Lechmere/Cross "name issue" Part 2

[David Orsam]

Thanks to all for the kind comments and, Joshua, yes, exactly.

[MrBarnett]

Thanks to David for proving the blindingly obvious: that people sometimes use alternative names.

I didn’t trawl through every example provided, but those I did read were cases where both names were disclosed. How is that at all relevant to the Cross/Lechmere case?

[MrBarnett]

Just a few of DO’s examples:


deceased commonly went by the name of Slack

or as he is more commonly known, George Harding

or Cox, as he was sometimes called

Phillip Maine, alias Pallot

her husband had gone by the name of Maine, that being the name of his stepfather

he had taken the name of his step-father, which was Taylor

We are sorry to record the death of Charles Taylor (whose real name is, however, Jones)

John Mason, a putter at Cassop pit, charged with having absented himself from his employment

Grandfather; I bought up and christened him. His name is John Grant. Mr Hays: How has he acquired the name of Mason? Is that the name of his stepfather? Grandfather: Yes sir

but he was known by the name of Grey - the name of his stepfather

a young man named Henry Hawke, but familiarly known by the name of his stepfather, Lakey

he was known in Hull as Thomas Newton (which is the name of his step-father)


In every example above it was thought appropriate to mention both names. Lechmere didn’t mention the name he used in all his other dealings with officaldom. Did it not occur to him that it was appropriate to do so? I very much doubt it, so he must have chosen not to for some reason.

[Abby Normal]

Just a few of DO’s examples:


deceased commonly went by the name of Slack

or as he is more commonly known, George Harding

or Cox, as he was sometimes called

Phillip Maine, alias Pallot

her husband had gone by the name of Maine, that being the name of his stepfather

he had taken the name of his step-father, which was Taylor

We are sorry to record the death of Charles Taylor (whose real name is, however, Jones)

John Mason, a putter at Cassop pit, charged with having absented himself from his employment

Grandfather; I bought up and christened him. His name is John Grant. Mr Hays: How has he acquired the name of Mason? Is that the name of his stepfather? Grandfather: Yes sir

but he was known by the name of Grey - the name of his stepfather

a young man named Henry Hawke, but familiarly known by the name of his stepfather, Lakey

he was known in Hull as Thomas Newton (which is the name of his step-father)


In every example above it was thought appropriate to mention both names. Lechmere didn’t mention the name he used in all his other dealings with officaldom. Did it not occur to him that it was appropriate to do so? I very much doubt it, so he must have chosen not to for some reason.

hi Gary
yes stellar work from David as usual and thanks for the follow up.

For me though its not a question of if lech could have had/gone by two different names, which obviously he did, and theres nothing amiss there. Its that on one hand, everything we have documented on record he went by Lechmere, and yet here in the murder case he chose to use the cross name. (and also, apparently not to inform anyone he had another name).

Personally I think theres probably an innocent explanation-namely when he started work at Pickfords he was still under the auspices of his step father Cross, so went by that name at work and continued to do so. later reverting back to his birth name for everything else but Cross at work. And with the Nichols case, everything related to him as a witness-a carman on his way to work, he chose to use that name. and or he chose to use cross to keep him/his family (and what everyone else knew him by)Lechmere name out of the press. this reason also has an innocent explanation of course-he simply didn't want to get involved or be harassed by the press as much as possible.

but of course the suspicious explanation, is he used cross, because he was the killer and didn't want anyone(friends, family etc) to know he was remotely involved in a murder case, perhaps lest they put two and two together, if they had known of any other suspicious activity by him and come forward.

now of course, I lean toward my former innocent explanation, but nevertheless it is yet another discrepancy with Lech that does need an explanation.

[Harry D]

but of course the suspicious explanation, is he used cross, because he was the killer and didn't want anyone(friends, family etc) to know he was remotely involved in a murder case, perhaps lest they put two and two together, if they had known of any other suspicious activity by him and come forward.

Even though the home address & place of work could be used to identify him?

[MrBarnett]

If you research a little further you will find that the name in which a person was registered at birth, and which revealed their paternal ancestry, was commonly considered their ‘real’ or ‘proper’ name. That’s why you find so many examples of people who had gone by an assumed name for decades deeming it appropriate to reveal their birth name in a court of law or in some other dealing with authority (example above).

In one case I found, a hampshire lodger voter was refused the vote, and believing it was because he had given his assumed name (his stepfather’s) he tried again with what he considered was his ‘right’ name (his birth father’s). He was refused again, the problem having nothing to do with the names but with the man’s residence qualification. However, the barrister overseeing the process commented that ‘it was queer, and he did not approve of a man having two names’.

The point I’m making is that whatever the legality of using an alternative name may have been, it was not the norm, and it was expected that when dealing with the authorities a person should either use their ‘real’ name or disclose that the name they were using was an assumed one. Charles Lechmere chose not to.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Even though the home address & place of work could be used to identify him?

And this is the crux as you rightly point out Harry. Why not give a different home and work address? What is Lech guilty of if he followed that course of action and he was found at a later date? He has done his duty by finding a policeman. All he has done is simply come across a dead body, no blood, no weapon. He could simply tell the authorities he didn't want to get involved or he was scared to.
You either tell the whole truth, name address and workplace and hope to get away with it or you simply try and disappear by giving them all the wrong personal info, [probably the latter].
Regards Darryl

[MrBarnett]

Even though the home address & place of work could be used to identify him?

I find it difficult to believe that it would not have occurred to Lechmere that he should disclose his ‘real’ name in a coroner’s court.

[Abby Normal]

Even though the home address & place of work could be used to identify him?

hi harry
the thinking on this is that hes not trying to evade police or not be Ided-but hes just trying to keep his more commonly used name out of the picture.

[Harry D]

hi harry
the thinking on this is that hes not trying to evade police or not be Ided-but hes just trying to keep his more commonly used name out of the picture.

But it doesn't make sense, Abby. Are you saying that friends and family wouldn't connect the Charlie Cross who worked at Pickford's and lived at 22 Doveton Street with the Charlie Lechmere who worked at Pickford's and lived at 22 Doveton Street?

[MrBarnett]

hi harry
the thinking on this is that hes not trying to evade police or not be Ided-but hes just trying to keep his more commonly used name out of the picture.

hi abby

my thinking is that it may have been the Lechmere name he was protecting.

[Fisherman]

And this is the crux as you rightly point out Harry. Why not give a different home and work address?

Regards Darryl

Arguably because he could harbor a well grounded hope that the police would look favorably on it if he was investigated and found to be named Lechmere: "You see, I had a stepfather called Cross, and I want to honor him, so I call myself by that name every now and then".

It would check out if investigated - he DID have a Cross stepfather.

But what if he said that he lived in Rotten Row and worked for the tax ministry and THAT was checked out?

This is why I say that it all can be interpreted as if he took an evasion as far as he possibly could without being totally reckless: He gave a name that may well have kept him hidden, it seems he may have abstained from supplying his work address (one paper only got it, possibly by way of a clerk) and that would have been as far as he could take things without gambling dangerously hard.

Just like Abby points out, the police was given his real address, but it seems he may have tried to keep it from press and public.

[Newbie]

Conclusion

We have seen a number of examples of men with two surnames.

Consider William Adams. He was born under the name of William Adams, every known census entry for him is in the name of William Adams, he married in the name of William Adams and his name is recorded as William Adams on the birth certificates of his two children.

If that was all we knew about him we would surely be extremely confident that his name was William Adams. Yet the report from the Sheffield Evening Telegraph of 16 November 1907 confirms that he "commonly went by the name of Slack". Indeed, when he died at work, in the colliery accident, his name was initially published as William Slack.

Now, what if William Slack had been on his way to work in, say, September 1907 and found a murdered body in the street? When he appeared at the inquest would there be anything odd if he had stated his name as William Slack? I suggest not.

He might, as Ralph Dixon (otherwise Armstrong) did at the Morgan inquest, have given both names, along with an explanation of why he used two names, but there was no obligation for him to do so. We have seen that the legal position was that a man may have more than one surname and that it was quite proper for a man to adopt the surname by which he was more commonly known.

Look at Charles Jones. He was born as Charles Jones, he is called Charles Jones in every known census, he was married in the name of Charles Jones on 7 May 1878 yet the very day before his wedding he appeared as a prosecution witness at the Ryde Petty Sessions in the name of Charles Taylor. We know from the divorce proceedings that Jones had taken the name of Taylor yet he is entered in the 1881 census as Charles Jones and prosecuted in that name for some coach driving offences. When he dies he is called Charles Taylor in the newspaper. It shows clearly that there is no necessary correlation between the name given "to the authorities", as Fisherman would refer to it, and the name by someone was known. It also shows that there is no good reason for suspicion when a man with two surnames chooses to give one over the other at different times.

I suggest that the reason why so many of these men who have taken their stepfather's name nevertheless get married under the name on their birth certificates is because they have to enter their father's name on the marriage certificate and, that being so, they use their fathers surname under which to get married. Having done so, their children legally get given the same surname. But it doesnt change the fact that they are not generally known by that name.

There are exceptions such as in the case of William Hawke who (wrongly) entered his fathers name as John Hawke Lakey, his stepfather, so that he became William Henry Hawke Lakey, with Hawke turning into a middle name cum surname.

When it comes to marriage it seems that anything goes. Oswald Stoll married once as "Oswald Stoll otherwise Gray" but later as "Oswald Gray Stoll" but even then signing his marriage certificate as "Oswald Stoll". Philip Pallot decided to become Philip Pallot Maine and is sometimes Maine, sometimes Pallot in the records.

Thomas Leonard was originally stated to be Thomas Wainwright after his death from jumping overboard (because that was the name he sailed under) until it was corrected at the inquest.

George Thompson preferred the name of George Grey and that was not only the name he was commonly known as but it was the name he was charged under and tried for the murder of Thomas Scott. John Mason was charged with having absented himself from his employment under stepfathers surname rather than the surname on his birth certificate (Grant).

Now take Harry George. He was "sometimes" called Harry Cox but on every census and on his childrens birth certificates he is called Harry George. There is no other evidence that he was called Harry Cox other than the single newspaper report published after his death. Likewise, all the known records show that George Plummer bore that name yet the newspaper report of his crime shows that he was more commonly known as George Harding.

Ronnie Schatt randomly decided to call himself Ronnie Berger for a few years but then became Ronnie Scott. It just happened.

The "blind beggar" signed his letter to the Sheffield Independent as Thomas Anderson, he is Thomas Anderson in all the known censuses and on his wedding certificates but we know from his own letter that he was "better known" as Thomas Holland.

Of course, there is no doubt that all of these man with two names knew that they had one surname on their birth certificate, which could be described as his "proper" or "real" name, and another surname (of his stepfather) by which he was commonly known but that name clearly was not a "false" name. It was an alternative name, a name they were otherwise known by, but still a legal name.

There are no case studies about adopted men, other than "R.A"., but we can see from the Guardian of August 1982 that there were "thousands" of people who used an adopted name all their life which was not the name on their birth certificate.

If a man with two surnames gave evidence at an inquest in the nineteenth century when there was no issue as to his identity and only gave his name as the surname he was most commonly known by, would there have been anything suspicious about that? No, is the simple answer. Perhaps this would be different today but we live in a very different and far more bureaucratic world where it is unusual for a man to have two different surnames.

This is just one reason why I say that if you ask whether a modern jury today might find Lechmere's behaviour suspicious, you are asking the wrong question. A modern jury cannot put themselves into the minds of a jury in 1888 who would have been far more familiar with men bearing two surnames.

In any event, what I think we have clearly seen is the flaw in Fisherman's argument that because Charles Lechmere "signed his name" on numerous official documents as Charles Lechmere (ignoring his appearance on the 1861 census as Charles Cross) this somehow means that he was not commonly known as Charles Cross and/or that there was something suspicious about him calling himself Charles Cross at the inquest. He could well have been commonly known as Charles Cross, regardless of how many times he was recorded as Charles Lechmere in the documents and, that being so, he was perfectly entitled to state his name under oath as Charles Cross, without the need for explanation, during the inquest.

Nice work David.

I know this is a long dead thread, so forgive me - but your conclusion in my oppinion is dead wrong, and you have a tendency to underline some passages which serve your point, while ignoring others that undercut it. So, permit me to be kind and point them out for you below.

All these cases and references actually serve to strengthen the conviction that Charlie Cross was expected to use the name Charles Lechmere before authorities (of course, we don't know if he didn't furnished both names to the police, but chose to use Cross before the inquest: trying to help you guys).

In all cases, save one, the name that these individuals employed and were recognized by the court at inquests and legal proceedings was their official name: the one on birth certificates, baptisms, census records. Their 'common' name was volunteered, for clarity, in addition to their official name.

The only one to the contrary was the sailor George Gray, evidently accused of murder, where a fellow sailor testifying before the court says:

"Grey's proper name is George Thompson, but he was known by the name of Grey - the name of his stepfather."
(The emboldened part is yours - it is the first of many occasions where I felt your personal bias overcame you. The underlined parts (mine), combined with your emboldened part are a more even handed emphasis on detail.)

And here, in another case you dug up - and the language is your:

The body of a man named William Smith, 44 years of age, of Jeddo street has been found in the old dock Newport. Deceased was a dock labourer and being unmarried lived with his parents....At the inquest held at the Town Hall on Thursday evening - before the Deputy Coroner (Mr Digby Powell) - it was stated that the deceased's real surname was Yem, but that he went by his stepfather's name of Smith."


Everything here tells me that by the year 1888 and beyond, the English were sticklers about using the surname of record in a legal sense, even though these people had their birth father die in infancy, had barely if any recollection of him, and their mom married their step dad soon after. Even when they were illegitimate and had adopted their step fathers name early in life - even they were uncertain about the status of this name: in one case in the sense of receiving social security at 65.

We can go over anyone of these cases if you wish - they all point in the same direction: it being paramount that one use their 'official' name in a legal situation. The argument over what was Lechmere's 'real' or 'proper' name, meaning the one he would be expected to use before an inquest hearing is clear.

Didn't Lech not know this?

Here is your reference to the scholarly passage that in my opinion also supports the notion that good old Charlie Cross was expected to use Lechmere at the inquest. I once again underlined parts that you missed, retaining the emboldened parts that are yours:



"Changing a surname


As with your first name, there is nothing in the law stopping you from changing your surname at any time, so long as you don’t have any fraudulent (or other criminal) intent.

…………

English law has historically always regarded the surname as something much less important than the first name. Sir Edward Coke wrote in 1628 (in the first part of his Institutes of the Lawes of England (also known as Coke on Littleton), chapter 3.a.)
English law has historically always regarded the surname as something much less important than the first name. Sir Edward Coke wrote in 1628 (in the first part of his Institutes of the Lawes of England (also known as Coke on Littleton), chapter 3.a.)
And regularly it is requisite, that the purchaser be named by the name of baptism and his surname, and that speciall heed bee taken to the name of baptism; for that a man cannot have two names of baptism as he may have divers surnames.

........

It was possible, and not considered odd, for different members of the same family to spell their surname a different way, for example.
And so, in the case of Disply v Sprat (1587), for example, when one of the jurors was named as Thomas Barker at the venire facias but as Thomas Carter at the distringas jurat; although Sir Edward Coke alleged the verdict to be void because of this discrepancy, the court held that it wasnt a problem because There is a great difference between a mistake in the name of baptism, and in the sirname; for a man can have but one name of baptism, but may have two sirnames.

Charles Cross, or course, was baptised Charles Lechmere in 1858/1859 ... after Ma Lechmere married Thomas Cross.

So, as much as he might have been fetched by the name Charles Cross, the expectation on him was to employ Lechmere at the inquest:
variance from such expectations, being considered a possible duplicitous act.

As for me, whatever his mates called him at the local pub was irrelevant. What is relevant was the surname he was associated with among his new neighbors on Doveton Street. If it was Cross, that would appear very weird to many people. He's not a 17 year old boy anymore; he's a husband married 18 years with 8 kids. Mr Lechmere was how he introduced himself to his Doveton neighbors.

[The Baron]

"It is my conclusion that in circumstances where a man was officially registered under his fathers name but was known by his stepfathers surname, this was not regarded as a false name but an alternative name."


That was David main point.

Did you prove otherwise?! That it would have been regarded as a false name?!


The Baron

[rjpalmer]

In all cases, save one, the name that these individuals employed and were recognized by the court at inquests and legal proceedings was their official name: the one on birth certificates, baptisms, census records. Their 'common' name was volunteered, for clarity, in addition to their official name.

Unfortunately, that's not true. You might want to study it again.

In Case #5, the subject twice appeared before the court under the name Charles Jones; his name on his birth certificate & in census reports, etc. was Taylor.

Bear in mind that these cases were located, in part, because it was revealed in court (sometimes by a different witness) that the person was known by more than one name.

Had the person (or another witness) not revealed this, how would we know if this was true or not?

That's part of the conundrum you're up against.

Unless you're willing to create extensive family trees for everyone who ever appeared before an inquest in Victorian UK, we really have no way of knowing how many people didn't see fit to announce both names, nor how common the practice may have been.

Cheers.