Wilfred Fowler

Lawrence Fowler, Wilfred Fowler, George Wills, Stanley Harker and Amos Stuart were convicted of killing William Francis William Plommer. Lawrence Fowler and Wilfred Fowler were convicted of murder and sentenced to death. George Wills, Stanley Harker and Amos Stuart were convicted of manslaughter. They had been a gang of hooligans and attacked William Plommer in Princess Street, Sheffield on 27 April 1925. However, the chain of events that led up to the murder started earlier. The chronology below details most of the events associated with the case: Early 1925 - Sheffield: A feud started between the Mooney gang (George Mooney) and the Garvin gang (Samuel Garvin). The police noted that both sets of men were well-known, heavily convicted, and that the disputes between them stemmed from betting/underworld business. It was noted that witness intimidation was part of the activity to hinder police in making arrests. Late March 1925 (exact day not fixed): First documented assault in the feud in which a man was hospitalised and an operation required. However, the man declined to name his attackers. Mid–late April 1925 (several dates): Further feud-linked assaults. The police attended multiple street disturbances, however, the complainants were again reluctant to proceed with charges. Sunday 26 Apr 1925 (evening) - Windsor Hotel, Princess Street (Sheffield) A scuffle broke out inside. Wilfred Fowler struck a bystander in the face without provocation. However, Wilfred Fowler was beaten by another man and left ‘with a damaged head.’ As he left, he told William Plommer, an ex-boxer who lived nearby and who had been a witness to the beating, ‘Jack, you’ve got to have a tanning for this to-morrow.’ Monday 27 Apr 1925, about 7.45pm, Princess Street, outside William Plommer’s house, Lawrence Fowler and Wilfred Fowler were seen parading with 6-8 men in the vicinity for some time. William Plommer, who was ‘practically unarmed’, came out of his house, apparently expecting trouble. The group then closed on him and William Plommer was heard to call out: ‘Come on; I’ll fight you one at a time’. However, the group attacked him all at the same time, armed with weapons including a poker, razor, long narrow knife/bayonet-type blade. Witnesses differed on who held what, with one witness saying they saw Lawrence Fowler ‘jab’ William Plommer in the stomach, whilst others said they saw Wilfred Fowler with a scabbard/black case after the fight. William Plommer was struck repeatedly and sustained multiple wounds, with the fatal wounds being consistent with a long, double-edged blade to the abdomen. William Plommer then staggered back towards his house and collapsed, and died shortly after admission to the Royal Infirmary. Night of 27-28 April 1925: First arrests were made and a witness canvass began, although it was noted that names varied through the round-ups and that several suspects went to ground. Late April-May 1925: Ongoing disorder in the city, separate from William Plommer’s case but part of the climate, including shots fired at and into houses and men seen with revolvers and razors. 2 May 1925: William Plommer's funeral took place at Burngreave Cemetery. Multiple calls to the police were made and gunfire reported. A youth and a man receive bullet wounds and spent cartridges were recovered. Intelligence linked the gunmen to George Mooney’s circle and several names were noted by the police for later action. 24-25 May 1925 (overnight): Disorder in the Corporation Street area. Monday 1 Jun 1925: A Firearms Act search warrant was executed at addresses tied to gang members. Arrests were made for weapons and public-order charges and bail conditions were later tightened or revoked for breaches. Mid-late June 1925: A stream of information was received for breach of the peace and affray against feud figures resulting in several being bound over and two men being sentenced to two months’ hard labour for a razor and billiard-cue assault. Early July 1925: Committal of the defendants in the William Plommer case to the Assizes. The bill named ten men in all. July 1925 Trial: Prosecution theory that the Fowler brothers led a concerted attack, with at least one of them carrying a bayonet-type knife that delivered the fatal abdominal wounds. Defence disputed who used what, resulting in some defendants being discharged for want of evidence. Murder: Lawrence Fowler & Wilfred Fowler were found Guilty (no recommendation to mercy). Manslaughter: George Wills and Amos Stuart 10 years’ penal servitude, Stanley Harker 7 years’ penal servitude. Discharged - No true bill - Acquitted: Five other men. Late July-August 1925: Appeals lodged by the Fowlers but dismissed. Petitions for mercy considered but none recommended. Early August 1925: Chief Superintendent filed his closing memorandum: no recommendation to mercy. The Fowler brothers were hanged on consecutive days at Armley Prison by Thomas Pierrepoint. Wilfred Fowler was hanged at Armley, Thursday 13 August 1925, alongside Alfred David Bostock. Lawrence Fowler was hanged at Armley, Friday 14 August 1925. Sheffield gangland, 1924–25 The case cannot be presented honestly without first setting out the gang problem Sheffield was living through. From early 1924 a recognisable street economy had taken hold across the city centre and the Attercliffe/Park Hill side of town. Small ‘firms’ lived by leaning on shopkeepers, bookmakers and market traders, fencing stolen goods and turning out mob-handed to settle scores. Weapons typically used included ordinary tools of work, pokers and iron bars, razors and bayonet-like knives, and by the turn of 1925 revolvers were beginning to appear. The atmosphere this produced was said to leave victims ‘terrified’, refusing treatment at the Royal Infirmary, with witnesses vanishing, and charges that, when they were brought at all, frequently collapsing into fines or discharges. Two rival parties dominated the police pages. On one side the police habitually wrote of the ‘Mooney crowd’ or ‘Mooney’s lot’, led by George Mooney, with Lawrence and Wilfred Fowler often seen among them through the winter of 1924-25. Their ground ran from Corporation Street and West Bar out towards Park Hill, the Norfolk Bridge approaches and the streets off Attercliffe Road. The method was consistent, a knot of men at a doorway ‘calling a man out’, windows smashed if the invitation was refused, then a milling fight in the street with pokers or knives. The opposing party were the Garvin men, usually referred to as the ‘Garvin gang’ or ‘Garvin’s crowd’, which centred on the brothers Samuel Garvin and Robert Garvin, with regular appearances by a range of other men. Their city-side haunts included Cambridge Street, Fitzalan Square and the warren of yards around Thompson’s. The two firms mirrored each other in tactics. They both worked an intimidation economy, murmured threats at doorways, groups lingering at a corner until a target showed and an organised presence inside the courtroom when one of their own stood in the dock. The police read the pattern as protection on small shopkeepers, bookies and market traders, backed by the disposal of stolen goods and the muscle to enforce debts and silence. The record through autumn 1924 showed the pattern hardening. In late September a club keeper from Leopold Street reported an assault by Garvin men. He was treated at hospital but would not proceed with charges. Days later Samuel and Robert Garvin and another man appeared in court for an unrelated disorder. However, no one would identify them and they walked out. On 13 December 1924 another gang member was arrested for a serious wounding with a knife, but again, the case fell away. Over the Christmas week 1924 the police broke up an armed assembly involving the Garvin party. When the police arrived a revolver was produced, and a handful of firearms/assembly charges followed with mixed outcomes, some with short terms and some with discharges. The new year brought no improvement. On 8 January 1925 windows were smashed at or near a Mooney address around Corporation Street and Mrs Mooney was assaulted, and fines and a brief sentence were recorded against men from the Garvin side. In late February there was a larger affray near Fitzalan Square/Corporation Street in which around a dozen to twenty men were seen moving as a body. Two shots were heard resulting in a man being left with bullet wounds to his arm and side. However, nobody would make a statement. The police memoranda began, at that point, to speak of the city as ‘armed’. By early March 1925 the violence had edged into public entertainments. After a boxing programme at the Drill Hall on either 2 or 9 March, a Garvin-side associate was very violently assaulted with a heavy instrument and the police prepared a warrant. The same reports mentioned Lawrence Fowler bottling a man connected with the Garvin crowd, for which he later received four months. The streets around Park Hill and Attercliffe Road were then described as a nightly theatre, with men from each side ‘mustering’, according to the police, and drifting in groups between the Norfolk Bridge end, Park Hill Lane and the city centre. On 22 March 1925 the police dispersed about twenty-five men gathered outside a house in Park Hill Lane. Those seen included Lawrence and Wilfred Fowler. However, there was no prosecution, with the police entry simply reading that the police kept a general watch ‘to prevent a breach of the peace’. The ability of both firms to mobilise quickly, and the difficulty of pinning any single act on any single man, was by then described as a settled fact of life. That brings the story to April and to a man who had, until then, kept himself outside both allegiances, William Plommer. A popular ex-boxer and Army Reservist, he was repeatedly described as refusing to join either side and as the sort of man to stand his ground. The reports noted that approaches were made to him and that ‘calling-out’ visits were attempted, and that threats, some witnesses remembering the words as ‘We’ll kill him tonight’, were uttered as the two crowds began to move with purpose between Park Hill, Attercliffe Road, Norfolk Bridge and the city centre across the weekend of 26–27 April 1925. As such, it was noted that the streets were primed for exactly the kind of set-piece violence that followed, and that everyone in uniform knew it. The Fowler brothers At the core of the ‘Mooney crowd’ stood the two brothers, Lawrence Fowler and Wilfred Fowler, whose temperaments were described as having complemented, and amplified each other. Lawrence Fowler, the elder, moved easily in betting circles as a bookmaker’s clerk, whilst Wilfred Fowler, several years younger, had the look and habits of a fighting man. Contemporary police memoranda consistently painted Lawrence Fowler as the calculating half, cool in manner, quick to assemble men, and steeped in the gossip of racecourses and back-street bookies, whilst Wilfred emerged as the brother who led with his fists and was most likely to be carrying something sharp. Wilfred Fowler. A Sheffield native, Wilfred Fowler left school early and drifted through casual work before accumulating a substantial juvenile record. He spent periods in a reformatory and then Borstal, followed by short sentences for stealing. The CID notes described him as a heavy, aggressive street fighter who gravitated to known thieves and was rarely in regular employment. By early 1925 he was a familiar presence around West Bar and Attercliffe, often in the company of men later charged with him. Several witnesses in the William Plommer case spoke of Wilfred’s readiness to ‘front’ a dispute and of his habit of keeping his right hand buried in a pocket or coat, as if on a weapon. In the weeks before the killing he was repeatedly seen among Mooney’s men when razors, pokers and bayonet-like knives were being shown or brandished. After the Princess Street attack, more than one observer said Wilfred had ‘something like a knife’ or a scabbard about him, whilst others placed a poker or iron bar in his hands earlier in the evening. The medical evidence recognised a double-edged, bayonet-type wound as being among the fatal injuries and it was the police view at the time that one, or both, of the brothers delivered it. Lawrence Fowler. Lawrence’s police sheet was lighter but longer in years. He, too, left school young, worked intermittently, and for some time before the murder described himself as a bookmaker’s clerk. Whilst he had ‘minor convictions’, the file repeatedly associated him with the disposal of stolen property and with the practice of turning up ‘mob-handed’ to force scores in the street. What marked Lawrence Fowler out was not brute force but organisation. When trouble began brewing in late April 1925 he did much of the talking, calling at doors, sending messages, and arranging meetings in the streets off Attercliffe Road. Several depositions put him in the lead when the party went to Princess Street, in which he was heard to demand that William Plommer ‘come out’, and afterwards to urge that the job be ‘finished’. In the crush of the fight different witnesses alternately identified him with a poker, with a razor, and with a short knife. It was noted that what was constant was that he stayed close to Wilfred and kept the group moving. Division of labour-brains and muscle. It was noted that the antecedents and scene-by-scene testimony gave a consistent division of roles between the brothers, with Lawrence Fowler being the recruiter and caller-out, the man who knew who lived where and who could be counted on to turn up within minutes, whilst Wilfred Fowler was described as the enforcer, the man expected to ‘make it tell’ once a victim was in the street. Both carried weapons at different times, and both used them. However, whilst witnesses hesitated over which brother struck which blow, they were firmer about demeanour, that being that Lawrence Fowler spoke and pointed, whilst Wilfred Fowler closed the distance and hit. Reputation on the street. By the spring of 1925 the Fowlers’ names carried weight even among men not of Mooney’s party. Shopkeepers and publicans told officers that a visit from ‘Fowler’s lot’ usually came with threats to smash a front, to ‘fetch him out’, or to see a man ‘right’ with steel if he would not fight. It was noted that that notoriety explained the initial reluctance of many bystanders to give statements, as people knew that crossing either brother risked reprisals, and that earlier victims who tried to prosecute had been terrified into silence. Weapons and habits. The brothers used what the Sheffield gangs were then using. Pokers and iron bars were the everyday tools, easy to carry, easy to discard, devastating in a crowd. Open razors were common, especially among men who boxed and shaved in lodging houses, and witnesses repeatedly stated that they had seen such razors in the Fowlers’ circle in the days before the murder. Lastly, it was noted that a ‘bayonet-like’ knife appeared in multiple accounts of the Princess Street affair. However, whilst no single witness could carry the burden of proof as to which brother drove it home, the prosecution’s case, and the jury’s verdict, treated the brothers as having acted together with a common purpose. Standing within the Mooney crowd. It was stated that the Mooney gang provided the banner and the wider circle of hard cases, whilst the Fowlers gave the drive. It was said that when George Mooney needed numbers on short notice in the West Bar/Attercliffe district, it was commonly the Fowlers who arrived first and loudest, with George Wills, Stanley Harker and Amos Stuart at their shoulders. The police, reading back from years of petty violence and window-smashing, had come to see Lawrence Fowler as the organiser and Wilfred Fowler as the ‘fighting weight’ of the firm. William Plommer William Plommer had been about thirty-eight in the spring of 1925, a solid, muscular man whose build and bearing still advertised his years in the ring. Before the War he had boxed locally, and in the Army he served through the conflict and rose to sergeant. Back in civilian life he settled into steady work, with contemporary police notes describing him as a respectable working man employed by the Bessemer Company in Sheffield. At the time he had been living at 42 Princess Street with his wife, close to Norfolk Bridge and the Attercliffe/Park Hill side streets. Those who knew William Plommer spoke of a direct, self-possessed temperament. He was described as the sort who would ‘stand up’ to a man, but he was not known as a knife-carrier and he was not counted among the city’s organised ‘firms’. He was described as having been on nodding terms with men from both sides of the developing feud and could be seen in the same streets and houses as them, but the police did not class him as a gang member. If anything, he read as the type of ex-boxer who preferred a square go with fists to the newer armoury, pokers, razors and bayonet-like knives, that the younger street toughs were starting to carry. It was precisely that mix of independence and physical confidence that drew trouble onto him. In the last week of April there were two encounters between the Fowler brothers’ crowd and men in William Plommer’s orbit. On the Sunday, 26 April 1925, words and scuffles flared near the Windsor/Princess Street corner, in which during the course of the evening Wilfred Fowler was bested in a fist-fight. The loss of face mattered, and by the following night the Fowler party were ranging the same streets in numbers, ‘calling men out’ from doorways and looking to avenge the previous day. William Plommer, who lived only a short walk from the scene, fitted the bill as the man who had shown them up, a big, seasoned boxer who could not easily be cowed, and, crucially in gang eyes, someone they could brand a partisan simply because he would not bend. He had no pistol, and there was no reliable hint that he armed himself with more than his hands, but that counted for little once knives and iron bars were brought into play. In short, William Plommer had been an ex-soldier and former boxer, a steady, employed local, not a gangster but a man whose refusal to be intimidated, and his success with his fists on the Sunday evening, placed him squarely in the path of the Fowler crowd’s revenge on Monday, 27 April 1925. Windsor Hotel Incident (Sunday 26 April 1925) In the early evening of Sunday 26 April 1925 the Mooney party were seen in and around the Windsor Hotel on Princess Street. There was jostling and loud talk in the bar and at the doorway, and at some point a straightforward set-to took place outside and Wilfred Fowler was bested, knocked down more than once, and he left the scene cut and bleeding. It was noted that that loss of face mattered in the currency of the firms, and ‘We’ll see to it tomorrow’, was said to be the resulting sentiment that several witnesses heard voiced as the Mooney men drifted off in small knots towards the Norfolk Bridge side. The incident started when a moulder that had been in the pub was knocked down by William Fowler. The moulder said that he had been drinking at the pub and didn't know William Fowler, who was a total stranger to him, and that when he went out at closing time William Fowler hit him whilst he had his hands in his pockets. The moulder said that he then went to William Plommers house and then returned to the Windsor Hotel with him and another man with the intention that he could have a fair fight with William Fowler, noting that neither William Plommer nor the other man were otherwise involved in the fight. He said that when they returned to the pub that he said to William Fowler: xxxqxxx I want to have a fair fight. xxxqxxx He said that when they fought that William Plommer had been about three feet away. He said that William Fowler was then knocked down, but not by him, noting that they both fell. He said that he knew nothing about the injuries to the back of William Fowler's head. He said that afterwards he and William Plommer walked off. However, the wife of the other man that had gone along to ensure a fair fight said that as they left that William Fowler said: xxxqxxx You're in for a good tanning tomorrow night. xxxqxxx The other man that had gone with them said that he had been in William Plommers house at about 10pm when the moulder came in, his face covered in blood and that after speaking to William Plommer that they all went off to the Windsor Hotel where the moulder and William Fowler had a fight, noting that no one else was involved. Monday 27 April - the street fight and fatal wounding The morning of Monday 27 April 1925 was described as not being quiet. From breakfast time there were reports of the Fowlers and a handful of their regulars moving about Princess Street and its corners, testing the ground. Through the day men from both firms were seen in the neighbourhood, some loitering at the Windsor, some walking up and down Attercliffe Road, others posted at vantage points where they could watch the approaches to William Plommer’s home. A few of the men carried walking sticks that were not walking sticks, whilst others had the tell-tale stiff sleeve that meant ironwork was tucked along the forearm. Several householders would later admit they saw this but did not dare ring the police again. By late afternoon the talk of a ‘go’ that night had become matter-of-fact. Men who were neutral in the quarrel, bookies’ runners, hawkers, lads from the yards, were told to ‘keep out o’ Princess Street after nine’. Around teatime Wilfred Fowler was seen with George Wills and Stanley Harker near the Windsor, and again on West Bar. A woman living near the corner with Attercliffe Road described the traffic almost like a relay, pairs and trios coming up, exchanging a word, then slipping away to fetch more men. At intervals someone walked directly past William Plommer’s house and peered in at the blind. From about eight o’clock the streets began to hold a crowd that did not look like ordinary footfall. The Windsor’s doorway filled with faces, emptied, and filled again. A police constable on the beat noted unusual movement towards the Norfolk Bridge side but, as so often that spring, firm identifications were hard to come by as people were frightened. What was clear is that by a little after nine the Mooney party had their complement. Lawrence Fowler, the steadier hand and organiser, kept to the roadway and did the talking, whilst Wilfred Fowler, still carrying the mark of the previous night’s humiliation, was the eager point of the spear. As darkness came on, the mustering became more obvious. A knot of the same men, the Fowlers to the fore, George Wills and Stanley Harker close by, were watched parading up and down Princess Street and cutting across into the back lanes that fed it. Women on steps and at upstairs windows later recalled seeing coshes, pokers shoved up coat sleeves, and the glint of a razor in a man’s open hand. There were shouted questions, 'Is William Plommer in?’, and the old intimidation routine, banging at doors, then standing off twenty yards to see who showed a face at a window. When the police were sent for the groups simply melted away into side streets and re-formed again five minutes later. Shortly after nine-thirty several witnesses place the same core group, both Fowlers, George Wills, Stanley Harker and Amos Stuart within a few dozen yards of William Plommer’s home. Some were described as having pokers hidden up coat sleeves, whilst one man was seen to tap the pocket where a razor sat and another was seen to have a short length of chain. They moved in a loose crescent, posting men at the corners and along the opposite pavement. Women were seen to step into their doorways and pull their children in, whilst in nearby houses people turned down their lamps. By late on the Monday evening the knot of the Mooney crowd had worked its way to Princess Street and fixed on William Plommer’s door. Independent witnesses put both Fowler brothers there, Lawrence Fowler keeping to the roadway, doing the calling-out and steadying the line, whilst Wilfred Fowler was up at the step, backed by George Wills, Stanley Harker and Amos Stuart. Two or three others were said to have hung back at the corners to watch the approaches from Norfolk Bridge and West Bar. Soon after Lawrence Fowler shouted from the pavement for William Plommer to ‘come out and have it fair’. Neighbours on steps and at upstairs windows saw at least one poker carried up a sleeve, a short chain in another man’s hand, and the glint of a razor. William Plommer’s wife, who had been warned that ‘there’d be trouble’, tried to hold the door. There was pushing at the latch and a brief scramble in the passage as one of the men forced a foot over the threshold before being shouldered back. William Plommer then stepped into the street. What followed was short and confused, but several features were consistent across statements. Wilfred Fowler was said to have made to strike first, although witnesses differed whether with a poker or a fist, but was checked, and for a moment the crowd fell away as if for a square fight, but then closed in again. William Plommer was said to have given as good as he got, whilst Wilfred Fowler took the worst of the early exchanges. However, in the crush that followed William Plommer was clubbed and cut. He received a blow to the head and at least one slashing wound, described variously as to the face or upper body, consistent with a razor. It was also said that an iron bar or poker had been used in jabs rather than swings. Someone then ran for the police and when the police and the city ambulance reached Princess Street the gang had melted into the side streets towards Attercliffe Road and Norfolk Bridge. Witnesses There were various main witnesses to the murder: One woman spoke of Lawrence Fowler stepping in and thrusting to the belly ‘as with a bayonet’. Others put the stabbing hand to George Wills’s side of the scrum. More than one described a double-edged weapon, the motion ‘straight in and out’. However, what was consistent was that two or three penetrative wounds were delivered to William Plommer’s abdomen, together with a further cut/slash, likely from a razor. At the same time he took more clubs to the head and ribs. Following the attack, William Plommer collapsed to his knees near the crown of the street, tried to rise and staggered towards his doorway. Neighbours helped William Plommer indoors and sent for the police and an ambulance. When the police arrived he was conscious but faint, his clothing soaked and his entrails wounded through the abdominal tears. The city ambulance removed him to the Royal Infirmary, where the surgeons recorded multiple abdominal stab wounds of the kind a bayonet or similar double-edged knife would cause, together with blunt-force injuries consistent with a poker or iron bar. He survived the night but died soon after. Lawrence Fowler's Statement In his statement at the trial, Lawrence Fowler said: xxxqxxx I am 25 years of age and live at 19 Ardmore Street, Sheffield, and I am a bookmaker’s clerk. I was not with my bookmaker on the night of Sunday, 26th April. On Monday, 27th April, I was working at Uttoxeter Races. I got back to Sheffield Station by excursion train at 6.20pm (Midland Station). I went from the station to Fitzalan Square, from there to Brightside, and then on to Norfolk Bridge. I first met Goddard at 6.45 in Newhall Road. I went with him to Sutherland Street on a city car. We got off the car and went to Norfolk Bridge and then to Princess Street. I met my brother Wilfred and Amos Stuart near the end of Thompson’s Yard just before seven o’clock. We four then went back to Norfolk Bridge. We stood there for a quarter of an hour and went down Princess Street to the Rollers Tavern. We got there before 7.30, as we came out of the public house at that time. We had a drink there. Goddard left us in the Rollers Tavern and I never saw him again that night. Goddard was not, so far as I can say, at the disturbance which resulted in the death of Plommer. My brother, myself and Stuart went to Firsfield Street after we left the Rollers Tavern. We met Harker in that street, and we then went up Corby Street to the ‘Big Gun’. Willis came into the Big Gun whilst we were there. That would be at a quarter to 8pm. We were in the Big Gun nearly half an hour. We went down a passage saw a big crowd there and got on a car and went to Brown’s Bridge at the bottom of East Coast Road. My brother Wilfred was bandaged. We went back to Princess Street walking, getting back there about ten past eight. That was three times we had either gone up or down Princess Street. On none of these occasions were threats made by one or anyone in my hearing against Plommer or anyone else. When we got to the top of Princess Street my brother said, ‘There’s Jock there’, and I saw Plommer standing at the corner of Sutherland Street and Attercliffe Road, nearly against the tram stop to Tinsley. There were about twenty men standing there by the wall in Sutherland Street. I spoke first. No one ran up to Plommer. I and my brother walked up to him. I said to him, “Our kid is going to have a straight fight tonight and there’s going to be no poker used’. The deceased stepped back and said, ‘I’ll use it on you, and all’. He brought a poker up from the top of his trousers on the right-hand side. He smacked me twice on the top of the head with the poker and I went to the ground. I got up at once and I saw him hit my brother with it on the side of his head on top of the bandages. My brother fell down. I was wearing a bowler hat, my brother was wearing a check cap. Directly he struck my brother I grabbed hold of the end of the poker. There was a fair crowd of people there when I got hold of the poker. I swung him round whilst I was pulling at the poker he kicked me above the right knee and in the right groin. I was bruised on the leg over the knee and in the groin and it was for those injuries I was taken to the hospital since I was in custody. He let go of the end of the poker and I fell on my back. I got up and saw my brother struggling with the deceased who had a razor in his left hand. He swung my brother away and rushed at me with the razor and I hit him with the poker on the left side of the head. He went back, slipped on the car lines and went down on the ground. The crowd came round and a motor-car came between us, and I did not get near him again. Plommer got up immediately and stood by the car, and said ‘Come on you two, I’ll cut your knots off’. I never hit the deceased in the stomach with a poker. I never kicked him. I hit him with the poker once that was the only blow I struck. Plommer went from the motor-car and stood by the Rawson’s Arms corner. A crowd of women were by him as he was trying to put the razor in his pocket. I ran after him and said, ‘Drop that razor’. As he was running towards his house he dropped the razor. When he dropped the razor I said to my brother Wilfred, ‘Pick up the razor and give it to me’. He did so and then collapsed. Before he collapsed Wilfred picked up a scooter from a child apparently with the intention of throwing it, but the woman with the child said, ‘That’s my scooter’, and Wilfred gave her the scooter back. I noticed my brother was going to faint and I got hold of him and helped him to the door-step of a chip shop where we were near. He sat on the door-step and I noticed his thumb on his left hand was cut. It might be the right thumb. At that time I was holding the poker and the razor. There was a crowd of people near the chip shop, and the street was packed. I shouted to the crowd, ‘Look what your fighting man has been using a poker and a razor’ and I held them up in my hand. I called for some water and a woman I believe it was Mrs Constantine, fetched some water for my brother. We were at the chip-shop step two minutes and then a police officer came. When the policeman came I was giving my brother a drink. The officer said, ‘Who’s done it?’. I replied, ‘Jock, and these are what he’s been using’, referring to the poker and the razor. I gave these weapons to the officer. The officer said, ‘Who’s Jock’s?’ and I said, ‘Jock, the steward of the club’. He said, ‘Are you going to prosecute him?’. I said, ‘Yes’. He said ‘Where does he live?’ I said ‘I don’t know’. At that moment my brother fainted. The constable left us and went down Princess Street. He returned and said, ‘If I were you I should go in the Rawson’s Arms while I telephone for the ambulance’. I don’t think when he left us he went down Princess Street. He went to telephone for the ambulance. My brother was bleeding through his bandages. The officer went to the Rawson’s Arms and I and my brother went in. We sat in the Rawson’s Arms fifteen to twenty minutes and were then taken to the Royal Infirmary. I was there when my brother was attended to. We got to the Infirmary about twenty to nine. I was surprised when the officer put the handcuffs on us. He said, ‘I’m sorry, Loll, it’s come to it, I shall have to put them on’. I was taken to the charge office. I never saw Sam Garvin, Bob Garvin, Wild or Kidnew that day at all. Apart from my brother and myself, not one of the prisoners, so far as I know, took any part in the scuffle with the deceased. There was no kicking or beating. I saw no instrument used other than the poker. I or my brother had no weapon or razor. When my brother Wilfred went up to Plommer he (Wilfred) was rubbing his hands. I go to race meetings. I have seen Garvin at race meetings and also betting rings. There has never been any connection between me and Garvin either in the way of business or in any way whatever, no business or other relations. At Gringley-on-the-Hill Races I was working for Taylor Bros and after the first race I went to Garvin and said, ‘Have you heard anything Sam?’ I did not go there with him, and did not know he was there till I saw him. I was in Castle Street some time ago where there was a disturbance after Garvin got off. There was cheering. I was in the crowd but had nothing to do with the trouble. I have been in the Yorkshire Stingo many times. I have seen Garvin there. He was in the best room. I was in the singing room. I have only seen Robert Garvin once in my life up to these proceedings. That was at Gringley-on-the-Hill. I have been clerking for Taylor Bros of Sheffield since the beginning of the season. I have no trade and have never drawn unemployment benefit. On the 27th April I went to Uttoxeter Races with Harold Holland and I returned with him. I left him at Newhall Road. I live at Darnall. I did not see any of the other prisoners on the Sunday. I heard at Uttoxeter that my brother had been done in the previous night and was in the Infirmary. I went to Brightside to see my brother Ernest to see what had happened. He told me something and I went up Saville Street to find Wilfred who I heard was in Princess Street. I went along with Goddard after Holland left me and we went to Sutherland Street. We met Stuart and Wilfred by Thompson’s passage. I was told that my brother was in Thompson’s passage. I did not know Stuart then. I had never seen him before till I saw him with my brother. We stood at Norfolk Bridge to wait for Plommer, Cooper or Liveredge. If any of these three had come we were going to challenge them to fight to cover a £20 wager that Tich Whitham had backed any of the three to fight my brother Wilfred. I can’t fight, my brother can. Our intention was that the fight should take place when my brother’s head was better. I did not see Goddard again that night after leaving the Rollers Tavern. I had said to Harker there’s a gang standing at Norfolk Bridge and they might set about us whilst we are arranging this fight and you had better come with us. I had explained the matter to Goddard before he left us. I had previously seen Ishmael Pollard, Holmes and others previously standing at Norfolk Bridge. There was a tossing ring in Thompson’s yard. I knew it as Plommer’s gang. The ring was associated with Spud Murphy, Foster and two Wheywells who were connected with the Mooney Gang. They were a gang for gambling and rough-house work. After the Mooney gang were bust up by the Garvins they started a gambling ring in Thompson’s yard to get well handed to run Garvin’s gang out again. These were there to train to use the razor for acts of violence. Garvin’s gang has knocked out the Mooney gang. I have never myself seen gambling in Thompson’s Yard. Plommer told me there was gambling there. When I first knew Plommer he told me he was a member of the Mooney gang and had been for three or four years. I have only seen Plommer three or four times recently. I have seen Plommer signing on at the unemployment exchange. I did not see him sign, but the deceased man told me he was going to sign on. When Willis came in to the Big Gun that made five of us. The crowd was there as they were expecting trouble when they saw us walking about. They perhaps knew we were after Plommer. We went on the tram to get out of the crowd. Willis left us before we left Brown’s Bridge and I did not see him again till after the fight. Four of us returned to Princess Street, me, Wilfred, Harker and Stuart. I have heard Miriam Lycett’s evidence as to me. It is not true. It is untrue that I had a case or weapon with me. I could not be in Princess Street at 5.15, as Mrs Beever says, as I was at Uttoxeter and did not get home till 6.20. No one said in Princess Street, ‘If he’s there this time, straight for him and we’ll be in’. We could not see any weapon in Plommer’s hands when we first saw him. He was alone. I and my brother went up to Plommer. I did not see the other prisoners again after that. Directly I spoke to Plommer he pulled out a poker from a pocket in front of his trousers. The men and women were standing round the corner and could not see. The view of the members of the Plommer gang was obstructed as they stood along a wall in Sutherland Street. Some more people took part in the fight with Plommer. I don’t know who they were, they were strangers. Harker was not in it, nor Willis or Stuart. I can’t say which side these other people took. I saw no blows. As I was struggling to get the poker, I was stooping. I saw about two sets of legs round Plommer when I was struggling with Plommer for the poker, and I was stooping. Some of these strangers took part in the fight. I never saw what the strangers did. I could not see any blows struck. So far as I know only myself, my brother and Plommer took part in the fighting. I never saw one in the crowd with a cosher or other weapon. I was the only one to use a weapon, that was the poker which I had taken from Plommer. I was not near Plommer whilst he was on the ground. I was then at least ten yards away from him then. I saw none of the other prisoners round Plommer when he was on the ground. I have no idea whatever where Plommer could have got the terrible wounds that he did. I don’t know of anyone who could have caused them. I did not intend my brother to fight that night with Plommer, as I wanted him to wait till my brother’s head got better. I said to him, ‘My brother is going to have a straight fight tonight’. There are disturbances often at Norfolk Bridge. I have not seen a row at Norfolk Bridge. I was wearing a bowler hat I had bought this a fortnight before. The blow that Plommer struck me with a poker damaged my hat. I have heard Holden’s evidence. It is untrue there were fourteen or fifteen of us coming down Princess Street. I did not go into the Midland Hotel that night. I know a man named Seville. I asked him if he knew where Cooper and Liveredge lived. I had light trousers on. My overcoat is a dark grey, not too dark. I heard Mazelwood’s evidence. It is untrue I made a stab at Plommer. I did not say, ‘Let’s follow the Scotch bastard and do him in’. I never said, ‘Look what the Scotch bastard has done to my brother’. I have heard Mrs Lemm’s evidence. It is quite untrue. I was never near Plommer when he was on the floor. I never said to Plommer, ‘You helped to do our kid in last night and now we’ll do you in’. I saw no one with a dagger. PC Hogan did not take us directly into the Rawson's Arms. He left us whilst he went to telephone. I did say, ‘I hit him with a poker’. I said, ‘I have hit him with his own poker’. The officer said, ‘It looks like being serious’. I did not say then, ‘Well, I did not hit him then’. What I said was, ‘Well, it’s his own fault then’. After Plommer was pronounced dead I did say, ‘I did it in self-defence’. I am not a member of the Garvin gang. I know there are the two Garvins and Kisnew and Bill Furness. I nor my brother Wilfred do not belong to any gang. I have been in Garwin’s company several times, if not in his company, in the same place. When the disturbance took place in Castle Street I and my brother were there, and other men from our corner. I can’t say what time my train left Uttoxeter. I can’t tell what time the train left, but I got in at the Midland Station about 6.20. There had been a challenge thrown out by Tich Whitham of £20 for a fight between any of his friends and my brother, and that was why we went to see Plommer. My brother had been in the neighbourhood alone the night before and got cut up, and I took one or two friends with me when I went down. I have never been associated with Garvin’s gang or any other gang. I live at Darnall. I don’t frequent Norfolk Bridge. xxxqxxx Wilfred Fowler's Statement In his statement at the trial, Wilfred Fowler said: xxxqxxx I live at 12 Stevenson Road, Sheffield, and am a bricklayer’s labourer. I am 23 years of age and am married with one child. I am not associated with any gang nor have I ever been. I had known Plommer about a month. I went to a party in Princess Street with a Mrs Addy and there met Plommer. I next saw him on Sunday, 26th April. I had been in the Windsor Hotel. I went there between 8 and 8.15, and came out at 10pm. Outside the public house I saw three young women running. I saw a man Liversidge there. Liversidge said, ‘What have you got to do with this row? You’re one of the Alfred Road gang’, and made at me to strike me but only caught me on the shoulder. He turned and ran and went into the kitchen of the Windsor Hotel. I remained outside talking to the three women about half an hour. Liversidge reappeared with about three others, one of whom was Plommer. Liversidge said, ‘Come on now, we’ve had one go. Let’s have another one now’. I said, ‘I’ll have a go, one at a time so long as it’s fair’. I had a fight with Liversidge. The deceased man Plommer and Spud Murphy and Cooper were there. Murphy had been in the Windsor Hotel. I knocked Liversidge down and Cooper then sparred up to me and I knocked him down. Whilst we were sparring Plommer came up, got hold of me by my throat. He said, ‘We’ve done Buck’ (meaning my pal Butler) ‘and now we’re going to do you in’. Plommer said, ‘Well, you little bastard, are we going to stand you licking our men like that’. That was after I knocked Liversidge down. I had beaten Liversidge, sure. Plommer struck me on the head with a poker and felled me and I remember no more. I was then in front of the Windsor Hotel. We were in the road and I could not have hit my head on a wall. When I came round someone was bathing my head in Mrs Addy’s house. I was taken to the Royal Hospital where four stitches were put in the wound. I also had two black eyes. The Police Sergeant came to see me and I told him I would not prosecute but would have a fair fight. On Monday, 27th April, I went out at half past five. Willis told me about the £20 wager. It had some from Plommer and from Tich Whitham. I had no intention of fighting till my head was well. Amos Stuart lives near me. I saw him at half past five and he went from our house with me to the Midland Hotel. We were there till 6.30 when we went up Princess Street. I met my brother Lawrence and Goddard at 7. I had not seen him before that day. I went with my brother to the Rollers Tavern where Goddard left us, and then to the Big Gun where we met Willis. I have heard my brother’s evidence as to meeting with Plommer. It is true. I had no instrument or weapon whatever with me and I did not intend to fight that night. When we were walking up to Plommer my brother said to him, ‘My kid will have a fair fight to-night and no poker’. Plommer immediately pulled a poker out and struck my brother, saying, ‘You can have it and all’. My brother fell and Plommer struck me on my bandaged head and I fell and don’t remember very much more, I was dazed. I saw my brother struggling with Plommer for the poker and I saw him fall with the poker after taking it from Plommer. I saw Plommer take a razor from his outside breast pocket. I rushed at him and he struck me with it on the front of the right thumb. I fell as I was nearly fainting I could just keep myself up. The man Plommer ran at my brother with the razor and my brother hit him with the poker. A large crowd were around when Plommer produced the razor. Plommer fell and a motor came up between him and me. Plommer ran down Princess Street and I heard my brother shout ‘Drop that razor’. I picked up a scooter to throw at Plommer but did not throw it, and gave it back to a woman. At this juncture I went and sat on a step of a chip shop. I was in a fainting condition. I saw the razor dropped by Plommer, my brother told me to pick it up and I did so and gave it to my brother. We did not move from the step till the policeman came and I saw my brother hand the razor and the poker to the officer. I heard the conversation between my brother and the policeman. What my brother has said in evidence is true. I was taken to the Royal Infirmary and I had a stitch put in my thumb and a dressing on the wound on my head. I was not in a condition to remember what was said between my brother and the policeman in the public house. Subsequently I was taken to the charge office with my brother. Wilson Goddard, or Harker or Stuart, took no part in the scuffle with Plommer. I had not seen the two Garvins or Kidnew or Wild that day. I did not personally strike or kick Plommer at all. I have had no relations with Garvin or Kidnew or Wild. They had no reason to interest themselves in my quarrels. I said from the dock the first day I was before the Court that the other men had nothing to do with this fight. I have been to a tossing ring in Thompson’s yard. Plommer was getting the money and Thompson was picking the halfpennies up. Ishmael Pollard was interested in the ring. I have seen Spud Murphy and Tich Whitham in the ring. I last worked at Steel, Pelch and Frazers about 12 months. I had worked two hours and the Attercliffe Police got me stopped. I know I was stopped because I went on relief and the police got me stopped there. The Relieving Officer told me that the police had reported I got my living from thieving. I had previously worked in 1919, that was at Hollow Meadows. Since then my brothers have been keeping me. Lawrence has given me some and another brother made it up to 30/- a week. I have attended gambling rings, one is at Alfred Road. ‘Big Jocky’ is one who runs a ring. Big Jocky is named Jackson. Another man is Lucky Jim Stacey. Prisoners Willis and Goddard and my brother also act in gambling rings there. I still say I don’t belong to a gang. I first met Plommer in Addy’s. Willis’s young woman (Miss Addy) invited me there. I have met him since then on 26th April. Spud Murphy was there and Jock Plommer was there between 8.15 and 10pm in the Windsor public house. Plommer was in the singing room for five minutes about a quarter past nine. A boy called Fothergill was with me. Willis came in about ten to nine. The landlady Mrs Priestley spoke to the young woman who came out of the public house. Liversidge let go at me and ran into the public house. Mrs Priestley’s evidence is untrue. Liversidge was not standing against a wall with his hand in his pocket. I did not go up to Liversidge and strike him in the mouth. I did not get hold of Mrs Priestley or assault her or use foul language. I did not say to Liversidge ‘I’ll make you remember me, I’m Spinks Fowler’ my nickname is ‘Finkle’ Fowler, not Spinks. Liversidge returned about twenty minutes afterwards and returned with Cooper, Thompson and Spud Murphy. I said ‘This has got to be a fair fight now, Plommer’. Liversidge was in his shirt sleeves and I won. I then had a fight with Cooper. I never said at any time ‘Jock, you’ll have to have a tanning for this’. Plommer hit me with a poker. It was up his right sleeve. Next day (Monday) I and Stuart went out from my house about 5.30. I remember the sergeant coming to see me in the early hours of Monday morning. I told the sergeant I had been struck with a sharp instrument or had fallen and had got my head cut, and that I intended finding out who Jock and Liversidge were and intended to have a straight fight. I did not tell the sergeant that Plommer had hit me with a poker, as he (Plommer) was a married man with children and it would do me no good to prosecute and I would rather have a straight fight. I did not think Plommer was working. I described them as members of Spud Murphy’s gang. Goddard had been living at my house about a month. I took him in as he had nowhere to go. Amos Stuart’s mother lives opposite to me. Amos Stuart lives in March Street. I went with the intention of finding Jock Plommer, Liversidge and Cooper. I, Stuart and one of Stuart’s brothers went into Mr. Whitney’s house, the Midland Hotel. We remained in the house till 6.30. I went to see Plommer to see about the bother the other night and to fix up a fight for the wager of £20, which had been put up by Tich Whitham. Me, Stuart, Harker and my brother went to the Norfolk Bridge and went up to Plommer. Goddard was not there. He had left us at the Rollers Tavern. Willis was not with us. I had seen Willis in the Big Gun at a quarter to eight. I had seen Willis in the Newhall Billiard Room. The billiard room is opposite the Golden Ball. I did not go into the Golden Ball that day. Only I and my brother alone went up to Plommer. I went because I wanted to fix up the fight while it was warm. My brother said to Plommer, ‘Now, Jock, you and my brother are going to have a fair fight to-night and no pokers’. Plommer immediately struck my brother on the head with the poker and my brother fell. I jumped in and he struck me and knocked me down. I saw Plommer get the poker out of his trousers at the front. My brother knocked Plommer down with the poker he had taken from Plommer. About 15 got round Plommer. They seemed to be helping us. I fell down twice. I did not see Willis there, but Harker and Stuart went there with me. I can’t say how Plommer got the wounds. I did not see Goddard there. I saw people striking Plommer; about ten to fifteen were round him. I saw two others besides myself and my brother striking at Plommer. I can’t say if their blows actually reached Plommer. When my brother struck Plommer with the poker the two strangers rushed at Plommer and knocked him down. No one assisted Plommer. The crowd were incensed at the way Plommer had attacked us. I can’t suggest how Plommer received the wounds in the abdomen. One of the wounds on the head was caused when my brother struck him. When the motor-car came up I was at the same side of the car. My brother and the others were separated from us by the car. No women spoke to Plommer. I and my brother chased Plommer because he had a razor. He held it up and said, ‘Come on, one at a time’. Everyone saw Plommer holding the razor. Plommer dropped the razor two doors from the chip shop. He dropped the razor because of the shouts, ‘Drop that razor’. I did not hear my brother speak to the constable, I heard him say something about serving him right, but I was dazed. I had not seen Garvin or his brother or Kidnew that day. I did not know Plommer lived in Princess Street. When I first saw Plommer I or my brother did not say, ‘Let’s get at him’. My brother never said, ‘Let’s do him in’. I never had hold of the poker. I never had a razor till I picked the one up in Princess Street that Plommer dropped. I never saw a piece of chain. I saw no weapons except the poker that Plommer used. I was not in a stooping position near Plommer when he was on the ground. I was not nearer than 10 yards to him. (Witness points out a distance of from 10 to 12 feet.) I did not hear anyone say, ‘Let’s do the Scotch bastard in’. I asked Ishmael Pollard where Cooper lived. I said, ‘That’s curious’, he seems to be a fighting man but no one seems to know where he lives. I heard Arthur Booth give evidence. It is untrue. I asked Booth where the fighting men lives. Everyone knew we were there. The children were following us about. I never had a bayonet or knife or dagger in my possession that day, or a case such as has been described. My brother did not say ‘You have done our kid in and now we’re going to do you’, to Plommer. I never said to Pollard, ‘Your Jocky is on for a doing, don’t forget’. I have never been in the company of Garvin. I was not with him on 16th February in the Red Lion, Cambridge Street. I remember a disturbance in Castle Street in February. I was there, but not with Garvin. Later in March I was not with Garvin in Castle Street when another disturbance took place. I have not been in the Yorkshire Stingo with Garvin. I have only been there once. On 15th September I was not in Haymarket with my brother nor with Garvin. On 15th September I was not in this building with my brother and the Garvins and Kidnew. I went to Gringley-on-the-Hill Races. I don’t remember seeing Garvin there. I never had anything to do with Garvin at the Drill Hall. I went to the tossing ring in Thompson’s Yard four times. I went there Easter Monday, the following Saturday, and the two following Sundays. Each time it was in the afternoon. 30 or 40 men were there. I know a lot of people were there. In February Garvin was acquitted of a serious charge in this Court and there was cheering outside. I was in a crowd of 200 people who were watching. On 16th September last I was not in the offices. I was ‘doing’ three months, and was released on 29th September. I and my brother were unarmed when Plommer attacked us with a poker. When Plommer fell I was in a sitting position some yards away. I could not see what happened to Plommer as the crowd closed in. xxxqxxx Medical & forensic evidence Injuries to William Plommer recorded at the Royal Infirmary Head (blunt force): two scalp wounds with heavy bruising and swelling, compatible with a poker/iron bar. These were painful but not by themselves fatal. Hands/forearms (defensive): incised cuts, especially to the left hand, consistent with a razor or other keen-edged blade used in close quarters while William Plommer tried to fend off blows. Trunk/abdomen (penetrating): multiple stab wounds to the abdomen, described by the surgeons as the work of a double-edged, bayonet-type blade, short, direct thrusts ‘straight in and out’, not slashes. At least one thrust entered the peritoneal cavity, producing severe internal haemorrhage, another wound tracked across the lower abdomen and a more superficial cut was also noted. Cause of death: the doctors attributed death to internal bleeding and shock from the deep abdominal penetrations. The head injuries and razor cuts were non-fatal adjuncts to the attack. Scene & clothing Blood at scene: witnesses and police noted pooling in the roadway where William Plommer first went down, smears at the threshold as neighbours pulled him inside, and a distinct drop trail from the street to his doorway, typical of a victim who staggered several yards after abdominal stabbing. Garments: the shirt and waistcoat showed small, neat, elliptical punctures aligning with the abdominal wounds (bayonet-type entry), together with longer sleeve slits (razor-type). The front of the vest and waistband were heavily saturated, again indicating frontal, close-range thrusts while William Plommer was upright and grappling. Weapons inferred Bayonet/short double-edged knife: penetration pattern and the surgeons’ language pointed to a double-edged blade. Multiple witnesses mentioned a scabbard seen with a Fowler afterwards, which fitted that finding. Poker/iron bar/chain: the scalp bruising and lacerations matched a solid bar or poker used as a club. Razor: the clean, shallow incisions to the hand/forearm were the classic signature of a razor used in a crowd fight. Evidence of a ‘concerted attack’ Different injury types at once: William Plommer had blunt-force head trauma, deep thrusting abdominal wounds, and sharp defensive cuts, injuries that were highly unlikely to be delivered by one person simultaneously. Angles & positions: the abdominal penetrations included more than one track (one straight, another slightly oblique/low-to-high), implying more than one knifeman closing from different sides while a third party struck with a bar. Tempo of events: the blood trail and short time to collapse showed rapid, successive blows and thrusts in the open street, consistent with a group rushing and surrounding rather than a duel. Weapon corroboration: eyewitness references to a poker in the first rush and to a scabbard/bayonet-type blade immediately after the mêlée dovetailed with the injury pattern. Attribution limits but joint purpose clear: while the medical findings could not name the exact hand that delivered the fatal thrusts, they strongly supported the prosecution’s view that the Fowler party acted together, one or more using a stabbing weapon while others pinned, clubbed and distracted, a classic joint enterprise assault that produced the combination of wounds from which William Plommer died. Eyewitnesses and what each adds At the trial, William Plommer's wife said: xxxqxxx On April 27th about 7.30pm I saw my husband standing at the junction of Princess Street and Attercliffe Road. I saw 7 or 8 men go up the street to him and attack him. I was at my door about 50 yards away. It was light. I saw a man with a bandaged head strike my husband who seemed to back away from the lot of them. I can’t say what the man struck with or where he hit my husband. I commenced running up the street and as I got there I saw Wilfred Fowler strike my husband with a poker, hitting him on the back of the head. I did not know Wilfred Fowler then. He was wearing a tweed lightish overcoat and had no cap or hat on. Next day a friend told me this man’s name was Wilfred Fowler. My husband then tried to get on a passing motor car and he pulled off. My husband then walked round the corner by the Rawson's Arms and passed close to me. I heard him then shout to the men 'Come one at a time'. Wilfred and Lawrence Fowler were stood against me and Lawrence Fowler said 'Let's do him in whilst we’ve got him'. My husband then began to run down the street. The two Fowlers ran after him. Wilfred Fowler picked up a scooter and threw it at my husband but it did not hit him. I saw my husband go into our house. In 2 or 3 minutes I joined my husband in our house. My sister, was just coming out. My little boy Thomas may have been in the house with my husband. After my husband was struck with the poker I picked up a piece of chain and handed it to a policeman. The chain produced is the one. I picked it up about 10 yards from where my husband was first attacked. My husband ran fast and was not caught up by anyone after he started running. When Wilfred Fowler said 'Let’s finish him', he had a razor in his hand. I did not see anything in the nature of a knife or dagger or bayonet. I knew Wilfred Fowler by sight. I heard him called 'Spike Fowler', the night before. I should say that my husband ran about 20 yards. I see the 2 Fowlers in court and identify them and Stewart and Wills as four of the men who attacked my husband. My husband was quite well when he went out and had no weapons. He was wearing the belt produced round his body and there was no slit in it when he went out. My husband was surrounded by the men. He went to the ground several times. I could not see what happened to him when he was on the ground. I had previously seen the 4 men I have identified with others walking up the street before. This was at 6 to 6.30pm. Half an hour later I saw 4 other men - I knew one, a Garvin, but not the other 3. My husband was in and told me that 2 of those 4 men were the Garvins. Jury. I am sure it was a poker with which Wilfred Fowler struck my husband. xxxqxxx From an upstairs window on Princess Street, a woman recalled watching a crowd gather at William Plommer’s house. She picked out the two Fowler brothers at the front. She said she saw Wilfred Fowler with a poker or iron bar and saw him bring it down in the first rush, adding that at the same time she saw a second man work in close at the waist with a stabbing motion. She added that she heard the men calling from the door to ‘fetch him out’, and urging one another on. At street level a man said that he saw Wilfred Fowler strike William Plommer on the head with a bar. He added that he also recognised George Wills among the men and saw a thrust driven into the body. He said that he then helped carry William Plommer inside and noticed heavy bleeding from his belly as well as from his scalp. Another man said that earlier that evening he had seen Wilfred Fowler carrying something like a knife or bayonet, described as being kept about the person in a scabbard. He said that he later watched the same party muster and move off toward Princess Street. A woman that lived in Princess Street, said that she had been looking from her doorway and the passage and heard the calls to bring William Plommer out and saw both Fowler brothers at the head when the crowd surged. Another woman at the Windsor Hotel said that she had seen the same faces gather after the Sunday trouble and again on the Monday before they set off. People at the corner said they also heard threats to ‘do him’, and noticed razors in some hands and a bar with Wilfred Fowler at the outset. A few witnesses were hesitant at first through fear, but later gave fuller statements once assured they would be protected. Taken together these accounts put Lawrence Fowler and Wilfred Fowler at the centre of the party, with George Wills and others alongside. Following the murder, a policeman saw Lawrence Fowler and Wilfred Fowler near the chip shop and then saw William Plommer. In his statement, he said: xxxqxxx On April 27th last at 8.15pm I was on duty in Attercliffe Road. I saw people fighting at the end of Princess Street and they moved down that street as I approached. I found a man sitting on the step of a fish and chip shop; two other men were with him. I knew the man on the step as Wilfred Fowler. One of the men standing was Lawrence Fowler. The third man I did not know, but have since learned his name is George Wills. Lawrence Fowler had a poker in his left and a closed razor in his right hand. I noticed that both these men had fresh blood on them. I took the razor and the poker. Wilfred Fowler had a cut thumb in I believe the right hand and abrasions at the back of the head behind the ear. Lawrence Fowler said to me 'Look what they have done to him', meaning Wilfred Fowler, 'they have nearly cut his finger off'. I asked who had done it. He replied 'Jock'. I enquired who Jock was. He said 'Steward at the Club'. I took the two Fowlers into the Rawson's Arms and left them there. Wilfred Fowler was bandaged on the head. I then went back to No. 42 Princess Street and saw deceased unconscious sitting in a chair. He was bleeding from a wound at the back of the head. I remained there 3 or 4 minutes and returned to the Rawson's Arms. Lawrence Fowler then said, 'I hit him with the poker'. I told Fowler, 'It looks like being serious this.” Lawrence Fowler then said “Oh well I didn’t hit him then'. I then took deceased and the 2 Fowlers to an ambulance to the Royal Infirmary. I was at the Infirmary when Plommer died at 9.10pm. I then put the handcuffs on Lawrence Fowler, who said 'I did it in self-defence'. I then took both the Fowlers to the Charge Office. When I took Wilfred Fowler into the Rawson's Arms he was dressed in a dark overcoat and clothing and wore a cap. Lawrence Fowler wore light trousers, a light grey overcoat and a black bowler hat. xxxqxxx It was noted that the door-shouting, the mustering, and the movement as a group set the scene for a concerted attack on William Plommer rather than a passing quarrel. Police response and the clamp-down The police were said to have been on Princess Street within minutes. The first of them secured the doorway and pushed the crowd back up the court while others went inside and found William Plommer bleeding from the head and belly. A constable then sent for an ambulance and stayed with him until removal to the infirmary. At the kerb they marked the blood spots, lifted a bent poker from the paving and noted scuffs and broken glass at the step. House-to-house calls were taken the same night. A number of the immediate neighbours were seen first at their own doors, then again later at the station for fuller statements once they were calmer. Through the evening and into the small hours detectives worked the usual haunts. Known men from the Mooney side were picked up in twos and threes, their clothes examined for fresh stains and tears. Search warrants followed at short notice for lodgings and lock-ups used by the party. A scabbard and several blades were taken, along with loose razors, a length of chain and coats with damage at the cuffs. Notes were made of fresh bruising and scratches on forearms and hands. Weapons and clothing were wrapped, labelled and sent on for fingerprinting and blood testing, and the poker from the street was put by separately. Because witnesses were plainly afraid, the police changed their approach. Statements were taken privately and at odd hours. Some callers were escorted home and a patrol sat on the corner in the days that followed so people could see there would be no reprisals. Where threats were reported, officers warned off loiterers and moved on groups gathering near Princess Street and West Bar. Intimidation was recorded as separate offences so that men could be held even if they did not answer the main charge. By the time formal charges were laid the core names were already under lock and key. At the first remand the magistrates refused bail on the grounds of the gravity of the offence, risk of absconding and the danger to witnesses. The rest were held on police court remand to allow further searches and identification parades. In the meantime patrols were stepped up around Corporation Street, Park Hill and the Attercliffe roads to make it plain the clamp-down was real and to break up any attempt at a show of force while the case was being built. Funeral: 2 May 1925 William Plommer’s funeral became a civic spectacle. By late morning Princess Street was already choked, with neighbours on steps, faces at upstairs windows and ex-servicemen gathering with standards furled. When the cortège moved off, the route to Burngreave was lined, ‘in places twelve deep’, one paper said, so that tens of thousands watched it pass. Behind the hearse walked William Plommer’s wife with her three children, one of whom, a boy, wore his father’s war medals on his small chest. Detachments of former artillerymen and lodges of the Royal Antediluvian Order of Buffaloes fell in behind, giving the procession a sober, regimental rhythm that underscored William Plommer’s status as an ex-soldier as much as a local hard man who had stood his ground. At the cemetery the little chapel could not hold the press of mourners and onlookers. Police closed the doors and held a cordon as women screamed and a crush formed on the steps. When the coffin was carried out, the crowd surged across neighbouring plots towards the graveside, with reporters estimating that about 8,000 were inside Burngreave alone. A collection was taken for the widow and children. For all the tension of the spring, there was no disorder, only a massed, uneasy silence as the earth went in. What the afternoon revealed was the scale of feeling in the city. Sympathy for the family, pride in a veteran, morbid curiosity and fed-up anger with the street firms all mingled in the same crowd. That mood carried into the courtroom weeks later, and was said to have helped explain the thin appetite for clemency once the jury spoke, and why the authorities felt licensed to keep sustained pressure on the gangs in the months that followed. The inquest William Plommer’s inquest opened at the city mortuary two days after the attack and was then adjourned to allow further arrests. When it resumed the surgeon stated that William Plommer had deep cuts to the head and a penetrating wound to the lower abdomen, with lesser cuts and bruises, concluding that his death was due to shock and haemorrhage following the abdominal stabbing. He added that the pattern of injuries was consistent with a sudden assault by more than one man using a blade and heavy implements. The neighbour at Princess Street kept to her first account, stating that from her upstairs window she saw a rush at the doorway, men striking with a bar and a poker, and one man close in at the front steps as William Plommer fell. Another witness again placed named men in the crush and said who carried what when the first blows landed, whilst another witness repeated that he saw Wilfred Fowler with ‘something like a knife or bayonet’ in his hand and driving forward. Two other locals were more cautious than on the night, saying ‘I believe’ where they had first said ‘I saw’, but under questions from the coroner they returned to their earlier descriptions of a concerted rush, with knives and iron bars. In summing up the coroner told the jury that the law did not look only to the hand that used the blade. He said the attack was plainly a joint one and that those who went together armed to the house and struck together bore a common responsibility. He added that the presence of both stabbing and clubbing injuries supported that view. At the conclusion of the inquest the jury found that William Plommer died from wounds unlawfully inflicted in Princess Street on 27 April 1925 and returned a verdict of wilful murder. On that verdict the coroner named the two Fowler brothers for committal to the assizes on the capital charge. He further found that other men present were concerned in the same felonious assault and should stand their trial. Bail was refused. Committal proceedings The men were brought up at Sheffield City Police Court over a series of sittings in May. Each faced the capital charge of wilful murder of William Plommer ‘acting in concert with others’, with an alternative count of manslaughter. The charges also listed lesser matters arising out of the Princess Street disorder, including carrying offensive weapons and unlawful assembly, but the prosecution made clear they were subsidiary to the homicide counts. The Assizes trial (R v. Fowler & others) They later appeared at the Yorkshire Assizes, with the prosecution submitting that it was no private quarrel but a concerted expedition, stating that the Fowler brothers gathered a party, went back to Princess Street on the Monday night, and ‘rushed’ the doorway with blades and bars. The prosecution linked what happened on the Sunday to the return on the Monday, and relied on the medical findings of a deep abdominal stab and heavy head blows to show a joint attack of a kind likely to kill. Window and street witnesses placed Lawrence Fowler and Wilfred Fowler at the front of the charge, with other men behind them with pokers and iron bars. The defence for Lawrence Fowler pressed mistaken identity and the conditions in the street. It was said that the hour was late, the lighting poor, and that the crowd was large and fast-moving. No one, they argued, could swear to the single thrust that killed. For Wilfred Fowler the theme was much the same. He was said to have been present in the district, but not proven to have carried any blade or struck any fatal blow. Counsel for George Wills, Stanley Harker and Amos Stuart argued mere presence, putting it that they were simply caught up in a mêlée, that no witness fixed a knife to any of them, and that banging and shouting in a narrow court did not amount to proof of a murderous intent. Where threats were heard, the defence said they were the language of a street fray rather than evidence of design. In summing up the judge directed the jury on joint enterprise, stating that if the men went together to Princess Street to use unlawful violence and if death followed in the course of that attack, all who were parties to that common design and who knew the kind of weapons being used could be guilty of murder. The judge noted that if a man was only there to look on, or if what was done went beyond anything he contemplated, he was not. The judge distinguished murder from manslaughter by intention. If the jury were sure that the Fowler brothers either used a deadly weapon or shared the intent to cause really serious harm when the rush was made, the verdict was murder. If they were not sure of that intent for the others, but sure they joined in the assault that caused the death, manslaughter followed. The judge warned on identification in a mixed crowd, but yet reminded the jury that several accounts, taken together, told a consistent story about the leaders at the front and the weapons in use. The jury found Lawrence Fowler and Wilfred Fowler guilty of murder. George Wills, Stanley Harker and Amos Stuart were found guilty of manslaughter. The court discharged three men during the hearing for want of evidence, whilst the jury later returned not-guilty verdicts for the final two men that were on trial with the others. Sentences Sentence of death was pronounced on the Fowler brothers at the same time the verdicts were returned, whilst the others were remanded for sentence. George Wills and Amos Stuart received ten years’ penal servitude, whilst Stanley Harker was given seven years’ penal servitude. In the weeks after the verdicts the appetite for retaliation ran beyond the courts. One Sheffield paper even reported the birth of a ‘Revenge Society’, said to be made up of ex-servicemen, many from the RFA and RGA, who had sworn ‘war on hooligans’. A secret meeting was said to have been held, vows of vengeance taken, and the organisers to have boasted they were ‘neither short of money nor weapons’. However, whether such a body ever moved from headline to action was unclear, with the police papers that survived showing no verified vigilante raids. However, it was noted that the very claim shed light on how raw feeling was in the city, and how far public patience with the street firms had snapped. Appeals & petitions Notices of appeal were filed immediately after sentence. Only the Fowler brothers pursued them, the three men convicted of manslaughter not challenging their verdicts. Grounds. The brothers’ counsel argued (i) that the judge had misdirected the jury on joint enterprise, that there was, at most, a common intent to ‘have a fight’, not to cause really serious harm. (ii) that the identification and participation evidence was too uncertain for a capital conviction, and (iii) that the Crown had not proved causation, because no witness could say which blow was fatal or which man used a bayonet-type weapon. Court of Criminal Appeal. In early August 1925 the Court of Criminal Appeal heard both Fowler appeals and dismissed them in late August 1925, holding that the trial judge had summed up fairly and repeatedly, explained joint enterprise clearly, adopting the now-familiar ‘who struck the blow?’ analysis, that being that where men arm themselves, went out together to find their antagonist, and set upon him in concert, the law fixed each with responsibility for the natural and probable result of that joint attack, whether or not it could be shown whose hand delivered the fatal wound and as such the convictions and sentences therefore stood. Petitions and Home Office review. As was customary in capital cases, memorials were submitted on the brothers’ behalf by relatives and sympathisers, stressing youth, allegedly uncertain identifications, and the fact that others had been convicted only of manslaughter. However, it was noted that the trial judge made no recommendation to mercy, and police reports to the Home Office described the affair as organised gang violence and advised against intervention. After considering the papers, the Home Secretary declined to interfere, noting that there were no new facts to disturb the jury’s verdicts. Executions Lawrence Fowler and Wilfred Fowler were executed at Armley Gaol, Leeds, over two consecutive mornings, 13 and 14 August 1925, under Thomas Pierrepoint, with Wilfred Fowler to be hung on Thursday, 13 August, alongside another condemned man, Alfred David Bostock of Rotherham, and Lawrence Fowler to hang on Friday, 14 August. When Wilfred Fowler was executed it was noted that after the drop there was no tolling of the bell, and that even the prison clock was kept from striking, presumably in consideration for Lawrence Fowler, who remained in a condemned cell within hearing distance and due to face the gallows the next morning. Family visits had been permitted earlier that afternoon and newspapers noted that all three condemned men, Wilfred Fowler, Lawrence Fowler, and Alfred Bostock, received relatives before being locked in for the night. Lawrence Fowler was said to have spent his last day in manifest distress, and warders later told reporters that he repeatedly protested his innocence, however, at 9.10am on 14 August 1925 a printed notice of completion was pasted to the prison railings showing that his execution had taken place. No final speech by either brother was reported in the official record. Aftermath & legacy It was noted that the intimidation climate did not evaporate with the verdicts. William Plommer’s wife received anonymous letters hinting at reprisals, enough for the Sunday papers to make a story of it, and the police put a watch on her address. It was a last echo of the fear that had dogged the investigation from April onwards, neighbours who would draw their blinds rather than identify a man in the street, witnesses who shrank from medical treatment to avoid the hospital summons, and tradesmen who had learned to say they had seen ‘nowt’. However, if anything, it was said that the weeks between verdict and rope hardened public opinion and that by the time the Court of Appeal dismissed the challenges, there was little appetite for mercy. Inside the forces, the case became a boundary-stone. The files show a readiness, already visible in the spring raids and warrants, to keep leaning on the points that had produced a workable prosecution, swift arrests on the spot, aggressive use of search powers to seize blades and scabbards, and careful shepherding of intimidated witnesses from statement to courtroom. Patrols were concentrated again around the trouble corridors, Corporation Street/West Bar and the Attercliffe-Park Hill approaches, with plain-clothes men hovering at closing time. Known faces were stopped and searched for razors, pokers, and bayonet-type knives, with a possession charge or a breach-of-the-peace summons from then on being driven through rather than allowed to lapse. The trial itself helped, not only because it removed prominent figures from the pavements, but because it set a clear rule the city could feel, that being that a concerted street attack with weapons would be treated as murder even if the Crown could not prove which hand drove the fatal blade. The newspapers underlined that point in plain words, ‘law on mob action’, and the reporting from Armley reinforced the lesson. Those two stark mornings in August, with notices pasted to the gaol railings and a silent clock out of consideration for the second brother, carried a moral as well as a legal conclusion, that being that the swagger of a dozen men with pokers could be answered by the machinery of the state. However, there were still flare-ups, with Sheffield not having been magicked free of razors and reprisals, but the temperature dropped. The Garvin crowd, shorn of several regulars and now watched as a matter of routine, splintered into smaller drinking companions rather than an organised ‘turn-out’. Publicans and small shopkeepers, who had been paying to keep windows intact, became more willing to pass names to the police once they saw convictions stick. Magistrates, too, tightened their line, and binding-over orders were enforced, and bail for those caught carrying edged weapons in company was set with a view to public safety rather than convenience. In that sense the legacy of the William Plommer case was double. On paper, it gave prosecutors and judges a recent, local authority for joint enterprise in street killings. On the ground, it broke the spell of invulnerability that had clung to the ‘firms’. The men who had strutted up Princess Street in late April were, by late summer, either in prison, in work, or keeping their heads down. Commemoration and public memory A century on, the William Plommer killing still has a local afterlife. There is now a small plaque on Princess Street near to where 42 Princess Street was and close to the spot where William Plommer was attacked, and a centenary gathering was planned for late April 2025. Most of Princess Street has since been demolished and replaced with industrial units. The modern press occasionally uses the shorthand ‘Park Brigade’ for the assailants, but the police files place the Fowlers within the Mooney crowd that had been ranging between West Bar and Attercliffe at the time. Wilfred Fowler and his elder brother, Lawrence, led a gang of Sheffield toughs who specialised in instilling terror into local shopkeepers and generally impersonating the American gangster. Events that were to lead them to the scaffold began at the end of April when there was a disturbance in a city centre public house. Trimmer Welsh, the muscle behind the gang, was causing a scene with the new barmaid in a pub. He went to strike her for refusing his advances but was warned off by William Plommer. a former boxer. The two men squared up, and having no fear of the gang's reputation. Plommer beat the man senseless. On the following day. the gang. out for revenge, cornered Plommer as he stood talking to another former boxer, Jack Clay. The altercation ended when Clay beat Wilf Fowler unsconscious. This loss of face called for drastic action and the next day, the gang went to Plommer's house and called him into the street. A scuffle took place, ending with Plommer lying in a heap on the ground. The gang had attacked him with knives, chains and clubs, and he died from his injuries a short time later. There was an initial reluctance by witnesses to testify against the Fowler gang, but under assurance from an Inspector Sillitoe, who had been given the task of cleaning up the city, that they would be safe from reprisals, the police soon had enough evidence to arrest seven members of the gang on a murder charge. Their four day trial took place at Yorkshire Assizes before Mr Justice Finlay in July and ended in the death sentence being passed on the Fowler brothers, while three others were convicted of manslaughter. The remaining two were found not guilty. Wilfred Fowler was hanged alongside BOSTOCK by Thomas Pierrepoint, Robert Wilson, and Henry Pollard. Lawrence Fowler was hanged the following day. Age:- 23 25 Date of Execution:- Thursday, 3rd September, 1925 Friday, 4th September, 1925 Location of Execution:- Leeds Leeds Hangman:- Thomas Pierrepoint Assistants:- Robert Wilson, Henry Pollard Lionel Mann Tried At:- Leeds Trial Dates:- 28th - 31st July, 1925 Trial Judge:- Mister Justice Finlay Crime:- Murder Victims:- Name:- William F Plommer Age:- 33 Location of Murder:- Princess Street, Sheffield Date of Murder:- Monday, 27th April, 1925 Method of Murder:- Battered/Stabbed Relationship to Killer:- None None