Murder Most Foul?

Picture this.

1920’s Preston (Lancashire).

7am.

A cool Sunday morning after a notably wet summer.

A man shot dead in the bracken.

Today we’re delving in to the death of my 2nd great-grandfather, Joshua Kelsall. I have my theories as to what happened, I would love to hear yours.

Joshua Kelsall was born in July 1856 to Joshua Kelsall (1822-1890) and Jane Howard (1838-1885). He was the first of at least eight children, although four of the children do not survive into adulthood.

In the 1861 census, Joshua is listed as living with an 11 month old sister (Margaret Jane) and his parents at 37 West View. In 1871, he does not appear on the census with his family, who have moved to 25 Curwen Street and now have a domestic servant (who happens to share the surname with a neighbour several doors down).

He is either away at school (boarding school?) or perhaps staying with family on the 1871 census. I have not been able to track him on the census with anyone as of yet. He may also have a cousin called Joshua born shortly after, which confuses matters wonderfully in this period.

NB: Since posting this last night, Pete Adamson has directed me to look at a quaker school in Penketh. This is known as either Penketh Friends’ Boarding School, or the Friends School. The school opened in 1834 and closed in 1934, before becoming Hightown Approved School. It appears the whole area is now new build housing, but may have existed as part of a nursing home until recently. There is a book published by Joseph Spence Hodgeson which gives a full history of the school while Joseph would have been there, and also gives a list of staff and students from its opening.

Interestingly, his older sister attended the school first, followed by Joshua, and they taught botany as a core subject.

He does then appear on the 1881 census, back with his parents, now living at 2 Hartington Road. The interesting thing about this is he is listed right on the bottom of the family, below his younger siblings and below his grandmother (Jane Howard, who is now blind. I unfortunately do not have her maiden name as of yet).

He is listed as a gardener now, and the family history is that he attended either Cambridge or Oxford for botany. I am in the process of eliminating whether this is accurate, but it is generally accepted he had a degree and was an accomplished botanist.

NB: Thanks to Pete and Sue, we may have figured out where the general acceptance of Cambridge/Oxford has come from. The Friends Boarding School was not a university but in 1868, the Cambridge Syndicate (i.e. The Cambridge University Local Examinations Syndicate as it was once called) began offering examinations at the Friends School. Undoubtedly, Joshua would have taken these examinations prior to leaving. Perhaps there was some sort of misunderstanding of what these examinations were or where they were held.
In a side note, the Cambridge Syndicate are OCR for anyone who has taken GCSEs or A-Levels.

In 1892, Joshua marries Catherine Schofield (1863-1939) whom he may have met during his time working at a stately home as a gardener. Again, I am trying to work out if anyone holds the information on which stately home, but I will insert the picture below to see if anyone has any information.

This was taken in roughly 1884.

I like to think someone out there has information on who all the other people are in the picture, too. That would be quite something to find out in addition to where this was taken.

You would think that was recorded when this was passed down!

I have been told Joshua was cut off from the family for marrying Catherine, and they married in a registry office. He was a Quaker, and she was a Catholic. That being said, George Adamson alludes to this story being incorrect as he stated that when he grew up he found out the truth about being cut off “with only a guinea”. His son, Pete, is looking into this.

I have also neglected to add into this that Joshua had both himself and Catherine “sacked and blacked” from mill work in Preston. He was found to be attempting to incite a riot, and the couple were fired and blacklisted from working in the field.

Joshua and Catherine had at least 14 children together (including stillbirths).

Catherine was roughly 4 months pregnant with their eldest son, Joshua, when they married, and by the 1891 census, they have 4 children (Joshua, William, Annie and Mary).

In 1892, they unfortunately lose Joseph to either stillbirth or before 12 weeks.

In 1893, my great-grandfather, also called Joseph, is born, and he is followed by 8 children (Kathleen sadly is either a stillbirth or dies as a newborn).

In 1901, Joshua is a self employed florist/gardener as per the census, and Catherine may be a homemaker. Their daughter, Annie, is a laundress and times were very hard for the family, so I am not sure that Catherine didn’t have her own ways of bringing in money.

Given the many children, it gives the feeling that Joshua and Catherine are very in love, however, by 1902, Joshua and Catherine are separated.

Catherine takes Joshua to court for persistent cruelty – in her court case, she was struck with a hat which cut her cheek and forced to flee with her children, and in her complaint Catherine states that she was ill-used every day “for a long time past”, and that Joshua would come home in the morning and make a disturbance. She describes him as a “mad man”.

Catherine stated Joshua made roughly 20s. a week, although she rarely saw any of the money, and there was a court ordered separation, whereby Catherine was given a 7s. 6d. maintenance grant and the custody of their children under 16.

There is a family story that Joshua ripped the oven door from its hinges and threw it at Catherine, this has been passed down through their son, Robert, to his children, and to their children. I am surprised that this information did not make it into the court case, but perhaps this piece of information was unrecorded by the newspapers, or perhaps she did not want her husband sent to prison.

What bravery of Catherine to stand before the court and tell her story of abuse – what must she have been thinking, and what repercussions would she have been expecting had the court found in Joshua’s favour?

Joshua was a rum drinker and it seems this was something he was well known for, as between 1902 and 1909, he appears in court no less than 9 times for drunk and disorderly behaviour.

He is also in court at least twice for failing to pay for maintenance of his son in “industrial school”. I have yet to find out which son this is for, although it is likely to be George, Alfred or Robert.

George is most likely as he attended Birkdale Farm Reformatory School in 1911, but this does not rule out Alfred or Robert, as they may also have been made to attend.

Joshua was described as “the original hippie” and would often, it is quoted, walk bare foot through the woods. I do not have any written documentation showing this, but there are newspaper clippings detailing that Joshua preferred the night sky over a roof. He collected ferns and local flora to create buttonholes, wreathes and bouquets for locals and this is how he made his living.

Newspaper articles detail that Joshua would sleep outside in all weather, stay with his daughter (Mary) or common lodging houses. It is also implied he may have broken into cabins, sheds or other outhouses, but I’ll get into this a little bit later.

Despite his alcoholism, Joshua was known to be very intelligent, and could quote the Bible, Shakespeare and “most of the standard authors” unerringly.

He was a keen artist, and he is known to have been able to draw with both hands at the same time.

A drawing of his of two greyhounds used to hang in the Old Dog Pub in Preston. This skill was inherited by some of his children and grandchildren, including my uncle Steve who was an exceptional artist and video game designer until his death in 2007.

On the evening of the 4th September 1920, Joshua was seen by a witness (one Mr Hayhurst – who also happened to be the jury foreman!) and did not mention where he was going. The foreman may have been the last person to see him alive, as we have no further record of his evening from what I can gleam.

The next morning, Joshua was shot dead.

Ok. So, what’s the official story?

Well, Robert Hargreaves was an allotment holder sharing an allotment with William Forshaw on a plot of land near Brockholes Wood, Preston.

On the 4th of September, Hargreaves bought a gun and a gun license, and arranged to go shooting at 7am with William Forshaw and Edgar Whittaker.

Edgar Whittaker did not have an allotment but may have owned land in the area.

Hargreaves, Forshaw and Whittaker met at the golf field behind Farringdon Park and entered the woods. It is stated they intended to hunt rabbits.

In early September the sun rises around 6:15-6:45am, but this seems fairly early to go rabbit shooting. I don’t hunt rabbits, so I don’t know if this is a common time to hunt them. Let me know if it is!

When they arrived into Brockholes Wood, Hargreaves deviated from their agreed plan, and went a separate route to the other two, and from a 13 yard distance, saw something move in the bracken and shot at it.

This something turned out to be Joshua.

Hargreaves turned himself into the police on the morning of the 5th, and was released on bail either on the 5th or the morning of 6th of September, prior to the inquest taking place.

Newspapers latched on to the idea that Hargreaves was “horrified” to find it was a man, but this has not been said in his words.

In the post mortem, Joshua’s entire right side of the face was riddled with shot, and his right side had 2 fractures – one above the right eye, and one behind the right ear (an area of around 4-5 inches), with a portion of bone being pushed inwards and causing haemorrhage and death.

Dr Mary Lowry (Assistant Medical Officer of Health) detailed that it was consistent with shots from a gun and consistent with those used for rabbit shooting.

Dr Harold Parker, the deputy coroner, stated it was “completely dangerous to shoot at anything that moved” during the inquest.

Sergeant Cardwell was the officer at the scene, and a witness during the inquest, said that Joshua was found in a ditch, covered in bracken up to his neck, with his head the only part visible.

During the inquest, it was found that Hargreaves was rabbit hunting with Forshaw and Whittaker as food was being taken from the allotments. This was explicitly blamed on rabbits.

I am not entirely sure whether Hargreaves expected to kill every rabbit in Preston to solve his rabbit problem. I struggle to follow the logic, and even if they managed to shoot 5 rabbits each, there were probably tens or hundreds more in the woods and fields surrounding

In the inquest, it lists the land owner as John Connors and James Derbyshire, and John Connors is interviewed as a witness to the death. He is not present at the shooting.

John Connors states that there were no explicit shooting rights, and that he never gave permission for Hargreaves, Forshaw or Whittaker (or anyone) to shoot on his land, however, he did also state that there was a “mutual agreement” between the allotment tenants that they would protect each others land when away.

One of the papers states this was against thieves and rabbits.

Connors does, however, say he had seen many with guns on his land prior and never told them they had no right to be there.

Hargreaves was not called to speak at the inquest (supposedly owing to the fact he had made a statement at the police station).

Dr Parker told the jury that if they found Hargreaves should not have been shooting on the land and was a trespasser, they should find him guilty of manslaughter, and that if they found it perfectly reasonable to be shooting in Brockholes Wood, it should be deemed “Death by Misadventure”.

On the 8th of September, the jury decided unanimously that this was Death by Misadventure.

This, for anyone unfamiliar, is defined as an accidental death where a person willingly takes a risk, but does not mean to die.

Hargreaves was discharged by the Chief Constable upon reviewing the decision, and he saw no further reason to try the case. Hargreaves’ solicitor, a Mr Whittle, stated that [Hargreaves and Whittle] appreciated the courtesy extended to [Hargreaves] during the inquiry.

The end.

Right?

Well, I’m not so sure.

When reading the court transcripts, 2 things were said during a witness interview that stood out to me.

Firstly, Mr Whittle interviewed John Connors who stated that he had warned Joshua off of his land as he expected he would be using his cabin for the evening. There had been a lot of discussion that Joshua was unknown to Hargreaves, yet here we have a statement implying Connors knew Joshua would stay in the allotment cabins. In addition, many newspapers reported that Joshua was a well known character, known for sleeping in Brockholes Wood.

Secondly, evidence was entered into the inquest that there was an agreement for the allotment tenants to protect each others allotments from…. thieves.

An odd choice of words given that they were there to talk about rabbits eating crops, don’t you think?

So, what’s my theory?

Well, my theory is that rum drinker and local character Joshua was stealing crops from the allotments. He was sleeping out in the open every night, presumably drinking himself into a stupor with his rum, and making money from picking ferns and other flowers from the wild to sell.

Joshua knew these lands, and he knew them well, walking them (reportedly!) bare foot day in day out, and he was a well trained botanist and gardener by trade. He would have known where the allotments were, given it is implied he slept in them, and he would have known what plants were what.

Flowers are often planted in allotments to encourage the pollinators, and fruit and vegetables were not only something for Joshua to eat (for free!!), he would have been able to forage their leaves and flowers for his wreaths, buttonholes and bouquets.

I think other allotment holders were aware he, or someone, was taking their crops and flowers. I have a gut feeling he was probably spoken to by John Connors, who was probably the one who told Hargreaves and Forshaw who was taking the crops.

My theory is that Connors informed Hargreaves and Forshaw, and in anger, Hargreaves bought his gun and gun licence the same day. Do remember this was bought the day before Joshua was shot to death, and it is not stated anywhere that Hargreaves had prior rabbit hunting experience or any form of practice.

Whittaker did not share the allotment with Hargreaves and Forshaw, so it can’t be determined why he was there. He may have owned an allotment on the land, but the text is slightly confusing in its explanation.

If he did own an allotment on the land, he would also be furious that someone is helping themselves to his plants. I probably wouldn’t be “I’m going to buy a gun” furious, though, just to confirm.

Hargreaves, Forshaw and Whittaker met “by appointment” at around 7am on the 5th of September, and entered the woods, where Hargreaves immediately split from the others. The other two stayed together.

It does not state whether Forshaw and Whittaker brought guns with them, just that they met in the golf field “by appointment”.

Hargreaves splits from the other two, and minutes later, Joshua is shot dead, the whole right side of his face fractured from rabbit shot.

This, in my opinion, was premeditated murder, with the intention of making it look like they were out rabbit hunting.

They entered the woods near to where Joshua was known to sleep, and Hargreaves shot at him from 13 yards away (according to his story).

Sargeant Cardwell stated he could not imagine a more unlikely place for a person to sleep. Given that Joshua was known to sleep in these woods, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that other people had come across him before.

Sleeping under a bracken is a known bushcraft technique (thank you Google and the Woodland Ways blog!) and has been used for centuries — if Joshua was asleep under the bracken, Hargreaves knew where to find him, and Hargreaves shot him. Was Joshua asleep when he was shot? The records don’t say, only that Hargreaves saw movement.

But, Hargreaves knew what he was doing. He knew his allotment thief was there, and was ready to shoot.

Perhaps he only intended to scare Joshua, telling Forshaw and Whittaker to stay back so there could be benefit of doubt on the story. After all, if all 3 of them had been around, someone might question their rabbit story.

Connors made sure to discuss at length that he had never given anyone permission to shoot on his land – he may not have been an active part in this, but I believe he knew that Joshua would be in those woods on the 5th September 1920.

It is slightly tin hat conspiracy theory of me to imagine Connors, Hargreaves, Forshaw and Whittaker agreeing and sticking to a story in order to get away with murder, but I believe this was planned and that the police were duped into a story about rabbits eating crops.

The jury were led to their conclusion by the fact that only two options were presented: manslaughter or misadventure.

Manslaughter was only to be the case if Hargreaves had trespassed, and misadventure would be the case if he had a right to be there.

With such an emphasis on rabbits, I feel the jury were led to the conclusion Hargreaves should have been there, despite Connors openly saying they did not have permission to shoot. That being said, Connors had also stated that he was glad someone was shooting on his land “as long as no accidents happened”.

Joshua was a complicated man, no doubt, and I think he certainly was a terrible husband to Catherine. He maintained a relationship with Mary up until his death, but it is unclear whether he kept a relationship with his other children.

His rum drinking consumed his life, and I think he took a lot of shortcuts to ensure he continued to have access to it, and also to pay the mandated maintenance to his wife and children.

Here is the clearest photograph I have of Joshua, and I am not entirely sure when this was taken but I feel he looks anywhere from 25-35. I do feel this is before he found rum, however.

What do you think?

Death by misadventure? Manslaughter? Murder?

I would love to hear other people’s opinions on this if you find it.

C x