THE WREXHAM ADVERTISER, SATURDAY, MARCH 25, 1911.
ALLEGED BRUTAL ASSAULT
A STEPFATHER CHARGED
BOY SERIOUSLY INJURED
Depositions Taken
At the Wrexham County Police Court yesterday (Friday) morning, Robt. Brannan, a pit sinker
of Adderley Bank, Gresford, was charged before John Rogers, Esq., with doing grievous
bodily harm to his stepson, George Baynham, on March 17th.
Inspector Salisbury, Wrexham, said he arrested prisoner in Chester Road at 10.30 on
Thursday morning. He charged him and in reply prisoner said, "I struck him in self defence."
Asked if he had any questions to ask, the prisoner said he had not, but alleged that the boy
came into the house and commenced the disturbance.
Dr. H. Venables Palin, Wrexham, said he was called to attend the boy on Monday. He found
him suffering from a wound just over the eye-brow, and a wound on the right side of his head.
He had had convulsionary fits, and witness saw him in one of the fits when he visited him on
the Tuesday. Dr. Moss met witness on Wednesday in consultation, and on Thursday they
decided that he should go into the Infirmary to undergo an operation which was performed on
Thursday night. They found that the skull was fractured causing pressure on to the brain. He
was in a dangerous condition the previous night, but witness had not seen him that morning.
The Clerk (Mr. Ll. Hugh-Jones): As far as the operation was concerned, was it successful?"
Witness: Yes
Upon this evidence Inspector Salisbury applied for a remand for eight days, which was
granted.
Prisoner applied for bail, but the application was refused.
The condition of Baynham was considered to be so serious on Thursday afternoon that his
depositions were taken.
On inquiry early this Saturday morning, we were informed that the youth's condition was
slightly improved.
THE WREXHAM ADVERTISER, SATURDAY, APRIL 1, 1911.
THE
ALLEGED BRUTAL ASSAULT
STEP-SON UNABLE TO APPEAR
ACCUSED FURTHER REMANDED
A PENDING SEPARATION CASE
The Gresford Pit-sinker named Robert Brannan, of Adderley Bank, Chester road, Gresford,
again appeared in custody at the Wrexham County police Court yesterday (Friday) morning
before John Rogers Esq. The accused was remanded the previous Friday on a charge of doing
grievous bodily harm on March 17th to his stepson, Geo. Baynham, aged 16.
Mr. Cooke, representing Mr. L. B. Marston, solicitor, appeared for the accused.
Dr. H. Venables Palin, who has attended the stepson, gave evidence as to his condition. He
had seen him half an hour previously, and although he was much improved he was not in a fit
condition to attend the court. In fact, he did not think he would be able to give evidence for a
fortnight at least.
Inspector Salisbury applied for a remand until that day week, and informed the Bench that
there was a case of separation pending against the accused on the ground of persistent cruelty
and he had been served with a summons to attend that Court next Tuesday.
The Clerk (to Mr Cooke): Do you know anything about the separation business?
Mr Cooke: No. This is the first intimation I have had of it.
The Clerk: (to accused) Are you defending the separation case?
Accused: Yes I want to go into it but can't if I am kept in prison. Will you allow me bail sir,
so that I can prepare my case, and get my witnesses?
The Clerk: If I were acting for the accused, I should want the separation case held over until
after this trial, but I don't know whether it is quite fair to the wife.
Inspector Salisbury: She will be legally represented by Mr. Clement Jones.
The Clerk: He might be remanded until Tuesday, but then he would have to be brought from
Shrewsbury.
Mr Cooke asked if the Bench were prepared to allow bail if accused were remanded until
Tuesday, bur received a negative reply.
The clerk said if the accused were remanded for a week he would be in prison on Tuesday,
and could not defend the separation action, which would have to stand over, and the only
person who would suffer would be the wife.
Inspector Salisbury said there would be no hardship upon the wife, because she was
remaining in lodgings until her son came out of the infirmary.
Accused was then remanded in custody for a week.
A friend of his in court also applied that bail should be allowed, but his application was met
with a refusal.
THE WREXHAM ADVERTISER, SATURDAY, APRIL 8, 1911.
THE
ALLEGED BRUTAL ASSAULT
ACCUSED AGAIN REMANDED
THE QUESTION OF BAIL
For the third time, the Gresford pit sinker, named Robert Brannan, of Adderley Bank, Chester
road, Gresford was brought up in custody at the Wrexham County Police Court, yesterday
(Friday) morning, on a charge of causing grievous bodily harm, on March 17th, to his stepson, George Baynham, aged 16. The magistrate present was W. H. Phillips, Esq., and the
accused was represented by Mr. J. H. Marston, solicitor, Wrexham and Mold.
Inspector Salisbury intimated that he only proposed calling Dr. Palin, and then to ask for a
further remand.
Dr. Palin said he was not able to say much further that morning. He saw the complainant,
George Baynham, a quarter of an hour ago. He was quite incapable of being present, and
would not be able to attend for another fortnight.
Mr. Marston said the only question in making an order for a remand was whether his Worship
would allow bail or not. He did not know whether his attention had been called from time to
time to circulars from the Home Office.
Mr. Phillips: I have had a number.
Mr. Marston: You will find the Home Office almost always advise that when prisoners were
remanded bail should be granted, unless it is shown that there is likelihood of their not
attending to take their trial. In considering the question as to whether a man should be
"bailed" or remanded into custody, it was necessary to consider the man's character. He had
made inquiries and had a letter - he could have brought the person - from Mr. Charles Walker,
mining contractor, Gresford. In his letter Mr. Walker stated, "With reference to your inquiry
re. Robert Brannan, I have much pleasure in giving him benefit of the best of characters. He
has worked for me over 30 years, and most of the time in an official capacity, that is he was
foreman over a number of men employed by me. He attends his work most regularly. I have
not known him get into such trouble as he now is, and from what I can hear of the present
case ----Mr. Marston: I won't read any more. I have also made inquiries from Mr. Charles Murless,
who states that the accused is a very respectable man, and that this is a most unfortunate
affair. I don't think the police, if asked, would have any objection to substantial bail.
Mr Phillips: What was done on previous occasions?
The Acting Clerk (Mr. Rogers): bail was twice refused.
Mr. Marston: Yes, because the complainant was in a serious condition, and they did not know
how the case might go. Is his condition improved, Doctor?
Dr. Palin: Yes, he is better.
Mr. Marston: There is no fear of his dying?
Dr. Palin: I don't think so; but one can't tell what might happen.
Mr. Phillips: It seems to me that the only thing I can do is to follow precedent. If there is a
strong reason for allowing the accused out on bail, I think the best course would be to have
two magistrates present.
Mr. Marston: Do the police raise any objection?
Inspector Salisbury: I have no instructions. Bail was refused on two occasions and we did not
think the question would arise.
Mr. Marston: His condition has improved.
Inspector Salisbury: There s no knowing what might happen.
Mr. Marston: You have no reason to think, Doctor, that any great change will occur?
Dr. Palin: No.
Mr Phillips: I should not like to take the responsibility myself. If he can be remanded for a
few days to get another magistrate I should attend myself as well and go into the matter.
Mr. Marston: (to the Clerk) Couldn't you obtain the attendance this morning of, say, Mr
Croom-Johnson, or somebody else available?
Mr. Phillips: I don't mind coming later if it is arranged.
Mr. Marston: He ought to have an opportunity of preparing his defence.
Accused was eventually remanded in custody until the following day (Saturday).
THE WREXHAM ADVERTISER, SATURDAY, APRIL 22, 1911.
THE
ALLEGED BRUTAL ASSAULT
ACCUSED AGAIN REMANDED
DATE OF HEARING FIXED
At the Wrexham County Police Court, on Saturday, Robert Brannan, Adderley Bank, Chester
road, Gresford, was brought up in custody charged with causing grievous bodily harm on
March 17th, to his stepson, George Baynham, aged 16. Prisoner had been remanded on four
previous occasions, bail having been refused.
The Magistrate present was John Rogers Esq., and the accused was represented by Mr. J. R.
Marston, Solicitor, Wrexham and Mold. Great interest was manifested in the case, a large
crowd, including the accused's wife, standing outside the County Buildings to watch the
prisoner pass from the charge-room to the Court.
Dr. H. Venables Palin was the only witness called.
Mr Ll. Hugh Jones, Magistrates' Clerk: Well' Doctor, have you seen the patient Baynham this
morning?
Dr. Palin: I am sorry to say he will not be able to appear for at least a week.
Mr J. R. Marston: Is he better?
Dr. Palin: Yes, he is better.
Mr J. R. Marston: Very much better?
Dr. Palin: He will not be fit to appear for another week. If he was able to appear a week today
I could let you know next Thursday.
D. C. C. Jones said that two days' notice would be sufficient for him to get witnesses.
Mr. Marston asked if the court would again consider the question of bail.
Mr. Rogers said he could hardly do that, although he fully appreciated Mr. Marston's
application on behalf of the accused. Seeing that three magistrates who were present a week
ago were unanimous in not granting bail, he thought Mr. Marston could hardly expect him to
do so.
Mr. Hugh-Jones pointed out to Mr. Marston that the youth might die, and that the charge was
a serious one.
Mr. Marston: But he is very much better. However, I do not want to force the question of bail
if it is useless.
Mr. Rogers said he would be very glad to assist Mr. Marston in the matter if he could do so.
It was decided to go into the case on Tuesday, April 25th, at 10 o'clock if Baynham were
sufficiently recovered to be able to attend the Court. Accused was formally remanded to
Shrewsbury prison until the following Saturday, to be again formally remanded until the
following Tuesday.
THE WREXHAM ADVERTISER, SATURDAY, APRIL 29, 1911.
THE CHARGE AGAINST A PIT SINKER
STEP-SON INJURED
ALLEGED SERIOUS ASSAULT
ACCUSED COMMITTED FOR TRIAL
At the Wrexham County Police Court, on Tuesday, Robert Brannan, foreman pit sinker,
Adderley Bank, Chester road, Gresford, was brought up in custody charged with causing
grievous bodily harm to his step-son, Geo. Baynham. Prisoner had been remanded in custody
seven times on account of the youth's condition. Baynham was admitted to Wrexham
Infirmary on Thursday, March 23rd, and his condition was then considered to be so serious
that his depositions were taken before a magistrate the same afternoon. The same evening, an
operation was performed after which Baynham has gradually improved.
The magistrates were N. J. Powell Esq. Presiding, W. B. Phillips Esq., and John Rogers Esq.
Accused was defended by Mr. J. B. Marston, solicitor, Wrexham and Mold.
THE INJURED YOUTH'S EVIDENCE
Baynham, who was allowed to sit whilst giving his evidence, had a large bandage round his
head. He gave his age as 16, and said he was at present a patient at the Wrexham Infirmary.
By occupation he was a pit sinker. Accused was his step-father who, with his mother, kept
Adderley Bank House, Gresford.
A number of pit sinkers lodged there. Witness lodged with Robert Durward at Adderley Bank
Cottage, which was close by. On Friday afternoon, March 17th, witness went with another pit
sinker named Keating into Wrexham. They had some drink at Wrexham. Keating hired a
hansom cab to go back in. They overtook Brannan and a pit sinker named Jas. Jordan at the
top of Little Acton Hill. Witness had had two or three drinks. He was sober. The driver pulled
up. Witness got out and Brannan, his stepfather, got in and drove away home. Witness got out
to go and walk home. He went into the cottage but there was no one to talk to there. Hearing
that his step-father had gone into Gresford, he went into the other house to talk to the lodgers
there. Witness sat talking to them in the dining room, which was the front room. The other
men present were Jordan, Tom Welsh, and Freddy Brown. He had been talking with them for
some time when he got up to go out. Just as he stepped into the passage, someone struck him.
Mr. Powell: Robert Brannan struck you, you say? - Yes, sir.
Mr Ll. Hugh -Jones (Magistrates' Clerk) What with? - I could not say what he struck me with.
Did it stun you? Yes.
Did he say anything before, or when he struck you? - No, sir, I neither heard him or saw him.
The affair happened about two o' clock. He was carried by one of the men, he believed it was
Brown, into his own house. He was taken to the Infirmary on the following Thursday.
By Inspector Salisbury: It was dark, in the passage, but there was a light in the dining room.
His mother was away in Derbyshire when it happened. They wired for her on the Saturday
and she came back on the Monday.
MR. MARSTON'S CROSS EXAMINATION
By Mr. Marston: He ceased to live with his mother and step-father about Easter, 1910.
Mr. Marston: I think you left because your step-father would not have you in the house? Yes.
And you have never returned to his house from that day until this? - No, sir.
You say you went into Wrexham on the Friday afternoon? - Yes, sir.
And during this time, how many pints had you? - Two, or three, sir.
You may have had a few more than that? - No, sir.
Well, was it two or three? - Three, sir.
You were not on friendly terms with your step-father? - No, sir.
Continuing, witness said he did not shout to the driver to stop. The driver stopped because
Keating shouted to Jordan and Brannan. His stepfather did not get into the cab to get away
from him. The man he had called Brown was Fredk. Clarke. Witness knew him as "Bristol".
He was not quarrelsome when he went into the house. He did not remember wanting to fight
anybody in the house.
I am told that you challenged anybody in the house for a fight? - There were better men than
myself in the house. It would be no good in a house like that.
That is not it. I am asking whether you challenged anybody to fight - Not to any
remembrance.
Did you say, referring to Brannan? "I want that old ------- Irish pig." - Not to my
remembrance.
You say you were sober. Don't you think you can remember what you said? - How can I
remember with such a crack as this?
Mr. Hugh-Jones: A blow sometimes obliterates the memory.
Witness said he could not remember anything. He did not go into Brannan's house on the
Thursday and search the bedrooms for his stepfather, nor did he cycle round Gresford in
search of him.
Have you engaged in fights before this? Once or twice, sir.
And won them? - I have come off second best every time. (Laughter.)
Have you said that you have won as many as two in one day? - No, sir.
Witness said he had only been at Adderley Bank three weeks before the occurrence. He
would be ten or eleven years of age, when his mother married Brannan. When he was old
enough to work, Brannan found him a good job. He was minding an electric pump when he
was fourteen and getting £2.8s a week. Brannan had since got him other good jobs. Out of his
money, he was able to save something. He bought a 10s 6d gun and cartridges.
On one occasion did you threaten your stepfather with the gun? - Yes, and he threatened me.
And your stepfather broke it up? - Yes.
Witness said that was last summer, when Brannan told him to leave the house. When he
threatened his stepfather, he had no cartridges for the gun.
Did you knock a man named Arthur Brown down? - No.
Did you punch him severely, and had he concussion of the brain for a few days? Witness broke into laughter and said it was the other way round, and he himself got the
punching.
In answer to another question, witness said. "I did fight with Barber and Brannan. It was two
to one."
You fought two men? - I tried to do so, but I got the worst of it.
You appear to have lost every battle you have fought? - Yes, I should think so, against men
weighing 16 or 18 stones.
By Inspector Salisbury: Witness found work himself at the new pits but was stopped. Rightly
or wrongly, he blamed his stepfather for getting him stopped. He had seen a broom handle n
the home, with a socket and hook at one end. It was used for opening windows. The same
evening, a jug was broken in the dining room.
THE INJURY DESCRIBED
Dr. Hy. Venables Palin, Wrexham, said that on the afternoon of March 20th he was called to
see the prosecutor about 4 o' clock. When he got there he found Baynham suffering from a
slight wound over the right eyebrow, about three quarters of an inch long. About two inches
higher up on the skull was a punctured wound not larger than a thumb's width. Witness was
told that when it happened it bled a great deal but it was not bleeding then. Upon examination
next day, witness found that Baynham was suffering from a compound fracture of the skull.
When he passed the probe it practically went down on to the brain. Baynham seemed rather
bad, and witness called Dr. Moss in on the Wednesday afternoon. They considered it rather
serious. Later on Wednesday evening, he had a message to call, and his partner, Dr. Duerr
went. On Thursday morning, witness went to see him. On dressing the wound, Baynham had
a brief convulsion seizure and in the afternoon witness had him removed to the infirmary. At
7 p.m. Dr. Moss performed an operation and removed a portion of the bone from the skull. As
soon as the piece of bone was removed from one to two teaspoonfuls of pus oozed from
underneath, showing that that was distinctly the cause of the pressure on the brain which
caused the convulsions. Certain small portions of bone were removed from the seat of the
fracture, showing that the bones were conctrobanted at the seat of the fracture. Witness had
seen him from time to time since and he had progressed favourably. He was not yet
recovered.
Mr. Hugh-Jones: I suppose he never will recover?
Dr. Palin: The wound has healed but it is feared that there may be a little more bone to come
away.
Continuing, the doctor said Baynham was not in a position to leave the infirmary. His
progress up to the present time was not favourable to his actual recovery for some little time.
As a result of the accident this might be gradually developed. The wound was caused in his
opinion by some sharp implement and it could not have been done simply by a brush handle.
There would have to be something sharp on the end. The wound pointed to considerable
violence, for whatever caused it had gone completely through the thickness of the skull.
By Mr Marston: The wound might have been caused by a walking stick with a sharp crook
upon it.
FURTHER EVIDENCE
Jas. Keating, pit sinker, lodging with the Brannans said he was a ?????. On Friday March 17th
he was with Jordan and Clarke in the dining room of the prisoner's house.
Mr Hugh-Jones: Was there anybody else?
Witness: Well I can't say, I was not very sober at the time and I can't remember very well.
Baynham came in and started challenging all the Irishmen in the house to fight. After a bit,
Brannan came in and said to Baynham, "You young whelp, what brought you here, clear out."
Then he hit him with a piece of broomstick. He knocked him down in the doorway, and he
fell in the passage. Continuing, witness said Brannan fell on top of Baynham, and that he did
his best to get Brannan off him. He succeeded and Brannan walked away into one of the
rooms. Witness then took Baynham to his lodgings next door. Baynham walked but witness
had hold of him and supported him.
Cross-examined by Inspector Salisbury: Witness had worked for many years with Brannan.
There was nothing attached to the end of the broom handle. Witness was in the house when
the police came to search for the broom handle and could not find it.
By Mr. R. J. Powell: Witness worked under Brannan.
By Mr. Marston: Witness and Baynham had been in Wrexham because it was St. Patrick's
day and had a "good" drink.
How much did you have? - I could not tell you.
Would you have a dozen drinks? Oh, yes, we had all that, and more.
Mr. J. Rogers: Then you must have had more than Baynham.
Did he have as many pints as you had? - Yes, he had pint for pint with me.
Witness said that Baynham said to the cab driver, "Stop cabby." Baynham went towards his
step-father, and Brannan went towards the cab to get out of the way. On reaching Adderley
Bank, Brannan went into his own house, and was followed by Baynham who challenged
anybody and everybody to fight. Witness believed that Baynham asked for Brannan, saying
he wanted to fight. Brannan came in and asked Baynham what he wanted there, and told him
to leave the house. Baynham rushed at Brannan before he was struck. As soon as Baynham
saw Brannan coming he made a rush at him. Baynham had been in the house some time
before the bother commenced.
Re-examined by Inspector Salisbury: Baynham had no weapon in his hand, but Brannan,
when he came into the kitchen, had the broom stick in his hand.
Jas. Jordan, pit sinker, said he lodged at Brannan's house. On the Friday night in question he
was in the kitchen when Baynham came in and asked several times where Brannan was. He
said he wanted to fight. After a few minutes, Brannan came in with a broom handle in his
hand. Brannan struck Baynham with it. There was a sharp point on the handle. Both got hold
of one another, and got through the door into the passage. When witness got through the door,
they were both on the floor.
By Mr. Phillips: He could not say what started the bother.
Mr. Powell: Had you been keeping up St. Patrick's day? - Yes, sir.
Witness said there was a drop of blood on the floor.
By Inspector Salisbury: Brannan was his foreman.
By Mr. Marston: Baynham came to Brannan's house looking for trouble.
Mr. Marston: And as we hear, he found it? Yes.
Had he been in the bedroom looking for Brannan? - Not that day. On the previous day I was
in bed when I heard him come upstairs and call out to Brannan to come out and fight.
Witness said he did not see what happened before delivery of the blow.
Re-examined by Inspector Salisbury: He did not see Baynham attempting to strike Brannan.
Frederick Clarke, pit sinker, said he lodged at Brannan's house. He was in the kitchen on the
Friday evening in question. Baynham was in the room and a row was going on between the
men who sat there. Witness was out of the room when Baynham came in, but when he came
back he saw Baynham and Brannan in the passage. Brannan had a bit of a stick in his hand.
He did not take any action and could not describe the stick. He did not see any fighting in the
passage. He went to the cottage next door where Baynham was taken and washed Baynham's
face. Baynham was bleeding from a cut over the eye. Baynham asked witness to get him
some writing paper.
By Inspector Salisbury: Brannan was not his foreman. He did not see the blow struck.
Inspector Salisbury, giving evidence, said that on Thursday, March 23rd, in consequence of
something that came to his knowledge, he went in search of Brannan and met him on
Adderley Hill at 10.15 a.m. Witness took him into custody and brought him to the County
Buildings and charged him with causing grievous bodily harm to Baynham by striking him on
the head with some weapon. Brannan replied, "I struck him and he fell." Witness went to
Adderley Bank House and saw by the dining room, just inside the door, a pool of blood,
which had been roughly wiped up. There were also splashes of blood on the wall and also on
the passage wall as if someone had been dragged along the passage, Witness looked for
Baynham's cap but failed to find it. He also searched for the weapon and failed to find it.
Mr. Powell: You don't think it possible for Baynham to have received the wound by falling?
Inspector Salisbury: No, sir, impossible.
This concluded the case for the prosecution.
Mr. Marston submitted that there was no case to be sent for trial. Brannan was a highly
respectable man and had worked for Mr. Chas. Walker for 30 years and had never been in any
sort of trouble like that before in his life. He submitted that Brannan had been dreadfully
aggravated by his step-son. The evidence was that Baynham was looking for his step-father to
fight with him. He submitted that Baynham was the aggressor and that Brannan, in selfdefence struck a much heavier blow than he intended, and which unfortunately had serious
consequences. He submitted that no jury in the country would convict his client of doing
grievous bodily harm, and that therefore they should not send his client for trial.
The Bench retired and on returning into Court said that Brannan would be committed to take
his trial at the next Assizes.
Mr. Marston intimated that the defence was reserved and applied for bail.
The Bench granted bail, defendant, in the sum of £100 and two sureties of £50 each.
Mr. Marston applied that there might be one surety of a larger amount instead of two sureties
of £50.
Mr. Powell: No, we have come to our decision before entering into court.
THE WREXHAM ADVERTISER, SATURDAY, JUNE 10th, 1911.
THE ASSIZES
THE ALLEGED WOUNDING CASE AT GRESFORD
THE CHARGE AGAINST A GRESFORD PIT SINKER
Robert Brannan, foreman pit sinker, Adderley Bank, Chester Road, Gresford surrendered to
his bail on the indictment charging him with having maliciously wounded his step son George
Baynham with intent to do him grievous bodily harm, on March 17th.
Mr. Edwards prosecuted and Mr. T. H. Parry defended.
George Baynham, who only came out of hospital that morning, and who looked very ill, said
on March 17th he was living at Adderley Bank Cottage, Gresford, with Robert Jones. He was
16 years of age. Prisoner was his step-father, and lived next door to where he lodged. Witness
went to Wrexham on March 17th and came back in a cab with a man named Keeting.
In answer to the Judge, witness said there was no reason why they took a cab.
Continuing, witness said he was sober when he left Wrexham, although he had had drink.
He overtook a man named Jordan and the prisoner on the way back. The cab was stopped and
Keeting shouted "How are you getting on?" The prisoner then got into the cab, witness got
out and walked on home with Jordan. On getting home, he went to his stepfather's, but he did
not remember what happened. He had been in the hospital since March 17th.
Witness appeared very dazed in the box and, apparently did not understand what was said to
him.
Dr. Palin, in answer to the judge said he gave his evidence all right at the Police Court.
Cross examined: Whilst he had been with prisoner he had found him good work, his wages on
one accasion being £2 8s per week. On one occasion he threatened prisoner with a gun and
was ordered not to come there again.
Dr. Palin, Wrexham said on March 20th he was called to see to the witness at 4 o'clock in the
afternoon at his lodgings. He had a wound over the right eyebrow, about three quarters of an
inch long. About 2 1/2 inches higher up on the skull was a punctured wound no longer than a
thumb nail. The following day he used the probe and found the lad had a fracture of the skull.
The probe went practically down onto the brain. On the Thursday the lad was sent to the
hospital, and he had a consultation with another doctor. An operation afterwards took place
on the skull. Baynham had convulsive fits on the day he went to the Infirmary.
Counsel: What is your opinion of the future condition of the lad?
Witness: Very indifferent. It must have been a very severe blow from a more or less pointed
instrument and in order to produce such a wound, a considerable amount of force was
necessary.
By the judge: He was hit with one blow, not two.
Jas. Keeting, pit sinker lodging at Adderley Bank Cottage, gave evidence to gong back to
Gresford in a cab with Baynham. They had both had a drop of drink. They overtook Brannan
on the way, and a man named Jones.
Baynham said "Stop, Cabbie," and jumped out of the cab,. Brannan then got in with witness
and they drove off. Later in the day Baynham came to the house and said, "Where is Brannan,
the old Irish dog?" Brannan came in and said, "You young whelp, what are you doing here?"
Prisoner then struck Baynham with a piece of broom stick and knocked him out of the room.
Cross examined: Witness met Baynham in Wrexham. It was St Patrick's Day, and they had
about a dozen pints between them. He was sure they had that. Witness had more.
James Jordan, lodging with Brannan, said on March 17th he was coming back from Wrexham
with the prisoner when they were overtaken by Baynham and Keeting in a cab. The former
got out of the cab and prisoner got in. They went to their lodgings. Baynham came in and
asked several times for old Brannan. He saw prisoner strike Baynham with a stick.
Cross examined: The day before, he heard Baynham invite prisoner outside, saying he would
use the ------- axe.
Frederick Clarke, pit sinker lodging with prisoner gave evidence to seeing prisoner rush at
Baynham with a stick.
Insp. Salisbury said when he arrested prisoner on March 23rd he replied, "I struck him and he
fell." Witness found blood on the wall and floor, also in the passage at Adderley Bank.
This closed the case for the prosecution.
Prisoner gave evidence, and said he was Baynham's step-father. There were four other
brothers, and they all lived with him until he could not stand them. He had given them every
chance, and got jobs for them. Complainant was the youngest of them, and he turned him out
twelve months ago, and told him never to come home again. On that occasion, Baynham took
a gun home and threatened to shoot him. He had got the lad good work, and when 14 years of
age he was getting ?? 6d a day. He got him a job at £2 . 8s a week before he was 16 years of
age. On the day before the occurrence, witness was in bed and Baynham wanted to fight him.
On St Patrick's Day, witness went down to Wrexham, and Baynham and another man
overtook him coming back in a cab. He tried to make a bother but witness would not speak to
him and jumped into the cab. Baynham went to his home later on and said, "Where is the ------ Irish pig?" Witness had a stick in his hand and he could not say what he did do.
Mr. Parry: Had you any intention to do him any harm? - No, not a little bit. I have done
everything I could for them, but after he tried to shoot me, I would have nothing to do with
him.
Witness added that he was willing to keep Baynham after he came out of the Infirmary.
Mr. Edwards: Can he put up any fight against you?
Witness: He is six feet and thinks he can do it. I wish he would go to somebody else and leave
me alone. I do not deny I struck him with a stick when he came for me.
Thomas Garraghan, pit sinker, Gresford, said on Thursday, March 17th, Baynham came in
and asked where the old man was. He then said, "Give me the axe, I will give it to him."
There were others present, and they hid the axe. Baynham asked which room prisoner slept
in, and went outside and threw a brick through the window.
Charles Walker, mining contractor, said prisoner had worked for him for upwards of 30 years,
and for his father before him. He had never known him guilty of any act of cruelty. Whenever
ther was a collection for infirmary or charitable objects, prisoner always headed the list.
Complainant and his brothers had made prisoner's life unbearable.
This concluded the evidence.
The judge, summing up, said they had to remember what kind of youth prisoner was dealing
with when it took two men to get him out of the house, and they had to hide the axe. The
prisoner took the stick in order that he could use it if Baynham did attack him. They must not
consider what had happened before.
After a moment's deliberation the jury returned a verdict of "not guilty," and the prisoner was
discharged.
THE WREXHAM ADVERTISER, SATURDAY, AUGUST 8th, 1911.
THE GRESFORD WOUNDING CASE.
DEATH OF BAYNHAM
INQUEST OPENED AND ADJOURNED
An inquest was opened at the County Buildings, Wrexham, on Tuesday morning, into the
circumstances attending the death of George Baynham, aged 16, Adderley Bank Cottage,
Gresford, and who died in the Wrexham Infirmary on Monday Evening.
The police report stated that Baynham was struck on the head with some instrument by his
step-father, Robert Brannan, at Adderley Bank, Gresford, on Friday, March 17th, 1911. He
was removed to the Wrexham Infirmary on Thursday, March 23rd, and remained there with
the exception of about two days when he went out and was brought back until his death. His
step-father, Robert Brannan, was tried at the last Denbighshire Assizes on a charge of
unlawfully wounding Baynham and was acquitted,
Mr J. B. Marston said he appeared to represent Brannan.
The Coroner said the circumstances were somewhat unusual. It was stated that the young man
received certain injuries as far back as March last, which were alleged to have been
administered by his step-father, who, it was stated, struck the deceased on the head. The
circumstances had been investigated elsewhere, but with that the jury had nothing to do. What
they had to do was to ascertain the cause of death, and whether that cause was lawful or
unlawful.
After viewing the body, the Coroner said he thought it would be necessary for him after
taking certain evidence of identification, and probably one or two witnesses, to adjourn the
inquiry, chiefly on the following grounds. He received notification of the death of the
deceased on Monday night, and gave instructions that the House Surgeon of the Infirmary
should attend the inquiry that day. The Infirmary was close to as they knew, and the House
Surgeon was told several hours before the inquiry was held to attend there. No fee was
attached to the attendance of the House Surgeon of the Infirmary; he was bound to attend
without any fee. He did not say that that had anything to do with his non-attendance. When he
was told to attend he stated to the officer who warned him that he had not had sufficient
notice, and he should not. He did not think that was a proper answer to make. He was not
subpoenaed, and he did not know whether he took advantage of that fact or not. He did not
want to say anything disparaging in his absence, and he hoped that at the adjourned inquiry he
would be able to give sufficient evidence why he did not attend. He, the Coroner, had seen the
matron at the Infirmary, and she had informed him that contrary to the usual practice the
House Surgeon had gone out without saying where he was going, or when he would return.
Judith Brannan, wife of Robert Brannan, and mother of Baynham, gave evidence of
identification, and said Baynham was 16. She was present when he died on Monday. He was
a pit-sinker engaged at the new pits at Gresford. She was away when the affair took place in
March when he received certain injuries. They were inflicted on a Friday night, and she did
not see him until the following Monday. He had remained at the Infirmary, with the exception
of an interval of two days, up to the time of his death, as a consequence of the injuries. The
deceased did not live with the witness and Brannan - he lived next door.
The Coroner: Was Brannan and you son on good term? - Not on very good terms. Brannan
did not want him at home.
Had they had any dispute? - Not exactly, he ordered him out of the house a fortnight before
that.
Did they have high words? - No.
Why did he order him out of the house? - I do not know any particular reason, only he did not
want him in.
Did he threaten to do anything to him if he did not go out of the house? - I think not.
Did you ever hear him use threats towards him? - No.
Has your husband ever used violence towards your son before? - On different occasions he
was not kind to him.
Has he ever struck him? - Yes.
What was the result of the blow? - He broke his collar bone.
What did he strike him with then? - He picked him up and threw him to the ground; he had
nothing to strike him with.
How old was Baynham when that happened? - Twelve or thirteen.
Do you know why he did that? - Because Baynham did not do what he was told. He insisted
on fetching large lumps of coal when he was told to fetch small ones.
Have you known him use violence any other time? - No.
Is your husband a man of temperate habits? -He gets drunk very often.
In answer to Mr. Marston, witness said the breaking of the collar-bone was nothing to do with
his death.
James Jordan, York Street, Wrexham, said he was living at Adderley Bank, Gresford, in
March, and remembered what occurred on the 17th of that month. He was in Brannan's house,
in what was called the dining room, when Baynham came in. Brannan was not in then.
Baynham asked several times where Brannan was, and said he wanted to fight him. He also
said he would fight any man in the house. A few minutes afterwards Brannan came in. He had
a bit of a stick in his hand. It appeared to him (witness) to be a broom handle. Brannan said
something to Baynham, and then struck Baynham on the head with the stick. He did not strike
him hard. They closed with each other, and a struggle took place. They were both on the
floor, and Brannan was on top of Baynham. He (witness) gave Brannan a bit of a shove and
he went away.
Have you heard of any dispute going on between Brannan and Baynham before?
On the 16th I heard Baynham on the top of the stairs shouting for Brannan. He stayed there
about four or five minutes, and said he would use the ------- axe. He was shouting for Brannan
at the time.
Had you heard Baynham threaten Brannan before? - No.
Continuing, witness said a man named Powell came up and took Baynham away. There was
some blood where the blow was struck. Baynham seemed to be all right the following day
when witness had a drink with him in Wrexham.
James Keating said he lived at Adderley Bank in March last with Brannan. On March 17th,
witness and Baynham came home from Wrexham in a cab. They had had a nice drink
together before. On the way home they passed Brannan and Jordan. Baynham stopped the cab
and got out and Brannan got in and drove with witness home. Between seven and eight
o'clock the same night Baynham came in and said he would fight any man in the house, "or
Brannan the old Irish pig." Presently Brannan came in with a stick in his hand, and said "You
young whelp, what are you doing here?" As soon as Brannan spoke the word Baynham
rushed at him, and Brannan hit him on the head with a broom stick about an inch thick.
Baynham's face was all over blood after he had been struck. The deceased and Brannan
closed and struggled out of the room, Brannan being on top. Witness said "Bob, I think you
have done enough, let the lad go."
He then pulled him off; he did not want much pulling, and took Baynham to his lodgings. He
had never heard either threaten each other before, and did not know there was bad blood
between them.
In answer to the jury, witness said he did not know why Brannan came into the room with a
stick.
By the Coroner: When Brannan struck Baynham with the stick the latter dropped, and then
Brannan dragged him into the passage.
Mr. Marston: March 17th was St. Patrick's Day? - Yes.
You had been in Wrexham with him. Shall I put it at a correct amount when I say you had
twelve pints of beer each? - Yes, perhaps more. I had five pints in one house for a start.
Did Baynham drink pint for pint with you? - Yes. We could not get any more in Wrexham,
and that is why I had a cab. We were getting enough.
Frederick Clarke, Adderley Bank, Gresford, said he was in Brannan's house on the night of
March 17th, between seven and eight in the evening, and saw Baynham come into the house.
He saw Brannan follow Baynham into the passage with a stick in his hand. He denied, as was
stated by a previous witness, that Brannan dragged Baynham into the passage. Witness
afterwards went into Baynham's lodgings, and saw his face covered with blood. Both Brannan
and Baynham had a nasty cut by the temple. He had never heard Brannan and Baynham
threaten each other.
Inspector Salisbury said he arrested Brannan on March 23rd without a warrant and charged
him with unlawfully wounding his step-son.
Brannan replied, "I struck him and he fell."
Witness afterwards went to Brannan's house, and in the dining room saw where a pool of
blood had been roughly wiped up. There were also splashes of blood on the walls. There was
also blood on the passage wall as if someone had rubbed along it.
Mr. Marston said he represented Brannan before the magistrates, and on his advice he did not
give evidence. Acting on his advice, he did give evidence at the Assizes, and was crossexamined by the Judge of Assize and by Counsel. Brannan was prepared to give evidence
now.
The Coroner said he did not propose to take any further evidence, and had decided to adjourn
the inquiry until a week that day. Having regard to certain communications, which he had
received, he thought it advisable a post-mortem examination should be made.
THE WREXHAM ADVERTISER, SATURDAY, AUGUST 12, 1911.
THE GREFORD TRAGEDY
INQUEST AND VERDICT
"JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE"
CORONER AND INFIRMARY HOUSE SURGEON
The inquest was resumed at the County Buildings, Wrexham, on Tuesday evening, into the
circumstances attending the death of George Baynham, aged 16, Adderley Bank Cottage,
Gresford, and who died in the Wrexham Infirmary on Monday, July 31st.
The inquiry was opened the previous Tuesday and was adjourned for the purpose of enabling
a post-mortem examination to be made.
The police report stated that Baynham was struck on the head with some instrument by his
step-father, Robert Brannan, at Adderley Bank, Gresford, on Friday March 17th, 1911. He
was removed to the Wrexham Infirmary on Thursday, March 23rd, and remained there, with
the exception of about two days when he went out and was brought back, until his death. His
step-father, Robert Brannan, was tried at the last Denbighshire Assizes on a charge of
unlawfully wounding Baynham, and was acquitted.
Mr J. H. Marston represented Brannan, and D. C. C. Jones was also present.
At the last inquiry the Coroner commented on the absence of Dr. Noel Morley Herbert, House
Surgeon at the Wrexham Infirmary, who did not attend because the notice sent him was not
considered to be in sufficient time.
At the outset of the proceedings, the Coroner called Dr. Herbert and said - I gave instructions
you should be warned to attend the last inquiry, and the reply that the constable made to me
was when you were warned to attend you stated you should not do so because you had not
had sufficient notice. I refrained from commenting upon your answer at the opening of the
inquest last week, but some members of the jury said they would like to know what the
reasons were which you allege prevented your attendance.
Dr. Herbert: The first intimation I had that I should be required was at five minutes to four, an
hour before the inquest. I had an engagement from four o'clock that afternoon and was going
out the moment the telephone bell rang. I answered it myself. I said the notice was too short
to allow of my altering my plans.
The Coroner: I do not know what your engagement was, whether professional or private. If a
professional one it would put a different complexion upon it rather than if it was a private
one. Have you any objections to stating what the engagement was?
The Doctor: It was not a professional engagement, but I could not very well alter it on short
notice.
The Coroner: Suppose you had a subpoena at a quarter to four would you consider your
engagement sufficiently pressing to prevent your attending? Was it simply a matter of
pleasure?
The Doctor: It was an afternoon call I had promised to go out to.
An afternoon's pleasure?
Yes.
Well' you may take it from me when you are warned to attend here, I think it very illbecoming for you simply for a matter of pleasure when warned an hour beforehand your
attendance was required, not to attend.
The Doctor: I understood you would have other medical evidence?
I do not know what you understood; you were warned to attend. I do not complain of
disrespect to me personally, but to the jury, who give their time to these inquiries. You were
warned to be here. Whether you took advantage of the fact that you did not receive a
subpoena I cannot say, but the fact does remain you received ample warning to attend, and for
the sake of personal pleasure you disregarded the warning. I was told by the matron that
contrary to the usual practice adopted you went away and did not say where you had gone,
and could not be communicated with.
The Matron had visitors at the time.
Well, I must say I think your conduct certainly deserves censure. However in future I shall
certainly take great care to issue a subpoena.
The incident then closed and Dr. Herbert gave evidence. He said he remembered Baynham
being brought to the Infirmary on March 23rd last. He was in a semi-conscious condition and
had been having fits. He had a cut on his forehead on the right side. It was a small cut about
half an inch, but went down right to the bone. It was a punctured wound, and might have been
caused by some pointed instrument or falling against something. It would take a fair amount
of force to do the injury, the skull being fractured. He considered it a dangerous wound at the
time, the symptoms he was suffering from showing that this was so. Baynham did not make
any statement to the witness as to how the wound was caused. He was operated upon the
same night at the Infirmary. Baynham went out of the Infirmary on May 4th, and was readmitted on the 6th. He remained there until July 31st, when he died, suffering from the
effects of the injury the whole time. He did not come to any definite conclusion as to the
cause of the man's death, but he attributed it to the injuries he received.
In answer to the foreman, witness said he did not think the injury could have been done with a
broomstick.
In answer to Mr. Marston, witness said he heard Brannan had been to the Infirmary making
inquiries about Baynham. The deceased was injured on March 17th and was not brought to
the Infirmary until the 23rd, six days later. He was attended in the meantime by Dr. Palin and
Dr. Moss. He did not think anyone else attended deceased.
Mr. Marston: In your opinion if Baynham had not received medical attention for some time
after the injury would that have brought about his death? - I cannot look at it in that way,
because I know he did have medical treatment.
In answer to further questions by Mr. Marston, witness said Baynham went out of the
Infirmary against their wishes. He might have recovered if he had remained in, but he could
not say. He did not think anything occurred whilst he was away to accelerate his death.
Mr. Marston was asking questions with reference to Baynham attending the Assizes when Dr.
Moss said he took full responsibility for giving permission for Baynham to go there.
Robert Brannan chose to give evidence and said he married Baynham's mother five years last
June. On March 17th last he was at home in the evening, having been in Wrexham about an
hour before. He might have had three or four glasses of beer in the afternoon. He had been in
Wrexham during the morning and had a good drink and went home to bed. He got up again
and went down to Wrexham, returning about 7.30. When he got home he found John Powell,
Thos. Gallegan, Fredk. Clark, James Keating, and Jas. Jordan there. They kept seven or eight
board lodgers, and sometimes more. The deceased did not live with him, but lived in a cottage
in the next yard. They had all had a big drop of beer that day, it being St. Patrick's Day, but
they were not bad - a bit warm. Witness went out into the sitting-room to be by himself for a
time, and remained there about twenty minutes. He came out and went into the dining room,
Baynham being there with the other men, standing by the fireplace. As soon as witness got in
Baynham went for him and witness struck him with a piece of wood he found in the passage.
Baynham had nothing in his hand that he was aware of. He fell partly down towards witness
and tried to down him. Witness shuffled him into the passage and they both fell down. It was
witness's intention to put Baynham out of doors. When they fell witness believed he was
uppermost. Keating came up and said "Let him alone," and witness said, "That's what I want
to do." He got up and went back into the room and Baynham went into his lodgings. The first
words witness said when he got back into the dining-room before the row took place, was
"Get out, you whelp, I do not want any bother." Previous to the disturbance, Baynham went
into the bedrooms rushing about looking for witness. When he got back he heard witness say
"Where is he Jack, is he in the cellar?" Witness also heard him say, "I will kill the old Irish --" He had previously threatened to injure witness on several occasions. The night before, as
witness was in bed, he heard Baynham calling out for him and saying, "I will murder him."
Baynham had a hatchet in his hand. Fifteen months ago Baynham tried to shoot him. When
Baynham was twelve years old he threw stones at witness, and he ran after him and threw him
across a barrow and broke his collar bone.
Brannan on one occasion remarked to the Coroner that he could not answer the questions in
the manner in which they were put to him. He wanted the jury to know everything.
The Coroner told Brannan that he was legally represented and that Mr. Marston would see
everything was said in his favour.
Mr. Marston: Had the deceased four brothers? - Yes. I had to get rid of the whole of them out
of my home. The deceased was the last to remain, and he had taken to drinking heavily lately.
This boy was about six feet? - Yes.
Did you send him to school? - Until he was 14.
The Coroner: You need not put that. It has nothing to do with it.
Mr. Marston: It has no more to do with the case than the incident of the broken collar bone,
which you asked Brannan about. My object is to show that witness has been very kind to the
deceased. To witness: Did you walk 14 miles every day in order that the deceased could
attend school? - I did.
What was the object of Baynham in getting out of the cab? - To have a bother with me. I did
not want one, so I jumped into the cab and told the driver to go on.
Were you sober? - Yes.
How long had you been in the house when Baynham came? - A quarter of an hour.
And you heard what he was saying to the other men? - Yes, I stayed in the room by myself
until I could stand it no longer.
How many times did you shake him? - Once in the room and once in the passage.
Did you want to injure him? I did not want to harm him in any shape or form. I only wanted
him to keep away.
As a matter of fact you are very sorry for what happened? - Yes.
Have you taken your trial at the Assizes for causing grievous bodily harm to Baynham in
respect of this affair? - Yes, and was acquitted.
Before you took your trial, did Baynham come to your house? - Yes, and I made
arrangements for him to remain there.
Whilst he had been in the Infirmary have you made inquiries about him? - Yes, several times.
If he had lived he was coming to live with you? - Yes, he wanted to do so.
Have you always borne a most excellent character? - Yes.
And that was spoken to at the Assizes by a man who had known you 40 years? - Yes.
Dr. Moss gave evidence to the treatment Baynham received in the Infirmary, and detailed
several operations that were found necessary. He had made a post-mortem examination of the
body, and found no evidence of disease in the organs. The cause of death was due to an
abscess on the brain following upon a fracture of the skull.
The Coroner: Would the injury you noticed require much or little force to cause it? - It would
require a fair amount of force.
Could it have been inflicted by such a thing as a broom handle, as has been described? - If the
broom handle was perfectly smooth it might be possible, but highly improbable.
If a nail had been in the stick would that do it? - Either a knot in the wood or a small nail
would do it.
Do you consider his death had been in any way attributable to his leaving the Infirmary? - No.
Or to leaving the Infirmary during the two days referred to? - No.
The Coroner, addressing the jury said what they had to consider was whether Baynham's
death was lawfully or unlawfully brought about. They could have no doubt whatever that the
deceased's death was the result of injuries inflicted by Brannan. They must banish from their
minds any proceedings in connection with the case, which had taken place elsewhere. They
had nothing to do with them. Dealing with lawful and unlawful homicide, The Coroner said it
was lawful if it occurred in the case of the defence of one's self, so long as there was no
unnecessary violence. Did they think Brannan was justified in taking the steps he did by
striking Baynham over the eye in the manner he did, or did they think the force was out of all
reason with the violence offered? They must also consider whether Brannan was
apprehensive Baynham would, if he had the chance, cause him grievous bodily harm. When
Brannan went into the room with the stick, did he go to repel an attack or make one? It might
be said on behalf of Brannan that he did what was done after hearing the threats used and the
occurrences of the day before. If they thought Brannan was comprehensive the step-son
would do him grievous bodily harm and but that the resistance offered was not out of
proportion to the violence offered it would be their duty to return a verdict of justifiable
homicide.
A juryman asked if Baynham's drinking on the 18th would affect him.
Dr. Moss: Did it make him drunk?
The Coroner: I do not know.
Dr. Moss: I want it a little more explicit.
The witness Jordan was recalled and said he had had a drink with Baynham the day after the
bother. Baynham had a pint of beer and witness paid for another, but would not say whether
he had it. Baynham was not drunk and did not seem any the worse after having the drink. He
went for a drink after visiting the doctor.
Dr. Moss: No amount of drink per se would cause a fracture of the skull. I should like to
know what the question is.
The Coroner: One of the jurors wishes to know whether, having received a fracture of the
skull, it would increase the gravity of the case by Baynham drinking, or would it contribute ti
his death.
Dr. Moss: I do not think from the evidence I hear now it contributed to the death at all.
The Jury, after a short deliberation, returned a verdict of "Justifiable Homicide."