An inquiry  at the Board Room of the Coxheath Union resumed on Wednesday 28th September 1864, regarding the case of William and Emma Simons, who were charged with ill using and neglecting to provide John Nicholls, aged 18, an orphan and their apprentice, with the common necessaries of life.  In attendance were C.G. Whittaker (the Chairman of the Board of Guardians) and John Whitehead, both justices of the peace for the Bearsted division, W.N. Ottaway and Mr William Pearson, acting as clerk for the justices were for the prosecution and Mr T. Goodwin for the defendants.

About two years, prior to the case, John Nicholls, who was formerly an inmate of the Union workhouse, having been left  an orphan, was apprenticed to William Simons, who lived at 45 Union Street, as a shoemaker. James Lambkin, who had married John Nicholls’ sister was a party on the indenture and it appeared since John’s mother’s death from consumption, James Lambkin had acted as a parent to John, and he and his wife had often visited the defendants’ house to check that John was properly attended to and gaining instruction in his business. For a long time, John had been in a weak condition and was gradually growing worse and his master Simons, deemed it necessary to remove him to the Union Infirmary, in consequence of an infectious disease raging in his own family, that had taken the lives of a girl aged 12 and a boy of six, suddenly in the same week. He was removed to the Union Workhouse, in a cab on Sunday 11th September and on arrival, Mr Baker, the master of the Union Workhouse, found John in a very weak and emaciated condition. On the following Monday, due to his failing condition, he was examined by Mr Stokoe, the medical officer to the case, after which coupled with statements made by John Nicholls, it was considered further investigation was required. The matter was referred to the Chairman of the Board of Guardians C.G. Whittaker, who in his capacity as a magistrate, attended the Union Workhouse with Mr Pearson, and a statement was taken from John Nicholls, in which he stated that during the time, he had been in his Master’s service, he had been subjected to acts of the grossest cruelty at the hands of his Master and Mistress, who had kept him without the common necessaries of life and had reduced him to a most pitiable condition. A warrant was issued for the apprehension of the defendants, but in consequence of fever being in their house, Superintendent Maloney refrained from taking them into custody. Mr Simons, however, promised to attend at the Union Workhouse, on the wednesday after, when in his presence, John Nicholls made a similar statement.

Mr Ottaway having stated the charge and the nature of the evidence he would  adduce for the prosecution, Mr Goodwin objected to the course pursued by the Bench, with respect to what has already taken place on the grounds, that the defendants were residents of the Borough of Maidstone, and therefore, in the jurisdiction of the borough magistrates alone, they could not proceed further than it related, to what actually transpired since the lad had become  a resident of their house. This point was argued for some time, with the magistrates deciding that they had jurisdiction in the matter and the inquiry proceeded. The magistrates then adjourned to a room used for the sick, where John Nicholls lay. The depositions taken at previous examinations were read over to him, which he affirmed were correct. The acts committed against him, were of the most barbarous character and John’s emaciated body was covered with abrasions and bruises, which favoured the belief that he had received the most unjustifiable ill treatment. Mr Goodwin proceeded to cross examine John and some of his answers in reply to questions, were contradictory, tending to show that his statements were partially untrue and the nature of the treatment, he received was possibly, not as serious as first indicated. At one time he stated that for nine weeks previous to his admittance to the workhouse, he was never allowed to leave his Master’s house, while at another time he admitted, he was well enough to attend the Foresters’ Fete in Vinter’s Park on 1st August and that on the Sunday, prior to his admission to the workhouse, he went for a walk with another apprentice for two hours. He also admitted to visiting his sister at Bearsted on Sundays, while at another time stated his Master would not allow him to go out on a week day or Sunday. In answer to enquires made by Miss Bentliff, superintendent of the King Street Sunday School, which he attended and to his own sister, he had stated that he received great kindness from his Master and Mistress, and was well fed and had a comfortable bed provided for him.

The Magistrates having adjourned to the Board room, the depositions of surgeons Messrs Paul Henry Stokoe and F. Fry were read. They were to the effect that when John was admitted to the workhouse, on viewing his ill conditioned sores and the extreme emaciation of his body, they were of the opinion that his present condition was owing to the want of proper food and gross neglect on the part of his master and mistress, which had accelerated disease and much reduced him. Mr Goodwin, for the defense, examined Mr Stokoe at great length, with a view to show that John’s present condition was the result of a severe attack of diarrhoea and dysentery, but Mr Mr Stokoe stated he was still of the same opinion, that when John was brought to the workhouse, his condition was attributed to the want of sufficient diet and proper attendance than to any other cause. It was probable from John’s statement and the conclusions he had arrived at in his own mind, that even if he had been suffering for several months, he would not have been reduced to his present exhausted condition by that alone. There was no doubt he was scrofulous (tuberculosis) though there were no signs as to the development of the disease in any form whatever. Mr Stokoe stated diarrhoea was generally not so injurious to the human frame as dysentery, and tended not to lead to emaciation, but his symptoms exhibited and the bruises and wounds on every part of his body would lead to a very different conclusion.

Mr Ottaway having produced the indentures and proved the apprenticeship of John, he produced further evidence for  the prosecution. The first witness Adaliza  Reynolds stated she lived at 49 Union Street and had lived there for 24 years. She knew the defendants and John Nicholls, their apprentice. He was always distinguishable from the other apprentices, by being called the lame boy. From where she lived, she had a good opportunity of seeing, what occurred in the shop. On Friday 2nd September, she stated she saw Mr Simons hit the boy, on the right side of the head with his hand, and fall to the ground. Mr Simons and John were in the shop together, and the back door was open, also the middle door which separated the shop from the back of the premises, so she was easily able to see, what was happening. She did not see John get up, but heard Mr Simons shouting “Get up! Get up!” She said to Mr Simons “You are aware I heard that? You will hear of that again.” Afterwards, she heard John, fall to the ground again. On another occasion, late one evening, she saw John standing in the corner of the passage, crying bitterly, it was raining, she felt much hurt that the boy should be treated in such a cruel manner as he was lame and had no one to care for him. She stated that Mrs Simons had come to her house and asked her not to appear, if required to do so and give evidence against her, but as the police were aware that she knew something about the ill treatment of John, she was compelled to attend. Another witness Adelaide Brown, living at 47 Union Street, stated one saturday, as she was passing the defendant’s house on her way to hop picking, she saw Mr Simons, several times, box John’s ear and saw him fall to the ground and Mary Callcott, living at 55 Union Street, said about three months ago, she saw Mr Simons strike John violently three or four times.

Superintendent Maloney stated he went to Mr Simons’ house and asked to see the stove, that John had been made to stand upon. Mr Simons took him to his workshop and admitted that he had stood John on the stove as a punishment. However stated that  “It was no more punishment to him than if I had placed him on a stool.” In Superintendent Maloney’s opinon, John could not have stood upon it, without it causing him considerable punishment, the stove was 18 inches high and only six inches wide on the top.

Mr Baker, the Master of the Union workhouse, Coxheath stated that John was an inmate of the Union and left about two years ago, to serve as an apprentice to Mr Simons. He was a hearty lad and apart from his lameness, he was healthy, when he left the workhouse. However on his admission on 17th September, he was in a most deplorable state, greatly emaciated. This closed the  evidence for the prosecution.

Mr Goodwin, then addressed the Bench for the defense, expressing the hope that the magistrates would not allow sympathy to take the place of justice, and that his clients might be allowed the opportunity of proving their innocence. They had seen the deplorable condition of the boy, but having heard the repeated contradications , regarding the accusations against the defendants, they would hardly think it possible , much less plausible, that they had been guilty of treatment, which would have them stamped them with shame and dishonour for the rest of their lives, and subjected them to a long term of imprisonment. Having pointed out the discrepancies in the evidence, he argued that John’s statement was a fabrication from beginning to end.

The witness Mercy Lambkin, the sister of John Nicholls was then called to give evidence . She stated she lived at Bearsted and her husband was a shoemaker and worked occasionally for Mr Simons, to whom her brother was bound as apprentice. Her brother has always had very bad health and since the death of her mother, she had looked after John, to the best of her ability, Her mother was once in the same feeble state that her brother was, and as  thin and emaciated when she died. Her brother frequently came to their house on Sundays and took dinner with them, when she always asked about his health and how he was treated by his Master and Mistress, his answers were always satisfactory.  As he had gradually grew thinner, she requested his master, not to allow him to come over on Sundays, as she considered the walk was too far for him. His master complained several times to her, that John was lazy and neglected his work. John had admitted to her, that he had not been a good boy, but promised to be better in the future. She had visited his master’s house, sometimes on business and at other times, just to see her brother. No complaints could be made against their manner of living, and when she had been present at meal times, there was good and wholesome food. He had the same as the other apprentices, who appeared to be treated the same as the members of their own family. When she last saw her brother at the house, he said he always had enough to eat and never complained of ill treatment. James Lambkin, husband of the previous witness corroborated his wife’s evidence and stated he had frequently remonstrated John, in consequence of his Master complaining of his habitual laziness. John had often offended his Master by spoiling his work, the result of carelessness and inattention. An application had been made the previous May to the Guardian of the Bearsted parish, regarding what should be done with John, in consequence of his feebleness, but nothing was done in the matter.

Another apprentice Robert Marriott, said John Nicholls had been treated as well as any Master could treat him. He always has the same to to eat  as himself and the other apprentice. Meat and vegetables every day and some kind of fruit pudding afterwards.  He was never ill treated by his master and the mistress never hit him on the head with his crutch. He suffered from diarrhoea, frequently and at such times was supplied with arrowroot and ground rice and fresh eggs every day. He always went out on Sunday and frequently during the week, when the work was done. On the Sunday, before he was admitted to the workhouse, they had walked along the Ashford Road, he had fallen twice, whilst out and hurt himself. He always looked very thin and was “dirty in his habits”. He could not have been ill used without him not seeing it, the mistress however, sometimes boxed his ears for his dirty habits. He always had a good appetite and ate heartily. He was however a bad tempered boy and neglected his work very much. in spite of his Master’s caution.

The witness Mr Pearson stated John went to chapel in the morning and sometimes in the evening. He did not go to chapel on the Sunday, before he was brought to the workhouse as Mrs Simons did not like to send him, as all their children in the house were suffering from fever. He was never required to work on a Sunday and had only once or twice, been placed on the stove as a punishment for his negligence, but was always allowed to get down as soon as he felt disposed to go on with his work. He asked him to get down to come down and get on with his work, but he refused. He did not recall seeing John in the washhouse on Sunday morning, when his nose was bleeding. He last went to Sunday school on 7th August. The bruises on his hips and knees were caused by his falling on the Sunday and he had suffered from diarrhoea, for about three weeks before his admittance to the workhouse. He had proper clothing and a good bed to rest upon and never complained that he had insufficient food.

Another apprentice Henry Watson corroborated the evidence of previous witnesses, in respect of the quantity and quality of food provided. He confirmed his statement regarding the stubborn habits of John, who was described as both lazy and dirty. He however admitted that the lad was several times stood on the stove, the longest time for three quarters of an hour, when the mistress had came up and told him to get down and go on with his work. He immediately got down and could have done so before, if it had not been for his temper and his disinclination to return to work.

Other witness Ann Coppen, Jane Payne (washer woman to Mrs Simons) and Ann Elphick all gave evidence, testifying to the kindness, shown to John, by Mr and Mrs Simons, and that the doctor had visited him regularly, whenever he was ill.

Mr C. Keen and Mr Randall (boot and shoemaker of Gabriels Hill) both spoke to the defendant’s character, the former having known him for four years and Mr Randall for 25 years. Mr Simons had worked for Mr Randall and during that period, he had entrusted to him, transactions of an important and confidential character. His conduct was exemplary and was such as was likely to have a wonderful influence upon his apprentices, in inducing them to temperate in their habits and to conduct themselves with propriety.

The room was then cleared, for the Bench to consider their decision, after an interval of about five minutes, the public was re-admitted. The Chairman stated “We have given this case our most serious consideration, but, looking at all the circumstances, the conflicting evidence and the contradictory statement of the boy, we are of opinion that there is not such a “prima facia” case made out against the defendants at present, to induce us to commit them for trial.”  A case of insufficient evidence for conviction!

The following week the Maidstone Journal reported John NIcholls’ death and that a post mortem had been carried out, in compliance with an order made by the Board of Guardians. Dr Monckton assisted by Mr H.P. Stokoe, the result of which found both his lungs and kidneys were diseased sufficient to account for his death. Other parts of his body showed symptoms of general decay of his whole system, and were of such a nature as to render it impossible, that he could have survived for any length of time. The examination was said to be “so far satisfactory to the public, and will show that the magistrates in their decision upon the matter pursued a proper course, discharging their duties faithfully and conscientiously alike to the public and to the guardians of the lad.”

A rather sad strange case and lots of conflicting evidence, it seems. One cannot however wonder that if the Guardians and his family had not shown him more love and care, when he was orphaned that his untimely death could have been avoided!  His apprenticeship to the Simons, was one less mouth to feed at the workhouse for the Guardians and for his sister and brother in law, an inconvenient problem resolved!

Home