The Kings Candlesticks - Family Trees
Joseph BUTTERWORTH [2218]
(1770-1826)
Ann COOKE [2219]
(1770-1820)
Thomas STOCK [2220]
(1768-1838)
Mary BROWNE [2221]
(-1829)
Joseph Henry BUTTERWORTH of Clapham Common [2216]
(1792-1828)
Mary Ann STOCK [2217]
(1792-1872)

Mary Ann BUTTERWORTH [1031]
(1816-1893)

 

Family Links

Spouses/Children:
1. Rev Henry Richard JULIUS M.A. [776]

Mary Ann BUTTERWORTH [1031]

  • Born: 20 Feb 1816, MDX London
  • Marriage (1): Rev Henry Richard JULIUS M.A. [776] on 2 Sep 1840 in Clifton, GLS
  • Died: 27 Mar 1893, Woodcroft Red Hill SRY aged 77
picture

bullet  General Notes:


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).

picture

bullet  Other Records

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, The Grange Wrecclesham SRY.
Précis of Will.
Should I predecease my husband I give to him everything that I may die possessed of.
Should my husband die in my lifetime then I dispose of my property in manner following:
All my plate jewellery and personal ornaments to my executors to be divided between my children and grandchildren in accordance with schedule B attached.
All the residue of my estate after discharge of debts to my daughters Edith Catherine Julius and Constance Marion Julius in equal shares.
Alexander Kaye Butterworth and George Montagu Butterworth to be Executors
Signed Mary Ann Julius.
8 June 1887

B
List of plate jewellery etc for distribution amongst children and grandchildren.
1. Isabel \endash large gold pencil case, (present from her father to her mother).
2. Emily \endash Mrs Gilles 12 desert spoons 1 gravy spoon and 4 ladles (all engraved) silver branched candlesticks, 6 table forks \endash 6 desert forks 6 tablespoons (not engraved). Shakespeare in 8 volumes.
Florence Parker \endash her grandmothers watch and chain, without the pencil case.
Sylvia Parker \endash Serpent brooch with ruby eyes.
3. Louisa \endash Her mother's diamond ring and small crescent brooch, picture of Agnes Brewin and frame.
Ella Brewin \endash Geneva painted brooch.
4. Florence \endash The Epergne large cameo brooch, Coriolanus Parting From His Wife.
Elsie Stevens \endash Gold locket with Anchor
5. Ellen \endash China branch candlestick (from the Dunlops), 6 tablespoons, 6 desert forks, 6 tablespoons, 6 desert spoons. For metal and glass salt cellars and salt spoons, amethyst brooch, Bracelet of twisted wire.
6. Katie \endash Large gold locket serpent brooch with 4 turquoises, plain gold bracelet.
7. Constance \endash Best gold bracelet, plain gold bracelets, small amethyst locket, small gold pencil case (present from Isabel to her mother).
8. Octavia \endash Cameo brooch, stone brooch (present from her father to her mother).
All the rest plate china books furniture etc to Katie and Constance equally.
Henry R Julius.
Mary Anne Julius.
June 8, 1887.
Henry R Julius.
Mary Anne Julius.
August 27, 1888.
Affidavit as to identity of paper writing B filed the 13th day of May 1893 Probate of this Will is contained in writings A and B was granted to Alexander K Butterworth and George Montagu Butterworth the Executors

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 £661 7s 10d
Ref: National Probate Calendar.


picture

Mary married Rev Henry Richard JULIUS M.A. [776] [MRIN: 329], son of Dr George Charles JULIUS [51] and Isabella Maria GILDER [52], on 2 Sep 1840 in Clifton, GLS. (Rev Henry Richard JULIUS M.A. [776] was born on 30 Jun 1816 in Richmond SRY, baptised 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.)


Copyright © and all rights reserved to Edward Liveing Fenn and all other contributors of personal data. No personal data to be used without attribution or for commercial purposes. Interested persons who wish to share this data are welcome to contact edward@thekingscandlesticks.com to arrange same and be given the details.


Home | Table of Contents | Surnames | Name List

This Website was Created 19 May 2021 with Legacy 9.0 from MyHeritage; content copyright and maintained by edward@thekingscandlesticks.com