|
a.
|
Note: FREE REG England Births and Christenings, 1538-1975
Name John Worseldine
Gender Male
Baptism/Christening Date 24 Nov 1783
Baptism/Christening Place Gedney, Lincoln, England
Birth Date
Birthplace
Death Date
Name Note
Race
Father's Name Willm. Worseldine
Father's Birthplace
Father's Age
Mother's Name Hannah
Mother's Birthplace
Mother's Age
Indexing Project (Batch) Number C00650-5
System Origin England-EASy
Source Film Number 1542145
Reference Number item 2
******************** The Old Bailey Proceedings Online Project
JOHN HEDGES, Theft > theft from a specified place, 27th May 1830.
Reference Number: t18300527-76
Offence: Theft > theft from a specified place
Verdict: Guilty
Punishment: Transportation
Related Material: Associated Records
User Wiki: Corrections; Add Information
See original
1108. JOHN HEDGES was indicted for stealing, on the 30th of April , 6 glazed window-sashes, belonging to John Worseldine , and fixed to a building of his ; against the Statute, &c.
JOHN WORSELDINE . I have the care of some buildings in Compton-place, St. Pancras - which were repairing; I had seen it about a week before the 30th of April; on the 3rd of May I went and missed the sashes from the house No. 6.
WILLIAM HORRIGAN . On the 30th of April I missed two sashes from one house, and one and a half from the other; I know nothing of the prisoner.
JAMES FULLER . I am a Police-constable. I met the prisoner on the morning of the 30th of April, about twenty yards from where the property was taken - he was in Judd-street, carrying this glass, which I took from him; this is a part of a sash which was dropped, and two pieces of glass found on the prisoner belong to this sash, and fit exactly; I asked how he became possessed of the glass - he said it belonged to his master, Mr. Cumming, in the Edgware-road; he stated before the Magistrate, that he bought it of a man coming along the street - he lived in the same place from where the property was taken.
GUILTY . Aged 25. - Transported for Seven Years .
******************** London, England, Marriages and Banns, 1754-1921
Name: John Worseldine
Spouse Name: Maria Brucer
Record Type: Marriage
Marriage Date: 04 Sep 1806
Parish: St Mary at Lambeth
County: Surrey
Borough: Lambeth
Source Citation: London Metropolitan Archives, Saint Mary At Lambeth, Register of marriages, P85/MRY1, Item 395
Source Information:
Ancestry.com. London, England, Marriages and Banns, 1754-1921 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2010.
Original data: Church of England Parish Registers, 1754-1921. London Metropolitan Archives, London.
******************** 1841 census
Last Name First Name Sex Age Birth County Place Township City Parish County
WORSELDINE HENRY M 20 SURREY BRIXTON, EAST CAMBERWELL LANE BRIXTON LAMBETH ST MARY LAMBETH SURREY
WORSELDINE JOHN M 55 OUT OF COUNTY BRIXTON, EAST CAMBERWELL LANE BRIXTON LAMBETH ST MARY LAMBETH SURREY
WORSELDINE MARIA F 55 SURREY BRIXTON, EAST CAMBERWELL LANE BRIXTON LAMBETH ST MARY LAMBETH SURREY
MARDLE ELIZA F 20 SURREY BRIXTON, EAST CAMBERWELL LANE BRIXTON LAMBETH ST MARY LAMBETH SURREY
MARDLE JOSEPH M 15 SURREY BRIXTON, EAST CAMBERWELL LANE BRIXTON LAMBETH ST MARY LAMBETH SURREY
MARDLE ROBERT M 7 months SURREY BRIXTON, EAST CAMBERWELL LANE BRIXTON LAMBETH ST MARY LAMBETH SURREY
MARDLE ROBERT M 20 IRELAND BRIXTON, EAST CAMBERWELL LANE BRIXTON LAMBETH ST MARY LAMBETH SURREY
Reference details
Census 1841
TNA Ref HO107-1054
Image No 21
Folio No 1\19
Page No 32
Entry No 11
Location details
County SURREY
Superintendent Registrar's District LAMBETH
Registrar's District BRIXTON
Enumeration District No 1
Parish ST MARY LAMBETH
City LAMBETH
Township BRIXTON
Place BRIXTON, EAST CAMBERWELL LANE
Household Number 130
Record details
First name JOHN
Last name WORSELDINE
Title
Misc
Age 55
Sex M
Birth County OUT OF COUNTY
******************** England & Wales, FreeBMD Death Index: 1837-1915
Deaths Dec 1848
Worseldine John Lambeth 4 175
24 DEC 1848
******************** THE DEATH DATE WAS TAKEN FROM THE GRO CERT THERE FOR THE FOLLOWING EXTRACT TAKEN FROM ANCESTRY IS ONE YEAR OUT AS THE IMAGE SHOWS THE TRANSCRIBER HAS NOT PAID ATTENTION
London, England, Deaths and Burials, 1813-1980
Name: John Worseldine
Record Type: Burial
Event Date: 31 Dec 1849
Age: 65
Estimated Birth Year: abt 1784
Parish: Saint Matthew, Brixton
Borough: LAMBETH
County: Middlesex
Source Citation:
Source Information:
Ancestry.com. London, England, Deaths and Burials, 1813-1980 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations Inc, 2009. Original data: Board of Guardian Records, 1834-1906 and Church of England Parish Registers, 1813-1906. London Metropolitan Archives and Guildhall Library Manuscripts, London.
__________________________________________________________________________
my 4th great grand father John Worseldine was not an unknown individual as so many ancestors are. What I mean is we find out the name and dates and also their jobs, in his case he was a carpenter, and where they lived. However, we have little more. With John Worseldine, he is not just a name.
It seems that John was an individual who was exposed to the law on at least three occasions while he lived. Not because he did anything wrong but because he was associated with those who did. The first time was when his two older sons, William & George had an alturcation on 27 Aug 1831 which resulted in george's death. The second time his name crops up was at a trial concerning a theft from premises that he was in charge of and was called as witness against John hedges at The Old Bailey in 1830. The third time occurred in 1834 when his two younger sons Frederick and Henry were accused of art theft. Fred was found guilty and sentenced to deportation to Australia where Henry joined him in 1853 after John’s death.
It is possible that John’s name (how many John Worseldine in London can there be) was once again associated with a crime, but this time after his death. The crime this time was murder!
If we are right John had a relationship with a lady called Martha. This was according to a communication responding to a letter written to The Times newspaper (there are several newspaper articles from around the world at the time one from the times named John and even had his death date correct) shortly after the trial of William Sheward in 1869, who was an apprentice with one of john’s sons (? William). His name was supposedly mentioned at the trial. Of course John could not testify himself as he was by this time dead; the crime taking place in about 1852.
The witness said that John left Maria (some time after 1822) and lived for a time with Martha. Then Martha met, in London a man called William Sheward. The man was about 21 years younger than her. This meting led to William and Martha being married. They at some stage went to Norwich where William, by 1868 was to become the licensee of a pub called the Key and Castle. However, that was not until he was no longer with Martha.
It seems that the marriage was not a very harmonious one. Martha was described as a difficult and dislikeable Person. There is a report else where on the net, which states she liked to attend funerals, whether she knew the person or not. I do not know how true this is because the author reports Martha as Julia and states that he was a tailor.
Any way with Martha’s disposition and the fact that William fell on bad times in 1851, causing money problems the arguments between the two increased and Martha was herd to threaten to leave on a number of occasions. By this time, Martha was 56 and William 35. One day in June, William who had already been driven to drink by Martha’s ways and constant nagging, was incited so much following yet another argument that he went in to the bath room took up his cut throat razor and cut her throat from ear to ear. He then got ready according to the reporter about the funerals and went to a job interview in Great Yarmouth. On his return he was surprised to find that Martha’s body had not been discover. Therefore, he set about disposing of her. His choice was to cut her up .For a number of days he cut and sawed then put her dismembered bits into a pot on the fire to make them softer and distributed them around the area in undergrowth in the hope that the dogs, rats and other wild animals would dispose of the remains far quicker. However, as he worked he began to realize that he was facing discovery because it was taking to long. Her remains were beginning to smell and the stench from the pot was too much. He tried to put lavender leaves on the fire but this did not help so he stopped boiling the bits. Then an unboiled hand was discovered. At first, the police thought that it was medical students who were responsible. Then a policeman spotted William poking around the undergrowth near to the area of the hand discovery. Taking his dog to help him, he soon discovered another hand. He also found out that Martha was missing. An organized search was conducted and more bits turned up. Missing though was the head, which made ID hard, but the police were convinced that it was Martha. They were about to go and get William when a report came in from the police surgeon stating that the body was that of a woman aged 25-30 with light brown hair and that she weight about 8 stone: - Martha was of course 56 had black hairs and weighted about 10 stone. Remember the head was missing and it was only 1851 and forensic medical knowledge was in its infancy. William had by this time told neighbours that Martha had left because of the arguments. He said that she had gone back to London possible to a man she knew before he had met him (was he meaning John?) and she could have even gone to Australia with him too (remember Fred had been deported to Tasmania in 1834 and Henry emigrated to Victoria in 1853). William had got away with murder.
Things took an upward turn for William. He became prosperous and was, as I said, the licensee of the pub in 1868, but the murder had taken its toll on him. Martha was occupying his every thought and he would often be seen poking around the undergrowth on the many occasions that he was drunk where he had scattered Martha remains. Things were difficult with his new wife whom he had married 10 years after Martha’s disappearance. His new wife suggested that they go to London for a few days hoping that it would help in some way. Little did she know that the hotel she had booked was in the same area to that in which William had met Martha. articles on the net report William could in fact see Martha’s bedroom, where she had lived in London, from their hotel room. So far from helping it was to push him over the top.
It was therefore after almost 18 years of carrying his guilt that his feelings of purgatory finally drove him to walked into a police station in Walworth. on 1 Jan 1869 he told Insp' James Davies that he wished to make a charge against himself.
"For the wilful murder of my first wife in Norwich" was the replied the astonished officer received when he asked what it was.
this encounter being reported in the times a few days later
By the time of his trial in Norwich in March 1869, he had with drawn his confession. Johns name was therefore brought up in the trial as Martha lover before her meting William. The jury decided that his original statement was truer and found him guilty after just 75 minutes deliberation. William was sentenced to hang. On April 15, he made another full detailed confession to the prison warden. His hanging took place on Tuesday April 20.
Williams’s trial was the last conviction at the Norwich assize, and only the second hanging (no more followed). The hanging was the first to be conducted in private within Norwich. He was hung by Calcraft.
after the trial a letter was sent from Brighton stating that Martha was still alive. this was quickly followed by another stating that the man by the name of Worseldine mentioned in the trial was not fictions as had been suggested, that he did have a relationship with Martha but that he had in fact died before Marthas death.
the times then followed up with an article in which they named the man as a John Worseldine' and gave the fact that he died in Dec 1848.
the times had no bearing on Williams fate of course.
This is a poem I found about the murder from what seems to be a report by a news writer which was reproduced in a book .the book was printed by H. Dailey, printer, 57, high street, St Giles London. -Wc
The piece was titled
‘The Last Moments and Confession of WM. SHEWARD.’
It has a short description of the crime and hanging and the poem appears below this.
I am a sad and wretched man,
Borne down in care and woe,
I am doomed to die for a murder done
Near eighteen years ago;
A dreadful deed, as you may read,
I long kept in my breast,
I had no comfort day or night,
Until I did confess.
With the dreadful knife, I slew my wife, And her body round did throw, Now I must die for murder done, Near eighteen years ago. I her body into pieces cut,
And scattered it around,
Here and there, I scarce knew where,
I placed it on the ground.
I now must die for that foul deed,
And in a murderer’s grave lie low,
I did her kill, her blood I spilled,
Near eighteen years ago
I boiled her head, how sad to tell,
I was mad without a doubt,
I threw it in the different parts,
I placed it round about;
Kept the secret eighteen years,
Within my guilty breast,
And till the same I did divulge,
I day nor night could rest.
For eighteen years, in grief and tears,
I passed many a dreary night,
I had not one moment’s happiness,
Since I killed my own dear wife;
At length I did confess the deed,
For which I now must die,
For murder eighteen years ago-
The which I don’t deny.
There was letters sent from different parts,
To say my wife did live,
To save me from the gallows,
But none would they believe;
I could not from justice flee,
I do deserve my fate.
No pen can write, or tongue can tell,
My sad and wretched fate.
My moments they do swiftly pass,
I soon shall sleep below,
I done that dreadful awful deed,
Near eighteen years ago;
I cut and mangled that poor soul,
My heart was flinty steel,
Her limbs and body strewed about,
In hedges, lanes and fields.
There are two things to conceder, as ghostly Dave of Norwich ghost walks asks. What did happen to Martha’s head? William had admitted severing it from her body and said it too went into the pot.' who knows, all that cutting and boiling must have been hard work and, no doubt, Sheward must have built up an appetite by the end of it'
Secondly, as I am interested in John, just how close a line did John walk where the law was concerned? It was very close perhaps, unless he was extremely unlucky!
The affair with Martha seems to fit, as it was William Braine who was present at Maria’s death. As I know that John did not die until 24 Dec 1848 a year and half after Maria the question is why William Braine present if John and Maria were still together and why was it he and not John, her husband, who registered the death. The reason could be as simple as he might have been too infirm as he died of paralysis (? stroke)!
the fact still remains my 4th great grandfather was called John Worseldine at some stage after 1841 he left maria and he did die 24 Dec 1848 in London JUST AS THE TIMES REPORTED!
..
|
