Preece Family Tree

Events

Parents

Families

Attributes

Pedigree

1. Thomas Morgan
   1. Harriet Walker
      1. William Thomas Morgan
      2. Abel James Morgan
      3. Francis Hollis Morgan
         1. Annie Stokes
      4. Mildred Mary Morgan
      5. Ambrose Walker Morgan
      6. Leah Annie Morgan
      7. Laurel Grace Morgan

Ancestors

Source References

1. 1911 United Kingdom Census
   1. • Page: RG14/17085/167
2. General Register Office: England & Wales Marriage Index
3. 1939 Register
   1. • Page: OQBF/6
4. General Register Office: England & Wales Death Index
5. UK Government: National Probate Calendar
   1. • Date: 17 April 1974
      • Page: Francis Hollis Morgan
      • Citation:

        MORGAN, Francis Hollis of Greenacres New Rd Shareshill Wolverhampton died 17 February 1974 Administration Birmingham 17 April £?0526 740305395K

6. Cannock Chase Courier
   1. • Date: 7 September 1907
      • Page: Page 7
      • Citation:

        AN ARREST AT WOLVERHAMPTON

        A CHESLYN HAY BUTCHER IN CHARGE

        GREAT EXCITEMENT

        At a very early hour, yesterday (Friday) morning the intelligence reached the Courier Office to the effect that an arrest had been effected at Wolverhampton. It was stated that a butcher named Hollis Morgan whose home is at Cheslyn Hay had been arrested. According to the "Daily Gazette" it appears that two or three days ago the manager of a well known hotel at Wolverhampton was discussing the Wyrley outrages with a police constable, when he remarked that a customer of his had spoken rather strongly about the maiming, and when theories as to the authorship of the outrages were mentioned this young man invariably fired up in a great passion. The conversation and the account given of the man's conduct put the officer on his guard, and he told the circumstance to the inspector. The latter took a full statement from him, and laid it before the Chief Constable (Captain Burnett). Superindentent Stokes and Detective Inspector Lewis then commenced investigations narrowing their field of inquiry down to Hollis Morgan. It was found that he was a native of Cheslyn Hay. He was employed by a Horseley Fields Butcher, and had been in the habit of spending his week ends at Great Wyrley, usually leaving Wolverhampton on the Saturday night, and returning on Tuesday morning.

        THE ARREST.

        After complete inquiries Captain Burnett communicated with Captin Alison, and on Thursday Chief Superindendent Bishop paid a secret visit to Wolverhampton. He was met at the station by Superintendent Stokes and Detective Inspector Lewis, and several interviews were held. Superintendent Bishop was interviewed in the train on the way to Stafford by a "Gazette and Express" representative, and remarked that there was no further development, and that he had done nothing at Wolverhampton that morning. Throughout the day Superintendent Stokes and Detective Lewis conducted special observations in the Horsely Fields district, and early in the evening Captain Anson arrived, and was met at the station by Captain Burnett.

        The next development took place shortly after eight o'clock, when Superintendent Stokes and Detective Lewis stepped into the butcher's at Horseley Fields, and arrested Morgan.

        He was immediately conveyed to the Central police station, and after being seen by the police constables he was removed to the cells.

        It is stated that the greasy cap which was found in the field of a recent Great Wyrley outrage has furnished some clue. A further clue - this time in relation to the case of Cartwright's horse - was the finding of the bowl of a pipe in the field where that outrage was committed.

        Morgan is twenty-two years of age, and was employed by Messrs Hollingsworth, pork butchers. He strongly denies that he is guilty.

        Hollis Morgan, as stated above, is a native of Cheslyn Hay and is connected with well-to-do working class families. Indeed at Cheslyn Hay very many of the inhabitants are in some way related. He was formerly in a small way of business for himself in a cottage near the Lord Nelson, but whether he found the business did not pay or not, certain it is he worked as a journeyman butcher. His father formerly worked for Messrs Hawkins and Sons. There is, it is stated, a rather large family, and his mother lives in Hill street, or near there. All the family are respectable, and hence there was more than the usual excitement when it became known that he had been arrested. This was added to when it became known that another inhabitant had been warned that his services would be required at Wolverhampton and it was stated he had proceeded there.

        Rumours are very plentiful but the police are very reticent. Inspector Campbell was at Cannock very early on Friday morning and he proceeded to Wolverhampton early, but later in the day both he and Superintendent Bishop were at Cannock.

        There is apparently some rather important evidence but it is not prudent to enter into that just yet. It may howevere be said that the trunk of the accused containing his clothes has been roped and sealed to be handed over to the proper authorities for examination. A knife has also been taken possession of, while there is something in the cap and pipe, the bowl of which was found in the field when the horse of Mr Cartwright was found injured.

        The mother of the accused and his stepfather and some other relatives proceeded to Wolverhampton on Friday.

        BEFORE THE WOLVERHAMPTON MAGISTRATES.

        SOMEWHAT HYSTERICAL.

        There was some excitement near the Town Hall, on Friday morning, at 10.25 when Mr. A. C. Twentyman (chairman of the county magistrates) took his seat on the Bench. He was accompanied shortly afterwards by Alderman John Marston, and a few minutes later Captain Burnett entered the Court.

        In response to directions from the Chief Constable, two policemen brought Morgan into the dock, from the cells below. He wore a slate-coloured coat and a check cap, and as he leaned on the dock rails he was very pale and agitated, and soon became hysterical, hiding his face in his hands and shouting "Oh, my! Oh, my!"

        His mother who was present also burst into tears, and said "Hollis don't. Hollis don't." He, however, continued to sob and moan, and at the suggestion of Mr Twentyman, the accused's mother left the Court while the case was proceeded with.

        Captain Burnett then stated the facts on which the arrest had been made. The accused, he said, was arrested in Wolverhampton, and was at that moment in the custody of the borough police, on his (Captain Burnett's) responsibility. On Tuesday night last certain information came to him relative to a conversation which had taken place in a certain licensed house where the accused and others had been arguing about the so-called Wyrley outrages. On Thursday morning Superintendent Stokes, Inspector Lewis, and himself where the only persons who had cognisance of certain facts, but at that time he received a telephone message from the county police, and he also received a cap which had been identified as having belonged to the prisoner. It had been missing since the night that the last outrage took place. The prisoner next day bought a new one. The county police also brought a pipe which was found at Great Wyrley, and they would be able to prove the exact place where it was picked up. The pipe, too, had been identified as the property of the accused. When the prisoner was arrested a portion of a broken stem was found in his pocket.

        On these facts he proposed to ask for a remand. He hoped to be in a position to prove that prisoner took home from the place where he was employed a butcher's knife, and had it sharpened two days before the outrage at Landywood. He thought that knife would, in the course of a few hours, be in the possession of the police. He ought to mention that the prisoner had written a letter, which he had sent to a friend asking that he should be legally represented, and it was in prisoner's interest that he should be so represented.

        Detective-Inspector Lewis said he received a cap from the Staffordshire county police the cap (produced)? and also a broken pipe.

        When arrested, Prisoner replied: I will tell you where I was that night. I slept at home with my two brothers, Ambrose and Abel James. We slept three in a bed.

        Prisoner (interrupting): I cannot tell whether it was that particular night.

        Proceeding with his narrative the prisoner said: I got up in the morning about 5.30, and my mother got my breakfast. I then came on my bicycle to Wolverhampton. I had been going home week ends for some time.

        Inspector Lewis further stated: On the way to the police station prisoner said: I am not quite sure whether it was a week last Monday, or a fortnight last Monday, when we had Bloxwich Wakes, but it was the night of the Wakes when I slept at home. This was the only Monday night when I have been at home lately. At the Police Station I charged prisoner with unlawfully and maliciously killing a horse at Great Wyrley, during the night of August 26th. Prisoner made no reply.

        At the prisoner's lodgings there were found in his waistcoat pocket in the bedroom an amber mouthpiece of a broken pipe, the stem of which was produced. It corresponded with the pipe bowl produced. His bicycle was also taken possession of.

        The accused was remanded to Stafford in custody and he will be brought up at Penkridge on Monday.

7. Uttoxeter Advertiser and Ashbourne Times
   1. • Date: 11 September 1907
      • Page: Page 5
      • Citation:

        THE GREAT WYRLEY SENSATION.

        A YOUNG MAN ARRESTED.

        Last week an arrest was made by the Worcestershire police in connection with what are commonly known as the Great Wyrley outrages. At first the eager public were relieved to think that the culprit had been caught, but it now appears very doubtful whether the man arrested is the perpetrator of the outrages.

        Two [t]hings which the police relied on as important factors in connecting a young butcher's assistant named Hollis Morgan with the outrages were a cap and the bowl of a broken pipe, which had been identified by athe woman with whom the accused lodged as belonging to him. It was also stated at the first hearing that he was accustomed to being out very late at night, and was at Wyrley on the night of the outrage with which he stands charged.

        The startling nature of the police evidence produced against the accused, Hollis Morgan, charged with the maiming of two horses, caused a remarkable revulsion of feeling.

        Morgan was brought up on remand at the village of Penkridge - the scene of George Edalji's early ordeal - and when he re-appeared outside the court, having again been remanded until Saturday, he was met by a remarkable demonstration from the large crowd, which cheered him most cordially.

        A new development of the case was brought to the notice of the Wolverhampton police on Monday night. During the evening the witness, May Holding, received an anonymous postcard, conveying an inhuman threat.

        The message, which she handed over to the police, was written in a schoolboy scrawl, and was evidently a disguised hand. It ran as follows :-

        You tell that May Holding that I am coming over to Wolverhampton to serve her the same way as I have served them horses; and Lewis, the D--, we are going to murder him if Morgan gets convicted.

        Signed, Captain of the Wyrley Gang.

        At the outset of the court proceedings at Penkridge on Monday, Mr. P. Burke, for the Public Prosecutor, applied for a week's remand, but Mr. R. A. Willcock, for the defence, demanded evidence to justify this.

        Mr. Burke intimated that the prosecution would take all the responsibility for the remand.

        Mr. Willcock retorted that malicious prosecution was a very different thing when it came to a question of £ s. d.

        Eventually, it was decided to call evidence, and a motor-car had to be sent to Wolverhampton to bring the detective inspector to court. After two hours he arrived, and was cross-examined by Mr. Willcock as to the pipe and cap.

        With respect to the cap, the girl at his lodgings would not identify it as his? - No.

        The pipe also wasn't sworn to as his property? - No.

        Have you the broken pipe? - Yes.

        Do the parts correspond? - No. (Sensation.)

        Can you say the stem ever fitted to the bowl? - No.

        Have you had it examined by an expert? - Yes.

        Did the expert say that it was not the stem made for that pipe? - Certainly. (Sensation.)

        You agree with that opinion? - Yes.

        In spite of a further contention that here was no evidence against Morgan he was remanded in custody, and returned to Stafford.

8. Lichfield Mercury
   1. • Date: 20 September 1907
      • Page: Page 2
      • Citation:

        THE GREAT WYRLEY MYSTERY.

        CHARGE AGAINST MORGAN WITHDRAWN.

        CAUSE OF HIS ARREST.

        The final act in the drama in which the young journeyman butcher, Hollis Morgan, of Cheslyn Hay, was the central figure, was enacted at Penkridge, Staffordshire, on Saturday morning, and, as everybody expected, in view of the past hearing on the previous Monday, the police are no nearer solving the mystery of the Great Wyrley outrages than they were a fortnight ago, and Morgan is once more a free man. The evidence given on September 9 before the Penkridge justices was admittedly weak, and it was hinted during the week that the police had no further facts to bring forward, and, consequently, that there would be nothing for it but to withdraw the charge against Morgan. That was what happened on Saturday morning.

        As on the first occasion - so on the last - the police court proceedings created immense excitement in Penkridge and the surrounding districts. The special sitting of the court was fixed for half past ten, and an hour and a half before that time there was a big crowd of people hailing from Stafford, Wolverhampton, Great Wyrley, Cannock, and other places, and it was very evident that the people were firm believers in Morgan's innocence. The litte court-room was crowded with pressmen and relatives and friends of the accused by ten o'clock, while outside the crowd momentarily increased until it was difficult to force a passage along the narrow roadway to the wider street. Morgan was driven over from Stafford Gaol about half-past nine in a pair-horse brougham. When Morgan entered the court it was pretty evident he had received a clear indication as to what course events were likely to take, for his face bore a healthy, natural colour, and he was well at ease. The magistrates were Lord Hatherton, Mr. H. Staveley Hill, M.P., Mr. E. A. Foden, Mr. T. Evans, and Mr. G. Hartley.

        Mr. Burke immediately rose to address the magistrates. He said the step which the prosecution was about to take called for no justification, but necessarily warranted him offering the Bench a few words of explanation. It seemt to be due to the magistrates themselves to show that the time they had expended was not idly occupied, and that the proceedings last Monday were such as could not be avoided. Something also was due to his friend (Mr. Willcock). It would be impossible to allow the many questions he asked to go unanswered, and it would be hardly respectable to allow the forensic display to pass without some form of acknowledgment. The court would remember with what vehemence Mr. Willcock threw himself upon the case, for the police, as he construed it. They would recollect how he toyed with the cap. Wondering what reason there would be for keeping the man in custody it was his (Mr. Burke's) duty to see the cap, which bore traces, indistinct though they might be, that led to the arrest, but they were indecisive. Then the prisoner's clothing had also been subjected to a searching examination, and although this examination was not without results those results were indecisive. The knives he (Mr. Burke) had not introduced, and he was not now called upon to comment regarding them. They were indeed implements that might have committed such a crime. Then, with regard to the pipe, Mr. Willcock had asked if it had been submitted to a person who threw away a pipe, and that man had said that the one found was not his or anything like it. Then again, sealed boxes found at prisoner's house contained two bundles of documents, and any one of that multitude might have thrown the strongest possible light on the proceedings. But the question was asked, "Was it necessary to hold the prisoner in detention while they were being examined?" Apart from those investigations there were stronger circumstances. There was the fact that the man was a butcher, and accustomed to blood, and he was familiar with that district. There was another circumstance. There was a statement in the hands of the police which gave some coherence to the facts with Mr. Willcock could not at the time appreciate. That statement was made on the authority of a respectable and honourable man, and was to the following effect: "The accused was such a gentleman and such a nice young fellow -"

        Mr. Willcock: Why not mention his name?

        Mr. Burke hesitated, but Mr. Willcock ejaculated: Give it by all means - Edalji.

        Mr. Burke, proceeding, said the statement concluded: "That he could not possibly be guilty of the crimes, and he hoped someone would commit more crimes while Edalji was away. He would not be against doing one or two himself to acquit Edalji." That statement was made to the police. The charge, said Mr. Burke, was not taken up lightly, and was not lightly to be abandoned. The prosecution had carried it out to its utmost issue, and the result was indecisive, as far as the prisoner was concerned. While they unhesitatingly arrested prisoner and detained him so long as the safety of the public required, they said now that they had nothing upon which they could expect a reasonable jury to convict, and the prosecution did not intend to offer any evidence. They did not offer any apology for the action taken. If apology were due to anyone, it was to the magistrates, whose time had been taken up by the proceedings.

        Mr. Willcock, replying, said his friend's speech had been entirely devoted to excuses for the man's arrest. There had never been one single circumstance upon which he could possibly rely to show that the man Morgan was in any way connected with the terrible crimes which had taken place in the district. Mr. Burke had referred to the vehemence with which he (Mr. Willcock) had thrown himself upon the grounds upon which his client had been arrested, but he ventured to say there was not one word he said but what was fully justified. No wiser course could have been taken by the Chief Constable than in employing Mr. Burke to assist him in fully considering every item of evidence so that nothing should be used or brought before the Bench that could not be fully justified. The police, Mr. Willcock said, had no reason or foundation for asking the Bench to further keep the prisoner in custody. And he said unhesitatingly if hte police were to command the co-operation of the public and the sympathy of the public, which the police needed in the difficult duty they had to perform, they must respect the rights of the individual, and they must not arrest and then seek their evidence afterwards. He considered the accused had a legitimate grievance with reference to the conversation mentioned by Mr. Burke. That conversation was held in a public-house. It was a discussion in a public room, and according to one witness it occurred as far back as eighteen months ago, and according to another it took place before last Christmas. Surely a public-house statement - an argument as to whether a man who had been convicted and had since been released, had been guilty of crimes or not - was not alone a matter upon which anyone would venture to arrest a man who took part in it and whose life had been lived in the vicinity in which the conversation was reported to have taken place. Then as to the cap, nothing had been said either to that Bench, or to any other Bench, that the cap had been in the possession of the police from August 19 - a week before the outrages were committed. As a fact, it had been picked up three-quarters of a mile from that place, and was seen by two persons twy days before the police had possession of it. The cap had never been identified as having been in the possession of the accused, and he challenged anyone to prove that he had ever owned it. As to the pipe which was said to be the property of the prisoner, it had never been identified as his, or that it had ever been in his possession or was his property. He sympathised with the police, but might he suggest that they need not fear criticism, if it were criticism from London. London did not find out those outrages in the most populous city of the world, where the district was patrolled by experienced officers, and where the victims were not dumb creatures. If London detectives could not find out the perpetrators of those crimes, how much more difficult was it for the police officers in a scattered district to find out the authors of the maiming outrages. The action taken by Mr. Burke on behalf of the prosecution would do more to restore public confidence than anything else that had taken place for some time. Concluding, Mr. Willcock said Morgan was entitled to a good deal of sympathy. He was taken away from his home at a moment's notice, and had had to go through a terrible period of trouble and anxiety.

        On Mr. Willcock resuming his seat, Lord Hatherton, addressing Morgan, said :- You are discharged, and the Bench are of the opinion that you are responsible to yourself for the trouble brought upon you by your foolish statement.

        Morgan at once left the dock, and there was a scene of enthusiasm in the precints of the court.

9. 1891 United Kingdom Census
   1. • Page: RG12/2221/112/1
10. General Register Office: England & Wales Birth Index
11. 1921 United Kingdom Census
    1. • Page: RG15/13079/81
12. Wills on file
    1. • Date: 17 April 1974
       • Page: Francis Hollis Morgan (1885-1974) (Admin)