Mary Ann BUTTERWORTH 
- Born: 20 Feb 1816, MDX London
- Marriage (1): Rev Henry Richard JULIUS M.A.  on 2 Sep 1840 in Clifton, GLS
- Died: 27 Mar 1893, Woodcroft Red Hill SRY aged 77
The Reverent and Mrs Parker and Their Servant.
At the County Court held at Aldershot on Wednesday, before his Honour Judge Lushington, Mrs Parker, wife of the Vicar of Rowledge, the Rev H W Parker, was sued by Elizabeth Meadow, a servant, for 16/4p the balance of a month's wages in lieu of notice. . . . .. Elizabeth Meadow received about L13 per annum . . . .. She was given a month's notice to leave no reason was given . . . . . A week later she was told the leave the house at once and given a weeks pay. She was suing for the balance 16/4d.
Mr Jackson for the defendant alleged the plaintiff's conduct was "light".
His honour: Is it worthwhile to go into the question of character for 16/4d I should be very sorry indeed to have to do so for that.
Mr Merry for Meadow: it is a question of principle, the only charge against this girl is of having 2 boys arms round her waist.
His Honour: it is a very little case, and a painful thing for a person's character to be tried for so small a sum.
Mr Merry: We want this girl's character cleared.
Then followed further evidence and cross-examination including.
Jackson: Plaintiff had been walking out with men and one night stayed out late and Mrs Parker had to get up and go down and let the girl in, for the whole household had retired to rest. There was the vicar of the parish, and he must
His Honour interrupting: Oh yes; all of us must keep order if the vicar does. (Laughter).
. . . . .
His Honour summing up, said servant cases were always difficult, and it required the Judge to put himself in a most equitable frame of mind to deal with them. There was always a great deal of feeling in the cases on both sides, and both parties always insisted on their extreme rights, and the present case was an example of the kind. The plaintiff and defendant insisted on their respective rights, and so the whole case was fought out for the trifling sum of 16/4p. The rule of law he always carried out was that neither master or mistress were entitled to dismiss summarily or eject from their house at once, anyone unless some very serious misconduct was proved. He could not allow to a Rector or Vicar any greater rights in law then he could do anyone else; but everybody must agree that the Vicar of a parish had the special duty imposed upon him, if not by law, at any rate by society and his profession, to be strict in the management of his household, and of course very careful indeed as to the behaviour of his female servants. He was sorry to say that for the trumpery sum of 16/4d, he had that day to try the great question of the sex and the behaviour of, and enquire into the character, of the plaintiff. It was repugnant to him to have to do so. It was a natural disposition of the sexes to be drawn together. He was sorry to say it was impossible for him to believe both Mrs Parker and the plaintiff. He must say that he believed Mrs Parker, and was sorry that the plaintiff had disgraced herself by swearing falsely; but the main question was whether Mrs Parker was right in summarily dismissing the plaintiff. He did not for a moment want to take an extremely prudish view of the case, and such a thing as persistent misconduct he did not recognise. If a servant in a place misbehaved herself, and was still retained in service, he must consider that all past offences were condoned. He had heard the evidence of Miss Parker and he must say it was unseemly conduct on the part of the girl. The plaintiff's conduct had been light: she had been light in the box that day, and he was entitled to take that into account in deciding the great question whether the conduct of the girl justified Mrs Parker in summarily dismissing her. He did not want to set up or require any extraordinary standard of virtue for plaintiff, or for any other servant, or hired female servant, but in the present case he thought the offence was aggravated by the warnings given to plaintiff after misbehaving herself; and, notwithstanding such warnings she, in spite of them, repeated the offence. In the box she had sworn falsely and deliberately on a number of points and her behaviour was highly disgraceful; and his conclusion was, looking at all the circumstances of the case, looking at the special warnings, the evidence of Miss Parker, which was not denied or palliated in any way, and also looking at plaintiff's behaviour in the box, he had to say expressly so, that Mrs Parker was within her legal right in summarily dismissing the girl, and therefore he gave judgement for the defendant. The next time he hoped Mrs Parker would, by not considering a few shillings avoid another case like this.
Ref: Farnham Herald August 12, 1899. (Roy Waight)
Julius Mary Anne of Woodcroft the Common Redhill Surrey Widow died 27 Mar 1893 Probate London 13 May 1893 to Alexander Kaye Butterworth and George Montagu Butterworth Solicitors. Effects L661-7s-10d
Ref: National Probate calendar.
1. Census: England, 30 Mar 1851, Rectory Wrecclesham Farnham. Mary is recorded as a wife aged 35 born MDX
2. Census: England, 2 Apr 1871, Clifton House Clifton, GLS. Mary Ann is shown at her mothers home in Clifton aged 55 wife of a clergyman born London.
3. Census: England, 3 Apr 1881, Rectory Wrecclesham Farnham. Mary is described as a wife aged 65 born MDX London
4. Census: England, 5 Apr 1891, Woodcroft Red Hill Reigate SRY. Mary is described as head of house a widow aged 75 living on her own means born London
5. Mary Ann Julius nee Butterworth: Will & Probate, 13 May 1893.
Mary married Rev Henry Richard JULIUS M.A.  [MRIN: 329], son of Dr George Charles JULIUS  and Isabella Maria GILDER , on 2 Sep 1840 in Clifton, GLS. (Rev Henry Richard JULIUS M.A.  was born on 30 Jun 1816 in Richmond SRY, christened on 14 Apr 1818 in St Mary Magdalen Richmond SRY, died on 27 Mar 1891 in Woodcroft Red Hill SRY and was buried on 2 Apr 1891 in St John Church Yard Redhill SRY.)