Category Archives: court case

John Narroway Darby

08 Wednesday Jan 2020

Posted by in 52 ancestors, court case, Darby, New Zealand, Portland, Tasmania

≈ 4 Comments

One of my husband’s 3rd great-grandfathers was a compositor and printer named John Narroway Darby.

John Darby was born in 1823 in Exeter, Devon, son of a joiner and carpenter named Joseph Darby (abt 1780 – 1865) and his wife Sarah Darby née Narroway [sometimes spelled Narraway]. Joseph and Sarah were married in 1807. They had at least six children of whom John, baptised on 3 March 1823 at Saint Mary Major, Exeter, was the third.

At the time of the English census of 1841, John, then a printer’s apprentice, was living in Exeter with his parents and three siblings.

In July 1842 following the publication of banns, John married Matilda Priscilla Moggridge (1825 – 1868) at St Mary Arches, Exeter. The consent of Matilda’s parents had been given.

Five months later Matilda and John emigrated on the Westminster to New Zealand. The Westminster was the first planned emigrant ship from England to Auckland. It sailed from Plymouth on 4 December 1842 and arrived 31 March 1843.

On a February 1844 list of all men within the District and Town of Auckland in the Colony of New Zealand and liable to serve on juries, there is a John N. Derby, compositor, living in Queen Street, Auckland.

Auckland Queen St 1843

Queen Street Auckland in 1843 from page 53 of The Project Gutenberg EBook of The City of Auckland, by John Barr, first published 1922 and retrieved from https://www.gutenberg.org/files/46925/46925-h/46925-h.htm#Page_53

In April 1844 John Darby wrote to the editor of the Auckland Chronicle with his views on the future of the Government Printing Office.

Darby John 1844 letter

Auckland Chronicle and New Zealand Colonist, Volume 2, Issue 37, 18 April 1844, Page 2

In December 1844 John Narroway Darby was in court over a forged promissory note, and in March 1845 he was indicted for issuing a shilling forged debenture. He was acquitted by the jury.

On 12 April 1845 Darby, with his wife and two children, left Auckland on the Sir John Franklin for Hobart Town, Van Diemen’s Land [Tasmania]. The Hobart Courier described the voyage as “a tedious passage of twenty five days.” The schooner carried 33 passengers, including 26 children, with a cargo of 12,000 feet of New Zealand timber and 12 parcels of printing apparatus. The ship brought news of the Maori Wars. The Tasmanian and Austral-Asiatic Review stated that the schooner was “laden with families flying from the Maories”

Matilda Frances Darby, the younger child of John Narroway Darby and Matilda Darby, was baptised in Hobart on 30 November 1845. She had been born on 14 March 1845.

Darby baptism 1845 RGD32-1-3-P588

from Tasmanian Lincs database https://stors.tas.gov.au/NI/1089444 Name: Darby, Matilda Frances Record Type: Births Gender: Female Father: Darby, John Harroway Mother: Matilda, Elizabeth Date of birth: 14 Mar 1845 Registered: Hobart Registration year: 1845 Record ID: NAME_INDEXES:1089444 Resource: RGD32/1/3/ no 2603

Apart from a mention on the shipping record, I have found very little about the other child of John and Matilda Darby. He, or she, appears to have been born in New Zealand about 1844 and seems to have died in Australia before 1855.

Sometime before 1850 John and Matilda Darby separated. In 1850 Matilda had a child, Margaret Hughes, born at Ashby near Geelong, Victoria. The father’s name was David Hughes. Margaret died in 1858. Ten years later, on 4 May 1868, Matilda Darby, claiming to be a spinster, married David Hughes. She died one month later, on 5 June.

It seems to me likely that Matilda Darby, knowing a formal union with David Hughes would be bigamous, refused to marry him until she had news that her first husband John Darby was dead. It is also possible that Matilda Darby, very ill, with not long to live, sought to regularise her relationship with Hughes as best she could. They had lived together for nineteen years; a form of marriage was possibly a kind of consolation
for them both.

John Darby appears to have been less concerned than his wife Matilda about committing the crime of bigamy. When on 21 July 1855 in Portland, Victoria, he went through the form of marriage with a woman called Catherine Murphy he claimed he was a widower, the father of two children, one living and one dead.

Darby Murphy Portland marriage

Name John Darby Spouse Name Catherine Murphy Registration Place Victoria Registration Year 1855 Registration Number 2765

In August 1855 John Darby of the Portland Guardian advertised for a printer’s apprentice.

In 1856 John Darby was listed on the electoral roll in Portland, living at Gawler Street, printer, entitled to vote as receiving a salary of £100 from T.E. Richardson.

I have found no further mentions of John Darby or  Catherine in Australian birth, death or marriage indexes, nor in other records.

In the Tumut and Adelong Times of 22 October 1866 a John Darby is recorded as having successfully sued the printer of the Braidwood News for £6 3s. wages. It is possible that this is our John Darby but I have found no further records of John or Catherine Darby in New South Wales.

DNA evidence links Greg and his cousins to Matilda Frances Sullivan née Darby but as yet no further back on the Darby line.

Related posts

Sources

  • FindMyPast  
    • Record set Devon Baptisms  First name(s) John Narroway  Last name Derby Birth year 1823  Baptism year 1823 Denomination Anglican  County Devon Baptism place Exeter, St Mary Major  Mother’s first name(s) Sarah Father’s first name(s) Joseph
    • Matilda  Last name Mogridge  Banns year 1842 Banns date 03 Jul 1842  Parish Exeter, St Mary Arches Spouse’s first name John  Spouse’s last name Darby Residence Exeter St Mary Steps Spouse’s residence Exeter St Mary Steps  Denomination Anglican County Devon Country England Archive reference 332A/PR/1/13 Archive South West Heritage Trust  Record set Devon Banns Category Life Events (BDMs)
  • Ancestry.com
    • English 1841 census Class: HO107; Piece: 267; Book: 4; Civil Parish: St Mary Major; County: Devon; Enumeration District: 14; Folio: 25; Page: 45; Line: 23; GSU roll: 241331
    • Jury Lists: Auckland 1842-1853
    • Tasmania, Australia, Passenger Arrivals, 1829-1957 Reports of ships arrivals with lists of passengers; Film Number: SLTX/AO/MB/3; Series Number: MB2/39/1/8
    • 1856 electoral roll for Portland, Victoria, Australia
  • Whyte, Carol. “Passenger List of Westminster, Cork, 4 December 1842 to Auckland.” New ZealandGenWeb Project, Carol Whyte, 2014, www.newzealandgenweb.org/index.php/regions/auckland/44-source-records-auckland/60-passenger-list-of-westminster-cork-4-december-1842-to-auckland.
  • PapersPast – an online collection of digitised New Zealand newspapers and periodicals
  • Trove – online Australian digital reproductions of newspapers, journals, books, maps, personal papers, as well as archived websites and other born-digital content compiled by the National Library of Australia
  • from Tasmanian Lincs database https://stors.tas.gov.au/NI/1089444   Name:  Darby, Matilda Frances  Record Type: Births Gender:  Female Father: Darby, John Harroway  Mother: Matilda, Elizabeth Date of birth:  14 Mar 1845 Registered: Hobart Registration year:  1845 Record ID: NAME_INDEXES:1089444 Resource: RGD32/1/3/ no 2603
  • Victorian births, deaths and marriages
      • Name Margaret Hughes Birth Date Abt 1850 Birth Place Ashby, Victoria Registration Year 1850 Registration Place Victoria, Australia Father David Hughes Mother Matilda Registration Number 22395
      • Name Matilda Priscilla Craddock Spouse Name David Hughes Marriage Place Victoria Registration Place Victoria Registration Year 1868 Registration Number 1485
      • Name Matilda Hughes Birth Year abt 1825 Age 43 Death Place Victoria Father’s Name Mogridge John Registration Year 1868 Registration Place Victoria Registration Number 3957
      • Name John Darby Spouse Name Catherine Murphy Marriage Place Victoria Registration Place Victoria Registration Year 1855 Registration Number 2765

Brandy for the clerk

25 Friday Oct 2019

Posted by in Castlemaine, Champion de Crespigny, court case, crime, GSV, Trove

≈ 2 Comments

From time to time I look over various online resources for my family tree to see if anything interesting has been added. Recently I went back to the Genealogical Index of Names, an eclectic database of personal names from material in the Genealogical Society of Victoria library and elsewhere.

Among the 103 items for the name Crespigny I noticed:

CRESPIGNY, P C (CASTLEMAINE). Castlemaine, Victoria Court records 09 JUN 1853 PETER ROBINSON CASE; Offence: STOLEN BOTTLE BRANDY; Status: victim

The more detailed record has:

CRESPIGNY, P C (CASTLEMAINE)
Event Court records
Date 09 JUN 1853
Place: Castlemaine, Victoria
Source: Victorian ‘Argus’ court reports 1851-1856 [Includes victims, witnesses,
jurors and accused]
Author/compiler: Button, Marion.
Comment: PETER ROBINSON CASE; Offence: STOLEN BOTTLE BRANDY; Status: victim

P.C. (Philip Champion) Crespigny was my great grandfather. I hadn’t noticed this incident before.

There was a report of the theft in the digitised newspapers that can be retrieved through Trove, but the text-recognition software had done a poor job of transcribing the faint image of the newspaper. The extracted text was quite garbled; no wonder I hadn’t seen it when I’d searched on Trove before for ‘Crespigny’.

The incident gives me a little bit more information about Philip Crespigny’s life on the goldfields. To be living in a tent probably means that his wife and children were not with him at that time and had stayed behind in Melbourne.

Crespigny Castlemaine larceny 1853

Crespigny Castlemaine larceny 1853 b

NORTHERN COURT OF GENERAL QUARTER SESSIONS. (1853, June 9). The Argus (Melbourne, Vic. : 1848 – 1957), p. 5. Retrieved from http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article4793362

 

Peter Robinson, accused of stealing the brandy, was tent-keeper to Mr Crespigny, resident Gold Commissioner. He was found not guilty.

Philip Champion Crespigny was appointed Assistant Commissioner of Crown Lands for the Gold Fields on 18 November 1852 (Gazetted 14 October 1853). When gold was discovered in great quantity in the colony, the governments of New South Wales and then Victoria followed British law at and asserted the right of the Crown to all gold that was found, requiring anyone who sought to mine it must hold a licence. Commissioners and Assistant Commissioners were appointed to administer each new field, to adjudicate disputes and, most important, to collect payments for the licences.

Crespigny license February 1853 Loddon

License no. 144. Issued to George Bencraft, 05 February 1853. Issued by Commissioner P. C. Crespigny. State Library of Victoria Collection (H41033/19)

nla.obj-135588436-1

Mt. Alexander gold diggings, 1853 watercolour by William Bentley in the collection of the National Library of Australia retrieved from from http://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-135588436 [Mt Alexander diggings were at Castlemaine]

Related posts

T is for twins

23 Tuesday Apr 2019

Posted by in A to Z 2019, court case, Kinnaird, Scotland

≈ 3 Comments

My sixth great grandfather Charles Kinnaird (1723 – 1767) was a Scottish peer, the sixth Lord Kinnaird.

Sir George Kinnaird of Inchture, 1st Lord Kinnaird, knighted by Charles II in 1661, was a steady loyalist during the civil wars. He represented the county of Perth in the Scots parliament, and was sworn a Privy Councillor. On 28th December 1682 he was raised to the Peerage of Scotland, with the title of Lord Kinnaird of Inchture, ‘with limitation to the heirs male of his body’. George Kinnaird had six sons.

Kinnaird tree

tree showing the first six Barons Kinnaird

 

Charles, the 5th Lord Kinnaird, was the grandson of the 1st Lord. In 1728 he succeeded to the title when his nephew died without issue. The 5th Lord married Magdalene Brown at Edinburgh in about 1729.

The 5th Lord and his wife had no children, but in September 1747, about eighteen years after their marriage, Lady Kinnaird left her home, went to an undisclosed destination, and two days later it was announced she had given birth to twins. She was said to have shown no signs of pregnancy.

It was also reported that Lady Kinnaird intensely disliked her cousin Charles Kinnaird (1723 – 1767), who was due to inherit the title. She is said to have declared that “she would be content to go to hell or do anything rather than he should inherit.”

Charles Kinnaird took the matter to the Commissary Court, a Scottish court with jurisdiction in matters of marriage, divorce, and bastardy. He asked for proof of delivery and a physical examination of Lady Kinnaird. Lord and Lady Kinnaird were summoned to court in December 1847 but they refused to give evidence or produce the twins. Shortly afterwards Lord Kinnaird declared that the twins were dead and the case was closed.

On 1 July 1748 the Commisaries decerned, that is decreed by judicial sentence, Lord Kinnaird to make payment to Mr Kinnaird of the sum of 600 pounds sterling for not appearing personally in court. [In 2018 according to measuringworth.com, the relative value of £600 from 1748 ranges from £88,010 to £12,830,000].

The fifth Lord died ten years later and his first cousin once removed, my sixth great grandfather, inherited the title.

Related post

  • Jacobites in skirts: My sixth great grandfather, Charles Kinnaird (1723-1767) was imprisoned during the rebellion. In November 1745 Kinnaird was committed to prison by the solicitor of His Majesty George II for holding treasonable correspondence with the Highlanders at Carlisle, but was released a few weeks later on 19 December 1745. He is described in family stories as having “eaten his commission in prison”, destroying in this way the documents and correspondence he was carrying.

Sources

A natural conclusion

02 Tuesday Oct 2018

Posted by in Chauncy, court case, probate, will

≈ 2 Comments

In a memoir of his sister Theresa Poole formerly Walker nee Chauncy (1807 – 1876), Philip Lamothe Snell Chauncy (1816 – 1880), who was my third great grandfather, wrote:

[Her grandfather] William Snell Chauncy was the proprietor of the Winkfield Estate in Berkshire, where he resided for many years ; he was also possessed of slave estates in Antigua and St. Kitts, in the West Indies, of house property in Sackville Street, Dublin, and of considerable funded property.

Her father was his only son, born in London, on the 14th August, 1781, and died at Leamington on 1st August, 1845.

In giving this information, however, Philip Chauncy neglects to mention that his and Therese’s father was illegitimate, the natural son of William Snell-Chauncy (1756-1829).

Here was the explanation for something that had puzzled me: why had published pedigrees of my Chauncey forebears failed to include Philip Chauncy’s father William (1781-1845)?

On 14 August 1781 William Brown, the son of Eunice Brown and William Snell-Chauncy, was born in London.

Eunice (1753 – 1836) was the daughter of Captain Robert Brown (1713 – 1769) and his wife Margaret Brown nee Cosnahan (1718 – 1769). The Brown family was from the Isle of Man. Eunice was the seventh of nine children. William Brown was brought up on the Isle of Man by his mother’s family, with financial support from his father.

On 6 June 1783 William Snell-Chauncy married Sarah Toulmin (1757 – 1834). William and Sarah had two daughters, Sarah (1786 – 1841) and Catharine (1788 – 1858). William Snell-Chauncy and his wife Sarah separated in 1789. The Deed of Separation, issued in 1789, stipulated that William should not have the management of his two daughters.

Philip Chauncy’s father, William, married Rose Therese Lamothe on 5 May 1804 at Malew on the Isle of Man. Marriage records give his name as William Snell Chauncy; it appears William had adopted his father’s name. William’s children were all known by the surname Chauncy.

Philip wrote that his sister Theresa was “sent on a visit to my grandfather at Wingfield, where she rendered us good service by watching and partially defeating the intrigues of another branch of the family who were using every exertion to obtain an undue share of property from my grandfather in his old age. I think Theresa must have been at Wingfield for several years”. This would have been in the late 1820s.

William Snell-Chauncy died in 1829. In his will he named his son as William Brown, later referring to his “natural son William Brown”. The children of William Brown were also provided for, as was Eunice Brown, William’s mother. Only after providing for the Browns does William’s will turn to his daughters Sarah and Catharine. He made no provision for his wife Sarah, stating he had provided for her in his lifetime.

In 1831 William Snell-Chauncy’s daughter Mrs Catherine Snell Burke challenged the legal validity of the will and its codicil on the grounds of insanity of the testator. One of the executors was a man called Robert Westwood; the case was named ‘Westwood against Burke and Others’. The challenge was put forward in June 1831 and the case came to court in November and December 1831. The bulk of William Snell-Chauncy’s estate of £25,000 had been left to his natural son.

Martha and Theresa Brown [sic], Philip Chauncy’s sisters, were noted as having lived with the deceased, their grandfather. The court heard evidence alleging that William Snell-Chauncy’s behaviour had been childish, that he was a habitual drunkard, and that he had conducted himself in an insane and irrational manner. It was also alleged that the signature on the will was not in his hand-writing. The counter allegations were that the deceased, though eccentric, was not of unsound mind; he had conducted his own affairs, had received and paid money, played at cards, spoke French; that he was charitable and benevolent; and that he entertained great regard for his natural son and his family.

On 19 December 1831 The Times reported the proceedings of the Prerogative Court for December 17. The King’s Advocate on behalf of the executors observed that the party opposing the will was really Captain Burke on behalf of his wife and her unmarried sister and that Captain Burke’s difficulty with the will was not that the testator was incapable of making a will but only a will more in favour of the legitimate children. The King’s Advocate noted that previous wills made by William Snell-Chauncy in 1799, 1816 and 1820 had all provided for his natural son. Given that the 1789 deed of separation from his wife had stipulated he should not have the management of his two daughters, it followed that there was less intimacy with his legitimate family. But he had had constant interaction with his natural son and his family.

Dr Lushington on behalf of Captain Burke stated that in the course of evidence there were “charges brought against the Misses Brown [Theresa and Martha Chauncy] [which] were not a substantial part of the case, but solely with the view of discrediting the testimony of a witness.”

John_Nicholl_Owen

Portrait of Sir John Nicholl (1759-1838), Welsh politician and judge. Artist William Owen Collections of St John’s College, University of Oxford Retrieved from https://artuk.org/discover/artworks/sir-john-nicholl-223355

The Times of 5 January 1832 reported the decision of Sir John Nicholl, judge of the Prerogative Court of Canterbury. More than 50 witnesses had been examined and there were depositions from more than 100 witnesses. There was a larger body of evidence on the case than in any case of the records of the Court. Nicholl found that no act of insanity had been proved and that the whole conduct and history of the testator naturally led to the conclusion of the probability of the dispositions in the will. The judge

“referred particularly to the charges alleged against the Misses Brown, in an interrogatory address to a witness named Gould, and which he had positively denied. Where, he asked, was the necessity of attacking the character of these two young women? It was an act of justice to them that the Court should declare thus publicly, that the character of these young women had been attacked without any just cause, and that the single witness by whom the charge had been attempted to be supported, was unworthy of any sort of credit whatever.”

Mr and Mrs Burke were condemned to all costs as it was deemed unfair that the estate should bear any of the costs.

From the judge’s summing up it appears that Martha had most certainly earned the comment from her brother that “…she rendered us good service by watching and partially defeating the intrigues of another branch of the family who were using every exertion to obtain an undue share of property from my grandfather in his old age”.

Sources

  • Philip Lamothe Snell Chauncy (1816 – 1880) wrote a memoir of his sister Mrs Poole, Theresa Poole formerly Walker nee Chauncy (1807 – 1876). It was first published in 1873 as Memoir of the late Mrs G.H. Poole by her brother. It was republished in 1976 together with a memoir of Philip’s second wife as Memoirs of Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Chauncy.
  • Tucker, Stephen, 1835-1887. Pedigree of the Family of Chauncy. Special private reprint, with additions. London: Mitchell and Hughes, 1884. Viewed online at https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=wu.89062913470 [see printed page 10]
  • Will of William Snell Chauncy Esquire probated 26 March 1832 PCC  Class: PROB 11; Piece: 1795
  • “Prerogative Court, Tuesday, Nov. 15.” Times [London, England] 16 Nov. 1831: 4. The Times Digital Archive. Web. 30 Sept. 2018.
  • “Prerogative Court, Saturday, Dec. 17.” Times [London, England] 19 Dec. 1831: 7. The Times Digital Archive. Web. 30 Sept. 2018.
  • “Prerogative Court, Wednesday, Jan. 4.” Times [London, England] 5 Jan. 1832: 4. The Times Digital Archive. Web. 30 Sept. 2018.

Related links

  • The Gazette (London Gazette) Publication date: 12 December 1780 Issue: 12144 Page: 4 William Snell, later William Snell-Chauncy, was born in 1756 at Wingfield, Berkshire to William Snell (1716 – 1779) and Martha Snell nee Chauncy (1720 – 1765). Martha was the daughter of Charles Chauncy (1673 – 1763). In his will, Charles Chauncy specified that his grandson William Snell should take on the name Chauncy when he was twenty four years old and that he should quarter Charles Chauncy’s coat of arms with his own. Charles Chauncy’s three sons had no male issue and William Snell was the oldest of Charles Chauncy’s three grandsons by his daughter Martha. William Snell of Edmonton was granted license in accordance with the will of his late grandfather Charles Chauncy late of Newington to add Chauncy to his name in December 1780.
    • Will of Charles Chauncy probated 28 February 1763 : The National Archives; Kew, England; Prerogative Court of Canterbury and Related Probate Jurisdictions: Will Registers; Class: PROB 11; Piece: 884
  • ‘William Snell Chauncy ne Snell’, Legacies of British Slave-ownership database, http://wwwdepts-live.ucl.ac.uk/lbs/person/view/2146645369 [accessed 1st October 2018].
  • From MeasuringWorth.com
    • In 2017, the relative price worth of £25000 0s 0d from 1831 is:
      • £2,160,000.00 using the retail price index
      • £2,450,000.00 using the GDP deflator
    • In 2017, the relative wage or income worth of £25000 0s 0d from 1831 is:
      • £20,200,000.00 using the average earnings
      • £30,900,000.00 using the per capita GDP
    • In 2017, the relative output worth of £25000 0s 0d from 1831 is:
      • £114,000,000.00 using the GDP
  • UK National Archives: it seems the court records are available: Reference: PROB 37/883 Description: Westwood v Burke and others Testator or intestate: Chauncy, William Snell formerly of Bishopsgate Common, Surrey; afterwards of Windlesham, Surrey; late of Winkfield, Berks.; esq. Date: 1830-1832 Held by: The National Archives, Kew

Related post

J is for jail: Bankruptcy of William Pulteney Dana

13 Thursday Apr 2017

Posted by in A to Z 2017, bankruptcy, court case, Dana, prison, Shropshire

≈ 4 Comments

 

Shrewsbury Prison1
Shrewsbury Prison main entrance. Image from Wikipedia

William Pulteney Dana (1776-1861), my fourth great grandfather, was gaoled for bankruptcy in 1840. The London Gazette of the period reported insolvency notices. There are several about William Dana:

 
(On their own Petitions.)
Recorded in The Gazette (London Gazette), Publication date: 18 August 1840 Issue: 19885 Pages: 1921-2 retrieved from https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/19885/page/1922
Shrewsbury Prison is also known as the Dana. The name comes from the name of the road to one side of the prison and the pedestrian route that runs from near the front of the prison into the town centre. It was named after the Reverend Edmund Dana (1739-1823), William’s father.  A website on ShrewsburyLocal History explains:

The Dana is one of the more intriguing Shrewsbury place names, especially for visitors! It starts as a walkway from Castle Street, continues round the Castle and across the railway, and then becomes a street skirting the Prison until it merges with Victoria Street. The Dana (pronounced ‘Danner’, not ‘Darner’) is named after Rev Edmund Dana (1739-1823), who was Vicar of Wroxeter, Eaton Constantine, Harley and Aston Botterell, all apparently at the same time! He did not live in any of these places, however, but in Castle Gates House, the black and white house near the Castle entrance. He had a reputation for being a very eccentric character, but he was a magistrate and also a Trustee of the body responsible for the upkeep of the town’s streets. Hence his interest in improving the rough path that wound around the Castle. How he himself got to be there is also a convoluted path!

In December 1840, a few months after his incarceration, William Dana was out of prison and living in lodgings, still on half-pay from the army, and now running a printing business.

 
Recorded in The Gazette (London Gazette), Publication date: 13 November 1840 Issue: 19913 Pages: 2558-9 retrieved from https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/19913/page/2558
Some months later his case was adjourned.

 

Recorded in The Gazette (London Gazette), Publication date: 5 March 1841 Issue: 19958 Pages: 627-8retrieved from https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/19958/page/628

I have found no further mention of Dana’s bankruptcy in the newspapers. I assume William Dana discharged his debts or made some accommodation with his creditors. However, it seems that Dana’s finances never recovered, for at the time of the 1851 and 1861 censuses, he was living with his married daughter and her husband in a terrace house on Holywell Terrace in Shrewsbury. This was quite different from his previous address of Roughton Hall, a 3 story brick mansion near Worfield, Shropshire.

Bankruptcy featured a lot in Victorian literature, and of course Charles Dickens‘s character of Mr Micawber in David Copperfield immediately springs to mind. (We Australians are pleased to note that Dickens has Micawber emigrate to Victoria, where he becomes a bank manager and magistrate.) Micawber was probably modeled at least in part on Dickens’s father, John Dickens, who in 1824 was imprisoned for debt under the Insolvent Debtors Act of 1813. It wasn’t until 1869 that debtors no longer went to prison.

Daniel Poole’s ‘What Jane Austen ate and Charles Dickens knew‘ is fascinating on the subject of Victorian bankruptcy, debt and money lending.

Pool, Daniel What Jane Austen ate and Charles Dickens knew : fascinating facts of daily life in the nineteenth century. Robinson, London, 1998.

J for ‘jail’ or G for ‘gaol’? Both are acceptable English. ‘Gaol’ is the older term but ‘jail’ dominates modern English usage. Current Australian English favours ‘jail’.
I first wrote on William Dana and his bankruptcy for the Worldwide Genealogy Blog in 2014: http://worldwidegenealogy.blogspot.com.au/2014/05/bankruptcy-in-england-in-early.html

Further reading

For a brief history of insolvency law in England the Wikipedia article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_insolvency_law#History is useful.

Jail or gaol:

Poor little chap

23 Monday May 2016

Posted by in court case, DNA, Geelong, orphanage, Sullivan, ward of the state

≈ 11 Comments

So far in my family history research I have not used DNA testing. Document-based methods give me more than enough to go on with.

However, today I decided to order Ancestry.com DNA kits to learn about DNA methods.  There are three brick walls in my husband’s family tree that perhaps DNA might get me past:

  • Henry Sullivan (1862-1943), a great grandfather of my husband, was admitted as a state ward in Geelong in 1866 about the age of four. His parents had deserted him.
  • George Young (1826-1890), from Liverpool, a great great grandfather of my husband,  provided no information about his parents.
  • Caroline Clarke (1835-1879), wife of George Young and a great great grandmother of my husband,  was not specific about her birth and I have been unable to trace her parents, perhaps John Clark(e) and Hannah Sline. She said she was born about 1835  in Tumut. But she also said she was born in Sydney.  I’ve got nowhere with this.

Having ordered the kits I thought I might look again at these brick walls. More newspapers and other records have been digitised since I last looked. I thought there might be more material.

I didn’t get any further with the Young and Clark puzzles. However, I think I have made some progress with Henry Sullivan. The story I have found seems plausible, and more information may turn up, but a DNA link would be very useful to confirm my guesses.

Henry Sullivan at his house, “Navillus”, in Bentleigh, Victoria with his wife Anne Sullivan née Morley (1861-1946) and daughter-in-law Florence Sullivan née Hickson (1898-1983) and grandaughter Elaine Sullivan later Priest (1933-1987). Photo from Elaine’s daughter.

Henry Sullivan (1862 – 1943) was committed as a State Ward in Geelong on 11 June 1866 for seven years. He was said to be a native of Victoria. He was a neglected child. At the time of his committal, both his parents were said to be living but he had been deserted. His parents’ names were not given on the Ward Register. He had lost the sight of his right eye. Family stories say he was struck by a magpie. We have not been able to find a birth certificate.

Sullivan Henry VPRS 4527 OS 1 no 1768.
VPRS 4527 Ward Registers [1864 – c.1890] are records of children in State care. Records held by the Public Records Office Victoria.(click on image to enlarge it)

In 1873, when the first seven year committal period expired, Henry, aged 11, was recommitted. At the time of his recommittal it was again stated that both parents were living and that they had deserted him in June 1866.

Sullivan Henry VPRS 4527 OS 8 no 7003

I had earlier looked, without success, for records of court cases in Geelong in June 1866 to find reports of Henry Sullivan being committed as a State Ward.

Today I reviewed newspaper reports from May 1866.

I found a report on 28 May 1866 of a Mary Sullivan appearing before the Central Police Court in Geelong on Friday 25 May accused of stealing. (CENTRAL POLICE COURT. (1866, May 28). Geelong Advertiser (Vic. : 1859 – 1926), p. 3. Retrieved from http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article147269389 )

Mary Sullivan was unmarried. She had three children of her own and one left in her care to support. The magistrate took into consideration ‘the position of the unfortunate children’, and Mary was given a mitigated sentence of 14 days imprisonment.  An old woman told the court that she lived in the same house as Mary Sullivan and was left in charge of the children and the ‘little one’ who had been abandoned by another woman named Sullivan.  The newspaper stated that ‘The decrepit and indiscreet creature walked off with the child clinging to her.’

I think that small child was Henry Sullivan.  Fourteen days after Mary’s appearance in court on 25 May was about the 8th of June. I suspect that when Mary Sullivan was released from gaol she decided she could not cope with an extra child not her own.

On the 15th May 1866 there had been another report of a child and a young woman called Sullivan.

The attention of the Bench was again called, yesterday, to the case of the young child left in the care of a woman named Sullivan, who now seeks to shift the responsibility she undertook to Mr Hughes, the stepfather of the mother. Mr Hughes appeared in the Court and refused the charge of the child, who, he said, had been placed collusively by the mother with the woman, with a foregone intent to abandon it. He had undertaken the care and education of an elder child to save his step daughter from shame; but her subsequent career had been of a nature to preclude any further favourable consideration of her conduct. She had been twice married, and her husband had left her, and was supposed to have gone to New Zealand, whence no tidings were heard of him, and she had recently left Geelong with some man with whom she had formed an intimacy, and had deserted her children, leaving the one in question with the woman Sullivan, who had been pre paid for its keep for a fortnight, at the end of which time it was planned that the child should be left with the stepfather, a scheme that was defeated by Constable Collins, who saw the woman depositing the child at the stepfather’s premises, and warned her of the consequences of the act. The Bench refused the application of the woman Sullivan, who avows that she will not keep the child any longer.  A warrant will be issued for the apprehension of the mother, who, it will be remembered, was the parent of the infant upon, whom an inquest was held at Ashby some time ago. (CURRENT TOPICS. (1866, May 15). Geelong Advertiser (Vic. : 1859 – 1926), , p. 2. Retrieved from http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article147269067 )

I think in the court case this child is the ‘little one’ and the woman Sullivan is the Mary Sullivan who, less than two weeks later, was found guilty of stealing. There were two clues to follow up. The step-father of the mother was surnamed Hughes and the mother of the child was the parent of the infant upon whom an inquest was held at Ashby some time previously.

I had some trouble finding the inquest. I dashed down to the library to look at the index of inquests. The surname Sullivan produced nothing likely and inquests held at Ashby also didn’t seem to produce anything. I returned to searching the newspapers.  Deaths of infants and consequent inquests were unfortunately quite common.

I found an inquest in November 1865 where the grandmother was Mrs Hughes.  I believe this is the inquest to which the Geelong Advertiser of 15 May 1866 referrs.

Margaret Maria Sullivan aged six months starved to death. She was in the care of her grandmother Matilda Priscilla Hughes, the wife of David Hughes. The parents were William Sullivan and Matilda Frances Sullivan.  The Geelong Advertiser of 23 November 1865 reported the surnames as Sutherland but the Mount Alexander Mail of 24 November 1865 gave the surname as Sullivan. The birth and death indexes confirm that the surname was indeed Sullivan.

In her evidence Matilda Frances Sullivan stated

The mother of the child, Matilda Frances Sullivan, who was in service twelve miles from town at the time, was examined, and admitted having had an illegitimate child before marriage, three years ago. Her husband left her six months after marriage, and she had had another child beside the deceased since then. She swore that her husband visited her twice during that period at her mother’s house, and that deceased was his child. She paid to have her first child taken care of in the country ; the other two she left with her mother. (CHILD KILLING. (1865, November 24). Mount Alexander Mail (Vic. : 1854 – 1917),p. 3. Retrieved from http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article197091398 )

The Geelong Advertiser reported the mother’s evidence:

Matilda Frances Sutherland, wife of William Sutherland, sworn – I do not know what my husband is. The deceased child is mine. I was married on the 6th October, I think, as near as I can remember, 1862, by the Rev Mr Appleby, at Herne Hill. I cannot tell when my husband left me. I have seen him twice since he went away first. The first time he left was about six month after the marriage. Do not know when I saw him again, or how long we lived together. I do not know how long he was with me on either occasion. On my oath, the child is my husband’s. The child is not a love child. I do not know the reason why my husband left me six months ago. I had a child before I was married. He knew before marriage that I had the child. I have two children beside the child. The one born before marriage is four years old. When my husband came back is more than I can tell you. I saw him only on two occasions. My first child was born in July 1862. I have not seen my husband during this year 1865. Saw him last year on the two occasions I allude to. The deceased child was born on June 12th, and is six months old. Made no effort to find my husband I suppose he knows that the child is born. I can’t as I do not know where he is, nor anybody that does. He has given me no support whilst he has been away, and I get my living by going out to service. My mother supports one child and I the other, for which I pay L1 a month. Gave nothing toward the support of the deceased child. (CURRENT TOPICS. (1866, May 15). Geelong Advertiser (Vic. : 1859 – 1926), p. 2. Retrieved  from http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article147269067 )

The grandmother’s evidence was also detailed in the Geelong Advertiser:

Matilda Priscilla Hughes, wife of David Hughes – I took the deceased child when she was born, in Autumn street, on the 12th June. ‘My daughter has three children, one at nurse in the country, for which she pays 5s a week, and the other I keep as well as the deceased child. The elder boy is five years old. The second one is going in two years and the third is six months old. It was delicate from birth, and was fed from the bottle with farinaceous food. I waited on you (the coroner) on Thursday, and said I came to show you the baby. You told me I ought to get a wet-nurse. I did not say to you “I want you to see the child in case any thing should happen afterwards.” On Monday I sent the undertaker for a certificate from you of the death of the child. I don’t know the father of the child. My daughter’s husband has not been seen by either of us for some months before the birth of the boy who is three years old. … (Geelong Advertiser 15 May 1866 p. 3)

The jury returned a verdict of manslaughter against the grandmother, and also against the mother as an accessory to the child’s death.

The Victorian birth, marriage and death indexes confirm the evidence given at the inquest.

  • birth Eleazar Hughes, no father, mother Matilda Hughes. Registration 1861 / 8434 born CHERHAP (this is Gheringhap, a village at the junction of the Geelong-Ballarat (1858-62) and Geelong-Maroona (1913) (to Ararat) railways. There were large numbers of navvies and associated construction workers in the area during both those periods.).
  • marriage 1862 William Sullivan and Matilda Frances Hughes. Registration 1862 / 4376.
  • birth Ebenezer Henry Sullivan, father William, mother Matilda (Hughes) Registration 1863 / 14440 born GHER (again Gheringhap )
  • birth Margaret Maria Sullivan, father William, mother Matilda (Hughes). Registration 1865 / 8809 born ASHB, probably Ashby, a locality in Geelong West.
  • death Margaret Maria Sullivan, father William, mother Matilda Frances (Hughes). Registration 1865 / 8836. Place of death ASHB.

There seems to be no other record of Ebenezer Henry Sullivan in the Victorian Birth, Death and Marriage indexes..

Eleazar / Eleazer Hughes married in 1881, had children and died in 1949. There are a number of family trees on Ancestry.com which include him.

I believe, based on the coincidence of the court reports and the committal of the small child as a State Ward in 1866, that my husband’s great grandfather Henry Sullivan, was Ebenezer Henry Sullivan, the son of William Sullivan and Matilda Frances Hughes.

Should any descendants of Eleazer, Henry’s half-brother, be willing to help, DNA testing might be able to confirm this.

T is for trial for theft

22 Friday Apr 2016

Posted by in A to Z 2016, Champion de Crespigny, court case, crime

≈ 1 Comment

Court records from the Old Bailey give insights into criminals, crimes and the victims of crime. Nearly 200,000 trials from London’s central criminal court dating from 1674 to 1913 have been digitised. Three quarters of the cases are for theft.

Herbert Joseph Champion de Crespigny (1805-1881) was my second cousin five times removed, the second youngest child of Sir William and Lady Sarah Champion de Crespigny; younger brother of Augustus and Heaton, about whom I wrote recently.

Herbert was a lawyer, educated at Cambridge. In 1822 he was admitted to the Middle Temple, one of the four inns of court entitled to call their members to the English Bar as barristers. He was called to the bar in 1832.

In 1838 Herbert was driving his gig, a light two-wheeled spring carriage pulled by one horse, in Weymouth Street, London. This street links High Street, Marylebone, and Harley Street and Portland Place.

Herbert’s carriage overturned and Herbert broke his leg. He was carried into a nearby house. He alleged that during the incident one of his assistants stole a key and some money from him.

A gig, c 1815-1830 – a few years before Herbert’s journey along Weymouth Street.
Oil painting of a Stanhope gig carrying two well-dressed gentlemen, drawn by a white horse. Gigs were used by people who often needed to make short quick journeys with minimum fatigue to the horse. From Wikimedia Commons.

2313. WILLIAM LYONS was indicted for stealing, on the 7th of September, 1 key, value 3d.; 3 shillings, 1 sixpence, and 1 four-penny piece; the goods and monies of Herbert Joseph Champion de Crespigny, from his person.
HERBERT JOSEPH CHAMPION DE CRESPIGNY . I live at Ewell, in Surrey. On the 7th of September, I was driving my gig in Weymouth-street—my gig was overturned and I broke my leg in two places—I was carried on a shutter to a house, and when in the bed-room I saw the prisoner there—he helped to take off my things—I had a key and about three or four shillings in my waistcoat pocket—I looked very hard at the prisoner—he seemed to look as if I should know him—he wanted to take my pin out of my shirt—I would not let him—I asked if he was a tailor living near there who had done some things for me—he said he was—but he is not—he was taken for something else, and then my pockets were searched and this money was missed—there were two sixpences and a few-penny piece that I had marked, and this key of my writing desk—I had marked one sixpence and one fourpence, the other sixpence I had not marked, but I can swear to it.
ROBERT KEBRUNT . (police-constable D 56.) The prisoner was given to me—I found on him a sovereign and several shillings, sixpences, and four pence—I found these that are identified, and the key—he was taken on another charge.
Prisoner. I had been out drinking, and assisted to take the gentleman to the house—I did not know what I had about me then, but I did the next day—I said I had been taking various small change—I am a glove-cleaner—I picked up the diamond pin belonging to the gentleman, and gave it him—I was very much intoxicated when I was taken. Witness. He was drunk.
GUILTY . Aged 25.— Confined Six Months. (from Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 7.2, 21 April 2016), October 1838, trial of WILLIAM LYONS (t18381022-2313).)

The coins, 3 shillings, 1 sixpence, and 1 four-penny piece [a groat], seem small in value. Using a measuring worth calculator, in 2014, the relative value of £0 3s 10d from 1838lies between £15.44 to £641.90. The “real price” of the value of the coins is £15.44, obtained by multiplying £0.19 by the percentage increase in an index of the average cost of things a household buys from 1838 to 2014.The economic power value of those coins in income or wealth is calculated as £641.90 ($AUD1187). The economic power value calculation is based on the value relative to the total economy.

The theft of a key and $1,000 would not result in imprisonment for six months in the present day.

Related posts

P is for Plymouth’s peccancy protection payment provocation

18 Monday Apr 2016

Posted by in A to Z 2016, Champion de Crespigny, court case, crime

≈ 1 Comment

At N is for nuptials in Norwich I wrote about Heaton Champion de Crespigny (1796-1858), my second cousin five times removed.

Heaton’s mother, Lady Sarah Champion de Crespigny née Windsor, was the daughter of the 4th Earl of Plymouth, sister to the 5th Earl, and aunt to the 6th Earl. Heaton was thus a cousin to Other Windsor, 6th Earl of Plymouth (1789-1833).

Other Archer Windsor (1789–1833), 6th Earl of Plymouth. Portrait at Kelmarsh Hall. Image from http://artuk.org/discover/artworks/other-archer-windsor-17891833-6th-earl-of-plymouth-49153

In early October 1828 the Bath Chronicle reported that Heaton de Crespigny had fled to Paris to avoid being called as a witness against his former friend in the court case initiated by Heaton’s father, Sir William de Crespigny. I have previously written about the court case and the duel fought by Heaton.

Bath Chronicle and Weekly Gazette 2 October 1828 page 2 from FindMyPast.com.au

Image (and subsequent newspaper images) reproduced with kind permission of The British Newspaper Archive (www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk)

© THE BRITISH LIBRARY BOARD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

It seems he was still in Paris through November 1828.

Salisbury and Winchester Journal 1 December 1828 page 2 retrieved through FindMyPast.com.au

Though the court case was still underway, it seems that in early December Heaton returned from Paris. On 10 December 1828 Heaton was committed for trial in Melton Mowbray for attempting to defraud the Earl of Plymouth.

From the Morning Chronicle of 12 December 1828, page 3:

Newspapers across England reported on the bizarre case. It was suggested that Heaton was in a state of derangement when he composed the letter to his cousin.

Evening Mail 15 December 1828 page 4 from FindMyPast.com.au

London Courier and Evening Gazette 18 December 1828 page 3 from http://search.findmypast.com.au

The story of Heaton’s arrest was revised later in December.

Hampshire Advertiser 20 December 1828 page 1 from FindMyPast.com.au

The next assizes were not due to be held until the following March. However, Heaton’s friends and family managed to have him moved from Leicester to London.

London Courier and Evening Gazette 22 December 1828 page 3 from FindMyPast.com.au

Heaton was granted bail in London and then taken to a lunatic asylum by his friends.

Bury and Norwich Post 31 December 1828 page 4 from FindMyPast.com.au

The Earl of Plymouth agreed to drop the charges against him if Heaton left England.

Royal Cornwall Gazette 3 January 1829 page 2 from FindMyPast.com.au

At the Leicester Assizes in August the case was finally dropped.

Evening Mail 17 August 1829 page 2 from FindMypast.com.au

During 1829 Heaton’s name was not out of the news, for the case between his father and Mr Long Wellesley still continued.

Related posts

Q is for quarrelling including a duel

18 Friday Apr 2014

Posted by in A to Z 2014, Champion de Crespigny, court case

≈ 1 Comment

Heaton Champion de Crespigny (1796-1858) was my second cousin five times removed. He was the son of Sir William Champion de Crespigny (1765-1829), the second baronet, (who accused his coachman of stealing his harness).

1n 1828 Heaton fought a duel in Calais. Briefly Mr Long Wellesley  (1788-1857) accused Sir William de Crespigny of intimacy with  Miss E Long, the sister of Mr Long Wellesley’s late wife. Long Wellesley believed the accusations had been confirmed by Heaton de Crespigny. Heaton later retracted the confirmation. A duel was fought. The matter later went to court which found against Long Wellesley. 

William Pole-Tylney-Long-Wellesley, 4th Earl of Mornington, drawing about 1812. From Wikimedia Commons
Drawing of the Hon. William Pole Tylney Long Wellesley
Reverend Heaton Champion_de_Crespigny (1796–1858) by Philip August Gaugain Oil on canvas, 73 x 62 cm Collection: Kelmarsh Hall URL http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/yourpaintings/paintings/reverend-heaton-champion-de-crespigny-17961858-49124 

William Pole-Tylney-Long-Wellesley, 4th Earl of Mornington, is described in the History of Parliament as “surely one of the most odious men ever to sit in Parliament”. His obituary notice in the Morning Chronicle claimed that he was redeemed by no single virtue, adorned by no single grace. He was from a distinguished family. One uncle was Governor-General of India, another was the 1st Duke of Wellington. In 1812 he married Catherine Tylney-Long, a very wealthy heiress, believed to be the richest commoner in England at the time. At the time of the marriage William changed his surname to acknowledge his wife’s surname. Catherine died in 1825 and William sought custody of his children (and through them access to his late wife’s wealth). William was a notorious rake and was cited as co-respondent in a divorce case for adultery. Before her death Catherine was planning to divorce him and had entrusted her children to the care of her unmarried sisters. The matter went to Chancery court. William’s uncle, the Duke of Wellington, intervened to keep the children out of William’s custody.

In the course of the proceedings in the Chanceery court, Long-Wellesley attempted to show that his late wife’s sisters were not suitable guardians for his children. He wrote a letter, published in The Sunday Times, asserting that Sir William de Crespigny and Emma Long, one of the sisters, had been intimate. (I have not found a copy of the original letter.)  Long-Wellesley asserted that Heaton de Crespigny, Sir William’s son, had confirmed the story. While Heaton at first appeared to have confirmed the story, he later spoke to his father, and then retracted the confirmation.  He then requested Wellesley to retract his assertions. Otherwise he insisted on immediate satisfaction.

Wellesley and de Crespigny fought a pistol duel in June 1828 in Calais. They both fired, missed, and withdrew.

Extract  from “Duel Between Mr. L. Wellesley And Mr. De Crespigny.” Times [London, England] 30 June 1828: 7. The Times Digital Archive. Web. 17 Apr. 2014.

 Duelling was against the law, hence the duel had to move to France once the police became involved.

This is another account of the duel:

from Wellington’s Voice: The Candid Letters of Lieutenant Colonel John Fremantle, Coldstream Guards, 1808-1821 (Google eBook retrieved from http://books.google.com.au/books?id=pGIh9k2VPIgC&pg=PT412)


 In 1829 Heaton’s father, Sir William de Crespigny, sued William Long-Wellesley for libel. It was found that 

in an action for a libel, it is no plea, that the defendant had the libellous statement from another, and upon publication disclosed the author’s name. 

Sir William de Crespigny was awarded one thousand pounds in damages, the equivalent of around one million pounds in today’s money or two million dollars.

———-
References : 

O is for Old Bailey records

16 Wednesday Apr 2014

Posted by in A to Z 2014, Champion de Crespigny, court case, crime, genealogical records

≈ 1 Comment

I have written once before about the proceedings of the Old Bailey, London’s Central Criminal Court, which are online at oldbaileyonline.org in a useful searchable format.

In my previous blog entry, at http://ayfamilyhistory.blogspot.com.au/2013/08/george-bowyer-transported-for.html, I wrote about the theft of a pocket handkerchief from my fifth great uncle, Claude Crespigny. The thief was transported as a convict to Australia, which seems a very harsh punishment for a minor theft. It appears he did not survive the voyage.

In 1789 Claude Crespigny’s son, William (1765-1829), accused his former coachman, William Hayward, of stealing some used harness from him. (Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 7.0, 15 April 2014), January 1790, trial of WILLIAM HAYWARD (t17900113-104).)

The Old Bailey Sessions House by John Ellis, 1790. Image from http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/static/The-old-bailey.jsp

William Crespigny had dismissed his coachman and then travelled from London to his country house in Berkshire. Some weeks later he sent to his coach house in Little Portland Mews in London for the harness. The harness did not come. The harness, which had William’s crest on it, was probably about two or three months old.

The question in the trial was what arrangement he had made with his coachman.

When this coachman was engaged, did you make a bargain with him? – I did of course.

Does it happen to you, among the coachmen you have employed, to recollect the terms of that bargain? – Perfectly.

I will trouble you to state them: I believe at first he asked twenty six guineas? – I do not recollect.

This will be very important; I must trouble you to tax your recollection; I believe in the end, the standing wages agreed on, was twenty two guineas, together with other articles? – Yes.

One guinea for boots? – My memory does not serve me.

One guinea for breeches; does your memory serve you to that? – I cannot say.

Do you recollect whether he was to have the old wheels, in order to make up this sum? – I perfectly recollect he was not to have them; I never allowed either old wheels or old harnesses to any coachman; I do not remember that any thing was said about it.

Was any thing said about the old harness? – Nothing to my recollection; I can venture to say, to the best of my recollection, upon oath, that nothing was said; I mean to swear that if any thing was said, that I never agreed to it.

Explain to me what these articles were that were to make up the twenty-two guineas, to be twenty-six guineas? – I believe I gave him twenty-five guineas a year, to the best of my recollection; I do not keep such a very minute recollection.

I must not compliment away a man’s liberty? – I think it was twenty-five guineas a year.

Court. I understood you, the agreement was twenty-two guineas a year wages; what other agreement did you make besides? – I believe there were boots and breeches, and a number of et cetera’s which the coachmen generally have, but I will not say on my oath.

Mr. Garrow. Pray do not be in a hurry, Mr. Crespigny, the boots and breeches we know all the world over, are two guineas; and the old wheels, though they cost us eight pounds, sell for one? – I know nothing about the old wheels; I never made any agreement for them.

Did your former coachman account for the old wheels? – No, never: I believe they were the first wheels I had ever wore out.

The trial was a trial by jury. William Hayward was found not guilty. There seemed to be reasonable doubt as to whether Hayward was entitled to the old harness as a perquisite, as much his right as his wages. However, the court was at pains to point out that Hayward’s acquittal was not setting a precedent: “it is by no means to be understood that servants have a civil right to lay hold of the property of their masters and keep it as wages.”

William Crespigny’s memory issues are similar to those of Arthur Sinodinos at the recent ICAC hearings, represented in this cartoon about Arthur the bilby at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cartoon/2014/apr/07/australia-australian-politics?CMP=ema_632 .