Northumberland Archives will close at 3PM on the following dates to allow for essential building work.
Wed 29th April
Thu 30th April
Fri 1st May
Wed 6th May
Thu 7th May
Fri 8th May

James Forster’s Crime

In the winter of 1855 Messrs. Smith and Appleford were executing a series of contracted works on Alnwick Castle. During the works large quantities of lead went missing and James Forster, a mason working for Messrs. Smith and Appleford, was accused of the crime. He was incriminated by a great quantity of lead found buried in his garden “under suspicious circumstances” by a policeman named P.C Marshall. Following a further search James was also charged with stealing a wedge and piece of zine from his masters.

Alnwick Castle, 1866

James was 54 years old at the time of the theft. He had a wife, Marjory, and two children, Jane aged 19 and William aged 9. James was prosecuted for the theft by Hon. A Liddell and defended by Mr Blackwell. The contractor’s foreman and blacksmith were called to identify the wedge and piece of zine recovered from James’ person, but neither could positively confirm whether these were the missing articles. On this count James was found not guilty. He was then tried for “stealing three stones and a half weight of lead from the roof of Alnwick Castle, the property of his Grace the Duke of Northumberland.” According to newspaper reports “the lead in question was lying on the roof of the Castle, tied up in bundles, and the prisoner was observed by the foreman of the masons to go to one of the bundles and cut off a piece of lead, which he placed in his left jacket pocket.” The foreman immediately reported this to the contractors’ overseer and James’ premises were searched by PC. Marshall that same day. James was sentenced to six months hard labour for this crime.

Alnwick Castle

In 1861, six years after the theft, James and Marjory were residing in Clayport Street with their unmarried daughter Jane (now a dress maker) and Marjory’s mother Jane Spours (aged 80). Jane the elder was listed on the 1861 census as being an Innkeeper from Ellingham. She was also familiar with the law, having been fined in 1857 for keeping her public house open and “selling exciseable liquors during prohibited hours on Sundays.”

Alnwick, 1827

The Forsters had been living in in Clayport Street since at least 1841, where they are listed in the census alongside their four young children:

Martha, then aged 12.

George, then aged 10.

John, then aged 8.

Jane, then aged 6.

Also living in the street in 1841, although not in the same property, was the 60 year old Jane Spours.

Another Forster child, who died in 1841 and most likely before the census, was Robert Spours Forster. He was less than a year old when he became the first Forster to be placed within their family burial plot in Alnwick. In 1849 George Forster, James’ eldest son, also died and was buried in the plot. He was followed in the same year by a third child, Eleanor Forster, who was seven years old. Martha, the Forster’s eldest daughter, became the fourth child to go to the grave young, dying in 1851 aged twenty-two. She was followed by her paternal grandmother, Ann Forster, aged eighty. Finally, in 1863, Jane Spours, the ever-present matriarch, was buried in the plot aged eighty-four.

Having such a large family to feed, and losing so many children in quick succession, may have driven James’ to extreme lengths – including stealing from his own employer. James and Margery’s death dates are not clear, but they were interred in the family plot with their children and mothers.

 

This blog was inspired by a document found within the Dickson, Archer and Thorp papers outlining the crimes of James Forster. We would like to thank the volunteers who have cataloged and researched this piece.

 

This Week in World War One, 4 October 1918

 

BERWICK ADVERTISER, 4 OCTOBER 1918

 

FETE DAY A THE BARRACKS

SPLENDID EFFORT ON BEHALF OF PRISONERS OF WAR FUND

 

It is quite a pleasure to visit Berwick Barracks now that the Medical Board does not insist upon “civies” showing off their good points in their birthday suits, and on Thursday afternoon the attractions offered at the Fete which had been organised were sufficient to repay all the discomfort suffered here under the Review of Exceptions Act. True there were the same old faces, the man who looked at your calling up notice, the man who sent you hunting upstairs for your medical history, the one who ushered you into the chamber of horrors, even the obliging clerk who made out your discharge and the gem of an officer who signed it, but they were all different and smiling serenely, looking as if it was a pleasure to welcome one, instead of a painful duty. Major McAlester, D.S.O., the popular C.O., was early about amongst his officers, men and helpers, and to the credit of all be it said that everything ran well up to the time table.

The afternoon, so far as weather was concerned, might have been better, there being a chilliness in the air, a factor which of course must be expected at this time of year. This in a way, we believe, affected the attendance somewhat, for there might well have been a much larger turnout for so deserving an object. A pleasing splash of colour was given to the grim old Barrack Square by the Guard, who were for the occasion in the red and tartan full dress uniform with Balmoral bonnets. It was quite a change to sea this after having become so used to the dull khaki, and the Mons ribbon on the breasts of some of these men showed that they had done their bit with the “Old Bills.”

WAR MEDALS AND RELICS EXHIBITON

In the Officers Mess in charge of Miss Bishop, assisted by Major Parkinson and Major McAlester, D.S.O., who described the exhibits, a fine collection of War Medals, Orders, and War Relics were on view. Amongst the medals shown were the V.C.’s awarded to C.S.M.’s Skinner and Grimbaldstone and Piper Laidlaw.

Piper Laidlaw’s medals on display at the National Museum of Scotland. © Author: Kernel Saunters – Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike License.

There were also on view Serbian Decorations, Belgian Croix de Guerre, French Crois de Guerre and Orders, Stars, and Decorations awarded to men of the K.O.S.B.’s in former wars.  Round the walls were hung the new, and also the battle torn colours of the various battalions of the Borderers, while the machine Guns of the 6th Battalion proved a centre of great interest. The war relics comprised practically everything which could be picked up on the battlefield or behind the lines, and there were many valuable and interesting curios in the collection.

In a Barrack Room, “Tommie’s Home” could be seen at the modest sum of twopence, clean and tidy, and laid out just as it would have been for a General’s Inspection. Many visited this side attraction during the afternoon, and the smart and trim appearance of the rooms were favourably commented upon.

 

WAR NEWS

 

SPECIALLY MENTIONED

 

We are pleased to record that Lieut. Commander Willits, R.N.R., son of Mr H. W. Willits, has been specially mentioned in Despatches for escort, convoy and patrol work. He was in Australia when war broke out and on coming home was given the command of one of H.M. Torpedo Boats. He is now in command of a Destroyer and has seen much service on the French and Belgian Coasts.

 

BERWICK NEWSAGENT KILLED IN ACTION

Private William Hay

 

It is with deep regret that we record the death in action of Private Wm. Hay, K.O.S.B., husband of Mrs Hay, newsagent, Church Street, and son of Mr William Hay, baker and merchant, Berwick. The first news of this sad occurrence was conveyed in a letter from a comrade and this was confirmed by the official notice which arrived later.

“Willie” hay, as he was familiarly called in the town was a favourite with all who knew him. A thorough business man he built up a most successful newsagent’s enterprise many years before the war, and practically we might say after he had left school. He found time, however, to indulge in sport, and in the position of goalkeeper assisted Berwick Rangers and other teams in medal competitions. A good sport and a friend all will be sorry to lose, he will be missed in the year which are to come.

He enlisted under the Derby Scheme and after being allowed a little time to make business arrangements, joined up in the K.O.S.B. With that regiment he served in the Eastern Theatre of war, and along with him for a time was Private Robt. Clark, who in civil life was a newsagent at Tweedmouth.

We are sure we voice the feelings of our readers when we extend our heartfelt sympathy to his widow, in her great sorrow, and to his father.

 

LOCAL NEWS

A postcard has been received by Mr Johnson, West End, Tweedmouth from his son, Private T.S. Johnson, King’s Own London Regiment, who is a prisoner at Stammlager, Germany, returning thanks to the Mayoress (Mrs Plenderleith) for having sent him a parcel of food and comforts. We are glad to learn that Private Johnson is keeping well and hope he soon will be clear of confinement.

Stammlager Prison, where Private T. S. Johnson, of the King’s Own London Regiment, was held as a prisoner in WW1. © Author: LutzBruno. Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike License.

 

In the town on leave after having been for a long time in hospital recovering from wounds, we observe Sergeant Lawrence Simmon of the Black Watch, enjoying a leave. He has seen considerable service on the western front during his military career, and as he has done his bit we rust it will be a long time yet, if ever, when he again returns to the front.

HORNCLIFFE

Mr John Christison, second son of Mr Alex. Christison, India, and grandson of the late Ald. H. L. Christison, J.P., of Berwick, has had an unfortunate experience. He was in a Linconshire regiment, and after being invalided out was proceeding to India to take up a position there when the boat upon which he was travelling was torpedoed 200 miles from land. Mr Christison has lost everything, and is now back at Horncliffe staying with his aunt, Miss Turner.

 

The Story of John Walker

An undated document found within the Dickson, Archer and Thorp collection tells the heart-wrenching story of John Walker and his young family. The Walkers were forcible ejected from their home in Warkworth due to their Scottish ancestry. The document details the terrible treatment of the Walker family by their Warkworth neighbours, and its author requests legal advice from the Dickson, Archer and Thorp firm regarding how to proceed with what has become a complex and sensitive issue involving three warring parishes.

The case probably occurred in the mid-1800s. John Walker, his wife and four children had been residing in a room in Warkworth for two years. John earned a living as a shoemaker, working for different masters. Due to a prolonged period of illness John was unable to work for a time, and his family received temporary poor relief from Warkworth’s overseers of the poor.

The Walkers were of Scottish origin and had been granted legal status to settle in England a few years prior. The people of Warkworth, reflecting nineteenth-century anti-Scottish sentiment, were “devious” and had been conspiring to push the Walkers out of their village. They saw an opportunity with John’s illness and forced his shoemaker master to stop giving him work once he recovered. They then bullied his landlord into seizing his rooms and articles of furniture.

Warworth Church © Mick Knapton. Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.

Despite such cruel and unfair treatment the Walker family refused to leave the parish; probably because they had no place to go. The overseers then took legal action to achieve their aims. They escorted the family to be examined by two local Justices of the Peace over their legal right to settle in England. During the examination John explained that, whilst he had been born in Inverkeithing in the “shire of Peebles”, he had been granted legal status to stay and work in England. However, the Justices sided with the scheming overseers and signed a warrant to forcibly send the Walkers to the parish of Peebles. The family were to be accompanied to Scotland by Warkworth’s overseers.

Once in Scotland the family were delivered to the clerk of the Kirk Sessions for the parish of Inverkeithing. A meeting was called by Kirk members and they decided to refuse settlement, even though John had been born in the parish, as he had also resided in a place called Penicuik for many years. The Walkers were then forced to travel to Penicuik, Scotland under instructions to settle there instead. But the Penicuik overseers also refused entry and sent the family back to Warkworth.

The family were left with no other option than to return to Northumberland. They were “fatigued and exhausted with so long a journey in an open cart in severe winter weather, they remained a few days in a lodging house in Alnwick to refresh themselves.” When they finally arrived in Warkworth John demanded he be treated justly and granted entry. He also insisted on having his previous lodgings returned to him. The overseers complained loudly about the Walkers return and John went to the house of the resident magistrate to plead his case. But the magistrate was one of the Justices who had signed the original warrant and the Walkers were once again denied settlement in the parish.

The family were forced to make the eight mile trip back to Alnwick in awful winter weather. This final journey was almost fatal to their youngest child. John went to the Alnwick overseers of the poor and made a complaint against the conduct of the Warkworth parish. The Justices of Alnwick demanded the Warkworth overseers came and answered these astonishing claims of cruelty and mismanagement. Whilst the overseers obeyed the summons and traveled to Alnwick, they still refused to grant the family access to their old lodgings. The Warkworth overseers claimed they had obeyed the law by delivering “paupers” to their parish of origin, and maintained that they were not responsible for what had occurred after they had issued the warrant. They also told the Alnwick overseers to “do their worst,” but warned that they would stand by their original decision.

Exasperated, the Alnwick overseers requested legal advice from the Dickson, Archer and Thorp firm. The firm returned a final and damning opinion. They called the conduct of the Warkworth overseers “very disgraceful” but warned it would be difficult to punish them “as they deserve.” They suggested obtaining an indictment against the Warkworth overseers on grounds of conspiracy (based upon their initial scheming behaviour). Due to the absence of dates it is difficult to find any further record of John and his family, although it is hoped the Warkworth overseers received a suitable punishment.

 

We would like to thank the volunteer who kindly listed the documents relating to this case.