Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1
    Wilkes_ml
    Guest

    Default Thomas Ford SANDWELL of Margate

    Oh don't you just love it when you find another black sheep in the family!!

    This is my ancestors brother Thomas Ford SANDWELL son of Thomas & Thomasine SANDWELL, nee FORD born 1816 at Margate Kent.

    Dover Express 20th April 1861

    " A BRUTE OF A HUSBAND- On Friday last, at the petty sessions, Margate, Thomas Ford Sandwell, hairdresser, of King Street, was charged with threatening the life of Eliza his wife. Complainant, a respectable woman, stated that she had been married to the defendant for several years and they had been living comfortably together until within the last two years, when the defendant had become acquainted with a woman named Jane Cocks, since which time he had used her ( complainant) exceedingly cruelly. On Thursday last he threatened to "beat out her brains" with a poker. Having given this evidence, the poor woman fainted, and was removed from the hall. Defendant was further charged with being drunk and assaulting Supt. Saunders in the execution of his duty. He was ordered to be imprisoned for seven days for being drunk, for one month for the assault upon the police and at the expiration of that time to find sureties himself in £30 and two in £15 each, to keep the peace for 3 months. He was then hissed out of court"

    Does anyone know what " to find sureties himself in £30 and two in £15 each, to keep the peace for 3 months." meant?

    There is also coverage of the event in the Kentish Chronical 20th April 1861.

    What seems crazy is that the poor woman was still with her husband 10 years later in the 1871 census. I guess it was either put up with a violent unfaithful husband, or the workhouse in those days.

  2. #2
    Super Moderator christanel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Wairarapa New Zealand
    Posts
    10,676

    Default

    Hi Michelle
    I love that newspaper account and being 'hissed out of court."

    " to find sureties himself in £30 and two in £15 each, to keep the peace for 3 months." Maybe like bail having to be posted these days. You don't have to actually pay the money but if you break the bail conditions then it has to be paid. So Thomas would have to pay £30 and two others who had gone bail for him would have to pay £15 each.
    I wonder if he found anyone willing to post bail for him.

    I also have an ancestor who attacked his wife with a penknife cutting her face, because she wouldn't give him money for drink. She did attempt suicide later.

    Christina
    Sometimes paranoia is just having all the facts.
    William Burroughs

  3. #3
    Wilkes_ml
    Guest

    Default

    Thanks Christina

    Quote Originally Posted by christanel View Post

    I also have an ancestor who attacked his wife with a penknife cutting her face, because she wouldn't give him money for drink. She did attempt suicide later.

    Christina
    That is so sad. I have come across a few drunks in my family so far, and I feel sorry for the poor families.

    I've typed up the other report from the Kentish Chronicle 20th April 1861

    "MARGATE PETTY SESSIONS

    Friday

    (Before the Mayor and T. Blackburn, Esq.)

    Thomas Foord Sandwell was charged with being drunk and riotous behaviour the previous day. Superintendant Saunders deposed that all about one in the afternoon of the previous day, he received information that there was a disturbance in King-Street, at defendant’s house. He proceeded there and found defendant’s wife concealed in the cupboard of a neighbouring house, and the defendant was running about, using bad language, and swearing to kill his wife. He was drunk at the time and his conduct was very riotous.
    The defendant was then charged with assaulting and resisting superintendant Saunders while in the execution of his duty.
    The superintendant said he took the defendant into custody when he was rushing after his wife, when he struck him right and left, and was so violent that he was compelled to have the assistance of a constable
    P.C. Everett was present and saw the affair, and confirmed the evidence given by the superintendant.
    The defendant’s wife then applied for sureties against him, and on being sworn, she said that she had been married twenty two years and for twenty years had lived comfortably with her husband, but for the last two years he had became acquainted with Jane Cox, and during that time she had lived a wretched life. He had abused and struck her several times. On the previous day he went home and took up the poker and said he would smash her brains out. She immediately left the room because she was in fear, and she was afraid, unless he was restrained, he would do some bodily harm, as he had threatened to chop her down with the chopper.
    This was corroborated by the Superintendant of Police.
    The defendant had no reason to show why he should not be bound over, and the bench held him to bail, himself in £30., and two sureties in £15 each, for three months.-For being drunk and riotous he was sentenced to seven days’ prison, and for assaulting the police superintendant, one month."

    Which goes to show how useful it is to compare sources. The Kentish Chronicle actually gives the years of marriage, and also shows how names could be spelled differently in different sources: Jane COCKS in the first and Jane COX in the second, as well as the variation of FORD/FOORD.

    I wonder if he reverted to his previous good character...was it solely the influence of Jane COX/COCKS? There appears to be no other incidents prior to or after this one.

  4. #4
    Wilkes_ml
    Guest

    Default

    Interestingly, I could only find one Jane COCKS/COX at Margate in the 1861 census, and she was a 30 year old servant ( name spelled COX in the census).

    The East Kent Times dated 22nd August 1863 reports of a Jane COCK found drowned near the jetty. It describes her as a an "unfortunate" which I suspect implies that she was maybe destitute. Her death was initially suspicious with a local waiter remanded into custody but later acquitted. he supposedly tried to help Jane by holding onto her and calling out for the lifeguard.

    I suspect this was the same Jane COCKS/COX, as she does not seem to appear in the 1871 census. Did she throw herself into the sea??? Nothing was mentioned about her state of mind, or her background surprisingly.

  5. #5
    Wilkes_ml
    Guest

    Default

    Ah...the Morning Post 17 August 1863 gives more insight into Jane's situation:

    "A single woman named Jane Cock, residing in Princes Court, King Street and of immoral character was drowned on Friday at Margate....."

    Same street as Thomas Ford Sandwell, so I believe she was the same woman.

    further on in the report:

    "On Saturday last Mr. W. H. Payne, coroner held an inquest on the body. A good many witnesses were examined, from whose evidence it appeared that on Thursday night the deceased formed one of a party at her nephew's, Henry Cock's, where a good deal of beer and other drinks were consumed. She did not leave until about half past one in the morning, when she was a little intoxicated, but, as a witness stated quite capable of taking care of herself. She was accompanied to within a short distance of her house by a man named Wm. Lourie and Margaret Emptage, and when they left her they supposed she was going home."

    edited to add: Incidentally the Jane COX in the 1861 census was living as a boarder in the house of Mary EMPTAGE and her daughter Jane Emptage at Meeting Court.

  6. #6
    Wilkes_ml
    Guest

    Default

    The Kentish Gazette 18 August 1863 gives a lot more detail about Jane! The supposed murder also made the London Evening Standard on the 15th August.

    Interestingly the newspapers say that she was well known to earn a living off immoral means, though her nephew's testimony at her inquest portrays her as a laundress living at home with her mother, and that although she liked to drink, she only did so occasionally!

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Holborn
    Posts
    234

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wilkes_ml View Post
    Ah...the Morning Post 17 August 1863 gives more insight into Jane's situation:

    "A single woman named Jane Cock, residing in Princes Court, King Street and of immoral character was drowned on Friday at Margate....."

    Same street as Thomas Ford Sandwell, so I believe she was the same woman.

    further on in the report:

    "On Saturday last Mr. W. H. Payne, coroner held an inquest on the body. A good many witnesses were examined, from whose evidence it appeared that on Thursday night the deceased formed one of a party at her nephew's, Henry Cock's, where a good deal of beer and other drinks were consumed. She did not leave until about half past one in the morning, when she was a little intoxicated, but, as a witness stated quite capable of taking care of herself. She was accompanied to within a short distance of her house by a man named Wm. Lourie and Margaret Emptage, and when they left her they supposed she was going home.
    I don't why but I have a sneaky suspicion he had something to do with it. When he threatened his wife he was under the influence and when this occurred it does mention beer and alcohol. When the pair supposed she was heading home, is this the case??!?

  8. #8
    Wilkes_ml
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smj7290 View Post
    I don't why but I have a sneaky suspicion he had something to do with it. When he threatened his wife he was under the influence and when this occurred it does mention beer and alcohol. When the pair supposed she was heading home, is this the case??!?
    The thought did cross my mind! However, as Thomas didn't have a past record, or subsequent one and the fact that he wasn't mentioned in any of the news reports on Jane's death as being in the party, I suspect he probably didn't have anything to do with it. I'm sure it would have been at least mentioned if he was still acquainted with her and under suspicion.

    The waiter who was charged and arrested but acquitted, also gave evidence to say that she was alone. He was sitting on a bench having a cigar when he heard her screams and when he went to her assistance he didn't see anyone else leaving the scene...which was why the suspicion fell on him.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Select a file: