This chronicles the unfortunate life of stonemason Stephen Hatten of Sandford - a 3rd cousin, and also connected to our Heard and Wright and Pickett families by other blood and marital links. Born to a shoemaker in Sandford he was brought up in the village. By the time he was 20 he was working as a mason. He married Charlotte Harris in 1875, and the couple lived in Mill Street, Crediton. 

In 1884 he was charged with stealing 11 ½ lb. of lead piping from a cellar under St. Edmund’s Church, Exeter, near to where he was working. It was claimed that hew had been storing tools in the cellar, but that the lead was from cottages that he was pulling down. The charge was not proved and the case dismissed.

16 Mar 1885. At Exeter Police Court,  Stephen Hatten, of Frog Lane, Exeter, was summoned for not sending his daughter Alice regularly to school. He was fined 2s 6d.

15 April 1885 At the Crediton Police Court, Stephen Hatten, of Exeter, was charged with being drunk and disorderly the previous night in East Street, Crediton. He was creating a great disturbance, and was so violent P.C.Kell was obliged to call on the aid of civilians in order to convey him to the Police Station. He pleaded guilty and was fined £1 and costs. In default of payment he was sent to prison for one month.

29 Sept 1886. At Crediton Petty Sessions, Stephen Hatten, mason, and George Ponsford, labourer, pleaded guilty to drunkenness in Mill Street, on Sunday September 26th.  P.C. Fisher said Hatten and Ponsford were drunk and quarrelsome, and wanted to fight. Ponsford complained that he was pushed down by the policeman. Previous convictions had been recorded against both defendants. They were each fined 10s and costs, or seven days' hard labour.

27 Mar 1889. At Crediton Petty Sessions, Stephen Hatten was summoned for not sending his two sons regularly to school.  The Clerk to the School Board  said that Hatten had been before the Bench twice previously. It was an aggravated case, and he asked for the full penalty.  Hatten said he sent the children to school, but they did not go. He was fined 2s in each case.

24 July 1889 At Crediton Police Court, Stephen Hatten, of Crediton, who did not appear, was summoned for being drunk in East Street on the 9 July. He was fined 5s and costs, or in default, seven days' hard labour.

 2 September 1890 At  Bristol Police Court, Stephen and Charlotte Hatten were charged with cruelly neglecting their children. The prosecution was brought by the Society for the Protection and Prevention of Cruelty to Children. The officer of the Society, John Oatley, stated that the father of the children was a bricklayer, and was earning good wages, and the mother received 7s a week from friends so that there was no reason why they should neglect their children. Evidence was given to show that both the defendants were addicted to drinking., and especially the woman.  Oatley had visited the room in Bloomsbury Court where the Hattens were living and had found the children in a very destitute and filthy state such as to cause them unnecessary pain and suffering. On a previous occasion he had visited the room and cautioned the parents. When asked for their defence the defendants indulged in mutual recriminations,  The magistrates considered it a bad case and believed the woman was rather more to blame than the man. They sent Charlotte Hatten to gaol for a month and Stephen Hatten for fourteen days. 

31 May 1891 At Exeter Police Court Stephen Hatten, 40, and Charlotte Hatten, 36, were brought up on a warrant charged with ill-treating and neglecting their child William, aged one year and a half. The Chief-Constable said the doctor in the case, Mr. Kempe, was currently unable to attend, and the child was not yet out of danger. He  was only therefore going to offer sufficient evidence that day to justify a remand being granted. Detective Sergeant Vickery said that on May 18th, he went to a room on the second floor at 21 Lower North Street, Exeter, occupied by the prisoners. The wife was seated in the room, drunk, with the infant on her lap. Two other children were lying on a bed in the room with their clothes on. There was no fire to warm the room. The infant was very ill. Vickery could not get any sense out of the female prisoner in her drunken condition, and he subsequently left the house. On the next day he again saw the child, and, because of its appearance, sent for surgeon C.E. Bell. The landlady had also sent for surgeon Mr. Kempe. Both the prisoners were addicted to drink. On the 21st Detective Vickery saw the male defendant in the tap-room of the Star Inn, drunk. On Sunday he again visited the Lower North Street house when he saw the husband and wife. Vickery learned that the man was earning about 28s a week as a mason at Crediton. When the prisoners were arrested the woman said her husband starved her, and would not send any money home. When Detective Vickery interviewed surgeon Mr. Bell about the child, he learned that the infant was suffering from bronchitis, caused by neglect and exposure.  The Chairman said the case was a very bad one, and the prisoners would be remanded until Tuesday next. Bail was refused.

3 June 1891. The trial resumed . Surgeon Bell, described how, with Detective Vickery, on 19th May, they found children and mother in an upper room in the Lower North Street house. The room was very dirty, and contained little furniture. There was one bed. Charlotte Hatten told him at the time that five children and herself slept in the room. He considered that the dirtiness of the room and the emaciated condition of the children must have been very injurious to health.  There were then three children in the room - Lucy, 6; Albert, 3; and the baby. The children were all very dirty, both in their bodies and clothes. They were thin and were suffering from want of food.  The baby, which the mother said was aged one year and six months,  was dressed, but was in bed was suffering from congestion of the lungs and bronchitis. She said it had been ill about a week and had had no one to attend it.  The conditions under which the children lived were distinctly injurious to their health. The mother was recovering from the effects of drink. Bell considered the mother was a chronic drunkard. Dr. Kempe said he called at North Street on 19th May. The poorly nourished condition of the child, William was one of extreme danger to life. He prescribed for the child, and told the landlady, Mrs. Stone, to see the treatment was carried out. In his opinion the child would have died if it had not been very carefully treated, after he had seen it. It weighed 14 ½lbs., and a child of that age should weigh from 24 to 25lbs. The illness would not account for the emaciated condition of the child. The mother said the child had been suffering from the measles. The cause of the child’s illness was neglect and exposure.  The landlady said when the child was ill the mother was frequently drunk. Stephen Hatten used to come home on Saturday nights and go away on Sunday afternoon. There were “rows”. On occasions Mrs. Stone had to ask them to stop their noise. On one occasion when they were quarrelling, Charlotte Hatten was heard to say, “You ought to bring money home to your starving children.” Witnesses testified how they had frequently spoken to the mother about the way she neglected her children, and had often seen her drunk.  Sergeant Fursdon  of Crediton said he had known the prisoners there for about ten years, during which time they had continually been brought before the magistrates for drunkenness and use of profane language. The children always appeared neglected and dirty. Detective Sergeant Vickery went to Crediton and told Stephen Hatten of the condition of the child. He was drunk at the time, but said he would at once go back to Exeter. Vickery had seen two or three children in Crediton, and these had been well-nourished. One boy stayed with Stephen Hatten’s sister, Mary Grant,  and the others with Charlotte Hatten’s mother. Grant said she maintained the boy Albert, as she had certainly considered him to be neglected by the mother. Her brother Stephen lodged with her at 7s 6d a week. He was a hard working man. Generally he would come home soon after 10, but occasionally he was -- “well, like other men.” He would send money to the mother sometimes twice a day—the son came to fetch it—and she had occasionally seen letters containing postal orders or stamps sent to North Street. When she asked her brother if his wife looked after her children all right, he replied that he gave her money and she ought to look after them.  She should think Hatten sent his wife “off and on” an average of 15s per week. Detective-Sergeant Dymond said he went to the house in Lower North Street and it was in a filthy condition. Charlotte told him her husband starved her, but admitted that she had 7s a week in her own right. Out of that, however, she had to pay 3s 6d for the rooms she lived in.  She said her husband never brought home more than 4s a week, and sometimes he would give her only a few pence. She was scarcely ever free from bruises, for every Saturday when her husband came home he used to knock her about. Charlotte Morris, Charlotte's mother, at Crediton, said that Hatten had married her daughter 15 years ago, when she had £50 of her own. Until this money was squandered he would not do a day’s work. He was nothing better than an idler and a drunkard. She had often been to their house in North Street when there was “not even a crust of bread there”.  She had often spoken to the husband about the matter, but he was a heartless scoundrel, and would take no notice of what was said. Her grandson John,13, came to Crediton twice or sometimes three times a day and received money—7s 6d a week from her husband William Harris.  John Hatten confirmed that  during the last two months he had often walked to Crediton for his mother. His father let him have the money, which never amounted to more than 2s. One Saturday night his father brought home 4s and a piece of meat. With part of the money which John brought home, his mother would buy a pint of beer. The disturbance always arose about money matters. “Mother would ask him for money and he would hit her.” His grandfather had often provided him with clothes. There was one bed, and “when father is home we take off one of the mattresses and sleep on the floor.”  Defending the father Mr. Dunn said this was a case when there had been gross neglect on the mother’s part. The father was legally to blame for not seeing that the money he sent was applied to the children. He asked that such sentence would be passed on Stephen as would enable him to continue his work and support his children. He hoped the Bench would use the power that the Act under which this case would be dealt with gave them, to take the children away from the charge of the parents and put them under the care of the two sisters of the male defendant, who were very respectable persons –  Mrs. Maria Grant and Mrs. Catherine Coombes – who were quite willing to take the children if the husband would arrange with them for their maintenance.

The Chief Constable said there were eight convictions against the father and seven against the mother for drunkenness and disorder. At Bristol in 1890 the father had been sent to prison for 14 days and the mother for a month on a charge of neglecting their children. The Bench retired, and on returning the Chairman  said this was the most deplorable case which it had ever been his misfortune to hear from that Bench. If there were any other such families he hoped the sentence of three months’ hard labour, which it had been decided to pass on both defendants, would be a warning.—In answer to Mr. Dunn, the Chairman said if those relatives, of whom the police approved, were willing, the maintenance of the children would be transferred to them, otherwise the children would go to the Workhouse.

27 January 1892. Crediton Police Court. Stephen Hatten, a labourer, was charged with being drunk in Brown's Court, Mill Street, on 22nd January. He pleaded Not Guilty, P.C.Clinnock said he saw the defendant in Browne's Court, very drunk and using most disgusting language. Hatten denied the offence, and frequently interrupted the witness P.C.Clinnick when he gave his evidence, and got very excited. He called him a liar and offered to go out and fight him. In consequence of his offensive language he had to be cautioned by the Chairman. Superintendent Roberts said there were several previous convictions against him. He was fined 5s and costs or seven days.

28 January 1892.  Stephen Hatten and Charlotte, were charged with willfully neglecting their children between the 15th December and the 16th January, and not providing them with proper food and clothing.  Mr. W.Friend prosecuted on behalf of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (N.S.P.C.C. ) He said that he should be able to prove that the defendants had willfully neglected their children, and would ask the magistrates to send them to the Quarter Sessions, as it was a very bad case. The defendants had spent three months in Exeter Gaol commencing last June, and had also been to prison in Bristol for a like offence.  Mr.F.T.Whetham, of Torquay, Inspector of the N.S.P.C.C., said that on 15th January, he went to the defendants’ house, in Brown’s Court, Mill Street, Crediton. He told Mrs. Hatten that he was an inspector, and had heard complaints about their conduct to their children. He asked her if she would let him see them? She said, “Yes, here they are.”  He saw their boy, Stephen, aged nine years and Lucy Ann, the daughter, aged seven years. He found that they had sufficient clothing, but it was very dirty. He examined Lucy, more particularly her underclothing, which was quite black with dirt. The boy’s clothes were also very dirty indeed. He then examined Lucy’s head; it was covered with sores and vermin. Their clothes also contained vermin. Both children were in an emaciated condition and he should think that they had been badly nourished. He then asked Mrs. Hatten to let him see where the children slept? She pointed out an old sofa in the kitchen, and said that she and the children slept on that. The sofa was covered over with sacking, and had a piece of blanket and a piece of quilt, both very dirty and stinking.  Asked how it was that the things were so dirty, she said, “I cannot wash them for it is all that I have got for the children.” He asked to see the only bedroom. He found that it contained an old flock bed which was very dirty. The bed clothes consisted of one piece of blanket, one piece of quilt and two sacks, all of which smelt very bad. She said her husband slept there. There was nothing else in the room. The atmosphere was of a very noxious nature. He went to the kitchen and found it also in a filthy state and smelling very bad. The floor was like a road, covered with dirt and looked as though it had never been washed. The only furniture there was a table covered with dirt, the sofa already described, a broken chair, and a stool. The only crockery that he could find was a broken tureen with tea leaves in it, and there was a broken tin teapot. On the table was part of a quarter loaf and a few crumbs of cheese. He found that this was the only food in the house.  There was a small fire burning in the grate. He asked her where her husband was. She said, “Up to the Star drunk; that is where he always is.” Asked what trade he was, she said “A mason, and a good workman. He can get good wages, but he will not work.” She added that she had sent for him, and he had sent her back 3d. He asked her how it was the children were in such a filthy state. She said, “I am in a great trouble; what can I do?” She was very excited and smelt very strongly of drink. He fetched a cab and took the children to the Workhouse. Then on 21st January Mr Whetham saw the male defendant at his house. He asked him how he accounted for his children being in such a filthy state. He replied “What can I do? I cannot get work and if  I cannot get work I cannot get things for them.”Mr. Whetham asked him how it was that he could always get money for drink? Hatten replied that the drink was given to him. "If you will give us another chance, we will do better.” Whetham pointed out, “You have been to prison twice for the same thing, and one would think that that was sufficient.” Having made enquiries he had found that Hatten could get plenty of work if only he would do it.  Mr. Scott Campbell, surgeon practising at Crediton, said he visited the Workhouse on 16th January and saw the Hattens' two children, who were in a very emaciated condition. There was no disease to account for that. He considered that they had been very much neglected. Police Sergeant Pratt corroborated the evidence of Inspector Whetham. He often saw  Stephen Hatten going home drunk late at night, and Mrs. Hatten had  served 14 days’ imprisonment on December 7th for being drunk and disorderly.  Mr. James Brook, a builder, said Hatten had worked for him and was a very good workman indeed. He had offered him work for 24s per week if he would only keep sober.  Mrs. Hatten said, in answer to the Bench, that she had never neglected the children in her life and had kept them as well as she could with her means.  Stephen Hatten said that he had not had any work since the week before Christmas,  as the weather had been against it. His wife had a private income which she spent on the children as far as it would go. Defendants were both very excited throughout the trial and Charlotte Hatten begged for mercy with tears. They were committed for trial at the next Quarter Sessions on the 5th April. They applied for bail which was granted. The Bench agreed that the children should remain in the Workhouse at least until the trial was over. [In 1895 an inspection by the British Medical Journal was very critical of the standrds at Crediton Workhouse, particularly the poor care provided there for sick inmates.]

6 April 1892. Devon Easter Quarter Sessions. Stephen (40) and Charlotte Hatten (30) were charged with child neglect between 15th December 1891 and 16th January 1892, as heard by Crediton Police Court on 29 January 1892. , at Crediton, . They pleaded not guilty. Mr. Wippell prosecuted, and Mr. Cleave defended. The prosecutor described the facts of the case, as reported by Inspector Whetham of the N.S.P.C.C.,  describing his visit to the house of the prisoners at Brown’s Court, Crediton, where he found the female prisoner the worse for liquor.and the two children there greatly neglected. The girl was in a most disgusting state of filth, covered in vermin, her clothes were black with dirt. The house, and it was in a dreadful state, with the woman and the two children sleeping on one bed, which was in a filthy state. He removed the children to the Workhouse.  PC Clinnock said he had seen the male prisoner the worse for liquor and the children out late at night. – Richard Steer, porter at the Crediton Workhouse, and Hanna Hollingsworth, nurse of the same establishment, said the children were in a dirty state, and Dr. Walter Campbell said they were greatly emaciated and seemed to be suffering from a wasting disease, but there were no traces of any disease, -- John Laskey and J.S.Brooks proved having offered the male prisoner work, but he had not accepted it. – Mr. Cleave contended that the willful neglect had not been proved. It was a case of poverty. – The jury returned a verdict of guilty.—The Chairman said he was sorry to see two previous convictions recorded against the prisoners for similar offences. The Court had determined to make an example of persons who committed such acts of cruelty. The Act of Parliament under which the proceedings were taken had done some good, but it would not be productive of good, if on a repetition of these offences they passed slight sentences. The prisoners would be kept in prison for six months with hard labour.

29 April 1892 At the Crediton Petty Sessions on Wednesday, Mr. Francis Thynne Whetham, Inspector of the N.S.P.C.C., applied that the children of Stephen and Charlotte Hatten, who were brought before the Crediton Magistrates on 27th January, and were sentenced at the Exeter Quarter Sessions to six months’ imprisonment with hard labour, might be handed over to the Rev. B. Waugh, director of the Society. He also applied that a sum should be determined upon for the maintenance of the children. – The Chairman granted the application, and made an order of 1s 6d a week for each child.

Saturday 8 October 1892, Exeter Police Court  Stephen and Charlotte Hatten, natives of Crediton, were brought up on a charge of exposing their child, aged about three months. They were found the previous night in the Cowley Bridge Road in charge of the infant, who was exposed in such a way as to be endangering its health. When spoken to by a constable they had refused to go to the Police Station to spend the night. They were discharged from prison during the day and were given passes to take them to Crediton, and a sum of money which belonged to them. P.C. Lewis said that on the previous night about eleven o’clock he saw the prisoners drunk near the entrance to St David’s Station yard in charge of a child about three months old. The infant’s hands and feet were uncovered. They said they had missed the 9.30 train to Crediton. They made no attempt to get lodgings, and said they were going to walk to Crediton. He eventually took them to the Police Station, where he searched them and found that the man had 1s. 8 ½d. and the woman 6s. 2 ½d. The Chairman said the Bench would give defendants the benefit of the doubt, and they would be dismissed, but they must be careful as to their conduct in the future. The Bench commended the action of the constable.

19 December 1901 Crediton Police Court. Stephen Hatten, mason, of Crediton, pleaded guilty to being drunk on 14th December. -- P.C.Endacott said he found the defendant lying on the footpath and he had to take him home. -- A fine of 2s 6d and costs was imposed.

12 July 1902 Charlotte Hatten died at Mill Street, Crediton. Her age was given as 47, but she was actually 46.


18 December 1902 At Crediton sessions,  Stephen Hatten, mason, of Mill Street, was summoned for cruelty to his three children, Albert, Richard and Henry. Mr. W. Linford Brown, prosecuting, said that defendant was a mason, earning 30s a week. On 25 November, Inspector Thompson, N.S.P.C.C., visited the house and in consequence of what was then seen, Dr. Campbell was called. He saw the child Albert, whose face was very pale and pinched, and his body and clothes were exceedingly dirty, while the boy was very small, was a lot under weight and was suffering from neglect. The condition of Richard was similar. Henry, aged seven, was in a worse state than either of his brothers. The children's present condition was injurious to their health. The two smaller boys slept in one room, while the father and the oldest child slept in another. Both rooms were extremely dirty. The elder lad was asked when he washed last, and he replied that he had a bathe in the river last summer. Inspector Thompson confirmed that Hatten had been warned on many occasions as to the state of his home, by himself, by the police and by the doctor. Mr. W.W. Smith, master of the Workhouse, said the three lads were admitted to the House on November 25th. One of the boys was three-quarters of a pound less weight now than when admitted, another was the same weight, whilst the third was three-quarters of a pound heavier. Hatten said he employed a woman named Elston to look after his children, and paid her 7s 6d weekly. He earned between 15s and 20s a week. He himself scrubbed the house once a week. He admitted having  been convicted for neglect of children about eleven years ago, and also for drunkenness. Mary Ann Elston and Eliza Fey gave evidence in favour of the defendant. The Bench sentenced the prisoner to three months' imprisonment, with hard labour.

WESTERN TIMES 13 Friday 5 July 1912 Amidst signs of the greatest of sympathy, the mortal remains of Mr. Stephen Hatten were laid to rest in the Crediton Churchyard on Sunday. Although a native of Sandford, he had long resided at Crediton, where he was known as a first-class mechanic. The respect for the deceased was sympathetically shown by his relatives and others who came from far and near to follow him to his last resting place. He was borne to the grave by the following six bearers from Crediton: Mr. G.Alford, L. Backwell, W. Forward, L. Risdon, H.Elston, B.Long. The chief mourners were J. Hatten (son), Mrs. Wellington, (daughter), Albert Hatten (son), L. Hatten (daughter), R. Hatten (son), H. Hatten (son), Alfred Hatten (nephew), Arthur Hatten (nephew), H.Wellington, (son-in-law), W.H.Harris (brother-in-law), H. Hatten (son), Ralph Hatten (nephew), Mrs. Hamlyn (niece),Mr. John Turner Harris (brother-in-law), Mrs. Harris (sister-in-law).