Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Jayfull

Pages: [1]
1
South Africa / Re: Passing of Rosemary Dixon-Smith aka Mole
« on: Wednesday 26 July 23 19:00 BST (UK)  »
So sorry to hear this news. Around ten years ago I met Rosemary online, can't remember how, and with generosity, wit and expert knowledge she helped me date and fill out my understanding of several old photos I have. She was one of my fondest correspondents in cyberspace and I will miss her.

J.F.
Vancouver, Canada

2
Armagh / Re: The Ballyworkan Riot and Affray Case of 1858, Part 1
« on: Thursday 28 May 15 14:32 BST (UK)  »
Dear jdeckert,
The John Pepper in the Ballyworkan story left a detailed and interesting will which you will find by searching in the PRONI will calendars under the name John Henry Pepper, date of death 1882. There is a fair amount of information about relatives in the will that will help you establish whether he's your John Pepper. Would appreciate a reply on what you find.
Good luck!

3
Armagh / Re: The Ballyworkan Riot and Affray Case of 1858, Part 1
« on: Friday 30 January 15 21:52 GMT (UK)  »
Sounds like you're right. Nice talking to you.
All the best
Jayfull

4
Armagh / Re: The Ballyworkan Riot and Affray Case of 1858, Part 1
« on: Friday 30 January 15 21:20 GMT (UK)  »
Yes, that was my post too. I still think it's possible we're talking about the same family and that your other correspondent might just have two sisters confused. The William Campbell family I am researching did include a daughter who went to America, although her name was not Margaret but Emily. She was apparently known as Emma (married a man named Fergus -- that family's history is quite well laid out on the web). How do the other siblings in the tree you have compare to that post of mine you found?

5
Armagh / Re: The Ballyworkan Riot and Affray Case of 1858, Part 1
« on: Friday 30 January 15 20:04 GMT (UK)  »
Dear scotmum,
I believe the William Campbell you are talking about is indeed the senior of the two William Campbells who were convicted in the Ballyworkan Riot and Affray case. I have seen the death registration and will from PRONI you're talking about and the death date of 1892 you have matches what I found in those sources. There are burial records for this William Campbell and his wife Mary (born Condon or Condron) in Drumcree church cemetery, and I have a studio photograph (a carte de visite) of them accompanied by a matching photo of Drumcree Church, in the same size and format, so I think you can consider the 1892 death and the will leaving everything to his daughter Elizabeth verified.

6
Armagh / Re: The Ballyworkan Riot and Affray Case of 1858, Part 3
« on: Thursday 01 January 15 21:30 GMT (UK)  »
The case Campbell v. Pepper came to trial in the Probate Court in Belfast on July 3, 1860. It was brought by Martha Campbell, which suggests she had in the meantime been unable to resume possession of the house and land seized by John Pepper’s mob in the early hours of July 19, 1858.

Competing versions of Martha Campbell’s relationship with Thomas Pepper were now aired.

The court heard that Pepper had lived in Dublin until he retired to the country, and that Martha Campbell had entered his employ at the age of 16 or 17 at his house in Ballyworkan, on a property of 35 acres which he owned. She had been seduced by Pepper, who had promised to marry her, she said, and had cohabited with him for about thirty years and had four children with him. The six of them together had worked hard at the labours of the farm and were attached to one another,  the court heard, whereas Thomas Pepper was on bad terms with the rest of his family.

On three occasions over the years Pepper had made out wills in favour of Martha Campbell and their children, most recently in July 1858, when he felt himself to be ailing. The court heard testimony from various witnesses as to the validity of this last will, including from the solicitor’s clerk who had gone to Thomas Pepper’s house, sat beside him and taken down the will, dictated to him paragraph by paragraph. The clerk testified that Pepper was of above average intelligence, quite capable of managing his own affairs and had quite often been in the solicitor’s office to conduct business. This final will stipulated that Martha Campbell and her four children would inherit Thomas Pepper’s house and property and that it would revert to the Pepper family only after the last of them had died.

The Rev. Pepper, Thomas Pepper's heir at law, countered this by alleging that Martha Campbell was “a woman of the most abandoned character” who “by artifices and violence” had gained control of Thomas Pepper and his household. She had indeed married a man named Campbell but had left him; had, in fact, been fetched from Newry by Pepper himself and been brought to his house in Ballyworkan in a gig with his own cloak about her shoulders, and lived with him from that day on. It was denied that Thomas Pepper was the father of Martha Campbell’s children. Their father, it was claimed, was neither Thomas Pepper nor Martha Campbell’s deceased husband but someone altogether different!

Various witnesses were produced to paint a picture of a reign of terror exercised by Martha Campbell and her children over Pepper. He was portrayed as a man “of weak mind and eccentric character” who was known in the community derisively as “Dody Ass.” There was testimony that Pepper had been coerced into making his last will, even an allegation that a bribe had been offered to keep the conspiracy silent.

After the first day’s proceedings, the judge and jury were no doubt relieved to learn they would not be required to untangle this perplexing case after all, and the next morning it was announced that the defendant, Rev. Pepper, had conceded the validity of the will.

And that is why, in the Griffith Valuation, which I believe in the case of Ballyworkan dates to 1864, you will find the name Martha Campbell as the occupier of Thomas Pepper’s former lands.

Note on sources: "The Ballyworkan Riot and Affray Case" has been rewritten from articles in two Belfast newspapers, the Northern Whig (Wednesday 27 October 1858, pp. 3-4, and Thursday 28 October 1858, p. 3) and the Belfast News Letter (Thursday July 5, 1860, p. 4 and Friday, July 6, 1860, p. 3). All of these are available online at The British Newspaper Archive. (One sometimes has to try several different searches to find articles in this database, so don’t give up too easily. In fact it might be quicker to select the newspaper and date involved and navigate to the page you want.)

7
Armagh / Re: The Ballyworkan Riot and Affray Case of 1858, Part 2
« on: Thursday 01 January 15 20:42 GMT (UK)  »
To Arthurk: Thanks for your interest. I'll detail all the sources at the end of the conclusion (Part 3), which I'll post shortly. What I'm after is family background on the three Campbells among those convicted. I had seen some of the posts you mention related to Ballyworkan and was hoping some of those contributors might be able to help (including you!)
Stand by.

8
Armagh / Re: The Ballyworkan Riot and Affray Case of 1858, Part 2
« on: Thursday 01 January 15 19:53 GMT (UK)  »
The Ballyworkan Riot and Affray Case, Part 2:

Testimony at trial revealed that the invasion of Thomas Pepper’s home in the early morning hours of July 19, 1858, had been led by his own relatives, who had seized the house and were still holding it “with an armed force like a garrison” when the case came to court three months later.

The jurors were:
James Blaney
Arthur Donnelly
James Duffy
Patrick M'Geown
James Harper
Robert Nicholson
Richard Evans
Henry M'Clean
William Hanna
Thomas Black
Robert Wilson
Robert M’Connell

The case as outlined to the jury was that “the leader of this mob, and the promoter of this outrage,” was a nephew of Thomas Pepper’s who had heard of the existence of a will leaving Thomas Pepper’s house and land to his housekeeper and her children. The old man had in fact been ailing at the time and had died within half an hour of the storming of his house.

The housekeeper, Martha Campbell, had served Thomas Pepper since she was a teenager, a period of more than thirty years, but during that time had been married to a man named Campbell and had four children, the prosecutor said. This husband had died, however, and Martha Campbell and her children had since lived with Pepper, who was fond of them all and whose wishes were that his house and land should go to them, reverting to the Pepper family after Martha Campbell and all her children were dead.
 
The nephew, John Pepper, had hired a fiery lawyer to defend him. This lawyer set about convincing the jury that Martha Campbell was a drinker and a person of low character whose word in a court of law could not be believed and that her four children were the offspring not of any husband but of Thomas Pepper her employer. He insinuated that she had gained control of Thomas Pepper’s household, had mistreated him throughout her time with him, and that it would be a miscarriage of justice if anybody were to be convicted of a crime on the evidence of such a woman.

Unfortunately for John Pepper and his accomplices, who included tenants of the Pepper family, the truth regarding Martha Campbell’s relationship with Thomas Pepper was, at this stage, irrelevant. They had put themselves on the wrong side of the law and, with the exception of Mary Lisk, were all convicted of unlawful assembly. The charge of forcible entry was withdrawn.

On the following day the court handed down its sentence: two months in prison and a £5 fine for John Pepper, and a month in prison for the remaining 16 accused.

Three nephews of Thomas Pepper are mentioned in the newspaper coverage of this case:
 
John Pepper, who had been identified as the instigator of the mob invasion of the house; who, on the testimony of some witnesses had arrived at the house shortly after its seizure to take command; and who was now headed to prison;

Richmond Pepper, who testified during the trial that he had not been at Thomas Pepper’s house that night and had no financial interest in the house or land; and

The Rev. J. Pepper of Kilkenny, who as the eldest of the three brothers was Thomas Pepper’s heir at law and stood to lose the most if the will of Thomas Pepper were upheld.

Two years later the case Campbell v. Pepper came to trial in the Probate Court in Belfast, where the validity of the will leaving everything to Martha Campbell and her children would be decided.

Coming soon: The Ballyworkan Riot and Affray Case, Part 3 (the conclusion)

9
Armagh / The Ballyworkan Riot and Affray Case of 1858, Part 1
« on: Thursday 01 January 15 01:54 GMT (UK)  »
At about 2:30 in the early hours of Monday, July 19, 1858, a mob arrived at the door of a house in the townland of Ballyworkan, about 2.5 kilometres south of Portadown on the road to Tandragee in County Armagh. Inside the house were Thomas Pepper, a local landowner in his eighties, his housekeeper Martha Campbell, and the housekeeper’s four children, who all lived there. Also in the house on that night were three of Martha Campbell’s relatives.
The mob, some of them armed with guns and bayonets on sticks, demanded entrance, which was refused, and they then smashed open the door. And so began a legal saga that lasted two years and shone as bright a light into the social life and economic life of this little townland as a researcher could hope for.
Three months after the invasion of this house, at the opening of the Quarter Sessions in Lurghan, first up for trial was the case that one newspaper later called “The Ballyworkan Riot and Affray Case.” Charged were 18 residents, all “of a respectable class in society” and whose “characters were unexceptionable.” Those on the list that day, Oct. 26, 1858, all charged with unlawful assembly and affray, as well as forcible entry, were as follows:

James Black
Thomas Campbell
William Campbell
William Campbell, junior
John Haddon
James Harcourt
William Lisk
John Lisk
Edward Lisk
Mary Lisk
Edward Magennis
James M'Fadden
John M'Fadden
John Nixon
James Pentleton
John Pepper
James Thornton
James Willoughby

What makes this case a bright, rare and juicy plum for the honest, hard working and downtrodden researcher is the number of people in it who appear again a few years later in the Griffith Valuation for the townland, which lists all the occupiers of land and their lessors, and shows us on a map exactly where each landholding was located. There is a free and open internet site on which these maps are gorgeously overlain on modern Google Maps, a real treasure.
There is much more to tell, but I’d like to establish I have an audience before resuming my little serial. Would anyone like to hear more?
 


Pages: [1]