Lechmere/Cross "name issue" Part 2

[Newbie]

"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

Hi Baron,

Yes, David's main point was that people can adopt one name, contrary to their name given at birth.
Children do have the tendency to assume the name of their adopted step father, particularly if the father by blood ran out on the family,
as certainly is the case for Lechmere.

This is not a debatable point.

The relevant point is why did Charlie Cross/Lechmere use Cross on this occasion, when all people David brought up with a name duality
were presented at court (save one) with their name of record, and then added their commonly known name during testimony?

It is clear what the expectations were in 1888.
Why did Lechmere vary with these people on this important matter?


In none of David's examples is it a 38 year old guy with 8? children (each with the surname of Lechmere) married for 18 years, who is identified by the court with his common name.

[Newbie]

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.

What makes you think this rj?


Case Study 5 – Charles Jones a.k.a. Taylor


Report of Jones v Jones divorce case in the Portsmouth Evening News, 7 June 1889 (petitioner: Mrs Harriet Vale Jones)


"The respondent, Charles Jones, was then called by his counsel. He said he had taken the name of his step-father, which was Taylor, and drove a coach for him. He denied that his wife about bought a landau [carriage] for him. She had advanced a small sum of money to enable him to complete the purchase. ...."




From the Isle of Wight Observer, 13 May 1865


"An application was received from Mr James Taylor, of Monkton Street, for a license for his step-son, Charles Jones, for a driver’s license; the license had been previously refused by the committee. The present application, however, was backed by a number of responsible signatures.

MR JAMES HARBOUR said he had asked Jones to go on a job and he refused; he afterwards went, but said he would not have gone unless he liked [to]. Not that he intended to vote against the application, but he should be cautioned not to repeat such conduct."


Further research:


Charles Jones was born on 8 November 1847 on the Isle of Wight, the son of Charles and Fanny Jones nee Attrill. Charles Jones Senior is said to be a plasterer on his birth certificate.

Charles Jones Senior appears to have died in 1848 and his widow married an innkeeper called James Taylor in Newport in 1851.


He's known in court records as Jones, he was born as the son of Charles & Fanny Jones, Charles Jones died the next year and he ended up adopting the name of his step-father which was Taylor.


Argument?

[Newbie]

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

I didnt 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?

I looked through every example Mr Barnett:

all with dual names, save one (Mr. Grey - a murder suspect), were referred to by the court with their birth name, even though they were commonly known otherwise for most of their life.

Mr Grey's 'proper' name was clarified by a witness ...... we know nothing about the name under which Mr Grey was convicted by the court.

[rjpalmer]

What makes you think this rj?

Excuse me. In my haste, I stated in backwards.

While giving evidence in a cruelty-to-animals case, Jones gave testimony under the name "Taylor."

Isle of Wight Observer, 11 May 1878, reporting on a case at the Ryde Petty Sessions on Monday 6 May:

Case of William Holbrook, mariner, of Clay Lane, who had been summoned by Inspector Peet, RSPCA, for cruelly ill-treating a horse by over driving it.

"Charles Taylor of Monkton Street, said that he was foreman to his father, a postmaster." [His evidence about what he saw followed. Holbrook was convicted and fined £1].

Meanwhile, the name on his birth cert, cenus returns, etc. was Jones.

I believe there may have been another case involving "Taylor" that came up while I was discussing this with Gary Barnett, but I'll have to go back and look.

But there you have it: a witness giving evidence using his stepfather's name rather than his birthname.

[Newbie]

Excuse me. In my haste, I stated in backwards.

While giving evidence in a cruelty-to-animals case, Jones gave testimony under the name "Taylor."

Isle of Wight Observer, 11 May 1878, reporting on a case at the Ryde Petty Sessions on Monday 6 May:

Case of William Holbrook, mariner, of Clay Lane, who had been summoned by Inspector Peet, RSPCA, for cruelly ill-treating a horse by over driving it.

"Charles Taylor of Monkton Street, said that he was foreman to his father, a postmaster." [His evidence about what he saw followed. Holbrook was convicted and fined £1].

Meanwhile, the name on his birth cert, cenus returns, etc. was Jones.

I believe there may have been another case involving "Taylor" that came up while I was discussing this with Gary Barnett, but I'll have to go back and look.

But there you have it: a witness giving evidence using his stepfather's name rather than his birthname.

I do that stuff all the time RJ.

[rjpalmer]

the expectation on him was to employ Lechmere at the inquest: variance from such expectations, being considered a possible duplicitous act

And yet that is exactly what he did do---if, as is highly probable---he was the driver in the 1876 road accident. His employers would have been aware of this alleged 'duplicity' and yet nothing came of it.

One can speak about 'expectations' all day long, but anyone who has ever worked in Human Resources knows that a large swath of the public has no idea how they are supposed to behave when dealing with what can be loosely called Officialdom.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

If you look on David’s blog a link to this post has been added and David has replied. You can respond to him if you want to.

[Geddy2112]

In all parts of the U.K., your legal name is the name you are generally known by. This is something which has been established by case law, going back hundreds of years.

Over the years — whenever a dispute about someone’s name (or surname) has been brought before a court of law — the court (and in particular, the judges who were there) have interpreted and defined where exactly the law stands. There has never been any statute, in any part of the U.K., which formally defines what your name is in law (or how you can change it). The law was defined, in the large part, by these cases.

Most of these sorts of cases have arisen because of disputes about —

• whether someone had been married in their true name (and thus their marriage was valid)
• whether a contract or bond was signed in someone’s true name (and thus was valid)
• whether someone was entitled to an inheritance because of a clause in a will which required them to change their name

Cases in England & Wales


Listed below are the most important cases in English law which apply to a person’s name, surname, or title.

Cases applying to a child’s name — and in particular, who can change a child’s name (and under what conditions) — are listed separately. However, in principle, a child’s name and surname are legally defined in the same way as an adult’s — and all the cases below apply to children as well (in that respect).

These cases do not of course apply to Scotland, Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man, or the Channel Islands. However, in principle, the law in those jurisdictions is essentially the same, in that your legal name is simply the name you are generally known by.

Richard v William (1335)	Court of Common Pleas
Mary, otherwise Mariot (1372)	Court of Common Pleas
Hyckman v Shotbolt (1568)
Disply v Sprat (1587)
Fermor v Dorrington (1591)
Codwell’s Case (1593)
Button v Wrightman (1594)	Court of Queen’s Bench
Blodwell v Edwards (1596)
Bearbrook v Read (1600)
Field v Winlow (1602)
Sir Moyle Finch’s Case (1606)
Blunt and Farly v Snedston (1607)
Loyd’s Case (1609)	Court of King’s Bench
Sir Edward Ashfeild (1610)
Watkins v Oliver (1618)
Panton v Chowles (1620)
Maby v Shepherd (1623)
Jacob Aboab’s Case (1674)
Clerke v Isted (1686)
Allen v Symonds (1694)
W R (1698)
Rex v Newman (1700)	Court of Queen’s Bench
Shield v Cliff (1702)
Walden v Holman (1704)	Court of Queen’s Bench
Linch v Hooke (1704)
Lepiot v Browne (1704)
Warner v Sir Edward Irby (1705)
Metham v Duke of Devon (1718)
Barlow v Bateman (1730)	Court of Chancery
Barlow v Bateman (1735)	House of Lords
Read v Matteur (1736)
Evans v King (1745)
Pyot v Pyot (1749)	Court of Chancery
Gulliver v Ashby (1766)
Jones v Macquillin (1793)
Frankland v Nicholson (1805)
Wakefield v Mackay, falsely calling herself Wakefield (1807)	Consistory Court of London
Mather v Ney (1807)
Leigh v Leigh (1808)
Weleker v Le Pelletier (1808)
Gould v Barnes (1811)
Pouget v Tomkins (1812)
The King v the Inhabitants of Billingshurst (1814)	Court of King’s Bench
Docker v King (1814)
Walker v Willoughby (1816)
Hawkins v Luscombe (1818)	Court of Chancery
Sullivan v Sullivan (1818)
Doe dem. Luscombe v Yates (1822)	Court of King’s Bench
Addis v Power (1831)
Davies v Lowndes (1835)	Court of Common Pleas
Williams v Bryant (1839)	Exchequer of Pleas
Nash v Calder (1847)
Lomax v Landells (1848)
Ex parte Daggett (1850)	Bail Court
Ex parte James (1850)	Bail Court
Regina v Dale (1851)
Fendall v Goldsmid (1877)
Cowley v Cowley (1901)	House of Lords
Re Parrott, Cox v Parrott [1946] Ch 183	High Court
Dancer v Dancer [1949] P 147	High Court
Re Jack White — Lord de Carmel (1979) CA	Court of Appeal

[rjpalmer]

I had a hard time finding this.

It's in the comment section of "The Game of the Name," September 21, 2023.

[jmenges]

Remember - when you include several external links in your post it will be flagged by our highly sophisticated A.I. system as spam.
Then it’s sent to me to review and approve, which can take a considerable amount of time. Especially on a beautiful Sunday afternoon.
So, y’all might keep that in mind before you create a post with several links.

JM

[FrankO]

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.

...

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:...[/COLOR]

Fact remains that we know of 3 men who - whether it was expected of them or not and regardless of whether they knew that or not – gave another name at an inquest or some other official proceedings than their birthname. Another interesting fact in this respect is that, even though his birthname Henry David Reynolds became known during the prosecution case (16 September 1889), that case was still filed under his alternative name Henry David Scott. Why would the case be filed under Scott if the English were such sticklers about using the surname of record?

These are facts that we have to deal with, just as the fact that we don’t know how many other cases there may have been of people giving only their alternative name at some official proceedings.

[Kattrup]

Fact remains that we know of 3 men who - whether it was expected of them or not and regardless of whether they knew that or not – gave another name at an inquest or some other official proceedings than their birthname. Another interesting fact in this respect is that, even though his birthname Henry David Reynolds became known during the prosecution case (16 September 1889), that case was still filed under his alternative name Henry David Scott. Why would the case be filed under Scott if the English were such sticklers about using the surname of record?

These are facts that we have to deal with, just as the fact that we don’t know how many other cases there may have been of people giving only their alternative name at some official proceedings.

Since you brought up Reynolds, his brother is in fact an example of someone testifying under his stepfathers name.

And no one felt the need to bring up his “real” name.

https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/victoriana-and-the-east-end-aa/608194-coroners-court?p=608327#post608327

Newbie’s confident assertion that it’s clear there was an expectation to “reveal” one’s birth name is completely wrong.
It’s clear there was no such expectation and no legal obligation to do so.

[FrankO]

Since you brought up Reynolds, his brother is in fact an example of someone testifying under his stepfathers name.

And no one felt the need to bring up his “real” name.

https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/victoriana-and-the-east-end-aa/608194-coroners-court?p=608327#post608327

Newbie’s confident assertion that it’s clear there was an expectation to “reveal” one’s birth name is completely wrong.
It’s clear there was no such expectation and no legal obligation to do so.

Thanks, Kattrup!