ELI DARLOW JNR Newspapers

A Very Public FAMILY AFFAIR !
(The Court appearances of Eli Darlow Junior and his wife Elizabeth)
Eli Darlow Junior was born in 1851 in Birmingham, fourth child and third son of Eli Darlow and his
wife Alice (née Billing). He married Elizabeth Hattersley in Sheffield in 1876. Their appearances in the
press were often accompanied by other members of their family, usually involved in a shady deal or in a
family dispute. Alice Billing’s sister, Elizabeth Baker and her husband, were also involved.
Dramatis Personae (in bold)

Children of Eli and Alice Darlow
Name Born/bapt Died/bur Married Children/notes
1. John Capel 20-04-1843 Weedon 19-08-1914 (1) Elizabeth Charlesworth 1851 -1901 censuses
Bapt: 08-11-1843 Sheffield 3-4-1869 Caistor Lincs Ten children by two wives
Primitive Methodists Died Dec1881 aged 35 Builder and brickmaker.
1891 roller skate manufacturer.
(2) Annie Staniforth 2/4 1885 Both John and Annie left wills
Sheffield. Died 14-02-1911
2. George Capel 19-04-1846 Boston USA Mary Whitehead 25-02-1867 1851 -1881 censuses
Birmingham After1910 Sheffield (born 14-02-1845 France) 6 children in Sheffield.
Died 14-04-1907 Emigrated to USA 1890
Descendent is Gloria Dean
Ellison, Miami USA.
3. Mary Ann 4/4 1848 Birmingham After1851 1851 census
census
4. Eli 13-09-1851 1/4 1913 (1)Elizabeth G Hattersley ¼ 1876 1861 – 1901 Censuses
Birmingham aged 61 Sheffield 6 children
Bapt: 25-10-1876 Born 1857 Died 15-10-1908 Builder & then notorious
Sheffield (2) Mary ? b. 1857/8 money lander ,but retired early.
1/4 1909 Gravesend Kent Elizabeth left a will.
Died Chatham 1951 aged 94 ? 1911 Sheffield with new wife
and son John H
5. Mary Ann 10-05-1854 Sheffield 1/4 1931 George Greaves Hattersley First Darlow birth in
Capel Bapt: 25-10-1876 aged 76 (fender maker) ¾ 1876 Sheffield Sheffield.
Sheffield Sheffield Born 1855 1861 – 1901 censuses
2 sons
6. Elizabeth 12-05-1856 Sheffield Walter Wilson 4/4 1875 1861 – 1891 censuses
Bapt:25-10-1876 Sheffield At least 3 children
Sheffield He died 1/4 1888 of small pox. Not found on 1901 census.
Sheffield
7. Thomas 18-09-1858 Sheffield 04-04-1912 Sarah Ann Caldwell about 1883 1861, 1871, 1881 censuses
Bapt: 25-10-1876 Sheffield (No record found) Not found on 1891 or 1901
She was born in 1861 and died 7 children.
c.1952
8. Albert ¾ 1860 Sheffield ¾ 1916 Fanny Higginbottom 4/4 1880 1861 – 1881 and 1901 censuses
Sheffield Sheffield In 1890 in the USA but
aged 56 returned.
7 children (2 born in Boston
USA). At least 2 of them went
to Canada c. 1909.
9. Alice Sarah 4/4 1862 Sheffield 4/4 1881 John Samuel Haxton 2/4 1881 1871 & 1881 censuses
Sheffield Sheffield Son John Frederick Haxton
aged 19 He remarried in 1888 adopted by the Bakers – his
great aunt and uncle.
(See 1891 census)
10. Rosetta 4/4 1865 Sheffield Arthur Kidney ¾ 1889 Sheffield 1871 – 1901 censuses
Bapt: 18-10-1876 Sometime lived in Cardiff.
At least 4 children.
Eli Darlow Jun Court Appearances 1 Revised June 2011

ELI DARLOW JUNIOR etc in the Press, very often before Judge Ellison – poor man!
1872 / 1873
George Darlow built houses on Badsley Moor Lane, Rotherham, but he said that he had “conveyed
them on”. He was fined £3 10s 6d in April for letting them out before they had been declared fit for
habitation. A year later his brother, Eli Jun, of Drummond Street, Rotherham was fined £5 for a similar
offence.
Sheffield & Rotherham Independent December 15th 1877

ADVERTISEMENT
Nine double houses to be let in Creswick Street. Rent 4s per week. One large SALESHOP with outdoor
beer license. Apply Eli Darlow jnr, Creswick Street, Langsett Road.
Sheffield & Rotherham Independent Thursday March 14th 1878

A petition for bankruptcy was filed on the previous day by Eli Darlow, the younger, builder and
contractor, of 38 Creswick Street, Walkley. Liabilities estimated at £10,000 and assets, which are
considerable, consist of property at Walkley.
On March 29th constraining orders were taken out against three creditors who had threatened him.
On April 12th liquidation was determined. Failure of Eli Darlow, contractor, Walkley. Liabilities of
£1,614, assets of £3,868
From the London Gazette January 17th 1879

County Court of Yorkshire, holden at Sheffield.
In the Matter of a Special Resolution for Liquidation by arrangement of the affairs of Eli Darlow the
younger, of 39, Creswick-street, Walkley, in the parish of Sheffield, in the county of York, Contractor
and Builder.
THE creditors of the above-named Eli Darlow the younger who have not already proved their debts, are
required, on or before the 31st day of January, 1879, to send their names and addresses, and the
particulars of their debts or claims, to me, the undersigned, John Unwin Wing, of Prideaux-chambers,
Sheffield, in the county of York, Accountant, the Trustee under the liquidation, or in default thereof
they will be excluded from the benefit of the Dividend proposed to be declared.—Dated this 17th
day of January, 1879. J, UNWIN WING, Trustee.
Sheffield & Rotherham Independent August 23rd 1879

ALLEGED PERJURY
Eli Darlow sued Jonas Baxter & Son, wheelwright of Hillsborough, for £48, for cutting down an oak
tree on land he owned (£40 for damage and £8 for the value of the tree). Darlow let land in Leader
Road, Langsett Road, to Mr Emanuel Jacobs who was going to build three villas on it but when he
heard that the tree had been cut down last November he had to alter his plans and build only
cottage property. The defendant admitted the demolition of the tree but called witnesses to
prove that it was given by Eli Darlow the younger to a relation named Billings who sold it for
4s to Mrs Foster who sold it to the defendants. Witnesses, including PC Hobson, said that the
tree was rotten without leaves. Judge Ellison said that perjury had been committed and his
difficulty was to which side to attribute it. A trespass had been committed and he gave the
verdict to Darlow for one shilling but no costs.
Sheffield & Rotherham Independent Tuesday March 9th 1880

Advertisement: The partnership heretofore subsisting between we the undersigned ELI DARLOW the
younger and GEORGE DARLOW trading under the style or Firm “The Town and District Loan
Society” at no. 10 Central Chambers, High Street in Sheffield in the County of Yorkshire as Financial
Agents is DISSOLVED from the …… day of March 1880. All accounts owing by the said society will
be paid by Henry Swift of 122 Langsett Road, Accounter. ELI DARLOW Jun
GEORGE DARLOW etc

Sheffield & Rotherham Independent Thursday October 14th 1880
Sheffield County Court Wednesday - Before T. Ellison, Esq., Judge
ALLEGED ILLEGAL CHARGES FOR DISTRAINT
Eli Darlow, jun., scrivener, Paradise Street, was sued by William Wilson, labourer, Ball street, Hillsbro’
for the sum of £1. 2s, money improperly paid to the defendant as the costs of a distraint…… Some time
ago the plaintiff gave the defendant a bill of sale as security for a loan obtained from him, and which he
had engaged to repay by instalments of 7s a week…. The instalments were to be paid on Mondays, but
an arrangement had been made that they should be paid on Wednesdays. The amounts were regularly
paid until June 28th and on the following Wednesday. Just as the plaintiff’s wife was preparing to go and
pay what was due, a bailiff and an assistant came to take possession under the bill of sale ….. because
the money had not been paid on the Monday…. In addition to the instalment of the loan she was called
upon to pay £1. 2s for expenses and this it was now contended was an excessive and illegal charge.
(Eli Darlow contended that he was perfectly justified in insisting on the instalments being paid on a
Monday despite any arrangement to the contrary. The instalments were 2 weeks in arrears and the
charges were customary and reasonable.)
His honour said that one item, 10s 6d. for taking possession was clearly excessive and illegal.
Judgement reserved to the next day.
Sheffield & Rotherham Independent Friday October 15th 1880

EXTORTION 100%
Judgement in the County Court. Eli Darlow, financial agent, Paradise street lent £7 on 10 th April , to
William Wilson, labourer. For securing the loan and for interest the total was £11. Wilson executed a
bill of sale on the goods and chattels in his house. He paid regularly to 5 th July except for two weeks
when he paid only 5s. Mrs Wilson had made an agreement to pay each Wednesday. On Weds 7 th July
she went to pay but Mr Spurr arrived to take possession. Spurr was Darlow’s clerk and Darlow was a
dealer in bills of sale – had agreed to make up Spurr’s salary to £1 7s 6d a week. Etc [Very long
complicated rigmarole re possession and what due to whom!!]
“There can be no doubt that monstrous iniquity was worked under them” BUT it was a legal iniquity
and anyone who administered justice should make sure that the money lender got only his pound of
flesh and no blood –“Murmurs of applause”.
Darlow was ordered to pay 17s with costs. The judge pointed out that the interest charged on 7s per
week for 30 weeks amounted to 100% if not more.
Tuesday 19 October Letter to the Editor

THE TRIBE OF SHYLOCK
I was very much pleased to read your editorial comments on the case
of Wilson v Darlow in today’s paper. If the people who provide these “money
lending sharks” with such comfortable livings, will only remember, and carry into
practice your good advice, the occupation of these gentlemen will soon be gone. It
has been stated that the amount of interest charged was at the rate of 100% per
annum; but as enormous as this appears it is yet very much below the real charge.
According to Judge Ellison’s statement Wilson had to repay £11 by 30 weekly
instalments, for the £7 borrowed. As this amount was being gradually paid back
during the thirty weeks, the borrower was only having, on the average, the use of
half that amount – ie. £3. 10s , - for the thirty weeks. Any schoolboy, who has
worked an interest sum, will show that £4 interest on an average use of £3. 10s for
30 weeks is at the interest of more than 198% per annum.
There’s an old riddle that often causes amusement by the winter fireside. “
Why is a money lender like a philanthropist?” Answer; “Because he takes great
interest in serving the poor.” Those who need an illustration may give Darlow’s case
as an example. –
Yours truly Thomas Whitehead
Sheffield & Rotherham Independent Thursday November 25th 1880

SHEFFIELD COUNTY COURT
A Money Lender Sued for Trespass
Eli Darlow the younger, money lender, North Church Street, was sued by Matthew Green, cab driver,
18 Daniel Hill Street, Walkley for £30 damages. On October 19 th Darlow executed a bill of sale on
Green’s house but Green said that he had never borrowed “a single sixpence” from him. His son, Joseph
Green and son in law, James Walker, had borrowed £5 and had to pay back £8 at 4s a week. “He
mentioned that in order that the jury might see what sort of a userer the plaintiff was”.
A bailiff broke into his house by breaking a window and a shutter and he remained two days. Green had
returned home to find the bailiff in the house. He had turned out all the drawers and scattered all
Green’s papers. The damage to the window was 27s 6d. The bailiff stayed there all night. Eli Darlow
had been told by the neighbours that Joseph Green did not live there and it was the house of Matthew
Green. The next day Darlow arrived with a man demanding his due.
The judge said that he “had never heard of a grosser outrage on property than that committed by Eli
Darlow”. The jury found for the plaintiff. £25 damages. A counter claim by Eli Darlow was dismissed.
Sheffield & Rotherham Independent Thursday December 9th 1880

EXTRAORDINARY MONEY LENDING CASE IN SHEFFIELD
At the County Court before Justice Ellison.
Eli Darlow the younger, money lender, of North Church Street was sued by Thomas Smith, drayman,
for £50, the value of furniture removed from his premises and for the damage and inconvenience.
Thomas Smith, employed by the London and North West Railway Company, lived at 46 Bardwell
Street, Parkwood Springs, in a well furnished house.
On 9th November two men came at 10 am and called out his wife. They asked Smith if he had borrowed
money from Eli Darlow – to which he replied, no. At 11.30 pm Eli Darlow returned with four men, a
horse and dray. He said that he had come for the furniture for a bill of sale. He took all the furniture
from the house, valued between £30/£40. Smith’s solicitor said that £50 was a modest compensation but
it was the largest compensation that the County Court could give.
A bill of sale was read – made between Thomas Smith and the Town and District Loan Society. The
mortgager borrowed £2 and had to pay £2 10s interest (Sensation in the court). Thomas Smith had
made his mark X. He said that he could write and would not have made a mark. It transpired that his
wife had taken out the loan, unbeknown to him, and with a man she had met on Scotland Street who
pretended to be her husband. Thomas Smith said that he would not be responsible for her debts. He had
since moved to lodgings.
Eli Darlow had recently made his business over to John Thomas Frith of 25 Highfield Place and he was
now acting as his manager for £2 a week. “Robert Lenthall, a remarkably intelligent boy, 12 years of
age,” had been Eli Darlow’s clerk and cashier. He gave evidence.
Verdict, £50 compensation to be paid to Thomas Smith plus the costs of 7 witnesses.
In common with many of the Darlow items in the news (too many to note each time) the
following appeared in several papers including:
The Daily Gazette (Middlesborough) Friday March 25 1881

Leeds Mercury ditto
Birmingham Daily Post Saturday March 26th 1881
Reynold’s Newspaper Sunday March 27th 1881
Nottinghamshire Guardian Friday April 1st 1881
Sheffield & Rotherham Independent etc
EXTRAORDINARY MONEY LENDING CASE AT SHEFFIELD

The judge of the Sheffield County Court (Mr T. Ellison) gave judgment on Thursday in an
extraordinary money lending case that created great interest. An action had been brought by Thomas W
Smith, tailor, against Thomas Frith and Eli Darlow, jnr.,money lenders, carrying on business at
Sheffield and Doncaster, to recover £50 damages for alleged illegal seizure.
In September Smith went to Darlow’s office to borrow £10, giving a bill of sale as security for the loan.
He offered a man called Whelam of Doncaster as a joint security. Smith got £9 2s.6d and had to pay
back £15 at 6s a week.

He paid 7 instalments and when his daughter went to the office to pay the eighth at 6.45 pm on Nov. 8 th
she found the office closed with a note on the door saying that it was open until 7 pm.
She returned next morning but the clerk refused to take the money. Four bailiff’s went and took forcible
possession of the plaintiff’s house; stripped it of all furniture, clothes and everything it contained – the
whole being valued at £200. They were taken to Darlow’s premises and auctioned. Whelam’s goods
were also seized but Darlow said that the entire sum obtained was not enough to meet their claims.
Thomas Smith contended that the whole proceeding was fraudulent .
Mr Ellison said that the case clearly showed that the steps currently being taken to amend the law
relating to bills of sale* were necessary. He gave judgment for the amount claimed, with costs of 16
witnesses ,with immediate effect.
[*There was a new Bill of Sale Act in 1882]
Sheffield & Rotherham Independent Friday May 13th 1881

Eli junior’s name appeared in an action for trespass in regard to money lending. He was implicated in
fraud and conspiracy and the judge said that his was a “name often heard in this court in connection
with transactions of that kind”
The Darlows were so often up before the court that Eli was even confused with his brother
George!
Sheffield & Rotherham Independent June 3rd 1881

ELI DARLOW IN THE POLICE COURT
THE WRONG MAN SUMMONED
At the Town Hall, Eli Darlow, loan agent, Highfield, was summoned for assaulting Harriet, wife of
Henry Malkin, spring knife cutler, No. 7 Court Andrew Lane, on 28th May. [In the 1881 census Harriet
was aged 27, a tailoress, and her husband was aged 30]. It was all about the Darlow’s claiming money
from Henry Malkin for a loan. There was an altercation involving the Darlows and Malkin. Mrs
Malkin’s lawyer withdrew the case at the last minute because the wrong man had been summoned – it
should have been George Darlow. The summons against George was adjourned to 10 th June.
However, Eli had the cheek to claim costs for 10 witnesses who he had called to supply an alibi! The
bench allowed him 20s costs for four witnesses who had been present.
Sheffield & Rotherham Independent Thursday November 17th 1881

ELI DARLOW AGAIN
Eli Darlow Junior was in the Sheffield County Court with judge T Ellison again! He was accused of
owing £30 (and a story about a diamond ring!). He cheeked the solicitor and the jury but he was let off.
He said that he was working as a money lender in Hull for his father who was a brickmaker and money
lender.
Hull Packet & East Riding Times Friday January 13th 1882
MONEY LENDERS AND THEIR PRACTICES –
EXTRAORDINARY BILL OF EXCHANGE CASE
In Hull County Court. Wilson v. Spencer and Thomas Hunt. A claim for £16 13s. Spencer and Hunt
were Hull manure merchants. Spencer gave Hunt a bill of exchange for 10 guineas, payable two months
after date. In August 1881 Hunt called on Eli Darlow (jun) of 10 Wellington Street, Hull, carrying on
business as the Yorkshire and Lincolnshire Loan Society and cutlery manufacturers., and asked him if
he discounted bills. Darlow said yes he did and so Hunt asked him for a loan of £8. Darlow told him to
come back the next morning and so he left the bill with Darlow and on his return Darlow asked him to
sign a document. Hunt asked Darlow what it was and when Darlow told him it was a bill of exchange
on his furniture he refused to sign it. So Darlow then demanded 3s 6d for the return of the bill – Hunt
refused and consulted a lawyer. Then he again asked for the return of the bill but Darlow refused and
this time he asked for 10s 6d. Hunt then gave instruction to the acceptor (Spencer) not to pay up on
maturity. Darlow gave Hunt notice that the bill would be due in London on October 27 th, writing to him
from Sheffield on October 17th. The letter was signed by Walter Wilson who was therefore the plaintiff
in the action [he was the husband of Elizabeth Darlow, sister of Eli, and working for Eli.].
Despite instruction from Hunt, Darlow had passed the bill to Wilson who was described as “an iron
founder, 19 King James Street, as a matter of fact he was simply a moulder on weekly wages and was
the brother in law of Eli Darlow of Hull.” Darlow claimed that he had advanced money to Hunt on the
bill of exchange but Hunt vehemently denied this.

His Honour, in giving judgment said, “That of all the audacious cases this was certainly the most
impudent and audacious that ever come before him. A more desperate and a more shameful attempt at
extorting money he never saw in his life. The verdict would therefore be for the defendants with costs.
The result was received with some applause.”
Sheffield & Rotherham Independent Thursday March 23rd 1882

THE ACTION AGAINST THE DARLOWS
Mark Frith v. Eli Darlow sen & Eli Darlow jun, before Judge Ellison, Sheffield County Court. Frith was
a grinder of Bents Green and sought to recover £20, being the value of goods removed from the house
of his brother in law, Frederick Ibbotson, plus £10 for illegal distraint. Frith had bought some furniture
from Ibbotson and put it in a house which he had let to Ibbotson. Meanwhile Ibbotson had taken a bill
of sale with Eli Darlow jun, of the Town and District Loan Society and then Eli jun had seized the
furniture. The only evidence against Eli sen was that part of the goods was said to have been taken to
his house, which he denied. The judge held that there was no case against him. Eli jun said that he was
now the only partner in the T & D L S. and he had a bill of sale against Ibbotson for £14 5s which was
due when he seized the furniture on December 31 st. He said that he now lived in Hull managing his
father’s business. He was a money lender paid 25s a week and when he took the goods he had put them
in a house opposite his father’s where he rented a room, for 6d a week, in which to store them. Eli jun
claimed that he had a proper claim to the furniture because of a bill of sale from 1879. The verdict was
for £21 12s to be reduced to 10s upon the return of the furniture. Frith was to pay the costs of Eli sen.
There was a second case in which Sarah Ibbotson sued for £11 5s 6d plus damages for the wrongful
seizure of grinders’ tools in a workshop on her premises. There was no case against Eli sen but Eli jun
had to pay the claim plus £2 damages.
York Herald Monday June 5th 1882

ALLEGED FRAUD - HULL
Joseph Wilson and Mary Bingley were charged with obtaining £5 and £3 by fraud from Eli Darlow
junior, money lender, of Wellington Street, Hull, proprietor of the Yorkshire and Lincolnshire Loan
Society . They were remanded on bail at £40 each.
Eli Darlow said that he managed the Hull office for his father Eli of 19 King James Street, Sheffield,
brickmaker and builder. His father gave him blank cheques to fill in. Wilson and Bingley were
eventually found not guilty and discharged.
Sheffield & Rotherham Independent Thursday June 22nd 1882

THE DARLOWS AGAIN
This was an interpleader summons heard by Mr Justice Chitty on June 21 st at the Rolls House, Chancery
Lane, London. The original case had been tried in Sheffield County Court in December 1880 in favour
of Thomas Smith, drayman. At that trial Walter Wilson claimed that goods seized from Eli jun by the
Sheriff of Yorkshire had belonged to him. In London, Wilson was cross examined but he was ill at ease
and gave contradictory answers. The Judge cautioned him and gave the significant hint “that he knew
the fate of George Darlow.” Later Wilson became pale and he clutched at the witness box for support.
The Judge said, “Your witness is ill Dr Ryalls, probably the apparition at the door may have something
to do with it.” (Referring to George Darlow, with a warder, who had been brought from Wakefield
gaol). The Judge said that if the case proceeded it might end in a criminal court.
[IE. Wilson had lied and he would have been charged with perjury, like his brother in law George
Darlow, who was actually serving 18 months for perjury at the time]
A verdict was entered for the execution creditor with costs. (See comment below in local press)
Sheffield & Rotherham Independent Saturday June 24th 1882

SPECTATOR IN HALLAMSHIRE [An editorial comment page]
Gentleman of the Darlow connection seem to be rather unfortunate when they have to confront Her
Majesty’s judges. A member of this house, who is an inmate of Wakefield prison, has had the monotony
of his life relieved by a journey to London, to appear as a witness before Mr Justice Chitty. His
evidence does not seem to have been required, but the tender-hearted judge referred to him and his
warder, like “an apparition at the door”; as an excuse for the disturbed nerves of a witness under
examination [this witness was Eli junior and George’s brother in law, Walter Wilson, who was in the
witness box when George Darlow was brought into court] a connection by marriage of the Darlows.

This family has been very active in furnishing the sort of aid which is euphoniously named “pecuniary
accommodation” to eager borrowers, whose securities for repayment are not always produceable when
required. With great consideration for the wants of the needy, the Darlows are obliged to take some
thought for themselves, and to use such care as the law permits, to avoid suffering by the arts of people
who are not always so anxious, or ready to repay loans as to obtain them……….. It would seem that
these unscrupulous tempters [ie. the poor who tempted the Darlows to lend money to them!] have so
greatly beset the Darlows that they were in danger of being completely eaten up by bad customers.
People often talk very uncharitably of money lenders and keep a large store of hard names to hurl at
them. Popular prejudice will not allow even the name of Shylock to become obsolete; whilst it omits to
give an equally appropriate name to the folks who are sometimes too sharp for Shylock……………
Mr Justice Chitty was himself so little moved by the troubles of an embarrassed witness, re Darlow, as
to aggravate his uneasiness by recalling the name of an afflicted brother, and by hinting at the
possibility of prosecution in a criminal court.
Mr Justice Chitty (1828 – 1899).

He was a cricketer and rower whilst at Oxford University.
Sheffield & Rotherham Independent July 8th 1882

Sheffield County Court Matthew Frith claimed damages of £31 2s for goods seized by Eli
Darlow the younger. Darlow refused to give them up but the judge said he could not be sure that
Darlow had the goods. Darlow got away with paying £21 12s at 5s a month.
Hull Packet & East Riding Times November 24th & December 22nd 1882
The plaintiff, Mr Loft, successfully sued Eli Darlow jnr. for illegally seizing goods and selling them,
even though he was correctly paying off a £15 loan. Darlow did not appear.
York Herald January 18th 1883

A HULL INJUNCTION CASE
Against Eli Darlow in the Chancery Division of the High Court. Mrs Diana Hickson had borrowed £5
to be repaid at 10s interest per week for 3 months and then the £5 in full. She could not pay and Darlow
had made her sign other documents for ever greater sums of money – up to £57. She could not pay and
so he had then seized her goods and put them up for auction. The judge granted an injunction
restraining the sale.
NB. February 7th
The Master of the Rolls and 2 judges of appeal would only consider a restraint if Mrs Hickson could
pay the entire sum claimed by Darlow into the court within 14 days. She could not comply.
Sheffield & Rotherham Independent (& other papers) June 4th 1883
BANKRUPTCY
Of Eli Darlow the younger, filed on June 2nd, residing at lodgings at 34 Grammar Street, Walkley.,
Sheffield. Formerly of Newton House, Hessle Road, Hull, afterwards of 80 King Street, Southport,
financial agent. Now financial agent’s manager.
First meeting of creditors June 20th, transferring proceedings to Hull with Darlow to prepare a proper
statement of his affairs.

Sheffield & Rotherham Independent Friday July 13th & Thursday July 19th 1883
THE DARLOWS AGAIN
ALLEGED EXTRAORDINARY DOINGS
Sheffield County Court 12th July – George and Eli Darlow, brothers, were sued by a man named Walker
for an assault, for seizing a mare said to belong to their father under a bill of sale.
The case was chiefly against George Darlow, formerly of Sheffield, for assault. On May 28 th George
and Eli went to see a mare owned by Walker. A man named Webster came in a hansom cab and
confirmed to Eli that it was the correct mare. The cab belonged to Eli Darlow snr and Webster was his
servant. George, Eli and Fred Myers arrived. George opened the cab and took out a halter which he put
on the mare. George Darlow told Walker that they were detectives.
The plaintiff ran up and removed the halter – George and Eli “rushed” him, put the halter round him, Eli
knelt on him, George throttled him with his muffler. George said to Eli, “Draw your sword and sword
him.” Eli replied that they could settle him without swording him – (laughter in court). Then they put
him in the cab. George drew out a document and said that Eli Darlow snr had a bill of sale on that mare.
The plaintiff injured his hip and leg and he did not work for a month. He had gone to Burngreave Police
Station where the Police Officer had told him, “ the Darlows can be found any day if they are wanted”.
Judgment – George Darlow, as agent for Eli snr, was entitled to take the mare but not to assault Walker.
BUT the bill of sale was not registered therefore the case was adjourned.
Eli Darlow’s statement – there had been no blows but the plaintiff had fallen on the ground when
struggling for the mare and he did not say that they were detectives. For the past two years he had
worked for his father Eli Darlow snr but he was now a bankrupt (since 2 or 3 weeks past). His father
was a brickmaker, furniture dealer, gannister maker and money lender (laughter in court). He, Eli jnr ,
lived in Southport where his father carried on business and he also had offices in Hull and Doncaster.
George Darlow’s statement – He backed up his brother and said that he lived in Doncaster where he
managed a shop for his father. He was not well enough educated to be a clerk. His father paid him £1 a
week and he had a little money of his own to keep his wife and children. He couldn’t say where he was
living when the bill of sale was assigned to him!! He had 3 addresses in Sheffield but had never had a
house of his own – he had lived in his father’s furnished house. He took the bill of sale because his
father was getting too old to manage such a business (laughter in court). The memorandum of
assignment had been witnessed by his uncle John Baker [John Baker was the husband of Alice Billing’s
sister, Elizabeth. He was a brickmaker and in 1881 lived at 34 Grammar Street.]
Judgment July 26th 1883 – George Darlow said that he “always told the truth in this court and anyone
who didn’t should get 5 years”. He was asked then why had he spent 18 months in prison “ for telling
the truth”? The plaintiff won the case. He was awarded £10 damages, with costs at the higher scale.
Grammar Street c. 1969. Junction with Creswick

Street
Darlow houses.

Sheffield & Rotherham Independent Wednesday July 25th 1883
THE AFFAIRS OF ELI DARLOW JUNIOR
The public examination of Eli Darlow junior at Hull Bankruptcy Court, July 24 th 1883.
“The proceedings appeared to create considerable interest, especially amongst persons who had
borrowed money from the loan office with which Darlow was connected whilst resident in Hull. Many
of these were present and were several times so demonstrative whilst the bankrupt was under
examination that the Registrar threatened he would have the court cleared.”
Eli was a financial agent’s manager formally of Norton House, Hessle Road, Hull, afterwards of King
Street, Southport and since then resident in lodgings at 34 Grammar Street, Walkley, Sheffield.
As soon as he appeared, to be sworn, Eli applied for his expenses!! Saying he had come that morning
from Southport. He had no money and had had to take his fare out of his father’s business. The
Registrar refused and said that he was bound to come, just like a criminal had to appear in the dock.
Eli had not filed a statement of accounts, saying he did not know how to make them out and he had had
help from the trustee. It was stated that at a previous meeting of creditors in Sheffield Eli had refused to
file a statement of his affairs. At Hull the files showed that creditors were owed £1575 plus rent, rates
and taxes of £5 12s 6d. The actual total was reported as £1580 13s 6d. Assets were £160. When Eli was
examined he created considerable amusement by saying that he could not read and yet he could write a
little if told how to spell [there is dyslexia in the Darlow line in 2010 but Eli was also an accomplished
liar!] – he did not now carry on business but was living with his father in a furnished house in
Southport. He was working for his father whose business was letting out furniture, wringing machines
and other things. Before going to Southport he was acting as his father’s agent at Hull, money lending.
Before Hull he was negotiating loans for money lenders in Sheffield. Before that he was a money lender
himself, having his office at 39 North Church Street, Sheffield. The money which he lent out was
borrowed from two or three solicitors in Sheffield.
The report included lengthy details of creditors. Eli claimed to have spent £2,000 on legal expenses. He
also claimed to have been acting for his father, not on his own account. There was a dispute as to
whether he signed as “Eli Darlow” or Eli Darlow Jun”. The same applied to the sign on the window of
the business (he claimed that there was no room on the sign for the word “Junior” – laughter in court).
Letters were produced, in evidence, which he had just signed Eli Darlow.
The newspaper advertised on its front page that there would be a major article in the weekend edition
all about Eli Darlow’s affairs! In the Saturday paper further details were given – it was evident that
George Darlow was also involved in the business (after his release from prison),
acting as his father’s agent in Doncaster. Eli senior was called and he said that his two sons were
working for him.
Daily News London April 1st 1884

Supreme Court of Judicature – The Appeal Court, London
Smith v. Darlow (W Wilson claimant)
Appeals from the Chancery Division before Lord Justice Bowen and Lord Justice Fry at 10.30 am.
[Lord Bowen's judicial reputation will rest upon the series of judgments delivered by him in the court of
appeal, which are remarkable for their lucid interpretation of legal principles as applied to the facts
and business of life.
Some of the quotations attributed to him include:
“The rain it raineth on the just

And also on the unjust fella;
But chiefly on the just, because
The unjust steals the just’s umbrella.”
And “When I hear of an 'equity' in a case like this, I am reminded of a
blind man in a dark room - looking for a black hat - which isn't there”]
Lord Justice Bowen in Vanity Fair 1892

The Standard, London April 5th 1884
Queen’s Bench Court - Appeals
Before Mr Justice Cave BANKRUPTCY
The report of this case appeared in several papers, including, the York Herald, the Hull Packet & East
Riding Times and:
Sheffield & Rotherham Independent Tuesday April 8th 1884

THE DARLOWS AGAIN
An appeal against the decision of the County Court Hull re Eli Darlow jnr, formerly of Newton House,
Hessle Road, Hull, finance agent, afterwards of Southport and Sheffield (34 Grammar Street), finance
agent’s manager. An adjudication was made in the Sheffield County Court in June 1883 – his debts
being £1,580.
According to Eli’s evidence, from 1879 to July 1881 he had worked as a money lender on his own
account in Hull but after that he only acted as manager for his father. However, during that time all the
bills of sale for loans at Hull were in his name and so the prosecution claimed that they were therefore
the property of the bankrupt and as such should revert to the trustee. The bankrupt was a trader within
the meaning of the Act of 1869.
Eli Darlow senior, brickmaker and money lender, had taken action against Eli junior in the Hull County
Court but he was afraid that he would not get a fair trial because of all the prejudice excited against
him!
Justice Cave suggested that he try the issue himself, without a jury. It was agreed to issue a writ to the
High Court.
The case was reported again on April 23d and still continued in November 1884. It was very complex
and revolved around points of order re appointment of a trustee etc. The Darlows were well known to
Justice Cave!
Sheffield & Rotherham Independent etc… June 19th 1885

A PEST TO SOCIETY
A CASE IN SOUTHPORT Police Court brought by Stephen Allen Akehurst of Formby, a grocer,
against Eli Darlow of 27 Portland Street, Southport.
On August 13th 1883 the plaintiff borrowed £10, in writing, by which his furniture became the property
of Eli Darlow (to evade the provisions of the Bill of Sale Act 1882, which states that a loan should be
correctly registered). Eli Darlow claimed to be acting as an agent for his father.
After paying £16 13s 7d Akehurst borrowed £16 18s more. By May 1885 he had repaid £67 1s 10 ½ d.
Then on June 6th Eli Darlow gave him a document saying that he owed £51 9s 11d and in addition he
claimed the furniture.
Akehurst refused to pay any more and told Eli to take him to court!
On June 9th Eli sent a cart and three men to take away the furniture but was unsuccessful. He returned
on 11th June with fifteen or twenty men! Eli himself smashed in the door and broke the kitchen window.
When the summons against him was taken out Darlow put the contents in court, value £44. Solicitor for
Akehurst said that if they only showed up the conduct of what he called “a pest to society” they would
not have appeared there in vain.
Amazingly the case against Eli was dismissed – “he had the right to break in” !!
Saturday June 22nd – Eli had brought an action in the Southport County Court to recover £44 19s 5d as
the balance owing to him. HE LOST !!
The story was repeated in the Sheffield & Rotherham Independent on August 24 th 1885 as:
“The Darlows Once More”
Then in the same paper on August 29th in Notes for the Week:
“ It seems from a report of a County Court action at Southport, that one of the Darlows has been
carrying on in that town money lending transactions somewhat on the same lines as those with which
this now familiar name had been associated in Sheffield. I am not sufficiently acquainted with the
statute law as to say whether the system they adopt is legal or not, but judged by the law of ethics there
can be but one opinion regarding it. The ingenuity displayed in the piling of charges in the Southport
case, and the speed with which the bill was run up are positively amusing, and Mr Eli Darlow Jun.
would certainly have had cause to chuckle if the jury had granted his preposterous claim of £44 19s 5d
after the original sum borrowed, besides enormous interest, had been paid. But the jury were not such
fools as he evidently took them to be, and they very properly gave a verdict for the defendant.

North East Gazette etc December 4th 1885
Extraordinary Loan Transactions
Stephen Akehurst in Liverpool Bankruptcy Court, described his dealings with Eli Darlow. He had costs
of £90 in the County Court.
The Registrar remarked that if one half of the bankrupt’s story was true it was a very proper case to be
followed up. The Official Receiver said that he would repeat the whole matter to the Board of Trade
after hearing the other side of the story.
Sheffield & Rotherham Independent October 10th 1885

A Money Lender and his Clients – Eli Darlow was involved in a case at Sheffield on October 9 th in
which a young man was charged with taking two traps and a horse for his own use. Eli was acting as
agent for Mr George Hartley, a Sheffield money lender. Eli was called on in court but he did not appear.
Hull Packet & East Riding Times February 12th 1886

A Hull Money-Lending Transaction – Liverpool Assizes February 8th
Darlow & Darlow v. Bond & Higgins. Eli Darlow and Thomas Darlow sought to recover £50 allegedly
Owing from a loan at Hull in 1882. Thomas Darlow was then of 34 & 84 Grammar Street Sheffield.
Mr Justice Grantham said:
“ The shark thought to get a man , but it turned out to be a body with a hook in the middle of it. Can you
expect much assistance in a case of 65 per cent interest? (Laughter in court). I am afraid you must go to
some other court, where the judge appreciates the miseries of money-lenders more than I do.”
The judge gave judgment for the defendants against the Darlows. He said that the case should have
been brought where the parties lived.
Sheffield & Rotherham Independent Tuesday August 10 1886

THE DARLOWS AGAIN
Darlow v. Bond – heard at Liverpool assizes 6th August to recover £50 on a bill of sale. Eli and Thomas
Darlow v. Robert Bond, china dealer and Thomas Higgins, brushmaker, both of Hull. The Darlows
claimed under a bill of sale for £115 for the loan of £50 to Bond with Higgins as surety. Bond had paid
£65 interest but the Darlows claimed the principal under the bill of sale which was due in October 1884.
The defence alleged that the bill of sale was obtained by fraud. The defendants had been told that if 12s
6d was paid each week for 2 years there would be nothing else to pay. Eli said that the 12s 6d per week
was for the use of the £115.
Defendants’ lawyer said that they had been cheated by the Darlows – he said that only fools went to
money lenders and that they couldn’t carry on their business if they did not have these “Pigeons in their
grasp to pluck”. Darlows said that they had read the bill of sale and understood the terms.
Judge said – it was true that the plaintiffs were money lenders and that their terms were exhorbitant but
the jury had to decide whether the defendants were cheated into signing.
The jury found for the defendants!
Liverpool Mercury Saturday May 14 1887

Eli Darlow was representing his wife, Elizabeth, and cross examined a bankrupt farmer, Thomas Smith,
of Southport, re money borrowed and furniture “sold”. The Registrar told Eli that Smith could not be
expected to understand the transactions of a money lender!
North Eastern Daily Gazette Wednesday May 16th 1888

Lancaster Gazette Saturday May 19th 1888
PAYING £67 FOR A £7 LOAN
Yesterday Judge Thompson had before him at the Southport County Court an interesting money lending
case. A tailor, named Slinger, was sued for £14 9s 11d, money lent by Eli Darlow, a frequent party in
County Court suits. The defendant had originally borrowed £7 and after paying interest for four years,
amounting to £29, the plaintiff obtained judgment against him for £24 more. Slinger was sold up and
his business ruined. Mr Ashington for the plaintiff asked his Honour to take the justice of the case into
consideration. “Oh no! We can’t do that, we are in England” He made an order for £1 a month, without
costs.

Liverpool Mercury Saturday July 28th 1888
At Liverpool Assizes, Harry Smith, 19, pleaded guilty to offering forged promissory notes for £8 10s to
a Mr Thomas and to Eli Darlow. He was jailed for 6 months.
[A case of the stinger stung!]
Sheffield & Rotherham Independent Friday January 25 1889

ACTION AGAINST BAILIFFS
ANOTHER DARLOW CASE
Doncaster County Court January 24th. Elizabeth Wilson, a widow, [and sister of Eli] formerly of
Sheffield but now of Doncaster brought an action for damages of £10 against 3 bailiffs. Her lawyer said
that it was a shocking case and he was surprised to find any defence.
“The plaintiff was a widow and her husband died at Sheffield from smallpox last year. She came to
Doncaster in reduced circumstances intending to take in lodgers.” Before she left Sheffield solicitors
put an execution into the house, various articles were put up for sale, including her bed, in which she
had recently been confined. She sent an urgent message to her sister at Southport and her husband came
and bought the furniture for £20. The she moved to Doncaster. Her mother, Mrs Darlow (Alice), and her
sister, Rosetta Darlow, went to live with her and paid 5s a week each to help her. One day the bailiffs
came and she was so troubled that she became weak and could not feed her baby, so that it died.
The defence said that the bailiffs had good reason to go to the house as they were given to understand
that Mr Eli Darlow, against whom the execution was, was living at the very time in the house
(Broxholme Lane).
The plaintiff said that Eli Darlow had helped her. She knew he was an uncertificated bankrupt. His wife
sent her money. She did not know that her father (Eli Darlow snr) had settled money on her. He was a
person of considerable property but she thought that it was all mortgaged. The bailiffs were in the house
from 11 to 7. The judge could see no reason for their entry. Mrs Darlow said that she had independent
means. Her bankers allowed her to overdraw to the extent of £400 or £800.
The Judge said he did not want to hear of her private affairs!
His decision was for Elizabeth Wilson with damages of 1 guinea and costs on the higher scale.
Liverpool Mercury Friday April 5th 1889
Southport – Eli Darlow, furniture dealer and money lender, was charged with assaulting Victor H
Krause, carver and gilder, and his father Francis Krause, artist. The Krauses were also charged with
assaulting a bailiff, Victor Ardern. Ardern and Darlow had forced their way into Krause’s house to serve
a summons on a Miss Stock. A struggle ensued – Darlow hit Krause with his stick, breaking the glass in
the door. Darlow said that the elder Krause had come out with a poker and he had parried with his stick-
Krause had broken the window.
The case against Eli was dismissed and the Krauses were fined 10s each and had to pay costs.
Sheffield & Rotherham Independent Saturday June 7th 1890

THE DRAWBACK OF IGNORANCE
Before Judge Ellison in Sheffield Bankruptcy Court. Joseph Ashburn an illiterate coal agent of
Millbank Street, Doncaster, had not kept accounts and had got into debt, thus going bankrupt. “
Unfortunately, too, he got into the hands of some money lenders named Darlow”. His Honour reserved
judgment.
Liverpool Mercury Thursday January 15th 1891

CHARGE AGAINST A SOUTHPORT MONEY LENDER
At Southport Town Hall on 14th January Eli Darlow, money lender, of Railway Terrace, was summoned
for obtaining by false pretences £10 on November 22nd and £20 on December 6th, from Thomas Holmes,
iron moulder, now of Southport (late Blackburn). Holmes had seen an advert in the Blackburn paper for
the sale of an eating house at 4 Stanley Street, Southport, owned by Eli Darlow. Although it was not in a
good situation Eli Darlow had described the property as “a gold mine” so Holmes signed the papers
which he could not read or understand (he was described as a “simple honest man”). He had rented the
premises for £24 per year on a yearly rental assuming that Eli was the owner. He had been told that the
average takings of the previous tenant were £24 to £96 a week. Holmes agreed to pay £100 for the
goodwill and fixtures and fittings (said to be worth no more than £25!).
He paid a £10 deposit, an instalment of £20 and agreed to pay the balance in 100 instalments of 14s a
week.

However, Eli Darlow had never owned the premises which belonged to Scarisbrook Trustees. He had
merely bought the expiring tenancy, to March 1891, from the previous tenant who was in difficulty.
Scarisbrook Trustees had already rented the place to a policeman, Sergeant Kay.
Holmes entered the premises with his wife and children and then in December 1890 discoveres that Eli
Darlow was not the owner, so he took legal advice. Darlow had paid the Trustees 1/4 ‘s rent and had
offered to compensate Kay to forego the tenancy. He had also offered to lease or to buy the premises.
Thomas Holmes said that he would never have agreed to pay £100 to take the business for only 2
months. A local auctioneer had sold the fixtures and fittings a year before for £20. There was no
furniture included. Takings to August 1889 had averaged £5 a week.
THE CASE DISMISSED Saturday January 17th 1891

Darlow’s case was supported by his auntie Elizabeth Baker of Sheffield, who said that she had heard Eli
tell Holmes that the agreement was for a monthly rent until fresh arrangements could be made with the
owners. A Mary Ellen Marshall , widow, said that the previous tenant had made £100 in Whit week and
rarely less than £12. He had sold the going concern to Eli for £30.
[Was it a coincidence that in the following year there was a case involving John Darlow, Eli’s brother,
and a travelling showman called Marshall? – see John Darlow November 1892]
After a 10 hour hearing the bench retired for 10 minutes and their conclusion was that there was
insufficient evidence to send the case for trial.
“At the same time we think it was a case of very strong suspicion.”
There was a post script!
Letter to the Editors of the Liverpool Mercury:
Gentlemen – At the close of the above case the solicitors for each party had a
consultation, and Mr Darlow, the defendant, paid over to Mr Holme’s
solicitor, the sum of £30, being the amount paid by him to Mr Darlow,
together with a voluntary payment by Mr Darlow of a further sum of £5 on
account of Mr Holme’s costs with the matter. Dated 16 January 1891
Robert Sadler Solicitor for Mr Holmes
Henry S Threlfall Solicitor for Mr Eli Darlow
Liverpool Mercury Saturday February 21st 1891

Southport – Eli Darlow , agent for Elizabeth Darlow, money lender, his wife, and property agent on his
own account, was summoned for non payment of the poor rate, 10s, in respect of 44 Railway Terrace,
the house next door to that occupied by the defendant and his wife. Mr Sadler appeared for the assistant
overseer. The case occupied about an hour – “ the evidence was conflicting and there were several
smart passage of arms.” Eli Darlow had refused to pay in May and October 1890 as, although the
property was furnished, it was unoccupied and he thought that he was not liable. However, in court two
weeks earlier he had denied this and also that he was the owner or tenant of the house or its furniture.
Cross examination showed that it was owned by his wife but that “the collector had not gone to the
right quarter to discover the ownership.” The receipt was made out to E. D but the name on the receipt
book was Eli Darlow.
The bench ordered it to be paid with costs and lawyers’ fees. Eli said that he would appeal and he asked
for a stay of execution. To which the clerk replied “the distress warrant would issue that day and he
could take what course he liked.” !!
Numbers 44 and 46 Railway Terrace, Southport, as they appeared

in 2010.

Huddersfield Daily Chronicle Thursday May 3rd 1892
SINGULAR CHARGE OF FRAUD
[This time Eli and Elizabeth were the plaintiffs!!]
Eli and Elizabeth Darlow v. James Hyde, coal merchant, Southport who had obtained a cheque for £100
from them under false pretences. He was in financial difficulties and approached Eli Darlow to
purchase some spring buffer wagons from him. But the wagons had only been hired from the West
Lancs Waggon Co. Wigan.
The case was committed to Liverpool Assizes.
Liverpool Mercury September 13th 1892

EXTRAORDINARY SCENE AT SEAFORTH
Five men, Eli Darlow, Harry Johnson, Thomas Gilmour, Edwin Harrison and William Sumner were
summoned for riot and forcible entry. In July 1892 Richard Howard, car proprietor of Southport,
borrowed £130 from Mr and Mrs Darlow, money lenders, with a bill of sale. In August he went to
Darlow to pay off the bill of sale. The interest charged was 6d per pound per week – that is 130%. He
offered to pay it all plus a bonus of £15 but Darlow said, “ No, the bill of sale should run for 3 years and
I want £25 for my trouble.”
On August 28th Howard and his wife went for a walk and when they returned home the five men rushed
them and forced their way into the house. They stayed all night and in the morning a van was brought
and the furniture was carried off. Howard said that no instalments were owing at the time and no
property covered by the bill of sale had been removed. Darlow insisted on the bill of sale running for
three years.
However, Howard had removed his furniture, horses and valuables but he said that he had had no
intention of going to America (Eli had claimed that he was planning to leave for America and he had
advertised him as a fraudulent debtor).
The outcome was that there was no case – Darlow and company had the right to follow the goods and to
seize them. The entry had been orderly and it was not a breach of the peace. Case dismissed.
Liverpool Mercury Friday October 28th 1892

Liverpool Bankruptcy Court
CURIOUS MONEY LENDING TRANSACTION
Richard Tattersall, poultry farmer and market gardener, The Hermitage, Ainsdale, bankrupt. Liabilities
£86 4s, assets nil. He had taken the premises in 1880 with £80 savings and the rent was £33 a year. He
had a cow, a large quantity of poultry and some market garden. His business did not flourish and so he
had to resort to money lenders.
He borrowed from Mrs Darlow. He gave a bill for £39 and received £26 in cash but he was unaware
that he had agreed to repay at £1 per week – of which 17s was for the principal and 3s for the interest.
He also borrowed £12 from a Mr Howard who sued him in the County Court and got judgement.
Mr Darlow told Howard that he would make it all right and pay Howard out – then Darlow and a friend
visited Tattersall’s place and took a list of his furniture and stock. Darlow gave him a cheque for £34
which he cashed. Darlow took up all the money except for 30s and gave Tattersall a receipt for £31 9s –
the balance of the former loan.
Tattersall believed that Darlow would see to Howard’s matter but Howard put the bailiffs in. Tattersall
went to Darlow and they both went to see the High Bailiff in the County Court.
Darlow then formally claimed everything under a bill of sale and “the debtor then first understood his
real position. He never imagined that he was signing away all his furniture and stock, or that the bill of
sale carried interest for the next three years whether he had paid the loan or not.”
The official receiver said that Mr Darlow had given him another version of the story and it would be
necessary to examine him.
Cont:
Liverpool Mercury November 1st 1894
st
Case in Queens Bench on October 31 . Howard v. Tattersall and another (Darlow).
An appeal by Howard on Tattersall’s goods which Darlow had claimed under a bill of sale. Appeal
dismissed with costs.

Liverpool Mercury Wednesday December 21st 1892
ACTION AGAINST SOUTHPORT TRADESMEN
Kay & Others v. Rimmer & Others. Action for the recovery of a shop at 1A Neville Street, Soouthport.
Plaintiffs were George and Alice Bardsley, Kays & Walmsleys etc v. O & A Rimmer, Eli Darlow,
Elizabeth Darlow, Alfred Hartley.
Plaintiffs wanted to recover possession of the shop and to obtain an injunction to restrain the defendants
fron interfering in their possession. Three of the plaintiffs were landlords of the shop and also claimed
£50 arrears of rent from Rimmer. Walmsley claimed damages for unlawful entry and for remaining in
possession. The only defendants present were Eli and Elizabeth Darlow.
Rimmer was the tenant and had not paid rent thus forfeiting his right to the premises. He acted wrongly
by assigning his interest in the shop to the Darlows and they afterwards allowed Hartley to take
possession.
In consequence, the Walmsleys, who were the new tenants, could not occupy the shop and they
sustained loss, as did the landlords. The jury found for the plaintiffs – they awarded the landlords £10
10s and the Walmsleys £250.
The Standard – London Saturday January 20th 1894

LAW NOTICES THIS DAY
Queens Bench Court before Mr Justice Hawkins at 11.15 am . Darlow v. Hartley [another money
lender – see Oct 10th 1885]
Mr Justice Hawkins
High Court Judge 1876-1898
(1871-1874 Hawkins addressing the

jury in the Tichborne case – the most
famous 19th century trial.)
Weekly Standard & Express (Preston and Fylde) Saturday April 14th 1894
MONEY LENDING TRANSACTIONS AT BLACKPOOL
His Honour Judge Coventry, Blackpool County Court. John Nickson, cab proprietor, of Butler Street,
Blackpool v. Eli and Elizabeth Darlow, money lenders of Southport, to recover £25. Nickson claimed
unlawful possession of his furniture and stock, under a bill of sale, which he denied he ever executed in
the way it was put forth. He asked for a loan of £14 but the Darlows said it was the rule never to lend
less than £30. Nickson agreed to borrow it on a mortgage on his furniture, not on a bill of sale. He said
he did not know the contents of the document he signed and his wife was unable to read. Beyond the
principal of £30 there was two months interest of £7 10s, a levy of £1 10s, possession fees of £1 10s
and 15s, and railage of £1 12s. The loan of £30 had cost him £13 2s and he had only applied for £14 in
the first place. The verdict, by agreement, was £10 with costs.
Liverpool Mercury Wednesday November 14th 1894

POINT UNDER BILL OF SALE ACT AT SOUTHPORT
Elizabeth Darlow, furniture dealer and money lender, sought to recover £28 8s 5d from Jonathan Evans,
carpenter, of Southport for the balance of a loan of £30 on a bill of sale and £3 lent on a promissory
note, with interest. Evans had only wanted to borrow £20 but Eli and his agent made him borrow £30.
He repaid £10 within a few days (in November 1892) and he had repaid £39. His solicitor said the bill
of sale was a sham. Darlow’s solicitor said the transaction was regular. The jury gave Elizabeth Darlow
nothing under the bill of sale but on the promissory note gave her £8 19s 6d.
Liverpool Mercury Wednesday December 4th 1894

SINGULAR COUNTY COURT CASE AT LIVERPOOL
Judge Collier had before him at Southport an interpleader case “the like of which, he said, he had not
met previously.”

Elizabeth Darlow claimed £24 and £5 damages through removal in respect of a piano and a chiffonier
seized under an execution by Herbert Todd, furniture dealer. Eli Darlow had lent Frances Emily Wade
two sums under promissory notes, and ultimately (after a high court action) she took a bill of sale on the
piano and promissory note, which the execution creditor had seized. His defence was that the bill of
sale was misdescribed.
Mrs Wade said that she was a widow but her husband of 17 years was alive and the piano etc were his
property. Mrs Wade had no property of her own. Herbert Todd had provided Mrs Wade with a carpet
which she had not paid for but she had sold it. Her husband said that he was willing to pay for the
carpet, although he had never seen it.
The judge gave judgment for Herbert Todd and Eli Darlow had to pay costs. He said that the
misdescription of the bill of sale was a serious thing for Mrs Wade.
Liverpool Mercury Wednesday January 9th 1895

A SOUTHPORT MONEY LENDER’S ACTION
Southport County Court. Elizabeth Darlow, a money lender, sued Edward Twist, asphalter, and his wife
Mary Twist, for £10 , arrears of instalments on a promissory note. Eli Darlow, her husband and agent,
and her clerk, were called and both said that the defendants had promised to pay. They had given
promissory notes on the same terms five times already. The defence was that the Darlows had not truly
explained the promissory note. They had said it was for £7, instead of £10 15s, less a bonus of £1 15s.
The Twists were willing to pay £2 which they said was all they owed. “Interest charge was a trifle over
216 per cent”.
Eli Darlow said he would take the principal without interest. The defendants’ solicitor asked to see
Darlow’s ledger but he objected strongly saying that it contained the names of 700 people, many of
whom would be extremely averse to their indebtedness being known.
His Honour gave judgment to Elizabeth Darlow with costs.
[See below for a copy of the next case a week later, on January 17 th 1895]
Liverpool Mercury Saturday July 27th 1895

A MONEY LENDER AND A “TARTAR” CLIENT
Liverpool Assizes before Mr Justice Cave. Darlow v. Blackburn.
Elizabeth Darlow took action to recover money under a promissory note against John Blackburn,
former bank manager, Warrington. He counter-claimed £600 for trespass at his premises in Southport.
Eli Darlow’s solicitor said that he thought it was a matter of a money lender had caught a tartar
(laughter in court).
Mr Eli Darlow was manager for his wife, who was a money lender. Blackburn had a promissory note
dated 26th November 1894 for £56 to be paid in 50 weekly instalments of 26s, in consideration of which
Blackburn was advanced £40. At the beginning of 1894 Blackburn was the manager of the Manchester
Union Bank, Warrington, earning £300 pa. He also had a lock up shop at School Lane, Liverpool, with
a business under the name of Foster and Co. In April 1894 he took a fancy goods shop at Neville Street,
Southport, also under the name Foster and Co. When he was asked for a reference he named the
manager of the Manchester Union Bank, Mr Blackburn. He then gave himself a very good reference.
In November 1894 he entered into negotiations with Eli Darlow. He told him that he had a salary of
£300, a house and furniture worth £350 and stock worth £300. He did not owe more than £60.
At the beginning of December Blackburn suddenly left the bank and the first instalment was not paid.
His house at Warrington was closed, the shop at Southport shut up and the landlord was owed two
quarters’ rent. Darlow found a customer for the shop, paid the rent and kept £13. The furniture and
fittings were sold for £60 – having been handed to an auctioneer for 3 months to await developments.
[The article was illegible at this point]
There followed a protracted discussion in court about the sale of the defendant’s property. He said that
the Bank’s directors had asked him to resign because they felt that he could not do his job satisfactorily
and run his own business at the same time.
His Lordship, in summing up – “It was an abominable business that of money lending at 200% to
people who were certain to be sold up………”
“Both parties in the case were thoroughly disentitled to sympathy or respect, and the jury would have to
decide between two people, on neither of whom they could place implicit reliance.”
Elizabeth Darlow recovered £70 8s 4d on her claim. That meant judgement for the defendant for £39
19s 8d , being the difference between the amount due to Elizabeth Darlow by Blackburn and the value
of the stock and business.

From:
Cheshire Observer January 19th 1895
An example of a typical newspaper account

of the Darlows’ dishonest dealings.
A bust of Sir Horatio Lloyd can be seen in the
waiting hall of Chester townhall. He was
Recorder from 1866 to 1921.
Eli had the audacity to launch an appeal at

Queen’s Bench in the High Court. On April 4th
1895 he lost the appeal and he had to pay costs!

Liverpool Mercury Friday January 31st 1896
EXTRAORDINARY MONEY LENDING REVELATIONS
A STUPENDOUS RATE OF INTEREST
Charles Hamson, a former gentleman’s coachman’s public examination in bankruptcy. He was of
Railway Walk, Birkdale. He owed £60 19s 8d and had only £10 worth of furniture. When his brother
died he needed money to pay for the funeral and he was introduced to Darlow by one of Eli’s
employees. He wanted to borrow £5 and Eli Darlow told him that he would have to pay back a sum
each week but as long as he paid the interest the principal would not matter. Darlow did not tell him
what the interest rate was. He paid back £5 in 39 weeks and borrowed another £3. He had paid back, in
total, £24 6s. He had signed a promissory note for £10 when he borrowed £5 but he did not know how
much it was for because he could not read very well. When he received the £3 he signed a note for £18
but Darlow told him it was for £8.
Hansom had signed a form agreeing to the terms of the loan but said that he had signed it before it had
been filled up and it had not been read to him. After paying back £14 6s he was served with a writ for
£50 12s 3d. There was now a proof for £52 12s 3d judgment and costs.
Official Receiver:“Had you any idea what rate of interest you were paying for that loan of £8?
Hamson: “No, sir.”
O.R: “Why didn’t you enquire?”
Hamson: “I thought he was going to be an honest man.”
O.R: “Do you know he is charging you 625%”
Hamson: “No, sir.”
Registrar: “These documents do not say so.”
O.R: “Not likely! Or they probably would not borrow the money!”
Registrar: “How long have you lived in Southport?”
O.R: “Five years.”
Registrar: “And you have never heard of Mr Darlow?”
Hamson: “I have heard many things since.”
There then followed a discussion about the interest rates on each part of the transaction between the
O.R and the Registrar.
Registrar: “If he had paid back according to the instalments it would have come to 45%.
I should think that the sooner Southport people know of Mr Darlow the better.
If the corporation were to write it largely over the walls ---------
It transpired that Mr Darlow and his clerk had told Hamson to burn the writ and to forget about it (ie. to
keep him out of court for longer and make it worse!)
O.R: “It is a good thing Mr Darlow is not a solicitor. To serve a writ on a man, tell him to
burn it and then get judgment on it!”
Hamson: “I went to see Mr Darlow and asked him if he would take £5 if I could get it. He said
no. I asked him if he would take £10, then £15. He said “I will take £20 and you can
bring me a goose at Christmas.”
[There was no money to pay the creditors and Darlow’s claim as a loan shark came very low down on
the list!]
Liverpool Mercury Wednesday February 19th 1896

“The Notorious Darlow”
A SOUTHPORT MONEY LENDING TRANSACTION
INTERESTING CHANCERY CASE
At the Liverpool Chancery Court. Blumberg v. Darlow. Samuel H D Blumberg, a professional musician
[son of a Hungarian doctor and aged 26]of Southport asked that a certain indenture of 25th July 1894
might be cancelled. Eighteen months ago he had negotiated a loan from Elizabeth Darlow, and gave her
a promissory note as security. He failed to meet the note and so Elizabeth Darlow obtained judgment in
the Queens Bench Division. By signing the deed Blumberg was actually giving away his interest in his
father’s will.
Mrs Darlow’s counsel stated that she was a money lender in Southport to which his Honour replied,
“Was not that name referred to the other day – the notorious Darlow?”
Lawyer: “Yes, but this action is not to relieve the Darlows.”
Mr Blumberg said that the deed was not read to him and even if it had been he didn’t know that he
would forego the interest in his father’s will (it would also have affected his siblings and family).
Mrs Darlow said that she would not have been a party to it if she had known what it meant.

So both sides said that it was a common mistake but the judge said that Blumberg was a fool for not
reading the document. The trustees of the will had refused to pay the interest to Mrs Darlow and
nobody could get any money from the will and so there was an impasse.
The judge would make some arrangement to get the young man out of his problem “But he knew that if
he were to set aside the deed, and the young man got £85 a year (from the will) the defendant, Elizabeth
Darlow, would bleed him regularly, without driving him into bankruptcy or jail.”
Elizabeth Darlow was willing to take £80 in satisfaction of the £150, to prevent him becoming
bankrupt. The judge agreed but he advised Mr Blumberg to keep clear of her and “out of her clutches.”
The Standard, London Thursday February 27th 1896

Nantwich County Court. Elizabeth Darlow, represented by her husband, sued Charles Ankers, jeweller,
Nantwich for £28. Ankers had borrowed £10 and had to repay £16 5s. He fell into arrears and stopped
paying. The case had been remitted from the High Court on his ability to pay interest of ½ d in the
shilling from the time he defaulted. Defendant’s solicitor said that the interest charged on £10 was 120
per cent but on the present action it amounted to 350 per cent. The judge said that if people chose to
make improvident bargains it was their own fault. £19 was paid into court and Darlow was awarded £3
16s but without costs.
Liverpool Mercury Friday July 31st 1896

Before Mr Commissioner Dugdale Q C and a Common Jury
A MONEY LENDERS ACTIONS – EXTRAORDINARY REVELATIONS
Darlow v. Howell and Another – a claim for money lent by Mrs Elizabeth Darlow of Lord Street
Liverpool and defendants Mrs Howell and her husband, of Southport. Mr Shee Q C, Mr Horridge and
Mr Schuster represented Elizabeth Darlow. Mr Broadbridge and Mr Pickford Q C represented Mrs
Howell.
Mr Horridge hoped that he would not be at a disadvantage with the jury because he was appearing for a
money lender. Despite what was going to be said about a high rate of interest, if they were satisfied that
money was due, they would find for the plaintiff.
Mrs Howell was about to come into £500 and so she had approached Mr Hattersley to obtain a loan.
She told him that she was empowered to act for her husband and so she obtained a joint promissory
note for £60. She received £40, the balance being the interest from May 20 th to October 7th 1895, when
the £60 had to be repaid. If the money was not paid on time “the usual penalty” was ½ d per shilling per
week.
Mrs Howell said that she did not know that she was borrowing from the notorious Mrs Darlow
but thought that she was borrowing from Mr Hattersley. She did not know that Mrs Darlow had
changed her address from Southport to Liverpool [George Hattersley was indeed Elizabeth
Darlow’s brother!]
Mr Hattersley had written to Mrs Howell telling her that since she had fallen into arrears it would be
cheaper for her to renew the promissory note. She did so and signed a note to pay Mrs Darlow £112 10s
with interest of 6d per pound per week.
Mrs Howell’s lawyer: “they work out at 130 per cent”
The loan had not been repaid and that was why the action had been brought. Mr Eli Darlow managed
his wife’s business.
Defendant’s lawyer: Mrs Howell was lent £40 and if Eli succeeded in the action he would recover
£187. The claim on the second note was for £157 - 4s. “Can you give me any idea of the percentage?”
Eli D: “That has nothing to do with the case.” (Laughter in court)
Where did your wife carry on her business in Southport?”
Eli D: “ Duke Street”
“Was the advertisement for the business in Hattersley’s name?”
Eli D: “Yes”
“Does the advertisement say – money privately advanced. Interest 3d in the pound. No fees charged?”
Eli D: “Yes” (Laughter in court)
“Did not Hattersley attend to the business because you were too well known”
Eli said that Hattersley attended to the business because he was often away from home.
“Were you not referred to in the papers as the notorious Darlow?”
Eli D: “I can’t say. I know my name’s been in the paper several times.”
“A Liverpool case was reckoned to be 625 percent” (Laughter)
Eli D: “They made a mistake. What the papers said was untrue.” (Laughter)
“Did not the Registrar say if the corporation posted your transactions all over walls it would be a very
good thing?”

Eli D: “I don’t know.”
“Wasn’t that why you used Hattersley’s name?”
Eli said that he had told Mrs Howell that the money lent belonged to his wife to which His Lordship
responded, “That’s of no consequence if you did not tell her who you were!”
Eli D: “If I’d thought I might have put a sign in my hat.”
“What sign would you put on 60% or 600%?” (Laughter)
There followed a long discussion on the terms and on the interest payable.
George Hattersley said that he was a fender and iron manufacturer from Sheffield. He had lived at his
sister’s home in Southport.
The nub of the argument was whether Mrs Howell was defrauded because she thought that she was
dealing with Hattersley. After a lengthy discussion between the judge and the lawyers, the case was
eventually settled without the jury. The judge agreed to the terms suggested. Mrs Howell had to repay
some money but not all that was demanded and the promissory notes had to be returned.
Liverpool Mercury Thursday December 10th 1896

DISPUTED BILL OF SALE
Darlow v. Bland – at the Court of Appeal. The Master of the Rolls and Lords Justices Lopes and Rigby
gave reserved judgement on the application of the defendant for a new trial which was decided in the
Liverpool Court of Passage. Elizabeth Darlow, furniture dealer, of Southport, was suing Annie Amelia
Bland, widow, 24 Breck Road, Anfield, and Mr and Mrs Topham, 65 Tweed Street, Liverpool. Elizabeth
Darlow had lent them money under a promissory note. When instalment was due the Tophams gave her
a bill of sale for £16 8s for their furniture. Elizabeth had seized the furniture and wrongfully converted
it to her own use. Therefore the defendants made a counter claim for loss and damage at £40. At the
Court of Passage the judge had found for Elizabeth Darlow and he had rejected the counter claim.
The question was whether or not the bill of sale was valid. Lord Justice Lopes said that it was not valid
and so he gave judgement to the plaintiff for £13 8s and said that the defendants were entitled to a
counter claim for £40, with costs. The Master of the Rolls and Lord Justice Rigby concurred.
Lord Justice Henry Lopes 1828-1899

Lord Ludlow
Lord Justice of Appeal 1885-1897
Lord Justice Rigby 1834-1903

From Vanity Fair August 1893

Hampshire Advertiser January 9th 1897
NINE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED PER CENT
An extraordinary case of money lending engaged the attention of Judge Bayliss Q C in the Liverpool
Court of Passage. Elizabeth Darlow, money lender of Southport claimed £14 odd from Mr and Mrs
Thomas Nelson, laundry owners, Birkenhead for the principal and interest on a promissory note of
February 15th 1895. The Nelsons said that they had been induced to sign the note by fraud and that it
had been altered without their knowledge or consent.
Ralph Broadbent, carrying on business in Liverpool under the name of “J Wilson”, said that he had
negotiated the loan for which he received 10s from the Nelsons. [NB Wilson was the name of Eli’s
brother in law! There was a possibility that he was using the name as a cover for his agent, Broadbent]
He said that the promissory note was for £12 10s.
The Nelsons had further paid £6 5s and now £7 5s was claimed - £7 3s 1½ d interest with default at the
rate of ½ d per shilling per week until the date of the writ. If interest were claimed up to the present
time a further sum of £8 8s would be due.
The defendants’ lawyer asked; “Would you agree this represents 9200 per cent interest?”

Witness: “I do not know.”
The jury examined certain documents and agreed it would be a waste of time to continue. They thought
“it was nothing but fraud from beginning to end”. Eli Darlow explained the negotiations for the
loan. He said he had actually lent £5 and he was prepared to accept £10 10s in settlement to which the
Judge replied that “what he was prepared to accept had nothing to do with the case. There was the
strongest proof of fraud and the courts were leaning against the extortionate claims of money lenders.”
He agreed with the jury and the case was thrown out.
Liverpool Mercury Saturday March 7th 1896

CLAIM BY LIVERPOOL ARCHITECTS
McGovern v. Darlow – An action to recover £32 8s for professional services, from Elizabeth Darlow,
financial agent, Southport. She denied liability and counter claimed £20 14s 8d on unsatisfactory
judgment summonses.
The plaintiff’s case was that in July 1895 he had been retained by Eli Darlow as architects, valuers and
agents re properties in Ancoats Manchester, some of which were required by the Corporation to be
demolished as unsanitary. McGovern said that he had satisfactorily carried out the work on the grounds
that the rents were not diminished and the Corporation would pay £300 more than they had originally
offered.
The counter claim of £20 was eventually agreed to after arguments put forward by the judge.
Darlows’ lawyer suggested that they “call it quits” and pay their own costs – McGovern declined.
Darlow’s lawyer said that McGovern was in financial difficulties. He denied that Manchester
Corporation had made any offer for the property and anyway McGovern’s fees were exorbitant.
Eli said that he was so hard up that he (Eli) had given him a coat in which to appear before the
Corporation.
The jury found for the plaintiff for £25, without hearing all the evidence (most unusual!). The Judge
suggested that Darlow paid £4 3s in settlement of the claim and counter claim, and each to pay their
own costs. McGovern accepted this.
CONTINUED:
Liverpool Mercury Tuesday March 10th 1896
Letter to the Editor (paraphrased)
Gentlemen – In this case reported in your valuable issue of 7 th inst, you correctly stated that Mr Darlow
said, “So hard up was Mr McGovern that I gave him an overcoat, so that he could look respectable
when approaching the Corporation.” But unfortunately my reply has not been reported (he indignantly
denied it) etc. ….. It was my intention to apply for a summons for perjury …. … was advised that the
statement made by Eli Darlow was not material to the case and since the jury had found in my favour
they would not convict him. “ The overcoat I went to Manchester in to see the Corporation officials on
July 10th last was the same which I wore in the court on the 6th inst and was made by A Williams, 25,
Whitechapel, Liverpool and for which I hold his receipt dated December 12 th 1894.”
J H McGOVERN Architect
Gunstone’s buildings, 8 Vernon Street, LiverpoolMarch 9th 1896
(J H McGovern was the architect who designed and supervised the alterations to the Moslem
Institute, Liverpool, in 1895)
Cheshire Observer Saturday February 6th 1897

A MONEY LENDER’S ACTION
At Cheshire Assizes, Chester. Elizabeth Darlow, money lender and furniture dealer, formerly living in
Duke Street Southport, brought an action against George Ibeson, chartered accountant of 76 Derby
Street, Macclesfield, for the return of furniture and other goods, also for damages for their improper
detention.
The defendant’s lawyer objected to the bill of sale held by Mrs Darlow and said it was invalid. After a
lengthy legal argument the judge decided in favour of George Ibeson.
The Liverpool Courier 8th February 1897

THE ALLEGED CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD
COMMITTAL OF THE DEFENDENTS
At Southport on Saturday, the case in which Elizabeth Ellen Mann, 64, of Linaker Street, Southport; Eli
Darlow, money lender, Liverpool; and George Hattersley, his manager, were charged under various
indictments with conspiracy to defraud was resumed before a full bench of magistrates. Mann is further
charged with committing perjury before his Honour Judge Collier. Mr A G Steel again prosecuted on
behalf of the Treasury, Mr A Aspinall Tobin and Mr T Swift appeared for Darlow and Hattersley, and
Mr Rigby Swift represented Mann.
…….. furniture in Mann’s possession was seized by a Mr John Whitty under a County Court judgment
for rent. Mrs Mann immediately went to the office of Darlow, who subsequently laid a claim before Mr
H T Smith, Whitley’s solicitor, for the furniture, which he said had been let by his wife to Mann under a
hiring agreement. It was stated that after the seizure of the goods Mann signed a document which she
subsequently admitted was a hiring agreement. ………… she had never previously signed a hiring
agreement. Darlow eventually entered into an agreement with Mr Smith to withdraw his claim to the
furniture for a consideration of £6. This led Mann to claim the goods in the County Court as belonging
to herself, and it was at this action that revelations were made which led to the prosecution by the
Treasury………..
The newspaper report continued for many more paragraphs – relating an extremely confusing and
complicated story which involved documents going back to 1885. One was signed in 1885 by Elizabeth
Mann, Sarah Mann and Ann Mann even though Ann had died in 1884. A woman called Nancy Mary
Ashcroft had signed a false name. It eventually took the Bench 35 minutes to decide to send them all to
trial.
The Liverpool Courier 24th March 1897

Sentence was delivered at the Liverpool Assizes yesterday in the Southport conspiracy case, in which
Eli Darlow, money lender, George Hattersley, a clerk, and Elizabeth Ellen Cross Mann were convicted
on Tuesday. Darlow was sent to prison for 12 months with hard labour; and Hattersley, who was
regarded as being under the orders of Darlow, was bound over to come to judgment when called upon.
Mann, who was already under recognizances through ill health , was also bound over.
Walton gaol, Liverpool, where Eli Darlow jnr served his sentence .
Meanwhile ……………….
The Liverpool Courier 7 August 1897.

TRAP ACCIDENT IN LIME STREET
Graham v Darlow and Wife – This action was also brought to recover damages for personal injury
sustained by Mrs Helen Graham, wife of a tradesman of Holywell, defendants being Eli Darlow and
Elizabeth Darlow, the latter a furniture dealer and money lender on Lord Street Liverpool. Mr Horridge
and Mr Glyn Jones were for the plaintiff; Mr Taylor QC and Mr T Swift for Mr Darlow, and Mr
MacConkey for Mrs Darlow, who elected to appear separately from her husband.
On the 16th December Mrs Graham came from Holywell to Liverpool to make some purchases. When
crossing Lime Street from the railway station towards the market a trap, in which were the defendant
Darlow and his son, and driven by the latter, struck and knocked her down. She was taken in a cab to

the infirmary, suffering from bruises and severe shock as a result of which, after returning home, she
was confined to bed for several weeks. According to the plaintiff, the trap ran into Mrs Graham before it
could be pulled up, the off-shaft striking her on the shoulder. On the other hand, Eli Darlow, who was
brought from Walton Gaol, where he is at present undergoing imprisonment, and was in charge of a
warder, and his son, the driver of the trap, both stated that the trap was pulled up in time, and that on its
restarting Mrs Graham moved backwards and got in the way. There was some question in the case as to
the respective liability of the two defendants. The trap, it appeared was owned by Mrs Darlow, her
husband being the manager of her business, and he was brought into the case both because it was
alleged for the plaintiff that the trap was being used at the time of the accident in the wife’s business
and as being liable for the conduct of his son, who was aged 18. The jury found that there had been
negligence on the part of the driver of the trap and that he was the servant of both defendants. They
awarded plaintiff £30 damages. On this finding his lordship ordered judgment to be entered against
each defendant with costs.

Morning Post, London Tuesday November 22nd 1898
Aberdeen Weekly Journal ditto
Dublin etc ditto
The Standard London Thursday November 24th
Elizabeth Darlow v. Pitchforth. In about 1885, Pitchforth, an illiterate sailor at the time had borrowed
£20 from Elizabeth Darlow and he had signed a document for repayment with interest on the loan. He
contended that he did not know what he was doing. Now, Pitchforth’s mother had recently died, leaving
him some property and that was why Elizabeth Darlow was pressing for payment. The action had been
set down for Liverpool before a judge of the Queen’s Bench and a jury.
This was an appeal to have the case tried in the Chancery Division of the High Court in London before
a Judge because Elizabeth Darlow did not want to go before a jury in Liverpool for fear of an adverse
decision based on prejudice!
Her appeal was rejected and so she re-appealed to the Lords. At the Lords’ hearing it was said that the
defendant lived in the neighbourhood of Liverpool and being well known as a money lender she feared
that the action would not be tried by an impartial jury.
Lord Justice A L Smith asked: “On what grounds did Justice Grantham refuse the application?”
Answer: Justice Grantham had referred to her as a “lady usurer” who lent money at apparently
high rates of interest. Indeed the interest charged was alleged to amount to 9,000 per cent. So Elizabeth
Darlow’s lawyer thought that Judge Grantham had been prejudiced and that is why he had refused her
appeal.
Lord Justice A L Smith said: “There is no better or fairer tribunal than a jury composed of Liverpool
merchants. In my opinion they are the very best tribunal for cases of this sort in the world; far better
than any judge.”
The application was refused.
Lord Justice A L Smith
Sir Archibald Levin Smith (1836 - 1901) was a rower who competed at
Henley and in the Oxford and Cambridge Boat Race. He was educated at
Eton and Trinity College, Cambridge. He suffered from a pituitary disorder,
which caused him to grow to nearly 7 feet tall. Athletic as well as tall, he
rowed for Cambridge in the Oxford and Cambridge Boat Race from 1857 to
1859.
Smith was admitted at the Inner Temple in 1856 and was called to the Bar in
1860. He was engaged on the Home Circuit and became Judge of the High
Court of Justice (Queen's Bench Division) in 1883 He was then knighted. In
1892 he became Lord Justice of Appeal, and in October 1900 became Master
of the Rolls for the last year of his life.

North Eastern Daily Gazette Wednesday January 18th 1899
Sunday May 31st 1899
ALLEGED LONG FIRM SWINDLING PROCEEDINGS AT DARLINGTON CO.COURT
Dunwell v. Darlow - Eli, Elizabeth and Fanny Darlow [wife of Eli’s brother,Albert Darlow].
At some point Thomas Darlow, another brother, was also implicated by these three!
Before Judge Templar – two alleged charges of Long Firm Swindling. The summons had been served
on 6th January against people trading under the name of Fanny Darlow. The defendants applied to have
their names struck out of the summons on the grounds that they were not partners.
Mr Wooler, for the plaintiff, had filed an affidavit setting out a short list of the defendants, who, he
asserted were nothing else than a “long firm”.
The defendants lawyer had issued a note of withdrawal but Mr Wooler said that he had been put at
considerable expense gathering information about the long firm, therefore he asked the court for costs.
His Honour said that all reasonable costs would be allowed.
Another application – Houghton Road Brick Company v. Darlow
The prosecution applied to have the summons amended by the addition of the names Eli, Elizabeth and
Fanny Darlow and S Barker. He had ascertained that the people were partners.
“The defendants, he asserted, had been running into debt and ringing the changes in their names. Eli
had been carrying on the same business in Sheffield.”
His Honour said that Eli was an absconding bankrupt.
The prosecution wanted to join all the defendants together. Eli had been imprisoned already for perjury.
His Honour said that one of the defendants wanted to say that someone else was liable [Thomas
Darlow] to which the prosecution said “Yes, but that one is not here to defend it!”
Continued:
North Eastern Daily Gazette Thursday June 1st 1899
History was made on a large scale at the Darlington County Court yesterday when the Darlow family,
builders etc figured as the defendants in four actions to recover the price of goods sold.
These actions have aroused much public notice ……. and there was a large attendance at the Court
House yesterday when the judge came upon the scene.
Darlington County Court has never boasted such an array of barristers at law ……. The four legal
gentlemen in attendance found plenty of amusement for the jury out of such an interesting case, such as
putting before them the problem, “Were two in a sack up to the neck distinguishable?”
The outcome of all this law and expense, which is an endeavour to prove that a partnership exists in the
Darlow family, who are jointly liable for the debts contracted, will probably be decided today.
June 3rd
An action by the Haughton Brick Company and three other actions against Eli, Elizabeth, Thomas and
his wife Fanny Darlow. Thomas was otherwise known as Baker!
[The Bakers were the brother and sister in law of Eli and Elizabeth. John Frederick Haxton, son of
Eli’s deceased sister, Alice, had been adopted by the Bakers. His father was Samuel Haxton (was this
S Barker sic Baker?) Fanny was the name of Albert Darlow’s wife and Eli jnr had a brother called
Thomas but his wife’s name was Sarah Ann! Subsequent court appearances in the Summer of 1899
showed that “Thomas” was actually Albert and that S. Baker was actually John Baker! Eli’s
brothers in law Wilson and Hattersley had already been involved with him. This was a well known
tactic when committing fraud! Thomas alias Albert was implicated in another case in August 1899 -
below]
Long Firm Fraud

A long firm is a trading company set up for fraudulent purposes; the basic operation is to run the
company as an apparently legitimate business, gradually extending the amount of cash advances from
customers at the same time as increasing the amount of credit from suppliers; when the pot is large
enough, the perpetrators decamp with customers' money and suppliers' goods. The procedure needs a
certain amount of money to set up, often the proceeds from another crime or a previous long firm.
Long firm frauds have become significantly less common in the 21st century since it is no longer
possible to operate for any length of time without leaving a significant paper trail. In 1899 it was much
easier to confuse the police with a muddle of names!

The Primary Objectives of a Long Firm Fraud were:
 To establish credibility with manufacturers and suppliers.

 To obtain as many goods as possible over a credit period extended as long as possible.
 To make little or no payment to suppliers and creditors.
 To dispose of goods obtained with the minimum of delay.
 Abscond with the proceeds.
 Avoid identification and prosecution
Northern Echo June 1899

Darlington County Court proceedings proved that the “celebrated Darlows” were indeed Albert,
husband of Fanny (not Thomas!) and John Baker (not S Baker).
North Eastern Daily Gazette Friday July 7th 1899

Darlington Town Council – The Streets Committee served an abatement order on Mrs Elizabeth and
Mr Eli Darlow to abate a nuisance by burning bricks on premises in York Street, Albert Hill.
North Eastern Daily Gazette July 12th 1899

DARLOW ACTIONS AT DARLINGTON
A tone of exasperation had set into a long, wordy case!
Judge “I thought we had finished with the Darlows?”
Solicitor “I wish we had.”
Eli, Elizabeth, Thomas (?) and Fanny and S Baker (John) were developing land at Albert Hill and
erecting cottage houses. The case was an action brought against them by a local joiner for joinery
work, leading and hire of scaffolding. There was also a dispute about the quality of the work being done
by Darlow’s employee and what they were charging for it. The Darlows lost the case. Also see below
Aug 10th. 1899 and Jan 18th 1900.
There were adverts in the same newspaper for bricklayers for “Cottage House Work”. Apply to E
Darlow, York Street Brickworks, Albert Hill.
Northern Echo Thursday August 10th 1899

DARLINGTON COUNTY COURT
THE DARLOWS AGAIN
Messrs Scott and Armistead, painters, sued Eli Darlow, Albert Darlow, Thomas Darlow and Fanny
Darlow to recover £3 10s for painting two houses. This had been heard at the last court where the
plaintiffs had secured a verdict in the absence of the defendants.
His Honour allowed a new trial. He gave a verdict for the plaintiffs for the full amount with costs for
this and the previous action.
North Eastern Daily Gazette Several regular ads throughout August- November 1900
Advertisement:
Bricklayers, hod carriers and Joiners wanted: must be practical men.
DARLOW York Street Brick Works, Darlington
North Eastern Daily Gazette Thursday January 18th 1900

Darlington County Court. Joseph Gilbert, glazier, to recover 15s 6d from Eli Darlow – the balance for
glass supplied. Gilbert had contracted to provide glass at 3d per foot. Eli said that he had agreed 2 ½ d
per foot. Eli conducted his own defence and the registrar gave the verdict in his favour with costs!
AND FINALLY:

North Eastern Daily Gazette Friday March 23rd 1900
Leeds Assizes – Elizabeth Darlow, wife of Eli Darlow, Dixon Terrace, Darlington, sought to recover
damages from Mary Ann Hattersley, 75 Carnarvon Street, Sheffield, Elizabeth Wilson of Sheffield and
Rosetta Kidney of Cardiff for the detention of furniture.
[This was a family feud – all the defendants were sisters and brothers in law! What a family!!]
Their father formerly carried on business in Doncaster and when he retired in 1889 Elizabeth Darlow
bought his furniture, Mr Darlow senior (Eli) going to live in Northampton whilst his wife lived at 27
King James Street. Elizabeth Darlow let the furniture on hire to her mother-in-law (Alice Darlow) for
£1 a quarter, and 2s 6d a week rent for the house.
In 1893 and 1894 Elizabeth Darlow had purchased a block of houses in King James Street, including
number 27, and her mother-in-law lived there until her death [She died 1899 – see page 10 in
document re Eli senior]. After the funeral the house was locked up but when Elizabeth Darlow’s
husband [Eli junior] visited a few days later the house had been broken into and the furniture stripped.
The defendants had kept possession of the house for nine weeks and had refused to return the furniture.
Eli Darlow was called and said he now lived at Dixon Terrace, Darlington. He got his living by hiring
furniture in Southport. His father had formerly lived in Doncaster and had a business – “Doncaster
Furnishing and Advance Company”. Eli had bought the company from his father, paying £26 17s 9d but
it was worth four times more than that.
Eli was questioned about his shady past! He was asked about a case at the Liverpool Court of Passage
at which the jury said it was nothing but fraud from beginning to end.
His Southport dealings were also brought up (the Judge allowed Eli’s past to be brought up, despite
pleas from his solicitor).
His Lordship, to Eli –“They must have thought you were mixed up in the fraud.”
The Judge said that it was shocking that they brought an action about “this trumpery bit of furniture”.
They all had to agree a settlement in “this family quarrel.” The counsels consulted.
The defendants kept the furniture, without costs. Case dismissed.
Northern Echo Wednesday September 26th 1900

At Darlington Police Court yesterday, an order was made for Eli and Elizabeth Darlow to pay £3 4s
poor rate, which is owing.
[No change there then!! See February 1891!]
POST SCRIPT:
 The source for all these Darlow stories is the 19th Century British Library Newspapers on-line,
which does not include a complete archive of all local and national newspapers.
 Many of these articles appeared in several local and London newspapers over a period of days
after the events. It has been impossible to record the names and dates of all the newspapers in
which the stories were reported. Suffice to say that Eli and Elizabeth Darlow’s names would
have been very well known throughout the North of England and in the London law pages.
 I have not copied all the articles word for word as they tend to be very “dense” and it would
have been far too time consuming. On page 17 there is an example of the sort of article that we
had to work on.
Although I have attempted to read all the relevant articles I might have missed some!
 There are over 2,600 “hits”on the word Darlow. The great majority of them refer to the
members of Eli Darlow senior’s family and a few to the family of Edward Harvey Darlow.
Others show that William Darlow of Northants was involved in the Chartist Movement in that
county. Many of them are also advertisements for medical products by an unrelated Darlow
firm.
See also the newspaper article referring to Eli Darlow senior, John and George Darlow
(brothers of Eli) and the document on “Darlows Housebuilders in Sheffield 1865-1900”

ELI DARLOW JNR Newspapers

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ELI DARLOW JNR Newspapers

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ELI DARLOW JNR Newspapers

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Very Public FAMILY AFFAIR !

Dramatis Personae (in bold)

Eli Darlow Jun Court Appearances 1 Revised June 2011

Sheffield & Rotherham Independent December 15th 1877

Sheffield & Rotherham Independent Thursday March 14th 1878

From the London Gazette January 17th 1879

Sheffield & Rotherham Independent August 23rd 1879

Sheffield & Rotherham Independent Tuesday March 9th 1880

Eli Darlow Jun Court Appearances 2 Revised June 2011

Sheffield & Rotherham Independent Friday October 15th 1880

Tuesday 19 October Letter to the Editor

Sheffield & Rotherham Independent Thursday November 25th 1880

Eli Darlow Jun Court Appearances 3 Revised June 2011

Sheffield & Rotherham Independent Thursday December 9th 1880

The Daily Gazette (Middlesborough) Friday March 25 1881

EXTRAORDINARY MONEY LENDING CASE AT SHEFFIELD

Eli Darlow Jun Court Appearances 4 Revised June 2011

Sheffield & Rotherham Independent Friday May 13th 1881

Sheffield & Rotherham Independent June 3rd 1881

Sheffield & Rotherham Independent Thursday November 17th 1881

Eli Darlow Jun Court Appearances 5 Revised June 2011

Sheffield & Rotherham Independent Thursday March 23rd 1882

York Herald Monday June 5th 1882

Sheffield & Rotherham Independent Thursday June 22nd 1882

Sheffield & Rotherham Independent Saturday June 24th 1882

Eli Darlow Jun Court Appearances 6 Revised June 2011

Mr Justice Chitty (1828 – 1899).

Sheffield & Rotherham Independent July 8th 1882

York Herald January 18th 1883

Eli Darlow Jun Court Appearances 7 Revised June 2011

Grammar Street c. 1969. Junction with Creswick

Eli Darlow Jun Court Appearances 8 Revised June 2011

Daily News London April 1st 1884

“The rain it raineth on the just

Lord Justice Bowen in Vanity Fair 1892

Eli Darlow Jun Court Appearances 9 Revised June 2011

Sheffield & Rotherham Independent Tuesday April 8th 1884

Sheffield & Rotherham Independent etc… June 19th 1885

Eli Darlow Jun Court Appearances 10 Revised June 2011

Sheffield & Rotherham Independent October 10th 1885

Hull Packet & East Riding Times February 12th 1886

Sheffield & Rotherham Independent Tuesday August 10 1886

Liverpool Mercury Saturday May 14 1887

North Eastern Daily Gazette Wednesday May 16th 1888

Eli Darlow Jun Court Appearances 11 Revised June 2011

Sheffield & Rotherham Independent Friday January 25 1889

Liverpool Mercury Friday April 5th 1889

Sheffield & Rotherham Independent Saturday June 7th 1890

Liverpool Mercury Thursday January 15th 1891

Eli Darlow Jun Court Appearances 12 Revised June 2011

THE CASE DISMISSED Saturday January 17th 1891

Liverpool Mercury Saturday February 21st 1891

Numbers 44 and 46 Railway Terrace, Southport, as they appeared

Eli Darlow Jun Court Appearances 13 Revised June 2011

Liverpool Mercury September 13th 1892

Liverpool Mercury Friday October 28th 1892

Eli Darlow Jun Court Appearances 14 Revised June 2011

The Standard – London Saturday January 20th 1894