Toni*’s OH Sc Hunt part 9

[Aceh]

Hi Toni,

Just back from sunny Sicily.

George Culmer shows in 1890 at 4 Tottenham Square Hackney

This George was almost certainly one of the brush maker Culmers with no connection to Alfred, George et al.

As for loose ends did we ever get BMD & census details for all those Whiteheads? I've a feeling these were either already known or were being checked out when I joined the hunt. If so could you suggest in which Part might I find them?

Must do a pukka job now that I'm uploading all of my data onto my new Family Historian 5!

[toni*]

yes we did follow up the Whiteheads but they werent actually related to the Culmers as far as i can remember

[toni*]

Hello

I am finding this new RC a little strange however from Part 1 :


this case mentions Mrs Culmer of Lower road Islington its dated  10th JUne 1844

1582.  WILLIAM BURTON NEWENHAM was indicted for unlawfully taking  Frances Louisa Wortham, a girl under 16 years of age, out of the possession, and against the will of  Jane Wortham, her mother.

i have literally just got the case up on my computer and have found that he was up before the dock once before this time as a vicitim

WILLIAM BURTON NEWENHAM, victim name in trial of WILLIAM COVENEY, Theft > pocketpicking, 2nd January 1837.

393. WILLIAM COVENEY was indicted for stealing, on the 2nd of December, at St. James, Westminster, 1 �100 Bank note, and 1 �50 Bank note, the property of William Burton Newenham, from his person. MR. CLARKSON conducted the Prosecution. WILLIAM BURTON N...

[Spidermonkey]

I can't get on to oldbaileyonline at the moment, so I can't check what part Mrs Culmer had to play in the court case.  However, I had a quick rummage at stuff for WBN - did you know that he and Frances had a daughter, Fanny Louisa, bn Aug 7 1844 and baptised 1 Nov 1844?  And that it appears he was previously married in Dublin in 1830!

Frances disappears for a while, and then can be found remarrying in Dublin in 1857.

[toni*]

I can't see what part Mrs Culmer had to  play either she was however of Lower Street Islington 

Spidermonkey in part 1 there were some PDF from the Times online which you couldn't send us, you may be able to attach them now on this new version of RC or post links to the PDF pages 

[toni*]

i was not aware of any daughter between WBN and Fanny Louisa Wrotham is it Wrotham or Wortham ? either way i think this was only brought up in part 1 because it mentions Mrs Culmer of Lower Road Islington AND also (can you grammatically say and also in the same sentence?) Alfred Culmer senior first conviction was for 'kidnapping'of an underage girl.

When Mrs Wortham was cross examined by the defence she says :

Q. Except that, have you not been entirely dependant upon Mr. Newenham? A. But I was not dependant upon Mr. Newenham until the property came—my subsistence did not depend upon him till the property came—I cannot tell how much money he has lent me altogether—I have got an account at home—he gave me a gold watch—I do not know whether it was a new one—he gave it me about a fortnight before he took the child away—I know Mrs. Culmer, of Lower-road, Islington—I told her that the prisoner was my brother-in-law—I never permitted my daughter to go to the theatre alone with Mr. Newenham—I do not remember it, it might have happened and I forget it—I never told a Mrs. Rose or Mrs. Orme that my daughter considered she was engaged to Mr. Newenham, or anything to that effect, or that she intended to marry him, and that her father on his death-bed said to the prisoner, "I suppose you do not think of Fanny, though she would make you a good wife"—I never said anything of the sort to either of them—the apprehension of the prisoner and my daughter was not the result of any stratagem arranged between myself and anybody else—there was no stratagem used at all—I knew where to find my daughter, because I was told where she was going to—I was there myself—I had the direction given to me by Mr. Southie—I was no party to any appointment being made with them for the purpose of having a professional arrangement of the property, and I am sure Mr. Southie never did any such thing—I never said I would make any such arrangement—it was done by me to know what my child's sentiments were—I did not know Mr. Newenham was in the house at the time—it was a house in Carlisle-street, Soho, where they were found—it was not in consequence of an appointment made to arrange the property and settle the matter—I never heard of any such thing—I knew that my child was to be seen that night—my attorney was to see her, by an appointment that was made with Mr. Newenham—I was not present when that appointment was made (looking at a letter)—I do not know whether I received this letter from my daughter whilst she was at the school at Stockwell—it is her writing—I could not swear that I received it—I think I did.

[toni*]

I don't know why they would refer to Mrs. Culmer there is no mention of her before when she was cross examined.
I see that Mrs Wortham told Mrs Culmer that Mr Newenham was her brother in law - wonder why she would say that ?

[toni*]

One question for you. We assume that they had a meeting place and we also assumed this was a pub however I am now not so sure that it was a pub unless they went into the ‘back room’ because would a bunch of criminals meet openly where they could be overheard discussing their crimes / or plans?
We know that AML father owned a pub but more than likely that was  copycat crime and it was Jenney Onkens father Henry that owned the pub.
Would Henry however be pleased his daughter had got mixed up with these type of people and allow his premises to be used in this way? Was Henry oblivious to their crimes?

[toni*]

A question for you all but particularly ACEH  - Is Mrs. Culmer of Lower Road Islington one of ours?