Category: PLACES

Bigamy Blues

A while ago, while researching the Lamb family, I stumbled across a few newspaper articles regarding the trial and conviction of a family member for bigamy in 1947. Obviously I needed to know more…

Reuben Lamb and Kathleen Morgan had married at a young age – Reuben was just 17, Kathleen 19. After about a year of marriage, they were recorded living with Kathleen’s father at 30 Bradshaw Street, Derby in the 1939 register. (Note: For some reason, Kathleen was crossed out but added to a later page with the same information.)

The young couple on the 1939 register

The reports are a little unclear, but at some point Reuben joined the army and eventually found himself in Nottingham. It was here, in 1945, that Reuben met canteen worker, Mary Evans Mitchell who worked at a Navy, Army and Airforce Institute canteen located near Nottingham Castle. The NAAFI was established in 1920 to ‘run the recreational establishments needed by the Armed Forces, and to sell goods to servicemen and their families (source: NAAFI.co.uk). Reuben told Mary that his first wife “had been killed in an air raid, and that his marriage had in any case been a great mistake.” (Nottingham Journal, 19 February 1947, p3, c3). Reuben and Mary grew ‘fond’ of each other – so much so that Reuben moved in with Mary at her sister’s home and they married in February the next year (1946).

“She was everything that the other one wasn’t…”

Less than a year later, the new life Reuben had built for himself came crashing down. Reuben went to Derby to see Kathleen ‘in response to a telegram’. While there, he may have let something slip, which led to the first wife arriving in Mansfield on the 21st of January to reveal the truth to poor Mary.

Reuben told the Nottingham Assizes:  “after he had deceived her [Mary] for so long, he simply had not the courage to tell her the truth when it actually came to the point of marrying her”. Kathleen claimed Reuben ‘thrashed’ her; Reuben denied this and claimed Kathleen had been ‘associating’ with other men. Regardless, the judge found that Reuben’s actions had been quite deliberate and sentenced him to three months in prison.

It’s impossible not to feel for Mary who, I was to find, was already no stranger to heartbreak…

(Story to be continued in Part Two)

Nottingham Journal, 30 January 1947, p4, c7
Mansfield Man For Trial on Bigamy Charge

A meeting in a N.A.A.F.I. canteen near Nottingham Castle in April, 1945, between a soldier and a canteen worker, which led to an alleged bigamous marriage at St. John’s Church, Mansfield, on 9 February last, was referred to at Mansfield yesterday.
Reuben Alfred Lamb, of 40, Titchfield-street, Mansfield, was charged with bigamously marrying Mary Evans Mitchell, a widow, of the same address, during the lifetime of his wife, Kathleen Lamb (27), of 30, Bradshaw-street, Derby. He pleaded “Guilty” and was committed for trial at the Notts. Assizes, bail being renewed.
Mr. E. B. Hibbert, prosecuting, said accused was legally married at the Derby Register Office in June, 1938, but he and his wife separated in 1945. At the second “ceremony” he described himself as a widower, stating his wife was killed in an air raid at Derby.
Mrs. Mitchell said, after demobilisation, Lamb lodged with her at her sister’s home. After Mrs. Lamb called he revealed the whole truth.
Lamb said that after meeting Mrs. Mitchell they became fond of each other. “She was everything that the other one wasn’t,” he said.
(Nottingham Journal, 30 January 1947, p4, c7)
Nottingham Evening Post, 18 February 1947, p4, c1
THREE MONTHS FOR BIGAMY

Sequel To Unhappy Marriage

Sentence of three months’ imprisonment was passed at the Notts. Assizes, to-day, on Reuben Alfred Lamb, 25, a grinder, who was committed from Mansfield on a charge of bigamy at Mansfield on February 9th, 1946.
“There is no doubt that what you did you did quite deliberately,” said Mr. Justice Morris in passing sentence.
Mr. Nigel Robinson, prosecuting, said the legal marriage was in 1938 at Derby, accused being 17 and his wife 19. He served in the army and on his discharge had a quarrel with his wife and left to lodge with a widow, Mrs. Mitchell, a N.A.A.F.I. worker whom he illegally married.
Lamb later went to see his wife in response to a telegram, and subsequently was alleged to have thrashed her.
Mr. W. A. Simes, defending, explained, in interrogation, that accused’s legal wife had been associating with other men. It had been an unhappy marriage. Lamb denied thrashing his wife. 
(Nottingham Evening Post, 18 February 1947, p4, c1)
Nottingham Journal, 19 February 1947, p3, c3
Said Wife Was Killed in Raid

Bigamy Sentence at Notts. Assizes

SEVERAL cases of alleged bigamy were dealt with by Mr. Justice Morris at Notts Assizes yesterday.
Reuben Alfred Lamb (25), a Mansfield grinder, who admitted bigamously marrying a young Mansfield widow on 9 February last year, was sent to prison for three months.
The widow was Mrs. Mary Evans Mitchell, of Mansfield, and Lamb was accused of marrying her while his legal wife, Kathleen, was still alive.
N.A.A.F.I. MEETING
For the prosecution Mr. Nigel Robinson stated that Mrs. Mitchell was a widow whom defendant met while she was working in the N.A.A.F.I. at Nottingham.
“He deceived Mrs. Mitchell by telling her that he was a widower; that his wife had been killed in an air raid, and that his marriage had in any case been a great mistake.”
THRASHED HER
Mr. Robinson added that on 21 January this year the legal wife went to Mansfield to see Lamb. She told Mrs. Mitchell that he was already married, and Lamb thereupon thrashed her.
Lamb was defended by Mr. W. A. Sime, who stated that the legal marriage had been most unhappy Lamb had already taken steps for divorce, and proceedings were still going on
He and Mrs. Mitchell were very fond of each other and after he had deceived her for so long, he simply had not the courage to tell her the truth when it actually came to the point of marrying her
(Nottingham Journal, 19 February 1947, p3, c3)

Related posts:

Christ Church, Blakenall Heath

The Hannah Chronicles: Enter William

Woman of my Convictions

An Ebbans By Any Other Name

The Ebbans surname is not a particularly common one. Spelling is a relatively recent convention so I’m used to seeing names spelled in a variety of ways in records – and that’s not including mistranscriptions! (See below for a list of Ebbans variations I’ve found so far – my favourite is ‘Ebbags’.) But something about the name ‘Ebbans’ intrigues me.

The family theory was that the name had mutated from Evans and that there were probably Welsh connections – a quite reasonable assumption considering the family’s proximity to Wales.  However, the further back I went, the further the family got from Wales. Also, the further back I went, the less likely I was to see the name spelt with a final ‘s’. I decided to track the name from the earliest Ebbans ancestor found so far.

In 1822, Mary Ebbon, an unwed woman, gave birth to Thomas Ebbon at Old Buckenham, Norfolk. Her surname was also recorded as Ebben, Ebbin and Ebborn in the Overseer’s Accounts for the parish.

From the 1841 census onwards, Thomas was recorded in official records as Thomas Ebben:

Thomas Ebben in 1841 census
Marriage of Thomas Ebben and Sarah Collins – 1855
Birth registration of William Ebben – 1856
Thomas, Sarah and William Ebben in 1861 census
Thomas Ebben on the Wolverhampton electoral register – 1877

The only noteable exception occurred when he was recorded as ‘Thos Evans’ in the 1871 census. Although it’s possible the surname was spoken as ‘Ebbens’, in this case the enumerator seems to have misheard, and/or recorded the more common surname (Evans), since Thomas and his children continued to be recorded as Ebben in subsequent records.

The family is recorded as Evans in the 1871 census
Thomas’ widow and daughter continue to use Ebben – 1881 census

Adding a final s

A deliberate shift to ‘Ebbens’ seems to have been initiated by Thomas’ son William (b1856) around 1880. William was still giving his surname without a final ‘s’ in 1875 (his marriage record), but in the 1881 census was recorded as Evans.

The family is recorded as Evans in the 1881 census

This may have been a simple error, such as in 1871, except that he actually signs his name as ””William Ebbens”” 3 years later, on his sister Mary Elizabeth Ebben’s marriage record. This is despite his sister (and father’s name) being recorded as Ebben on the same document. (Mary also continues to give her maiden name as ‘Ebben’ when later registering her children’s births.)

Marriage of Edward Morris and Mary Elizabeth Ebben – 1884

From 1881 onwards, William (and his children) consistently use a final ‘s’ (regardless of other spelling variants).

In 1895, William was first recorded on the electoral register as ‘Ebbans’ – a spelling which he used consistently until his death in 1926.

William Ebbans on the Walsall electoral register – 1895

The reasons for the shift to a final ‘s’ may never be known but it certainly seems intentional. The ‘Ebbans’ spelling in particular seems to be prevalent around the West Midlands area – elsewhere ‘Ebbens’ is more common. The research is still in progress but my hypothesis is: all those whose name is spelt ‘Ebbans’ are descended from this William Ebbans. We’ll see if that theory checks out.

Official Ebbans Firsts

  • The first official birth registration using the spelling ‘Ebbans’ was William’s son, John Ebbans, whose birth was registered in 1896.
  • The first official marriage registration was William’s son Thomas Ebbans in 1904.
  • The first official death registration was William’s granddaughter (daughter of the above Thomas), Elizabeth Ebbans in 1907.

Some Variations and Mistranscriptions of Ebbans 

Ebbens Ebbins Ebbing
Evans Ettans Ebbon
Ebben Ellen Ebbags
Hebbin Ebbaus Ebbam
Ebbin Hebben Hebbings
Ebbels Ebbers Abon

Related posts:

"Is There Anyone to Save My Life?"

A Scarff Tragedy

Bankrupt or Insolvent?

Grave Matters

In Port Chalmers Cemetery, there is a headstone for married couple, Alexander Ritchie Buchan & Agnes Buchan (nee Findlay) – but only one of them was actually buried in that grave (Block UO. Plot 126B).

There are also three other memorial plaques naming another four members of the family, but again, only one of those people were buried there. In fact, of the six people memorialised on this grave, only two were actually buried in Plot 126B; Agnes and her son (also named Alexander Ritchie). So where is Alexander?

Headstone1
Plot 126B of Port Chalmers New Cemetery with Buchan family memorials

It turns out, Alexander is not far away at all – he’s actually buried in the grave opposite.

When Alexander died suddenly of a heart attack in 1896, only a few years after emigrating to New Zealand from Scotland, his young family were left in ‘very poor circumstances’. [See the post Inquests and Articles for more information.] The burial register indicates that the Congregational Church and/or their minister, Reverend William M Grant, took pity on the family and allowed Alexander to be buried ‘in the ground belonging to the church’ (Block UO. Plot 2):

433.
BUCHAN Alexander Ritchie – Blk UO Plot 2 Class 1
Died 2 Dec 1896, aged 34 years, of failure of the heart, a fisherman. Resident of Mansford Town. Born Peterhead. Last came from Peterhead Scotland. Lived 3 years in province.
Buried with written consent of the Rev Wm M Grant Congregational Church, in the ground belonging to the Church.

(Transcript of Burial Register, Port Chalmers New Cemetery, Dunedin, Otago, New Zealand (1881-1929), p34)

A year later, another man, Robert Jones, who presumably also died in poor circumstances, was buried in the same plot. This time the order was signed by Mr Robert Bauchop – who according to his own obituary, was a senior deacon of the church:

467.
JONES Robert – Blk UO Plot 2 Class 1
Died 17 Dec 1897, aged 77 years, of general decay, a bricklayer. Resident of George Street Port Chalmers. Born Holywell Flintshire Wales England. Last came from Melbourne Victoria. Lived 7 years in province.
Applicant: Robert Bauchop.
Buried in the Congregational Church ground – order signed by Mr Robt Bauchop.

(Transcript of Burial Register, Port Chalmers New Cemetery, Dunedin, Otago, New Zealand (1881-1929), p37)

Grant family headstone
Plot 2 of Port Chalmers New Cemetery with the Grant family monument

In 1935, the Reverend Grant who buried Alexander all those years ago, was also interred in Plot 2. Over the years that followed, other members of the Grant family were also buried there before the plot was finally sealed. Interestingly, it seems Rev. Grant’s infant child was actually the first to be buried in the plot – 15 years before Alexander. Reverend Grant’s obituary mentions that he and his family had gone to Australia for a time (the time when Robert Jones was buried) before returning to his congregation in Port Chalmers.

3. Plan: U.O. plot 2 – W.M. Grant. William.
Stone: William Mugford Grant for 27 years Minister of Port Chalmers Congregational Church, born 5 October 1851 died 12 February
Emily wife of Rev. W.M.Grant born 8 March 1849 died 30 November 1924. Also William their son born Orange, N.S.W. died Port Chalmers 1882. Also their son Reginald James born 1881 died 1941. And their daughter Elsie Mary Grant born 1883 died 1961.
Site: Plot sealed.

(Headstone Transcripts, Port Chalmers New Cemetery, p17)

By the time, Agnes died in 1939, the family had the means to buy the plot in which she is buried – directly across from the one in which her husband Alexander had lain for 45 years.

The other Buchan names recorded at plot 162B:

  • (son) Alexander Ritchie Buchan (junior), 1890-1944, plot 126B
  • (his wife) Elizabeth P. Buchan (nee Hendra), 1893-1968, Block NL. Plot 9
  • (son) James Buchan, 1892-1948, cremated
  • (his wife) Doris Agnes Buchan (nee Lewis), 1894-1984, cremated

Details and other images can be found on the Dunedin City Council website – Cemeteries search

Related posts:

Wind Beneath Their Wings

I Feel the Need... the Need for FOCUS

Pub Crawl

Forbidden Marriage

 

While researching some extended family members, I came across an unusual marriage.

Ernest Wheeley and Emily Marian Phipps were married in 1923 and their daughter, Cissie was born the following year. Sadly, Ernest died only a few years later in 1929 and Emily married the next year. Although a widow remarrying is very common and can be expected, what makes this case unusual is that Emily had married the nephew of her deceased husband.

Ernest’s nephew, Charles Meller – who was was roughly 12 years younger than Emily – was the son of his sister Blanche Wheeley and Joseph Meller.

Tree diagram to illustrate family relationships
Charles was the nephew of Emily’s first husband, Ernest

 

There has long been a list of ‘forbidden marriages’ based on the bible. Way back in 1503, even King Henry VIII had to request a special dispensation so he could marry his brother Arthur’s widow, Katherine of Aragon. In 1907 the law changed to allow marriage to a wife’s sister or husband’s brother but only if the first spouse was deceased. In 1921, marriage to a brother’s wife or sister’s husband also became legal (only if the first spouse was deceased). This change in law likely came about due to the dramatic reduction in population after World War I. The law was again changed in 1931 to allow marriage to an aunt/uncle-in-law or niece/nephew-in-law (again only if the relevant people were deceased). [source: Forbidden Marriage Laws of the United Kingdom] However, in this case, Charles and Emily were married in 1930 – the year before it became legal for them to do so.

By 1939, the couple had a son together, Ronald, and Cissie had taken the name of her mother’s new husband (and Cissie’s first cousin), Meller. A clue to the unusual relationship can be found on the 1939 register entry – upon Cissie’s marriage in 1943, her original name of Wheeley was added along with her new married name of Dickinson (Cissie used the name Wheeley when she married).

There could be many reasons for marrying a the spouse of a deceased family member and at times it was encouraged. It is impossible to know the nature of the couple’s relationship prior to Ernest’s death (without family anecdotes to rely on). A clue that this union may not have had the family’s blessing may lie in their address. Charles and Emily were on Hollemeadow Road, whereas the rest of the family seemed to live more closely together on or near Pleck Road (the other side of town). But, of course, this is just speculation on my part.

Related posts:

Three Weddings, Two Churches, One Day

George the Absconder

Mystery Grandson Solved

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).

newspaper article
Walsall Advertiser 24 June 1905 p2 c5

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”.

newspaper article
Walsall Observer, and South Staffordshire Chronicle 24 June 1905 p2 c5

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.

Related posts:

Wrestling with Death (places)

Celebrity Ancestor

Killing Off William Wreford