|
a.
|
Note: Thomas is described on his marriage certificate as a Cordwainer.A guild name for Shoemaker. In an 1869 directory we find a"Thomas Worledge, wholesale boot and shoe manufacturer & mercer,Crown boot and shoe Manufactory, Magdalen street." In 1839 aThomas Syred is at "The Crown" & boot and shoemaker." Thisleads me to believe that the address is a public house. The1871 census for Norwich gives Thomas and Amelia living at 56Church Lane. Thomas gives his occupation as Shoe manufactureremploying 100 hands male and Female. His Household consists atthis time of.Thomas Worledge. 32. Shoe manufacturer employing 100 hands maleand female. born Norwich.Amelia Worledge. 36 wife. born Catton.Amelia Maria. 10 born Hellesdon.Thomas Wm. John 4 born Norwich.William Walter. 3 born. Norwich.John Nichols. 1 born Norwich.Maria Mallett. 20 Niece. Machinist. born Norwich.We next find thomas in Harrods directory dated 1877. "WorledgeThomas, vict. "Red Lion," and boat builder. First-class boatsof every description always in stock for sale or hire; BishopBridge.He took over "The Red Lion " on the 4th of April 1876 but onthe 17th of April 1879 was convicted of the following offences."Suffering Gambling" fined �5 with �1-16-0d costs or onemonths detention."Failing to admit police" fined 2-6d with 7 shillings costs or7 days detention."Allowing drinking after hours" fined 2-6d with 7 shillingscosts or 7 days detention.Eastern Daily Press (Norfolk), 18 April 1879GAMING IN A PUBLIC-HOUSE � CAUTION TO LANDLORDSThomas Worledge, landlord of the Red Lion public-house, BishopBridge, was summoned for allowing gaming to be carried on in hishouse on the 11th of April. He was further charged in twoseparate informations with allowing intoxicating liquors to beconsumed on his premises at unlawful hours on the same day, andalso with refusing to admit Police-constable Scales to hispremises, contrary to the Licensing Act. The Town Clerkprosecuted; Mr Linay defended.A person staying in Norwich on a visit, said he went into thedefendant�s house on Good Friday evening for a glass of ale.While he was drinking this in the bar parlor two soldiers camein, and on a table in the room were cards, a cribbage board, andjugs and glasses. About nine o�clock witness and a soldier satdown to a game of cribbage, the stake being glasses of ale.Witness won, and the soldier paid for two glasses of ale, whichwas brought in either by the landlord or landlady, but whichwitness was unable to say. The soldier soon afterwards left,followed by some civilians who had been in the room. Thelandlord then said to witness, �I�ll play you a game ofcribbage,� and witness accepted the challenge. Defendant,however, said he had not time to play before closing time, as hewanted to clear the house, and if he played witness must beprepared to stop for the night. After the house was closed, playcommenced, the stake being two glasses of ale, and 2s. 6d. Therewere also in the room the landlady, and two men who said theywere lodgers. Sometimes witness won, and sometimes the landlord.About one o�clock witness lost all his money, and asked thelandlord to lend him a sovereign. As he declined, one of the menoffered to lend a sovereign on witness�s watch till thefollowing morning. After witness had played three or four moregames and won, witness observed the landlord take a card fromthe pack and put into his own hand. Witness accused him of this,but on the defendant denying it, witness pointed it out in hishand. Defendant then called him a liar, and recriminationspassed between them, defendant asserting that if witnessrepeated his accusations, he would turn him out. On witnesstelling him it would be the worse for him if he did, defendantseized him and attempted to put him out, witness�s coat beingtorn in the attempt. Not succeeding in the first attempt,defendant tried again, and while they were struggling, one ofthe men seized witness from behind, and he was thrown out on tohis side. The door was then locked from the inside. Witness, when in the street, called �Police!� in response towhich Police-constable Scales came up, and went and knocked atthe back door. Lights at this time were burning in the house,but though a voice was heard inside, no response was made to theconstable�s demand. Witness afterwards found his hat in thestreet, which he had lost in the struggle in the house. Duringthe play, witness made several bets of a shilling a game withone of the lodgers, but detecting him cheating he declined anyfurther bets. On the Saturday morning, witness went to the house to see theman who had advanced the sovereign to him. On being accused bythe landlord of creating a disturbance, witness said he shouldhave been alright if the landlord had not cheated, and addedthat he had reported the matter to the police. Defendant said heneed not have done this, and that he should have been all rightif the witness had not knocked the pegs out. Witness deniedthis. Defendant told witness he had won the last game and handedto him the half-crown. The lodger afterwards coming down witnesshanded to him the sovereign and received back his watch. The manalso handed to witness a shilling to get his coat repaired, butdefendant said he had a friend who could do it, and on going inthe evening witness found the coat repaired.In answer to Mr Linay, witness admitted he had agreed to stayall night, and was prepared to say he was a lodger if the househad been visited by the police. He lost 11s. altogether, but itwas not the loss of the money that induced him to make hiscomplaint. In re-examination by the Town Clerk, witness said itwas the landlord who asked him to say he was a lodger if any onecame to the house. Police-constable Scales was the next witness,and spoke of his unsuccessful visit to the defendant�s house,though he heard a female voice say, �There are police,� and aman�s voice reply, �There let them be; they won�t come into thehouse.� Mr Linay in defence, admitted the facts so far as thecard-playing was concerned, though his client indignantly deniedthe charge of cheating. As to the card-playing, he pleaded thatdefendant had erred entirely through ignorance, being under theimpression that after his house was closed he was at liberty toplay with a person who had, like the witness, put himself in theposition of a lodger. He would now learn that landlords weredifferent from other persons, for it had been decided in theSuperior Courts that they must not play even for nuts. He (MrLinay) therefore trusted that under the circumstances a nominalpenalty would meet the justice of the case.Mr Chittock said he appeared for the owners of the house, MessrsBullard, and on their behalf asked the Bench not to endorse thelicense. Defendant had been served with a notice to quit on the22nd March, and he would have to leave the house in June. If theBench endorsed the license, they would really be punishing theowners of the house. The Chairman said the magistratesconsidered this a very bad case, and their decision was thatdefendant pay a find of 5l. and 1l. 16s. 6d. costs, to be leviedby distress; in default a month�s imprisonment. The licensewould not be endorsed. Defendant pleaded guilty to the secondcharge, for which he was fined 2s. 6d. and 7s. costs; in defaultseven days. On the third charge he pleaded not guilty. Thepoliceman having given evidence, Mr Linay urged that as theofficer had not stated who he was, no offence had beencommitted, as no publican would be safe if he were to open hisdoor to anyone who might simply knock on it with his knuckles.Defendant was fined 2s. 6d. and 7s. costs; in default sevendays. Another charge was then heard against the defendant forhaving his house open at thirty-five minutes past ten on Sundaynight, and allowing intoxicating liquors to be consumed therein.Police-constables Whall and Scales gave evidence in support ofthe charge. Mr Linay�s pleas was that the people found in thehouse were private guests, entertained at the sole expense ofthe landlord, which was not an offence against the LicensingAct. He called defendant and four witnesses in support of thiscontention. After the evidence of the first witness had beengiven, the Town Clerk withdrew the case, as he should not beable to prove it legally, though he might have his own opinionabout it. The summonses against six persons found in the housewere also withdrawn.On the 13th May 1879 "The Red Lion" was taken over by an EdwardBaldwin and we find no mention of Thomas in Norwich after that.There is no sign of him in the 1881 census of Britain and hisson Thomas is boarding with one Isaac Gooch with his 4 year oldsister Blanche as a visitor.I suspect that he later married a Sarah Sinfield. Widow ofWilliam Sinfield. Mother of Catherine Sinfield wife ofThomas's Son William Walter Worledge. We have Thomas, Sarah andCatherine together in 1891 but his birthplace is given asYarmouth which does not comply with other censusses. A ThomasWorledge died in Bethnal Green at 4 treadway street in 1905 thisa stone's throw from the 1901 residence of his son WilliamWalter Worledge and his Wife the daughter of his housekeeperSarah Sinfield. There is no informant and the inquest reporthas been culled many years ago. Fortunately the Local Newspapermentions the inquest as follows.FROM "EASTERN ARGUS & HACKNEY TIMES" FOR 14th JANUARY 1905.TREADWAY STREET MAN'S SAD END.On Monday morning last, at Church Row, Bethnal Green, Dr. WynnWestcott, coroner for the district, held an inquest upon thebody of a man named Thomas Worledge, 68 years of age, abootmaker, lately residing at 4, Treadway Street, Hackney Road,where he expired suddenly on Saturday morning last about 10.30,having put off seeing a doctor until the day before his death,and then it was too late.Sarah Worledge residing at No. 4 Treadway Street, said deceasedwas her husband, 68 years of age, and a bootmaker. He hadreceived no accidents or injuries that she knew of, and was asober man. She did not consider he had been ill to speak of.He had bronchitis and chest troubles for some time, but he wouldnot have a doctor, or go to see one. On thursday, January the7th, he was taken very queer. but still persisted in his refusalto see a doctor. On Friday he was worse still, and, at last, onthe Saturday a doctor was fetched against the poor man's will.But, alas, it was too late, the fell disease had done it's work,and the old fellow died soon after the arrival of the doctor.Dr. Arthur Farebrother, 442 Hackney Road, deposed that he wascalled to the case shortly before nine on Saturday morning. Hefound the man sitting on a chair, vomitting, and evidentlydying. He heard the man had complained of his chest for sometime, had a cough, and had no sleep for several nights. Witnessprescribed for him, but shortly afterwards heard of his death.The autopsy revealed that the lungs were very much inlarged andinflamed and the pleural cavities full of fluid. The heart wasalso enlarged and fatty weighing 15 ounces instead of 10 to 12ounces. Death was due to syncope, following pleural pneumonia.Verdict accordingly.
|
