Thank you that. Well we are quite closely related! I have extracted the texts of the Newspaper archives from the British Newspaper Archives:
Morning Advertiser, Saturday 22 January 1848
GUILDHALL. Mr. Elliston, of Fetter-lane, was before Mr. Alderman Gibbs, for refusing to repay to the parish of St. Dunstan the rewards which had been paid by the church wardens to certain engineers, for bringing their engines in good order to extinguish a fire which happened in the chimney of his house the 4th inst. Elleman, the Beadle, stated that the Common Council had sanctioned the payment of the rewards, reduced to 2/., and the defendant refused to repay the amount. John Wilson, of the fire brigade, said he was called to the fire. He found there had been explosion of gas in the shop, but no part of the premises was set fire to except the chimney. That was on fire as high he could see, and a second chimney, which communicated with it, was also on fire. was not able to leave satisfied that all was safe till he had been there half hour. The chimney, and only the chimney, was on fire, beyond all question. Mr. Alderman Gibbs asked the defendant why he objected to pay? Mr. Elliston said he objected, because the fire did not originate in the chimney. There was momentary explosion of gas, which burnt his face and damaged his property, without setting-fire to any part of the premises. The violent concuss on shook some soot down the chimney into a good fire in the grate, and thus fired the little soot in the chimney. But there was no ground for alarm, and his chimneys had been lately rebuilt. Mr. Alderman Gibbs asked when his chimneys were last swept. Mr. Elliston said a fortnight before the accident. Mr. Alderman Gibbs said the intention of the law was to punish those who, by their negligence in any way, set chimneys on fire. There was no doubt in this case, that the fire began in the house, not in the chimney. He thought it was a case in which the payment of the rewards must fall on the parish instead the householder; and dismissed the summons.
Morning Advertiser, Thursday 9 May 1850
POTMAN, or POTMAN and WAITER, respectable, single, young Man, aged with excellent character. Direct to T. H., Mr. Elliston's, Horseshoe and Magpie, Fetter-lane, Fleet-street.
Morning Advertiser, Thursday 3 October 1850
AS POTMAN, WAITER and POTMAN, respectable young Man, in a respectable House of Business, with an excellent character from his last situation. Direct to T. H., at Mr. Elliston's, the Horseshoe and Magpie, Fetter-lane. City.
Morning Advertiser - Friday 20 June 1851
Licence Victuallers’ School, Kennington Lane, Lambeth. The forty-fifth anniversary dinner of this institution will take place at Highbury Tavern, Islington on Thursday 3rd of July next. Tickets 7s 6d each may be had of The Stewards, viz (long list including) Mr Elliston, Fetter-lane.
Morning Advertiser, Thursday 6 December 1855
As Potman or Waiter and Potman, a respectable young Man, with a good character-has been used to the out-door trade, and to serve factories and wharves. Direct to T. H, at Mr. Elliston's, the Horseshoe and Magpie, Fetter-lane.
Then next appears as proprietor of a pub in Stratford: Proprietor of The Engineers Arms, 8 Angel Place, Stratford, London, Petty Sessions Sept 1872 and in 1874 Kelly’s Directory
Had left by 1877 per Kelly’s Directory.
I wonder where William Edward Elliston was between The Horseshoe and Magpie which he seems to have left around 1860 and doesn't seem to be anywhere until 1872 at the Engineers Arms. Yes, why did his other son, Charles Edward, my gt grandfather claim he was born in Madrid, Spain? Weird one that.
