William Ruck’s court cases
Ruck had been galvinist and then manager of the Baths in the 1840s/50s until the flood of 1855 wrecked his business. He was convinced that the first storm (which caused no flooding) had damaged the new sewers and that the council were at fault for not repairing it before the second storm two weeks later. This second storm resulted in a devastating flood across much of the centre of Cheltenham; the water filled the Baths to a depth of four feet and greatly damaged Ruck’s galvanic equipment which he valued at £150. The borough surveyor disputed this, blaming the cause on a burst culvert in Charlton Kings and at the end of 1855 Ruck threatened to sue.
In spring 1856 he was given notice to quit when the entire property was put up for sale after its owner, Pearson Thompson, defaulted on his mortgages and in July 1856 the Cheltenham Chronicle reported that Ruck was to carry out his legal threat: ‘The action commenced by Mr. Ruck, of the Montpellier Baths, against the Cheltenham Improvement Commissioners for damage done to his premises during the flood of last summer, which plaintiff attributed to defective sewage, is likely to be tried at the ensuing Assizes at Gloucester, the declaration having at length been served. The plaintiff estimates his damages at £200’.
The case went before the Assizes in the following summer and the Cheltenham Chronicle of 18 August recorded Ruck’s evidence as follows: ‘The sewer of the Montpellier Baths communicated with the river Chelt. He remembered the storm of the 13 July 1855. The sewer under the Baths burst at that time. He then communicated with Mr. Smith, the overlooker of the new sewage works, and told him, if any flood was to happen, the Baths would be all under water. Smith replied that the contractors had been spoken to on the subject, but that they had taken no notice of the communication, and he did not know who was the responsible person in the matter. The sewer was left in the same state from 13- 26 July, and gradually grew worse every day. Nothing was done to injure the sewer from the 13-26 July.
‘On 26 July, he left the Baths for two hours, and while he was away, a boy came and told him that the sewage matter was coming into the premises. He immediately went there, and found the water pouring into the place in all directions. There was sewage matter as well as water. He found persons assisting to get the furniture away. He went to his galvanic room, and found all the tables upset, and nearly the whole of his valuable instruments covered with water. His two principal galvanic batteries cost him £40; the other instruments were very valuable. All the carpets were soaked in water, and perfectly spoiled. The water did not enter the Baths by the front door at the time he arrived at the Baths, and did not come in that way for twenty minutes afterwards. At that time all the furniture in the Baths was covered with filth. He had a furnished house at 4, Bath Place, opposite the Bath. He there found that the sewage matter was coming in just the same way as at the Baths.
‘The damage done at the Baths he estimated to amount to about £300. The damage to the instruments alone was £150; he could not replace the furniture under £150. The damage done at his house in Bath Place, he estimated at £30 at least. During the whole of the time he lived at the Baths they had never been flooded from the sewer; they had been overflowed with surface water, to carry off which he had devised a plan. After the injury happened, he went to the Surveyor to the Commissioners (Mr. Dangerfield) and asked him to come amid look at his premises, but he declined to do so’.
The judge began hearing evidence from a civil engineer and then decided that the case didn’t need to proceed as no cause of action had been proved. Mr Huddlestone QC appearing for Ruck disagreed and the judge recommended that he should consent to a nonsuit which allowed leave to appeal to a higher court. Ruck agreed to this and the following May the case was heard by the Court of the Exchequer with Huddlestone again representing Ruck. He argued, firstly, that the nonsuit was erroneous in point of law; secondly, that the works in question not having been constructed in the manner pointed out by the local Act – which required that the new drains should be fitted with flaps – the defendants had negligently discharged their duty to the public and were therefore liable. It was also contended that the commissioners were liable for neglecting to repair the drain in the interval between the two storms. The court found unaimously in favour of Ruck on both of Huddlestone’s points and he was awarded £174 in damages.
Shortly before that legal victory, however, Ruck appeared before Cheltenham Magistrates Court on another issue involving a sewer but with less success. He, along with eight other residents of Leckhampton, were ‘summoned by the local authorities for non payment of the Sewer Rate, made under the Nuisances Removal Act, and called the Moor End Street Sewer Assessment… The ground of objection was that the parties summoned did not use the sewer and were therefore not liable. The Magistrates overuled the objection, and ordered payment, with the usual costs, with leave to appeal’ (Cheltenham Chronicle 2 March 1858). Was his refusal to pay connected with his low regard for Cheltenham’s sewer pipes following his earlier experience? The council was represented by Septimus Pruen while some of the defendants were represented by William Boodle, later to appear for two men charged with a robbery at the Baths.
After earning a living as a photographer for some years Ruck reappears as a medical galvanist at the nearby Cambray Spa. Upon his death in 1886 his son Frank takes over the running of Cambray Spa and, continuing to follow in his father’s footsteps, later becomes involved in the administration of treatments at the Montpellier Baths.
Robbery
On 12 July 1864 a Mr G Harvey was attending the baths when he discovered that his gold watch, together with £5, had disappeared from his possessions. The alarm was raised, the police were called for and suspicion quickly fell on two young men who, according to the manager, Josiah Jessop, were the only patrons to leave the premises around the time in question. The two men, Alfred Randall Cooke and George Stevens, were subsequently arrested and appeared at a court hearing the next day at which Sgt Bird asked that they be held on remand for one week. He believed the pair were involved in other robberies and wanted time to make further inquiries; he also wanted ensure the attendance of an ‘important witness’. Bail was refused and the two were remanded.
Cooke and Stevens were represented by William Boodle at their next appearance a week later when Sgt Bird stated that he had often seen them together and that they had lived at 8 St Paul’s Street South. He had not yet recovered the stolen property and had written to London about the two prisoners but had yet to receive a reply. As a result, he asked that they continue to be held on remand. In support of his request he produced the important witness he referred to at the first hearing, George Barrington Beale, who had been in the bath room concerned with Cooke, Stevens and Harvey at the time the watch went missing. He didn’t see the theft but he did see Cooke go into the compartment where Harvey had undressed. This was sufficient for the bench to agree to keep both men on remand a while longer. Boodle applied for bail, stating that one of his clients was ‘very painfully and awkwardly situated’ having got married to a respectable tradesman’s daughter shortly before his arrest, but this was denied.
At the third hearing both Cooke and Stevens were acquitted of the charge due to insufficient evidence. It seems more likely than not that they got away with it, for in March the following year Cooke (aged 23) was once more in court charged with breaking into the premises of Mrs Ann Wilson of 15 The Colonnade along with three other men, one of whom was called Williams Stevens – perhaps George’s brother?
TO READ MISCELLANY FROM 1900-1944 CLICK HERE