🎄Christmas Opening Hours for 2024🎄 CLOSED between 4pm Friday 20th December 2024 and 10am Thusday January 2nd 2025 Ordinary opening hours apply before and after this period.
            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.
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.
William Beresford Orde Lisle was born on June 25th 1886 at 50 Jermyn Street, London. His father, Bertram Lisle, was a barrister-at-law from Alnwick and his mother, Jane Lucinda, was a Australian lady. William grew up between the family home in Jermyn Street, London and Brainshaugh House, Northumberland. Following his father’s untimely demise in 1893 William appears to have floated between various relatives. In 1908 he gave his address as being Bailiffgate, Alnwick the previous home of William Beresford Lisle (potentially his grandfather) who had died in 1903 leaving an estate of £1869 19s 11d. Evidence shows that William the younger received consecutive (and extremely substantial) inheritances from numerous well-placed family members. But William, despite being the wealthy son of barrister, squandered this money and repeatedly found himself on the wrong side of the law.
William Beresford Orde Lisle, as drawn by a court sketch artist (1908). Reference NRO 11343 B/DAT/26
His vast fortune brought with it the temptation of fast cars, alcohol and women. His escapades and wild behaviours often saw him placed before the magistrates, where he was regularly defended by the Dickson, Archer and Thorp legal firm. The firm’s partners were very close to William’s family and had kept amongst their personal papers a scrapbook filled with the crimes and lives of Alnwick folk, now held by the Northumberland Archives. Recorded within this book were the criminal adventures of William himself, including a play-by-play account of one of his most infamous jaunts.
Abduction
William’s most scandalous crime by far was a spontaneous road-trip, taken during the summer of 1907. It involved drink driving, an international gun-fight and the abduction of two girls from an Alnwick Street. The girls in question were Louisa Rose Whittle and Theresa Roper. Louisa was a fifteen year old servant girl who, on the 23rd June 1907, was walking in Alnwick with her friend Theresa, then aged seventeen. Both girls were stopped by Lisle who asked if they would like to have a ride in a motor car. Both girls agreed to the short drive, as subsequent news reports published after the abduction explained “the temptation to drive in a motor car was to the child very great.” They were possibly encouraged to join the journey due to the presence of another female in the car (who was either Lisle’s controversial wife Amy or his regular female companion Violet Green alias Eva Green).
Reports on the abduction court case, as recorded in the scrapbook belonging to the Dickson, Archer and Thorp Collection. NR0 11343 B/DAT/26
Lisle’s offer of a short motor ride soon turned into the journey from hell. In the upcoming months Lisle would face a court accused of abduction, and the two girls would give damning evidence against the social-flyer. They claimed Lisle appeared to have consumed alcohol prior to making his offer, and that once the girls were in the car he directed the driver to go onto the Plough (a pub.) The gentlewomen who had accompanied the group then left the car at the Plough and did not return. The remaining passengers then went onto drink in the public houses of Alnmouth and Newcastle.
Following a heady drinking session Lisle took the girls to a different town – one they had never seen before. This turn of events frightened the girls, who now requested to be returned home. The prosecution theorised that this unknown place was probably Durham, although Lisle contested and claimed it was actually Morpeth.
A court cartoon from the 1908 court appearance, Reference: NRO 11343 B/DAT/26
The girls, far from home and in an unfamiliar place, began to panic. They found a policeman, to whom they complained about their treatment and requested to be taken back to Alnwick. But the policeman simply laughed and refused to believe their story. They were forced to return to Lisle’s side as he took them onto Darlington, where the group spent a night in a hotel. The following day Lisle instructed the driver to return them to Newcastle and, once back in Northumberland, Lisle hired another car and driver to take himself and the girls onto York. On the third day the group went to Huntingdon and, having spent the night here, Lisle exclaimed “You are seeing life, you must see London too.”
London was one of Lisle’s favourite haunts. He had a tendency during his teenage years of repeatedly running away from his boarding school to seek adventures in the capital. Once in London Lisle bought both girls new hats having previously “jumped on their own ones,” possibly during a fit of rage or drunkeness. At this point Lisle became “sickened” of Louisa, the youngest of the two, and, without allowing Theresa to say goodbye, put Louisa on a train back to Newcastle. Theresa and Lisle then went onto Dover, where he told her that they were about to board a boat “for Alnwick.” The boat actually took the couple to Brussels, where he proceeded to extract £400 and drink heavily.
In Ostend he tried to persuade Theresa to share her room with him. When she refused and rebuffed his advances he fired his revolver in a public house, scattering the patrons within. Frightened by his behaviour, and having never been away from her Northumbrian home, Theresa begged Lisle to give her some money and allow her to leave. However he brutally refused, telling her she would “starve” instead. Exasperated with her treatment Roper plotted her own escape; she waited until he was distracted and ran from him. She later claimed to have entered seven shops, but found no one understood her as she attempted to explain her plight. Dazed and frightened she fainted. When she awoke someone had brought her to the British Vice-Consul, she was eventually sent home and upon her return remained ill in bed for three weeks.
Court
Meanwhile Louisa’s parents, horrified at her disappearance, insisted she was examined by a doctor. They refused to believe that nothing “immoral” had occurred between the the girls and Lisle, but the examining doctor was able to confirm that the young girl had been telling the truth and nothing had occurred. Still enraged Louisa’s parents planned to take Lisle to court upon his return to England.
Likewise Theresa’s father, Mr Robert Roper, also took Lisle to court. Because Lisle had taken the girl further then London Mr Roper insisted his daughter gave damning evidence before the judge. In her examination before the court she complained that Lisle had refused to take the girls home, despite them becoming increasingly distressed as the days rolled on. She also said he had repeatedly tried to share a room with the girls but that they had stood firm and refused him entry, something that was verified by the doctors.
Theresa Roper and her father, pictured at the 1908 court case. Reference NRO 11343 B/DAT/26
In both cases the girls were awarded large settlements, although one judge brushed off the seriousness of Lisle’s actions by calling the event a “prank” which had went terribly wrong. The court accused the girls of being too trusting of Lisle’s promises, and the subsequent public scandal must have had a profound impact upon their character and reputation. Barely three years later the girls elected to change their names, perhaps trying to obtain some level of anonymity, with Theresa becoming Dorothy and Louisa becoming Lizzie.
The information found in this blog has been extracted from original documents held in the Dickson, Archer and Thorp collection, as well as contemporary newspapers.
