Rootsweb revisited!

The old Tingewick website on Rootsweb has mostly been restored – it’s now at HOWEVER at the moment I can’t update it – the site was set up nearly (or, in fact, perhaps MORE than) twenty years ago when I was using a different email address, so – in spite of filling in a request to ask for it to be restored – so far I’ve received nothing to allow me to set up passwords etc.

Alas – and I should know better – some of the links are hard-coded to the old website address and of course are now broken, so – for the moment – updates will continue to be posted to the new non-Rootsweb site at

If anyone else is going through this process and would like to share their experience, please do!

p.s. – I’ve nearly finished adding all the Tingewick-born folk on the 1901 census, so there should be a new version of the family pages soon – will let you know when it’s there!

More website advice wanted

First, thanks to Julie and Jane for their pledges to help out IF I need to pay for web-hosting.  It’s very much appreciated and hopefully will encourage others to do the same – and, just as hopefully, I hope I won’t have to take you up on it!

The new temporary website has been started but so far has only rather sparse information about each person / family. Once I see how much space I have, I’ll add more pages and also more information about each person.  If there’s anything that anyone wants me to prioritise, please let me know.

Meanwhile, I’d also be glad to have advice from anyone on how to auto-build better family/individual pages.  I’m using a Mac and so far the only options I’ve found are iFamily or MacFamilyTree – I’m using the former for storing all my data but I’m less than impressed with the page builder – one of the worst things is the change of page addresses each time I build them, so – for instance – a link to the page relating to someone on the Great War page will stop working unless it’s changed every time I re-create the site.  It will also make it nearly impossible for the pages to appear on any search engine results.  Nightmare!  How do other people get round it, especially if they want to control how much appears on each page?  There are over 20,000 people in my database now, and more than 17,000 who make it onto the website so building by hand is NOT an option!

More thoughts on Rootsweb hosting

As you may already know, Rootsweb has effectively been shut down due to a security issue.  That’s where the Tingewick website has been hosted more or less since I first built it, 20 years ago.

It seems it will take ‘a few weeks‘ to resolve and there is a growing feeling that it may have vanished as a free hosting platform and will only return as a (paid-for) offshoot of Ancestry.  I’m starting to look for an alternative but hosting a site of this size (more than 20,000 individuals, and growing) is going to cost £100 a year or more.

The site helps vast numbers of visitors.  If, say, 100 were willing to pledge sponsorship of £1 each year, I could afford to set it up on a secure, reliable server.  As a thank-you, the open public site could revert to showing bare outline trees with just dates and places, but subscribers might access a separate password-secured area which would offer a full version with sources and quotes – even more information than the current site – as well as all the other transcripts, photos etc.

Would it work?  Would YOU be willing to pledge £1 a year to get the site back on the air?


Problems at Rootsweb

As some of you may know, there has been a security problem at Rootsweb (who host the main Tingewick website).  Hopefully it will be resolved soon – and hopefully the current pages will be restored as the site was first created some 20 years ago and I might have trouble finding all the files to re-upload.

Fingers crossed!

I’ve recently been hunting down all the Tingewick-born folk on the 1911 census – the ones who had moved away from the village and were recorded elsewhere.  The extra details on that most recent census have enabled me to tie up all sorts of loose ends and solve lots of little mysteries.  I’ll post another message once I’ve finished it and uploaded the revised trees to the main Tingewick site.

Meanwhile, I hope everyone is having a lovely Christmas – either with all the joy and chaos of visiting family, or the joy and luxury of a quiet self-indulgent day with your feet up – and that 2018 is the year when you finally track down that elusive ancestor who has been hiding from you almost from the first draft of your family tree – in my case, my grandfather’s grandfather.  Not only have I never found his birth – apparently in Edinburgh in 1824 – but he also manages to vanish in Glasgow sometime between the birth of his son in 1864 and the 1871 census.  Despite 30 years of hunting, I’m still hoping!


1766 Rental Agreement – Tingewick Mill

Many thanks to Pauline Boughton who recently sent me a transcript and photo of this rental document she came across in the Buckinghamshire Archives in Aylesbury.

She’s not yet worked out if it relates to ‘her’ Thomas Bowden – who died ten years later at Dropshort (roughly halfway between Tingewick and Buckingham), leaving a will which I will also post here in due course.

If anyone can help Pauline work out whether we are talking about one Thomas or two, please let us know


Be It Remembered that it is agreed this First ~~~~~~~ day of November ~~~~~ In the Year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixty Six Between William Ross for and on the part and behalf of the Right Honourable George Grenville of the One part and Thomas Bowden of Tingewick in the County of Bucks Miller of the Other part as follows (that is to say)

The said William Ross in Consideration of the Rent and Agreements hereinafter
mentioned to be paid and performed by the said Thomas Bowden Hath Agreed and doth hereby Agree to Devise and let unto the said Thomas Bowden All that Messuage or Tenement and Mill Situate in the parish of Tingewick aforesaid now in the Occupation of him the said Thomas Bowden with the Mill Gear and all Tackle to the said Mill belonging and also all those two Meadows or parcels of Meadow Ground to the said Messuage belonging and used and occupied therewith Together with all Outhouses Yards and Appurtenances whatsoever to the said Messuage belonging or appertaining (Except and always reserved to the said George Grenville All Trees and Hedges Stone Quarries and Mines whatsoever in or upon the premisses with free Liberty to fell Lop Cut plaish take and Carry away the said Trees and Hedges or any of them leaving sufficient Fences. To Hold the said Messuage Mill Meadow Ground and premisses (except as before
excepted) unto the said Thomas Bowden from the Tenth day of October last past for One whole Year then next ensuing and for such longer time after the Expiration of the said One Year as both the said parties shall Agree and until the Tenth day of October next after Notices shall be given by either of the said parties to the other of them or left at the usual place of Abode of Such other of them on or before the Fifth day of April next preceeding in any Year for the Quitting or leaving the said premisses on such Tenth day of October then next following. At and under the yearly rent of Fifteen pounds ~~~~~~. Payable and to be paid Quarterly on the days following (that is to say) the First day of January the Fifth day of April the Fifth day of July and the Tenth day of October by even and equal portions in every Year so long as the said Thomas Bowden shall hold or Occupy the said premisses under or by virtue of this Agreement the first payment thereof to be made on the First day of January next.  And the said Thomas Bowden hath Agreed and Doth hereby promise and Agree to and with the said George Grenville That the said Thomas Bowden shall and will Accept of and hold the said premisses accordingly. And that on the Tenth day of October in any Year next after such Notice of Quitting or leaving the premisses shall have been given or left to or for him as aforesaid It shall be lawful for the said George Grenville or his Assigns to Enter into and upon the said premisses and take and from thenceforth have and Enjoy the quiet posession thereof. And also That the said Thomas Bowden so long as he shall hold or occupy the said premisses and until the time of his Quitting or leaving the same shall and will duly pay unto the said George Grenville the said Yearly Rent of Fifteen pounds ~~~~~~~~ by quarterly payments on the several days and in manner aforesaid, And shall and will from time to time bear pay and discharge all parish Offices Taxes Rates Levies Dues Duties payments and Assessments to whatsoever which shall Be due or payable or to be performed for or in respect of the said premisses (Land Tax and Quit Rent only Excepted) And shall and will at his own Costs and Charges at all times maintain and keep the said Messuage and Mill and the Stones Wheels and Tackle of and belonging to the said Mill and the Outhouses and Buildings and all the Gates Rails Walls Styles Hedges Ditches Mounds and Fences of upon or belonging to the premisses in good and Tenantable Repair (necessary rough Timber only being found and provided by the said George Grenville for that purpose) and shall perform the Carriage of all such rough Timber to the premisses And so in such good and Tenantable repair shall leave all the said premisses at the time of his Quitting or ceasing to be Tenant of the same (Damage by Fire
without his willful default or Negligence or by Storm Tempest or any other Inevitable
Accident only excepted) And also shall yearly set up and spend all the Hay
arising from the premisses & thereupon And shall not at any time Lop Top or Cut any of the Trees or Hedges on the premisses Nor Digg or plough upon any part of the said Meadow Ground Nor Let or Assign the premisses or any part thereof to any person or persons without the Consent of the said George Grenville. In Witness whereof the said parties First above named have hereunto set their Hands the day and Year First above written

[In?] Witness,      John Hickman    Witness,
John Miller                    Thomas Bowden



More than one Mary Ann

Thomas Francis Brannigan in 1953 aged 76 yrs 11 months


 by Anne Williams,
g-g-granddaughter of Mary Ann Sheppard (1842-1901)

It has long been an ambition of mine to research my family history. My mother, whose maiden name was Jones, is still very much alive. So, I decided to start with her. Now the name Jones is a bit of a challenge for a novice genealogist, so I was much more optimistic about my maternal Grandmother who was born a Branigan. That will be easier, I thought. I had no idea how complicated it would become.


1881 census return for 136 Clifton Road, Aston

I first found my Great Grandfather, Thomas Francis Branigan on the 1881 census, living in Aston, Birmingham with his mother, Mary Ann (widowed), his brothers and a lodger. Aston was an extremely industrial part of Birmingham, the city of a thousand trades. Many of these trades were in Aston. An old map reveals brass foundries, gun makers, drysalters, sharing space with hundreds of houses. It must have been a noisy, polluted place. People were poor, housing overcrowded, sanitation appalling and children played barefoot on the streets.

Now Mary Ann Branigan seemed like an unusual name to me. I thought that I was well on my way. I also saw that Mary Ann was born in Tingewick, a village I didn’t know but one that was to become very important to me in my research.

Marriage of Mary Ann Sheppard and Robert Walter Branigan, 18 July 1862


My next find was Mary’s marriage in London to Robert Walter Branigan, an apothecary in London. She was 20. He was 38. How exciting was that – a 19th century apothecary. The marriage certificate gave me Mary’s father as John Sheppard. This is going to be easy, I decided. I was so excited about this woman from Tingewick who married in London and was living widowed in Birmingham. What had happened to her? Well, quite a lot really.

Now the rather great thing about Tingewick is that there is a fantastic website. It didn’t take me long to do a search. I wanted to know where it was and what it was like. I didn’t anticipate finding that somebody wonderful had researched families from the village. I was able to see that my great, great grandmother, Mary Ann Branigan, then Sheppard was baptised in Tingewick in 1842. Her mother Mary Ann(2) Sheppard (nee Everett) was born in 1820 and her mother Catherine Packer was daughter and granddaughter to the John Packers who were watch and clock makers. It was thrilling to be able to go right back to the middle of the 18th century with very little effort on my part. I noted that there was a facility to contact Su ( which I did.

not-quite-marriage of Mary Ann Shepherd and Robert Brannigan, 16 July 1862

I had no idea where it would lead me. In fact, it took me right back to Mary Ann Branigan who was to prove a fascinating character. Su responded very quickly with a rather strange marriage certificate (above). The certificate is not signed and there is an objection on the bottom saying that Mary Ann is the daughter of the sister of Robert Walter Branigan’s late wife. But Robert then appears before the magistrate and declares that he has never been married. So, two days later on 18th July 1862, Mary Ann and Robert Walter (who now claims he is a bachelor and not a widower) are married.

There are at least three issues with all of this.

30 March 1851 census return for 10 Grove Terrace, Tower Hamlets

In 1851 my great, great grandmother, aged 8, is living with brother and their mother – also Mary Ann(2) Sheppard and apparently still married – in their grandparents’ house in Hackney.

17 April 1851 marriage of Marianne Sheppard (widow) to Robert Walter Brannigan

Less than three weeks later Mary Ann(2) married Robert Walter Branigan. Yes – the same man. Mary Ann(2) died in 1856. So, Robert Walter Branigan’s late wife was my great, great grandmother’s mother and not her aunt! There is definitely a marriage certificate so he was married. In addition, Mary Ann says that her father is John Sheppard which I, as a novice, had taken as gospel until Su put me straight. In fact, her father was Edward Sheppard. I have to assume that the couple lied in order to convince the authorities that Robert’s late wife was an aunt and not her mother.

Su, whose help and guidance have been invaluable in my research, has not yet been able to find a death record for Edward Sheppard so it is possible that Robert’s marriage to Mary Ann’s mother was bigamous, and hence invalid, so he might have been a bachelor but why all the initial lies?

14 Nov 1897 marriage of Thomas Francis Branigan and Eliza Cragg

Naïve as I am, I had assumed that Robert Walter was my great grandfather’s father but again Su helped me out. They did have children, Elizabeth, Richard and Robert but only Richard survived. In 1873, Robert Walter Branigan dies. Mary Ann is only 31. My great grandfather was born in 1876 and on his marriage certificate to my great grandmother, Eliza, he says that he was born in Southampton and that his father, also Thomas Francis, was a captain. Now, I have to admit that I thought this was a bit farfetched.

1871 census return for 46 Clifford Crescent, Southampton

I did find a Thomas Francis Branigan, a retired army officer, living in Southampton, on the 1871 census but, he was born in 1810 or 1814, depending on what you believe and he was already married to 62 year old Mary Ann(3) Branigan. Could he have been Robert Walter’s older brother? Having married her stepfather, had Mary Ann now had a child with her much older, step uncle?

Again, Su slotted another piece into the jigsaw puzzle. She found Thomas Francis’s (elder) earlier marriage. His father, like Robert Walter’s, who was born in Tipperary, Ireland, was a Richard Branigan. This suggests that they might indeed have been brothers and Mary Ann might have gone to seek help following the death of her husband. Even more fascinating, Thomas Francis’s (elder) first marriage to Mary Ann(3) Michell took place in Agra, Bengal, India where he was a soldier, initially for the East India Company. Mary Ann(3) died in December 1875 and, Su found that in March 1876 Thomas Francis (elder) Branigan married Mary Ann. Less than 6 months later, Thomas Francis Branigan, my great grandfather is born. I tend to feel that Thomas Francis (elder) is the biological father and that the marriage was rushed for obvious reasons.

In September 1877, less than one year later, Thomas Francis (elder) dies leaving effects under £300 to Mary Ann. This probably equates to somewhere between £16,000 and £24,000 today. Yet, four years later Mary Ann is in Birmingham with a lodger. She goes on to have at least two more sons. In 1891, she is working as a seamstress and has her four younger boys living with her.

1901 census return for Aston Union Workhouse

In 1901, Mary Ann is admitted to Aston Union Workhouse. She is 58. Two months later she is dead.

The girl from Tingewick lived a colourful life, one marked by death and loss. I have still so much to find out. Why did Mary Ann move to Birmingham? Why did she end up in the workhouse? What was life like for Thomas Francis in India? Can I find out anything about my Irish ancestors?

Genealogy is better than any whodunnit on television. These were real people whose genes I, my children and my grandchildren share. I am hooked and so grateful for the Tingewick connection.


My thanks to Su ( without whose help I would not have got nearly as far and I might have gone down the wrong path altogether. I was so glad of her experience and the time she spent on my behalf.

Linford-Holton family photo-sleuthing


Angela Manders has sent me some photos of her Moss / Holton family, including this group.  She says lady in the centre is Elizabeth Linford née Holton, (1839-1917).  The youngest lady seated at the far left of the photo is her youngest daughter Elizabeth (1884-1964) whose husband William Ridgway is standing behind her.  Another daughter, Caroline (born in 1876), is seated at the far right of the photo.  She married Joseph Moss in 1901 in Peckham where they continued to live – again, he is standing behind his wife.

Angela wonders if anyone can help identify the other people in the photo and help her to date it. Elizabeth had given birth to ten children, of whom seven were lived to adulthood:

  • Joseph ?Inns (1857-58) – died age 1
  • William George (1862-79) – died age 17
  • Eliza Ann (1867-1871) – died age 4
  • Emily Maria (1870-1942) m. Alfred Jesse Bennett – age 39 in 1909, living with husband & 5 children in Buckingham
  • James Thomas (1872-1934) m. Ada Tasker  – age 37 in 1909, living in Rugby, Warwickshire with wife and children – the youngest of whom was only born in the first quarter of 1909, so perhaps unlikely to be in Tingewick in April 1909
  • Joseph (1874-1937) m. Minnie Lucy Collier Steeden (no children) – age 35 in 1909, perhaps living separately from wife who – by 1911 – was in Nottinghamshire
  • Daniel (1875-1918) m. Clara Ethel Smith – age 34 in 1909, living in Leicestershire with his wife and 3 children: the youngest was 1 year old in 1909
  • Caroline (1876-1960) m. Joseph Moss – age 32 in 1909,  living in London with her husband and 8-year-old son
  • Esther (1878-1956) m. James Linford – age 31 in 1909, living with her husband and three children in Maids Moreton [in spite of the same surname I’ve not found a family connection between them … yet!]
  • Elizabeth (1884-1964) m. William Ridgeway – age 25 when she married in April 1909, still living with her mother in Tingewick in 1911

We know that daughter Elizabeth jnr. (identified by Angela as sitting at the far left of the picture) married William Ridgway five days after Elizabeth snr’s birthday, on 19th April 1909, so – since William is standing behind Elizabeth in the same way that Caroline’s husband stands behind her – I think this photo is unlikely to have been taken more than a year or two before that.  Elizabeth jnr. would have been 25 in 1909: again, her appearance agrees more or less with that date.   I then wondered if it might be a gathering of the family to celebrate Elizabeth’s 70th birthday on 14th April 1909, with a second celebration (of Elizabeth jnr’s marriage) to come a few days later.

Three of Elizabeth’s surviving daughters still lived in the Buckingham area (Caroline – sitting at the right of the photo – was living in London).  The lady in the white blouse beside Caroline looks a bit older and might be Emily, aged 39: but where is Esther (aged 31)?  Perhaps she is the smiling lady behind the man (presumably her husband, James Linford) seated with the child.  The man in the centre, standing behind Elizabeth, could be Elizabeth’s middle son Joseph, aged 35, whose marriage to Minnie Steeden might already have failed – by 1911 she was living in Nottingham; later she worked in Canada and only returned to England a few weeks before she died at the end of 1934.

The couple at the far left of the photo might be youngest son Daniel (age 34) and his wife Clara who would have travelled here from Leicestershire.  It’s perhaps less likely that it would be Elizabeth’s oldest son James, since his wife – Ada née Tasker – had given birth in the first part of 1909 so they would probably have been unable to come all the way from Rugby.  But that leaves me unable to guess who the final lady at the far right of the picture might be.  Perhaps, then, James and his wife did make the journey and she, not surprisingly, has been given a chair with James standing beside her.  The last unidentified lady might then be Emily, unaccompanied by her husband

Does anyone have any photos of any of the people mentioned to help prove or disprove my theory?

Tingewick Protestation Returns 1641

My thanks to Jayne for bringing this to my attention – I struggled with the writing, so all corrections will be very much appreciated!

Back in 1641, King Charles I still had his head but Parliament was growing more and more unhappy, with a fear of Catholicism to the forefront.  In May, every member of the House of Commons swore an oath of allegiance to the crown, to parliament and to the Church of England.  All rectors, churchwardens and overseers of the poor were then required to take the same oath before the JPs in their Hundred, and then they were sent back to their parishes to require all males over the age of 18 to take the same declaration of their belief in the “Protestant religion, allegiance to the King and support for the rights and privileges of Parliament“.  Any who refused were to be noted down and would be assumed to be Catholics.

All these whose names are subscribed did take this protestation

… having sworn at Tingewick on February 20th 1641/2

John Varney Rector
Francis Bushell Curate
Richard Stephens
William Tomlins
William Porter
Henry Paxton
Larorond Ward
Peter Paxton
Steven Traslow
William Perkins Sen
Thomas Holton
William Medcaffe
Edmund Paxton
Richard Waddegy
William Cooley
John Houldright

Thomas Twichen
Thomas Watte
Thomas Creed
John Twichen

Thomas Shrieve
John Barleyford
Edward Twichen
Matthew Twichen
William Moosser
William Cowley
John Houlton
Richard Grood
John Wittmoole
Harold Topping
John Wittmoole Jun
William Wittmoole
Thomas Crosse
Edward Horward
Howard Marshans
William Allsy
John Twichen Jn
Howard Hancook
Thomas Morgan
John Chatwin
Ambrose Durrant
William Perkins Jun
Richard Sear
John Parkins
William Walcott
Phillipp Chinly
Everige Addams
Edmond Durrant Jun
Thomas Hobbs
Jacob Tibby
George Couly
Richard Fenimore
Thomas Williams
William Tompas
Richard Marche
Edmond Dimmocke
Paule Simons
Edward Jardine
John Howbridge Sr
Willm Chandler
Robert Moores
William Choor
Henrie Moodengr
Edward Spooke
John Butcher
Thomas Chatwin
Edwyn Gomm
John Durrant
William Brewer
Orthivar Buyass
Thomas Wittworth
James Cory
Edward Felrind
Hraris Bailey
John Nayper
William Budyathe
Robart Songbury
Richard Marshall
Henrie Lillingstone
John Tarbour
John Spratley
John Spratley
Edmonde Durrant Sr
Willm Kibble
John Hakes
Robbert Greene
Richard Twichen
John Johnson
John Foscott
Robbert Foscott
Robbert Moss
John Jeffery
Richard Jeffery
Richard Robberts
John Chandler
William Curtis
John Wall
Edward Warre
Robbert Warre
Ralph Hamley
Richard Stockley
William Jackson
Robert Shillingsford
William Marrum
James Perkins
John Halsey
Paul Bedford

I { A B }  do in ye presence of Almighty god promise vow and protest to maintaine and defend, as farre as lawfully I may, wth my life, power and estate, the true reformed protestant religion expressed in ye doctrine of ye Church of England, against all popery and Popish innovations within this realme, contrary to ye same doctrine; and according to ye Dutie of my allegiance, his majesties royall Person, Honour and estate, as also ye power and priviledges of Parliament; ye lawfull rights and liberties of ye subjects, and every person yo maketh this protestation, in whatsoever hee shall doe in ye lawfull pursuance of ye same.  And to my power, and as farre as lawfully I may, I will oppose, and by all good waies and meanns inddeavour to bring to Condigne punishment, all such as shall either by form, practice, counsels, plots, conspiracies, or otherwise, doe any things to ye contrary of ‘any things’ in this present protestation contained.  And further I shall in all Just and honourable waies indeavour to preserve ye union, and peace betwixt ye three Kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Ireland; and neither for hope, feare, nor other respect, shall relinquish this promise, vow and protestation.

Murder? or accidental death?

[The two reports below are from the same newspaper, printed two weeks apart, and presumably refer to two different inquests into the same mishap. The second report also refers to a report one week earlier, which has not (yet) been electronically archived]

OXFORD, Saturday, Nov. 30
Jackson’s Oxford Journal (Oxford, England), Saturday, November 30, 1822; Issue 3631

Thursday last an inquest was held, at the pub-
lic house at Tingewick, Bucks, before Mr. Burn-
ham, Coroner for that county, on view of the
body of — Wells, keeper of the Old Angel public
house at Buckingham, who was found murdered
on the road, near the turnpike at Tingewick.
From the best information we can collect, we
learn that the deceased, with another man named
Brewerton, were returning, in a gig, from a
meeting held in Banbury for letting turnpike
tolls, on Monday last, and had quarrelled on
their road home; Brewerton had been heard to
say, “he would do for him.” When the de-
ceased was found, it was at first supposed his
death was occasioned by falling out of the gig;
but on a closer inspection of the wounds, there
was no doubt of his having been brutally mur-
dered. He had several severe blows about the
head and face, and one blow across his hand,
which it is probable was received when endea-
vouring to save them from his head. After a
very long investigation, the Jury returned a ver-
dict of Wilful Murder, against some person or
persons unknown.

Jackson’s Oxford Journal (Oxford, England), Saturday, December 14, 1822; Issue 3633


Upon Mr. W. Wells, of Buckingham
Held on Wednesday, Nov. 27, before Mr Burnham,
one of the coroners for that county
Charles Cross, of Tingewick, shoemaker, deposed,
that on his road home from Buckingham last Monday
evening, the 25th of November, in company with his
apprentice, John Durrant, he met a horse and gig,
about half-past nine o’clock, without any person in it.
— that on approaching nearer Tingewick, they found
the body of a man lying by the road side — it was
quite cold — and a quantity of blood was under the
head and near it. Deponent immediately went to the
toll-gate (about 200 yards further on) to get as-
sistance, and on enquiring there whether a horse and
gig had lately passed through, the collector, Thomas
Brewerton, replied there had about half an hour ago;
and that the person who was with it was Wm. Wells,
of Buckingham. Whilst deponent was in coversa-
tion with the collector, in consequence of the ap-
prentice having gone into the village and given the
alarm, Benjamin Brewerton ran past the collector
and the deponent, as if alarmed, and on being called
to by name by the housekeeper at the toll-gate (Su-
sannah Stokes) he did not answer, but continued
running. Deponent followed, and on arriving again
at the place where the body lay, saw Benjamin Brew-
erton, who had arrived there about half a minute
before deponent, examining the head of the deceased;
and he (Brewerton) said he thought it was broken,
and expressed much surprise at finding Wells dead,
he having been to Banbury with him that day. De-
ponent waited till other persons came up, and then
left the place.
John Durrant, apprentice to the last witness, cor-
roborated his master’s testimony as to seeing the
empty gig and the body. On his master’s stopping
at the toll-gate, the witness ran on to Tingewick and
gave the alarm of the deceased having been found.
Went to several houses for that purpose, and amongst
others to that of Benjamin Brewerton, who was sit-
ting with his wife by the fire side. Benjamin Brew-
erton immediately ran out of his house towards the

The Rev. Mr. Risley, of Tingewick, deposed that
on Monday evening the 25th of November, on his
return home from Buckingham in his gig with his
servant Richard Steeden, he met a horse and gig,
having no person in it, going towards Buckingham;
this was between nine and ten o’clock. Deponent
called to a waggoner who was passing at the time,
and desired him to take charge of the empty gig and
bring it back towards Tingewick. On deponent’s
road home, when about 200 yards on the Buckingham
side of the Tingewick toll-gate, observed three or
four persons standing by the side of the road, and,
on enquiring of the cause, learnt that William Wells
had been found dead. Deponent to ascertain the truth
got out of his gig and put his hand to the face
of the deceased and found it cold, and that he was
quite dead. Benjamin Brewerton was one of the
persons standing near the body, who said to depo-
nent that he had been to Banbury with the deceased,
and that upon their return they had called at
the Red Lion, and had quarrelled there — that the de-
ceased had used him very ill; in some further con-
versation with Brewerton on their way home, Brew-
erton expressed himself as being an innocent and an
upright man, and that he knew nothing of how the
deceased came by his death. Brewerton further
added, that the deceased was not intoxicated at the
time he had parted company with him at the Red

William Stowe, of Buckingham, surgeon, deposed
that he had been called on to go to Tingewick about half-
past ten on the night of Monday the 25th ult. to see
a person who had been found lying on the road within
200 yards of Tingewick turnpike. On reaching the
spot, he found the body of William Wells, who ap-
peared to have received several wounds about the
head, and was quite dead. After noticing the posi-
tion of the body and limbs, and making such other
examinations as might tend to elucidate the cause of
the death, he directed that the body should be taken
to the nearest public-house for the purpose of inquest.
On farther examination in the presence of the Jury
this day, both ears were found severely lacerated, a
wound about two inches long on the right cheek, a
smaller one on the chin, the upper lip swollen, and a
front tooth deficient, an extensive wound on the back
of the right hand, and fluid having a spirituous smell,
was trickling from the left ear. Under the direction
of the coroner, he opened the head and removed the
brain, when a fracture was discovered extending across
the basis of the skull from ear to ear, which might
have been occasioned by falling on the top of the
head, or by considerable force applied overy one ear
while the opposite ear was on the ground — the left
ear had gravel in it, as if the injury had been sus-
tained while the head was in that position. Depo-
nent, on his first seeing the deceased, searched his
pockets and took from them 3l. 1s. 9d which, his wife
on receiving said, was within a shilliing or two of
what he had with him when he left home in the morning.

Joseph Terry, of Tingewick, labourer, deposed
that soon after eight o’clock on Monday evening last,
he heard the voice of Benjamin, exclaiming “Damn
his eyes, he shall have it.” Deponent lives next door
but one to Brewerton, and he (deponent) saw him
from his window at the time. Brewerton was wran-
gling afterwards with his wife or some person in the
house, and pulled his door to on coming out of it;
he returned again immediately, and on opening it said
to the persons inside the house, “D–n you, follow
me if you dare.” Brewerton then went towards
Tingewick turnpike-gate, passing deponent’s house,
and muttering to himself a the time, “D–n his
eyes, he shall have it.” Deponent thought at the
time Brewerton had been quarrelling with Edmund
Side, who was in Brewerton’s house.

Edmund Side, of Tingewick, labourer, deposed
that he was at the house of Benjamin Brewerton from
six till about nine o’clock on Monday evening the
25th of November. That Brewerton was absent at
the time he first went, but came in a quarter before
eight. He (Brewerton) appeared rather fresh — did
not remain above five minutes. That he then went
down to the turnpike, and was gone a quarter of an
hour, having been fetched home by his wife. That
he then remained ten minutes, during which time he
said he had had a few words with Wells, and behaved
very abusively towards his wife, saying he would go
out again and desiring her not to follow him. That
no words whatever passed between deponent
and Brewerton, nor did they even speak to each other —
That upon the request of Benjamin Brewerton’s wife,
deponent went to call John Brewerton to fetch Benj.
who did so, and brought Benjamin home. That Ben-
jamin remained in the house till deponent and his
wife left it, which was about half-past nine. — This
witness, on his re-examination said, that Brewerton
had said he would “wallop” Wells. And the evi-
dence generally came from him very reluctantly.

Charlotte Side, wife to the last witness, deposed
as to Benjamin Brewerton coming to his house, she
being there with her husband; that they left it to-
gether about nine o’clock; that, soon after they got
home, her husband went to the door and said “here
is the gig and Wells in it; he seems very fuddled, for
he sways about.” That about ten minutes after-
wards deponent went to Benjamin Brewerton’s house to
ask his wife to have some camomile tea, and saw
Benjamin Brewerton, and John Brewerton, drinking
beer together.

Mary Mansfield, the wife of Daniel Mansfield,
of the parish of Tingewick, victualler, deposed that
between the hours of 6 and 7 in the evening of Mon-
day, November 25, W. Wells and Benj. Brewerton got
out of a gig at deponent’s door; that they went into
the tap room together, and drank two pints of ale
with two half-quarterns of gin in it; they appeared
friendly towards each other at first, but afterwards
words arose between them about some money, which
the deponent cannot exactly speak to. Brewerton
appeared violent; threatened to knock Well’s teeth
down his throat; but on deponent’s interfering they
appeared good friends again, and got into the gig and
went away together. A few minutes afterwards
they came back to the door again and into the house;
Wells said on entering, “I don’t know what to make
of this fellow; he wants to fall out with me on the
road,” alluding to Brewerton, who said, “it was
only my fun.” Wells soon afterwards went to the
door, and got into the gig and drove off by himself,
leaving Brewerton in the house, who followed on foot
almost immediately. — Mansfield keeps the Red Lion,
at Finmere, but the house is in Tingewick parish.

Jas. Holton, butcher, of Tingewick, deposed that on
Monday evening the 25th ult. about 8 o’clock, Wm.
Wells, of Buckingham, called at deponent’s house,
in Tingewick, and told him that he (Wells) had come
from Banbury with Benjamin Brewerton, that even-
ing; that they had had words on the road, and again at
the Red Lion, where Brewerton at last promised to
drop it and shake hands; that Brewerton, when in
the gig again, used abusive language, and threatened
to fight Wells, who thereupon turned about to go to
the Red Lion again, where they agreed to settle the
dispute; but that Wells ordered the horse to be
ready, that he might drive away alone, for that Brew-
erton had threatened to knock his (Wells’) teeth down
his throat. Wells left deponent’s house about
twenty minutes past eight, but called again in the
gig on his way home, a little before nine o’clock;
nothing particular was said then; Wells appeared
a little fresh, but talked with deponent rationally,
and appeared perfectly capable of going home alone.

Susannah Stokes, housekeeper to Thos. Brewerton,
keeper of the Tingewick toll gate, deposed that she
did not leave her master’s house at all on Monday
evening the 25th of Nov. That Benjamin Brewerton
came there about half past eight; that he appeared
fresh, and had a few words with his father, and men-
tioned having had some with Wells. That deponent
sent Sarah Bedford to fetch Benj. Brewerton’s wife,
which she did; that Benj. Brewerton left the house
with his wife, but returned soon afterwards alone;
that he remained there about ten minutes, and quar-
relled with deponent about family affairs; that Ben-
jamin afterwards left the house in company with his
brother John, and did not return that evening. That
a gig, in which was William Wells, went through the
gate soon after nine o’clock. Benjamin and John
Brewerton had left the house some time.

John Brewerton, of Tingewick, labourer, deposed,
that between 8 and 9 o’clock, last Monday evening,
Edmund Side came to his (deponent’s) house, to re-
quest him to fetch his brother Benjamin away from
his father’s at the turnpike gate, as he was making
a disturbance there. That deponent went for his
brother immediately, and took him from his father’s
to his (Benjamin’s) own house; that he remained with
him drinking beer till past ten o’clock, and
never left him from the time he first went to the toll
house to that hour.

The evidence closed with this witness, and the
Jury, after taking another view of the body, and of
the gig from which the deceased is supposed to have
fallen, returned the their verdict, under the
direction of the Coroner, of Accidental Death.