History of the Shakespeare Hotel aka The Cricketers at Angel Street in Worcester in the county of Worcestershire. Research is augmented with photographs, details of licensees, stories of local folklore, census data, newspaper articles and a genealogy connections section for those studying their family history.


Shakespeare Hotel
Shakespeare Hotel

Some History of this Pub
The historic Shakespeare Hotel has been known as The Cricketers' for a couple of decades. However, in the late 18th century the building traded as the Shakspear's Tavern - the lack of e's being quite common at the time. It eventually morphed into the Shakespeare Inn and by the mid-19th century the house was called the Shakespeare Commercial Inn. In the later years of Queen Victoria' reign the building's title included Hotel, a role in which it had served for many decades.

The Cricketers' in Angel Street at Worcester [2003]

The Shakespeare Hotel was re-modelled around the turn of the 19th century. The building is older than its Georgian appearance fronting Angel Street. One might speculate as to why the main entrance is slightly to the right of centre. Featuring a fanlight with radial glazing bars, the entrance has a pilastered doorcase with an open pediment. The frontage is stucco over brick with tooled architraves for the windows on both the ground and second floor. Almost all the upper floor windows have antique sash windows.

It is possible that the Shakespeare Tavern only occupied the section on the right and was extended into the neighbouring property. This may be the reason for the offset entrance. Today's address is No.6 Angel Street but at the end of the 19th century the tavern was listed at No.4. During this period the tavern was kept by Robert Hurdman.

Angel Street Brewery Advertisement [1851]

Henry Harrison was the licensee of the Shakespeare Tavern during the reign of King George IV. He may have been part of the Harrison family that operated the Angel Street Brewery in the early-mid 19th century, a business that was further along Angel Street. The name featured in this advertisement of 1851 is that of James Charles Keeling Harrison. The brewer was born in 1814 at Shelfield, near Walsall Wood. By 1861 he and his Wednesbury-born wife Hannah were living at Claines. He was recorded as a commercial brewer employing three men. The couple later moved to Hallow.

Emanuel Maiden took over at the Shakespeare Inn during 1841. By all accounts he was a controversial character and a man with a short fuse. Born around 1808, he was a tailor by trade and established a business in Newport Street. However, by 1831 he was insolvent and spent a period in the debtor's gaol. Married to Kezia Darke, he bounced back and, at the Shakespeare Inn, he combined the role of publican with that of tailor. Life for Emanuel Maiden took a dramatic twist in August 1841 when he was arrested for the killing of John Fisher, an ostler at the Star Hotel.

Details of the incident and subsequent Coroner's Inquest are detailed below. The proceedings seemed to indicate that Emanuel Maiden faced either a death sentence or transportation, depending on whether the jury decided it was a case of murder of manslaughter. During the inquest it transpired that John Fisher had a dalliance with the publican's wife. However, it was another matter that brought the two men to clash in Angel Street. After the jury found Emanuel Maiden guilty of manslaughter, he was detained for trial at the assizes. One assumes that the publican had friends in high places because he was allowed out on bail with sureties from two well-heeled individuals. At the trial in March 1842 the jury returned a verdict of guilty, but strongly recommended the prisoner to mercy. Despite many people thinking he would be transported, the judge only sentenced the publican to one month's imprisonment without hard labour!

Emanuel Maiden was no sooner out of prison when he was involved in another incident in which he assaulted the boot maker William Slade. The complainant stated that on Saturday March 3rd he was "sitting on the "Queen" coach, at the Crown coach office, in Broad Street, when Emanuel Maiden, who was standing near, began to grin at him, and after "looking unutterable things," swore, with an imprecation, that if he had horsewhip he would use it about him." William Slade replied that he would not befoul his mouth by speaking to him, and asked him "if he wanted to do it again," at the same time holding up his hand significantly [intended, as he admitted in court, to refer to Maiden's once having held up his hand at the bar.] On this, Maiden seized a thorn bush which was near, and struck the complainant twice on the arm, accompanying it with threatening observations; but the affair was cut short by the coach driving off. The former publican's defence lawyer, alleged that Slade had on various occasions, and in public company, "twitted" Maiden with having held up his hand as a criminal at the bar, and that it was the same provocation that led to the assault in question. The judge was not having any of it and find Maiden 1/., and 12s. expenses; though he cautioned William Slade, who appeared to have given great provocation, to avoid such conduct in the future."

Drinkers Enjoying a Beer in The Cricketers in Angel Street [2005]

Emanuel Maiden later moved to Birmingham with his family and rebuilt his life. He developed a circle of friends with influence and he became involved in local politics. In April 1849 he was elected a member of the Guardians of the Poor, a time when he was licensee of the Fox Inn on the corner of Inge Street and Hurst Street. He was also elected to the committee of the Birmingham Licensed Victuallers Asylum. His wife Kezia died in October 1851 and, at the age of 46, Emanuel died not long afterwards on August 20th, 1852.

It was whilst Emanuel Maiden was on bail pending his trial at the assizes that the licence of the Shakespeare Inn was transferred to John Humphryes on November 1st, 1841. Born around 1804 at Great Witley, John Humphryes had previously kept a coffee house in London, the city of his wife's birth. The couple suffered a tragedy in 1846 when Fanny, their fourth daughter, died aged just six years.

In 1848 John Humphryes appeared in court to vouch for a neighbour, George Millward, who had been arrested for a robbery at Ombersley. 1848 was also the year that the new Corn Exchange opened in Angel Street. The construction of the building claimed the life of James Simmons, who fell from a plank when working on the roof of the building. Also in 1848, Mary Ann, the eldest daughter of John and Mary Humphryes, married Thomas Gunter of Handsworth, the youngest son of the late Philip Gunter Esq. of Bromwich Hall. The ceremony took place at Claines.

Thomas and Mary Humphryes later moved to the Hop Market Inn on Foregate Street. In 1854 the publican contested the Liberal seat in the Municipal Elections. He died in April 1859 and his wife Mary continued to run the hotel before moving out to Britannia Square close to the brewery later operated by Spreckley's.

John Humphryes was succeeded by William Bradstock who kept the Shakespeare Inn with his wife Ann. She was born in Worcester but her husband hailed from Much Marcle in Herefordshire. The couple employed several servants, a cook and an ostler.

Click here to view larger photographs on the website's Facebook pages

The licence of the public house was transferred to Timothy Mason in July 1852. During the 1850's he served on the Grand Jury at the Worcester City Quarter Sessions.

The Shakespeare Inn was a homebrew house. This is verified by a sale notice for the brewing equipment in later years. In 1853 the licensee also advertised for "an industrious woman, between 45 and 50 years of age ... who must well understand brewing."

Advertisement by Thomas Heming of the Shakespeare Inn at Angel Street [1857]

Thomas Heming arrived at the Shakespeare in late 1857 and the licence was transferred to him in January 1858. Born in Upton-on-Severn, he had moved to Worcester and worked as a postmaster whilst living at another busy carrier's house in Nicholas Street. He no doubt helped his father run the Pack Horse Commercial Inn and gained plenty of useful experience before taking the plunge and signed a tenancy agreement for the hostelry in Angel Street. He kept the Shakespeare Inn with his wife Charlotte who hailed from Gloucestershire. Thomas Heming had operated a fly and posting business at the Pack Horse but, after finding convenient stabling, moved this enterprise to the Shakespeare Inn.,

Charlotte Heming was swindled in 1865 when a group of three men called in for some liquor. Whilst two of them distracted the landlady, the third man went upstairs and robbed the Heming's of a large amount of cash, gold and watches [see full story in second column].

In 1869 the freehold of the Shakespeare Inn was put up for auction. This was not pulling the rug under the tenants, but merely a transaction for the freehold of the property. The sale, which took place at the Crown Hotel on June 15th, 1869, was conducted by Messrs. Bentley and Hill for the trustees of will of the late John Dowding Esq. The freehold of the adjacent Theatre Royal was also offered for sale. At this time the theatre was leased to James Rogers. The two properties were part of a large estate of properties owned by John Dowding of Langhern House in the parish of Martley and Wichenford. Most of the sale featured farms and cottages in the Worcestershire though there was another property in the city : No.25 The Tything, the business premises occupied by Christopher Choate. The freehold of the large warehouse to the rear of the Theatre Royal was also offered separately. This was being used as a warehouse by the ironmongers Messrs. J. and W. Badger. The Theatre Royal was sold to James Russell for 1,100 but the Shakespeare Inn commanded a higher price of 1,460. The winning bidder was John Skett.

Sale Notice for Shakespeare Inn at Angel Street in Worcester [1870]

The victims of several robberies, along with the theft of horses, Thomas and Charlotte Heming were probably sick of running the Shakespeare Inn and glad to leave. They may also have been pressured by the new owner - perhaps by rental increases - so they opted to sell up and move on. The above advertisement illustrates just how much furniture and baggage many publicans had to accrue in order to operate within the licensed trade. Clearly the Skett family were not interested in retaining the contents of the house so an auction was held to dispose of the fixtures and fittings. The Heming's were not taking the furnishings with them for they were not taking on another public house. The couple moved to a house on London Road.

And so the Shakespeare Inn entered a phase of being managed by owner-publicans. John Skett was born in the Shropshire village of Claverley. His father Edward was from Bobbington and had formerly worked as a farm bailiff in Northfield. He also lived at the Shakespeare when run by his son and daughter-in-law. Edward Skett died, aged 74, on the premises on February 26th, 1872. Publican John Skett did not enjoy similar longevity for he died at the Shakespeare Inn on March 4th, 1875. The licence of the house passed to his Rutland-born wife Jane and, later, to Sarah Skett.

A new name appeared above the front door of the Shakespeare Inn during 1884 but only because Edmund Slater had married into the Skett family when he tied the knot with Mary Skett three years earlier. The newly-weds moved to a house at Britannia Square before taking over at the Shakespeare Inn. It was possibly this family that sold the hotel for they appear to live comfortably afterwards, first in Barnes and, later, at Mortlake in Surrey. Edmund and Mary were southerners at heart, both having originated from Middlesex.

Click here to view larger photographs on the website's Facebook pages

Arthur and Bertha Radford took over the Shakespeare at the fag end of the 1880's. Born in Alvechurch in 1852, Arthur was the son of a policeman who, after leaving the force as a sergeant, went into business as a grocer and beer house keeper on the Droitwich Road. Arthur married Bertha Parker at St. Stephen's at Barbourne in May 1881 and, during the following year, took over from Emma Groves at the Nelson Inn at Merrivale, later known as the Lord Nelson on Birdport. The couple employed a mini-army of staff at the Shakespeare Hotel, including Mary Morris [cook], John Griffiths [boots], Florence Souter [Barmaid], Mary Andrews [Kitchen Maid] and Sarah Bowker [waitress].

Bar of The Cricketers in Angel Street [2010]

The Shakespeare Hotel became part of the estate of Hitchman and Co. Ltd., probably as part of their subsidiary company of Harper's Hitchman's Ltd., based at the Lowesmoor Brewery in Worcester. This was acquired by the Banbury-based Hunt Edmunds and Co. Ltd. in 1924. And it is through this route that the pub is remembered as a M&B house for the company was swallowed up by Bass, Mitchell's & Butler's Ltd. in 1965.

Inn Sign of The Cricketers in Angel Street Worcester [2003]

It was tenant Graham Williams who changed the name of the pub in the 1990's. I presume that the publican was an avid cricket fan for he lined the pub's walls with an enormous collection of memorabilia devoted to the game. This collection became quite a tourist attraction and a magnet for cricket followers. Some however lamented the loss of the theatre souvenirs and mementoes that once decorated the interior. Indeed, the hotel was host to many of the stars who performed next door at the Theatre Royal. It is thought that there was a connecting door from the dressing rooms to an upstairs bar of the hotel.

Interior of The Cricketers in Angel Street [2010]

Much of the cricket memorabilia was sold when the pub underwent a refurbishment in 2010 following the death of the landlady.
All text and images Copyright - click here for more information.

Related Newspaper Articles
"We regret to state that the circumstances which we mentioned last week relative to an assault by Mr. Maiden, landlord of the Shakespeare Tavern, Angel Street, upon John Fisher, ostler at the Star Hotel, have terminated fatally. On Wednesday evening Fisher died, and the accused having been again brought up to the Guildhall on Thursday, pro forma, was remanded to await the issue of the Coroner's inquest on the body. The unfortunate deceased was generally respected in Worcester as a remarkably quiet and inoffensive man, and very civil and attentive in his vocation. He was not married, and had scarcely reached middle age. On Friday morning, at ten o'clock, the inquest was held at the Star Hotel, before J. B. Hyde Esq., City Coroner, in a large loft; and such was the anxiety to learn the particulars, that every portion of the apartment, within hearing, was speedily filled, there being upwards of 300 individuals present. The Jury, having returned from viewing the body, were briefly addressed by the Coroner in explanation of the law bearing on the subject, giving them general instructions as to the nature of the inquiry before them.  Mr. Rea, solicitor, appeared on the part of the deceased's relations, and Mr. Bedford for Mr. Maiden, to watch the evidence. The following witnesses were then heard - Sergeant Chipp : l was on duty in Angel Street on Sunday night last. About half-past twelve o'clock saw John Fisher there, standing on the flags by the Curriers' Arms; Mr. Emanuel Maiden, Mr. Wall, Mr. Darke, and Mr. W. Rogers, were there. Deceased and Maiden were standing near together; they were quarrelling. I do not recollect what they were saying; they were swearing and cursing, and were much excited, Maiden in particular. I begged them both to separate and go home peaceably. Maiden had his hands in a fighting posture, and they appeared inclined to break the peace. I took hold of Maiden by the left arm. Deceased came up behind me and said something to Maiden, which I cannot exactly recollect, but which excited Maiden very much. As I turned round to ask deceased to go away, I missed my hold of Maiden, who then ran after Fisher. Fisher had moved away when I spoke to him. They both ran in the direction of the Horn and Trumpet. I could see their figures move; but the night was dark, and there was no moon nor lamps lighted in that street; but there was a light in the lamp al Mr. Gaunt's house at the corner of Angel Row; and one at Mr. Lloyd's, at the Cross. These lamps gave me no assistance in the direction in which the men ran; they were 70 or 80 yards distant. I saw Maiden pursue the deceased, get up to him, and close with him, when they both fell. I was then about 30 yards from them. As I approached them Maiden was on his hands and knees, getting up. Fisher was lying on his face, with his arms extended and doubled about his head. He was lying across the flags, with his head near the curb stone. I rose him up in a sitting posture; there was blood flowing from the back of his head, and he was quite insensible. Maiden then came up, and putting his hands in a fighting attitude, said, "Mind, let me go at him;" there were then seven or eight persons standing by him. I said "No, I won't have that;" I then turned towards Maiden, and would not allow him to come near the deceased. I did not see Maiden held by anybody at this time. I then carried deceased home, assisted by Mr. Wall and others, to the yard of the Star Hotel. A surgeon, Mr. B. Shephard, came up before we got him home. I remained with the deceased about an hour, during which time he was insensible. Cross-examined by Mr. Bedford - There was quarrelling on both sides. I cannot tell what Fisher said to Maiden, which excited him. I have endeavoured lo recollect, but cannot do so. Those words were not spoken loudly; they were not words of general abuse. I do not know whether those words alluded to a third person. l am the first person who came up after the fall. Maiden had no weapon, or I must have seen it. I have no reason for thinking that Maiden was aware of the deceased's insensibility when he said "Mind, let me have a go at him." I have a slight recollection that Maiden came a part of the way home with the deceased. By the Coroner : I did not see deceased struck by Maiden; I think it was too dark to have seen it had it taken place. I expected they were about to fight; and endeavoured to prevent a breach of the peace; I did not hold Maiden so tight as I might have done, as I have often found that by holding parties too tightly it has irritated them and produced a bad effect. By Mr. Bennett I could not have seen any action at a greater distance than 15 or 20 yards. Maiden was getting up before I raised the deceased. I could not distinguish any scuffle. By Mr. Maybury : I could not say whether Fisher ran away from fear of Maiden, or at my request. I do not believe that the deceased was assisted home by Maiden at all. By Mr. Bennett :  l considered that Maiden was "fresh;" can't say whether deceased was or not. Mr. John Darke : brother-in-law of the deceased, clerk to Messrs. Freame, examined : On the night of Sunday last I was in Angel Street; about twelve o'clock and saw Fisher there, walking down the middle of the street towards his home. No one was with him. I first saw Maiden come into Mrs. Fidoe's, at the Waggon and Horses, about three quarters of an hour before; I was with him; when I left Mrs. Fidoe's I went towards The Cross; Mr. George Wall, and a person named Boyce, left the house at the same time. We were standing together near Mrs. Fidoe's in the street, when Fisher passed by. He was going on, when some one said "there's a policeman." Maiden said "Oh, is it ?" and walked towards Fisher; on getting near to him Maiden turned round to us and said "No, it's not a policeman, it's a bastard." Fisher came towards us, and asked Maiden what he meant by calling him a policeman and a bastard. Many angry observations ensued between them both. The first I heard was Maiden calling deceased "a common hostler fellow," and told him to go home to his horses. Fisher replied that Maiden wasn't worth a horse, and made some further remark. Maiden then charged deceased with owing him 5/. or 6/. Fisher said "Damn you, do you mean to say I owe you money ?" Maiden said "Yes, you do, and I was obliged to serve you with a writ for the last money you owed me." This is the last remark I remember hearing till Fisher came up towards us, within a yard or two; Maiden said "If you come near me I will split [or break] your bloody head." At that time Chipp the policeman came up and laid hold of Maiden, who was much excited, and had his hands up in a threatening attitude. Fisher had one hand out a little before him, as though he was about to make an observation. Maiden disengaged himself from the policeman; Fisher then ran away towards the Horn and Trumpet. Maiden overtook deceased opposite that house; there was a short struggling or grappling ensued, when they both fell. I cannot swear whether Maiden laid hold of him or struck him; but there was a stand-still for a very short period of time, when it appeared to me that Maiden either grappled with or strode him - I could not see distinctly which. I saw Fisher fall, as it appeared to me, on his back, with his head on the flags, and his feet towards the wall. I went towards them; there were two or three persons there before me; deceased's head and arms were then lifted from the ground, when I heard Maiden say "Let me go at him." He was prevented by Chipp. I did not see deceased's hat. The deceased was then carried home, and I went with him, but Maiden did not. Cross-examined : I had been in the same room as Maiden at the Waggon and Horses; he came in after I was there; nothing passed between us in the room; I am his brother-in- law; he has forbidden me to go to his house, but for what reason I cannot say. I don't know whether it was upon my evidence that the warrant was first issued against him. The reason why I was denied entering his house was this: he asked me one day if I had not seen his wife at the Portobello tea- gardens, to which I said I had not, upon which he called me a liar, and told me never to see his face again. I have never harboured his wife at my house, or encouraged her to meet the man Fisher there. This was after a row which had taken place between Maiden and Fisher on occasion of the latter having been found in Maiden's house with his wife. I have given evidence in a case of debt, wherein Maiden was concerned. I was a witness against him. On that occasion I did not admit that I appeared against him on account of a former action he had entered against me. [This witness then underwent a lengthened cross-examination as to the circumstances of the affray, but nothing was elicited, except that he had seen Maiden near deceased's house after he had been carried home.] Re-examined : Maiden has often made use of quarrelsome terms towards me, and on two occasions in public company at the Unicorn and the Dog and Duck. We have not been on friendly terms of late. By the Coroner : Maiden was not quite sober on the night in question. I was sober. By the Jury : It is nearly two years ago that Fisher was found in Maiden's house. I have been in the Shakespeare Tavern once since Maiden has kept it, which is about six months; Maiden was not there; my going there was not by appointment. I have heard there were acts of violence done on the occasion of deceased's being found in Maiden's house. Mr. George Wall, clerk to Messrs. Finch and Jones, solicitors, examined : He was in company with last witness at Mrs. Fidoe's on the night in question, and was enabled to corroborate his evidence as far as the time of the struggle, when he deposed - l was the first lo come up lo deceased; Maiden was picking up his hat, and he then said " Damn him, I've given him something, and I will give him some more." Deceased was then on his back on the pavement, with his head hanging over the curb-stone. I took hold of his head, and assisted him up. There were then three or four persons present who were endeavouring to keep Maiden off. Cross-examined : Fisher was standing still before he was addressed by Maiden in the first instance, which I attribute to the fact of his being a friend of mine, and perhaps hearing my voice. I believe it was in consequence of his stopping that the expression "There's a policeman" was made use of. I don't believe that Maiden knew who it was at that time. When Chipp came up, Fisher put his hand on Chipp's back, no doubt with the intention of putting him aside to come at Maiden to fight with him, for which they both appeared eager. They both made use of very bad language. By the Jury : l saw no weapon in Maiden's hand, neither did I see a blow struck at any time. By the Coroner : l do not believe that, at the time when Chipp had hold of Maiden, any observation was addressed by the latter to Fisher; if anything was said, it was to the policeman. Frederick Hall, of the Blockhouse, iron moulder, deposed : I was in Angel Street on Sunday night last, about twelve o'clock, at Mr. Maiden's house; on coming out I saw several persons standing together on the other side of the road; I went up the street, and then heard some quarrelling; I thought I heard Fisher's voice. I went away towards the theatre, and then heard Maiden make use of some very indecent language to Fisher respecting his horses, which led to an altercation between them. Fisher then asked Maiden if he wanted to borrow 5/- or 6/-. Maiden replied, "You haven't got that much," and then asked him to lend it, if he had. Fisher refused, when Maiden said " Damn you, you owe me 5/- or 6/-." Fisher replied "I don't, or you'd soon have had it;" and added, "Didn't you summons me to pay more than I owed you?" He then walked towards Maiden, who said " Keep off, or I'll split your bloody head open." Chipp then came up. Fisher then ran away, and Maiden got away from the policeman and pursued deceased. They came near to where I was standing. Near the Horn and Trumpet, Maiden overtook Fisher, laid hold of him by the left shoulder, and beat him about the head and neck with his right hand. I heard the blows, and saw Maiden in the act of striking them. As they were running they came in contact with the wall, and the force of the concussion threw them both on the ground, Maiden being top-most. I did not see Fisher return a blow. I was but two or three yards from them when they fell. I then saw Maiden jump up and stand a little way from the deceased. Mr. Wall, Mr. Parke, and Chipp, then came up to Fisher, who was lying on his face. I saw no symptoms of life in him. I could not tell whether he fell backward or forward. I saw no blow given immediately preceding the fall. When they were picking him up, I heard Maiden say "Blast your eyes, get up;" when Chipp interfered. Some person picked up Fisher's hat and gave it to me. Maiden followed the deceased as far as the old Cattle Market, and then turned back. Cross-examined : Since my examination before the Magistrates on Wednesday I have been asked questions about my evidence by two sisters named Dovey, who said it was a serious concern for both parties, and that if it was the biggest enemy they had they could not appear against him on such an occasion. I said my conscience would not allow me to refrain from telling what I saw. I never said I should like to see Maiden hung; I said it was a bad job on Maiden's side; my reason for saying that was because he had served out Fisher before, and I thought he [Maiden] deserved punishment. I told these women that I had had a few words with Maiden on the same night. l am a half-brother to Maiden's wife. I also said that Maiden had been married ten years to my sister, during which time I had not spoken two dozen words to him till then. I did not say, if Maiden was not transported for this affair, I would swear my life against him. They said they hoped he would get off lightly. I said perhaps he might, or perhaps he would be transported. I said, if he should be hung I would as soon go and see him hung as any other man. By the Coroner : The reason why I did not appear before you summoned me was that no one came after me, and I knew nothing about the time and place of the inquest. [It subsequently appeared that this delay originated from a mistake in the name of the party summoned.] By the Jury : l saw the blows distinctly struck. By the Coroner : lf there had been any weapon in Maiden's hand I must have seen it; but there was none. At this stage of the inquiry [four o'clock] the proceedings were adjourned till half-past five, in order to give the Jury some time for refreshment. The Court and Jury having reassembled, the following witnesses were examined - Mr. W. Rogers, artist : I was in Angel Street on Sunday night last, soon after twelve. I saw deceased and Mr. Maiden, Chipp, Wall, and several other persons there, near Mr. Brewin's shop. My attention was attracted by a sound of quarrelling, which proceeded from Maiden. I crossed the street, and asked Maiden to go home with me. Chipp was then between him and Fisher. Maiden then threw his arm up, disengaged himself, and went towards Fisher. Chipp then took hold of him, but after a short struggle Maiden got away. Chipp had previously said to Fisher "Do you go home; don't wait here." Fisher replied, but I do not know what he said. Fisher then started across the street; Maiden followed him. I then saw Maiden get up from the ground, and Fisher lay on the flags on his back, with his legs near to the door of the Horn and Trumpet, and his head over the curb-stone. Maiden got up, and said "Let me go at him again;" but which was prevented. Fisher had not his hat on at that time. Cross-examined : When I first came up I heard Maiden say "Keep off, and don't come near me, or I'll break your bloody head." I don't think Fisher made any observation to Maiden, but think that the remark which has been alluded to was made to Chipp in reply to Chipp's request that he should go home. I do not know whether Maiden was more excited in consequence of what Fisher said. I was within seven yards when they fell, but it was so dark that I could not see distinctly even at that distance. I saw no blow given, but I heard the fall, which was tremendously heavy. I do not believe there were any blows struck. Fisher was on his back when Maiden got up from him. When Maiden wished to "get at him again," I don't think he was aware of Fisher's state. When the parties were lifting him up, I left, thinking he was not seriously hurt. The cause of the injury I have no doubt was his falling with his head on the curb-stone. By the Coroner : Maiden seemed more excited than drunk; he was not however sober. Re-examined : My only reason for stating that the words used by Fisher excited Maiden was the fact of his breaking away to run after Fisher. I don't know how the fall was occasioned; there was a momentary struggle; but it appeared more like one party running against the other, and the fall took place instantly. John Hatch, of Little Angel Street, cordwainer, deposed to having come up just after the fall, and seeing Fisher in a sitting position, and was with him till three o'clock, but did not think deceased was sensible all that lime. Edward Boyce, of Boughton Fields, clerk to Mr. Maybury, deposed that he came out of Mrs. Fidoe's house with the former witnesses. He fully corroborated their testimony. Thomas Pugh, waiter at the Hop Pole Hotel, was then sworn, and on being asked by the Coroner if he knew anything directly touching the death of the deceased, replied in the negative, but stated that about twelve months ago he was one day passed by Maiden, who declared to him his intention of killing or murdering his [witness's] fellow-servant [meaning Fisher]. Witness replied that Fisher was no fellow-servant of his, but that he lived at the Star. I have heard him use similar observations several times since, but cannot recollect when or at what places; but do not think I have met him in company since last September at the Unicorn; I had previously met him at Turner's, the Holly Bush, the Dog and Duck, and other places; he generally managed to bring up the subject, but never gave a reason for his threatening language. My belief was that he meant to injure him. I have heard of Fisher's having been bruised by Maiden, but am not prepared to state the cause; I have heard that Fisher was found in Maiden's house taking tea and playing cards with Maiden's wife and mother. If I had believed that Maiden intended to murder the deceased I of course should have taken steps to prevent it. I cautioned him. Richard James Lloyd, superintendent of the Worcester Rural Police, who was in a bedroom at the Curriers' Arms, Angel Street, on the night in question, deposed that on hearing a noise he threw up the window and heard one man call another a "d d rascal ;" the other said he was not, but that the other was a swindler; one party then accused the other of owing him a debt, which the other denied; one of the parties said " Damn your eyes, I'll do for you." A policeman then came up. I could not distinguish the parties, but heard the policeman charge them to go home. I then drew my head in, and afterwards heard a race and a scuffle, in which something sounded like a blow, and then a heavy fall. I then put my head out of the window again, but did not see or hear anything distinctly. William Sanders, a policeman, was on duty at the station-house, on the night in question. Maiden came there about one o'clock the next morning and inquired for Chipp; I asked him what he wanted; Maiden said he came to inquire whether they considered him drunk. I said I considered him fresh, and asked him what was the matter; he said an affray had taken place, and he wanted to see Chipp; he then left. Mary Green, servant to Mr. Maiden, at the Shakespeare, went to let a gentleman out at the front door of the house about twelve o'clock on the night in question, when she heard a noise; went out as far as the theatre, and saw two persons run across the street; the first person of the two caught his foot on the pavement, and fell on his back; the other fell over him. She then went back and stood at the door of the Shakespeare. She saw no blows struck, neither heard any; heard some words uttered, but did not notice them. I did not know the parties at the time, but it was Fisher who fell first. This I was informed afterwards. Maiden came home about one o'clock. The distance from the Shakespeare door to the place of the fall was about seven yards. Cross-examined : l was near enough to have seen the blows if any had been given. Re-examined : l have been three months in Mr. Maiden's service; I know the sound of his voice. In the noise which I heard in the street I did not distinguish my master's voice. It did not appear to be quarrelling. I believe Fisher's falling down was in consequence of his turning round, when his foot caught the pavement. He was then about two yards from the person who followed him; they were not at any time nearer, except at the moment of falling. I saw no struggling or wrestling before they fell, and if any persons have sworn to that effect it is false. Mr. Batchelor : How could you see Fisher's foot catch in the pavement at seven yards' distance, when at the same time you say that you could not distinguish the colour of the trousers, nor who the persons were who ran by at four yards' distance? I did not take particular notice of them as they were running, and could not say who they were till I was informed, which was the same morning, when I heard it spoken of in the street. By another Juror : How do you account for Fisher's head being towards the street, when, as you say, he fell down by catching his foot on the pavement, after running across the street? I did not say his head was to the street. Ann Smith, another servant at the Shakespeare, deposed On being informed of the affray by the preceding witness, I went out, heard a great noise, saw the two persons run across the street and fall on the ground; they appeared to be about three or four yards apart before they fell. I then went up to them and found them to be my master and Mr. Fisher, I saw no blows pass, and don't know the cause of the fall. The distance was about twenty yards from where I was standing. The foot of Fisher appeared to catch in the edge of the flag stone, but how I can't say; no one appeared to be pushing or striking him; I was near enough to have heard blows if any had been given. I recognised my master's voice during the quarrelling. My only reason for saying that Fisher's foot caught in the pavement was the fact of his falling; if he had continued running on I should not have known that his foot had so caught. By the Jury : I did not let out any person from the door that night. I saw Frederick Hall in my master's kitchen about twelve o'clock; I did not see him afterwards. I could not tell in what direction Fisher fell. Henry Maiden, nephew to Emanuel Maiden, was at the Shakespeare on the night in question; about twelve o'clock, hearing a row, went into the street, where he saw Maiden and Fisher both down; he saw nothing however material beyond that which had already been staled by the previous witnesses. Thomas Grundy, corporal of a recruiting party of the Grenadier Guards, stationed in this city, also saw the affray, but was not near enough to observe or hear anything material. He heard a noise, which he should think proceeded rather from a fall than a blow. Mr. B. Shephard, surgeon, deposed that he accidentally saw deceased shortly after the affray happened. He was then insensible, sitting on the flags, and supported by Chipp. He was bleeding from a wound on the back of the head; went home with deceased; examined the wound, which was about one inch in extent, and slightly curved. I found that the periosteum or membrane was injured and the bone denuded. I went home for my instruments, returned in about half an hour, when I made an incision on each side of the wound to the extent of half an inch down to the bone, detaching the membrane; I passed my finger on the bone in every direction, and could not detect a fracture. I then thought there must have been ex-travasation of blood, or that the concussion of the brain was so great as to cause deceased's insensibility. There was slight nausea, without vomiting. I thought he was in a dangerous state. I dressed his head, and remained with him till two o'clock, when I left proper directions. I saw deceased again the same morning; his pulse was then beating full; I thought he was a little better, I took about six ounces of blood from his left arm. I saw him again in the evening; Mr. T. Walsh, surgeon, was there at the time; we consulted together, and gave the deceased some calomel, etc.; he appeared to get better after our treatment. At eight o'clock I met Mr. Walsh, when we ordered magnesia for the deceased. We attended him till the time of his death, which took place shortly before nine o'clock on Wednesday night. I made a post mortem examination of the body on Thursday, assisted by Mr. Walsh, Mr. Garden, Mr. Sheppard of Foregate Street, and Mr. Sheppard, jun. The external part of the head presented a wound, [as before described] ; under the right ear was a bruise, extending principally to the back of the ear; on the left shoulder was also a bruise, about the size of a five-shilling piece; there were two or three slight bruises on the arm; and one on the right elbow; one on the right forearm over the radius. On each hand were bruises above the knuckles. About the centre of the back there was an extensive bruise, and one on the seat, several on the legs, and one on the thigh. On the left leg there had been a laceration of the integuments. With respect to the internal appearances, before we took the skull-cap off we detected a fracture, nine inches in length, extending from the occipital angle of the parietal bone to the squamous portion of the splenoid bone. It was a fracture of both plates of the skull. On taking off the skull-cap, the dura mater was found perfect; upon dividing it on the right side of the longitudinal sinus, and deflecting it, there was laceration of the brain in the middle lobe of the cerebrum, on the right hemisphere, and extending an inch above the fracture. The left hemisphere was also injured by effusion between the convolutions. It was what would be familiarly known by the term "extravasation of blood." The lungs were healthy, but the right lobe had adhesions to the ribs; the heart was flabby and rather small; the liver appeared diseased, of a nutmeg hue; the stomach was large; the intestines and kidneys sound. I believe the cause of death was the extravasation of blood on the right hemisphere of the brain. In my opinion a blow or a fall with great violence might have occasioned that laceration. The extravasation was probably not occasioned by the fracture, but by a blow or fall. I believe the fracture was caused by a fall, and not by a blow. A man might have recovered from the effects of the fracture, had it not been for the extravasation. Cross-examined : The skull was so thin that you could see light through it, and was therefore more liable to fracture. A fracture nine inches in length would be an extraordinary thing for a skull of common thickness. A fall, with a heavy man on it, would in my opinion have caused that fracture. I should say deceased's general health had been bad, which would have a tendency to make the bruises appear more. The bruises on the arms may have been chiefly occasioned by his being carried home. The bruises on the leg might have been produced by a kick. Mr. John Henry Walsh, surgeon, was next examined : I was sent for to see deceased on Monday last, when he found him in the same state as described by the previous witness; approved of the measures adopted for his recovery, and attended him till his death. Mr. Walsh's evidence as to the appearance of the body after dissection was similar in almost every respect to that of Mr. Shephard; in reference to the state of the brain he was more minute, but equally conclusive as to extravasation of blood having been the cause of death. In his opinion the rupture of the blood vessels was occasioned by a blow on or about the right ear, probably inflicted by a fist, but not by a weapon. He did not think the bruise on the ear was occasioned by a fall. The fall could not have caused the fracture, but might have increased its extent; the fracture was probably caused by the same blow which inflicted the bruise over the ear: his reasons for thinking that the fracture was occasioned by a blow were : 1st, that the centre of the fracture corresponded with the centre of the bruise over the ear; 2nd, his reason for supposing that the fracture was not occasioned by the fall was, that the fracture did not correspond with the injury of the bone al the back of the head. He was also of opinion that the bruise on the leg was probably occasioned by the nails of a boot or shoe; the cause of the other bruises was a matter of conjecture. Mr. Carden, surgeon, was next sworn, and stated that he was called to the deceased on Wednesday evening. He fully agreed with the manner in which the general statement of the case had been made, although he did not agree in every point with the deductions drawn by the two preceding witnesses. There was however but one point in reference to the case to which he would refer as tending to throw some light on the discrepancies between the medical and general evidence adduced. The number of bruises on the body of deceased, as compared with the short period of the struggle, were very numerous, he having counted no less than thirty; he also wished to point out the extensive extravasation of blood, the paleness of the body, and the flabbiness of the muscles; and he then felt convinced in his mind that the deceased was one of those persons whose structures give way under slight injuries, and in whom the extent of mischief done formed no fair criterion of the violence applied. The cause of the death was destruction and laceration of the brain, and the effusion of blood. He differed from Mr. Walsh, and did not think that the fracture on the head was occasioned by a blow, but by a fall; because, in the first place, there was no depression, but a simple crack. Had there been a depression or star in the fracture, he would have looked for the producing cause immediately over that depression or star; and it was well known that in simple cracks of the skull the fracture was frequently even on the opposite side to where the injury was received. Another reason for supposing that the greatest injury to the bone was at the back of the head was, not only that the injury was inflicted by falling on the pavement, but that it was actually nearer to that part of the fracture which was in the thickest portion of bone. The fracture crossing the back of the head, within one inch of the denuded bone, and in the remainder of its course passing at least 2 inches above the point behind the ear marked out, was the severest point of contusion. Mr. Carden gave other reasons for believing that a fall on the pavement was far more likely to cause a concussion of the brain than a simple blow from a fist. The fracture of the skull, he observed, was not the principal cause of death. The various bruises might be reasonably accounted for by the effusion of blood from the vessels as from blows or any other cause; in some constitutions the vessels were so weak that contusions were caused by the slightest accidents; and he thought deceased was one of that class. It being now nearly four o'clock in the morning, the Coroner adjourned the inquest till Monday morning, ten o'clock. SEE COLUMN 3 >
"The Late Affray in Angel Street"
Worcester Journal : August 5th 1841 Page 4.

All text and images Copyright - click here for more information.

Licensees of this Pub
1792 - Robert Hurdman
1820 - 1841 Henry Harrison
1841 - 1841 Emanuel Maiden
1841 - c.1850 John Humphryes
c.1850 - 1852 William Bradstock
1852 - 1858 Timothy Mason
1858 - 1870 Thomas G. Heming
1870 - 1875 John Skett
1875 - 1876 Jane Skett
1876 - 1884 Sarah Skett
1884 - 1889 Edmund Matthew Slater
1889 - 1898 Arthur Joseph Radford
1898 - 1906 William Watkins
1906 - 1906 Thomas Nicholson
1906 - 1912 James Harlow
1912 - 1913 Winifred Harlow
1913 - 1918 Henry Neville Blake
1918 - 1929 David Harper
1929 - 1930 Henry Sharp
1930 - 1932 Horace W. Mansfield
1932 - 1933 John Hewer
1933 - 1933 William Morrison
1933 - 1935 Haydn Morris
1935 - 1937 William R. Walker
1937 - 1942 Robert Clow
1942 - 1957 George Ridgeway Thorne
1958 - 1960 Edith Susan Thorne
1960 - 1963 William James Burrett
1963 - 1966 Richard Gibbons
1966 - 1973 Peter Rogers
1973 - 1974 Richard Woosnam
1974 - 1982 Brian Hill
1982 - 1983 Sheila Hill
1983 - 2001 Graham Williams
2013 - Alison Kate Tabberer
Post-1873 list compiled by Bob Backenforth

Click here to visit the website's Facebook pages

Mitchell's and Butler's Logo

Genealogy Connections
If you have a genealogy story or query regarding the Shakespeare Hotel you can contact me and I will post it here in addition to including your message within the website pages for Worcestershire Genealogy.

Mitchell's and Butler's Traditional Cask Ales

Town Plan showing the Shakespeare Hotel on Angel Street [1886]
This extract from a town plan drawn up in 1886 shows five pubs including the Shakespeare Inn as it was then recorded. On the left is the Horn and Trumpet whilst the Fountain Inn is across the road from the Theatre Royal. Almost opposite the Shakespeare Inn is the Ewe and Lamb. Tucked away with access from an alleyway was the Bird in Hand.

Inn Sign
Inn Sign of The Shakespeare Hotel at Worcester [1990]

Inn Sign of The Shakespeare Hotel at Worcester [1990]

Inn Sign of The Cricketers' at Worcester [2003]

Inn Sign of The Cricketers' at Worcester [2010]

These four signs span twenty years hanging outside the Shakespeare Hotel.

Links to other Websites
Worcester CAMRA
Worcester City Museums
Worcestershire County Council
Worcester News
Worcester Pubs Then and Now

William Shakespeare
"I would give all my fame for a pot of ale and safety.
William Shakespeare

Now, That's What I Call a Hoppy Head

1950 Advertisement for Mitchell's & Butler's

Work in Progress

Click here to visit Digital Photographic Images

Drinkers by Adriaen Brouwer

Mitchell's and Butler's Brew XI Beer Mat

Mitchell's and Butler's Celebration Strong Dark Mild

Newspaper Articles
"Thomas Scragg, commercial traveller, of Leeds, was charged with being drunk and riotous, and refusing to quit the Shakespeare Inn, on the night of the 4th inst. Defendant having been ejected from the inn by P.C. Hill created a disturbance in Angel Street, in consequence of which the officer was obliged to lock him up. A fine of 1.1s. for each offence was imposed."
"Refusing to Quit"
Worcester Journal : July 12th 1884 Page 2.

Mitchell's and Butler's Special Ale Beer Label

"Shortly after nine o'clock on Saturday night, three men, respectably attired, called at the Shakespeare Inn, Angel Street, and after partaking of some liquor, asked Mrs. Hemming, the landlady, to oblige them with a 5 note for five sovereigns, which one of them tendered. Mrs. Heming acceded to the request, and two of the three men engaged her attention whilst the third, as she supposed, left to do business in the city. It seemed, however, that the tendering of the gold for the note was a ruse, in order that they might ascertain where the ready cash was kept, for soon after they had left it was discovered that a robbery had been effected, and that two gold watches, four 5 notes of the Worcester Old Bank, two 10 ditto, and about 30 in gold and silver, had been abstracted from the landlord's bedroom. An alarm was given, and the police were communicated with, but no trace of the thieves could be discovered. One of the watches, an open-faced patent lever, is numbered 2,615 ; and the other is a double-cased hunting watch, with plain shield on back of the case, and blue enamelled garter round it. One of the men was of dark complexion, and dressed in black clothes, and another was of a fuller face, but sallow complexion, and wore a light coloured overcoat. The police were actively engaged yesterday, but up to nine o'clock last night no tidings had been ascertained."
"Daring Robbery at the Shakespeare Inn"
Birmingham Daily Post : Dec 18th 1865 Page 8.

Mitchell's and Butler's Black Satin Stout Beer Label

"About midday on Friday last a respectably dressed man went to the Shakespeare Inn, Angel Street, and expressed a wish to hire a horse and dog-cart to drive to Droitwich with, stating that he should return the same evening. Mr. Heming named his charge, and eventually it was agreed that the stranger should have the trap for nine shillings. The man left with the horse and trap soon after, but has not since returned, or communicated with their owner. The horse is a bay colt, 14-8 to 15 hands high, and the dog cart is painted blue, relieved with white, wood dark, but no apron, and contained a horse rug with a " D " marked on it, and carpet cushions. Information has been given to the police, who are making every enquiry, and it will be seen by advertisement that reward of 5/. has been offered. Mr. Heming has several times been victimised the same way."
"An Old Trick"
Worcestershire Chronicle : Nov 21st 1866 Page 2.

Mitchell's and Butler's Deer's Leap


Newspaper Articles
"On Monday Mrs. Mary Ann Barker, living at No. 4, Sansome Walk, died suddenly in the Shakespeare Hotel, Angel Street. She was taken suddenly ill when passing down Angel Street, and went into the Shakespeare Hotel and asked to be allowed to sit down. She took a small drop of brandy, but became worse, and a doctor was sent for. Mr. Walsh quickly arrived; but immediately afterward. Mrs. Barker died. Mr. Walsh was able to give a certificate as to the cause of death, so that no inquest was held. It is understood that the deceased suffered from heart disease, and that that was the cause of death."
"Sudden Death in a Public House"
Worcester Journal : July 11th 1891 Page 4.

Mitchell's and Butler's Plate

"On Monday morning, the Coroner and Jury reassembled at the Star Hotel when the following additional evidence was adduced. Benjamin Reeve, ostler at Mr. Maiden's, examined by Mr. Bedford, produced a pair of thin patent leather boots which Maiden wore on the Sunday in question. He had no boots with nails in the toes. Cross-examined by Mr. Rea : Mr. Maiden has eight or nine pairs of boots but no shoes. I did not see him put on the boots produced, but I saw them on his feet. I saw my master at ten o'clock on Sunday night in the bar of his house By the Coroner : At ten o'clock my master was fresh; but he was not excited. By the Jury : l did not see these boots again till the Tuesday. I saw other boots. I do not know what boots Maiden wore on the Monday I cleaned all the boots he wore. I only cleaned one pair of boots on the Tuesday morning; It was not the boots produced. Catherine Dovey examined by Mr. Bedford : I live in the Blockhouse, in the parish of St. Peter. I know Frederick Hall. I saw him on Wednesday evening last, and had conversation with him regarding Fisher's death. He said he did not think it was a bad on Mr. Maiden's side, as he should like to see him hang. Mr. Gaunt objected to the question. The objection was overruled. Examination resumed. Hall said he had had a quarrel with Maiden the same night, just before the quarrel in the street occurred, and Maiden had ordered him out of his house. He said he would rather take a stranger's part than Maiden's for he never liked him. He said if Maiden was not transported for this he would swear his life against him. Cross-examined by Mr. Rea : I was at Malvern races. I saw Maiden there and spoke to him . I did not know of this occurrence till I came home on Tuesday. The conversation with Hall took place between three and four o'clock on Wednesday afternoon. I was at my door, and as Hall passed, I asked him if Fisher was dead. He said no. I said it was a bad job; he asked of whom. I said of both parties. He said he did not consider it a bad job on Maiden's side, for he deserved hanging and he should like to see him hung. I said it was a bad thing to see anybody hung, his own brother-in-law in particular. He said he would sooner see him hung than a stranger. He said Maiden had been married to his sister ten years, and had never spoken ten words comfortable to him, because he [Hall] never liked him. Hall said his brother John Darke had a spite against Maiden for summoning him for payment for more clothes than he owed him for. My brother and mother were present, and also two sisters. I did not tell Hall that he ought not to have given evidence. Hall said he should swear his life against Maiden if he got out of this, or if he was not transported, because he should be afraid to go out of doors. By the Jury : There was no other person present during the conversation except those I have mentioned. l am not intimate with Mr. Maiden, but I drank with him and Mr. Darke at Malvern races. Darke is Maiden's brother-in-law. l am not a relation nor an acquaintance of Maiden. Darke was not drinking with Maiden at Malvern. John Thomas Dovey, brother of the last witness, was then sworn, but Mr. Bedford declined to examine him. He was then examined by the Jury : I was present at the conversation between Hall and my sister. I worked for Maiden two years ago, but have not done so since, nor have I spoken to him since. By Mr. Bedford : l was present during the whole of the conversation. Hall was going by and my sister asked him if it was true Fisher was dead. He said no, he had just left him, but be could not live long. My sister said it was a bad job for both. Hall said it was a bad job for Fisher : he did not see that it was for Maiden, and if Maiden were to be hung or transported it would be a good job, for he should like to see him hung. [The rest of this witness' evidence was in strict corroboration of that of the previous witness.] He stated in addition that Hall said he heard the row. He did not know them but by their voices. He saw them staggering across the street. He ran down to them and saw Fisher on his face. He saw no blows struck, but beard blows. He had had a row with Maiden in his house before this row began, and was ordered out of the house. Hall said that his brother [the witness Darke] picked up Fisher. J. H. Walsh, Esq. was recalled, and in answer to questions from the Jury said, that he could not speak as to the precise state of deceased's health for two months previous to his death, not having attended him professionally during that period. Thomas Merriman, with whom deceased lodged, deposed that he had known deceased for four or five years. He had lodged with witness for the last twelve months. In that period be had been ailing at times, but had generally enjoyed good health. He had no disease likely to cause death. He was very well on the Sunday in question. He was of a mild quiet disposition, and of sober habits. I have only seen him the worse for liquor once during the last twelve months. I did not see him on the Sunday from two o'clock until he was brought home Mr. R. T. Rea then proceeded to address the Jury on behalf of the friends of the deceased. He said that the question for the decision of the Jury was, whether John Fisher had come to his death by the act of God, or by some other agency. The evidence which had been laid before them showed something further than the act of God; it proved the agency of man. The question then arose whether the death of the deceased resulted from murder, from manslaughter, or from justifiable homicide. He then read from one of the text books a definition of the crimes of wilful murder and manslaughter, and said that no degree of provocation, however great, could render homicide justifiable, or even excusable. In order lo decide on the mode in which deceased came by his death it was necessary that he should recur to the evidence. He then animadverted in strong terms upon the opprobrious epithet applied to Fisher by the accused when he first walked up to him in the street; and said that it was natural for Fisher to demand an explanation of that epithet. When he asked for an explanation he was answered with a low and vulgar reference to his horses. All the provocation that could be proved against Fisher was that he had said, "Damn your eyes what do I owe you anything for? The last time I owed you anything you summoned me, and made me pay more than I owed." The policeman then came up, and, apprehending a breach of the peace, took hold of Maiden. An observation then appeared lo have been made by Fisher, which some of the witnesses said was addressed to Chipp, the policeman, whilst others said it was addressed to Maiden. Some of the witnesses said that Maiden was greatly excited by this observation, and one of them said that he was as much excited as he could be before he broke from the policeman. He contended for the credibility of the witness Hall on the ground of the position of the gas lamp in front of Mr. Gaunt's house at the bottom of the street, which was parallel with the flag stones on which Hall stood, and on which the affray took place. The other witnesses being on the other side of the street, Hall would have a better opportunity of seeing than they could have, because the bodies of the contending parties would be interposed between him and the light, and consequently he would be able to distinguish every motion of their bodies and arms. Hall also stood between the two persons engaged in the struggle and the two female servants who had been called, and therefore must have had a better chance of seeing than they had. Moreover, the nephew of Maiden said that Hall was standing close by when Fisher was raised from the ground, and therefore the presumption was that he had witnessed the whole affair. Another important point was one on which the medical gentlemen had spoken. There was a mark of a blow on the ear, and if that mark had been caused by a fall there would have been an abrasion of the skin similar to that in the wound at the back of the head. Mr. Walsh said that the fall might have increased the fracture which existed in the skull, but could not have caused it. He must make one observation upon the evidence of another witness, without at all intending to impugn his veracity. Mr. Rogers had said that be had a better opportunity of seeing what transpired than anybody else, and yet it appeared that he stood with the other witnesses on the opposite side of the street, and Mr. Rogers himself admitted that the policeman Chipp was nearer to the parties than he was. All the witnesses, however, agreed that a struggle had taken place, and he contended that the witness Hall had the best opportunity of seeing, from his position in regard to the gas lamp. With respect to the two witnesses, the Doveys, who had been examined that morning, be conceived that they had been brought forward merely for the purpose of discrediting the testimony of Hall. He must, however, say of the course that had been pursued in examining them by his learned friend, Mr. Bedford, that there was a great difference between putting the words into the mouths of witnesses, and asking them what bad taken place. And besides, how came it to pass that the sister, the party with whom Hall was said to have held the conversation, did not tell the jury so much by one-half as had been told them by the brother who was afterwards examined. According to his conviction the testimony of Hall was corroborated and confirmed by the medical evidence, and be contended that all the circumstances strengthened the presumption that Maiden intended to strike Fisher. If the Jury believed that the feeling described by the witness Pugh existed in the mind of Maiden, or if they believed that he had applied the opprobrious epithet which they had heard to the deceased with the malicious design of provoking a quarrel, it would be their duty, however painful, to find a verdict of wilful murder. If, on the other hand, they were convinced that no previous malice existed, they would find a verdict of manslaughter; but under no circumstances could they find a verdict of justifiable or even excusable homicide. This terminated the evidence. Mr. Bedford then rose to address the Jury on behalf of the accused. He hoped that nothing which the Jury might have heard out of doors [for the most absurd and extravagant rumours and exaggerations respecting this unhappy business bad been spread abroad and had been detailed to him] would he allowed lo weigh for a moment in influencing their decision. He hoped that no prejudices had been carried within the precincts of that room with regard to the unhappy business which they had met to investigate, or that if any such existed, they would operate in favour of that party whom the law presumed to be innocent until he should be proved to be guilty. If the Jury came there with their minds prejudiced they could not give the accused party a chance, nor could they uprightly discharge that duty which they had been sworn lo perform. He repeated that the most absurd and incredible rumours had been circulated out of doors, and had been detailed to him. It had been said that his unfortunate client had been lying in wait for Fisher with a weapon purposely constructed so as to be conveniently concealed about his person, that he had heaped cruelty on cruelty in the alleged barbarous treatment of his victim, and that he had stood over him and belaboured him for a space of 15 minutes. The Coroner had ably explained to the Jury the nature of murder and of manslaughter, but he had omitted all mention of homicide by misadventure, under which it appeared to him that the death of Fisher might be classed. He would illustrate this by an example. Suppose that these two parties had made a wager as to which of them should reach the gas lamp first, and in the race one had fallen down and the other had fallen over him, thereby causing his death, that would be a case of homicide by misadventure. With respect to the evidence of Pugh he must say that that evidence was extremely improper and unfair. If anything, it was intended to make out a case of murder through antecedent menaces on the part of Maiden, but the injury out of which this inquiry arose did not come at all under the operation of the law in that respect, which had reference to the use of weapons calculated to cause death, but this was clearly only a sudden encounter. Pugh's last conversation with Maiden took place in September last, and in answer to the Coroner, Pugh said that he had never believed that Maiden intended to murder Fisher. What had Pugh's conduct been? Did he go to Fisher and put him on his guard? No such thing. He only told him to keep from them, and very good advice too. From previous transactions, which were matter of notoriety, nothing was more likely than that such language should have been made use of by Maiden; but Maiden had never taken any steps in pursuance of that language, and even Mr. Rea himself had felt the evidence of Pugh to be so utterly beside the question at issue that he had not ventured to make any remark upon it. Another witness upon whose evidence Mr. Rea had not ventured to make any observation was the policeman Sanders. He [Mr. Bedford] was quite at a loss to know why this witness had been called, but he supposed it must have been for the purpose of discrediting Chipp's statement. Now it happened that Chipp was the only man who was confirmed by every witness except in one point; that was as to Fisher lying upon his face, and in that he was corroborated by Hall. None of the other witnesses entirely agreed with each other; but they all corroborated Chipp. He would now offer a few observations upon the evidence of the witnesses Darke and Hall, and he called upon the Jury to sift their testimony minutely. He contended that whatever evidence they gave came from a contaminated source, and ought to be narrowly watched. Darke stated that on the night in question he had been drinking with Maiden; and being his brother-in-law the Jury would have expected that he came forward to make out as favourable a case for him as possible. The magistrates had expected that such would be the case, for they had remarked in his [Mr. Bedford's] hearing, how praiseworthy his conduct was in coming forward. But instead of making out a favourable case he endeavoured to place his relation in the blackest position, and stood before them as the party through whose instrumentality the warrant for Maiden's apprehension had been granted; and the Jury would not forget his admission that be had not been on friendly terms with Maiden for some time past. Mr. Bedford then proceeded to remark on the discrepancies apparent between the evidence of Darke and that of the other witnesses. Darke stated that when Fisher passed them in the street on the Sunday night, and whilst he was passing some one said, "there goes a policeman;" but Wall said that Fisher had stopped two or three yards below them before anyone spoke to him, and then some one asked the question "is it a policeman?" Mr. Wall's evidence was of the utmost importance to his [Mr. Bedford's] client, as showing that Maiden did not seek Fisher, but that Fisher sought Maiden, but Darke, by a distortion of the words used, sought to give an unfavourable colour to the transaction. As to Hall and the evidence of the Dovey's, the two latter proved that Hall had said he should like to see Maiden hung, which he had sworn before the Jury that he did not say. His object was to show that these two witnesses, Darke and Hall, were seeking to prove more than they actually knew. He then went minutely through their evidence, pointing out and commenting upon various discrepancies. Mr. Rea had endeavoured to throw discredit upon the testimony of Mr. Rogers; but he said that if any man had come forward free and unbiased to give his testimony that man was Mr. Rogers. Another word as to Darke. When the notorious transaction took place to which allusion had been made, Darke was the man whom Maiden had consulted, as was perfectly natural, seeing that Mrs. Maiden was his own sister; and he afterwards found this Darke, the man upon whose advice he relied, drinking with Fisher, the man whom he supposed to have wronged him, at the Porto Bello. He would ask them as husbands and as men, was not the denial of his house to Darke under such circumstances the most natural and the most proper step his client could adopt? The witness Hall said that Maiden made use of one expression, "blast your eyes, get up," but in this not one of the other witnesses corroborated him, although they all deposed to the other expression, "Damn him, I've given him something, and I'll give him something more." If the other words had been used the other witnesses must have heard them. But be would compare Hall's testimony with that of Mr. Rogers, and he confidently asked of the Jury that that preponderance of importance should be given to the witness who came fairly and unbiased as between the Queen and the person in custody to which he was justly entitled, in preference to their placing implicit reliance on the evidence of one who manifested, as Hal! unquestionably did, a hostile and vindictive feeling against his unfortunate client. The point at issue in the evidence lay between Hall and Mr. Rogers, and from all that appeared his unfortunate client might have fallen over the deceased. He must say a few words upon the evidence of the surgeons; and he was bound to observe, though he disclaimed any offensive intention, that the testimony of Mr. Walsh was not given in the way in which he had expected it would be given. He [Mr. Bedford] knew nothing of surgery, but he hoped that he knew something of common sense. A good deal of that evidence was quite uncalled for and ought not to have been given. He would ask the Jury to exercise their common sense in looking at the matter. Here was a man following an unresisting body which was flying from him, and he contended that it was impossible from the relative positions in which the parties were placed that the fracture of the skull could have been caused by a blow of the fist. He cared not what surgical opinions might be given upon the point; he would have a common sense opinion. A destruction of the brain had been mentioned as having taken place under the blow on the ear; but he thought that destruction of the brain had been caused by the fall on the pavement which bad produced the wound at the back of the head. It did not necessarily follow that destruction of the brain should take place immediately under the spot where a blow had been given, unless the blow caused a depression of the skull, and in this case there was none. Another part of the brain might lie injured by that blow. If they filled a vessel with water and struck it on the side, would the water he displaced from that spot only which was struck; would it not be displaced in an equal degree on the opposite side of the vessel? Unless there was a depression of the skull the brain would not be destroyed, and it was preposterous and contrary to common sense lo say that in this case the destruction of the brain resulted from a blow of the human fist. As to the mark on the shin, Mr. Walsh had volunteered an opinion that that was caused by a kick from the toe of a boot or shoe. This opinion he [Mr. Bedford] looked upon as an unfair attempt to give a colour to the melancholy transaction which was melancholy enough without it, and which colouring was not borne out by facts. He himself had gone and examined all the boots Maiden possessed - he had no shoes - and the jury had had an opportunity of inspecting the boots he wore on that day, and could see that there was nothing about them which would have produced such an appearance. Mr. Carden's evidence supplied the only probable solution of the appearance; but he did not rely upon that alone, nor upon the boots themselves; he relied upon the evidence of all the witnesses, even Hall included, to contradict Mr. Walsh upon that point. Mr. Bedford then proceeded to remark upon the evidence, pointing out various discrepancies, and contended that on the night in question Fisher sought Maiden, although warned to avoid him by Pugh. After Maiden had gone up to Fisher and had used the disgusting expression which had been too often used during the inquiry, he walked back and was followed by Fisher. Maiden then told him to keep off. That was the act of a man retiring and not of one who wanted to come into collision. The learned gentleman then alluded to the circumstance of Fisher speaking to Maiden over the policeman's shoulder, and supposed the case of certain words being then used and certain insinuations made, but as they did not appear in evidence we refrain from repeating them. In conclusion he contended, upon the testimony of Mr. Rogers as opposed to that of Hall, that there was no evidence before the jury of any blow having been struck, and said that he had no doubt the jury would come to an impartial conclusion, and that if they could in fairness give his unfortunate client the benefit of any doubt which might have arisen in their minds during the progress of the investigation, they would do so cheerfully and without hesitation. The Coroner then proceeded to sum up the evidence, a great portion of which he said was not applicable to the subject of their inquiry, namely the cause of the death of the deceased. After intreating the Jury to put away from their minds all that they might have heard out of doors, he said that he should call their attention to the matters of fact which had been brought before them, and he would begin with the evidence of the surgeons, referring the Jury at the same time to their own observations on the state of the body. There were upon the body several severe bruises, one of which was on the right ear. One surgeon said that death was caused by extravasation of blood and injury of the brain, and that that proceeded partly from the bruise on the right ear. Mr. Carden said that a fall might have caused it; and granting that to be so, if the Jury were of opinion that such fall was caused by the act of Maiden, he would be liable to answer for its consequences. If he gave a blow and Fisher fell from it be would also be liable to answer for it. There could be no doubt that Fisher received the bruise on his right ear from a blow given by somebody, for Mr. Walsh had staled that the bruise could not have been caused by a fall, and had given his reasons for that opinion. He also judged that the bruise, from its large extent, was caused by a human fist. It was for the Jury to decide how Fisher received this injury. If it was not caused by the fall then it must have been occasioned by a blow. Now to the facts as proved by the witnesses. It was stated that Fisher ran away and that Maiden ran after him. Owing to the darkness of the night and the confusion that prevailed the witnesses might not have been precisely accurate in their observation of what passed, yet they all except one agreed that Fisher ran away and was pursued by Maiden; Mr. Wall alone said that the deceased walked. All the witnesses agreed upon one material point - that Maiden was the only person near enough to deceased to have struck him a blow. The two female witnesses, on the other hand, if the Jury could believe their testimony, swore that Maiden was never within two yards of the deceased, and if that were true it was impossible that he could have struck a blow. Absurd and mischievous rumours had been circulated and had reached his ears, and doubtless those of many of the Jury, that the blow was inflicted with a weapon. Now it was clearly proved in evidence that Maiden had no weapon of any kind, and it must therefore be apparent that if he struck deceased at all he struck him with the only weapon a man ought to use, namely, his fist. If the Jury believed the two women, the deceased could not have been struck, and his injuries were caused by a fall; but it was clear that he had received a blow, and then the question arose, how did he get it; for the surgeons stated that the bruise on the ear could not have been caused by the fall. No other party but Maiden was near him when he fell, and whether the blow was the cause of death or of the fall, the result as far as Maiden's liability was concerned was the same. As to the witness Hall, he had contradicted his own statements on oath, and where a Jury found that a witness did this their safest course was to reject his testimony altogether. But he was confirmed in some parts of his evidence by other witnesses who saw him present at the time of the occurrence; though, as he avowed a bad feeling towards Maiden, the Jury should not rely solely on his testimony. Hall said that he saw blows given; the number of blows was quite immaterial if the Jury believed that one blow was struck. The respectable witness Lloyd confirmed Hall's testimony as to one blow. He slated that he heard the sound of a blow before he heard the sound of the fall. Lloyd was at the Curriers' Arms, near the spot where the unfortunate event occurred, and although the window of his room was shut he might have heard the sound of a blow; for in some cases persons above stairs were more likely to hear correctly than those below. Now as to the fall. Four of the witnesses said that deceased fell upon his back, whilst two said that he fell upon his face. He thought the Jury would be of opinion that deceased fell upon his back, because all the witnesses deposed that be did not turn, and all the surgeons stated that a blow would not have caused the wound at the back of the head, but that it might have been caused by a man falling on his back on a hard substance like the pavement. If the fall was caused by a blow or push, and Maiden gave that blow or push, he must be answerable for the consequences. He came now to the evidence as to a previous quarrel having subsisted between the parties. The language used by Maiden was certainly more calculated to excite a breach of the peace than any which Fisher was proved to have uttered. The witnesses said that Maiden walked away and that Fisher followed him. no doubt feeling naturally angry at the offensive epithet that bad been applied to him. Other conversation of an angry nature passed, and there could be no doubt that what was called a quarrel existed between the parties. Chipp then came up and separated them, and Fisher made some observation which had not been laid before the Jury. Chipp said that the observation was addressed to Maiden, whom it appeared greatly to excite; and that upon the utterance of those words, whatever they were, by Fisher, Maiden wrested himself out of Chipp's hands and pursued Fisher. No doubt words were used which very greatly exasperated Maiden. If the Jury believed that death was caused by the blow their duty would be to find a verdict against Maiden, because there was no one but he who could have given it; but they must at the same time remember the heat and excitement that existed in Maiden's mind, and the causes which had led to that excitement. It had been laid down by the Judges of the Queen's Bench that if death were caused by a quarrel, the party so causing death was guilty, not of murder but of manslaughter. If the Jury thought that the blow was struck in the heat of passion they would be justified in returning a verdict of manslaughter, unless they were of opinion that Maiden entertained malice against Fisher - not twelve months back, for that would not do, but at the time when the blow was struck; and if they came to that conclusion, it would be their painful duty to find a verdict of wilful murder. The Coroner then proceeded to remark on the evidence of Pugh. Great excitement prevailed on the subject of an occurrence that had taken place some time ago; and after what had transpired with regard to his wife it was by no means unnatural that Maiden should say with regard to Fisher that he would do for him, or be the death of him. After what had taken place such a form of expression was perfectly natural; but since the time when those expressions were used, Maiden had been in the habit of seeing Fisher almost daily, and had never shown any disposition to carry his threats into effect. It would have been far better if Pugh had not given his evidence, for the only tendency it could have was to inflame the minds of people upon the subject of a transaction that occurred a long time before. The Jury might therefore cast the evidence of Pugh out of their minds, and put malice entirely out of the question, unless they thought that a malicious intent existed at the time of the affray. Maiden's expression "I have given him something and will give him some more" was perfectly natural, and was the expression of a man engaged in combat with his adversary. The Jury might therefore quite put aside the question of malice, and if they believed the evidence of the two female servants they would return a verdict of accidental death, because if a man in running fell down and another fell over him, and thereby death ensued, nobody was accountable. But lo enable the Jury to believe these two witnesses they must disbelieve all the other witnesses. The Coroner then briefly remarked upon the medical evidence, and said that the use of any weapon by Maiden had been entirely disproved by the whole of the evidence. There was before the Jury sufficient evidence of provocation and excitement. Maiden was not excited when he was at the Waggon and Horses, nor did it appear that he was excited till Fisher came up, and there was no evidence of his harbouring malice against any one. Both parties seemed to have been disposed to fight, and the witness Wall, who admitted that he was a friend of Fisher, said that deceased tried to get Chipp away in order to fight with Maiden. The Jury had sufficient evidence before them to justify a verdict of manslaughter if they believed that Maiden gave the blow or caused the fall. If they believed that Maiden was actuated by malice at the time of the affray it would be their duty to find a verdict of wilful murder; and if they thought that Maiden neither gave the blow nor caused the fall, they would find a verdict of accidental death. He added that the Jury should state in their verdict whether the laceration of the brain was caused by the blow, by the fall, or partly by both. The Jury then retired, and after consulting for about a quarter of an hour returned the following verdict : "We find that the death of the deceased, John Fisher, was occasioned by extravasation of blood on the brain, produced by a severe blow and heavy fall given by Emanuel Maiden, and we therefore find the said Emanuel Maiden guilty of Manslaughter." Phillips, superintendent of the city police, was then bound over to prosecute at the next assizes, and the several witnesses were bound in their own recognizances to appear and give evidence. Maiden was formally committed by the Coroner, and remains at present in the city gaol. The unfortunate man. Fisher, was buried on Sunday in the new city cemetery. The funeral was attended by a numerous concourse of people."
"The Adjourned Inquest"
Worcester Journal : August 5th 1841 Page 4.

Click here to follow on Twitter
Click here to visit the website's Facebook pages

Click here to visit the website's YouTube Channel

Click here for more details

Beer and Pipe Smoker

Bar Parlour Stained Glass

Tap Room Etched Glass


Pub Drinkers between the Wars

Rural Drinkers outside the Pub

The Young Barmaid by Charles Sillem Lidderdale

Drinking Celebrations

Le Bock by Picasso [1901]

Beer is Best

Best Room and Snug

Edwardian Barman

Bar Etched Glass

Drinking in the Snug


Wartime Drinkers

Click here for more details


Public Bar Stained Glass

Woman Serving Beer

Brewery Buildings