th July.

During the hearing, P.C Nicholls deposed that he had witnessed the defendants "turn out" of The White Hart public house just after midnight. According to the local copper:

"Immediately after they came out, they commenced sparring. I passed them and shortly after came back again. They were going down the street and knocking on people's shutters. I overtook them and told them about making such a noise, but they denied it, using abusive language, and called me a liar. Casemore was the worst, and I asked him to go quietly home. He said that he should go home when he chose, and disputed my rights to interfere, as they were doing no harm. I accompanied them for a short distance and then caught hold of Casemore and asked him whether he intended to go home, after which Collins then came and took Casemore home. Collins and Howes then stopped at Grantham's Corner, where there has been much disturbance of late, and many complaints have been made of the conduct of the young men who frequent the area at night."

P.C Nicholls continued to tell the court that he had repeatedly asked the lads to go home, and eventually, they said that they would acquiesce; Nicholls and his colleague, P.C Hunt, walked a short distance behind them, in order to ensure that they really were on their way; however, Howes and Collins were still lingering in the street. Casemore - who had initially done as he was told - then reappeared, and the trio carried on making a terrible racket!

Nicholls and Hunt continued to follow them, and eventually happened to bump into the father of Howes, who agreed with the constables that "it was a great pity that they couldn't have a little beer without acting so foolishly".

The three lads each took to the stand, and proceeded to cross-examine the coppers rather brazenly! Casemore even went as far as to accuse P.C Nicholls of pushing him to the ground, despite multiple witnesses confirming that this did not happen!

The case was adjourned until the following week, when a new witness - landlord of The Bell, Mr Gessey - claimed that he had seen a "scuffle" taking place between the police officers and the Colin Casemore, which resulted in Casemore's hat being knocked off of his head.

After some deliberation, the jury decided to fine the three boys 1s, and an extra 14s 6d each in costs. Collins and Casemore were unable to pay, and were therefore committed to Oxford Gaol for 14 days.

(Image courtesy of Foursquare, showing The White Hart).

'UNLAWFULLY & RIOUTOUSLY DISTURBING THE PUBLIC PEACE' (1903, LOWER HEYFORD)

In August 1903, 5 labourers of Lower Heyford named John Plumb, Frank Plumb, Albert Pearman, William Durran and Joseph Barrett - along with haulier John Faggetter - were summoned to Bicester Petty Sessions for inciting 10 or more other persons to "unlawfully and riotously disturb the public peace, and assault and ill-treat Charles Brock, also of Lower Heyford, labourer".

All of the defendants pled guilty, and were "bound over to keep the peace" (essentially, this meant that they were on probation!).

It is not clear why the men assaulted Mr Brock.

(Image below is of a postcard, featuring Market Square in Lower Heyford).

ABANDONMENT (GEORGE DAGLEY, STRATTON AUDLEY, 1849)

In October 1849, a man called George Dagley appeared in court, charged with leaving his wife and children chargeable to the parish of Stratton Audley; according to a local newspaper, this was the sixth time that Dagley had been convicted! He was imprisoned for one month on this occasion, as he had been back in April 1847.

In February 1848, he had received a six month gaol sentence, but this clearly hadn't deterred him! I cannot find any mention of the previous convictions in the newspaper archives.

George was baptised in January 1817 in Stratton Audley - the son of Philip and Sophia Dagley. He had married Mary Knibbs there in November 1838, and the couple had gone on to have 3 children. George was buried in the village in March 1902.

At the time of the 1841 and 1851 censuses, the family were living in Launton; George was a poor labourer, so perhaps this might explain why he was so desperate to rid himself of his responsibilities?

Mary sadly died in March 1856, which I'm sure must have pleased her errant husband to some degree!

According to the 1861 census, daughter Elizabeth Dagley was residing in Caversfield, employed as a servant to the Goddard family; son William was in Stratton Audley, also working as a servant (for the Hirons family).

Other son Samuel was living with his paternal grandparents, Philip and Sophia, in Stratton Audley.

So, "where was George at this time?" I hear you ask... Well, I can't seem to find him on the 1861 census, but it would appear that he married for a second time (to a woman called Hannah Creed) in 1868! From 1871 until 1881, they were living in Stratton Audley.

George ended his days as an inmate of Bicester Union Workhouse, where he resided from 1901 until his death in March 1902. He and Hannah had no further children, and it doesn't look as if he was very involved with his three offspring from the moment that their poor mother, Mary, died!

Map source: Francis Frith Collection.