Help with place name
- Thread starter Jellylegs
- Start date
Jellylegs
Well-Known Member
That's what I thought, but as I said, the first letter doesn't look like an 'M' as the others on the page.
I could be persuaded that it is an 'M' as I was hoping Sarah's place of birth said Southminster, Essex. So perhaps the enumerator couldn't read the original and just put it down as Munster/Minster.
The only other capital letter on the page that starts with a swirl like that is an 'N', but that wouldn't make sense either.
I can't see it as anything but Munster. Next question - is it the one in Germany or the one in Ireland? Or as you suggest/hope, is it the best that could be made of something like S'Minster?
I'm not too worried about the different 'M'. A lot of people have alternative styles, and since he was probably writing 'Middlesex' a lot and doing it more or less automatically in the quickest way possible, he might have been quite pleased to have a different word beginning 'M' and took a bit more care over it.
I'm not too worried about the different 'M'. A lot of people have alternative styles, and since he was probably writing 'Middlesex' a lot and doing it more or less automatically in the quickest way possible, he might have been quite pleased to have a different word beginning 'M' and took a bit more care over it.
Jellylegs
Well-Known Member
Ooh, thanks Ann
I think I'm going to claim them as my missing HORRICKS family who are Henry b. 1833/4; Sarah b. 1834/5; Mary A b. 1856; Harriet b. 1858 and Frances Sarah b. 1860 but died 1861 St. George in the East. The birthplaces are wrong (except for Frances/Sarah) and of course the surname, but Henry in the two later census I can find him, was a Labourer at Ship Yard and Dock Labourer which ties in with this one.
I can't find this Berry family anywhere else. I can't find a marriage for Henry and Sarah either. I am sure Henry left the family and lived with someone else, but I can't find a marriage for him to his new "wife" either. A death record for Henry in 1891 has the correct age and there is a marriage for his second "wife" in 1892 where she says she is a widow.
Not as Berry, but as Horricks, born Southminster Essex (if it is her - and the same family).
In which case, could the entry read Minster?
Jellylegs
Well-Known Member
The later census I have them in are:-
1871 - RG10/1631/30/59 - Shepherds Terrace, West Ham (Henry & Sarah +)
1881 - RG11/1717/129/70 - 1 Quadrant Street, West Ham (Sarah a widow +)
1891 - RG12/ 507/88/44 - West Row, St Nicholas, Greenwich (Sarah a widow +)
1901 - RG13/1581/93/34 - 6 Marten Road, West Ham (Sarah, widow + including grandaughter Alice Berry who we were looking for in another thread)
Then Henry in 1891 with new "wife" - RG12/1318/102/42
Can't find Henry in 1881 - but am so confused now, perhaps I should look for him as Berry. In 1871 and 1891 census he says he was born Maldon, Essex.
Thoughts would be appreciated as to whether or not I have got it totally wrong
- if anyone has the time to look.
That's what I was thinking/hoping - maybe the enumerator didn't know where Minster or Southminster was.
Must do the weekly shop, but will be back later.
1871 - RG10/1631/30/59 - Shepherds Terrace, West Ham (Henry & Sarah +)
1881 - RG11/1717/129/70 - 1 Quadrant Street, West Ham (Sarah a widow +)
1891 - RG12/ 507/88/44 - West Row, St Nicholas, Greenwich (Sarah a widow +)
1901 - RG13/1581/93/34 - 6 Marten Road, West Ham (Sarah, widow + including grandaughter Alice Berry who we were looking for in another thread)
Then Henry in 1891 with new "wife" - RG12/1318/102/42
Can't find Henry in 1881 - but am so confused now, perhaps I should look for him as Berry. In 1871 and 1891 census he says he was born Maldon, Essex.
Thoughts would be appreciated as to whether or not I have got it totally wrong
- if anyone has the time to look.That's what I was thinking/hoping - maybe the enumerator didn't know where Minster or Southminster was.
Must do the weekly shop, but will be back later.
AnnB
Editor in Chief who is Hot off the Press!
I think this could be your Henry - not that it helps much 
Essex Times 28th October 1876
Henry Horrick (41), laborer, of 15 Sun-road, East Ham, was charged with stealing 4lbs. of pork, value 3s 6d, from the steam ship “International” the property of Matthew Grey and Co., telegraph works, Silvertown. lt appeared from the evidence that the prisoner had been working on board the ship, which was being cleaned, for about six weeks, and about 12 o’clock on the previous day, a cask or provisions was left open for a short time near where he was employed. Some pieces of pork were afterwards missed, and upon a search being made for the same, they were discovered wrapped up in a handkerchief, and rolled up in the prisoner's coat, which was placed with the other men's coats in the side of the ship between decks. The prisoner was stopped as he was leaving the works with the pork in his possession, and was locked up. The case was remanded to Ilford.
Essex Newsman 4th November 1876
Henry Horrick, 41, labourer, of 15 Sun-row, East Ham, was charged on remand with stealing 4lbs. of pork, value 3s. 6d., from the steamship International, the property of Matthew Gray and Co., Telegraph Works, Silvertown. The prisoner was stopped as was leaving work with the pork in his possession, which had previously formed part of the ship's stores. He pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to two mouths' hard labour.
Essex Times 28th October 1876
Henry Horrick (41), laborer, of 15 Sun-road, East Ham, was charged with stealing 4lbs. of pork, value 3s 6d, from the steam ship “International” the property of Matthew Grey and Co., telegraph works, Silvertown. lt appeared from the evidence that the prisoner had been working on board the ship, which was being cleaned, for about six weeks, and about 12 o’clock on the previous day, a cask or provisions was left open for a short time near where he was employed. Some pieces of pork were afterwards missed, and upon a search being made for the same, they were discovered wrapped up in a handkerchief, and rolled up in the prisoner's coat, which was placed with the other men's coats in the side of the ship between decks. The prisoner was stopped as he was leaving the works with the pork in his possession, and was locked up. The case was remanded to Ilford.
Essex Newsman 4th November 1876
Henry Horrick, 41, labourer, of 15 Sun-row, East Ham, was charged on remand with stealing 4lbs. of pork, value 3s. 6d., from the steamship International, the property of Matthew Gray and Co., Telegraph Works, Silvertown. The prisoner was stopped as was leaving work with the pork in his possession, which had previously formed part of the ship's stores. He pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to two mouths' hard labour.
AnnB
Editor in Chief who is Hot off the Press!
Henry's second wife, Elizabeth, was a bit of a one. This convoluted tale appeared in the Eastern Counties’ Times of the 23rd January 1897. Bear with it, as it does give some details about the marriage to Henry 
At the West Ham Police Court on Monday, before Mr Ernest Baggallay, an extraordinary story was told. An application was made by George Arthur Rapley, of 67, East Hill, Colchester, for the discharge of a maintenance order made in the court in September of last year, on the ground that Elizabeth Ripley, the then complainant, had been guilty of a bigamous marriage, and moreover, was not at the time she went through the ceremony of marriage his wife, her former husband being then alive. Mr Butler appeared for the applicant, and Mr Frederick George conducted the defence. Mr Butler, in opening the case, said the facts were very extraordinary. They had had, considerable trouble in gathering them, but were now in a position to prove that complainant was married in 1870, and at the time she went through the ceremony with George Rapley her huddled was then alive.
Mr George: It may save time if I submit to you the undertaker's bill for burying the first husband.
Mr Baggallay: Well, let us hear the other side of the ease first.
Mr Butler (continuing) said: Mr Rapley married the defendant on 20th August, 1892, and on the 7th September, 1896, a maintenance order was made at 6s per week. They would now price that the marriage of 1892 was a bigamous one, defendant's husband being then alive. Mrs Blake, residing at Walsham-le-Willows, said defendant was married at Finningham to her brother, John Denny, in 1870, a certificate of the marriage being put in. Three years and three months ago she had seen her 'brother alive while at Stanton. It was about the month of October, but she could not remember what year it was. She did not know whether her brother was now alive or not. In cross-examination witness said she did not know nor had she known a man named Horrocks.
Mrs Helen Mumford, of 31, Randle road, Custom House, said that in 1899 she was living next door to Mrs Horrocks at 19, Cleaver road, and she was then a widow. She remembered her brother marrying Mrs Horrocks, and was present at her marriage, and afterwards she was shown by defendant the certificate of the marriage with Horrocks. She also spoke of her marriage to Denny.
By Mr Baggallay: Did she tell you what had become of Horrocks? Witness: No, sir. Did you inquire? No, sir.
By Mr George: Didn't you ask her about her marriage? She produced the certificate of his death. Will you swear she said she was married to Denny? I will. She knew Horrocks was dead, because she saw his body put into the hearse.
Mr Baggalay: How long ago was that? I think in '9l.
This closed the case for the applicant.
For the defence, Mr George said his client would go into the box and swear she did set go through the ceremony of marriage with John Denny, and he would produce the bill of the funeral of Horrocks.
Mr Baggallay: I think we can leave the reference to Horrocks out of the case. What has got to be proved is, was she married to John Denny? And it has got to be proved to my satisfaction that she was the wife of John Denny at the time went through the form of marriage with Rapley - that, in fact, he was alive at the time.
Mr George: There can he only one defence to this case, and that is it is a case of mistaken identity. She admits having at one time lived with a man named John Denny, but she will swear she was never married to him.
Defendant then went into the box and said she could not say when she was first married. She did not know the year, but she married to Horrocks at the Catholic Church, by the Greengate, Plaistow. She lived with him eleven years, and he died in 1891. She was never married at Finningham Church, and did not know where it was. Her maiden name was Elizabeth Carter, not Elizabeth Gathercole, and she had lived with John Denny at Brixton. She first met him at Bury St. Edmunds, and came to London when her baby was six weeks old.
Mr Baggallay: How old is she now? Defendant: 26 years. She did not know John Denny's father, nor was she ever married to John Denny; and she had never seen Mrs Blake before. In cross-examination witness said she could not tell how old she was, nor where she was born. Mr Baggallay: You need not go into details. I am perfectly satisfied that the woman was married to John Denny. She is obviously telling what is untrue, for according to the Horrocks story she is 33 years of age, and according to the Denny tale, she is 45 on her own evidence. Mr George said he had only presented the case as he was instructed, and he was absolutely astonished at the evidence that had been given.
Mr Baggallay: From her evidence I can't believe anything she says, and therefore I shall discharge the order. Mr Butler: May I ask you to initiate proceedings for bigamy. Mr Baggallay: You must take what steps you think proper.
I apologise for any mistakes, only the optical character recognition thingy went into overdrive and I had to correct a lot of the text. It made a wonderful job of Horrocks, reading it as B***ocks on one occasion
At the West Ham Police Court on Monday, before Mr Ernest Baggallay, an extraordinary story was told. An application was made by George Arthur Rapley, of 67, East Hill, Colchester, for the discharge of a maintenance order made in the court in September of last year, on the ground that Elizabeth Ripley, the then complainant, had been guilty of a bigamous marriage, and moreover, was not at the time she went through the ceremony of marriage his wife, her former husband being then alive. Mr Butler appeared for the applicant, and Mr Frederick George conducted the defence. Mr Butler, in opening the case, said the facts were very extraordinary. They had had, considerable trouble in gathering them, but were now in a position to prove that complainant was married in 1870, and at the time she went through the ceremony with George Rapley her huddled was then alive.
Mr George: It may save time if I submit to you the undertaker's bill for burying the first husband.
Mr Baggallay: Well, let us hear the other side of the ease first.
Mr Butler (continuing) said: Mr Rapley married the defendant on 20th August, 1892, and on the 7th September, 1896, a maintenance order was made at 6s per week. They would now price that the marriage of 1892 was a bigamous one, defendant's husband being then alive. Mrs Blake, residing at Walsham-le-Willows, said defendant was married at Finningham to her brother, John Denny, in 1870, a certificate of the marriage being put in. Three years and three months ago she had seen her 'brother alive while at Stanton. It was about the month of October, but she could not remember what year it was. She did not know whether her brother was now alive or not. In cross-examination witness said she did not know nor had she known a man named Horrocks.
Mrs Helen Mumford, of 31, Randle road, Custom House, said that in 1899 she was living next door to Mrs Horrocks at 19, Cleaver road, and she was then a widow. She remembered her brother marrying Mrs Horrocks, and was present at her marriage, and afterwards she was shown by defendant the certificate of the marriage with Horrocks. She also spoke of her marriage to Denny.
By Mr Baggallay: Did she tell you what had become of Horrocks? Witness: No, sir. Did you inquire? No, sir.
By Mr George: Didn't you ask her about her marriage? She produced the certificate of his death. Will you swear she said she was married to Denny? I will. She knew Horrocks was dead, because she saw his body put into the hearse.
Mr Baggalay: How long ago was that? I think in '9l.
This closed the case for the applicant.
For the defence, Mr George said his client would go into the box and swear she did set go through the ceremony of marriage with John Denny, and he would produce the bill of the funeral of Horrocks.
Mr Baggallay: I think we can leave the reference to Horrocks out of the case. What has got to be proved is, was she married to John Denny? And it has got to be proved to my satisfaction that she was the wife of John Denny at the time went through the form of marriage with Rapley - that, in fact, he was alive at the time.
Mr George: There can he only one defence to this case, and that is it is a case of mistaken identity. She admits having at one time lived with a man named John Denny, but she will swear she was never married to him.
Defendant then went into the box and said she could not say when she was first married. She did not know the year, but she married to Horrocks at the Catholic Church, by the Greengate, Plaistow. She lived with him eleven years, and he died in 1891. She was never married at Finningham Church, and did not know where it was. Her maiden name was Elizabeth Carter, not Elizabeth Gathercole, and she had lived with John Denny at Brixton. She first met him at Bury St. Edmunds, and came to London when her baby was six weeks old.
Mr Baggallay: How old is she now? Defendant: 26 years. She did not know John Denny's father, nor was she ever married to John Denny; and she had never seen Mrs Blake before. In cross-examination witness said she could not tell how old she was, nor where she was born. Mr Baggallay: You need not go into details. I am perfectly satisfied that the woman was married to John Denny. She is obviously telling what is untrue, for according to the Horrocks story she is 33 years of age, and according to the Denny tale, she is 45 on her own evidence. Mr George said he had only presented the case as he was instructed, and he was absolutely astonished at the evidence that had been given.
Mr Baggallay: From her evidence I can't believe anything she says, and therefore I shall discharge the order. Mr Butler: May I ask you to initiate proceedings for bigamy. Mr Baggallay: You must take what steps you think proper.
I apologise for any mistakes, only the optical character recognition thingy went into overdrive and I had to correct a lot of the text. It made a wonderful job of Horrocks, reading it as B***ocks on one occasion
Jellylegs
Well-Known Member
Thank you @AnnB - you are so good at finding newspaper articles.
I found the marriage certificate of Elizabeth and George Rapley/Ripley on line, so already had that.
Henry and Elizabeth had a daughter Edith Susan Horrocks (mmn Carter) in 1884 and I found her as a step-daughter in 1901 as Eliza Edith Rapley in the household of William and Eiza Ottoway - another "marriage" for Elizabeth? Birth year for Eliza/Elizabeth is out, but she does say she was born in Suffolk, as in the 1891 census. She also gives her father on the marriage to Rapley as John Carter - so I guess some of what she said in court could be true.
Edith Horrocks names her father as Henry on her marriage certificate to Thomas Martindill in 1903 in Plaistow, and there is a Edward Martindill (who I think is the brother of Edith's husband Thomas) living as a boarder with William and Elizabeth Ottoway in 1911.
It certainly is a convoluted family! Add them to the Berry's that I was chasing earlier who were found in the census as Baker - no wonder I keep having doubts
Now I am wondering if Henry Horricks is really Henry Berry and changed his name for whatever reason. Maybe he did marry Sarah but under what name? I shall have to try looking on SEAX to see if they have any Catholic registers. Their children are registered as Horricks and Hurrick with the mother's maiden name varying from Stutte, Stuttle and even Shittle
The family is a nightmare to sort out - I haven't fathomed out for sure who Sarah was yet.
Off to look some more .....
I found the marriage certificate of Elizabeth and George Rapley/Ripley on line, so already had that.
Henry and Elizabeth had a daughter Edith Susan Horrocks (mmn Carter) in 1884 and I found her as a step-daughter in 1901 as Eliza Edith Rapley in the household of William and Eiza Ottoway - another "marriage" for Elizabeth? Birth year for Eliza/Elizabeth is out, but she does say she was born in Suffolk, as in the 1891 census. She also gives her father on the marriage to Rapley as John Carter - so I guess some of what she said in court could be true.
Edith Horrocks names her father as Henry on her marriage certificate to Thomas Martindill in 1903 in Plaistow, and there is a Edward Martindill (who I think is the brother of Edith's husband Thomas) living as a boarder with William and Elizabeth Ottoway in 1911.
It certainly is a convoluted family! Add them to the Berry's that I was chasing earlier who were found in the census as Baker - no wonder I keep having doubts
Now I am wondering if Henry Horricks is really Henry Berry and changed his name for whatever reason. Maybe he did marry Sarah but under what name? I shall have to try looking on SEAX to see if they have any Catholic registers. Their children are registered as Horricks and Hurrick with the mother's maiden name varying from Stutte, Stuttle and even Shittle
The family is a nightmare to sort out - I haven't fathomed out for sure who Sarah was yet.Off to look some more .....
AnnB
Editor in Chief who is Hot off the Press!
I’ve looked at SEAX and they don’t seem to have any Catholic registers The only church which seems to fit the bill at Greengate, Plaistow was a Primitive Methodist Church. There is a Catholic Church called Our Lady of Compassion, but I don’t think it was built until 1911.
The only church which seems to fit the bill at Greengate, Plaistow was a Primitive Methodist Church. There is a Catholic Church called Our Lady of Compassion, but I don’t think it was built until 1911.
Jellylegs
Well-Known Member
Archie's Mum
Always digging up clues
Munster here as well.
Rather like the W in Whitechapel only upside down.
Rather like the W in Whitechapel only upside down.
Jellylegs
Well-Known Member
Well, after much searching, I have found a marriage of Henry Horrock(e)s and Elizabeth Denny (maiden name Carter). These names tie in with the newspaper article that @AnnB found.
If Henry is the Henry I am looking for, then he too told porkies He says he is 51 and a Bachelor. Elizabeth says she is 38, a widow with a maiden name of Carter - her father being John Carter, a gardener (same info re father on her marriage to George Arthur RAPLEY). Henry's occupation is a Stevedore, so that ties in with my Henry being a dock labourer.
They married on 23 May 1891 at St Andrew Church, Plaistow. Henry died in 1891 (as per the newspaper article and a death registration I found in the Sep Q 1891 at West Ham, which gives his age as 56 - better fitting his age when he was with Sarah in the 1861 and 1871 census).
Henry names his father as Stephen, a Sawyer. I had investigated this family and printed out census for 1841, 1851 and 1861, so think that is probably them.
A big sigh of relief (I think)!
Just need to confirm who Sarah is now - and to persevere with looking for a marriage.
If Henry is the Henry I am looking for, then he too told porkies
He says he is 51 and a Bachelor. Elizabeth says she is 38, a widow with a maiden name of Carter - her father being John Carter, a gardener (same info re father on her marriage to George Arthur RAPLEY). Henry's occupation is a Stevedore, so that ties in with my Henry being a dock labourer.They married on 23 May 1891 at St Andrew Church, Plaistow. Henry died in 1891 (as per the newspaper article and a death registration I found in the Sep Q 1891 at West Ham, which gives his age as 56 - better fitting his age when he was with Sarah in the 1861 and 1871 census).
Henry names his father as Stephen, a Sawyer. I had investigated this family and printed out census for 1841, 1851 and 1861, so think that is probably them.
A big sigh of relief (I think)!
Just need to confirm who Sarah is now - and to persevere with looking for a marriage.