CHARLES ISARD AFFRAY BOW STREET
JOHN ISARD WITNESS SURREY QUARTER SESSIONS
GEORGE ISARD REIGATE BRIBERY ENQUIRY
GEORGE ISARD METRO TAXI ENQUIRY
EXTRAORDINARY CAREER OF A GIRL
BOW STREET THURSDAY 16th NOVEMBER 1809
FROM THE TIMES 18TH NOVEMBER 1809 Page 3 Col D
Mr Rickman of Surrey Street Strand charged Charles Isard Esq of 28 Southampton Street Pentonville with assaulting him in BOX 10 of the dress circle Covent Garden Theatre, by seizing him by the collar and shaking him. The complainant said that the box which he was in was completely filled. A gentleman who called himself an officer in the army, first attempted to force his way into the box but he had not anything to say against him as he had given him his address.
Mr Isard then presented himself and would force his way into the box. The witness told him there was not room and remonstrated with the impropriety of his conduct in wishing to inconvenience others, on which Mr Isard assaulted him, as he before stated.
Mr Isard stated in his defence that the boxkeeper opened the door and told him there was room for him in that box. He attempted to get in but Mr Rickman prevented him although a friend of that gentleman persuaded him to be accommodating, but without effect. He then placed his elbow in the side of the defendant on which he. Mr Isard did seize him by the collar.
Mr Reed observed that the assault was proved, but taking every circumstance into consideration he would be perfectly satisfied with Mr Isard own recognisance for his appearance, which was immediately complied with.
Captain O’Hara of the 47th regiment said he was the person alluded to by Mr Rickman and he assured the Magistrate on his oath that Mr Rickman was the aggressor and had called his name out as in defiance
Don't know who this Charles Isard is, if you do please let me know
ELOPEMENT
From The Bromley Record February 1st 1860
to say she has but little maternal regard . The parties we understand have made for the water and New Zealand (if they ever reach it) is to become their adopted home.Cases of this description are, we believe , of seldom occurrence amongst those who move in the middle or humbler classes of society. As there is no rule, however without an exception , we had in our last number to relate one of such cases and now we have to record a second and for the credit of our married neighbours we hope the last . The fugitives in the present instance whose conjugular relations have been so abruptly broken up, are a person of the name of Thomas Holder by trade a sawyer and who resided at Farwig near Bromley on the one part and the wife of Mr Charles Isard of New Bromley carpenter of the other part. Holder has left his wife minus as much of his wordly goods as he could conveniently take with him , to shift for herself as best she may ; and the unfaithful wife had left in her husbands care their only child for whom it is needless
THE FAITHLESS ONE
From the Bromley Record March 1st 1860
The faithless one of New Bromley whose elopement with a married man from Farwig was noticed in our journal last month came back to her husband Mr Isard on Wednesday the 22nd ult. The door not being fastened she went in and begged hard to be reinstated promising all sorts of reformation. Charlie it appears was inexorable and peremptorily ordered her out of the house upon which she begged him to let her have her child; this request was also refused but not wishing to use violence to eject her he went to the Police Station to ask advice in the matter. Having obtained the information from Sergeant Kent that if the child were his and he wished to keep it he has a right so to do, and that he could not advise him as to taking his wife back again, he returned home and found Mrs I half undressed and going to bed. The next scene in this performance to which we are introduced is between one and two o-clock in the morning Mrs I outside of the house lying on the ground ( quite helpless moaning piteously said to have been precipitated from the window above ) surrounded by the neighbours and police and being examined by Mr Ilott the surgeon. She declaring that her back and all her ribs were broken. The police having ascertained that her husband would not admit her again into the house and believing that she had received some injuries were about to remove her the union , and provided a conveyance for that purpose . Here we have the most speedy cure to record ever witnessed. Her broken back and ribs immediately got well and she preferred to walk to Farwig rather than to ride to the union, so wishing them all good night she went again on her perambulations.
Mrs I had taken French leave on a former occasion and was taken back by her forgiving spouse and as there appears not to have been the slightest reason for her leaving home (not even the excuse of a smokey chimney0 her punishment on this occasion which turns out to have been only sufficient force to turn her out of the doors has elicited no pity but on the contrary the unanimous verdict given by her own sex is serves her right.
It is reported that she left her paramour at Aylesbury pennyless. His wife (although he, sent to her after he had left to keep his club paid up , stating he should be back soon) has disposed of her chattels, and left this part
SURREY QUARTER SESSIONS
From Surrey Record Office Ref No QSP 11465 INF 1749 Izzard Elizabeth & John Film No 993023 QS 2/6 Croydon
From Quarter Sessions Surrey to wit
The information of John lzzard and Elizabeth his wife Of the parish of Croydon in the County Of Surrey Taken this 12th day of December 1748 This informant John Izzard saith upon oath that on Friday last between 3 and 4 of the clock in the afternoon he was cleaving of wood in a stockyard adjoining to his dwelling house in Norwood in the parish of Croydon and there had with him 5 iron wedges I mattock 1 beetle and 1 bill the property of this informant and having a horse taken ill he left the above said goods and went to Croydon and bid his wife go and fetch the said goods in and borrow a basket of …. Skinner And this informant Elizabeth lzzard for herself upon oath saith that she went first and borrowed the basket of the said ... Skinner and going thither she met William Kempsell coming towards her house and at her return with the basket she did see the said William Kempsell in her said husbands stackyard with the beetle and mattock above mentioned on his shoulder and as soon as he saw her this informant he threw the beetle and mattock down and ran away and this informant further saith that she immediately went to fetch in the said tools according to the direction of her said husband but when she came there she found only the mattock and beetle and 1 of the said iron wedges but saith that the other 4 of the wedges and the bill were stolen and carried away and hath good reason to suspect that the said William Kempsell so feloniously took and carried away the same Taken and sworn the day and Year above said before me John Heathfield? The mark of Jno X lzzard The mark of Eliz X lzzard
SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY TRAIN ACCIDENT REPORT 1881
Board of Trade (Railway Department)
I have the honour to report for the information of the Board of Trade in compliance with the instructions contained in your minutes of the 15th ultimo, the result of my enquiry into the circumstances connected with the collision which occurred on the 11th August at Ticehurst Road station, on the Tunbridge and Hastings branch of the South Eastern Railway.
In this case, as the fifth and last of five up excursion trains (conveying about 400 of the Company’s servants and their families) was standing at Ticehurst Road station with its rear van about 140 yards outside the up home signal and about 385 yards inside the up distant signal (which signals were at “danger “ to protect it) it was run into by the 8pm ordinary up passenger train from Hastings to London which train was not due to stop at Ticehurst Road.
In the 8pm, up ordinary train three passengers are stated to have been injured.
No injuries are reported to have been sustained by the passengers in the excursion train.
In the ordinary train, which consisted of engine and tender and 18 vehicles including three brake vans with a guard in each, the brake power consisting of the ordinary hand breaks vans, a coupling was broken.
In the excursion train which consisted of engine tender and 17 vehicles, the first and last having a break compartment with a guard in each, the break power consisting of ordinary hand breaks, no damage was sustained.
Description
Ticehurst Road station is 3 miles 53 chains on the up side of Etchingham station absolute block system being in force between these stations as well as upon all other parts of the South Eastern Railway. These two stations are not however provided with starting signals, hand signals from the signalman being depended on for information as to whether the line is clear or blocked. At Etchingham station the platforms are alternate, the down end of the up platform being opposite to the up end of the down platform. The custom is for the signalman to place (by night) a hand lamp, showing white or red light according as the line is clear or blocked, on the platform beside his cabin, or (if there should happen to be down train standing on the down platform), in the 6ft space for the information of the Station Master and the servants of the Company with the up train. Unless the lamp is carefully turned towards the engine of an up train, it is not easy for the driver to see its light. If an up train having to stop at Etchingham arrives before before “line clear” has been received from Ticehurst Road it is brought nearly to a stand at the up home signal, which is at the down end of the down platform and is then waved in by a green hand signal, to enable the station work to be performed
At Ticehurst road the platforms are also alternate as at Etchingham, but the signal cabin is at the down end of the up platform, close to the signal post which carries the up and down home signals. The signal lamp of the up home signal is low only about 15 feet above rail level and the signalman hand lamp when placed on the platform is about 12 feet below the home signal lamp. The up distant signal is about 525 yards from the up home signal. The former becomes visible about 600 yards off and the tail of the excursion train could be seen for nearly 400 yards.
The line rises from Etchingham towards Ticehurst Road on a gradient of 1 in 100 to a point 230 yards inside the distant signal, and is then level through the station.
EVIDENCE
1 William Weston 6,1/4 years in service 2,3/4 signalman all the time at Etchingham. I came on duty at about 6.15 pm for the night duty; my signal cabin is at the down end of the down platform, and the home signals are close to the cabin. There is no up starting signal. If the line is clear to Ticehurst Road I show a white light from the platform outside the cabin for up trains as a driver passes it or as soon as I receive “line clear” from Ticehurst Road. The actual starting of the train is left to the Station Master and guard who are guided by the light (or flag) shown from my cabin. The platforms are alternate and if a down train s standing on the platform my signal could not be seen from the platform, and I should have to show it from the 6 foot place. The fifth up excursion train passed through Etchingham without having to stop. At 8.50pm at which time I had the lamp in my hand. At 8.52 I received the out signal for the 8 0 clock up train from Robertsbridge. Not having received the “line clear” from Ticehurst Road I kept my signals against the train, but waived the train in with a green light (as it was a train due to stop at Etchingham) at 8.32 it arrived about at about 9.03 pm. After the arrival of the train I stood a red light on the platform, but the train nevertheless started with the red light still showing (at about 9.05 pm) towards the tail of the train. I do not think the driver of the train could have seen. I have never known such a thing to occur before. When the train first started I thought it was only drawing ahead to get some luggage out of the rear, it being a long train too long for the platform, but on finding the train the train was really off I went on to the up line with my red light and put it up in the air and whistled, but failed to attract anyone’s attention. I went back into the cabin expecting to get “clear” for the excursion train, but not doing so I then informed the Station Master the train had started without a signal. He told me to call Ticehurst Road and inform them by eight blows on the bell that the train had gone away without signal. I could not get Ticehurst Road’s attention, but at 9.25 Ticehurst Road cleared the line for the excursion train and then blocked the line for the 8 pm train. It did not occur to me to make any use of the down distant signal for stopping the 8.0 o’clock train. The excursion train had two tail lights burning.
2 John Isard 22 years in service and three years Station Master at Etchingham (nine years Station Master altogether). I was on the up platform as the 8pm train from Hastings was coming in. After the Station work was done I got a lamp signal from the rear guard, and concluding it meant as to whether the station work was done. I answered it back with a white light, upon which the driver started, I believe on the front guard’s signal. I gave no signal to the front of the train. It was the driver’s duty to ascertain, having come in against signals, what the signalman’s signal showed at the cabin. It was possible from where the engine was standing for the driver to see a signal shown on the down platform by the signal cabin. I did not notice any light shown from the down platform after the train had started against the hand signal. I did not hear the whistle which the signalman says he gave as the train was going away, nor did I see him on the up line, though I walked along the up platform towards Hastings. I then went to the signal box and found the train had left seven or eight minutes. I told the signalman to try and attract the attention of Ticehurst Road on the bells, and I went to the office and tried to get attention on the speaking instrument. I did not succeed until about 9.30 after the collision had occurred. I am not aware that the rear guard has any responsibilities with reference to the signalman’s signal, though having come in against signals he ought, I consider, to have informed himself of what it was showing.
3 Albert Collins 1 ¼ years in the service signalman at Ticehurst Road since May 14th. I came on duty on 11th August at 11 am, to remain off and on till 11 pm. I gave out the forth excursion train to Wadhurst at 8.46. and the fifth was given out from Etchingham at 8.50, I had to bring it in against signals, not having received “line clear” from Wadhurst. The train arrived about 9.05 and drew up with the engine close to the home signal, which is the proper place for a non stopping train to stop. No signal on the bell passed between Etchingham and me while the train was so standing. I was in the cabin all the time till the collision occurred, at about 9.13, and at 9.18 I received “line clear” from Wadhurst, but the train did not start till 9.26, as something was wrong with a coupling. I heard nothing of the 8.0 o’clock train till after the collision. When it occurred I was in the cabin, my hand lamp towards Hastings, ie towards the driver of the fifth excursion train. The excursion train was knocked forward 30 to 35 feet. A minute or two after the collision I got eight bells from Etchingham, this was the first signal that I had got, I know that as a practise the rear guards look at my hand signals.
4 George Thwaites 22 years in the service three years travelling inspector. I was in charge of the fifth excursion train from London Bridge to Hastings and back. We started back from Hastings at 8.01 our time out being 7.45. The train consisted of engine tender and 17 vehicles with a break compartment, with a guard in each at the front and the rear of the train. There were perhaps about 400 of the Company’s servant wives and children. We stopped eight minutes at St Leonards, five minutes at at Battle by signals, lost three minutes by single road working, ran through Etchingham with clear signals, and were stopped at Ticehurst Road at 9.01 with the engine close to the signal post. I was in the carriage next to the guard’s rear break and hearing some break whistling I jumped out, and just got on the side of the line when the collision took place, the speed of the other train being perhaps 10 miles an hour. We were pushed ahead about an engines length. One roof lamp was extinguished but not the tail lamps which were burning in a horizontal position. One coupling was broken about the forth carriage from the rear, that was the only damage. No one was at all seriously hurt in the excursion train. The time of the collision was about 9.15.or16. We were able to start again with the train as it was at about 9.27, and were able to proceed to London which we reached at 11.32 pm. I should not consider it the rear guard’s duty to satisfy himself that the signalman’s signal was right when coming in against signals. A signal shown from the platform at Etchingham cabin can be seen from the engine. As station master I have always made it part of my duty to ascertain what the signalman’s signal was showing before giving a starting signal. The guard of the train was on the down platform when the collision occurred.
5 John Weller 27 in service and driver about 16 years. I was driving No 247 engine a six wheeled engine, four wheels coupled, and six wheeled tender. The break power being derived from the tender hand break, with the ordinary reversing lever on the left side of the engine. I had on a train of a 18 vehicles with three break compartments, and I believe three guards. My fireman was Alfred Levett who had been with me for about four or five years. I started from Hastings at 8.15, 15 minutes late. We stopped at Battle, were checked by signals at Robertsbridge and stopped at Etchingham, where the signals were against us running in, and we were signalled to the platform by a green hand lamp, the usual practise for trains due to stop. After three or four minutes detention I got the front guard’s signal to start. I myself could not see the signalman’s signal, but the fireman said he had looked back and could see no light, but it had been the practise when brought in by green flag or light, where there is no starting signal and where the signal cabin is behind me, to take the starting signal from the guards. Which signal I had seen on this occasion, having previously seen the rear guard signal to the front guard. I then started away having to stop next at Tunbridge Wells believing the line was clear up to Ticehurst Road, and prepared to stop at the distant signal if necessary. On coming in sight of the distant signal if necessary. On coming in sight of the distant signal I found it at “danger” and drew passed the signal at about 4 or 5 miles an hour. Soon after passing the distant signal I saw what I first took to be the home signal at “danger”, and a hand signal, as I thought from the signalman. These signals were horizontal, and I did not take them to be the tail lights of the train until I got about 40 yards on the Etchingham side of the bridge. I had increased my speed my speed very little and had shut of steam, and on finding out that it was the train I reversed my engine and got steam against it, told the fireman to apply his breaks, and whistled for the guard’s break, which I believed were partially applied. I struck the van at walking pace. We neither of us jumped off, nor were we hurt. The engine was not damaged. I was able to take train on as it was after a short detention.
6 Alfred Levett 12 1/2 years in service, 6 ½ years a fireman. I agree with the drivers evidence. I looked back at Etchingham, and though I looked back towards the cabin I saw no signal, I could have seen a red light, had one been shown from the back of the platform, as I have done on previous occasions. I did not tell the driver that I saw no signal. On passing the Ticehurst Road distant signal at a walking speed. I saw two red lights which I took to be the home signal and signalman’s lamp, they did not appear to be level with each other. We were accordingly drawing in to stop at the signal, till just as we came to the bridge the driver said “wo wo”. I at once put on my break and got it on tight, and we struck the train at less than a walking speed. The driver reversed put on steam and whistled
7 Walter Smith 10 years in service. I am ticket examiner, and I was acting as guard of the 8.0 o’clock train, Hastings to London, on the 11th August, and I was in the front break compartment of a third class carriage next the engine. The train consisted of 18 vehicles with three guards. We were detained on the journey, and left Etchingham by my signal to the driver, which I had received from guard Taylor at the middle of the train, who was in charge of it. On approaching Ticehurst Road I saw the distant signal at “danger”, I put on my break, and passed the train communication signal to the middle guard who acknowledged it. I think the driver saw it too and we passed the signal at not more 5 or 6 miles an hour. I did not notice any other signal till close to the bridge, when the drivers whistle attracted my notice, and I saw the rear of the train. My break was still on, and I never took it of. The speed was about 4 miles an hour on collision. I did not jump nor was I hurt.
8 George Taylor 17 years in service, 11 years guard. I was in charge of the 8 pm train Hastings to London on the 11th August. I was in the 13th vehicle from the front, a break vehicle. The train consisted of 18 vehicles. We started at 8.15, left St Leonards at 8.26, Battle at 8.44, and next stopped at Etchingham, 9.03, and left at 9.05. I gave the front guard a starting signal on having received one from the Station Master. I got none from the rear guard who was on the step of his van. I did not consider this necessary, as no passengers had alighted from the rear 5 carriages. There was no one, therefore, of the guards who gave any signal with regard to the signalman’s signal, though we had come in against signals. We depend on the Station Master for keeping us right on approaching Ticehurst Road. I found the distant signal against us, the driver nearly stopped in consequence. I saw it myself before receiving a signal from the front guard. I had got my break on, and then pulled it off again, and again applied it when passing the distant signal, and was not aware there was anything in the way till we struck the other train being very slow, not a walking pace I had seen a light ahead, but took it for the home signal. I heard break whistle just before the collision, which occurred at 9.17
9 William Gaymer 16 years in the service, ticket examiner and acting as a guard with the 8pm train from Hastings to London on the 11th. I was in the rear break compartment. At Etchingham I did not get on to the ground, and I did not notice the signalman’s signal before starting, and I gave no signal to the guard in charge before the train started. No one had alighted from the five carriages of which I was in charge of at the rear of the train. On approaching Ticehurst Road I applied my break seeing the distant signal against us. Our speed was slow on passing it, a running speed. I kept my break on till after the collision of which I was not aware of until it occurred. I had seen one red light which I had taken to be the home signal. I did not hear the driver give the break whistle. The speed on collision was not more than a walking pace
Conclusion
This collision is to be primarily attributed to the 8.0 o’clock ordinary train from Hastings having been allowed to leave Etchingham station before “line clear” had been received from Ticehurst Road Station. The line being blocked between Etchingham and Ticehurst Road, the train had nearly stopped and the admitted to the Etchingham platform by the signalman’s green hand light. There being no up starting signal at Etchingham, the signalman had then, in accordance with the usual practise, placed his hand lamp showing a red light, on the platform beside his cabin at the Hastings end of the down platform, where it could be (if properly placed) just seen from the engine standing at the London end of the up platform. It appears however, that when the train was ready to start hand signals passed between the guards and Station Master, neither of whom had looked at the signalman’s lamp, and the driver having received an “all right” starting signal from the front guard, and concluding that one of the guards had according as he states to be the practise seen that the signalman’s signal was showing “all right” started. His fireman states that he had looked back towards the signal cabin but saw no light, though he did inform his driver to this effect.
Considering the imperfect signal arrangements at Etchingham Station, that it was not easy for the driver of the up train to see the signalman’s signal, that there were no direct instructions that he should do so, and that it seemed to have been the practise for him under similar circumstances to have taken the starting signal from the guard, it seems to me that the Station Master is most to blame for not having acquainted himself with the state of the line between Etchingham and Ticehurst Road before giving an “all right” lamp signal to the guard in charge of the train.
Notwithstanding that the train was thus improperly allowed to leave Etchingham, no collision need have ensued had not the driver of the up ordinary train (no doubt off his guard and not expecting to meet with any obstruction outside the up home signal at Ticehurst Road) mistaken, as he says, the two tail lights of the excursion train which were standing about 140 yards outside the up home signal, for the up home signal and signalman’s lamp at Ticehurst Road Station. He was running slowly in, prepared to stop at Ticehurst Road up home signal, and realised only when some 50 or 60 yards off the lights he had thought were those of signal lamps were really the tail lights of the excursion train. He then used all means in his power to stop, and struck the tail of the train at a speed not exceeding a walking pace.
It is not easy to understand how the two horizontal lights at the tail of the excursion train should have been mistaken by the driver for a space of some 300 yards for the two signals (one of which was about 10 feet above the other) had he been keeping a proper look out ahead, and I fancy, having seen the distant signal at “danger” and being prepared to stop at the home signal, he had really not looked ahead till a short distance before the collision. Even then, had he been provided with a continuous break, he could probably have been able to avoid the collision.
I trust that this collision will lead to proper starting signals being provided as soon at those stations on this railway where they do not now exist, and without which it is hardly possible to work the block system satisfactorily. Meantime a distinct rule should be, I submit, adopted warning drivers in all cases to see for themselves the block signals shown by the signalman’s flag or hand lamps.
The up distant signal at Ticehurst Road only 525 yards from the up home signal is not sufficient distant for a line on which express trains run
I have &c
C.S. Hutchinson
Major General R.E.
The Secretary
(Railway Department)
Board of Trade
Printed copies of the above report were sent to the Company on 21st November 1881
Copied from Copies of the original Jim Isard September 2008
REIGATE BRIBERY COMMISSION
James Searle was the Returning Officer at the 1865 election of MP for the Borough of Reigate (in the days when Reigate had its own MP) when three candidates, all Liberals, Mr Leveson Gower, the Hon. Edmund Monson and Mr George Richardson contested the seat on 12th July that year. He was the first witness called at the subsequent enquiry held by the Bribery Commission at the Old Town Hall, Reigate, which commenced on 22nd August, 1866 to enquire into malpractices immediately preceding the election and which were to eventually lead to the withdrawal of Reigate's right to elect its own MP.
One of those giving evidence was George Isard Train driver Redhill
Mr Commissioner O’Brien What are you – an Engine Driver
Your wages are 7s a day I suppose – No 5s.6d now
What was your rent - 13/- a year for the house I was living in then
I did not catch what use received for wages – 4s a day at the time of the election 5s.6d now
Were you aware of the arrangement Mr Shepherd made with Railwaymen – no
Who spoke to you about voting – nobody
Did you vote – yes
For whom – Mr Richardson
I suppose you had made up your mind to vote for Mr Monson – I had till I was away at Reading that morning
Who spoke to you about voting for Mr Monson – Nobody
Sombody did – No
Who canvassed you – Both Mr Monson and Mr Gower; but I never saw them
Did you know Mr Shepherd – Know him
Did you have any conversation with him about voting for Mr Monson – None whatever
What money did you receive – From whom?
From Mr Shepherd or anybody – Why none at all with regards the election
You say you received no money at all – No
Who paid you to vote for Mr Richardson instead of Mr Monson – Nobody
You made up your mind at once for Mr Monson? – Yes but when I saw the state of the poll I thought I would vote for Mr Richardson
Was that because he had none at all or scarcely any voters – No it was because I knew Mr Richardson. I had known him many years
You knew that he was not going to be returned – yes I knew that
Why did you vote for him when you had promised to vote for Mr Monson – I had no particular reason
Who asked you to vote – Nobody
The Chief Commissioner Who told you to vote – nobody
Mr Commissioner O’Brien You were with your engine that day at Reading – Yes
What time did you get back to Redhill – Two o’clock
You voted at Redhill I suppose – Yes
Do you mean to tell me that you voted for Mr Richardson without anybody speaking to you about it – Yes I do
Did you go from Redhill this morning – Yes
Then you thought it was only Mr Monson and Mr Gower – No I knew over night that Mr Richardson was nominated
You knew over night did you – Yes
Were you at the nomination – No
Who told you overnight that Mr Richardson was nominated – I could see the bills about and some off the workmen told me
Did you know that several of the men were to receive money for voting for Mr Monson – No I did not
You never heard of it – No
Do you mean to say that – I am upon my oath
It was disclosed here two or three days ago ; do you mean to say you never heard it upto this week – No I did not
You never heard among the men that they received 4/10s – No
You had no suspicion that any of them received money – I had no suspicion whatever
You intended to vote for Mr Monson up to the time that Mr Richardson was nominated – Yes
Mr Commissioner Smith Who was the man who works with you on your engine – I have had so many since then
I mean at the time of the election - – I was a fireman then
Who was the man you were working with – Wilson Bates who was examined yesterday
Mr Commissioner O’Brien You were a fireman at that time receiving 1/- per week and Bates was the engine driver – Yes
When did you ascertain that Mr Richardson was to be put up as a candidate a kind of sham candidate – I did not know that he was to be nominated until after he was nominated
And then you came and voted for him – Yes
Did you tell any one on the morning you went away that you would be back in time enough to vote – No it was uncertain ; it always uncertain whether we can be back again when we once go away
You intended to vote for Mr Monson – I intended to vote for Mr Monson
How was it that Bates was not back in time – He was back in time He did not vote I suppose he had his own reasons I do not know
Bates the engine driver did not vote at all – No
Did you apply for any money – No
I have no right to doubt your word; I take it that you did not receive anything at all – No money whatever
You were not party to that arrangement that was made – No
Mr Commissioner Smith Did you knew Shepherd – Yes I knew him
Have you seen him lately – I have not seen him for a month or more I should say
Do you know where he is – No
Have you heard – No
Has it ever been mentioned to you about where he is – No
The Chief Commissioner Did you know Bates was not going to vote before the election – Yes he told he would not vote at all
Did he give you any advice about it – None whatever
I do not mean whom to vote for; but did he say that it was best not to vote – No
How did he come to tell you that he would not vote – We were talking about it and he said that he would not vote at all
Did he ask you how you would vote – No he is a man who says very little about those things
The witness withdrew
METRA TAXIS ENQUIRY 1895
25TH June 1894
Mr George Isard, Inspector of Public Carriage Office called in and examined
1564. (Chairman) What is your position? – Inspector of D Division, public carriage inspector of the D division
1565 How long have you been in the police force? – 36 Years
1567 And how long have you been in the particular post that you now occupy? – 14 years
1567a And you are one of the people who have the responsible duty of passing cabs before they are licensed? – Yes sir
1568 It has been suggested in the course of this enquiry that there is a bribery practised in connection with this passing of cabs. I want to know if in your experience you have ever known of a case of a bribe being offered or received with a view to getting a cab passed? – Never sir
1569 You have heard it said, I suppose, that they sometimes leave a piece of money under the cushion of a cab with a view to squaring the authorities? – I believe such has been said but I have never experienced it myself.
1570 Would you kindly describe your system of working in passing cabs. In the first place, is your work entirely confined to the passing of cabs; is that all you do? – It is sir
1571 Will you give us a description of how you do your business? – The cab is submitted, and they bring up the papers, the application for the license. I take them and see that the name and address is correct, and then I examine the cab. I examine the cab thoroughly, and I use a screwdriver very often or a gimlet to see if I have any doubt from the first appearance of the cab, whether there is anything shaky about it, anything wrong I look particularly to the inside and the whole of the frame of the cab. After I have satisfied myself that it is correct, I direct a man to put on the plate
1572 You say you satisfy yourself by these investigations, but before you actually entered your present office had you any professional or technical knowledge which would enable you to form an opinion upon those mechanical questions? – I had not a great deal
1572a But had you ever, before you were in the force, for instance been in that way of business? No sir
1573 Whatever knowledge you have of it, you have picked up since you have been in the force? – Yes since then. I was when I was a young man at a coach and wagon builder’s. I was living there some considerable time. I had an insight into the work
1574 (Mr Whitmore) That was one reason why you were selected for this particular post? – I put that reason down on my application.
1575 (Chairman) That was before you joined the force? – Yes. I was with horses when I was 13 years of age. I was with horses until a short before I came into the police force. I was coachman and groom at different places and with horses, farm labourers’ horses at different places.
1576 Then when you have satisfied yourself that the thing is structurally sound does that finish your duties is that all you have to do? - That is all sir, for the present time, the cab is then licensed.
1577 What about horses have you anything to do with the cab horses? – Yes sir we have to see that the horses are as far as we can see fit for work in a public carriage.
1578 And you mean that no horse is used in a London cab that has not passed through inspection? – No, not that came up at the time with the cab, if that horse is considered, in my idea, unfit I should not pass the cab
1579 (Mr Whitmore) Not pass the cab? – Not pass the cab
1580 (Chairman) You regard the horses as part as part of the cab for that purpose? – It is part of the cab, and the harness as well
1581 Supposing you do pass anything, and it is all right, and the owner immediately next day puts a different horses into the shaft, that animal, the second horse, does not fall under your view at all? – It would not sir
1582 So I mean all that the owner has to do is to put in a presentable horse when he sends the cab up to be licensed, and put in a screw afterwards for the traffic, if he wants to do so? – Yes if he wants to do so.
1583 Or a vicious brute: there is nothing to prevent him putting in any sort of horse after he has got his licence? – No sir, there is not; the only thing would be a report against the horse when seen on the streets or the rank
1584 (Mr Cunynghame) We have had a return out in here showing the various offences committed by cabmen, and brought before the magistrates, and it shows a considerable amount of drunkenness apparently in proposition to the number of cabmen; this is what I want to ask you; do you think that in renewing licences the case where a man had in the past year committed a good many offences ought to be taken into consideration? – I believe it is so sir
1585 Do you mean that renewal of licences is refused as a fact, where there has been prior conviction? – You mean the driver’s licence
1586 Driver’s licences I am speaking of? – I cannot speak on that point
1587 Does not the driver get his licence renewed, no matter how many convictions he may have had? – That is decided at Scotland Yard sir
1588 you do not know that? – I do not know that. I have only to do with cabs at particular stations that are appointed for licensing
1589 (Mr John Burne) What station are you at? – Molyneux Street. That is the principle station in the D District
1590 Do all the cabs seeking licences come to you for inspection? – In that district sir
1591 Do you ever pay a visit to cab yards? – Oh yes very frequently
1592 In uniform? – On no not in uniform; it is in plain clothes generally
1593 Your surprise visit are in plain clothes? – Yes
1594 Do you ever go at night time? – No unless we are ordered out at night for a night visit from Scotland Yard
1595 What part of the 24 hours do you get bad cabs night time? – No I think not
1596 You get them in the daytime? – In the evening
1597 From 9 to 12? – From 9 up to 11 o’clock at night that is when the second horse goes out or the second man drives.
1598 Do you consider that you have more than sufficient to do that is, if you thoroughly inspect each cab yard; and do your business more thoroughly than you now do; or do you consider that you are sufficient for the district? – Well I think it has been up to the present time. There is no doubt there is a great increase of public carriages that does increase our work a great deal. There are complaints made by the police that we have to go and see about, and we visit other yards, taking the mews down, where we have to go to one proprietor and visit the stables and see the horses as we go along; not that we go into stables, but we pay attention to it when we are compelled to go.
1599 Have you search powers conferred on you? – No. we do not go in unless we have a special order from the Commissioner.
1600 Cannot you inspect a cab yard or mews without the special order from the Commissioner? – If the cab owner will admit us.
1601 Without that special authority, which I consider you ought to have, that is not done which would be done if you had special power? – That would make a great difference no doubt sir.
1602 Would it not contribute to a more efficient discharge of your duties over cabs, harness and horses, if you had the same powers of entry that a sanitary inspector has? – I don not think it would increase it very much.
1603 Would it not be for the better discharge of your duties if you had right of entry now exercised by a sanitary inspector in relation to his sphere of duty, that is, the right of going into a stable and into a cab yard, or down a mews, by virtue of the fact that you had, say a warrant in your pocket that you were able to show? – It would be better, no doubt. At the same time there is very little opposition; we find as a rule that they are open to us
1604 That is so, but you would perhaps have more power behind you id you had fully authorised power behind you? – We should certainly feel we had more power behind us.
1605 Do you consider that the cab property has improved very much of recent years? – Very much improved sir
1606 Have the horses improved? – Yes
1607 Have the cabmen improved? – Yes I believe so
1608 Is he more sober than he was? – Oh, yes a great deal
1609 Do you consider him a good deal better? – Better dressed than he was
1610 And generally more amenable to reason and discipline? – Yes
1611 (Mr Lough) Do you say you were 12 years an Inspector? – 14 years in the Hackney Carriage Branch
1612 Do you use any tools in inspecting a carriage except the screwdriver and the gimlet that you mentioned? – Not for trying the condition of the cab; there are other tool, of course, for fixing the plates and taking the plates off.
1614 But practically you use no tool in your examination of the carriage do you? – Not beyond those.
1615 And you have not any technical knowledge of the construction of cabs have you? – No I could not say that I have.
1616 For instance in a four wheeler you would not be able to judge whether the arrangements by which the cab could be turned was a safe arrangement or not? – Oh, yes I could tell that.
1617 Well that requires technical knowledge does it or not? – Practical knowledge sir; it would not be technical knowledge; it being used to examining them.
1618 Well would you be able to tell whether the proper distance existed between the fore wheels and the hind wheels of a four wheeler; for instance whether the frame was constructed strong enough in that way? – Yes
1619 Not from any technical knowledge, just roughly? – Just roughly
1620 You only pass a carriage when it is newly painted, is not that so, the carriage is expected to be painted up fresh when they bring it to you for the plate? – That is quite right sir.
1621 Are you quite strict about that, do you pass it if it is not painted? – No
1622 Are you a judge of varnish, or how the paint is put on and that? – Fairly
1623 But have not much technical knowledge, and you inspect the horses too? – The horses as well as the carriages
1624 And the harness? – And the harness
1625 Have you any technical knowledge about the harness? - No more than I have learned through doing with horses all my life, at least until I joined the force.
1626 You are alone in your district are you not Molyneux Street; have you any assistant? – The constable who puts on the plates
1627 You are supreme in control; you are the sole inspector? – Yes
1628 Is there any co-operation between you and other inspectors of other stations? – Yes at times.
1629 But there is necessary co-operation? – No none whatever
1630 You do not act together? – No
1631 There is no chief inspector, is there? – No there is no chief inspector; there is only the senior inspector, there is one called the senior.
1632 He has no control over you? – No, I happen to be the senior now
1633 You have no complaints from them? – If another inspector does not pass a vehicle the senior inspector is sent there to see and make a report on the matter.
1634 Do you not think it would be better if there was a chief or senior inspector who would have control over the others, and who would ensure a similar system being practised all over the Metropolis? – I do not think so.
1635 You do not think that would be of any use? – No
1636 It is better to leave everybody to do as they please? – We are not young men; we are appointed as men of experience as regards the service, although not practical men in the building of carriages
1637 You think each man ought to be independent? – I think so.
1638 No control over him? – No control over him.
1639 I do not mean with the idea of checking indiscretion on his part, but with the view of having the same system; you do not think that is necessary? – I think not; one system is carried out exactly in every district.
1640 Have you any control over cab yards and places where they keep cabs? – We have no direct control only as far as visiting, as regards complaints against horses and cabs
1641 Do you know that cabs sometimes kept on the public street at night, and when they are not at work? – No I am not aware of that sir.
1642 (Mr Whitmore) Are there any further powers you would like to have to enable you to carry out your duties more thoroughly? – I do not think there are any further powers.
1643 You are satisfied with the powers you have at present? – Yes
1644 And you think the system works effectually? – Yes in every way.
1645 You have no suggestions to make as to its alteration in any way? – No I have not
1646 (Mr Hopwood) Have any regulations for inspection been supplied to you from Scotland Yard to guide in the inspection of cabs? – Yes what we call the Form of Fitness; I think that is what you mean sir.
1647 Has it been put in. Is it before the committee? – No, it is in that little blue book here.
1648 You said something about the time the second men went out in answer to Mr burns; in your experience do you find that two men drive one ca; in the 24 hours? – No. that is not very often; I mean he goes out with the second horse the same man, but he goes out with a second horse.
1649 I want to ask you whether two men go out with on cab as a rule? – No.
1650 Is it very exceptional? – It is very exceptional; I have only known two cases, while I have been connected with hackney carriage work, where one carriage is driven by two men.
1651 As to a search warrant for the inspection of stables, I understand that you concur in the view that there should be compulsory inspection of stables, but do I understand you to limit that compulsory inspection to the premises of the licensed proprietor? – That would be from the questions the other gentleman asked me. We should have no authority at all for places other than the licensed proprietor’s stables.
1652 (Mr Bayley) Can you tell whether a horse has got glanders or farcy? – Yes I think I could.
1653 What are the symptoms? – I had a horse with the glanders not many months ago; a man came to me at Kentish Town, I was in that district then , I went and found there was a lump forming there; it was my opinion that the horse had got it, and I said to the man. “You had better send for the veterinary surgeon.” And he did and the horse had got glanders
1654 (Chairman) Was there anything in horses appearance to make you put your hand there, or led you to suspect; was it visible? – It was not visible
1655 What led you to feel? – A little running at the nose and that made me suspect that the horse had glanders> He came down to Kentish town Police Station, I went up to see, and in my opinion the horse was suffering from glanders.
1656 (Mr Bayley) You saw running at the nose? – Yes.
1657 But suppose you saw no running at the nose. Running at the nose is only a very advanced stage of the glanders; but can you tell whether a horse has glanders if you do not see the running at the nose? – No I noticed running at the nose.
1658 (Mr John Burne) Have you formed any opinion whether the troughs should be abolished and the bucket system of supplying water should be adopted. Are you in favour of the trough system of drinking for horses, or the bucket system, each horse drinking out of a bucket instead of a trough; have you formed any opinion about that> - No I have not
1659 It is a matter that affects the horses you would admit, very closely? – Yes I know that point sir.
1660 (Chairman) With your practical experience, do you that the troughs as they are now, are sources of contagion to the horse? - No I do not think they are; in my opinion, the trough system and the pail are very different, in fact I think it is supposed that the pail is best because it can because it can be rinsed out by the man on the rank or the cab driver himself if another horse has been drinking.
The witness withdrew
EXTRAORDINARY CAREER OF A GIRL
From The illustrated Police News 19th October 1889
On Friday Nellie Isard, a tall well dressed girl. Who looked fully seventeen, the age she gave, but who was stated by her father, a tailors manager of Clapham, to be only fifteen last birthday, was charged on remand at Westminster Police Court, with stealing watches, jewellery, wearing apparel, money, & belonging to lodging-house keepers and tradesman in Westminster and Pimlico. Thirteen different charges against the prisoner have come under the notice of the police. In respect of six cases evidence was given. Prisoner represented to landladies that she came from Sevenoaks and was recommended to them by a neighbour. If she succeeded in getting apartments she decamped at the earliest opportunity with portable articles of value, which were immediately pawned. In other instances she went to shops and asked permission to have refreshments, or made some excuse or other, and from the parlour of one, where she had partaken of a few biscuits, she stole a watch and a pair of earrings. At another establishment, in Victoria street, where she was allowed to go on the first floor, she roamed through the private bedrooms above and following her departure a purse, a silver thimble, and a brooch, while another discovered that between £3 and £4 had been abstracted from her box. Detective M’Dougall deposed that on the 3rd inst, he watched the prisoner enter a restaurant in Buckingham Palace road, and thinking she answered the description of a young woman wanted for the numerous robberies in the neighbourhood. He waited, and apprehended her as she left. She admitted pawning an umbrella which she took from one place, and said she “borrowed” it and forgot the number of the house, so that she could not take it back. The father of the prisoner said that seven weeks ago she ran away from home and, despite every enquiry he learned nothing of her until he saw the case in the newspapers. She was a most extraordinary girl and he case had excited considerable interest in medical circles, for it was believed she could not keep from stealing. From her earliest years she had had a propensity for stealing things, and she would secrete them. Dispose of them in the most artful manner, and then tell the greatest falsehoods. Two years ago he applied to one of the Lambeth Magistrates to get her in a home or asylum, but the project fell through. A Physician from St Thomas’s Hospital and other doctors were prepared to testify to the girls mental condition, Mr Sheil observed that she had shown herself a thoroughly systematic thief, and it was difficult to reconcile her conduct with an unconsciousness of the crime. If she was a kleptomaniac he did not know what to do with her, for she could not be at large to prey on other people. Mr Herbert Hawkins resident assistant physician at St Thomas’s Hospital said prisoner, about this time last year, was in that institution and she had two acute attacks of insanity. From all the above antecedent circumstance of the case, and what he observed, he felt sure then that she would figure in a police-court. She was kleptomaniac and not responsible for her actions. Mr Shiel: People who are said to suffer from kleptomania usually steal for the love of stealing, but this girl had gone a great deal further. She had disposed of the things she stole like any ordinary thief, and exhibited the greatest craft and cunning. Dr Hawkins said he had taken great interest in the case, and would try to get the girl in an asylum. Mr Shiel doubted whether she was insane enough for that. His idea was to send her for trial, and all the witnesses would be bound over to prosecute at the sessions. Dr Hawkins will you allow me a week to see if I can get her into an asylum? Mr Shiel: Very well I will again remand her for that time and you can confer with the prison doctor. I think it will be best to send her to for trial, and then the judge will decide what to do.
WESTMINSTER
From The illustrated Police News 26th October 1889
The Case of Alleged Kleptomaniac
Nellie Isard a tall girl, between fifteen and sixteen, who looked much older the daughter of a tailors’s manager residing at Clapham, was charged on remand with stealing property and money belonging to lodging house-keepers and shop-keepers in Westminster and Pimlico. Four charges were proved against the prisoner, although many more were reported to the police. It has been stated by the prisoner’s father that she had been afflicted with kleptomania since early childhood and was not responsible for her actions. Dr Hawkins resident assistant physician at St Thomas’s Hospital concurred in this. Mr Shiel said the reports from the prison doctor was that there were no symptons of insanity. Dr Hawkins said he had offer of three homes for the prisoner> Mr Shiel in deciding the case, said under all circumstances he would convict, but would take the father’s recognissances to bring her up for judgement if called upon. She would have three months for the offence proved, but if she went on all right nothing more would be heard of it. Dr Hawkins should be thanked for the trouble he had taken and he could place her in a home. He ordered the pawnbrokers to give up all the stolen property, under penalty of being summoned and muleted in costs
In the 1891 census she is listed as follows
Fulham East End Road
RG12/53/106/3
Nellie Isard Inmate Unm 17 Sevenoaks Kent
This is listed as London Female Preventitive & Ref Institution
Elm House Institution
DISTRESSING SUICIDE
Yesterday Mr William Carter the Coroner for the Eastern Division of Surrey, held a lengthened inquiry at the Railway Hotel, near the Redhill Station, into the death of Mary Clayton who was run over by the midnight train on Friday. The body was identified by Mr W H Heaton, a gentleman of independent means residing at Wray Park Reigate, who deposed that the deceased had lived at his house for about six months. She was a single young woman. Elizabeth Southney of Wray Park, said deceased had told her she was unhappy and had been upset. The deceased further said she had been engaged to be married to a gentleman who sent her a letter stating he would not come to see her any more because his employers objected to his marrying any one who was not a teetotaller. George Isard, engine driver, who on Thursday had charge of the midnight train from Charing Cross to Dorking, said when under a bridge between Reigate and Redhill he saw something move from the railway cutting from the up side to the down side a few feet from the engine. He was going at the rate of 32 miles an hour. When the train had stopped he found a handkerchief in front of the engine, and the tender step was bent. Another witness described finding the deceased in the six foot way, dead the train having passed over her. The following letter found in the deceased’s box, and addressed to her, was brought into court:- “Saturday night – Dear Mary,- just a line to say you must not expect me no more, I have been on the carpet about it this afternoon. Me being a teetotaller and you not, she thinks it is wrong indeed. She don’t mind my getting married, but must have teetotaller if I think anything about my place, Dear Mary, I am writing this with a breaking heart – Yours truly WILLIAM KAFF PS Please let me have the boots and other things when convenient” Mr Heaton was about to make a statement with reference to Mr Kapp but was stopped by the Coroner. The jury returned a verdict “ That the deceased committed suicide by placing herself before a railway train while in a state of temporary insanity
From the Daily News 28th August 1872