Deed of separation, 1882

Huncamunca

Huncamunca

The Knowledgeable One
Today I found, in a batch of papers given to Witney & District Museum, a type of document I'd never seen before: a deed of separation. In case others here are interested in the subject, I have transcribed the main points here. (The original is all in one long paragraph with no punctuation. I have broken it up into paragraphs for ease of understanding).

This Indenture made the twentieth day of October one thousand eight hundred and eighty two Between Thomas Golby of Caversham in the County of Berks Gentleman of the first Part Elizabeth Mary Golby (Wife of the said Thomas Golby) of the second part and John Worley of Brizenorton in the County of Oxford Farmer and William Worley of Witney in the said County of Oxford Gentleman of the third part​
​
Whereas unhappy differences have arisen between the said Thomas Golby and Elizabeth Mary Golby his Wife and they have consequently agreed to live separate from each other for the future and to enter into such arrangement as is hereinafter contained​
​
And whereas by an Indenture bearing date with these presents and made between Mary Golby (the Mother of the said Thomas Golby) [and the other parties mentioned in the opening clause] the said Mary Golby has made such provision during her life for the said Thomas Golby and Elizabeth Mary Golby as in the Indenture now in recital is particularly expressed And the said Thomas Golby has in and by the said Indenture covenanted with the said John Worley and William Worley to make and secure to the said Elizabeth Mary Golby after the death of the said Mary Golby such provision as in the said Indenture is particularly mentioned​
​
Now this Indenture Witnesseth that in pursuance of the said Agreement . . . the said Thomas Golby doth hereby . . . covenant with the said John Worley and William Worley their executors and administrators that the said Elizabeth Mary Golby shall and may at all times hereafter notwithstanding her coverture live separate and apart from the said Thomas Golby as if she was a feme sole and shall henceforth be freed from the control and authority of the said Thomas Golby and shall reside in such a place or places and in such manner as she shall think fit and that the said Thomas Golby will not at any time hereafter require her to live with him or institute any legal proceedings or take any other steps whatsoever for that purpose and will not in anywise molest or interfere with the said Elizabeth Mary Golby in her manner of living or otherwise . . .​
​
And this Indenture also Witnesseth that . . . the said John Worley and William Worley their heirs executors and administrators shall and will at all times hereafter during the continuance of the said separation keep indemnified the said Thomas Golby . . . from and against all debts and liabilities hereafter to be contracted or incurred by the said Elizabeth Mary Golby whether for wearing apparel maintenance support or otherwise . . .​
​
And further that the said Elizabeth Mary Golby or any person on her behalf shall not nor will at any time hereafter commence or prosecute any action or other proceeding for compelling the said Thomas Golby to allow her any support maintenance or alimony whatsoever or to cohabit or live with her . .​

The document bears the following signatures:

Thos Golby (witnessed by Geo. Bliss, solicitor, Banbury)

E.M. Golby [Elizabeth Mary Golby], John Worley and Wm Worley (witnessed by N. Ravenor, solicitor, Witney)
 
"Unhappy differences"! Brilliant stuff. Not come across anything like this before. My lot usually just upped and left with no formal seperation that I am aware of.
Thanks for transcribing this.
 
It's a fascinating bundle of papers, which was apparently found in a skip in Witney some years ago, and has just been given to the museum because its rescuer was moving house.

I haven't studied all the documents closely yet, but can add a little bit to the story of the Golbys: in January 1889, Thomas Golby was taken ill in Guernsey and summoned his daughter Susannah Gardner Golby to his bedside. He died soon after her arrival. He had drawn up a very short document revoking the codicil to his will; his daughter and the two witnesses (a mother and daughter living in the Guernsey house where he lodged) had to give evidence before probate could be granted. There's an affidavit from Susannah which says, among other things
'In the year 1882 my Father separated from my Mother and the separation continued down to the time of his death and since the separation my mother and I have resided together at Witney . . . and my Father has had no permanent home but has resided in divers places in Lodgings.'​

She also goes on to say that she had her father's remains brought to Banbury and buried there.
 
Huncamunca

Do I understand correctly that Mr Golby paid no support to Mrs Golby and that the Worleys acted as guarantors (i.e. supported her if needbe)? Were the Worleys Mrs Golby's family, do you know?
 
mugwortismy cat said:
Do I understand correctly that Mr Golby paid no support to Mrs Golby and that the Worleys acted as guarantors (i.e. supported her if needbe)? Were the Worleys Mrs Golby's family, do you know?
Click to expand...

It sounds from the indenture as if the same parties had also made a separate agreement that some money would come from Thomas' mother Mary Golby to Elizabeth. The terms of the separation seem to have been that Thomas himself would not give any money to Elizabeth.

I was expecting to find that Elizabeth was a Worley . . . but having had a quick look on FreeBMD, I think she was called Elizabeth Mary Skinner at the time of her marriage in 1857. I need to do a bit of research in parish registers and censuses to fill in some of the background.
 
Huncamunca said:
It sounds from the indenture as if the same parties had also made a separate agreement that some money would come from Thomas' mother Mary Golby to Elizabeth.
Click to expand...

Aha! I have just found a separate 'Deed of Arrangement' also made on 20 October 1882. It sheds more light on things . . . but it is too late for transcribing now - I will post part 2 tomorrow.
 
Here are the main points of the 'Deed of Arrangement' of 20 October 1882.

The parties were:
1. Mary Golby of Banbury, widow
2. Thomas Golby of Caversham, gent.
3. Elizabeth Mary Golby wife of said Thomas Golby
4. John Worley of Brizenorton, farmer, and William Worley of Witney, gent.

The document refers to a 'certain Bond of Obligation' by Mary Golby dated 30 October 1857 when her son Thomas was 'about to intermarry with Elizabeth Mary Skinner, spinster' which , by which she agreed to pay £500 to Elizabeth if Thomas died within 5 years of the marriage and Elizabeth survived him. If he died after they had been married more than 5 years, and Elizabeth survived him, the payment was to be £750.

It goes on to recite the following:
  • 'Mary Golby has for some time past made a voluntary allowance by way of annual income for the maintenance and support of the said Thomas Golby and Elizabeth his wife'
  • 'Thomas Golby is unable to make a provision for the said Elizabeth Mary Golby'
  • 'Mary Golby in consideration of the natural love and affection which she hath for the said Thomas Golby and Elizabeth Mary his Wife . . . hath agreed to secure to each of them . . . an annuity . . .of Fifty Pounds during the lifetime of the said Mary Golby'

This document is to confirm that Mary Golby will pay £50 per year each to Thomas and Elizabeth, on condition that she is released from the obligation of the bond made in 1857, i.e. payment of the £750.

Interestingly, another part of the agreement is that Thomas agrees not to reside in Reading, Banbury or Witney, or within thirty miles of any of those places.

There is a lot more, but the writing is too little and I am too tired to read it! I still also have to try to work out what was going on in the will with FIVE codicils of Mary Golby. Lots more bits of the story to piece together!
 
I wonder if something was the matter with him health wise for this to happen. I searched them on the census and found in 1861 he was a carrier with 7 men and one boy working for him..only 25 years old, in 1871 it says he was a retired railway agent yet 35 years old and in 1881 they were visiting the Edwards family... You certainly have our curiousity up now!
 
Half Hour said:
I wonder if something was the matter with him health wise for this to happen. I searched them on the census and found in 1861 he was a carrier with 7 men and one boy working for him..only 25 years old, in 1871 it says he was a retired railway agent yet 35 years old
Click to expand...

It is getting very intriguing, isn't it? There are just a few tantalising hints in these documents. I would love to know the full story of what was going on.

The 1852 Gardner's directory of Oxfordshire (on that most useful Historical Directories website) has a Thomas Golby of Bridge Street, Banbury, who was a carrier and agent for the LNWR. The will of a Thomas Golby, carrier of Banbury, was proved at the PCC in 1855. This seems likely to be the husband of Mary Golby and father of 'our' Thomas. By the time of the 1861 census, Thomas junior seems (nominally at least) to be in charge of the business. It looks as if something went drastically wrong between then and 1871 when he was 'retired' though only 35. Perhaps he had made such a pig's ear of things that his mother took over?

The 1876 Harrod & Co's directory does have an M. Golby listed as 'agent for Pickford & Co., and L. and N.W. Railway Company, 24, Bridge street'. This could well be Mary. (There is also a Mrs Golby of 50 Bridge Street listed among the 'private residents', but she could be listed twice under home and business addresses.)

My bundle of documents includes a 'General Summary of the Will and Codicils of the late Mrs Mary Golby'. It is notable that in the will (drawn up in 1883) she did not make her (only?) son Thomas an executor. Some property is left directly to the only other child she mentions, a daughter Elizabeth, but a lot of the property is put in the hands of trustees. It makes me wonder if she didn't trust Thomas to be sensible with money.

And there's that curious 1857 document which makes it sound as if Mary was agreeing to pay her future daughter-in-law to marry her son. What was going on there, I wonder?

. . . and why was Thomas later banished from Banbury, Reading and Witney? That seems very extreme. He must have done something bad for that to be thought necessary.

There are always more questions than answers in family history!
 
Any court documents from that time period? Maybe he stole from the company?
Wish I had time to see more today...have to go....
 
Half Hour said:
Any court documents from that time period? Maybe he stole from the company?
Click to expand...

Good thinking, Sue: I will have to try Ancestry when I'm next in the library, in case he pops up in the Criminal Registers. I have been trawling through some of the online newspapers in the hope of more clues, but nothing so far. I may have to go up to the local studies library in Banbury to pursue this one further.

Oh dear, it is very easy to get side-tracked onto other people's ancestors!
 
There are a bunch of Golby Wills on The Genealogist as follows:
John Golby Carrier Hanbury Oxfordshire probate 15 mar 1826
Thomas Golby Gentleman Banbury Oxfordshire probate 3 jul 1816
James Wake Golby Gentleman Banbury Oxfordshire probate 16.6.1842
Jams Golby Coal Merchant Banbury Oxfordshire probate 20 Aug 1819
Ann Golby Spinster Banbury Oxfordshire 21. 6 1852
any of them of interest Hunc??
 
Thank you for joining in the search, Blackmogs :)

I ought not to get too carried away tracing the Golby line backwards and sideways, so had better not look at those wills yet . . . Banbury is a bit off my territory really. I am easily distracted though! The will that is most likely to be relevant is the 1855 Thomas Golby one I mentioned in post #11: is that on The Genealogist too? (If not I will wait until I next go to Kew.)

Will check the perjury thing too: is that from the Criminal Register?

Wish my own ancestors would leave a paper trail like this!
 
Ah, he didn't show up in the first search so I played with the name and they have him as Thomas Gowy. I will have a look at it for you but no guarantee I will be able to read it!

Yes sorry, I forgot to say about the perjury thing. :(
 
Blackmogs said:
One Thomas Golby was found acquitted of perjury on 17.3.1870 in Oxford.
Click to expand...

This is the beginning of the report on the perjury case in the Oxford Journal for the 12th March 1870

ALLEGED PERJURY AT WOODSTOCK. Thomas Golby, 18, baker, was arraigned on an indictment charging him with having committed perjury at the Petty Sessions at Woodstock on the 7th of Dec. last. Mr. Sawyer conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Harington defended the prisoner. Mr. B. B. B. Hawkins, Clerk to the Magistrates at Woodstock, said that on the 7th of December an information was laid against the prisoner's master, Mr. Lambourn, for sending out bread in a cart without the prisoner having a beam and scales with him to weigh the bread. The prisoner then gave such evidence as led to the Magistrates dismissing the case.

Doesn't look like 'the' Thomas Golby.

I've been having a rootle through the newspapers too, but can't find anything relevant, which is a bit of a pain!

Best wishes
Ann
 
Blackmogs said:
Ah, he didn't show up in the first search so I played with the name and they have him as Thomas Gowy.
Click to expand...

Thank you Blackmogs, for finding that 1855 will which was cunningly hidden under Gowy. I have been working today so not much time for battling with handwriting. I'll have a closer look at it shortly. From my first brief look it does sound as if that Thomas was the husband of Mary and father of the badly behaved Thomas junior.

Half Hour said:
This is like a good book you don't want to put down. ;)
Click to expand...

If only it didn't have so many pages missing!

AnnB said:
This is the beginning of the report on the perjury case in the Oxford Journal for the 12th March 1870 . . .
Click to expand...

Thank you, Ann, for checking out the newspapers. As you say, the Thomas who was involved in that perjury case sounds like a different man: too young and wrong occupation. So we need to look elsewhere for the explanation of what the other Thomas had done to be persona non grata in Oxfordshire and Berkshire.

If it was a private affair, and something the family tried to cover up, it may be impossible to find out. But that won't stop me trying . . .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top