RootsChat.Com
England (Counties as in 1851-1901) => England => London and Middlesex => Topic started by: EllaLees on Wednesday 18 September 13 12:30 BST (UK)
-
Hi am trying to find the parents of Marion Elizabeth Chymist..
She was born about 1862 Walworth, London, England.
She married William Thomas on the 10.08.1885 Camberwell St George, England
Died about 1927 Lambeth, Greater London, England.
On their marriage certificate has her fathers name as Solomon Chymist but I cant find not even one come up with this name in the UK?
Can anyone help me out??
Thanks
Ella
-
She was born about 1862 Walworth, London, England.
Strange as her birth isn't coming up anywhere - I wonder if she changed her name. I cant find her in the 1871 or 1881 census under that name either.
-
I see there was another daughter Florence Newton Chymist born abt 1863 who married Hugh Almond Fraser on the 9 May 1888 Camberwell St Giles, Southwark. Father's name Soloman Chymist. Her sister and brother in law were witnesses and Solomon's occupation is given, as it was on Marion's certificate, as Gentleman.
Here's Florence's birth which might help
Florence Newman Chymist
Apr-May-Jun 1863
Lambeth
Volume: 1d Page: 378
She isn't coming up in any census either.
-
Re. Florence + Hugh Fraser 1891 Newington London RG/365 folio 13 page19
living with them..
Mary Chymist aunt single 54 Cheshunt Hertf.ordshire
Jackie
-
Hi
If you check the National Archives website, there is this
Cause number: 1866 C285.
Short title: Chymist v Newton.
Documents: Bill, interrogatories, answer.
Plaintiffs: Marion Elizabeth Chymist and Florence Newman Chymist infants by Mary Ann Chymist their mother and next friend.
Defendants: William Newton and James Crowdy.
Date range: 1 January 1868 - 31 December 1868.
claire
-
That's interesting, Claire - I wonder what that is all about?
-
Very few Chymists about!
I can see :
James Chymist of 5 Marlborough Road, Dalston, bachelor, died 3 Dec 1859, Letters of Administration to Jane Abigail Berkeley (wife of George Brackenbury Berkeley gentleman) of Shenley, county of Hertford, sister of deceased.
and
Emily Chymist 11 Somerville Rd Peckham , spinster, died 8 June 1918 at Greenwich Union Infirmary. Probate to Emily Sharpe spinster and Henry Hewitt LAmbert solicitor.
Not must help I know - but probably related somehow!
-
Mary Ann Chymist, bn 1838ish in Cheshunt, seems to be an unmarried servant on 1871 and 1881.
Could that be the girls mother?
-
Its very interesting
The Mary Chymist that jacquelineve found in 1891 can be found in 1901 in a household with Emily Chymist bn Cheshunt Herts abt 1841.
Found a bapt. of an Emily Chymist (age a bit off) 15 Mar 1835 Cheshunt. Parents: Samuel and Elizabeth Mary.
Emily had a sister MARY ANN Chymist bapt. 26 Feb 1832 Cheshunt, Hertfordshire.
claire
-
Looking at Family Search there seem to have been two Chymist families in Cheshunt about the same time. This could be the same man with a second marriage.
Samuel Crush Chymist and wife Elizabeth Mary Mold
Samuel Chymist and wife Harriet Susannah Bolton
http://www.rootschat.com/links/0w68/
I would guess that Solomon on the marriage certificates was just a name used for respectability and that Florence Newton Chymist's father was William Newton. Her certificate would show if there was a father named on it. Possibly Marion's father was James Crowdy. It still doesn't explain why they don't appear in the censuses or why Marion's birth isn't registered.
-
Mary a servant in 1881, on closer inspection of the image may be listed as "sister" or visitor in the household of Charles and Mary Ann Arymar (with occupation servant).
Mary Ann's maiden name is Harrison, and Mary Chymist was a witness at their wedding
-
2nd marriage for Samuel Crush Chymist
St James Clerkenwell, 26 Oct. 1842
Samuel Crush Chymist wdr of age baker 27 Wilmington Sqr Father: Samuel Chymist~farmer
Harriet Susannah Lawson sp. " " " " " : Frederick Bolton~office clerk
Witnesses: George Brackenbury Berkeley and ???? ???? Berkeley
George B Berkeley married Jane Abigail Chymist (father Samuel) 26 Aug. 1839
claire
-
There are some newspaper articles on British Newspaper archives re the treatment of the late wife of a Samuel Chymist, baker, of Cheshunt by a "quack doctor"
James Cowdy appears to have been a solicitor in London in the 1860s
-
its very interesting, there is not many Chymist's out their. . Solomon must not have been the father as he doesn't seem to exist. Thanks for all this info, I can try and research further now
Might see if I can look into further about this case number: 1866 C285. might be able to give me more information
Thanks for this
Ella
-
Interesting thread.
If you're not able to get to the National Archives, I've used http://www.arcre.com/ in the past, very reasonable prices and excellent service.
You should just need the reference number C 16/332/C285
-
2nd marriage for Samuel Crush Chymist
St James Clerkenwell, 26 Oct. 1842
Samuel Crush Chymist wdr of age baker 27 Wilmington Sqr Father: Samuel Chymist~farmer
Harriet Susannah Lawson sp. " " " " " : Frederick Bolton~office clerk
Witnesses: George Brackenbury Berkeley and ???? ???? Berkeley
George B Berkeley married Jane Abigail Chymist (father Samuel) 26 Aug. 1839
claire
And Jane Abigail had a brother James, who never married - see reply #6
-
Ive requested the document for the Chymist v Newton. not sure how long that will take but might give me some more info.
Will post on here when I receive it
Thanks for everyone's help
-
Came across this in someones family tree attached to Samuel Crush Chymist
Hertford Mercury and Reformer
5th March 1842
CROWN COURT – Friday
Isaac Chamberlain was indicted for feloniously killing and slaying Elizabeth Chymist. The case excited great interest and the Court was crowded. Mr. DOWLING conducted the prosecution and Mr. Chadwick JONES, assisted by Mr. T. CHAMBERS, appeared for the defence. The first witness called was samuel Chymist, the husband of the deceased – He deposed that he was a baker residing at Cheshunt. His wife had borne a family of eight children. She was 33 years old when she died. Her general health, up to the time of her death, had always been very good. About nine or ten months before her death, a great lump appeared on her right breast, Mr. Saunders of Cheshunt saw her and gave her a box of salve, and advised her to go and consult Dr. Kerrieson in London. She did so, and he prescribed for her some powders which she took. Two or three months before her death there appeared an oozing out from two little places in her breast about the size of pins points. She afterwards left off going to Dr. Kerrison, and went to a Dispensary in London, as an out-patient and was under the care of Dr. Curry – She went every week to London for about two or three months; she brought back powders which she took, and did not apply anything to her breast. She did not get better; and about six weeks before her death, he brought her to Hertford to see the prisoner. They saw him at the Green Dragon. His wife told Chamberlain she had got cancer, and asked him if he could cure it. He said yes; he thought he could. His wife then went with Chamberlain to his house, and on their return, his wife told him that it was necessary she should remain at Hertford five or six weeks. A lodging was then taken for her at Mrs. Nicholson’s, and she remained under the care of the prisoner. Witness came every Sunday to see his wife; he never saw the wound during the time. She complained of her breast being full of pain. Saw her the day of her death; she had been delivered of a child.
Cross-examined by Mr. CHADWICK JONES – The lump appeared two years before her death; it was very small then, and it got gradually larger. She was under the care of Dr. Kerrieson a fortnight or three weeks; he gave her powders, and a lotion to bathe the breast with. The breast got very large and hard, and she complained of much pain at times. Came to Hertford in consequence of hearing that prisoner was skilful in the treatment of cancer. Prisoner said the thought he could cure it before he examined the breast. The breast continually discharged from the two small places up to the time of our coming to Hertford. Never saw prisoner after deceased came under his care. Deceased never made any complaint that she was treated improperly. Had not seen her for a fortnight previously to my seeing her the day she died. She had a cold and could hardly speak. Never paid anything to prisoner; I asked him what his charge was, and he said he should make none till such time as he had made a cure but that he would not hurt me.
-
Sarah Nicholson, wife of John Nicholson, deposed that deceased came to lodge at her house about six or seven weeks before her death; when she came her right breast was very large and hard. Prisoner attended her, and no one else did anything to her; I saw it on the second morning, and there appeared a place about as big as a pea, which discharged. On the third morning Chamberlain rubbed some ointment on it; I saw him open it a little with what appeared to be a small knife, he then rubbed on the ointment round the breast, and put a little powder into the wound; and this he did every day. The powder did not appear to give instant pain. The wound went on enlarging, and I saw prisoner almost every morning scrape and cut away the dead flesh, with an instrument having a turned point. Have seen him take away more than once, pieces of flesh which, put together, would be as large as my little finger. There was very little blood. The deceased had a very bad cold. Prisoner was there on Thursday morning, the day before her death, and saw him rub some ointment on the breast that morning, but did not see him cut it. Have known prisoner many years, he was a journeyman butcher five or six years ago. He was known at Hertford as a doctor.
Cross-examined – When I first saw deceased’s breast it was nearly breaking. She did not appear to be in much pain when she first came; after it was dressed she complained of pain. Prisoner was very attentive and kind, and Mrs. Chymist would never speak against him. She was taken in labour on Thursday; she had but one pain and the child was born; she had a very comfortable time; my daughter was with her and called me, but before I got upstairs the child was born. She seemed to go on very comfortably until five o’clock on Thursday, and I then sent for Mr. Woodhouse. He came about half-past five. All the previous time she was going on very comfortably. Mr. Woodhouse sent her a draft and in consequence of what he said I sent off to Cheshunt. We had given her nothing but gruel. Mr. Woodhouse came again on Friday about an hour before her death. Deceased seemed much inclined for sleep during the night. The delivery was quite complete – after-birth as well; but “Nature flew upwards and carried the inflammation to her breast.”
Elizabeth Stallibrass was called in on Thursday, the 14th October, to the deceased; she had been delivered about ten minutes before; she seemed quite comfortable; it was not a full grown child – a seven months child. In cross examination witness said deceased had a very bad cold.
Susannah Stanbridge was also called in, and she corroborated Mrs. Stallibrass. Witness stayed all night, and deceased seemed very comfortable till about five o’clock, when her breathing became hard, and she was very feverish.
Sarah Nicholson, daughter of the person with whom deceased lodged, remembered Mrs. Chymist dying. Witness went for Mr. Woodhouse about five o’clock, and he came directly. After that Chamberlain came and he went up stairs, and took off the mantel-piece some boxes containing ointment. Chamberlain stayed a few minutes, he asked Mrs. Chymist if she had taken the medicine Mr. Woodhouse sent. Witness was cross-examined on this point, because on the inquest she swore distinctly that Chamberlain went up stairs and never spoke to anybody, nor even looked at Mrs. Chymist, he was not in the room a minute.
The evidence of the Surgeons we must defer for want of time and space, we shall, however give them in our next, as we feel bound to do all in our power to protect the public, in spite of themselves, against such deplorable results as the present case presents. We must content ourselves now with giving the sentence passed on Chamberlain by the learned Judge.
The Learned JUDGE addressed the Prisoner as follows: - Prisoner at the Bar – You stand convicted of the crime of Manslaughter – you have had a long and patient trial, and the Jury have deliberated as to the verdict they should give, and that verdict has been indeed well warranted by the evidence which they have heard. It appears very clear that you are an untaught and ignorant man, conceiving yourself to be possessed of some means of treating this disease of cancer, have rashly undertaken to do that, and that you have used violent medicines and applications by means of which there can be no doubt that this poor woman’s death was greatly accelerated. It is necessary for the safety of the community that persons like you who are not to be restrained by other considerations should be so by the apprehension of punishment. It is lamentable that the gross ignorance of mankind should cause applications to be made to persons like you – that any person should imagine that the disease of Cancer which has baffled the most skilful of the medical profession, could be cured by one who has no skill whatever. Your punishment is necessary by way of example to deter others from the commission of these crimes – that they should not rashly and presumptuously make use of violent remedies for the cure of diseases, by means of which, undoubtedly, in many instances, death has been caused. It is fit that persons should know, that for this crime they are liable to very heavy punishment. I shall by no means go to the extent to which the law allows in cases of manslaughter – but it is necessary to inflict a severe punishment. The sentence of the Court is, that you be imprisoned for twelve calendar months.