Hi Margaret We had in our family a Thomas SHEPHERDSON who had married an Ursula SHEPHERDSON, a cousin of his.  We knew that there was a child baptised and buried shortly after that.  We also knew that when Thomas died, he left a will and no wife was mentioned.  So did she die or what happened to her?  Well, we found a marriage of an Ursula SHEPHERDSON a few years later to someone else.  Could that have been her?  We always thought it was likely her, with such an uncommon first and last name.  But then trolling thru the newspapers came across this gem: Saturday April 30, 1877Yorkshire In The Last CenturyOld History Retold July 22"Whereas Urslay Shepherdson, wife of Thomas Shepherdson, of Acklam, hath eloped from her said husband, This is therefore to caution the public against harbouring or giving any credit to the said Urslay Shepherdson, as her said husband will not pay any debts she may contract.  Witness my hand this 22nd day of July, 1777.  Thomas Shepherdson" This was originally posted in the newspaper in 1777 but a reflection on old history reprinted this in 1877.  So by chance of it being retold 100 years later, we found our answer.  She left Thomas for another man. Janet From: Margaret Harrison via <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 4:10 AM Subject: [YORKSGEN] Contract of husband to deny wife's debts I have come across in a newspaper of 1881 a notice "Thomas Foster, farmer of Tholthorpe, will not be responsible for the debts of his wife, Dorothy, however caused, after this date". The family subsequently broke up. Was this regarded as a quasi legal document and was the publication of such a notice usually regarded as a de facto divorce ? Was the notice posted because the wife had usually run up debts or because she had left with another man?  Or was the notice put in the papers to announce that husband and wife had split up ? Margaret ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

What an interesting find, Janet! Now you know! EE -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of janetlovegrove via Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 9:30 AM To: Margaret Harrison; [email protected] Subject: Re: [YORKSGEN] Contract of husband to deny wife's debts Hi Margaret We had in our family a Thomas SHEPHERDSON who had married an Ursula SHEPHERDSON, a cousin of his.  We knew that there was a child baptised and buried shortly after that.  We also knew that when Thomas died, he left a will and no wife was mentioned.  So did she die or what happened to her?  Well, we found a marriage of an Ursula SHEPHERDSON a few years later to someone else.  Could that have been her?  We always thought it was likely her, with such an uncommon first and last name.  But then trolling thru the newspapers came across this gem: Saturday April 30, 1877Yorkshire In The Last CenturyOld History Retold July 22"Whereas Urslay Shepherdson, wife of Thomas Shepherdson, of Acklam, hath eloped from her said husband, This is therefore to caution the public against harbouring or giving any credit to the said Urslay Shepherdson, as her said husband will not pay any debts she may contract.  Witness my hand this 22nd day of July, 1777.  Thomas Shepherdson" This was originally posted in the newspaper in 1777 but a reflection on old history reprinted this in 1877.  So by chance of it being retold 100 years later, we found our answer.  She left Thomas for another man. Janet From: Margaret Harrison via <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 4:10 AM Subject: [YORKSGEN] Contract of husband to deny wife's debts I have come across in a newspaper of 1881 a notice "Thomas Foster, farmer of Tholthorpe, will not be responsible for the debts of his wife, Dorothy, however caused, after this date". The family subsequently broke up. Was this regarded as a quasi legal document and was the publication of such a notice usually regarded as a de facto divorce ? Was the notice posted because the wife had usually run up debts or because she had left with another man?  Or was the notice put in the papers to announce that husband and wife had split up ? Margaret ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] 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 [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Such an announcements were most often made in the event of a runaway wife. Under English common law a married woman was a /feme covert/, and had no general separate legal status to that of her husband. The principle of coverture was described in William Blackstone <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Blackstone>'s /Commentaries on the Laws of England <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commentaries_on_the_Laws_of_England>/ in the late 18th century: By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law: that is, the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband: under whose wing, protection, and cover, she performs every thing; and is therefore called in our law-French a feme-covert; is said to be covert-baron, or under the protection and influence of her husband, her baron, or lord; and her condition during her marriage is called her coverture. Upon this principle, of a union of person in husband and wife, depend almost all the legal rights, duties, and disabilities, that either of them acquire by the marriage. I speak not at present of the rights of property, but of such as are merely personal. For this reason, a man cannot grant any thing to his wife, or enter into covenant with her: for the grant would be to suppose her separate existence; and to covenant with her, would be only to covenant with himself: and therefore it is also generally true, that all compacts made between husband and wife, when single, are voided by the intermarriage. A /feme covert/ was not recognized as having legal rights and obligations distinct from those of her husband in most respects. Instead, through marriage a woman's existence was incorporated into that of her husband, so that she had very few recognized individual rights of her own. A husband and wife were one person as far as the law was concerned, and that person was the husband. A married woman could not own property, sign legal documents or enter into a contract, obtain an education against her husband's wishes, or keep a salary for herself. If a wife was permitted to work, under the laws of coverture, she was required to relinquish her wages to her husband. In certain cases, a wife did not have individual legal liability for her misdeeds since it was legally assumed that she was acting under the orders of her husband, and generally a husband and a wife were not allowed to testify either for or against each other. Hence, it was common practice, whenever a wife absconded, to issue such notices in newspapers, to put pressure on her to return. More info on the wiki page, and a reminder of what Mr Bumble had to say about this law :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coverture Colin