The Blackburn “Ghost” Mystery.
During the past month or five weeks between 200 and 300 panes of glass have been mysteriously broken in some cottage houses known as Union-buildings, Daisyfield, Blackburn. The object of this wholesale smashing, as well as the author, remains at present unknown; and one of the most singular circumstances connected with the affair is, that most of the damage had been done in broad daylight, during the hours when most of the occupants were engaged at the factory.
On Thursday last, a respectable young man, named George Hindle, was apprehended and locked up on the charge, but at the hearing on Saturday the Bench admitted that there was no case against him, and he was at once discharged; in spite of this magisterial decision, however, a Radical contemporary, in reporting the case on Saturday, most unfairly persisted in stating that Hindle was “the ghost” who had perpetrated the wilful damage. We append a report of the proceedings on Saturday, which took place at the Town hall before James Thompson and William Stones, Esqrs.
The crowded state of the court testified to the interest felt in this extraordinary “boggart” case. On the case being called, George Hindle, a respectably-dressed young man, stepped into the dock. He was charged with “wilfully and maliciously breaking 167 panes of glass at Union-buildings, at the houses of William Walsh and seven others, doing damage to the amount of £3 8s 2d. at different times during the past five weeks.”
Mr R. Radcliffe appeared for the prosecution, and Mr Clough for the defendant. Mr Radcliffe put in a plan of the buildings where the windows have been broken, and said the charge against the defendant was, that for a space of time extending over several weeks – (A discussion here arose between the legal gentlemen, Mr Clough contending that some particular date must be given; the end being that Mr Radcliffe was allowed to proceed on assuring the Bench they had grounds for believing they could bring the charge home to the prisoner). Mr Radcliffe then stated the case according to the evidence afterwards brought forward, and said he should ask the Bench to punish the man, although he was informed that he had hitherto been considered an exemplary character; but what he had done had certainly not been done under the influence of liquor, or anything of that description. They were at a loss to find the cause for the damage he had been guilty of, unless it be that some time ago the property was up for sale, and the prisoner and his father were unsuccessful bidders; and they could only assume that this practice was resorted to for the purpose of reducing the value of the property in the market, and certainly it had the effect of causing one ouse at least to be untenanted.
Police-Constable William Livesey was the first witness called. He said: “I have been directed to watch this property for two weeks and more. Last Thursday I went at six o’clock in the morning. I saw the prisoner about eight o’clock. He came out of his workshop into the yard, and then went to his brother-in-law’s house. He then threw a stone from the yard in the direction of John Walsh’s windows. Immediately he had thrown the stone he went and picked it up again. He went back to his workshop again. I next saw stones across the street, but I could not see where they came from. I was in the empty house. I did not see the defendant about that time. I came to the police-office, and got Cronshaw in plain clothes, and another man, and about nine o’clock sent them into the Brown Cow beerhouse.
“About half past eleven the defendant came out of the workshop, and went into his brother-in-law’s house. He put a dish on the table, and from his right pocket drew out a stone, and was about to throw it. He did not do so, as two men were watching. I went across the street, and remained there till nearly two o’clock. After some men went away for their dinner the defendant went to a house kept by Henry Baldwin. He then went to his own workshop, brought a key, and went into his brother-in-law’s house. He put some coals on the fire, and then took a quantity of stones from his pocket, and threw them in the direction of Walsh’s windows. He could not see whether the windows were broken or not. He then threw another in the same direction. At the time I was in the empty house we could see into the brother-in-law’s house. After that we took the prisoner into custody, and searched him on the premises. I found ten stones, pieces of flagging. I found in the house the flags had been broken. We searched the workshops afterwards.
“At the office I charged him with breaking 107 squares of glass in Union Buildings. He replied, “I am innocent, as innocent as a child. I have been standing when stones have been thrown. I would sooner pay the cost of the windows than suffer here.” I examined some of the stones that had gone through the window, and found them to be the same material. No windows are broken in the prisoner’s or his father’s house, and only one in his brother-in-law’s. After I had charged the prisoner I went back and searched the workshop, and found seven stones.The great bulk of the damage is opposite the prisoner’s premises, and the house occupied by his brother-in-law.”
Cross examined by Mr Clough: The window breaking has gone on for some weeks, and there has been a reward offered. The reward was altered from £1 to £2 by defendant’s assistance. I never saw defendant break a window himself; but I saw him throw the stones in the yard. I heard the stones hit something; but I heard no crash of glass. I told the people to save the stones sent into the houses; they have done so, and have delivered them up to me. The defendant has also given up stones to me which he said he picked up himself. I remember going into his house on Tuesday last, when his father was there, and receiving three pieces of stone, I put the pieces together, and said they had been one piece. I said I thought I knew where they had come from, and that I knew who had fetched the stone into the house. Defendant’s father said, “Do you?” and I replied, “I do, and I know whose the house was into which they were taken.” The father said, “You’re getting hot now; you’re not far off the place.”
That same night I went to Hindle’s house again, and asked him if he had told again what I had said about the stone. He said he had told no one except the policeman who came on duty after me, and then he asked why I asked the question. I told him that it was because the person at whose house it had been fetched had told me about it. I have heard people say since that stones came whilst defendant was in the lock-up. We brought him to the office without coat and cap; and I cannot say positively whether he asked to be allowed to put them on. The neighbours told us that if he had sent the stones they would have seen him.
I know he has been watching night after night to see who threw, and I have been with him in the yard when he was watching. No stones were thrown whilst I was there with him. Defendant was in prison from Thursday morning until Friday night, when he was bailed out. Whilst he was in prison, I heard two boys say stones had been thrown; but never said that I knew who had thrown them. – Re-examined: No stones were thrown whilst I was in the yard watching with him; but almost as soon as I left they have been thrown. I occasionally find that people try to lead us astray.
P.C. Cronshaw gave corroborative evidence.
Hannah Baldwin, wife of Henry Baldwin, 54, Union-buildings, said: I remember the defendant being taken into custody. Just before that he came into my house, and asked me if I had seen Livesey. I said no, and he then went towards his sister’s door. He was taken into custody a few minutes after. We have had 33 windows broken in our house. They have all been broken with pieces of flag. I saw a stone come over Walsh’s house on Monday and break the windows. – By the Bench: I acn hardly tell from what direction it came, it came so fast. I came here as a witness quite willingly. There has been no objection to my coming at all.
Ann Walsh, a resident in the square opposite defendant’s house, said: There have been 66 squares broken in our house. There was one broken about a quarter to two o’clock on Thursday afternoon. There was something thrown earlier in the morning. – By Mr Clough: I did not see the defendant send any stones, but I have seen him watching. He has been in our house at the time stones have been gone through the windows. I picked up the stones because the police advised us to do so; I saw no stones sent from the direction of defendant’s place on Thursday morning. After the defendant had been taken into custody, four stones were sent during Thursday afternoon.
Joshua Whitehead said he went into the yard on Tuesday and saw defendant’s father there. He gave me an explanation as to how the windows had been broken, and whilst we were speaking a stone was thrown. It came from the direction of the little wooden shed. It did not break a window. I drew the attention of the defendant’s father to the direction from which the stones came. On Wednesday night I was determined to watch the shed, and I saw the defendant come out. He went in the direction of the corner, and then stones were thrown. I could not say who threw them, but they came from the neighbourhood of the place where he stood. There was no other person standing about. Cross-examined by Mr Clough: I did not see who sent the stone on Tuesday, and there were several persons in the yard. I don’t know who threw at any time. – By the Bench: Somebody came and told me a “boggart” was breaking the windows, so I went to see (laughter).
John Milner, plumber and glazier, said 167 squares of glass had been broken. He estimated the damage at £3 8s 2d.
This was the case for the complainant. Mr Clough said his friend had really made out no case to answer, and he would be compelled still to attribute the window breaking to the “boggart” – (laughter). There had not been a single witness called to prove that his client had sent a stone at all. If there had been anything at all to answer, he was ready to prove by a host of witnesses, if need be, that the defendant was a young man of good character, who now for the first time stood before the magistrates, and that so far from causing all this damage and annoyance, he had done all that lay in his power to detect the culprit. With regard to the stones, they were those picked up by the neighbours and brought to him, and he, in his turn, took them to the police. The young man did not deny throwing two of the stones into the yard, but did so because he thought they were too small to give to the police. It was evident to him (Mr Clough) that the real “boggart” was still at large, and his friend had better catch him before he tried to make out a case again – (laughter).
Mr Thompson: The evidence is not sufficiently clear to convict the prisoner, and there is no alternative but to discharge him. Hindle was immediately liberated.
Preston Herald, 3rd April 1869.