|
TREES |
|
|
|
|
DAVID SHRUBSOLE
b 1774 Smeeth, Kent, England bapt 13 Feb 1774 Smeeth, Kent, England
Died 1837 Wye, Kent England buried 3 Aug 1837 Wye, Kent, England
Marr 1813 Rochester, Kent, England
Elizabeth Finn k/a Shrubsole
B 1789 Aldington, Kent, England Bapt 8 Mar 1892 Aldington, Kent, England
?Buried 24 Aug 1862 Wye, Kent, England
THE FAMILY OF DAVID SHRUBSOLE
b 1774 Smeeth d1837 Wye
During research into my family tree I found several newspaper articles relating to the marriage of a David Shrubsole & Elizabeth Finn/Fenn (k/a Shrubsole) which intrigued me & on further investigation realised they tied into David Shrubsole b 1774 Smeeth. I have transcribed them all lower down on this page in date order but have copies of the articles if anyone wishes to see them. In 1834 the Churchwardens of Wye instituted proceedings against David Shrubsole for marrying his niece with the objection of setting aside the marriage on the grounds of incest. It would appear that this was driven by the fact that David & his family required Parish relief in 1833 and had applied in Eastling, where they lived, but had been refused. In June 1833 he & his family were removed to Wye, with the result being the court proceedings brought against him. The newspaper article of the Kentish Weekly Post or Canterbury Journal of 18th February 1834 states very clearly their thoughts on the proceedings and the total cost to the parish of Wye as a result of the case! Some background history on David: he was baptised 13 Feb 1774 in St Mary the Virgin, Smeeth, the fourth child of Richard Shrubsole & Elizabeth Ashman. He first married Anne Higgens in 1796 in Smeeth & they had five children baptised in Eastling. I haven't as yet discovered why they were living in Eastling but it must have been for work initially I would have thought. Sadly Anne died in 1811 at Eastling, very likely in childbirth, as their last child was born in 1811. David then married Elizabeth Finn (k/a Shrubsole) 24 May 1813 in Rochester. [One newspaper report remarks this was a clandestine marriage, both parties being in the workhouse at the time -
EXTRACTS OF NEWSPAPERS CONTAINING REPORTS ON DAVID SHRUBSOLE + WILLIAM SHRUBSOLE
[Note: The Arches Court, presided over by the Dean of Arches, is an ecclesiastical court of the Church of England covering the Province of Canterbury.]
Extract from Morning Post 6 February 1834
ARCHES COURT – Wednesday Feb 5
(Before Sir John Nicholl)
KENNETT V SHRUBSHALL, OTHERWISE SHRUBSOLE
In this case the office of the Judge was promoted by churchwardens of Wye, in Kent against David Shrubshall, otherwise Shrubsole, and Elizabeth Shrubshall, otherwise Shrubsole, to set aside a marriage on the alleged ground of incest. The parties did not appear personally.
The KING’S ADVOCATE, on behalf of the parochial authorities, stated the nature of the case. It was alleged that the party in the cause had married his brother’s daughter, and the Learned Civilian prayed the Court to admit articles pleading the facts.
Sir JOHN NICOLL said he had no doubt, if the facts pleaded in the articles were proved, that the marriage must be pronounced a nullity. The churchwardens had acted most meritoriously in commencing this suit, as if such cases were allowed the common concerns and connections of life would be interfered with, it appearing to be notoriously the case that such a marriage as pleaded had occurred.
Extract from Kentish Weekly Post or Canterbury Journal 18 February 1834
The Churchwardens of Wye recently instituted proceedings in the Arches Court, against an individual named ‘David Shrubsall or Shrubsole, and Elizabeth Shrubsall otherwise Shrubsole otherwise Fenn’, on the ground of incest, the former having married his brother’s daughter. Poverty, it seems, overtook Shrubsole at Eastling, and on that parish he laid claim to relief, having resided in it some years. The application was refused. Thence the pauper applies to the overseers of Wye for assistance. The question is mooted whether he really is chargeable, and a plea for refusing relief advanced, that Shrubsole married his neice, and consequently the parish ought not to support a family the fruit of incestuous intercourse:-
Extract from the Kentish Gazette 6th May 1834.
The proceedings in the Arches Court, promoted by the Churchwardens of Wye against David Shrubsole, for marrying his brother’s daughter, have terminated by the incestuous marriage being declared null and void. The parties are not to cohabit or live together, on pain of excommunication; and they are enjoined to perform penance on Sunday next.
Extract from Devizes and Wiltshire Gazette 8 May 1834
ARCHES COURT – The Office of the Judge promoted by Kennett v David Shrubshaw, otherwise Shrubsole and Eliza Fenn falsely called Shrubshaw, otherwise Shrubsole.
The KING’S ADVOCATE said that this was a suit promoted by Mr. Kennnett, the surviving Churchwarden of the parish of Wye, in Kent, against the other parties in the cause, in order to set aside a marriage celebrated between them, on the grounds of being incestuous. The proceeding came before the Court by letters of request from the Commissary of the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Learned Advocated stated the contents, the articles exhibited against the parties, by which it was shown that David Shrubshaw, otherwise Shrubsole, had married his brother’s daughter – the marriage having taken place in 1813, and they had cohabited since, the issue of such marriage being eight children. According to the 99th Canon such a marriage was declared to be incestuous and null and void. The Learned Advocate said the evidence produced in the cause fully proved the fact as pleaded in the articles and he should pray the Court to pronounce the marriage null and void – that the parties should hereafter live separate from each other – they they should be ? punished, and condemned in the payment of costs.
Sir John Nicholl – As this is a proceeding for dissolving a marriage, and which will have the effect of bastardizing the children and punishing the parties, the Court must have the evidence read, and proceed in the most formal way.
The evidence was then read.
The King’s Advocate, in reply to a remark from the Court said that if it should be fact that the female was the illegitimate daughter of the brother of the husband in the cause or not, still the connection would be incestuous.
Dr. Addams said the marriage had been a clandestine one, both parties being in the workhouse at the time.
Sir John Nicholl thought there was enough before the Court to satisfy its mind as to the decision it should pronounce. It is a suit to declare a marriage null and void, and to prevent the parties from continuing to cohabit together – David Shrubshaw and Eliza his wife. The suit was instituted by the parish officers, in order to put an end to so improper a cohabitation, and to put down a nuisance. The evidence showed that David Shrubshaw had married his brother’s daughter, and the registers of marriages and births were exhibited, to prove the facts as alleged. The marriage was proved, and the cohabitation, and the Court could entertain no sort of doubt that a form of marriage had been gone through. Under these circumstances it became the duty of the Court to declare the marriage null and void, an account of its being incestuous. The Court was bound to proceed further – it was bound to declare it null and void, ab initio, and to enjoin penance. In the case in the Consistory Court of Burgess v Burgess, the penance had been excused, on the ground of the advanced age of the party, but the parties were enjoined that they should live separate and apart. He should make the same order here, and if the decision of the Court was not followed, excommunication and other penalties would follow. It was necessary that the great offence to the parish should be put down. The sentence of the Court was as he had stated.
The King’s Advocate said the penance was enjoined to be performed on Sunday, the 11th of May.
Extract from the South Eastern Gazette 13th May 1834.
The proceedings in the Arches Court, promoted by the Churchwardens of Wye against David Shrubsole, for marrying his brother’s daughter, have terminated by the incestuous marriage being declared null and void. The parties are not to cohabit or live together, on pain of excommunications; and they are enjoined to perform penance on Sunday next.
Extract from Kentish Weekly Post or Canterbury Journal 12 Jan 1836
WYE V DODDINGTON
This was an appeal against an order for the removal of a pauper named Shrubsole. The facts of the case were admitted. The only question for decision was, whether pauper followed his father’s settlement. He was not included in an order made about two years ago, for the removal his father, mother and family, from Eastling to Wye, which was confirmed on appeal at these Sessions. Since this confirmation, however, the marriage of the father and mother had been declared null and void, by an appeal to the Arches Court, and the children thereby became illegitimate.
Mr. Shee maintained that this was not a question of morality, but simply of law. No doubt could exist that the order must be quashed, since previous to the degree of the Arches’ Court, the children born of this marriage were to all intents and purposes, legitimate. Subsequently it transpired that the marriage was invalid, David Shrubsole, the father of pauper having married his own niece, which made his offspring illegitimate. It would appear that the children were legitimate prior to this decision, but as the decree did not then exist, nor the fact of the illegitimacy, the order must be quashed.
Mr. Brett followed on the same side.
Mr. Starr, with who was Mr. Deedes, appeared for the respondent parish. He contended this marriage was within the degree of consanguinity, and the Arches’ Court having decided that it was null and void, he had no doubt the Court would confirm the order. He argued, that cases either unappealed against, or confirmed on appeal, were conclusive (as observed by Lord Coke) against all the world.
The Court then confirmed the order.
Extract from Canterbury Journal, Kentish Times & Farmer’s Gazette 28th April 1838.
REX v THE INHABITANTS OF WYE:
COURT OF QUEEN’S BENCH
[As the following case has excited much attention during the last two or three years, in this part of the country, an authentic report of the legal arguments, urged on both sides, and of the judgment delivered by the Lord Chief Justice of the Court of King’s Bench, may be considered interesting by many of our readers.]
By order of two justices dated Mar 19 1835 the pauper William Shrubsole & Elizabeth, his wife, were removed from the parish of Doddington to the parish of Wye. On appeal the order was confirmed subject to the court of King’s Bench on the following case:-
1[Unemancipated child. The term ''unemancipated child'' means a person below the age of 18 receiving at least one-
Extract from “Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Court of King's Bench: And Upon Writs of Error from that Court to the Exchequer Chamber, in Michaelmas Term, 1836, [to Trinity Term, 1838], Volume 3”
https://books.google.com.gh/books?id=4yEwAAAAIAAJ&q=shrubsole#v=snippet&q=shrubsole&f=false
