Battered wife

[pipsqueak]

I have unearthed the beginnings of a divorce record from TNA today - they only gave me ten of forty pages and because it's Friday I can't get my hands on the rest until Monday. |computer| Anyway the good news is that I have seen enough to know that I have the right man.

As yet I don't have many details, but apparently, GEORGE ESCOTT wants a divorce from his wife MARY JANE ESCOTT on the grounds of adultery, and names CHARLES BUCKHURST as co-respondent. Charles Buckhurst and Mary Jane both deny any wrongdoing and say that no adultery took place. However, Mary Jane goes on to tell how she was beaten by her husband "and forced my head between his knees an attempted to thrust out my eyes"!! This man was a farrier and doubtless very strong.

The divorce appears to have occurred in about 1885. Is there any chance that there might have been a newspaper item about the divorce - if so where? Secondly where might I look to find out if George was ever arrested for violence? I expect wife-beating was ignored since a wife was a man's property, but what if it involved someone else? He went on to marry (or at least have a relationship with) and have a child with my great-grand-aunt (too big a title for someone who died young) so I have a vested interest in this.

Edited to add that all this took place in the Caledonian Road area of Islington - around Arthur Mews.

[Jan1954]

Is there any chance that there might have been a newspaper item about the divorce - if so where?
The Islington Gazette was around back then and I would have thought that any report would have been in that. A copy is held by the British Library Newspapers. Perhaps try contacting them: customer-services AT bl DOT uk

[Kerrywood]

The Islington Gazette was around back then and I would have thought that any report would have been in that. A copy is held by the British Library Newspapers.

Sorry, but you'll be much better off contacting Islington Local History Library (http://www.islington.gov.uk/leisure/LocalHistory/localhistorycentre/Whats_available.asp). The BL charge a minimum of £48.90 for any newspaper search (with a result or not), while the local history library might do it for free, or at worst at a modest cost. :)

Also try searching the Times Digital Archive (online), if you haven't already?

Kerrywood

[Jan1954]

The BL charge a minimum of £48.90 for any newspaper search (with a result or not)Blimey! That is outrageous! As well as something that I did not realise - thanks Kerrywood.|hug|

[Kerrywood]

Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper , Sunday, December 13, 1885; Issue 2247

"DAMAGES IN A DIVORCE SUIT -- In the Divorce division, on Friday, the case of "Escott v. Escott and Buckhurst" was heard. This was the petition of George Escott, a farrier, for a divorce by reason of the adultery of his wife with Charles Buckhurst, a licensed victualler, against whom damages were claimed. There were counter allegations against the petitioner, but the principal issue raised for the defence was that of cruelty. The marriage took place in 1871, and there were three children born. In Aug., 1884, a sister of Mrs. Escott's, who lived at Wood-green, was taken ill, and the respondent, then residing at Islington, visited her. In the course of these visits she was often in the society of the co-respondent, a licensed victualler, of St. Paul's-road, Maiden-lane, and used to drive out with him in a pony trap. The petitioner went to a house near the co-respondent's, and found him with his wife. A scene ensued, and he told her that she ought to be ashamed of herself. The following day she summoned him at the Clerkenwell police-court for assault. For the defence, Mrs. Jane Escott, the respondent (who did not deny the adultery) detailed a number of acts of cruelty she alleged against her husband. In the result the jury found for the petitioner, and assessed the damages at 100l. A decree nisi, with costs, was granted."

Kerrywood

[pipsqueak]

Ooh thank you! That's enormously helpful! Where did you find the Lloyd's weekly newspaper?

The plot thickens...

[Kerrywood]

Where did you find the Lloyd's weekly newspaper?

Within the 19th Century British Library Newspaper Collection, as digitised by Gale and available here through membership of my county library.

This and other Gale collections can be accessed at many public libraries in the UK -- maybe in your neck of the woods too? ;)

Kerrywood

[pipsqueak]

Not over in the US, no. I once asked my local library if they subscribed to the Chicago newspaper collection but they said it was too expensive! Thank you for looking for me - I had no idea there was such a collection.

[Kerrywood]

If you can't get free access through a public library, you could take a look at British Newspapers 1800-1900 (a paysite at ... newspapers.bl.uk/blcs). There are options for 24-hour or 7-day membership.

Kerrywood

[pipsqueak]

Thanks! I have another question. In the newspaper article it states that there were three children. Would only living legitimate children be counted at that time?

On the 1871 census when George and (Mary) Jane were newly married, a daughter, Jane, aged two is named. No Jane Escott can be found born in 1869 in Islington, but there is a Jane Hardwick (Mrs Escott's maiden name). So for the moment I am going to suppose that Jane the child is the illigitimate daughter of (Mary) Jane, with or without George.

On the 1881 census, rather than being aged 12 as you might expect, Jane is ten. This could either be a second Jane (but I can't find a death for the first) or it could be the same Jane with her age "Legitimised". I cannot find a birth registration for a Jane Escott in 1871 so I'm inclined to think it's the same child.

There are then four more children, of which I can find registrations for three and a Baptism only, for one:
Jessie Sarah A Escott, 1873 (Registered Islington, Jun Qtr)
Emma Alice Escott, 1874 (Registered Islington, Jun Qtr)
Julia Jane Escott, Baptised 1874 (28 June; no birth registration found)
George William Escott, 1879 (Registered Islington, Sept Qtr)

So now we have illegitimate Jane, then Jessie and Emma, then the elusive Julia and finally George. I think the ones in bold are the three mentioned in the divorce.

I cannot find any record of Julia's existence other than the baptismal record. (I should add here that my A** membership has expired and for now I can't go back and check the document to make sure the transcription is correct.)

[pennydog]

To confirm:- Baptism 28/6/1874
Emma Alice born 15/5/1874
Julia Jane born 13/9/1868
Jessie Sarah Ann born 25/3/1872
Parents George (farrier) and Mary Jane Escott of 380 Caledonian Road.

[Mutley]

Julia Jane Escott, baptism on 28 June 1874. Born Sep/13/68
at Saint Andrew, Barnsbury, Islington, Middx.
Father: George, a farrier
Mother: Mary Jane

380 Caledonian Road

I won't bother with Emma and Jessie, seeing as pennydog has beaten me to it ;)

[Kerrywood]

So now we have illegitimate Jane, then Jessie and Emma, then the elusive Julia and finally George. I think the ones in bold are the three mentioned in the divorce.

St Andrew Barnsbury
28 June 1874
[all baptised on same day]

Julia Jane, d. of George & Mary Jane Escott, 380 Caledonian Road, Farrier, born 13 Sep 1868

Jessie Sarah Ann, d. of George & Mary Jane Escott, 380 Caledonian Road, Farrier, born 25 Mar 1872

Emma Alice, d. of George & Mary Jane Escott, 380 Caledonian Road, Farrier, born 15 May 1874

Births Dec 1868
HARDWICK Julia Jane
Islington 1b 324

So perhaps Jane aged 2 in 1871 and aged 10 in 1881 is actually Julia Jane HARDWICK. If so, the three children born from the marriage would presumably be Jessie, Emma and George, as you suggest.

Kerrywood

(Mutley and pennydog type faster)

[Mutley]

There is a marriage registered for a Julia J H Escott in Jun 1922 in Islington 1b/357. Spouse is William Fullarton

Kerrywood,
we may have typed faster but we did not include the Hardwick gem. :cool:

and I've just realised the marriage of the Julia Escott to William, if she was pipsqueaks, would put her in her 50s :(

[pennydog]

We all found the three girls, but none of us has found a baptism for George (well I couldn't).

[Mutley]

We all found the three girls, but none of us has found a baptism for George (well I couldn't).

Maybe it was just prior to his marriage. :D

[pipsqueak]

Bravo! Thank you all so very much :) I admit that I wasn't looking too closely at this family before. So it seems that Jane 1, Jane 2 and Julia Jane are all one and the same child! What a tangled web they do weave.

This is some good work. Now, given that they divorced in 1885, I find that a Jane Hardwick Escott died in 1886 - less than a year later - in Romford (her sister lived in that area).

A son, Edward George Escott was born to my great-grandmother's sister in September 1888. She was known as Emily Jane Escott (nee Sutton)and I always assumed she had married George Escott, father of her child. However, I still can't find her marriage. Neither can I find a Baptism for Edward. I suspect that Emily changed her name but never married George. She died at George's home on 1st May 1890 of septicaemia. In the December quarter of that same year, George married Susie Celia Simkins. At census time in 1891 all are in George's home except Emily's son who is with a monthly nurse in Stoke Newington. The rest is history - before long he was taken in by his aunt and uncle, but the circumstances of his parents remains a mystery.

Can anyone offer any advice as to where else I might find a clue or two? Emily's death was registered by her sister who was present at death, so no hope there.

[Mutley]

I am not sure what info you have exactly but if you have this, then chuck it in the bin.
George William Escott married Mary Edgeworth on 26 Dec 1902 at Walthamstow. He was age 23 born about 1879.
His father was George and Mary's dad was James.

Walthamstow, Essex, England; Collection: St Michael and All Angels,
Date Range: 1887 - 1904; Film Number: 1564163.

[pipsqueak]

Ooh that's interesting. My parents and my grandparents were married at that same church.....

[kermie62]

I He went on to marry (or at least have a relationship with) and have a child with my great-grand-aunt (too big a title for someone who died young) so I have a vested interest in this.

Edited to add that all this took place in the Caledonian Road area of Islington - around Arthur Mews.

Are you saying that he went onto marry his sister- in law?

I was under the impression this was illegal at this time in England. I have a gx? cousin who married her brother in law around 1850 and they had to go to Switzerland to get married.

[pipsqueak]

Oh no - my family is totally unrelated to his except through my great-grandmother's sister who had his son (married or not). George Escott and Mary Jane Hardwick are not my relatives. My relative actually recorded the birthday of Jessie in her birthday book (which I have).