Andrewes v Uthwatt in the High Court
The attempt by Henry Manning Andrewes (otherwise known as Uthwatt) to lay claim to the Great Linford estate was a matter of considerable interest and fascination to the readers of newspapers in 1886. His father Augustus Henry Uthwatt had inexplicably hidden the existence of his children from the rest of the family, so the emergence of a previously unknown claimant came as a great shock. The subsequent battle for control of the estate reached the High Court in London.
An account of the trial published in the Buckingham Advertiser and Free Press of Saturday August 14th, 1886, is here following reproduced in full.
The Claim to Large Estates.
HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, AU G. 10. CHANCERY DIVISION.
(Before Mr. Justice Chitty).
ANDREWS Vs UTHWATT.
HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, AU G. 10. CHANCERY DIVISION.
(Before Mr. Justice Chitty).
ANDREWS Vs UTHWATT.
Mr. Justice Chitty gave judgment in the case “Andrewes v, Uthwatt,” which has been several times reported during the hearing.
The learned Judge said the object of the action was to recover estate said to be worth some £8O,OOO, and called the Great Linford Estate, Bucks. The plaintiff claimed as tenant-in-tail under the limitations of a settlement made in 1808, the limitation under which he claimed being to the eldest son of Augustus Thomas Andrewes.
The learned Judge said the object of the action was to recover estate said to be worth some £8O,OOO, and called the Great Linford Estate, Bucks. The plaintiff claimed as tenant-in-tail under the limitations of a settlement made in 1808, the limitation under which he claimed being to the eldest son of Augustus Thomas Andrewes.
Editor's note: A “tenant-in-tail” is a legal term for a person entitled in possession or, on the death of his ancestor, to an entailed interest, in this case the Manor of Great Linford.
The question was whether the plaintiff was the legitimate son of Augustus. Undoubtedly he was the son of Augustus and Charlotte Hannah, and the question was whether the plaintiff’s parents were married, and more particularly whether they were married the time the plaintiff was born. There was no direct evidence of the marriage. Every search had been made that could be thought of, but no trace of the marriage had been discovered.
The question was whether the plaintiff was the legitimate son of Augustus. Undoubtedly he was the son of Augustus and Charlotte Hannah, and the question was whether the plaintiff’s parents were married, and more particularly whether they were married the time the plaintiff was born. There was no direct evidence of the marriage. Every search had been made that could be thought of, but no trace of the marriage had been discovered.
Editor's note: In fact there was a marriage certificate, but the ceremony had occurred on September 18th, 1852, 7 years after the birth of Henry Uthwatt, the plaintiff. Had this document emerged, Henry’s case would have been instantly proven entirely without merit. It raises the very real possibility, had the certificate been purposefully lost or obscured?
The time and place of the marriage were unknown to the five children, who were all alive. The plaintiffs case was based chiefly on reputation of marriage, and undoubtedly marriage might be proved by reputation. The strength of the presumption of marriage must depend on the strength of the case presented in support of reputation. He must consider, from all the facts, whether it was reasonably probable that a marriage took place. Augustus Andrewes was one of six brothers. Henry, the eldest succeeded to the estate, and died in 1853 without issue male. was succeeded the Rev. William, who married in 1835 and died in 1877, leaving one daughter and his wife surviving him. Augustus then succeeded, and held the estate until his death in February, 1885. The next brother, Edolph, died in 1882, leaving widow and son William, the defendant in this case. The remaining brother, Eusebius, was still living. The life of Augustus divided itself into several distinct periods. The first was from his birth in 1798 until be left Barnet some time between 1832 and 1833. Being a younger son he had to choose a profession, and accordingly ha was articled to the family solicitor, and afterwards set up in practice in Barnet. It was important to bear in mind that he had acquired some knowledge of the law, and was competent practitioner. The second period was from his leaving Barnet until his reappearance at Liverpool, and during this period very little was known of him. Letters were produced which showed that Augustus was concealing his place of residence, but he was living in some remote part of Cornwall.
Editor's note: Conceivably this was Liskeard, a small ancient market town in south-east Cornwall, situated approximately 20 miles west of Plymouth. Two of Augustus’s children were born here, including it appears Henry.
There were five children born, three daughters and two sons. Augusta, the eldest, was born in 1840, after the Act of William IV relating to the registration of births. Her birth was registered by her father as having occurred in the district of Penzance, and in accordance with the Act which required the maiden surname of the mother to be given, it was registered as formerly Hawley. This was the only instance in which that name occurred, and was unexplained. In the certificates of the other two daughters’ births the mother’s maiden surname was given as Manning.
Editor's note: This seems particularly perplexing. Conceivably, Augustus had been previously married to a Charlotte Hawley, so had effectively succeeded in hiding two liaisons, or perhaps Charlotte Manning had been previously married to a man called Hawley. It should be noted that the General Register Office index spells the name as Harnley rather than Hawley. Suffice to say no previous marriage has been located connecting Augustus to either a Harnley or Hawley.
Elizabeth was born at Liskeard, and Charlotte in 1852, Everton, Lancashire. The births of the two sons were not registered at all; but a Bible was produced, upon the fly-leaf of which there was no entry of the marriage of the parents, as a customary, but the births of all the children were entered, that of Henry being entered as occurring on May 27, 1844, and Frederick’s on Oct. 28, 1850. The place of the plaintiffs birth was not known, but in the witness box he had said was at Barton-upon-Irwell, Lancashire; and Frederick was said to have been born at Ramsey, in the Isle of Man.
Editor's note: It appears to be correct that neither Henry nor Frederick had their births registered. Henry’s assertion in the witness box that he was born in Lancashire is at odds with the 1871 census record, which records his place of birth as Liskeard in Cornwall. Frederick does seem to have been born at Ramsey as this is stated on the 1851 census.
When Frederick desiring to enter holy orders, required a certificate of his birth his father made a statutory declaration that he was born in 1851 Douglas, Isle of Mann. When Henry was born there was a fair probability of his succeeding to the estate, as his uncle had only one child, a daughter; and it was therefore remarkable that his father, a lawyer, should not have registered his birth, the limitations of the estate being to sons and not to daughters. Very little was known about Mrs. Andrewes, nothing but what her children had gleaned from her own lips. Her story was that she was a daughter of Captain John Manning, officer in the army, who died when she was about eight years old, which would be in 1817. The Army List had been searched, and there was no trace of any Captain Manning who answered the description of Mrs. Andrewes’s father.
When Frederick desiring to enter holy orders, required a certificate of his birth his father made a statutory declaration that he was born in 1851 Douglas, Isle of Mann. When Henry was born there was a fair probability of his succeeding to the estate, as his uncle had only one child, a daughter; and it was therefore remarkable that his father, a lawyer, should not have registered his birth, the limitations of the estate being to sons and not to daughters. Very little was known about Mrs. Andrewes, nothing but what her children had gleaned from her own lips. Her story was that she was a daughter of Captain John Manning, officer in the army, who died when she was about eight years old, which would be in 1817. The Army List had been searched, and there was no trace of any Captain Manning who answered the description of Mrs. Andrewes’s father.
Editor's note: The marriage certificate confirms Charlotte’s father was named John, but does not afford him a military rank, though he is named as a gentleman, so presumably a man of some financial worth and standing.
She told one of her daughters that she was educated by two Quaker ladies, and finished her education in Paris, but the names of the ladies and the school in Paris were forgotten. The mother said she was married in 1838, but Augusta, in her early days, saw a paper, the nature which she did not know, which placed the marriage in 1835. Between 1857 and 1868 Augustus wrote a number letters to Mrs. Andrewes in affectionate terms, in all of which he described himself as her husband. One of the children testified that about this period her father offered to introduce Mrs. Andrewes to his relations at Great Linford, and that she would not be presented to them. In later life it was said she bitterly repented that decision; and the excuse given for her refusal was poverty. She stood well with him in point of social rank, manners, and education, and it was strange thing that she should have declined to be introduced to her husband’s relatives, the more so she was said to have known that one day they would come into the possession of estate. It was not consistent with what one knew of human nature, and particularly of the nature of married women, voluntarily to allow their existence to be concealed from their husband’s relations. The next period of Augustus’s life was from his reappearance at Liverpool about 1867, when he appeared to be hiding himself. Some eight persons gave evidence that at some part of that period they knew the parties, and that Mrs. Andrewes was introduced to them as Augustus’s wife. They were affectionate family, and Mrs. Andrewes was treated with courtesy and affection by Augustus, who was described as a religious man, attending church and the holy communion. The evidence of these persons was not the strongest evidence of reputation, but was limited in every respect. During this period another singular circumstance occurred. Augustus was said to have an objection to infant baptism; accordingly he took three of his children to Dublin in 1860, and two of them in 1862, and had them baptised there. Certificates of the baptism were made, in all of which the dates attributed to the births differed from those given in the registrations already described. Why should he have taken the children to Dublin for this purpose? In October 1862, the eldest son was apprenticed to a druggist just commencing business. At this time the Rev. William had been married for 27 years, and there a strong probability that the plaintiff must succeed to the estate on the death of his uncle and father. Was apprenticeship to a druggist the ordinary way of starting in life the heir to a large estate? Augustus did not cease to visit his family. In 1866 or 1867, he visited his brother William, and met a lady who was living as companion to Mrs. William Uthwatt and her daughter. That lady, who was now settled in Germany, stated in evidence that when she saw Augustus, who was approaching 70 years of age, atter(Sic) the salutation, she asked him, according to German custom, about his wife, and his answer was direct that he had no wife at all, and no family.
Editor's note: It seems likely this German lady was Elizabeth Grund, who find in William’s household on the 1871 census.
The fourth period ran from 1867 to his coming into possession of the estate. It embraced the marriage of the plaintiff, the birth of his child, and the death of Mrs Andrewes. During this period, Augustus wrote several letters to Henry, end they were ell those of an affectionate father to his son. In the correspondence relating to his son’s marriage, the father peremptorily insisted that in the public announcements of the marriage no reference whatever should be made to himself. Augustus told his son Frederick that if in the marriage notice Henry described himself as the son of "A. T. Andrewes. Esq., late of Liverpool,” he would rue the day, and his father would cast him off. In October, 1871, Mrs. Andrewes died and was buried, not in the burial place of the family, but in Nunhead Cemetery, Camberwell. On the tombstone she was described the wife of Augustus Thomas Andrewes; but in the original draft of the inscription by Augustus these words did not appear, and they were interlined by him at later date, but before the order was given to the mason. In her last illness Frederick, the curate, asked his mother about her early life and marriage, and she said, marriage with your lather was a secret one, and promised him not to tell you children anything about it.” That was most remarkable observation for invalid to make when she was 62 years of age. If the object was conceal the marriage from the family at Great Linford, why conceal it from the children, and not enable them to show the world that they were legitimate? The daughter Elizabeth said when her mother was dying her father turned all his children out of the room, and told them he had something to promise their mother. When left the room he told them that had promised their mother make it clear, to make their existence known. But this death-bed promise of this so-called religious man was never performed. What was the promise? Was it to unravel the mystery? Married people did not require promises between one and the other on a death-bed with regard to their marriage after sending the children out of the room. The last period of Augustus's life was from his taking possession of the estate in 1877, on the death of William, to his own death. Although he took possession he never lived at the mansion. His poverty was at an end, and he (the judge) could see no reason why he should not now communicate his secret to his family. A voluminous correspondence now took place with Edolph until his death in 1882, and afterwards with his widow. Hannah Maria Edolph was consulted about the estate, and whatever was done to it was represented being done for the benefit of Edolph and his son.
Editor's note: There is an error in the above transcription. Edolph’s widow was named Anna Maria, not Hannah Maria.
But Edolph had no concern in it if Augustus had a legitimate son. Augustus made claim upon Mrs. William for waste and dilapidations during her husband’s occupation, and a deed was drawn up which that lady conveyed to the uses of the settlement land of the value of between £6,000 and £7,000. The deed was dated September, 1877, and the parties to it were Augustus, Edolph, and Eusebius, the plaintiff would have been a necessary party it if was a legitimate son; but his father passed over him entirely, and treated Edolph as the next successor the estate. There was in this matter a fraudulent concealment from Mary if the plaintiff was a legitimate son, because it left her exposed to a similar claim being made against her by him. There was some money in court, representing the proceeds of the sale of some land that bad been taken by railway company. Augustus asked Edolph to join him in getting out this money, and applying it to the estate, and he was prepared to go to court with a declaration that Edolph was the next successor to the estate. As a lawyer, Augustus knew that his son could have barred the whole settlement if he was tenant in tail. Throughout the correspondence Edolph and his son were treated as the next successors. Upon Edolph’s death in 1882 Augustus determined to put Hannah Maria and her son into possession, and did so, arranging that they were to live at the mansion rent free. At that very time the curate spoke his father about the double life he was leading, and Augustus said. Freddy, my boy, I cannot face the mountain of lies that I have built for half a century. I have planned a way of working the oracle, and in time, when certain parties are under the turf, I will make all mysteries straight. I would not die leaving my affairs in their present state of 100,000 worlds.” Which were the lies? Those to his own relations, or those to his children? At this very time Augustus was giving notice quit to a respectable tenant living at the mansion, and authorising him to say on his sale bills that the sale was on account of the family of the late Mr. E. A. Uthwatt desiring to live at the mansion."
Editor's note: The respectable tenant referred to would be the Slades, who were then running a private girls’ school from the Manor House.
Augustus also visited Hannah Maria about this time, and represented himself as a bachelor, not only to her, but also to the tenants, the solicitors and the agent for the estate. Even to the woodman he stated that his nephew would succeed him. His daughters saw all his correspondence with Mrs. Edolph and remonstrated with him; but he would not, in answer to their entreaties reveal the marriage, if marriage there was, nor make known to bis friends in Buckinghamshire the existence of his children. The reasons be gave for not doing were obviously excuses. Augustus was clearly a cunning man. His daughters described him as conscientious, honest, and just to all except his family and relations, who, he said, had never done anything for him. The sons considered him a downright hypocrite, and very untruthful. Henry charged his father with being actuated by hatred towards him. but that was not proved by the evidence, and the suggestion on the part of the plaintiff was a wicked invention. Undoubtedly the father led a double life. He (the judge) thought the key to the whole was that he had not the courage to tell his children that they were illegitimate, but was willing to allow them to understand by his conduct that they were so. At the same time he had not the courage nor the wickedness to wrong bis nephew of his inheritance. By bis act in putting his nephew into possession, well understanding what that amounted to in point of law, he gave his children a solemn and decisive answer to their importunities. The case must be decided on the facts as a whole. He (the judge) had adopted no theory, but had endeavoured to weigh those facts with every care. The result was that he found that the plaintiff was not a legitimate son. and was not entitled to succeed to the estate, and the case must be dismissed with costs.
Editor's note: This then ended the hopes of Henry Manning Uthwatt that he could seize control of the Great Linford Estate. What happened to him there-after is a matter of conjecture. We know that he was a chemist, and possibly had a side-line in dentistry, but like his father, he seems to have had a talent for melting away; there are no further sightings on census records, nor an obvious death certificate. In a final postscript to this story, we know that he had married in 1879 to an Anne Farmer, but that the marriage had ended in divorce in 1883 with his wife succeeding in annulling the marriage on the basis of Henry’s adultery. Oddly, this fact does not seem to have concerned the court as regards a judgement on his character; did he manage to hide this fact as perhaps he did with the crucial marriage certificate?
|
