Phyllis Wrigley married Abraham Moss’s son Walter Edward. Walter had been born at 13 Melbourne Street in 1888. In 1914 his sister Phyllis Moss died at Brooklyn aged 12 years. By 1911, at the age of 22, Walter is head dyer of fustian, still living at Brooklyn, and he’s still at Brooklyn in 1918. On March 19, 1919 he married Phyllis Wrigley, daughter of John Edward Wrigley of Rose Grove, Oak Leigh and Beech Mount.
John Edward died at Oak Leigh on Oct 17, 1929 and his funeral was at Heptonstall. He left 7096pounds in his will – painter and paper hanger?
Todmorden Advertiser and Hebden Bridge Newsletter – Friday 23 August 1929
DRIVER WHO REFUSED TO SWERVE. CASE AGAINST HEBDEN BRIDGE MAN DISMISSED. An alleged dangerous driving case at Burnley Borough Court, Tuesday, brought out the fact, mentioned by the defendant’s solicitor, that many motorists, owing to accidents through swerving to avoid dogs, no longer attempt to avoid them. The case was one ill which a dog, the owner of which was stated to have put in claim for for it, was killed in Todmorden Hoed, Burnley, on the evening of June 8th. The defendant, Walter Edward Moss (41), dyer, Cliffe House, Hebden Bridge, was summoned by the police for driving his motor car in Todmorden Road. Burnley, on June 8th, at a speed dangerous to the pub. lie, having regard to all the circumstances. He pleaded not guilty, and was defended by Mr. H. Backhouse, junior solicitor.
STATEMENT IN BURNLEY CASE alleged dangerous driving case Burnley Bore ugh Court, yesterday, brought out the fact, mentioned the defendants solicitor, that m iv motorists, owing to accidents happening through swerving to avoid dogs, no longer attempt avoid them. The was one in win”, u a dog, the owner which was f>tated to have put i:t claim for for it. was kill l -,I m Todmorden-road the evening J ill’: Btll. Ihe defendant. Walter Edward Moss i4l , dver. House. Hebdcn Bridge, was sumino’i-‘J by the police for driving his motor car in Todmordcn-roid. June Stli. at speed dangerous public. having regard all the circumstance*. pleaded not guilty, and was defended Mr. H. Backhouse, junior,
Trivial Beyond Words.” Mr. Backhouse said the case was trivial beyond words. The only thing alleged against the defendant was the speed, and he submitted that none of the witnesses was in position judge the speed. The fact that the dog was killed was in itself evidence all. Nowadays there were many accidents, even reasonable speeds, through motorists swerving avoid dogs, that many motorists would not swerve such circumstances. ” Many of us take the stand that, rather than risk the lives of passengers, we will not swerve to avoid dogs,” added Mr. Backhouse. In evidence, defendant said his wife was with him on the occasion of the alleged offence and, she bad recently been under an operation, was driving very carefully. When he went round bend near Brooklands-road saw two dogs. One of them ran across the road. He slowed up about five miles per hour, but the other dog, which did not seem have seen the car, started after the first and went straight under the car. stopped, and the dog scampered away. The next heard of the incident was on June 14th, when the owner of the dog claimed £lO damages. Mrs. Moss also denied that the car was being driven dangerously. The Chairman (Mr. W. H. D. Flack) said there was division of opinion among the magistrates. They did not consider the case was proved, and they had decided dismiss it.