“When a man is charged and it has been in the papers all round Preston and where he resides…his whole reputation, his life and liberty are at stake”
Stark words spoken by Thomas Heaps defence in 1924 when he was accused by his stepmother of forgery.
The unfortunate set of events with which this statement refers, begins many years earlier in the public house of New Cocks Yard, Fishergate, Preston.
Victorian Preston
Born on the 19th of January 1873, Thomas Heap was the first child of Thomas Heap Snr and Alice of the Arkwright’s Arms.
Shortly after Thomas’s fifth Birthday, Thomas Snr passed away from a chronic lung infection in the presence of his friend and a fellow innkeeper, Mr. John Smith of the ‘Rifleman Inn’.
The license of the Arkwright Arms was transferred to Alice in June of 1878. Thomas, a diligent young boy helped his mother with chores at work and at home, whilst also attending school.
When Thomas was aged eight, his mother Alice re-married and Nathan Mather, a clogger born in Blackrod became step-father to him and his younger sister Mary Alice.
It was said that Nathan brought nothing to the business at the Arkwright’s Arms, besides “hanging his hat up in the hall”. It was Alice, assisted by Thomas, who continued to manage the public house.
In 1883 the family left the Arkwright’s Arms for the New Cock Inn, a long-lost public house that was once located down an ancient Preston alleyway, long famous in local history for its reputation of selling strong beer*.
Aged just ten, Thomas took part in the business of conducting the hotel and was likened to the boy hero in Robert Louis Stevenson’s ‘Treasure Island’.
Thomas left school in 1885 aged twelve and began a betting business inspired by a comment made to him and his mother one evening in the public house. This patron suggested that he and his mother “may as well get the commission that the betting man was getting out of their customers”. And so, Thomas’s business began.
As the bookmaking business took off a verbal contract was understood between Thomas, his mother Alice and stepfather Nathan, that each would receive an equal third of any profits. Because Thomas was too young for a bank account, his share was kept by his stepfather for safekeeping in the bank and the family safe. Thomas continued to hand over his share of the profits for the next seven years.
Whilst working in the New Cock Inn, Thomas spent his time witnessing the work of a skilled commission clerk named Peter Kenny, and it wasn’t long before he himself became a recognised expert in close calculations. Thomas, or “Tommy Mathers” as he was then known, had always had a natural calculating ability as a result of watching racehorses and tracking their performances from an early age. *
Although Thomas didn’t receive profits or take a wage from his work in the New Cock Inn, he led a comfortable life. His stepfather contributed financially towards clothing and he received monetary gifts from his mother up until her death in 1900.
Tommy
It was reported that Thomas had a good relationship with Nathan Mather, referring to him as his “Dad” in public as well as in private. As described previously in this narrative, he was known as ‘Tommy Mathers’ by friends and family, suggesting further the likeness of a father and son relationship between the two.
Two years after the death of his mother Alice, Nathan Mather decided to leave the New Cock Inn, transferring it over to his late wife’s brother, Thomas Turner. Nathan and Thomas then moved to no.28 Latham Street in Preston.
Thomas married Diana in 1902. Whilst his stepfather re-married a woman named Mary Ellen three years later in 1905.
Thomas continued with the betting business, working alongside John Maudsley, a commission clerk/bookmaker who was married to his sister Mary Alice. The two worked their business from the kitchen of the New Cock Inn for several years, until they were both summoned and fined in 1907 for betting. The betting business was then moved into another building in New Cock Yard, previously used as an office for the town clerk of Preston. *
Friends
James Tydd Whitby, hairdresser of 19 Cannon Street, had known Thomas since he was a boy “knocking about the New Cock Inn”. James remembered that “he was only a boy in knickerbockers, but he always handed bets to me, and I received payment from the boy in cash”.
This went on for about 14 years until James Whitby left his shop. He had always known him as ‘Tommy Mather’ and had considered his mother Alice as owner of the New Cock Inn. He had seen Nathan Mather there often but had never done any business with him. James Tydd Whitby had come to Preston from Liverpool in 1882 and the New Cock Inn was the first Public House he had gone into. *
Licensee Mr. John Fishwick of the Cross Axes Inn on Tithebarn Street in 1924, had also known Thomas since boyhood. John had been a painter and decorator by trade, as well as former trainer to the Preston North End Football Club. When the Mather’s moved into the New Cock Inn, he had helped with the decorating. John was a sprinter, and his father and Nathan Mather would arrange matches for him, put up the stake money and trained him. He remembered that the betting business was carried on by Thomas.*
In 1918 Nathan Mather’s desired to sell the New Cock Inn and other acquired premises. It was at this time that Thomas pressed upon his stepfather for a settlement, or written acknowledgment of the third share of his profits from the betting business. The total owed had been calculated between them from annual betting sheets and calendars of all transactions over a period of seven years up until 1902. The total of Tommy’s share for the period came to £10,600. Thomas claimed that his stepfather signed an I.O.U acknowledging the amount at the office in New Cock Yard on the 12th of June, 1918, whilst brother-in-law John Maudsley was in their company. The next day, Thomas showed the I.O.U to his solicitor Mr. George Ambler.
The document was in the following terms: June 12th 1918. Thomas Heap, IOU £10,600 Signed – Nathan Mather
Thomas explained later that he was content in leaving the money in his stepfather’s control after his initial request for the debt, because he trusted him as a ‘father‘ and had been reassured by Nathan that it was “accumulating where it was and would come to him in the end”. He explained that he hadn’t been in any immediate want of money and so was content enough not to press his stepfather further, trusting that his profits would be left to him in the future.
The 1921 census shows Nathan Mather, a retired innkeeper living with his wife in Preston. Whilst Thomas is living in Blackpool with wife Diana. Thomas described himself on the census as a retired publican, out of business.
In May of 1922 Nathan Mather’s passed away.
His will directed legacies for his three sisters: Ann, Jane Elizabeth Mather and Mary Pennington. As well as, to the children of his late brother John Mather, farmer of Blackrod. He also left to daughter in law Mary Alice. An owed amount of £700 was left to his widow, as well as the house in Lathom Street and an annuity of £300 a year was to be given to Thomas.
Three months after the reading of the will, Thomas brought up the matter of the £10,600 I.O.U debt.
I.O.U
An I.O.U perhaps sounds a little frivolous when thinking of legal contracts, but they were/are written evidence of a debt when acknowledged and signed, very similar to a Promissory Note and can be legally enforced.
The case for the amount owed to Thomas was brought to the Chancery Court Liverpool by Mr. William Ashcroft, Solicitor and executor of the will alongside Thomas and his stepmother Mary Ellen.
The case was heard in 1924.
“I.O.U Disputed By Widow”
It was believed that Nathan’s second wife Mary Ellen had had a friendly relationship with Thomas up until the mention of the I.O.U.
Mary outright disputed the legitimacy of her late husband’s signature on the card in question after seeing it enlarged in her solicitor’s office. Consequently, what started as a case brought to the chancery to clarify whether there was a debt owed, soon became a sour case of possible forgery.
For a man of Thomas’s respected position both in Preston and Blackpool, the accusation was extremely damaging. It was stated in the county newspaper in June of 1924 that, “everybody in Preston knew of this charge” and newspapers reported on the story as far as Belfast.
“If this charge is established, Mr. Heaps character is ruined for all time” – Mr Cunfliffe
So, was the I.O.U a forgery? Was Thomas a swindler… or simply going after what was rightfully his?
A case lasting 10 weeks presented Vice Chancellor of the court with an enthralling series of back and forths, which I have made a neat attempt at summing up here.
A number of accusations was put to Thomas, the most damming being that he was a cheat, perjurer and forger. Witnesses were called on both sides and Thomas spoke up for himself confidently.
Continue to the court case (Pg. II)