Hull Trinity ( anyone know of the player W Merriken ?)
Yes he was the captain.
This may interest you from the Hull Daily Mail - Tuesday 20 December 1887 (OCR capitured text, mistakes may be present)
THE CONDUCT OF HULL FOOTBALL PLAYERS AT COTTINGHAM. At the East Riding Police Court this afternoon, before Mr D. Wilson, Mr H. J. Pease, and T. W. Palmer, Johnson, James Sharp, Henry Spencely, John Archer, William Merrikin, Jasper Butter, James Rutter, James Edwards, James Lyons, John Henry Beadle, William Johnson, and George King, members of the Hull Trinity Football Club, were summoned for interfering with the comfort of passengers the Cottingham Bailway Station, on the 29th October laat.—Mr Meek, of York, appeared for the North-Eastern Railway Company, and Mr Gilbey- Cock represented the defendants.—lt was decided to take tbe case against Merriken a test.—Evidence was given by the prosecution to show tbat tbe defendants had been playing match at Cottingham, and when tbey were at the station they absolutely took possession and interfered with the comfort of the passengers. It was stated that there were between 50 and 60 passengers in the station at the time the defendants were misbehaving themselves.— Mr A. Rollit stated that he saw the defendants in Cottingham. They were the worse for drink, and tbeir conduct was disgraceful.—Mr Gilbey-Cook submitted tbat a great injustice had been done to the defendants owing to the extraordinary delay of the North-Eastern Company before tbey decided to take proceedings. As the men never knew what proceedings .were to be taken it had precluded them from b-iagiug forward any of the passengers—and he was informed that there were only about half-a-dozen—on their behalf. The case was trumped-up one, and he considered there was nothing to answer.—ln reply to Mr Wilson. Mr Meek said the reason proceedings had not been taken earlier was owing to the difficulty of identifying each defendant.—Mr Gilbey-Cook further urged that there had not been the slightest particle of evidence to show tbat defendants had interfered with the comfort of passengers.—After considerable legal argument, Mr Cook called a passenger named Westo'iy, who stated that bis comfort was not in the slightest degree interfered with him.—Cross-examined, witness said that he did not belong the Trinity Football Club.—The Bench considered the case proved against all the defendants, but considering the heavy expenses incurred in connection with the case, they reduced the penalty only and costs in each case.—Mr Gilbey-Cook asked the Bench whether they decided that there was evidence of a disturbance against the defendant Merriken ?—Mr Wilson said the Court could give no reason. —Mr Cook asked if he would be allowed to state a case if he was instructed hereafter ?—The Court said it ivould be a matter for Mr Cook to consider.
