Author Topic: The Illegitimate child of James Stephenson  (Read 1962 times)

Offline Lucy2

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 13,373
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: The Illegitimate child of James Stephenson
« Reply #54 on: Tuesday 06 February 18 21:37 GMT (UK) »

Does this timeline sound correct?

1884, Mr Beatty dies shortly after moving his Liquor licence from the Albion Hotel to the Masonic Hotel.
1885, December. Roseann Beatty is widowed, takes over the licence of Masonic Hotel, Wellington.
1886 May, Rose applies for an Extension of the licence

1886 to 1890 -  James makes his move from Napier to Wellington, where he goes from being a Waiter, to a Hotelkeeper.
Assuming James STEVENSON - waiter at Napier 1885-86 is the same person as James STEVENSON, hotelkeeper, Wellington in 1890.  

1890, June 2nd James Stevenson marries Roseann Beatty.

Rose had 3/4 Children of her own. Now aged Sixteen, Fourteen, Eleven and Nine. (Two of them, them James & Rosanne, appear on James' Rose's funeral notice) [Struckthrough only because I don't consider it particularly relevant to case of Agnes FULLBROOK. ]

Days later Rose Beatty/Stevenson Licence moves her licence to Metropolitan.
Rose Ann BEATTY was granted a Publican's licence for the Metropolitan Hotel, Molesworth Street, Wellington, on 7 June 1890 (result published in local newspaper on 9th June 1890).    Note though, that intention of proposed licence transfers where required to be given by way of a notice published (on  3 separate occasions ) in the local newspaper, at least one month before the next meeting of the Licensing Committee.    Rose Ann BEATTY (as was her name at the time) complied with this requirement.  However, her name changed by marriage to STEVENSON some five days prior to the Licensing application being heard - but the surname (BEATTY) on her application, did not change.  Hence, the licence granted in 1890 was issued in the name of BEATTY.
[Refer further to the outcome of her 1891 renewal of licence, application. ]


James is a hotelkeeper, living on Molesworth Street. (Maybe before or after marriage?)
["Hotelkeeper" does not necessarily imply that he holds a Publican's Licence or is an owner of the Hotel.   Quite probably he was engaged in a variety of housekeeping duties relating to the hotel whilst his wife Rose Ann held the Publican's licence. ]
Agnes travels between Christchurch for work.
No evidence found of actual travel to Christchurch, but it was mentioned she was there some eight months ... and by early July 1891 she appears in a Wellington Court making a bid for increased maintenance from her husband William FULLBROOK (who is residing in Napier).   

Edited to add :   
http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/TS18910611.2.12.1

New information >
See  KEMP v. FULBROOK in this article :  This probably is Agnes (11 June 1891)  ... owing L 2-10s ... and being required to give up premises within 24 hours.    [Early July 1891 she is in Wellington Court.]

 

Seany ... above notes (in blue) as clarification of information I'd supplied earlier In this thread.

    ~  Lu
                                                some more to follow  > >

RootsChat is the busiest, largest free family history forum site in the country. It is completely free to use. Register now.
Also register instantly with Facebook or Twitter (and other social networks). Start your genealogy search now.


Offline Lucy2

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 13,373
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: The Illegitimate child of James Stephenson
« Reply #55 on: Wednesday 07 February 18 21:05 GMT (UK) »
Does this timeline sound correct?
 
1891

April – Not even a year into the marriage, there is possible lawsuit instigated by James against his wife. 
Refer also to notes at my Reply # 27 :   +  Firstly, I'm only surmising that the STEVENSON v. STEVENSON case may have been Rose Ann and James. (Can find no further information about it.)  +  Unknown who the instigator was.    +  Known only that "In the Magistrate's Court this morning, Mr Graham, RM, granted a Married Woman's Property Protection Order in the case of Stevenson and Stevenson."  [Source:  "Evening Post" 17 April 1891]

June – The Licence Committee find the licence name under Beatty doesn’t exist and ponder why it hasn’t been transferred yet to the husband of Rose Stevenson. They also decide single women shouldn't hold licenses in the future but doesn’t affect current holders. This may affect a future application in 1892…

This was a new Licensing Committee, who at times were in disarray according to newspaper reports.   They were entitled to ask the question re: "Mr Stevenson and Section 103 of the Licensing Act 1881" though clearly they hadn't checked the status of Rose Ann, when they did so.   That Section was not applicable to Rose Ann.  [ As a widow - she had held licences in her own name previously.   And, "Single women"  in the context, meant unmarried women.]   
Further down in the column which carried that report, you'll see that Rose Ann STEVENSON was granted a Licence - with an extension of opening hours to 11 o'clock, to boot !!


July 4th - Agnes appears in Wellington before the courts regarding her husband. They mention she has 4 children. As itʼs the only time itʼs mentioned it could be a mistake with the paper,    The Divorce record will clarify this. 

however since she declares that one baby was deceased itʼs possible this child was alive at the time.      If you're referring to what is written on her Death Cert.  then you need to be mindful that someone else (an informant)  has supplied that information - not Agnes herself !!

July 14th - The case is meant to be examined again with William Fullbrook present in Wellington.
October 19th -  Maintenance set at 30s in favour of Agnes from William, Wellington Court.


1892
January – Mrs Stephenson’s interest in the Metropolitan Hotel is deposed. ??
"Disposed of" were the words used.  ("Deposed"  has a different meaning). 

Perhaps this is Rose reapplying for her application, instead going to an Annie Smith. (This conflicts with the licence body saying Single Women shouldn't hold licences, unless Annie is a married woman) 
Whatever the "licence body" had to say, isn't really relevant here.   Rose Ann's Licence ran the duration of 1891.     Prior though > 4 September 1891 > at the Licensing meeting, under the section "Police Complaints", The Metropolitan was one of several hotels singled out as "requiring improvements".  But we don't know the real reason Rose Ann decided to quit.   For the record, Annie SMITH a former Licencee of the Star Hotel, made the appropriate application, and secured the Metropolitan licence in 1892.

Feb or March - Margaret H M Fullbrook is conceived.
October 29th – Margaret H M Fullbrook is born.
November 7th – Agnes doesn’t appear in court for her maintenance case. Her husband William asks the court for the custody of his children, though he hadn’t made a formal application. His children would be about thirteen, eleven and seven years of age. I assume he would want baby Margaret to be left with Agnes.

My Notes (in blue) in clarification.

   ~  Lu

RootsChat is the busiest, largest free family history forum site in the country. It is completely free to use. Register now.
Also register instantly with Facebook or Twitter (and other social networks). Start your genealogy search now.


Offline Seany

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 50
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: The Illegitimate child of James Stephenson
« Reply #56 on: Sunday 11 February 18 23:24 GMT (UK) »
Hi Lucy,

I've been away a few days. Thanks for highlighting those extra details. It makes a lot more sense to me now.

I may have to wait a little longer. I've put in my request for the divorce papers in NZ. Say it may take a few weeks.

Janette. Which search and method did you use to find those results?? I couldn't get a hold of those.
Gloria Ellen May Fullbrook married a Carter. I didn't realize she died so young. I wonder if this is partly the reason her husband went to NSW with their daughter? I'll have to wait a couple more years to see the birth certificate to prove anything.