“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)
Thomas was accused of contradictory statements and deliberately lying about how the owed sum had been calculated from annual accounts. His first explanation was that he got the figure from racing calendars only, as all other documents had been destroyed. His second, that he had got the figure from both annual accounts and racing calendar’s.
Thomas answered that the sum of £10,600 was arrived at after consulting sheets that went back year by year to 1885, and that he consulted various racing calendars as way of confirmation.
It was suggested that Thomas was wealthy at the time he claimed his money was in the hands of Nathan, having purchased a house, put money towards a mortgage on the “Grand Junction Hotel” and owned two trotting ponies.
Thomas answered that he did not remember when he purchased the house, that his mortgage in the Hotel was small and that his ponies were kept for pleasure.
Thomas was accused of having had a separate bank account of his own prior to 1902, contradictory to his original declarations.
Thomas replied, that aside from a Preston Saving Account, he believed that he had no bank account of his own prior to June 1920. He later recalled having had banking accounts, but they had nothing to do with the betting business.
The most damaging of accusations fuelled by his stepmother was that he had forged the I.O.U… or that he had added words on to the card bearing the genuine signature of Nathan Mather. The former being the predominant accusation.
Mrs. Mather
“There had been no restraint exercised on the part of Mrs. Mathers advisors. No suggestion had been too monstrous and no stick too dirty, to be used on this unfortunate man!” – Mr. Cunfliffe
Mary Ellen Mather, described as a lady of obstinate, determined and stubborn character, gave evidence in court.
She claimed that a few days before Nathan’s death, he had discussed the disposition of his property with his son Thomas. She had overheard a little of the conversation, but Thomas told her afterwards that Nathan had discussed for the first time what he was doing with his property. After the death of her husband, she asked Thomas if Nathan had had any debts? he replied “No, Nathan Mather would not owe money.” A few weeks later, Thomas then asserted to her that Nathan had owed him £30,000. On another occasion at Thomas’s office in New Cock Yard, Thomas stated that Mr. Mather would not pay his mother’s doctor’s bills, that he had given Nathan £3000 for the New Cock Inn and that he had never earned a penny all the years he was at the New Cock, adding that “he ought to have been kept under a glass case.”
When the solicitor was ready to prove the will, Thomas suggested to her that they should break it, but she could not think of doing such a thing. Thomas had then asked her to withdraw from executorship. She refused. Thomas became rather annoyed and threw a card down on the table and said, “read that!”.
Mary asserted to the court that it was not the same card as the one produced in this case. It was larger, had red edging and didn’t have a date on it. She said she questioned Thomas on how Nathan could possibly owe him money, when he had told her when he was alive that Thomas owed him money. She said that when she pressed for the lack of a date, Thomas answered that it did not matter, it was the day they went to Longridge in November 1918. She reminded Thomas that when his stepfather had handed the business over, Thomas was to pay Nathan £300 a year, which he had failed to do. Thomas replied that the volume of business after that didn’t allow for it.
Questioned about her attitude towards Thomas Heap, she said that they had been of a friendly character. Mary Ellen said that her late husband had worn a gold watch and that she had gifted this and a guard to Thomas after his death as a gesture of kindness. Although, she admitted that she had taken the guard back later, on the grounds that it wasn’t left to him in the will.
She claimed to have not been aware that the gold items had been specially made by Robert Scanlon of Preston for Thomas Heap Senior, former proprietor of the Preston Borough race grounds. She had only known that her husband Nathan had worn it in his lifetime.
She continued that the I.O.U being produced in court was only seen in Mr Amblers office in 1923, although she had seen a copy of it in 1922. She closed her evidence after the Vice Chancellor pressed her for a definitive answer as to whether she thought Nathan Mather had written the I.O.U.
“I don’t believe he did.” She answered.
The Signature
Several of Nathans signatures were ‘enormously enlarged’ for the court and a total of three handwriting experts were called upon for their opinion.
Two of those men, Gerald Gurrin and Fred Smart believed the signature to be a forgery. Stating frequent breaks in the letters and the signature having the appearance of being drawn, rather than freely written and that was proof of falsification.
David Tempest from Leeds, also a handwriting expert, was of the mind that the signature was genuine. The cramped space on the card and broader pen used by Nathan Mather in comparison to a fine pen of which he was more used too, explains the slight peculiarity when side by side with known genuine signed cheques used for comparison. Mr. Tempest explained that the similarities between the letters on the I.O.U and the cheques was striking.
Manager of the Preston & Yorkshire Bank, Mr William Rooke Hannah matched the opinion of David Tempest. The late Mr. Mather had had an account at his bank. Mr Hannah confidently explained to the court that, thirty-four years of banking experience made him an expert in his customers signatures and that having seen the I.O.U in question, he hadn’t the slightest doubt that it was Nathan Mather’s autograph.
Brother-In-Law
John Maudsley, Thomas’s brother-in-law and clerk in the betting business gave his version of events for the court.
Speaking of the interview with Mr. Mather in Thomas’s office on June I2th, 1918 he said that he was present, but did not hear the conversation. Thomas took a lot of papers and books out of the safe, and Mr. Mather went through them and did a lot of writing. Then Mr. Mather came over and talked to him. Thomas then said. “Dad, will you come and sign this.”
Witness saw Mr. Mather go over and sign his name on a card, but witness did not see what was written on the card. But confirmed that the card was similar in general appearance to the I.0.U now in dispute. John said he never saw the card again until this action was commenced. After the card was signed Thomas put several papers in an envelope and gave them to Mr. Mather, saying “take these home and look them over.” Witness examined the I.0.U and said the signature was the handwriting of Nathan Mather. Cross examined, he said he was not especially interested in the signature of the I.O.U at the time, but he clearly saw the document and it was a card of the same size as the I.O.U produced. He continued that he had never seen Mr. Mather sign any document after that, but up to 1902 Mr. Mather signed all cheques sent out to customers so he was therefore, familiar with Mr. Mather’s signature.
He stated that Nathan Mather made no bets with the customers and never made out any accounts. He said that he particularly remembered the interview at which the I.O.U was signed, because it was the first time Mr. Mather had remained in the office for a long time. It was the only occasion on which Mr. Mather had gone through papers, and the only time he had signed any document. Witness said he had no personal interest in Thomas’s claim for the £10,600; rather the opposite, as his wife was legatee under the will. Mrs. Maudsley, sister of Thomas, also gave evidence to the effect that her stepfather never took any active part in the betting business, or in the licensing business at the New Cock Inn.
Also speaking for Thomas was a turf commission agent called William Sergeant spoke up for Thomas in court. He had known Thomas for thirty-three years and was once a racecourse book maker. He recounted that he had backed horses with Thomas nearly every day. He stated that he had never known Nathan Mather to have made a bet, or to have had any share in the business. Either the licensed house or the betting business.
So, what was Vice Chancellors judgement?
It was concluded that the onus had been on Thomas to prove that he was owed a debt by the Testator. He had failed to do so in the eyes of the Chancery Court and therefore, was not entitled to any sums from the estate of the late Nathan Mather. The Vice Chancellor expressed further that the ‘story’ Thomas had asked the court to believe regarding the business arrangement when he was just a boy, was “highly improbable”. Regarding the forged signature, the evidence was deemed inconclusive, but had it ever gone to a jury the Vice Chancellor believed that the verdict would have been ‘not guilty’.
The case was concluded on the 30th of June 1924 with the alleged I.O.U, had it been genuine, now worthless and Thomas was ordered to pay Mrs Mather’s court costs.
But, things didn’t end there for a defeated Thomas…See Page 3 to continue Thomas’s story.
Nine months later…
Things didn’t end there for Thomas. Nine months later in April of 1925, he was charged with three counts of wilful corrupt perjury.
The charges arose from him swearing ‘falsely’ to banking particulars in the I.O.U chancery case.
The court accused Thomas of having had banking accounts prior to 1902, contrary to what he had sworn at the time. It was accused that he had infact had three different banking accounts and a total of £13,900 had been banked between them, and that he had knowingly given false statements in the Chancery Court the previous year.
Thomas pleaded not guilty.
Reported evidence from the defence – Thomas’s explanation
“Defendant went into the witness-box this morning, and in evidence said that on February 5th, 1925, he swore an affidavit in the Chancery action which contained an accurate record of his business relationships between himself and his step-father, and which fully accounted for his trading up to 1902. After that he continued the business on his own account.
Mr. Lustgarten (for the defense): How came you say in the Chancery Court that you had no banking account before 1902?
Defendant (Thomas):” Through inquiries I made at the London City and Midland Bank. I went to see Mr. Harris, the manager, who took me to his private room. I asked him if the account in my name commenced before 1902. He left the room and a little later a young lady came in and said the answer was “No”. I then went across to Mr. Ambler’s office and gave him that information.”
Witness said that until the certified copies of his banking account were produced he thought the information given to him at the Midland Bank was true.
Since that disclosure he had never denied that he had those accounts, but at the first hearing on May 1st last when he was questioned about what happened over twenty years before, he honestly thought those accounts were opened later. He now knew that accounts were opened in 1898 at the Midland Bank and at the District Bank on the same day, one for £2,000 and the other for £3,000.
“These moneys,” continued defendant “came from Mr. Nixon and Mr. Wilson. After they had found the money I suggested that I knew a gentleman who wanted to go in for buying yeomanry horses, and that was likely to be a good business”. They found further sums afterwards for the same purpose. It was Mr. Thomas Heskin’s business he was referring to. After he got the money he made inquiries of Mr. Heskin, who told him he was not ready to go into it. The money was therefore allowed to sit in the bank for a considerable time, and subsequently the money was repaid to the people he had obtained it from. The money was handed him chiefly in notes and not by cheque and it was repaid cash. Some time later he guaranteed Heskin’s banking account.
With reference to the mortgage on the Grand Junction Hotel, defendant stated that it was negotiated with the late Mr. R Ascroft whom he saw almost daily. When he was first asked in the Chancery Court about this mortgage the question was whether he had lent £3,000 on it in 1902, and he said it was false. The mortgage was, in fact, made in 1904 and added to in 1906. He had not intended to say he had never entered into the mortgage at all. Throughout the whole of the trial, he had never intended to mislead the court, and at the time he believed his statements were true.
Jury’s decision
The prosecution continued to cross examine Thomas about his memories of the bank accounts in question, referring to shorthand notes from the previous Chancery trial as evidence that Thomas had intentionally tried to deceive the court, so that a further look into his accounts would be avoided.
At the end of evidence it went to a jury to decide whether Thomas was guilty of intentionally making false statements about his bank accounts, which was material to the case in the Chancery Court.
“Defendants demeanour that day… must have satisfied the jury that he was not the type of man who was capable of the diabolical clever scheme of deceit alleged against him, but was rather the sort of man who would be easily confused and led to give answers which might be mistaken and misunderstood.” Mr. Lustgarten
After a retirement of twenty minutes, the jury returned with a verdict of guilty. Thomas was sentenced to nine months in jail and was ordered to pay the costs of the prosecution.
After the unfortunate events of 1924-1925, Thomas retired comfortably in Blackpool with his wife Diana until his death in 1950 aged seventy-seven. He had no children of his own but was step-father to Henry and Marie Emma Haydock Marriott. Thomas left his estate totalling £54516, to his widowed sister Mary Alice Heap (nee Maudsley).
Sources & Further Reading
- License Transferal – Preston Chronicle – Saturday 08 June 1878
- Article in the LEP Tuesday, 2nd October 2018, titled “Last Orders – Looking back at Preston’s long lost public houses”
- British Newspaper Archive
- Red Rose Collections
- Ancestry
- Lancashire Record Office