Jurors

[tnb]

Hello,

Don't know if anyone can help here, as I seem to have drawn a blank.

This is from the East London Advertiser, 15th September 1888:

The jurymen were then sworn, their names being Messrs. Dawson, Knight, Upton, Gardiner, Wall, Hunt, Statham, Mead, Hawkins, Wood, Ford, Latier, Carter, Neville, Chamberlain, Kemp, Silvan, and Birks. Mr. Thorpe was unanimously selected as foreman.

Is there any record of any more information about who these men were?

I have my suspicions (not in that way!) about who one of these men may have been (Birks), but obviously I want a bit more than that before I go commiting myself to anything.

Thanks in advance.

[Scott Nelson]

That Neville Chamberlain sounds vaguely familiar.

[tnb]

[Chris Scott]

Difficult to find out more without further info...
The two most unsual names are Latier and Silvan.
There is no one of the surname Latier listed in the 1891 census - I would suggest this is probably a misprint for Latimer.
The only Silvan listed in 1891 is a 33 year old woman named Eliza Silvan born and living in Yorshire.
Even the more unusual looking names yield large numbers of entries - Statham for example in 1891 gives over 2000 returns as does Birks.

[Addy]

If my information is wrong please say so, but as far as I know, all jurymen were selected from the general population. So you probably wouldn't find much about them.

Greetings,

Addy

[tnb]

Thanks Chris - that is much as I thought, really. Just wondered if anyone knew of any court documents in the public domain that may give us at least some first names, but like you I don't hold out too much hope.

Latier - Latimer sounds logical, perhaps Silvan should be Sullivan?

Birks is the man I am interested in, as I have a feeling he may be Charles Birks, landlord of the Kinder Arms in 1888. Not that that matters at all, but I like to tie up these kind of loose ends, for nothing else than my own curiosity.

Just a thought, but I am assuming then as now that the jury would be selected from the population of the relevant district - Charles Birks was living in St George's in the East, do you (Chris) or anyone else for that matter know whether that would have counted as being part of the relevant district at the time? Obviously it's all Tower Hamlets now but my knowledge of historic boundaries is a little hazy.

Addy - as you have probably already judged from the above, you are quite correct in both your assumptions. More's the pity!

[Chris Scott]

One can of course cut some of these down by gender and location.
For example, in the case of Statham, there were over 2000 entries in 1891. But one can isolate the male entries because at the time of the Whitechapel murders all inquest jurors (or indeed court jurors) would have been male.
This cuts it down to just over 1000.
Looking only at London, we get down to 103.
Of the area of interest, we have one in Aldgate and one in Whitechapel who were of appropriate age to serve on a jury.
Aldgate:
Charles J Statham aged 53 born Derby - Tailor's cutter
Boarder at 11 Essex Avenue, Middlesex Street
Whitechapel:
Benjamin Statham aged 43 born Rickmansworth - Fishmonger's assistant
Head of household at 39 Gower's Walk
Married with 7 children

Personlly I would think Benjamin is the better bet as being a longterm settled Whitechapel resident

[tnb]

Good work Chris.

Any thoughts on whether Kinder Street, St George's (now Poplar) would have counted as being within the Whitechapel district?

This is the man who brought me to this - although the family name is transcribed as 'Birke' in the 1881 census (below), it is written as the relevant 'Birks' in the Post Office directories for 1881 and 1883.

19 Little Turner Street, St George's in the East (location of Kinder Arms public house)

Head of household: Charles Birke aged 55- born Gath, Yorkshire - Licensed Victualler

also at the address:

Mary A Birke - wife - aged 64 - born Stepney.
Thomas H Birke - son - aged 21 born Whitechapel.
Louisa Birke - niece and Housekeeper - aged 33, born Stepney.
Harriet A Chambers - niece - aged 8 - born Hoxton - Scholar.
Amelia Bennett - aged 19 - born Ratcliff - General Servant.

Even within this family we have two possible jurors - Charles and Thomas. This could be quite a task!

I have no source whatsoever for this but have a vague memory of reading somewhere once that during the LVP only men with a permanent address were considered 'respectable' enough to be called up for jury service, which would rule out Charles Statham. Like I say I can't back that up though.

[Dave O]

Hi tnb and Chris,

Thanks for that account tnb.

You can find a description of Baxter's district here:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=2262

Cheers,
Dave

[m_w_r]

Any thoughts on whether Kinder Street, St George's (now Poplar) would have counted as being within the Whitechapel district?

This is the man who brought me to this - although the family name is transcribed as 'Birke' in the 1881 census (below), it is written as the relevant 'Birks' in the Post Office directories for 1881 and 1883.

19 Little Turner Street, St George's in the East (location of Kinder Arms public house)

Head of household: Charles Birke aged 55- born Gath, Yorkshire - Licensed Victualler

also at the address:

Mary A Birke - wife - aged 64 - born Stepney.
Thomas H Birke - son - aged 21 born Whitechapel.
Louisa Birke - niece and Housekeeper - aged 33, born Stepney.
Harriet A Chambers - niece - aged 8 - born Hoxton - Scholar.
Amelia Bennett - aged 19 - born Ratcliff - General Servant.

Even within this family we have two possible jurors - Charles and Thomas. This could be quite a task!

Hi Trevor,

Charles Birks was living at 2 Greenfield Street in 1891, and working as a cabinet manufacturer. Mary Anne, his wife, had died in 1889q2, with the death registered in Whitechapel.

On 2 September 1888, Thomas Henry Birks (an upholsterer), the son of Charles Birks (a cabinet maker) married Emily Ada Schleicher in the parish of St Dunstan and All Saints, Stepney. By 1891, they were living at 24 Caroline Terrace, St Ann's Road, Tottenham.

Regards,

Mark

[Septic Blue]

Of course, we don't know where any of these people were residing, specifically in September 1888.

But …

One can of course cut some of these down by gender and location.
For example, in the case of Statham, there were over 2000 entries in 1891. But one can isolate the male entries because at the time of the Whitechapel murders all inquest jurors (or indeed court jurors) would have been male.
This cuts it down to just over 1000.
Looking only at London, we get down to 103.
Of the area of interest, we have one in Aldgate and one in Whitechapel who were of appropriate age to serve on a jury.
Aldgate:
Charles J Statham aged 53 born Derby - Tailor's cutter
Boarder at 11 Essex Avenue, Middlesex Street
Whitechapel:
Benjamin Statham aged 43 born Rickmansworth - Fishmonger's assistant
Head of household at 39 Gower's Walk
Married with 7 children

Personlly I would think Benjamin is the better bet as being a longterm settled Whitechapel resident

Charles Statham lived in that portion of the Parish of St. Botolph without Aldgate, which was situated within the City of London. That, in itself, should categorically eliminate his 'candidacy'.

Any thoughts on whether Kinder Street, St George's (now Poplar) would have counted as being within the Whitechapel district?

The Parish of St. George in the East was indeed situated within the Coronership of the County of Middlesex, South-Eastern District (Wynne Baxter); …

You can find a description of Baxter's district here:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=2262

… but, was Baxter's office at liberty to call upon anyone from within the stated boundaries of its constituency,

… or, did it simply rely upon the same component of the Metropolitan Board of Works - in this case, the Whitechapel District - that had responsibility for mortuary accommodation, to select its own jury?

In the former instance; Charles Birke could have been called upon, even though he resided (presumably, in September 1888) in the Parish of St. George in the East.

In the latter instance; Charles Birke would not have been called upon, because as the Parish of St. George in the East was a component of the Metropolitan Board of Works, in itself, … it was not in the Whitechapel District.

[Dave O]

Good question, Colin. I don't know the answer. The way I understand it, the jury pool in the counties would be first drawn from the parish where the body was before spreading to adjoining parishes as necessary (see excerpt from Jervis below, p. 10).

Looking at the Mary Kelly inquest, the pool of jurors there stretched across the boundaries of the Board of Works, but stayed within the confines of the NE coroner's district, and this was a complaint. If they'd gone by the Board of Works, you wouldn't see a juror from Shoreditch and one from "Whitechapel" (that fellow must have come from either Norton Folgate or Spitalfields, I'm not sure which adjoined Shoreditch).

So it looks to me that they'd have drawn from the coroner's district, but I think that's tentative. I would rather see something where it's spelled out.

I guess we're looking at Whitechapel, possibly one or two parishes adjoining it. If the account Trevor has referred to is accurate, Baxter has 19 jurors for Chapman (likely summoned in batches of six, I don't know who would have got the odd man). Tentatively then, if there's a conflict between the coroner's district with the Board of Works, I'd go with coroner's district (but my only basis is the Mary Kelly inquest). I believe I'm right to say that they could only summon a juror once in a year, and if they went by the Board of Works, you might have found yourself drawing from another coroner's pool--that might not have been a conflict though, because if all the available jurors had already been summoned once, you could bring them back again (might've been a conflict for that juror, however).

What do you guys think?

Dave

PS To further complicate the process, if you have a situation where not enough summoned jurors show up, then they'd turn to spectators or people in the street.

[tnb]

Firstly, thanks all for your info and help on this. This thread has been quite busy since I was last here!

Mark - Thanks for the info from the 1891 census, at present I can't access that one (need to stop being a skinflint, basically) so that's great. It sounds like quite a decade for the family between the two census reports. The Post Office directory confirms that Birke/Birks was no longer the landlord of the Kinder Arms in 1891, that post having passed to a Frank Jennings sometime 1883 and 1891, presumably in or around the time of Mary's death. Which could of course mean they were still in situ in Little Turner Street in Sept 1888. By the death being registered in Whitechapel, am I right in thinking that means she likely died in the London Infirmary(Hospital)? The family don't seem candidates for the workhouses to me. It may be worth contacting them to see if they have any records, which may include the address from which she was admitted.

Of course, we don't know where any of these people were residing, specifically in September 1888.

Too true. If only the census had been in 1888 so many things would be so much simpler!

Dave O - Thanks for the link to the district thread, very useful. Tiny point but I count 20 jurors, as the foreman 'Mr Thorpe' is not listed in the preceding list (of 19 names). Does that change anything to your mind? Was there a standard number for juries at the time, or was it down to the coroner's discretion?

To my mind, 19 or 20 does sound like an awful lot of eligible males to find from the immediate area of Whitechapel at short notice, especially with all the individuals living in semi-informal addresses, I don't think it is out of the question that Baxter would have turned to St George's and other adjoining areas to fill the bench. The Kelly inquest would seem to support that as a possibility.

[Dave O]

Hi,

Back then, the coroner had a wide discretion in the number of jurymen serving, between 12-23. With 12 being the minimum required to return a verdict, I believe the reason for the higher number we see here is because it allowed them to adjourn a sensational case pretty safely.

Cheers,
Dave