Student Days at the Sanatorium

As part of our celebration of the NHS, this extract  is taken from an oral history transcription after an interview with former Stannington Sanatorium student nurse Marjorie Wilson [T/882].

Marjorie began working at Stannington in 1949. She loved the work and enjoyed studying anatomy and physiology. When she was on day shift, she was awakened by someone knocking on the door at 6 am. They all had their own bedrooms at the nurses’ home, with washbasins, but the bathrooms were in a row at the end of the corridor. They had to be on the ward at 7am so the night staff could hand over and leave. The first task of the day was to wash the children, the night staff having already put their washing things out. Some children got bed baths, others just had their hands and face washed. Breakfast was brought over from the kitchens and they helped to feed those who could not feed themselves.

The nurses were not allowed on the ward while the teachers were there, but later served lunch. She could not remember if they administered treatments to the children before or after the teachers’ (who did not live in but came to Stannington every day from outside) visit. Some children had ulcers which had to be cleaned and bandaged. For the first few months she was at Stannington, streptomycin had not been introduced. Treatment was mainly bed rest and fresh air and they had to pull the beds out onto the veranda. They also had to make and tidy the beds, and do the ‘potty rounds’, taking any ambulant patients to the toilet. It was easy to take care of those who were on a frame, but they had to be kept very clean because they were lying in their beds for so long. One little boy called Garth was very possessive about everything, including his bodily excretions, which he hid in his sponge bag! The youngest patients were in a mixed ward. Another patient, Malcolm, had to have a dressing fed into the ulcers on his ankles. All the children’s pressure points were treated daily with dry soap, methylated spirits and powder, and none ever developed bed sores. Unfortunately there was not an awful lot of real nursing; mostly they were just looking after the patients, who had primary infections.  Most of the patients had parents who were tubercular and were from the poorer areas of Tyneside, with poor housing conditions. Marjorie’s class was taken to see the areas the children came from. She recalled six symptoms of tuberculosis: cough; spit; hemoptysis (spitting blood); loss of weight; loss of appetite; and night sweats. None of the Stannington patients had hemoptysis, a sign of secondary TB infection, which is highly infectious and required a huge hygiene regime. Negative infection was not infectious but the patients could be very poorly. They had both types at Stannington. TB was discovered by X-ray for those with bone infections; they were on the frames for a long time, which made Marjorie wonder whether streptomycin was used, because those with lung TB or sores recovered so quickly. Marjorie remembered a girl with Down’s syndrome called Maureen, who was on a frame. She was very affectionate and strong, so she grabbed hold of the nurses for a cuddle. Hers was the only death that Marjorie experienced at Stannington.

In general the children were very well-behaved. The older ones could read or do jigsaws, while parents brought in small toys for the younger ones that they could play with in bed. One six year old girl with red curly hair had to lie on her tummy. She was such a lovely child with a lovely name – Lorraine.  Marjorie ended up calling her daughter after her. In the early evening they would clear away the teatime meal and tidy the beds and children, getting them bedded down for when the night shift arrived. Night duty was three months at a time, with three days off after each fortnight. The first thing they did when coming on night shift was to get the children’s washing things ready for the morning. The main thing was to simply be there, as the children were asleep. They wrote letters and the report for the log book, with the night sister coming round a couple of times to make sure everything was alright. Sister Bevin was always on nights.

The medical superintendent was Dr Stobbs, who was in charge of the whole place. His family lived with him there – wife and two daughters. Marjorie remembered lovely dinners at the nurses’ home, which had a beautiful sitting-room with a baby grand piano and loads of comfy sofas. Dances were held there and if they brought partners, they had to introduce them to the Matron and the home sister who stood at one end of the room. It was all very formal. Dr Stobbs often made Marjorie sing after dinner. She recalled one of the Newcastle pantomimes coming to entertain the children with a condensed version of their show. She also remembered an open day with a brass band in which her father was playing. All the children were brought out, in bed on the verandas if necessary.  She could not remember being at the sanatorium at Christmas, although she recalled getting very drunk once on Sister Bevin’s home-made rhubard wine. She fell into the bath and got her cloak soaking wet. They were all very ill the following day and Sister Bevin was very angry. They made their own entertainment as they did not have much money.

Marjorie described her relationship with the children as ‘bossy’. It was necessary to impose a kind of discipline on them because there were so many – forty on one ward. Day shift comprised the ward sister, staff nurse and two student nurses, plus an orderly (many were German girls, as were kitchen workers and cleaners) per ward. A lot was left to the student nurses because the ward sister and staff nurse were often incarcerated in the office. The orderlies kept the floor clean, while the students looked after the sluices and damp dusted around the ward.  On visiting day at Stannington, the nurses stayed out of the way, although parents sometimes came and asked them how their child was getting on. The parents would sit round the bed of a bed-bound child, or go for a walk in the grounds if their child was mobile. The children cried after their parents left but got over their homesickness once they were back into the routing of the ward. Children are so adaptable; it was probably harder for the parents to cope with the separation. It would be a whole month before they could visit again. It was lovely when the children were well enough to go home; most left on the bus because few people had cars in those days. Marjorie did not remember Stannington being involved with any aftercare.

William Reavelley and William Weddell, 1764

Bond for  (illegible) with interest

William Reavelley

             To                   }

William Weddell

   Dated the 4th August

   1764

Know all men by these presents that I William Reavelley of Long Witton in the County of Northumberland Gentleman am held and family bound to William Weddell of Alnwick in the said County Shoemaker in One Hundred Pounds of lawful money of Great Britain to be paid to the said William Weddell or his certain attorney his Executor Administrators or Assigns for which payment well and truly to be made I bind myself  my Heirs Executors and Administrators firmly by these presents Sealed with my seal dated the fourth day of August in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and sixty four.

The condition of the above written obligation is such that if the above bound William Reavelley his Heirs Executors Administrators do and shall well and truly pay or Cause to be paid unto the above named William Weddell his Executors Administrators or Assigns the full sum of fifty pounds of lawful money of Great Britain on the fourth day of February next ensuing of the said obligation with lawful interest for the same then the said Obligation to be void or else to be and remain in full force and virtue.

Sealed and Delivered                                                                William Reveley*

being first legally stamped  }

in the presence of us

George Selby

 Edward Cook

 

* Reavelley is also written as Reveley in the document.

We would like to thank the volunteer who carefully transcribed and researched these documents. This particular item comes from a very rich sub-collection within the larger Dickson, Archer and Thorp collection, giving us a fascinating view of a bygone time.

 

Housebreaking in the Parish of Rothbury

Housebreaking in the Parish of Rothbury

The Northumberland Michaelmas Quarter Sessions were held on Thursday, 17th October 1889, at the Moot Hall, Newcastle upon Tyne. Presiding over the court was Sir Matthew W Ridley who was supported by seven magistrates and the Under Sheriff for Northumberland. After the grand jury were sworn in, the chairman of the bench (Sir Matthew W Ridley) addressed the jury saying that the calendar only consisted of nineteen cases and, with the exception of two cases of alleged indecent assault, the rest were ‘ordinary alleged offences of larceny’.’

Thomas Smith did not have to wait very long before he was brought from the cells and placed at the bar in front of the bench. He was charged with two counts of housebreaking in the Rothbury area of Northumberland. The court clerk stood to state that Thomas was a bookmaker, aged twenty three years of age, and believed to be from Newcastle.

The Charges

The charges in the two cases against Thomas Smith were read out to the court.

Firstly, ‘For that the said Thomas Smith on the twenty eighth day of August now last past at the Parish of Rothbury in the said County feloniously did break and enter the dwelling house of George Robinson there situate and therein feloniously did steal one five shilling piece, one shilling, one sixpence, one half rupee, one twenty five cent piece in silver and two half pennies in copper of the monies, goods and chattels of George Robinson’.

The brief for the prosecution. REF: NRO 11343/B/DAT

Secondly, ‘For that the said Thomas Smith on the twenty eighth day of August now last past at the Parish of Rothbury in the said County feloniously did break and enter the dwelling house of John Starrs there situate and therein feloniously did steal one silver Geneva watch of the goods and chattels of the said John Starrs’.

Thomas was asked if he was guilty or not guilty to which he replied ‘I am not guilty of stealing but I am guilty of having them in my possession’.

The first charge related to Thomas breaking into the house of George Robinson, a farmer who lived with his spinster sister Mary at Sandilands in the Parish of Rothbury. The second charge was breaking into the house of John Starrs, a general labourer, who lived at nearby North Chirnells with his wife Mary.

The Proof in the first case

Thomas’s trial commenced with the prosecution calling Mary Robinson who, under oath, stated ‘My brother was out and I left between 1.30 and 2 o’clock in the afternoon. I got back between 9 & 10 o’clock the same night. When I left the house in the afternoon I locked it up. When I returned the door was not locked. The drawers downstairs were turned up. The boxes and bed upstairs were also turned up. Everything was right when I left in the afternoon’.

George Robinson was then called and under oath confirmed that he had left the house at about eight o’clock that morning and returned with his sister between nine and ten o’clock that night. He went on to say that the door into the house was unlocked and that on entering they found drawers downstairs had been forced open and emptied and on going upstairs found that boxes had been broken into with their contents lying on the floor. In addition to all of this one of the beds had been ‘turned up’. Continuing, he was able to confirm and describe items that were missing – ‘I missed a five shilling piece, a half rupee, a 25 cent piece, a sixpence worn with a hole in it, some old halfpennies one of which was dished on the edge and was of the reign of George III. I also missed a shilling that that had a lion in it and a number of three penny pieces. I identify clearly the five shilling piece produced by a nick in the edge. I also identify the sixpence produced by the hole on it by it being so worn and 2 Gs on the man’s neck on it as being mine. I further identify the George III halfpenny produced by being dished in the edge as being mine. The lion shilling produced, the half rupee produced and the 25 cent piece produced, and the old halfpenny produced are like what I had. I had several 3 penny pieces and in the money produced there are several 3 penny pieces but I can not identify them. The money was in a box in a drawer downstairs altogether. The lock of the box in the drawer had been wrenched open’.

Further statements were given by Police Constables Metcalf and Aitchison, Police Sergeants Bowmaker and Ewart, and Police Superintendent Dobson. But, as these overlapped with the second case, the contents of their statements will be explored together.

The Proof in the second case

Mary Starr was called by the prosecution and under oath she stated that her husband had left the house at about nine-thirty that morning and she at a quarter-to-two in the afternoon. She confirmed that she had fastened the windows and shutters and had locked the door as she left. Mary continued – ‘I returned a little before 9 o’clock in the evening. When I put the key in I could not unlock the door but when I turned the key the other way I locked the door. There was a false sneck on the door which still prevented the door opening. I forced the door open. I noticed nothing particular downstairs but when I went upstairs I found the doors open and when I left in the morning I had closed them. On going into my bedroom I noticed the bed had been turned up. I then looked round to see if my watch was hanging over the mantel piece but I found it was gone. The watch was hanging there in the morning when I left. I identify the watch produced as my property. Half of the small pointer is off. In the other rooms upstairs the locks of 2 boxes had been forced open and the contents had been ransacked. A cupboard upstairs had also been ransacked’.

For whatever reason Mary’s husband, John Starr, was not called by the prosecution.

Common Proof in both cases

Police Constable William Metcalf was called and under oath he stated that on the twenty eighth of August last, he had been on plain clothes duty with Constable Peter Aitchison for the annual Rothbury flower show. He went on to say – ‘In the forenoon about 11.30 when the train arrived, we saw the prisoner Smith and Williams and other 2 men go through Rothbury towards Thropton, shortly afterwards they returned into the town and from information having been received of a shop in Rothbury having been broken into, we visited the Station Hotel [now known as the Coquetvale Hotel] and saw prisoner Smith with Williams and another man in the bar’. Continuing, Constable Metcalf said that he approached the three men and told them that he wished to speak to them outside.

An aerial view of Cragside, near Rothbury, and its surrounding area. This picture was taken in 1910 and, from the high angle, it shows the Coquet Valley in Coquetdale. This photograph is part of a larger collection taken by local commercial photographer John Worsnop. 
NRO 01449/541

Once outside of the hotel, they were met by Police Sergeants Ralph Ewart and James Bowmaker. Sergeant Ewart apprehended Smith on suspicion of breaking into a shop at Rothbury. Williams and the other man were apprehended by Sergeant Bowmaker and Constable Aitchison. The group then started to make their way to the police station.

Constable Aitchison under oath stated ‘I saw Sergt. Ewart take hold of the prisoner Smith. I and Sergt. Bowmaker took hold of the other men. We came towards the police station, Sergt. Ewart was first with Smith. When on the bridge, the prisoner Smith made his escape from Sergt. Ewart and ran along the river side. I followed. The prisoner jumped into the water’. Constable Aitchison continued under oath to state that as he followed Smith into the river, he saw Smith throw a purse; a crowbar and a watch into the water and as he reached Smith ‘he attempted to stab me with a knife which he afterwards threw into the water’. Aitchison stated that Sergeant Ewart and Constable Metcalf came to his assistance and that he witnessed Sergeant Ewart recover the said items from the river.

Constable Metcalf, under oath stated ‘When Smith was in the water I saw him throw several articles into the water. Before P C Aitchison got a hold of him in the water, Smith drew a knife and attempted to stab P C Aitchison. Aitchison then got hold of the prisoner’. Metcalf went on to state that ‘I searched the prisoner and found in his possession a five shilling piece, a 25 cent piece, one half rupee, a lion shilling, one sixpenny piece which are now produced. I also found 16 three penny pieces, 5 pennies and 6 halfpennies and 2 farthings which are also produced. I handed them all to Supt. Dobson at the Rothbury police station’. Smith was escorted to the police station where a further search of Smith by Sergeant Ewart found a leather bag containing ten skeleton keys and another shilling in Smith’s boot.

The prosecution then called Sergeant Ralph Ewart who, under oath, confirmed his part of the apprehension of Smith and of the other men and subsequent events as told by Constables Aitchison and Metcalf.

Sergeant James Bowmaker was called on the twenty ninth of August, the following day, and under oath said that Superintendent Dobson gave him the skeleton keys and crowbar to see if they matched evidence at the crime scenes. Bowmaker stated that one of the skeleton keys operated the door lock at John Starrs and that ‘an indentation on the front side of one of the boxes exactly corresponded with the turned end of the crowbar’.

The final witness for the prosecution, Police Superintendent Thomas Dobson, was called and under oath. He confirmed that all of the recovered stolen items had remained in his possession since receiving them at Rothbury Police Station on the 28th August. He also confirmed that on the same day, he had been given the crowbar and bag containing the skeleton keys. Both had remained in his custody except when, on the 29th August, he had given them to Sergeant Bowmaker for comparison to evidence at the crime scene at John Starr’s house.

The prisoner was then asked if he wished to say anything in his defence and he reiterated that he did not break into the houses but that he had been in the company of a man who did.

The jury were then instructed by the chairman of the bench to retire from the courtroom and to return when they had decided on their verdict.

The Verdict and Sentence

When the jury returned, their verdict was announced. Smith had been found guilty on both charges of housebreaking.

The chairman of the bench responded by saying that the man the prisoner spoke of was a professional burglar and bad company. He went on to say that there was no evidence that the prisoner had been convicted before and that he hoped that Smith would not appear in front of the bench again. He then pronounced sentence, Thomas was to serve six months imprisonment on each charge with the sentences to run concurrently.

Thomas was then led back to the cells below the courtroom and later that day he was returned to the Newcastle Gaol situated in Carliol Square where he served his sentence.

Searches of various records have been made to try and find out what happened to Thomas after his release from prison but it was found that there were a number of Thomas Smiths in the region all of whom were of a similar age thus making it impossible to pinpoint ‘our’ Thomas.

 

We would like to give a special thanks to the volunteer whom tirelessly researched and produced this blog piece.