PLACES Archives - Page 7 of 26

Persistent Cruelty

In 1901, Thomas Henry WHEELEY and Ann ROGERS had been married for 23 years and had had 8 children together. They were living on Dalkeith Street in Walsall – a row of terraced houses built alongside the Walsall Locks less than ten years before (in the early 1890s). Thomas was a ‘brown saddler’ living in “a poor locality” so life was probably not easy for the family.

Snippet of the 1901 census page — Thomas Henry Wheeley and Ann Rogers on the 1901 census

On Saturday the 20th May, 1905 – only a few years after the census was taken – the family had ‘a quarrel’. Thomas who had been out drinking, came home and argued with Ann, calling her names. Ann, in turn, threatened to throw a saucer at him and Thomas attacked her with a knife. Their 18-year-old son, George Alfred, seeing this take place, struggled with his father and was subsequently hit on the head with some tongs [Not sure if these would be saddler tongs or coal tongs or another type). Ann had managed to escape the house during the scuffle and discovered she had been cut on the wrist.

newspaper article — Walsall Advertiser 27 May 1905 p6 c7

BEER, AND A QUARREL.

A saddler named Thomas Wheeley (53), of 91, Dalkeith Street, was charged with unlawfully wounding Ann Wheeley, his wife, with a knife, and also with violently assaulting Alfred Wheeley, his son, by hitting him on the head with a pair of tongs. -The police authorities agreed to withdraw the charges, and substitute charges of common assault only. -The story for the prosecution was that on Saturday night the man Wheeley went home under the influence of drink, and a quarrel, arose. He called his wife a bad name, and she threatened to throw a saucer at him. During the quarrel she found that she had received a wound on the wrist, and went out of the house. -The son’s evidence was to the effect that he saw his father with a knife, and struggled with him. He succeeded in getting his mother out of the house, but while he was doing so he was struck on the head with the tongs. -Dr Mackenzie-in-Thurm (house surgeon at the hospital) said he attended to the woman’s injured wrist. There was only a small punctured wound. It was not serious. -The magistrates sentenced Wheeley to 14 days’ imprisonment. (Walsall Advertiser 27 May 1905 p6 c7)

I find it interesting that “the police authorities agreed to withdraw the charges, and substitute charges of common assault only”. Who requested the charges be withdrawn/substituted? Common assault is a lesser charge than ‘unlawfully wounding’ or ‘violently assaulting’ [source] and so appears to minimise Thomas’ actions. Was the switch to a lesser charge because: a) there was a lack of evidence of more serious injuries; b) prosecution were more likely to secure a conviction this way; or c) the general view that domestic violence was less serious?

Thomas’ two-week stint in prison for the assaults seemed to have little effect. A few weeks later, the couple were living at separate addresses – Thomas on Cannon Street and Ann at 481 Pleck Road – when Ann requested a separation order to support her and their four remaining dependent children – Sidney, Ernest, Grace Hilda and Maria (whose ages ranged from 14 to 7).

PERSISTENT CRUELTY.

Thomas Henry Wheeley, Cannon Street, was summoned for persistent cruelty to his wife, who applied for an order against him. -Complainant stated that she had been obliged to leave her husband because of his persistent cruelty. She had been married 29 years and had eight children, four of which were depending upon her. Her husband had assaulted her several times and was always threatening her. She had had seven pair of black eyes in less than three months. -The Chairman (to defendant): How many black eyes have you given her since you were married? -Two, that’s all sir. -An order for 10s a week was eventually made. (Walsall Advertiser 24 June 1905 p2 c5-6)

In 1895, the ‘Summary Jurisdiction (Married Women) Act’ was introduced. It allowed married women to apply to the magistrates’ courts for separation and maintenance orders if their husbands had:

i. been convicted of an aggravated assault under S.43 of the Offences Against The Persons Act 1861
ii been convicted on indictment for assault and sentenced to at least two months imprisonment or fined £5
iii. deserted them
iv. been guilty of persistent cruelty so as to make their wives leave home.
v. wilfully neglected to maintain so as to cause their wives to leave home.

(Radford, M. T. (1988) The law and domestic violence against women. PhD Thesis. University of Bradford. Available from: https://bradscholars.brad.ac.uk/handle/10454/3875 (Accessed: 13 May 2020), page 38)

Ann applied for an order of separation on the grounds of his persistent cruelty and subsequent articles definitely paint a picture of an unhappy marriage marred with ‘persistent cruelty’ and alcohol abuse.

image of coal hod for sale in 1904 — A coal hod for sale in 1904 – Thomas was witnessed to have struck his wife Ann with one.

Ann told the court that her husband had ‘never treated her kindly’ and that she had had ‘seven pair of black eyes in less than three months’. Thomas denied this and claimed he had ‘only’ given her two and struck her ‘no more than three times’. Ann also claimed that Thomas had hit her on the head with a coal hod – a claim supported by their 25 year old daughter, Blanche who witnessed the incident. Blanche also confirmed that her father had ‘frequently’ given her mother black eyes. However she also said that her mother had also ‘been under the influence of drink’ but this had not been for some time since “she has not had the money”.

SEVEN PAIRS OF BLACK EYES IN SIX MONTHS –

Thomas Wheeley, saddler, Cannon Street, was summoned by his wife, Ann Wheeley, of 481, Pleck Road, who sought to obtain a separation order on the ground of his persistent cruelty. -Complainant stated that she had been married 29 years, and of her eight children four were dependent upon her. Her husband, who was resently [sic] sent to prison for stabbing her in the wrist, had said that he had done 14 days, and he would yet do 14 years for her. He had never treated her kindly, and a few weeks ago he had struck her on the head with a coal hod. He had given her seven pairs of black eyes in less than six months. Since he came out of prison he had continually threatened what he would do to her. -She denied, in cross-examination by defendant that he had not struck her more than three times since they had been married. -In reply to a question from the Bench, defendant said he had only given his wife two black eyes, and she denied that she had been locked up for being drunk. -Blanche Marston, daughter, also spoke to her father’s ill-treatment of her mother, and said that he had frequently given her black eyes; she did not know how many. She saw him strike her with the coal hod. She admitted that her mother had been under the influence of drink, but not for some time. “She has not had the money,” she added, amid laughter. Since her father came back from gaol his language had been unbearable. -Complainant was re-called, and asked for 10s. a week. -An order was made for that amount. (Walsall Observer, and South Staffordshire Chronicle 24 June 1905 p2 c5)

Despite the 1895 act, it’s clear that domestic violence was still not regarded as seriously as it should. Thomas’ seemingly casual, or even blasé attitude regarding the violence he actually admits to inflicting on his wife indicates that beating your wife was largely seen as ‘fine’ depending on its regularity or severity. A woman’s options were very limited and there were many reasons a wife would remain with an abusive husband – whether financial, emotional or social.

For whatever reasons, Thomas and Ann were together again by the 1911 census.

Snippet of the 1911 census page — Wheeley family on the 1911 census (130 Bridgeman Street)

I was completely unaware of the events of 1905 until recently. Thomas and Ann appeared in every census together since their marriage in 1878 (1881-1911) so I didn’t expect there to have been such a rift. We like or want to believe that the families we research lived peacefully together despite their often difficult lives. My discovery of these newspaper articles reminded me this is often not the case.

The census is only a ‘snapshot’ every ten years – it’s important to remember this. A lot can happen between these ‘snapshots’. Just as living at the same address two censuses in a row doesn’t always mean they’d actually been there all that time, a family simply living together does not always mean their lives were harmonious all that time.

This family is also featured in Wheeley Interesting and Wheeley Interesting Sequel.

For Eva

Poor little Eva Rogers.

Not only did she die at just 3 years of age, but she was buried under the wrong name!

To be fair, this error is likely confined to the burial register – a slip up by the rector confusing the names of two sisters – but I can’t help but feel a little indignation for the wee lass.

Eva’s older sister, Ada Rogers was born in 1859 and was only 18 years old when she died in 1877.

Eva Rogers was born two years after her sister in 1861 and baptised in November at Newport, Shropshire, England.

As she was born and died between censuses, I only know of Eva’s existence due to trawling the Newport, Shropshire parish records on FindMyPast. But still, her burial did not appear in the burial records. However, there was a burial of ‘another’ Ada Rogers in 1865. I already knew Eva’s sister, Ada (who did appear on censuses) died in 1877 so who was this other Ada? At first I thought there was a transcription error but the record clearly showed ‘Ada Rogers’.

Burial of Eva Rogers (mistranscribed as Ada) 1865

Fortunately, Eva was registered under the correct name as can be seen in the GRO index.

The surname, death place and age at death match so I can surmise the rector simply had ‘a bit of a slip-up’ at the time of recording in the burial register. I feel glad that I was able to uncover the mistake and reestablish her place in the family tree.

Wheeley Interesting Sequel

I previously wrote about the brief marriage between William Henry Marston and Blanche Emma Wheeley in the post, Wheeley Interesting. I have just discovered that five years after their unhappy relationship broke down, there was a development…

Walsall Observer, and South Staffordshire Chronicle, 2 June 1906 , p3 c6

Basically, the amount of support Marston had to pay Blanche had been dropped to 7s.6d (approximately £29.46 in today’s money) [The wording makes it unclear whether this happened in July 1901 or July 1906]. However, Marston was now complaining that he shouldn’t have to pay support to his ex-wife at all, since she was living with another man.

…It was now alleged that defendant was living with Joseph Mellor in Moat Road. -Defendant did not appear, and Sergeant Haycock stated that when he served the summons she admitted in the presence of Mellor that she was co-habiting with him, and said she should not contest the case. -Mrs. Hargreaves, of Manor Road, sister of Mellor, stated that the latter and Mrs. Marston had been living together as man and wife for three or four months…

The new relationship may have come to his attention through Blanche being heavily pregnant with her eldest son, Joseph, who was born only a month after the article appeared. He and his brother, Charles appear with their parents on the 1911 census – still living in Moat Road, Walsall.

The Meller/Marston family on the 1911 census – 135 Moat Rd, Walsall

Blanche and Joseph had 4 children (one who died as an infant) before they were finally wed in 1913. These children were recorded under the surname Marston as that was still Blanche’s legal name, but the parentage was made clear by also including the name, Mellor. After their marriage, the couple had 4 more children, although one died when only a few months old. By 1939, all the children had dropped the ‘Marston’ from their name and used only ‘Mellor/Meller’.

Since divorce at that time was unlikely, and remarriage was illegal with a spouse still living, I presumed William must have died. He was still alive in 1911, living with his new ‘wife’ and son, Percival William Marston, but there was no death record before 1913.

William Henry Marston with his new family on the 1911 census – 49 Charlotte St, Walsall

William & Lizzie listed themselves as married on the 1911 census but there is no trace of a marriage between them. [Intriguingly, there is a marriage in 1911 of a ‘Percy W Marston’ to a ‘Lizzie Jackson’ in Southwell district, Nottinghamshire but an appropriate person with this name can actually be traced through the censuses. Also, the surname of Percival’s mother is given as Mitchell in the birth indexes.] It turns out, William and his family left England for South Africa in June 1913! They returned in 1919 for a few years before leaving permanently in 1921.

I don’t think it’s mere coincidence that Blanche and Joseph were married in July 1913. The expense alone meant divorce was unobtainable for the working class at this time. With Blanche’s ex-husband out of the country, they may have considered it their opportunity to finally marry (albeit illegally). The couple were still together in 1939 so I like to think Blanche did get that happy ending after all (at least for a while!).

A Queenly Godmother

Astrid of Sweden (1905-1935) – princess of Sweden and queen of Belgium

There was a story told by my Belgian grandmother, that she was named after Queen Astrid, who was also her godmother due to a royal tradition. I remember her telling me that as a child, she was once invited to play with the princess, who was of a similar age, but that they fought over a toy. (My mother recalls that she even got sent home for this.) Her childhood memories of the young princess were not overly positive and it was entertaining to hear.

Unfortunately, the facts don’t quite support the story.

Queen as godmother

This tradition is true and is referred to on the Belgian Monarchy website: “Traditionally, the King and the Queen are the godfather or godmother of the seventh son or seventh daughter in a family, on condition that this succession of sons or daughters is unbroken.” (The Belgian Monarchy, 2020)

However, the honour is only bestowed upon the seventh son or daughter – Astrid Lemmens was the eighth daughter.

I did find a newspaper report that mentioned the queen becoming godmother to a LEMMENS daughter. Only this daughter was not Astrid but her older sister, Elisabeth. And the event had occurred in 1925, before my grandmother was even born (in 1926).

A beautiful family

We announced that the Edouard Lemmens-Minne family, living on rue Polder Ste Catherine, had enriched themselves with a seventh daughter, on March 6. The eldest was born on April 12, 1913 in Nieuport. In a letter addressed to the Palace of Brussels, to the Mayor of Ostend, it says:

<The Queen accepts with pleasure to be godmother of the seventh daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Lemmens-Minne>. And further: <Our Sovereign entrusts you with the task of having Her represented at the ceremony of the baptism of the child, and asks you to express Her wishes of happiness to the parents of Her new goddaughter>.

Mr. Bourgmestre Moreaux entrusted the care to Ms. Elleboudt-Moulaert, wife of Mr. Elleboudt, our alderman for Public Works.

Une belle familie
Nous avons annonce que la famille Edouard Lemmens-Minne, habitant rue Polder Ste Catherine, s’etait enrichie d’une septieme fille, le 6 mars dernier. L’ainee naquit le 12 avril 1913 a Nieuport. Dans une lettre adressee du Palais de Bruxelles, au Bourgmestre d’Ostende, il est dit:
<La Reine accepte avec plaisir d’etre marraine de la septieme fille de M. et Mme Lemmens-Minne>. Et plus loin : <Notre Souveraine vous confie le soin de La faire representer a la ceremonie du bapteme de Penfant, et vous prie d’exprimer Ses souhaits de bonheur aux parents de Sa nouvelle filleule>.
M. le Bourgmestre Moreaux confia le soin a Mme Elleboudt-Moulaert, femme de M. Elleboudt, notre echevin des Travaux publics.

Le Carillon, 28 Mar 1925, p2 c1

This means the queen did not actually attend her goddaughter’s baptism but instead used a city councilor’s wife as her proxy (Louisa Moulaert, wife of Alphonse Elleboudt). Interestingly, Elisabeth DID meet the queen in 1931, when the royal family visited Ostende and the interaction made the local paper:

De Zeewacht, 1931 July 25, p1 c7 – p2 c1

In the meantime, an endearing act took place. The young Elisabeth Lemmens, the seventh daughter of Mr and Mrs E. Lemmens, of which through mediation of Mrs. Alph. Elleboudt, the Queen is meter, presented herself to the Queen with a flower owl and spoke as follows, while the daughter of H. Schepen Vroome handed over a flower sheaf to Princess Clementine:
Dear Meter,
How proud and happy I am, your baptized child, to be the little interpreter of the population of Ostend, to tell you how welcome you are here, you see that from side to side, and read in flower and flag and festive green, the sincere love and affection of your people. Yes, everything calls out to you, how welcome you are and how your name is praised and honored here. The beating heart of the People that you were expecting for so long now see You full of joy and offer you thanks and honors with great enthusiasm, Dear Queen.
After those words, the Queen took her godchild on her lap and kissed and asked her news of her family. Prince Leopold also took them on his lap and had a conversation with the child.

Intusschen had een aandoenlijk tooneeltje plaats. Het jonge Elisabethje Lemmens, het zevende dochtertje van M. en Mev E. Lemmens, waarvan door bemiddeling van Mev. Alph. Elleboudt, de Koningin meter is, bood zich aan de Koningin met een bloementuil en sprak als volgt, terwijl het dochtertje van H. Schepen Vroome een bloemengarve aan Prinses Clementine overhandige:
Lieve Meter,
Wat ben ik fier en gelukkig, Ik, uw doopkind, de kleine tolk der Oostendsche bevolking te zijn, om U te zeggen hoe welkom gij hier zijt, dat ziet gij t’allen kant, en leest in bloem en vlag en feestelijk groen, de oprechte liefde en verkleefdheid van uw Volk. Ja, alles roept U toe, hoe welkom gij zijt en hoe uw naam hier wordt geprezen en vereerd. Het kloppend hart van ‘t Volk dat U zoolang verbeidde, ziet U nu vol vreugde en bied U, Geachte Koningin, met veel geestdrift zijn dank en hulde aan.
Na die woorden name de Koningin haar petekind op den schoot en kuste en vroeg haar nieuws van hare familie. Prins Leopold nam ze ook op gijnen schoot en voerde een gesprek met het kindje.

De Zeewacht, 25 July 1931, p1 c7 – p2 c1

Queen Astrid was not queen at the time

Not only was Astrid the wrong daughter, the other Astrid was the wrong queen. Upon marrying Prince Leopold, the young Swedish princess was ‘enthusiastically adopted by the Belgians’ and ‘widely loved for her beauty, charm and simplicity’. But Astrid only became queen in 1934 when her husband’s father, King Albert died. Sadly, she died the following year in an automobile accident in Switzerland [source].

The queen referred to in the above articles would have actually been, Elisabeth, queen of King Albert. It makes sense that Elisabeth LEMMENS was named after her royal godmother.

However, my grandmother’s story still has some merit due to being born within a few days of Leopold and Astrid’s marriage. The royal couple married civilly in Stockholm on 4 November 1926 and religiously in Brussels on 10 November 1926 – my grandmother was born 14 November 1926. Considering, the Lemmens family appeared to be strong royal supporters, it is extremely likely that they named her daughter after the princess in honour of this national occasion. So, it appears Astrid LEMMENS was named after ‘the queen’ – she just wasn’t queen at the time.

Argued with a princess

I doubt I’ll ever find out if this part of the story is true. Astrid and Leopold did have a daughter in 1927, Princess Josephine-Charlotte and so would have been around my grandmother’s age. If the story is true, this would be the princess referred to.

But why would she be invited to tea? Especially since she wasn’t even a god child. If there’s any truth to the story, the answer may lie in her father, Eduard Lemmens’ service to the community [to be expanded upon in a future post].

I’m not ready to dismiss the story completely. The memory seemed quite vivid to my grandmother so it’s possible we simply misinterpreted what she said. Unfortunately, Astrid LEMMENS is no longer around to set us straight. If only I’d looked into this sooner.

An Old Car Accident

‘The New Citroen’ was advertised in the newspaper reporting on Eduard’s accident (De Zeewacht, 1933 May 13)

My mother’s recollections of her grandfather, Eduard LEMMENS, included his involvement in a serious car accident. She believed it occurred in a chauffered car in Switzerland which led to maybe brain damage or a coma but she was not sure. I have since been able to find mention of this accident and the serious injuries obtained through Eduard’s local newspapers at the time (via the Stad en Zee Oostende site).

On the 5th of December 1931, Eduard Lemmens (then living on Nieuwpoort Avenue in Westende, Belgium) was involved in a traffic accident. He had been travelling as a taxi passenger along Albert Avenue (~~which I have been unable to locate~~ see update below) in Ghent (not Switzerland), when the vehicle collided with another car and was overturned. “As a result of the very violent impact, the last car, carrying three travellers, crashed while Van Pottelsberghe’s car swerved and stamped the car of beer merchant Haerinckx, domiciled in Dendermonde, Mont-St-Amand.” (Le Littoral, 20 May 1933, p3 c2)

Initial report of accident – Le Littoral, 1931 Dec 12, p4 c1

Ostend biesse in Ghent
Last Saturday, one of our fellow citizens, Mr. Edouard Lemmens, was driving in a taxi with three other people along Albert Avenue in Ghent. Arriving at the corner of a street, the taxi was hit/overturned by a car.
The occupants were immediately removed and Mr. Lemmens, who had a head injury and a face injury, was taken to a clinic. We wish him a speedy recovery.

Ostendais biesse à Gand
Samedi dernier, un de nos concitoyens, M. Edouard Lemmens roulait dans un taxi avec trois autres personnes le long de l’avenue Albert a Gand. Arrive au coin d’une rue le taxi fut renverse par une auto.

On retira aussitot les occupants et M. Lemmens, blesse a la tete et au visage fut transporte dans une clinique. Nous lui souhaitons prompte guerison

(Le Littoral, 12 Dec 1931, p4 c1)

Eduard suffered what seemed to be a serious head injury as initial signs of recovery were only reported on a few weeks later. He was rendered unable to work as the entire left side of his body had been paralysed, and attended further appointments in a Ghent clinic.

Convalescence.
We are pleased to learn that Mr. Edouard Lemmens, who was recently injured in a car accident, is on the road to recovery.

Convalescence.
Nous sommes heureux d’apprendre que M. Edouard Lemmens, qui fut recemment blesse dans un accident d’auto, est en bonne voie de guerison.

(Le Littoral, 3 Jan 1932, p3 c3)

In 1932, a court date was set for the prosecution of the driver of the other vehicle, Mr Van Pottelsberghe but the court’s decision wasn’t actually reached until May the next year.

Court of Ghent

It is on the 11th of April in Ghent that the case of the car accident, of which M. Ed. Lemmens is the victim. It is M. Van Pottelsberghe who is being prosecuted.

Rechtbank van Gent
Het is op 11 April dat te Gent de zaak opgeroepen wodt van het autoogeval, waarvan M. Ed. Lemmens het slachtoffer is. ‘t Is M. Van Pottelsberghe die vervolgd wordt.

(De Zeewacht, 19 Mar 1932, p6 c4)

The driver of the other vehicle, Albert Van Pottelsberghe was an ‘entrepreneur’ of Erenbodegem, but I have been unable to find any other information on him. He was found responsible and sentenced ‘on account of involuntary injuries caused by carelessness’ and ‘violation of traffic regulations’. Van Pottelsberghe was ordered to pay 93, 058 francs to Eduard to compensate for the past two years.

[One article mentioned the “capital that will be given to him is 880,000 francs” but I’m unsure as to what this means with regards to the 93, 058 francs already awarded to Lemmens.]

Courts

PENALTY COURT OF GENT

An old car accident. – On 5 December 1931, the car of Mr. Van Pottelsberghe, contractor in Eerembodeghem, ended up on the taxi of Mr. Jules Van Ertvelde, Albertlaan in Ghent, which was knocked over with the result that the three occupants were hurt: the taxi driver Van Ertvelde, M.M. Edouard Lemmens, living at Nieuwpoortlaan in Westende and Georges Stinon, employee in Schaerbeek. The investigation regarding this case seemed without end, although the responsibility of Van Pottelberghe, from the beginning was assumed. The investigation was particularly directed towards the situation of Mr. Lemmens, who was beaten totally incompetent to work, as the entire left side of his body was paralysed. All the strikes by doctors confirmed this and the victim had to submit himself to treatments in a clinic in Ghent. On Tuesday morning the case was summoned to the fining court in Ghent. After the pleadings the following verdict was pronounced: Van Pottelsberghe is sentenced on account of involuntary injuries caused by carelessness to pay a fine of 2,100 francs or a month’s imprisonment, on account of violation of the traffic regulations to twice 210 francs, a fine or 9 days and to pay the following fees: 250 francs to Stinon, 9,157 to Van Ertvelde and 93,058 francs, to Ed. Lemmens, this already preliminary title and subject to the possible worse consequences. The payment granted to M. Lemmens represents the compensation for the two past years. The capital that will be given to him is 880,000 francs.

Rechtbanken

BOETSTRAFFELIJKE RECHTBANK VAN GENT
Een oud autoongeval. — Een Oostendenaar die eene vergoeding bekomt.Den 5 December 1931 kwam de auto van den heer Van Pottelsberghe, aannemer te Eerembodeghem, terecht op de taxi van heer Jules Van Ertvelde, Albertlaan te Gent, die omgestooten werd met het gevolg dat de drie inzittenden gekwetst werden: de taxivoerder Van Ertvelde, M.M. Edouard Lemmens, wonende Nieuwpoortlaan te Westende en Georges Stinon, bediende te Schaerbeek. Het onderzoek nopens deze zaak scheen zonder einde, alhoewel de verantwoordelijkheid van Van Pottelberghe, van den beginne aangenomen werd. Het onderzoek was bijzonder gericht tegenover den toestand van M. Lemmens, die totaal onbekwaam tot werken geslagen word, daar heel de linkerkant van zijn lijf verlamd is. Alle slag van dokters bestatigden zulks en het slachtoffer moest zich zelf onderwerpen aan behandelingen in een Gentsche kliniek. Dinsdag morgen werd die zaak voor de boetstraffelijke rechtbank van Gent opgeroepen. Na de pleidooien werd het volgende vonnis uitgesproken: Van Pottelsberghe wordt veroordeeld uit hoofde van onvrijwillige kwetsuren door onvoorzichtigheid veroorzaakt tot het betalen van eene boete van 2.100 fr. of een maand gevangenis, uit hoofde van overtreding op het reglement voor het verkeer tot tweemaal 210 fr, boete of 9 dagen en tot betaling van de volgende vergoedingen: 250 fr. aan Stinon, 9.157 aan Van Ertvelde en 93.058 fr, aan Ed. Lemmens, dit al ten voorloopigen titel en onder voorbehoud van de mogelijke ergere gevolgen. De betaling toegekend aan M. Lemmens vertegenwoordigt de vergoeding voor de twee verloopene jaren. Het kapitaal, dat hem zal geschonken worden is van 880.000 frank.

(De Zeewacht, 13 May 1933, p4 c2)

Courts of law

Low allowance to a fellow citizen who is the victim of a car accident

On 5 December 1931, the entrepreneur Albert Van Pottelsberghe, residing in Erembodegem, unleashed his car in Albert Avenue, Ghent, and collided with the car driven by the driver Jules Van Ertvelde, living on the said avenue. As a result of the very violent impact, the last car, carrying three travellers, crashed while Van Pottelsberghe’s car swerved and stamped the car of beer merchant Haerinckx, domiciled in Dendermonde, Mont-St-Amand.
This accident CAUSED three VICTIMS, the driver Van Ertvelde and two of the passengers, Georges Stienon, employee, residing on Felix Marchal Avenue, in Schaerbeek and Edouard Lemmens, residing on Nieuwpoort Avenue, in Westende. The investigation proved that Van Pottelsberghe was responsible for the accident. He appeared Tuesday morning before the Ghent Criminal Court, which sentences her to a fine of 2,100 francs or one month’s imprisonment for unintentional injuries due to carelessness, for violating the driving regulations at a fine of 210 francs or 9 days, and for paying the following damages: 250 francs to Stienon; 9,157 francs to Van Ertvelde and 92,053 francs to Lemmens, all provisional and subject to possible future action.

Tribunaux
Maigre allocation a un coneitoyen victime d’un accident d’auto
Le 5 decembre 1931, l’entrepreneur Albert Van Pottelsberghe, demeurant a Erembodegem, deboucha avec son auto a l’avenue Albert, a Gand, et y entrea en collision avec la voiture conduite parle chauffeur Jules Van Ertvelde, habitant ladite avenue. Par suite du choc, tres violent, la derniere auto, transportant trois voyaguers, culbuta tandis que la voiture de Van Pottelsberghe fit une embardee et tamponna l’auto-camion du marchand de biere Haerinckx, domicilie chaussee de Termonde, a Mont-St-Amand.
Cet accident fit trois victimes, le chauffeur Van Ertvelde et deux des voyageurs, Georges Stienon, employe, demeurant avenue Felix Marchal, a Schaerbeek et Edouard Lemmens, habitant avenue de Nieuport, a Westende. L’enquete prouva que la responsabilite de l’accident etait imputable a Van Pottelsberghe. Celui-ci a comparu mardi matin devant le tribunal correctionnel de Gand qui la condamne, du chef de blessures involontaires par imprudence, a 2,100 francs d’amende ou un mois de prison, pour enfreinte aux reglements sur le roulage a deux fois 210 frs d’amende ou 9 jours, et au paiement des dommages-interets suivants: 250 francs a Stienon; 9.157 francs a Van Ertvelde et 92.053 francs a Lemmens, le tout a tilre provisoire et sous reserve des suite futures possibles.

(Le Littoral, 20 May 1933, p3 c2)

Obviously being paralysed on one side of his body, would have a profound effect on his life but it doesn’t mention if the paralysis was temporary or permanent. He must’ve been a determined man as he was still able to add two more children to the family (for a total of 10!) despite his injuries (Frederick b. Feb 1933 and Micheline b. Jun 1935). My mother also recalls that they ‘ran chateaus’ and that her grandmother ‘ran the house as a Bed & Breakfast’. Although not mentioned in the articles, Eduard had previously worked in banking so perhaps the accident prevented him from continuing that career and the family needed to make a living in this new way (making use of the compensation money). Or perhaps they had already started this new business before the accident. Hopefully, the answers can be found one day in other family members.

Translated mostly with www.DeepL.com/Translator with some alterations.

Update:

Since posting, a distant Lemmens cousin helpfully explained that Albert became king so the avenue ‘Albertlaan’ was renamed ‘Koning Albertlaan’ (King Albert Avenue). King Albert I died in 1934 – the year after this accident. I have been able to find a 1930 map (in french) that names this street ‘Boulevard Albert’.