Family dispute

[treegirl]

Hi -

My 2xggrandfather (Thomas SMITH JOHNSON) and my 3xggrandfather (Matthew JOHNSON) lived with their families in Cross Guns Yard, Newark in the mid 1800s.

It appears that my 3x ggrandfather and my 2xggrandfather did not have the best relationship to say the least.

I have found a newspaper article from September 1867 where the two are up agains each other in court for an altercation. The article states:

"The Mayor said it was a very disreputable case... and cautioned parties for the future, as the superintendent would watch the neighbourhood....It appeared that the agent of the houses where the parties resided determined that one of them shall leave"

By the time the 1871 census was taken, Thomas and his family had moved to Derby and were recorded as Thomas S. Johnson (and likewise for his wife Maria and three daughters)
By 1881, the family were in Leicester (with another daughter and son) and just recorded as SMITH.

The change of name had always been a mystery in our family, but this bad blood appears to shed some light on that!

I was wondering if anyone could direct me to whether Thomas and family were instructed to go (as per the 1867 article) or not? I am hoping they made the proactive choice to get away, rather than being made to leave!

Many thanks in advance

TreeGirl:-)

[amondg]

The article says Matthew Johnson was Thomas Smith Johnson stepfather. Nottingham Journal, 13 September 1867

So if you are making a family tree Matthew was not his father

[Stanwix England]

It appeared that the agent of the houses where the parties resided determined that one of them shall leave

I interpret that to mean, that the person in charge of the houses determined that one of them should leave the properties, but only that.

As far as I am aware, the courts would not have had any legal right to compel either family to leave the county. The only circumstances I have heard of people being forced to move, is if they became paupers. Then they could be forced to go back to the parish that they were originally from, and that was only because they would be financially supported by their original parish.

That doesn't seem to be the case in your family, unless the family that moved were originally from Derby.

So I would assume it was a choice, rather than something they were compelled to do.

That's all guess work though.

[Daisypetal]

Hi,

Just what I was looking up and typing

Birth
Thomas SMITH    Jun Q 1840    Newark    15  545


Marriage
Matthew JOHNSON    Dec Q 1840    Newark    15  1032
Elizabeth SMITH



27 Oct 1840
St Mary Magdalene,  Newark on Trent
Matthew JOHNSON
Elizabeth SMITH



Regards,
Daisy   

[amondg]

Re 1881 census Thomas and Maria.

The youngest children Mary 1872 -Derby and Robert 1877 - Leicester were registered as Smith not Johnson.

So Thomas went back to his original surname after 1868 birth of daughter Elizabeth Smith Johnson- Newark.

ADDED

So was daughter Fanny registered 1883 Leicester

[amondg]

Look at 1851 census Cross Guns Yard

Thomas is listed as Thomas Smith age 11,
all the other children are Mary, Robert, Hannah and William are Johnson.

So not Matthew's child 

[treegirl]

Thanks all.

I know that the article does refer to Matthew as stepfather, but I do question that.

As you found, Thomas' mother was Elizabeth SMITH and father was Matthew JOHNSON and they married shortly after Thomas was born in 1840. I have interpreted that as the reason behind the double barrelled nature of his name. Matthew Johnson was named as his father on Thomas' wedding certificate.

Thomas and Maria's first two daughters - Sarah and Harriet - were originally Smith Johnson. The third - Maria - was Maria S. Johnson (as were the rest of the family on the 1871 census) and then Mary, Robert (my g grandfather) and Fanny were all just Smith. A gradual phasing out of the link with Matthew .... 

It was clearly a very bad relationship between Matthew/Elizabeth and Thomas/Maria. There are other articles about altercations between Elizabeth and Maria as well as further problems with Matthew and pretty much everyone! I always found it interesting that none of the many children of Matthew and Elizabeth chose to name any of their own children Matthew!

Perhaps Matthew was only stepfather and I don't have to own him in my family 

I always hoped that Thomas and Maria made the move for the good of their own family. Will probably never get to the bottom of it!

TreeGirl

[amondg]

Thomas birth was registered June Quarter so birthday April, May or June.

Matthew and Elizabeth married October
so Thomas could have been 6 months old

[Rosinish]

"The Mayor said it was a very disreputable case... and cautioned parties for the future, as the superintendent would watch the neighbourhood....It appeared that the agent of the houses where the parties resided determined that one of them shall leave"

It's possible when Thomas' tenancy agreement was up, it wasn't renewed i.e. he had no choice but to move.

Annie