This seems to be the family but something strange in that Margaret appears to have got 12 years younger between 1861 and 1871. It also seems a bit strange that a 52 year old should have an 8 month old daughter. But the transcription appears to agree with the original document. No sign of any husband though. Best wishes John 1871 Hollock Margaret 52 Head Kendal, Westmorland Egerton, Bolton Hollock Elizabeth 20 Daur Cotton Operative Kendal, Westmorland Egerton, Bolton Hollock Alice A 8 M Daur Lancaster, Turton, - Egerton, Bolton Hollock Adam 15 Son Stone Mason Kendal, Westmorland Egerton, Bolton 1861 Hollock Margaret 64 Head Kendal, Westmorland Barry Row, Turton, Lancashire Hollock Hannah 22 Dau Factory Worker Kendal, Westmorland Barry Row, Turton, Lancashire Hollock Mary 15 Dau Factory Worker Kendal, Westmorland Barry Row, Turton, Lancashire Hollock Michael 13 Son Factory Worker Kendal, Westmorland Barry Row, Turton, Lancashire Hollock Elizabeth 9 Dau Scholar Kendal, Westmorland Barry Row, Turton, Lancashire Hollock Adam 5 Son Kendal, Westmorland Barry Row, Turton, Lancashire -----Original Message----- From: David Hughlock [mailto:David@hughlock.co.uk] Sent: 07 July 2009 11:40 To: LANCASHIRE Gen; 0-WESTMORLAND mailing LIST Subject: [ENG-WESTMORLAND] HALLOCK / BULLOCK LOOK UP PLEASE Hello Listers, Could someone provide us with a look up please. 1861, 71, 91 We have Adam Hallock / Bullock and cannot move him further forward. Please can you help us. BORN ??? Birth March Q 1854 at Kendal ref 10b 508 Adam Bullock. The district Kendal is an alternative name for Kendal and it spans the boundaries of the counties of Lancashire and Westmorland 0 - In 1881 his mother - Margaret (nee ?) HALLOCK aged 69 (1812) a Widow born Kendal Westmorland has one son Adam HALLOCK aged 26 (1855) born Kendal Westmorland a Stone Quarryman, unmarried, they live at Old School Turton Lancashire see RG11, 3830, 33, 3, 1341915. Burial: 19 May 1908 Christ Church, Walmsley, Lancashire, England, Adam Hullock - Age: 50, Abode: Egerton, Buried by: J. C. Campbell Asst. Curate, Register: Burials 1904 - 1923, Page 45, Entry 355, Source: Register at Manchester Library Kind regards Bronwen and David ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ENG-WESTMORLAND-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hello Listers, Could someone provide us with a look up please. 1861, 71, 91 We have Adam Hallock / Bullock and cannot move him further forward. Please can you help us. BORN ??? Birth March Q 1854 at Kendal ref 10b 508 Adam Bullock. The district Kendal is an alternative name for Kendal and it spans the boundaries of the counties of Lancashire and Westmorland 0 - In 1881 his mother - Margaret (nee ?) HALLOCK aged 69 (1812) a Widow born Kendal Westmorland has one son Adam HALLOCK aged 26 (1855) born Kendal Westmorland a Stone Quarryman, unmarried, they live at Old School Turton Lancashire see RG11, 3830, 33, 3, 1341915. Burial: 19 May 1908 Christ Church, Walmsley, Lancashire, England, Adam Hullock - Age: 50, Abode: Egerton, Buried by: J. C. Campbell Asst. Curate, Register: Burials 1904 - 1923, Page 45, Entry 355, Source: Register at Manchester Library Kind regards Bronwen and David

This is the last posting in this series on the Ambleside County Court. Ambleside County Court Ambleside Lakes Herald December 18, 1885 Page 5 Friday before Judge INGHAM and the Registrar (Mr. GATEY) Henry HILTON v R.J. PIGOTT The claim in this case was for £50 being £40 16s 8d for seven month's salary, ending July 28, 1884, and £14 the amount of half the school grant up to the same date, less £1 5s for school fees received, making a total of £53 11s 8d. Of this, the defendant only sent in a claim for £50, in order to bring the case within the jurisdiction of the court. The case had been adjourned from the last court in order to get the evidence of Mrs. HILTON and Mr. BLAND, Mr. HILTON having stated that Mr. BLAND, as a trustee of Kentmere school and representing the other trustee, the Rev. R.J. PIGOTT, had told the defendant's wife that he should keep on the school until June, thus waving the notice which had been given Mr. HILTON terminating his engagement in March. The matter in dispute was the payment of the salary for the quarter that the defendant had kept on the school after the termination of his notice, and also a portion of the school grant, one quarter of which was allowed the defendant with the understanding that should the engagement prove satisfactory, it was to be raised to one half. The defendant contended that the engagement had been satisfactory, and therefore claimed half the grant. Mr. BACKHOUSE represented Mr. HILTON Mr. R.F. THOMPSON for Rev. R.J. PIGOTT Mrs. HILTON deposed: I remember my husband receiving a letter from Mr. MILNE on the 22nd May, 1884. On the Monday following, the 26th May, under my husband's instructions, I went to see Mr. BLAND. I saw him in the backyard, and told him I had come to see him about the school business, and said we knew the trustees had full power turn us out of the school if they liked, but we should like to keep it on until the examination. In answer, he said that he and Mr. PIGOTT had been talking the matter over and they both agreed that it would be a pity to change before the examination, and told me to tell my husband he might keep it on until then. Mr. BLAND deposed: On the 6th Jan., 1884 I saw Mr. HILTON; he came to me about the school and I told him I had nothing to do with it. In April I saw Mrs. HILTON; she came to me on the expiration of the notice. I told her I had nothing to do with the school, and I gave no authority for Mr. HILTON to remain on as master. On the same morning I saw Mr. HILTON, and advised him to give up the school, and go away peaceably, and he said he would keep it on until the examination. I also remember the 22nd of May, the day of which Mrs. HILTON has spoken; it was Ascension day. I never saw her in May at all. I have heard her evidence and I say I never saw her except in April. On the 22nd of May after morning service in the church I left Mr. PIGOTT there and went to the school and asked Mr. HILTON to give up the school. He replied he had taken legal advice and he would not do so and when I returned to Mr. PIGOTT I gave him the answer. I never at any time advised either Mr. or Mrs. HILTON to stay, but always advised them to go away peaceably, and offered to help them to do so. Mr. Jonathan ADDISON, farmer of Kentmere stated: On 25th July I was present at the audit, and heard a conversation between Mr. HILTON and Mr. BLAND. Mr. BLAND denied then that he had ever given Mr. HILTON any encouragement to stay on. Verdict for defendant, without costs. Miles DIXON v Robert MACDOUGALL In this case a cross summons had been taken out. Mr. Miles DIXON, shoemaker, of Grasmere, sued Robert MACDOUGALL, gardener, of the same place for a sum of £5 1s 3d for goods supplied. MACDOUGALL admitted the debt, but as a set off, claimed an amount of £5 8s of which £5 5s was for a number of young trees, and the remaining 3s was for potatoes. Mr. DIXON said: I did not get them from Mr. MACDOUGALL. I got them from Mrs. YOUNG. Mr. MACDOUGALL: I sold them as agent for Mrs. YOUNG. She is my misses. The Judge: Then they are Mrs. YOUNG's debt, and not yours. You have sold Mrs. YOUNG's things, and she did not authorise you. Mr. MACDOUGALL: They did not come from Mrs. YOUNG's property. I got them from a nurseryman. Mr. DIXON: Mrs. YOUNG gave them to me. I have a letter to that effect. I went with him to take them up. The Judge then made an order for payment of Mr. DIXON's account, at the rate of 6s a month, and read the following letter from Mrs. Young to Mr. DIXON: "My gardener ought not to have allowed so long a time to elapse; however, I will cancel the bill. Nothing is allowed to be sold out of the place." Mr. DIXON: He offered to give them me in the first place. The Judge to the defendant: You could not pay a nurseryman for them, if you took them out of Mrs. YOUNG's garden, but if you can show the nurseryman's bill I will give judgment for you. An application for an administrative order was made by Paul SPEIGHT, fish hawker, of Hawkshead whose debts amounted to £33 1s. Mr. SPEIGHT stated that he had several sums to pay into court. Some of the debts were of old standing, in fact they extended over a period of some years, and that was how they had reached such an amount. The application was not granted and an order was made for payment into court of 10s a month until April, and £1 a month after that date. George BROCKBANK, carter, in the employ of Mr. Thomas BENNETT of Ambleside also applied for an administration order. The amount of his debts were £49 17s 4d. The registrar stated that the applicant was earning £1 a week. The Judge: How have you managed to get into all this debt? George BROCKBANK: I have a wife and two children. One of the children has been poorly for a long time and I only get 13s a week. The Judge: The registrar says you get £1 a week. George BROCKBANK: No, I only get 13s a week; there is 2s 6d for rent, and 2s 6d for the loan the furniture, and 1s for coals, and 1s for boots and that only leaves 13s out of the £1. An order was made for payment of 6s. David Leverton Leverton, Stevens, Clibborn, Dodgson, Hird, Stalker ulpha@telus.net

Ambleside County Court Ambleside Lakes Herald October 2, 1885 Page 5 Friday before Judge Ingham and the registrar, G. Gatey, Esq. HARDY v CLARKE This was an action brought by Mr. Thomas HARDY, grocer and car proprietor, Grasmere, against Mr. CLARKE, painter, of the same place for the recovery of £14 10s 1d for goods supplied. Mr. POOLE appeared for the plaintiff; defendant was undefended. Mr. POOLE produced a letter admitting the amount. Judgment was given in favour of the plaintiff, an order being made for payment of £12 10s ½d. An item for interest at 5 per cent from April 23rd, 1882 to April 23rd, 1885 being struck out. ELLWOOD v GARNETT This was a claim for damages sustained by a child, the son of the plaintiff, against --- GARNETT, a farmer, of Grisdale, through alleged negligence on the part of a servant of the defendant. £50 was the amount claimed. Mr. R. O'Niell PEARSON appeared for ELLWOOD Mr. POOLE for GARNETT Mr. PEARSON in opening the case said the plaintiff, a little boy, was in a cart with his brother an elder boy named William. They had been to Ambleside, and were proceeding to Grisdale. The elder brother was driving and the little boy was in the cart which was otherwise empty. At one part of the road they met a servant of the defendant, named BLACK, who was leading a horse and cart and had another horse and cart behind. They were both heavily laden with stone, and were going slowly, when they came to a part of the road where it is only 10 ft. 6 in. wide. The first cart passed the plaintiff's all right, but the second was almost abreast of the first cart as the rope behind was a long one. The second cart collided with the plaintiff's, and the little boy was thrown out and apparently the wheel went over part of his head. The little boy was nine years of age. William ELLWOOD said he was a brother of the plaintiff. He remembered the 25th of April last. He and his brother, Hudson, were riding in a cart together when they met Richard BLACK, driving two carts. BLACK was leading the first horse and the second horse was behind, but it was at one side, and could see past the first cart. As they were passing, the last cart hit against their's and he and his brother were thrown out. The first cart passed easily. In answer to Mr. POOLE: I was sat in the cart with my feet on the shafts. I had the reins. Mr. POOLE produced an Act of Parliament that compelled drivers of ordinary farmers' carts to lead the horses, and not to drive them from the carts. It was perfectly clear that if he had been leading the horse the accident would not have happened. Dr. PARSONS, of Hawkshead stated that he was called in to see the little boy on the 25th of April, about 7 o'clock in the evening. He found him suffering from severe scalp wounds. The scalp was torn off, and he had received a terrible shock, and there was some danger of his life. His doctor's bill was £12. It was stated that the rope attaching the second horse to the first cart was only 3 ft. 3 in. in length, and it was tied on the left hand side of the cart, on the opposite side to which the plaintiff's cart was. The Judge in giving judgment in favour of the defendant, remarked that there was no evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant's servant, and a man could not be responsible for any sudden turn that his horse might make. John DIXON v R.P. THOMPSON and John THOMPSON This action was brought by an inn keeper, of Elterwater, against R.P. HUNTER, of Ambleside and John THOMPSON of Langdale, executors of the late Mr. SUART. The claim was for £9 10s 9d. Mr. HEELIS appeared for the defendants, who objected to certain items as they were outside of the statue of limitations. £5 11s 3d had been paid into court. The Judge: If you do not accept the £5 11s 3d you will get nothing at all, as I will put the case back to have the dates put to the different items. You may think yourself fortunate that you get that. A verdict was accordingly entered for the reduced amount. Amongst the adjourned commitment summonses that of C. and R. PENNINGTON v George BROCKBANK of Ambleside was again adjourned , the registrar stating that the defendant had filed an administration order. David Leverton Leverton, Stevens, Clibborn, Dodgson, Hird, Stalker ulpha@telus.net

Ambleside County Court Ambleside Lakes Herald October 2, 1885 Page 5 Friday before Judge Ingham and the registrar, G. Gatey, Esq. W.R. and H. HARTLEY v Mrs. SHAW This case was adjourned at the last court for the production of the books of the plaintiffs. The books were produced and proved the debt denied by the defendant. An order was made for payment. HAYES v THOMPSON This was a claim made by Mr. Robert THOMPSON, gardener of Grasmere for £11 15s being the year's rent for a field and cowhouse sublet to the defendants. The case had been several times before the court, and had been adjourned for evidence as to the value of the property. Mr. HEELIS for the plaintiff and stated that he was willing to accept the valuation agreed to by the defendant's witness. John DAWSON stated that he knew the premises in question and he valued the field at £3; with the out houses it was worth £5 a year. - HARRISON said he valued the field at £3 a year and that part of the premises occupied at £2. It was stated that the whole of the premises had been locked up by the defendants, who had the key in their possession and that being taken into consideration an order was made of the payment of £6. Henry HILTON v Rev. R.J. PIGGOTT Mr. BACKHOUSE of Blackburn for plaintiff Mr. R.F. THOMPSON of Kendal for defendant It appears that Mr. HILTON was employed as school master at the Kentmere School, of which the defendant, Rev. R.J. PIGOTT is a manager. The claim was for £50 being seven months salary at £70 per annum and part of the Government Grant. Of this amount £22 11s 6d had been paid into court, leaving a part of the Government Grant and one quarter's salary in dispute. This the defendants declined to pay, on the ground that the plaintiff had been given three months' notice, but had refused to leave, and had to be forcibly ejected from the school by a police constable. The amount paid into court was Mr. HILTONS's salary up to the expiration of his notice. Mr. BACKHOUSE in opening the case said that an agreement had been entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants on the 14th of May 1883, as to terms on which Mr. HILTON was engaged as schoolmaster. His salary was to be £70 per annum, payable quarterly, and three month's was necessary on either side. A notice had been sent to his client, terminating his engagement in April last. They admitted that, but the claim was up to July as the plaintiff had been requested to continue in the school until that time, after the receipt of the notice, and he submitted that his client was entitled to that part of his salary. Mr. HILTON stated the terms of his agreement, one of which was that if he performed his duties satisfactorily he was to receive half the Government Grant. He had performed his duties satisfactorily. The Judge: This notice of dismissal shows that the engagement has not been mutually satisfactory. Mr. BACKHOUSE: His salary was paid each quarter from May to January and no complaints were made, and therefore we claim half the Government Grant, as it is apparent he had performed his duties satisfactorily. I now wish to show that the defendants waived the notice. The plaintiff, after he received his notice in January, was requested by some of the parties to stay until the examination, and he stayed there until the 22nd of May, more than a month after the expiration of his notice. He was requested to stay on by Mr. BLAND, an ex officio manager of the school, and as a representative of Mr. PIGOTT. Mr. PIGOTT: I do not admit that. Mr. HILTON, continuing his evidence, said that Mr. BLAND saw him on the matter, and the witness proposed that he should stay until the examination in July. Mr. BLAND consented to this. With regard to his services being satisfactory the witness said he had received two or three quarters' salary and no complaints were made. Mr PIGOTT had told him he was satisfied and seemed to have no doubt that he would get half the Grant. In reply to the question as to why he had not left the school at the expiration of his notice, witness replied he had been legally advised not to do so, and also because he saw Mr. BLAND before the 5th of April, the date on which his notice expired and was requested to stay on by Mr. BLAND. On the 22nd of May, Mr. BLAND came on Mr. PIGOTT's behalf and asked the witness what he intended to do. He said he would tell him on the next Monday morning. On that morning, the plaintiff's wife went down to Mr. BLAND with the key for the purpose of giving up possession but she returned with it and made a statement in consequence of which the witness stayed at the school, understanding that he was to carry it on until the examination. The Judge remarked that Mr. BACKHOUSE had got to a good age in the profession, but he had never seen him conduct such a case before. Mr. BACKHOUSE retorted that perhaps his honour could point out in what manner he was not conducting the case properly. He was only acting under instructions. Mr. HILTON in further evidence, testified that Mr. BLAND said, in the vicar's presence that on the vicar's behalf he was to go on to the examination. Mr. PIGOTT: This is not correct. The Judge: We must have Mr. BLAND here. The Witness (Mr. HILTON): I never had any complaints as to my manner of conducting the school. Mr. PIGOTT came nearly everyday and he never expressed the least dissatisfaction. I asked Mr. PIGOTT why he gave me notice. The real reason was because he took exception to my wife going to certain houses in the village. In fact, visiting the son of a former vicar, that was the chief reason. It was stated that the reason why the schoolmaster was dismissed was because Mr. TREMENHEERE, the school inspector spoke of the mismanagement of the school. Mr. PIGOTT said emphatically, it was a lie that he had expressed no dissatisfaction. The Judge considered the notice sent to Mr. HILTON sufficient evidence of dissatisfaction. He enquired if Mr. BLAND had been antagonistic to those proceedings and was informed that he was not. Judge INGHAM continued: This is a case which will have to be further investigated. I have no doubt Mr. BLAND, as well as Mr. PIGOTT will contradict these statements. There has been some gross perjury somewhere, and I am fully determined to adjourn the case for the evidence of Mr. BLAND. The documents are directly in opposition to the evidence of the plaintiff. This is a case which affects the governors of the school, and I would recommend the managers to communicate with the Charity Commissioners as to what further action they should take. The case was adjourned for Mr. BLAND to be brought. David Leverton Leverton, Stevens, Clibborn, Dodgson, Hird, Stalker ulpha@telus.net

Thank you David, There is a GREEN in there. I will keep this for further information. This GREEN could well be one of my Ancestors. I too enjoy these reads. Thank you for sharing them. Leonie (OZ) Copeland Connections lebrac3@bigpond.com "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." - Martin Luther King, Jr. -----Original Message----- From: eng-westmorland-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:eng-westmorland-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of David Leverton Sent: Thursday, 2 July 2009 11:39 PM To: ENG-WESTMORLAND-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [ENG-WESTMORLAND] Ambleside County Court August 1885 Ambleside County Court Ambleside Lakes Herald August 7, 1885 Page 4 Friday before Judge INGHAM HARTLEY v SHAW Brought by Messrs. HARTLEY against Mrs. SHAW of Hawkshead to recover the sum of 12s 3d for meat suppled to the defendant, who acknowledged buying what was stated in the account sent her by the complainant and said she had paid part of the bill leaving a balance of 6s 4d Complainant stated that he had also supplied her with meat since sending her the bill produced, and had not yet received payment for it, but not having brought his account books he was not able to prove the debt. His Honour: The case is adjourned for you to bring your books, and you will have to pay the defendant's expenses. HAYES v THOMPSON Mr. R. HAYES, gardener, of Grasmere sued Mr. THOMPSON, painter also of Grasmere for £11 15s being the rent of certain land and outbuildings let by Mr. J.F. GREEN to the complainant and sublet by him to the defendant. Mr. W.H. HEELIS for Mr. HAYES Mr. J.F. GREEN stated that Mr. HAYES paid £18 a year for the property two thirds of which was sublet to the defendant; the portion sublet he valued at £8 per year. Mr. THOMPSON stated that two farmers had valued the land for him and said it was only worth £4 a year. They had been unable to come on account of the haymaking. Case adjourned in order that the defendant might summon his witnesses. THOMPSON v GOETZEE Mr. THOMPSON, auctioneer, of Kendal sued Mr. GOETZEE of Ambleside for the sum of £1, the value of some carpet, which he stated the defendant had purchased at the sale of Miss BONNY's furniture, of Mill cottage, Ambleside held on the 26th of February last. The day being wet, the carpets were sold in a small room, and purchasers could not inspect them throughout. The defendant said he bought the carpet, but on looking at it he found it was not so good as it was represented to be. He therefore returned it to the auctioneer who agreed to take it back and ordered his clerk to strike it out of the book. Mr. THOMPSON replied he did not misrepresent the goods. He had said "In this small room we cannot spread the carpets out: you must take them as you find them". He also denied agreeing to take the carpet back. Wilson HODGSON, an apprentice working at Mr. DIXON's, joiner, Ambleside for the defence stated: I saw the book and I saw the auctioneer's clerk mark the name out with a pencil; he said at the time he was glad to get such a funny name off his book. The book was examined and the name was found; there was no pencil mark through it, but the witness repeated his statement. Judgement was given in favour of the complainant, with railway fare allowed. SIMON v MILLIGAN Mrs. MILLIGAN appeared in answer to a summons taken out against her by Mrs. SIMON to recover the sum of £1 9s 10d for draper goods delivered. It appeared that the goods had been purchased by the defendant before marriage. His Honour said that as the goods were purchased before marriage, the husband could not be compelled to pay for them, and as the defendant had no private property the case must be struck out. TOWNSON v MILLIGAN Same defendant as in preceding case was summoned by George TOWNSON, draper of Hawkshead for non-payment of £8 14s 11d The facts of the case were similar to those in the other case and it was accordingly struck out. STANFIELD v COCKER Mr. COCKER, boots of the Rothay Hotel Grasmere was being sued for £17 15s 4d; of this £15 9s 2d was for meat sold to defendant and the remainder was for costs. Judgement had been given in favour of the complainant at the Salford Hundred Court of Record, but the amount not having been paid an adjourned commitment summons had been taken out against the defendant, who appeared to answer it. Mr. COCKER stated that some time since he was in business as a butcher and the amount sued for was for meat purchased from the complainant some five years since. He was only getting 10s a week, beside what he got given. An order was reduced to 6s a month instead of the order for immediate payment. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ENG-WESTMORLAND-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hello David I have obtained a copy of the marriage for you (sent off list). My opinion is that the name is ADAMSON, not Dawson. See what you think. Dorothy ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Hughlock" <David@hughlock.co.uk> To: "0-WESTMORLAND mailing LIST" <eng-westmorland@rootsweb.com>; "LANCASHIRE Gen" <lancsgen@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2009 12:43 PM Subject: [ENG-WESTMORLAND] Conundrum - ADAMSON or DAWSON to GENT > Hello Listers, > > Could someone help us with the conundrum please > > We have two marriages which we believe to be the same people. The date > matches but Ann has a different surname, Any thoughts please or do we have > to pay someone to look up the marriage on the original documents :- > > Marriage 25 June 1792 at Chorley Lancashire between Edward GENT and Ann > DAWSON - extracted (Batch No M005701) > > Marriage: 25 Jun 1792 St. Laurence, Chorley, Lancashire, England > Edward Gent - Tailor of Chorley > Ann Adamson - (X), Spinster of Chorley > Witness: William Gent; Alice Gent, (X); Thomas Adamson; Ann Pilkington, > (X) > Married by Banns by: Oliver Cooper Curate > Register: Marriages 1783 - 1795, Page 63, Entry 249 > Source: LDS Film 93705 > > We think this is the husbands birth details - Baptisms: 23 Sep 1770 St > Laurence, Chorley, Lancashire, England, Neddy Gent - Son of William Gent & > Mary, Register: Baptisms 1769 - 1797, Page 2, Entry 41, Source: LDS Film > 93703. Neddy being short for Edward? > > Many thanks > > Bronwen and David > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > ENG-WESTMORLAND-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Hi David, Wow! Many, many thanks. > THOMPSON v GOETZEE > Mr. THOMPSON, auctioneer, of Kendal sued Mr. GOETZEE of Ambleside for the sum > of £1, the value of some carpet, which he > stated the defendant had purchased at the sale of Miss BONNY's furniture, of > Mill cottage, Ambleside held on the 26th of > February last. The day being wet, the carpets were sold in a small room, and > purchasers could not inspect them > throughout. Once again you are telling me things about my family that I did not know. I was previously unaware of this sale, although logic tells me of course it must have occurred. Wish I could have been a fly on the wall that day! It was common practice for such sales to be well advertised and the contents listed in a newspaper advertisement. I must now see about going about trying to get that from Kendal. Yes, the BONNEY family lived at Mill Cottage, Ambleside (the building just to the right of Bridge House when you are facing Bridge House from the road). Last time I was in Ambleside, Mill Cottage was a B & B but in the late 1980's there was a serious plan to make Mill Cottage the home of the Armitt collection. (I have a brochure about it, created at the time.) But it never happened, due, I believe, to funding issues. The family story (still unproven) is that Bridge House in the late 1800s was part of the Mill Cottage property and the BONNEY men used Bridge House for storing some of the equipment for their business. Miss BONNEY (Elizabeth BONNEY) subsequently moved south to Lancashire to live with a female cousin and spent the rest of her life working running a Chemists. I just don't know how to adequately thank you for these wonderful transcriptions. We are very grateful. Kind regards, Lorraine Victoria BC Canada > > The defendant said he bought the carpet, but on looking at it he found it was > not so good as it was represented to be. > He therefore returned it to the auctioneer who agreed to take it back and > ordered his clerk to strike it out of the > book. > > Mr. THOMPSON replied he did not misrepresent the goods. He had said "In this > small room we cannot spread the carpets > out: you must take them as you find them". He also denied agreeing to take > the carpet back. > > Wilson HODGSON, an apprentice working at Mr. DIXON's, joiner, Ambleside for > the defence stated: I saw the book and I saw > the auctioneer's clerk mark the name out with a pencil; he said at the time he > was glad to get such a funny name off his > book. > > The book was examined and the name was found; there was no pencil mark through > it, but the witness repeated his > statement. > > Judgement was given in favour of the complainant, with railway fare allowed. >

Ambleside County Court Ambleside Lakes Herald August 7, 1885 Page 4 Friday before Judge INGHAM HARTLEY v SHAW Brought by Messrs. HARTLEY against Mrs. SHAW of Hawkshead to recover the sum of 12s 3d for meat suppled to the defendant, who acknowledged buying what was stated in the account sent her by the complainant and said she had paid part of the bill leaving a balance of 6s 4d Complainant stated that he had also supplied her with meat since sending her the bill produced, and had not yet received payment for it, but not having brought his account books he was not able to prove the debt. His Honour: The case is adjourned for you to bring your books, and you will have to pay the defendant's expenses. HAYES v THOMPSON Mr. R. HAYES, gardener, of Grasmere sued Mr. THOMPSON, painter also of Grasmere for £11 15s being the rent of certain land and outbuildings let by Mr. J.F. GREEN to the complainant and sublet by him to the defendant. Mr. W.H. HEELIS for Mr. HAYES Mr. J.F. GREEN stated that Mr. HAYES paid £18 a year for the property two thirds of which was sublet to the defendant; the portion sublet he valued at £8 per year. Mr. THOMPSON stated that two farmers had valued the land for him and said it was only worth £4 a year. They had been unable to come on account of the haymaking. Case adjourned in order that the defendant might summon his witnesses. THOMPSON v GOETZEE Mr. THOMPSON, auctioneer, of Kendal sued Mr. GOETZEE of Ambleside for the sum of £1, the value of some carpet, which he stated the defendant had purchased at the sale of Miss BONNY's furniture, of Mill cottage, Ambleside held on the 26th of February last. The day being wet, the carpets were sold in a small room, and purchasers could not inspect them throughout. The defendant said he bought the carpet, but on looking at it he found it was not so good as it was represented to be. He therefore returned it to the auctioneer who agreed to take it back and ordered his clerk to strike it out of the book. Mr. THOMPSON replied he did not misrepresent the goods. He had said "In this small room we cannot spread the carpets out: you must take them as you find them". He also denied agreeing to take the carpet back. Wilson HODGSON, an apprentice working at Mr. DIXON's, joiner, Ambleside for the defence stated: I saw the book and I saw the auctioneer's clerk mark the name out with a pencil; he said at the time he was glad to get such a funny name off his book. The book was examined and the name was found; there was no pencil mark through it, but the witness repeated his statement. Judgement was given in favour of the complainant, with railway fare allowed. SIMON v MILLIGAN Mrs. MILLIGAN appeared in answer to a summons taken out against her by Mrs. SIMON to recover the sum of £1 9s 10d for draper goods delivered. It appeared that the goods had been purchased by the defendant before marriage. His Honour said that as the goods were purchased before marriage, the husband could not be compelled to pay for them, and as the defendant had no private property the case must be struck out. TOWNSON v MILLIGAN Same defendant as in preceding case was summoned by George TOWNSON, draper of Hawkshead for non-payment of £8 14s 11d The facts of the case were similar to those in the other case and it was accordingly struck out. STANFIELD v COCKER Mr. COCKER, boots of the Rothay Hotel Grasmere was being sued for £17 15s 4d; of this £15 9s 2d was for meat sold to defendant and the remainder was for costs. Judgement had been given in favour of the complainant at the Salford Hundred Court of Record, but the amount not having been paid an adjourned commitment summons had been taken out against the defendant, who appeared to answer it. Mr. COCKER stated that some time since he was in business as a butcher and the amount sued for was for meat purchased from the complainant some five years since. He was only getting 10s a week, beside what he got given. An order was reduced to 6s a month instead of the order for immediate payment.

Hello All, Thank you so much for helping. We believe it will be the same surname transcribed incorrectly. Dorothy - thank you so much for offering this look up. It would be outside of our reach. Kind regards to you all Bronwen and David ----- Original Message ----- From: "DOROTHY WILLIAMS" <dotw@talktalk.net> To: <eng-westmorland@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2009 2:40 PM Subject: Re: [ENG-WESTMORLAND] Conundrum - ADAMSON or DAWSON to GENT > David > > If you can bear with me I will pop to the record office and check for you, > but it wont be today. I'll try tomorrow. > > Dorothy > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Hughlock" <David@hughlock.co.uk> > To: "0-WESTMORLAND mailing LIST" <eng-westmorland@rootsweb.com>; > "LANCASHIRE > Gen" <lancsgen@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2009 12:43 PM > Subject: [ENG-WESTMORLAND] Conundrum - ADAMSON or DAWSON to GENT > > >> Hello Listers, >> >> Could someone help us with the conundrum please >> >> We have two marriages which we believe to be the same people. The date >> matches but Ann has a different surname, Any thoughts please or do we >> have >> to pay someone to look up the marriage on the original documents :- >> >> Marriage 25 June 1792 at Chorley Lancashire between Edward GENT and Ann >> DAWSON - extracted (Batch No M005701) >> >> Marriage: 25 Jun 1792 St. Laurence, Chorley, Lancashire, England >> Edward Gent - Tailor of Chorley >> Ann Adamson - (X), Spinster of Chorley >> Witness: William Gent; Alice Gent, (X); Thomas Adamson; Ann >> Pilkington, >> (X) >> Married by Banns by: Oliver Cooper Curate >> Register: Marriages 1783 - 1795, Page 63, Entry 249 >> Source: LDS Film 93705 >> >> We think this is the husbands birth details - Baptisms: 23 Sep 1770 St >> Laurence, Chorley, Lancashire, England, Neddy Gent - Son of William Gent >> & >> Mary, Register: Baptisms 1769 - 1797, Page 2, Entry 41, Source: LDS Film >> 93703. Neddy being short for Edward? >> >> Many thanks >> >> Bronwen and David >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> ENG-WESTMORLAND-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without >> the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > ENG-WESTMORLAND-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

David If you can bear with me I will pop to the record office and check for you, but it wont be today. I'll try tomorrow. Dorothy ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Hughlock" <David@hughlock.co.uk> To: "0-WESTMORLAND mailing LIST" <eng-westmorland@rootsweb.com>; "LANCASHIRE Gen" <lancsgen@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2009 12:43 PM Subject: [ENG-WESTMORLAND] Conundrum - ADAMSON or DAWSON to GENT > Hello Listers, > > Could someone help us with the conundrum please > > We have two marriages which we believe to be the same people. The date > matches but Ann has a different surname, Any thoughts please or do we have > to pay someone to look up the marriage on the original documents :- > > Marriage 25 June 1792 at Chorley Lancashire between Edward GENT and Ann > DAWSON - extracted (Batch No M005701) > > Marriage: 25 Jun 1792 St. Laurence, Chorley, Lancashire, England > Edward Gent - Tailor of Chorley > Ann Adamson - (X), Spinster of Chorley > Witness: William Gent; Alice Gent, (X); Thomas Adamson; Ann Pilkington, > (X) > Married by Banns by: Oliver Cooper Curate > Register: Marriages 1783 - 1795, Page 63, Entry 249 > Source: LDS Film 93705 > > We think this is the husbands birth details - Baptisms: 23 Sep 1770 St > Laurence, Chorley, Lancashire, England, Neddy Gent - Son of William Gent & > Mary, Register: Baptisms 1769 - 1797, Page 2, Entry 41, Source: LDS Film > 93703. Neddy being short for Edward? > > Many thanks > > Bronwen and David > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > ENG-WESTMORLAND-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Hello Listers, Could someone help us with the conundrum please We have two marriages which we believe to be the same people. The date matches but Ann has a different surname, Any thoughts please or do we have to pay someone to look up the marriage on the original documents :- Marriage 25 June 1792 at Chorley Lancashire between Edward GENT and Ann DAWSON - extracted (Batch No M005701) Marriage: 25 Jun 1792 St. Laurence, Chorley, Lancashire, England Edward Gent - Tailor of Chorley Ann Adamson - (X), Spinster of Chorley Witness: William Gent; Alice Gent, (X); Thomas Adamson; Ann Pilkington, (X) Married by Banns by: Oliver Cooper Curate Register: Marriages 1783 - 1795, Page 63, Entry 249 Source: LDS Film 93705 We think this is the husbands birth details - Baptisms: 23 Sep 1770 St Laurence, Chorley, Lancashire, England, Neddy Gent - Son of William Gent & Mary, Register: Baptisms 1769 - 1797, Page 2, Entry 41, Source: LDS Film 93703. Neddy being short for Edward? Many thanks Bronwen and David

Ambleside County Court Ambleside Lakes Herald May 29, 1885 Page 4 Friday 22nd before Judge Ingham Edward REED v. Robert ATKINSON An adjournment had been made in order that the defendant might bring evidence as to a counter claim, but failing to appear judgement was given in favour of REED. John WALKER v. John STOREY Mr. WATSON for the plaintiff. Mr. DOBSON, of Windermere for defendant, a quarry master of Kentmere Claim was for £14 19s 10d, the principal items being for board and lodgings The plaintiff presented an account, from which it appeared that STOREY had paid at various times sums of £10, £5, £3 and other amounts on account and was still owing the balance claimed. Defendant denied the debt as an altogether trumped up case. He had paid up regularly at every month end. His Honour was of opinion that the account which had been kept was a genuine document and therefore an immediate order for payment was made. Richard MOORE v John ADDISON An action to recover from the administrators of the estate the cost of the maintenance of a child of a sister of the plaintiff. It appeared that the mother, who was a widow had died recently and left some property. The child having been maintained by Richard MOORE for some time previous to the death and also afterwards, the present claim was made for payment thereof, but the defendant disputed the amount. An order was made for £7 16s to be paid. Robert HAYES v. Thomas THOMPSON Mr. HAYES stated that he let the defendant a field, cow house, loft and pig stys. When defendant took them, he said he wanted them for a week, but he stayed in fifty one weeks, and used the haygrass. Plaintiff valued the field at 5s a week and £12 for a year. Mr. THOMPSON stated that he never took the premises, but in reply to the judge said he had occupied them. His son who had since died, had taken the premises, and it was his wife's cow that had occupied the field. The property was worth £1 a year. The Judge who thought the amount rather large said Mr. HAYES would have to get it valued, and as the defendant had occupied the premises he would have to pay. James HOWE v. Samuel CROFT Mr. HOWE stated that in November 1882 he was tenant of a shop at Greenbank, Bowness which he fitted up with trade fixtures. When he left he sublet it to Mr. CROFT, and made a personal agreement with him as to taking the fixtures. They were to be six pounds, but he (the plaintiff) had taken part of them. He had sent the account in regularly every year. The defendant said he never agreed with Mr. HOWE about anything and the question of fixtures was never mentioned. The account was only sent in in 1884. The case was adjourned in order that Mr. HOWE might produce his ledger to show that he had sent the account in before the time that Mr. CROFT stated. GARSIDE v STAVELEY Action brought by Mrs. Garside, of Ambleside to recover £2 9s 5d from Mrs. STAVELEY, for drapery supplied. Mrs. GARSIDE said that the defendant had come to her with her daughter and bought certain goods. They were put down to the daughter, but she was under age, and Mrs. STAVELEY said she would see it paid, so she had brought the action against the mother. Judgement was given in favour of the defendant, the judge remarking that plaintiff should sue the daughter, as even those under age had to pay for their own clothing. GARSIDE v HOGGARTH This case was adjourned in order that the registrar might compare the books of the plaintiff and defendant. David Leverton Leverton, Stevens, Clibborn, Dodgson, Hird, Stalker ulpha@telus.net

Ambleside County Court Ambleside Lakes Herald December 26, 1884 Page 4 Friday before T.H. INGHAM, Esq, Judge. WHITTAM v MATHER Mr. POOLE for the plaintiff Mr. R.F. THOMPSON for the defendant The amount claimed was £55 5s 6d; of that sum they abandoned £5 5s 6d in order to bring it within the jurisdiction of that court. The parties had agreed to refer the matter to Mr. CASSON of Ulverston but in the arbitration he had not deducted the amount paid into court. Plaintiff asked his honour to again refer the matter to Mr. CASSON, that he might rectify his decision. His honour decided that nothing could be done until Mr. CASSON could appear and give his evidence and the case must stand over. John BRAITHWAITE, labourer of Windermere applied for an administration order and stated that he owed £49 3s 1d; he had no money in hand and his furniture was valued at £15 Mr. DOBSON represented Mr. THRELFOLD the largest creditor, and elicited from the defendant in examination that in addition to the amount stated £5 was owing for rent and as that made it over £50 an administration order could not be granted. Mr. DOBSON was willing to take a composition of 10s in the £ and the matter was put back in order that an arrangement might be made with the other creditors. James BEETHAM, labourer, of Windermere stated that he owed £35 17s 11d. His wages averaged 22s a week and he had a wife and family and several sums to pay into court. He had no money in hand and his furniture was worth about £6 15s Mr. Amos said that he was sure that unless some order was made to relieve the defendant his creditors would get nothing; he would become personal guarantee for his paying 2s or 2s 6d in the £ or anything like that amount. An order for 4s in the £ was made to discharge the defendant's liabilities and Mr. AMOS undertook to guarantee that amount. Joseph GRIZEDALE, Langdale sued William WALKER for £2 14s 7½d for goods supplied. The defendant denied the debt. The amount proved by the books of the plaintiff was £2 19s 1½d and the defendant's wife had acknowledged the debt by paying at different times sums amounting to 4s 6d. An order was made to pay 3s a month. Ambleside Lakes Herald March 5, 1885 Page 4 Friday before Judge Ingham Edward REED v. Robert ATKINSON Mr. DOBSON for the plaintiff The action was to recover a sum of £8 2s 4d of which the defendant disputed several items in the account and alleged that he had a counter claim for borrowed money. Case adjourned for defendant to bring in his son who kept the books, to give evidence as to borrowed sums. BYERS and FLEMING v. Furness Railway Co. The action was to receive the value of two bags of sharps which were delivered to the company on the 15th of May last, consigned to the order of BYERS and FLEMING of Barrow, addressed to Mr. M. BOWNESS of Ambleside. The plaintiffs had sent an order to the station master to deliver the sharps to Mr. M. BOWNESS, but it appears the latter had never received them. Henry OLDFIELD stated that on the 15th of May he was a porter in the employ of the Furness Railway Co. at Waterhead. On that day FIANDER, in the employ of Mr. BOWNESS, came for the order (six bags of corn and some sharps) which he had previously put on one side of the warehouse separate from the other goods. He then wheeled the sacks to the cart which FIANDER had brought, and helped to put them in. When he laid the book before FIANDER to sign he told him he was signing for six bags of Indian corn and two bags of sharps. Mr. WEARING, the station master said he saw the sacks in the warehouse and they were not there after Mr. BOWNESS' man had been. Case dismissed. David Leverton Leverton, Stevens, Clibborn, Dodgson, Hird, Stalker ulpha@telus.net

Besides belonging to various Lancashire, Westmorland, and the Cumberland [Google] mail list, I also belong to the caribbean@rootsweb.com List. I am always looking for my BAKER roots for my children and grandchildren, and those roots seemingly are leading to the Turks Island, Caicos, at the moment ! Just what I need in this June, soon to be July heat and humidity ! BUT, I have also became very intrigued with Britain's part in the slavery trade because of this possible Caribbean connection in my family - I am talking about Britain's part in the Slave Trade. Today, a member of the caribbean list sent this link in. I found it most interesting and I hope that you might find it interesting too. There is an Article; a Video; and a Slideshow, which can be accessed from http://www.ft.com/slavery Barb, Ontario, Canada.

Hi David, Many, many thanks once again for these wonderful Ambleside court transcriptions. We've been so fortunate that the BONNEY family have been mentioned several times, including today. What a lot of time and effort you have put into these transcriptions. I've learned so much reading them. They are a gift to all of us who are researching in the area. Three cheers for you, David! With sincere appreciation and grateful thanks, Lorraine Victoria BC Canada > Ambleside County Court > > Ambleside Lakes Herald August 1, 1884 Page 4 > > Friday last before Judge INGHAM

Ambleside County Court Ambleside Lakes Herald August 1, 1884 Page 4 Friday last before Judge INGHAM SPEIGHT v SEVERS Mr. Heelis for plaintiff Mr. DOBSON for defendant Action was to recover price of a pony, cart and harness value of £6 which had been taken away by defendant. Plaintiff resides in Grasmere and had a letter on 6th May from SEVERS stating that if he wished to sell the pony and cart he would be glad to pay for it. SEVERS went to see plaintiff about it, but he was out and plaintiff's wife said they couldn't part with if for less than £6. Defendant put pony in a cart to try it, drove away and never returned it. At the Rothay Hotel where he called he said he bought the horse from Mr. MONKHOUSE of Kendal. Mr. MONKHOUSE: I sold the pony to plaintiff and he was to pay for it in installments. Judge: The pony did not belong to plaintiff until he paid all the installments. There is no case. A man can not sell property that does not belong to him. Ambleside Lakes Herald October 10, 1884 Page 4 Thursday before Judge INGHAM ROBINSON v FELL Mr. FELL had contracted for the after-grass part of a field belonging to the plaintiff in order to make some holes to examine the land to see if it was suitable for a projected new cemetery at Windermere. These holes had not been filled up and the action was to recover the damage caused by the plaintiff's cattle being kept out of the field during the period that the holes had remained open. The defendant said he did not specify any time, when he arranged for part of the field. The judge considered that as he had kept the cattle from the whole of the field and he had only contracted for a part of it, some damage might be recovered. However, from the evidence of a labourer named GILL it seems that he had been sent some time since to fill up the holes for Mr. FELL and ROBINSON had ordered him away saying he would get another man to do it; consequently case was dismissed without costs. MILNER v BONNEY The plaintiff had been supplying goods to Miss BONNEY and sued her for the same. The defence was that she was only getting them as housekeeper for her brother, who had lately become bankrupt. He had told her to get them there, as he had a counter claim against the plaintiff. The judge did not consider that she was purchaser, and a verdict was entered accordingly. Ambleside Lakes Herald October 17, 1884 Page 4 The following cases were held over from last week. John TALLON v MARTINDALE & THISTLETHWAITE Mr. DOBSON for plaintiff Mr. BOWNASS for the defendants. >From the evidence it appeared that plaintiff had sold a quantity of stone to the defendants at 1s 5d per cartload, but finding others were charging 1s 6d per load he informed one of the defendants that in future they would be charged the same. He received answer that he supposed they would have to pay, and in the next statement of accounts sent in, 100 loads were charged at 1s 5d and 88 at 1s 6d. They still continued to be supplied with stone and received about 500 loads more, but now objected to pay the increased price, stating that it was not the price they bargained for. The judge was of the opinion that it was not simply one contract, and as they had been informed of the change in price they should not have gone on getting it if they did not intend to pay. John KITCHEN v Thomas WARD Mr. M. THOMPSON for the complainant Mr. WATSON for the defendant The action was to recover £7 10s on sale of a horse. KITCHEN stated that he sold defendant a mare for £11, but being hay time and as he was busy he said he would borrow it for about a week; at the end of that time he asked for the loan of it for three days longer, but was told that he must ask the defendant's daughter, Mrs. WILSON of Under Barrow for whom he had bought it. When the mare was taken back defendant refused to take it saying it was lame. Witness said that he knew it as lame when he bought it and accordingly left the mare, but it was brought back and put into his field. The plaintiff afterwards sold it at Kendal Mart for £3 10s and he brought the present action to recover the difference - £7 10s In reply to the solicitor for the defence, witness said he did not tell the defendant the mare was lame as he knew it; it was visibly lame. He did not know it had been hurt when mowing. Mrs. WILSON, daughter of the defendant: When the mare was delivered she saw that it was lame and said so, the plaintiff said it got hurt in a mowing machine. The judge then declined to hear any further evidence, being perfectly satisfied that the plaintiff had not been telling the truth, and consequently the case was dismissed. David Leverton Leverton, Stevens, Clibborn, Dodgson, Hird, Stalker ulpha@telus.net

Reply sent off list Regards Jennifer -----Original Message----- From: eng-westmorland-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:eng-westmorland-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of David Hughlock Sent: 25 June 2009 10:43 To: 0-WESTMORLAND mailing LIST; LANCASHIRE Gen Subject: [ENG-WESTMORLAND] CENSUS LOOK UP PLEASE Hello Listers, Could someone look up this family in 1851/61/71 and send us the images please. Not certain if its Lancashire or Westmorland. Marriage: 31 Jan 1846 St Mary, Dalton in Furness, Lancashire, England, Jacob Spencer - (X), Full age Husbandman Bachelor of Dalton, Eleanor Hullock - (X), Minor Spinster of Dalton, Groom's Father: Andrew Spencer, Bride's Father: William Hullock, Waller, Witness: Sarah Postlethwaite; Simon B. Dixon, Married by: William Spence, Register: Marriages 1837 - 1855 from Bishop's Transcripts, Page 96, Entry 191, Source: LDS Film 1040304 1 - In 1881 Jacob Spencer aged 58 (1823) born Dalton Lancashire an Iron Ore Miner with wife Eleanor (nee Hullock) aged 57 (1824) born Dalton Lancashire they have 5 children Andrew aged 33 (1848) born Kirkby Lancashire an Iron Ore Miner, Richard aged 22 (1859) born Dalton Lancashire an Iron Ore Miner, Jane aged 18 (1863) born Dalton Lancashire a Servant (Domestic), Jacob aged 9 (1870) born Dalton Lancashire a scholar, James aged 9 (1872) born Dalton Lancashire a scholar, and with them a Grandson George Spencer aged 9 (1872) born Dalton Lancashire a scholar, they live at 4 Buccleuch Street Dalton in Furness Lancashire See RG11, 4281, 113, 85, 1342023. Regards Bronwen and David ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ENG-WESTMORLAND-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.364 / Virus Database: 270.12.91/2201 - Release Date: 06/25/09 06:22:00

Hello Listers, Could someone look up this family in 1851/61/71 and send us the images please. Not certain if its Lancashire or Westmorland. Marriage: 31 Jan 1846 St Mary, Dalton in Furness, Lancashire, England, Jacob Spencer - (X), Full age Husbandman Bachelor of Dalton, Eleanor Hullock - (X), Minor Spinster of Dalton, Groom's Father: Andrew Spencer, Bride's Father: William Hullock, Waller, Witness: Sarah Postlethwaite; Simon B. Dixon, Married by: William Spence, Register: Marriages 1837 - 1855 from Bishop's Transcripts, Page 96, Entry 191, Source: LDS Film 1040304 1 - In 1881 Jacob Spencer aged 58 (1823) born Dalton Lancashire an Iron Ore Miner with wife Eleanor (nee Hullock) aged 57 (1824) born Dalton Lancashire they have 5 children Andrew aged 33 (1848) born Kirkby Lancashire an Iron Ore Miner, Richard aged 22 (1859) born Dalton Lancashire an Iron Ore Miner, Jane aged 18 (1863) born Dalton Lancashire a Servant (Domestic), Jacob aged 9 (1870) born Dalton Lancashire a scholar, James aged 9 (1872) born Dalton Lancashire a scholar, and with them a Grandson George Spencer aged 9 (1872) born Dalton Lancashire a scholar, they live at 4 Buccleuch Street Dalton in Furness Lancashire See RG11, 4281, 113, 85, 1342023. Regards Bronwen and David

Ambleside County Court Ambleside Lakes Herald January 25, 1884 Before Judge INGHAM Business was minor in nature the main being some half score of cases brought by Edward HAWTHORNTHWAITE to recover debts owing to the estate of Dr. King which had been disposed of to the plaintiff by the Trustees. Ambleside Lakes Herald April 4, 1884 last Friday before Judge Ingham William WILSON of Sawrey sued Sarah HARRISON of Bowness for £2 4s 8d for meat delivered, the debt being about five years old. The defendant pleaded that she did not owe it having always paid her meat bills at her own door at the time of obtaining it. The Judge decided that the debt was of too old standing and that application ought to have been made before. Joseph HUDDLESTON vs. R. GREAVES Mr. DOBSON for defendant pleaded a setoff which was admitted and the matter was referred to the Registrar for settlement. John STABLES claimed from Matthew PEPPER the sum of £3 9s 5d but Mr. PEPPER who answered the summons denied owing anything. Plaintiff produced his accounts to show that defendant had acknowledged the debt by payment of certain instalments from time to time, but defendant denied having paid him anything during the last ten years. The case was adjourned in order to produce the son of defendant, who it was stated had made a payment of 5s on account some time ago. Robert MCCOURTY v. James COWARD The defendant produced a receipt and a verdict was given accordingly. The judge remarking that he did not like such ways. Daniel ELLERAY sued John RAINE for £2 10s for 100 stones of potatoes sold to him. Mr. DOBSON for plaintiff. Defendant pleaded that he had paid the money in his kitchen at the time of delivery but as he had neither receipt nor witnesses the verdict was given against him. Ambleside Lakes Herald June 6, 1884 Friday before Judge INGHAM John STABES v Matthew PEPPER Claim for £3 9s 5d for boots supplied about 8 years ago it being alleged that a payment of 5s had been made on account with 6 years Thomas PEPPER, for whose attendance the case was adjourned from last court said that he never paid 5s; he did not know George BAINES and he never remembered giving a walking stick to plaintiff. George BAINES stated he was employed by Mr. STABLES and was present when Thomas PEPPER paid the 5s and he remembered on the same occasion a walking stick was given to the plaintiff by him. Defendant ordered to pay the amount in installments of 5s a month. John TUGMAN v BURROW Mr. H. DOBSON for plaintiff suing for £16 the price of a cow purchased by defendant. Bargain was reached and cheque for £16 plus 10s in silver was paid for the cow. When cow arrived a lump on its neck was noticed and a stop payment order was put on the cheque. Judge said defendant should have examined the beast before he bought it - a case of caveat emptor Judgement for plaintiff. WILSON v HARRISON William WILSON, butcher, Hawkshead summoned Mrs. Sarah HARRISON residing at Bowness but formerly of Sawrey for various sums owing since 1878. No dates were evident in the book presented by plaintiff and no other evidence was given. Verdict for defendant with no costs. Trustee of the creditors of Mr. HUNTER against Mr. Hunter. It was alleged that a collie dog valued at £3 had not been sold to pay the creditors but had been sent away to a man named ADDISON. The case had been adjourned to prove that the dog was the private property of Mrs. HUNTER; it had been given to her as a pup and she had sent it to be broken in by Mr. ADDISON. This being proved, the case was dismissed. David Leverton Leverton, Stevens, Clibborn, Dodgson, Hird, Stalker ulpha@telus.net