Tried for shooting at his wife

Context Note: The victim in this court trial was his wife, Emma Jane (Wallbank) Duffield, who was aunt of Ada (Wheeler) Bosworth.


No. 1
NAME, AGE AND TRADE. Joseph Duffield, 56, Gunmaker (Bailed at Prison, 4th October, 1909.)
Degree of Education. 4
Name and Address of Committing Magistrate. L. Morton Brown, Esq., Birmingham Police Court.
Date of Warrant. 1909 28th July
When received into Custody. 1909 14th July (On remand) Surrendered 23rd Nov.
Particulars of Offence or Offences as charged in the Indictment. At Birmingham, on 13th July, 1909, did feloniously, unlawfully and maliciously with certain loaded arms, to wit, a pistol then and there loaded with gunpowder and divers leaden bullets shoot at Emily Jane Duffield, with intent in so doing then and thereby feloniously, wilfully and of his malice aforethought to kill and murder the said Emily Jane Duffield. 2nd Count, Shooting with intent to do grievous bodily harm. 3rd Court, Wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm.
Before whom tried and date. 1909 Mr. Justice Pickford. 23rd Nov.
Verdict of the Jury. Pleaded Guilty to Unlawfully Wounding.
Particulars of Previous Convictions charged in the Indictment and proved in Court.
Sentence or Order of the Court. Discharged on Recognizance.

(Calendar of Prisoners, Birmingham, 1906-1913)

Obtaining a job under false pretences

Context Note: Emma Jane (Wallbank) Duffield was aunt of Ada (Wheeler) Bosworth.


THIS DAY’S POLICE NEWS.

BIRMINGHAM PUBLIC OFFICE.

Before Messrs. T. C. S. KYNNERSLEY (Stipendiary), C. STURGE, and H. R. COOKSEY.

SINGULAR FRAUD BY A SERVANT GIRL.

Emma Wallbank (19), domestic servant, Summer Hill, was charged with obtaining a situation under false pretences – to wit, false testimonials. The mode in which the fraud was carried out was very ingenious, and such as would not be expected from a servant girl. It appears that the prisoner, who was out of a situation by reason of her own misconduct, wrote to a servant girl named Jane Ball, asking to be kindly supplied with the address of her last mistress. Jane Ball answered the communication, disclosing the required information, and the prisoner then proceeded to the house of Mrs. Greatrix, Victoria Road, Aston, from whom she desired to obtain a character. Taking care to visit the place when the mistress was absent, she represented to a strange servant there that she was Jane Ball, and requested that Mrs. Greatrix should be informed that her late servant wanted a character. In the course of two or three days she again went to the house in the absence of Mrs. Greatrix, and procured the requisite testimonial which had been left for Jane Ball. Armed with this false recommendation, she went to the registry office at Hockley, and it so happened that a lady residing in Worcester Street was present in search of a girl. To this lady she applied for a situation, and referred her to Mrs. Greatrix, whither the lady bent her steps. On making inquiries she was told that Jane Ball was a good servant, and had recently left for another place. Just as the lady was going away she over-heard a little girl say that the person who called for the character was not at all like Jane Ball. This aroused suspicion, and information was given to Police-constable Loach, of the Aston force, who, after much search, discovered that the prisoner had just been discharged from a situation on account of her dishonesty; that she had slept at the Servants’ Home for a night, saying that she was a young woman from the country, going to a situation the next day, and that her statement of having lived at a Mr. Avery’s house in Bull Street, was a fabrication. How she got into the hands of the police is explained by her going to the lady’s house on the morning following the one on which she referred her to Mr. Greatrix for a character. She was not aware that her little game was discovered, and unconsciously walked into the trap. The lady said that although feeling it her duty in the interests of the public to bring the girl before the magistrates, in order that the fraud might be exposed, she did not wish her to be sent to gaol. The Bench commented on the great cunning displayed by the prisoner, and the very serious nature of the offence, for committing which she had rendered herself liable to a penalty of £20. Acting on the recommendation of the prosecutrix, the girl was dismissed with a severe reprimand.

(Birmingham Mail, 28th March 1871)