Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - by OneRound 2 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Sam Flynn 2 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Sam Flynn 3 hours ago.
Elizabeth Stride: For what reason do we include Stride? - by Trevor Marriott 3 hours ago.
General Discussion: Do you think it will be solved? - by Kattrup 3 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Abby Normal 6 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - (31 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: JtR was Law Enforcement Hypothesis - (6 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (4 posts)
Elizabeth Stride: For what reason do we include Stride? - (4 posts)
Non-Fiction: The Whitechapel Murders of 1888: Another Dead End? - (3 posts)
Non-Fiction: the victims werent prostitutes - (3 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Scene of the Crimes

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-15-2011, 09:19 PM
Archaic Archaic is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Seattle area
Posts: 1,902
Question 26 Dorset Street For Sale, 1868- Questions

Hi everyone.

I found an 1868 entry in ‘The Building News and Engineering Journal’ which lists five consecutive properties for sale on Dorset Street, including #26 Dorset Street.

Here’s a transcription of the entries that caught my eye:

Freehold two messuages, Nos. 26 and 28, Dorset street, Commercial-road, producing 30 8s per annum—420.

Freehold three houses, Nos. 25, 27, and 29, Dorset street, Commercial-road, producing 39 per annum—320.



‘Messuage’ is a legal term referring to a dwelling-house that encompasses additional features such as outbuildings, a court-yard, a garden, an orchard, etc. According to the dictionary, the word ‘messuage’ derives from the old Anglo-French ‘mesuage’ meaning ‘holding’.

I interpret this to mean that the courtyard known as Miller’s Court was considered a messuage belonging to the house at #26 Dorset Street, and was not owned jointly by #27.

Apparently Dorset Street was numbered consecutively rather than alternating odd-even numbers on opposite sides of the street- thus #26 and #27 were side by side. But #26 is listed for sale separately from #27, which I find somewhat confusing if the two were attached with an archway that contained more rooms above.

Was this common?
Did the archway and the upper rooms belong to the side holding the messuage, #26?
Or did half of the archway and its upper rooms belong to #26 and half to #27, but the courtyard -Miller’s Court- belonged to #26?

I’d greatly appreciate it if anyone can help explain how this usually worked.

Thanks for your help,
Archaic
Attached Images
 
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-15-2011, 09:31 PM
Archaic Archaic is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Seattle area
Posts: 1,902
Question Who Owned These 5 Dorset Street Properties?

The fact that all five of these Dorset Street properties were offered for sale at the same time suggests to me that they were either owned by one person, or owned by that person's heirs, or owned by a single group of investors. Each of the five properties is described as a ‘freehold’, so all five are owned outright and being sold outright, not offered for lease.

I don’t know if the 1860's owner could have been the individual named Miller who gave his name to Miller’s Court.
Perhaps Miller died c.1868 and left the Dorset Street properties to his heirs, who then sold them? Does anybody know?

Thanks,
Archaic
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-15-2011, 09:49 PM
Rob Clack Rob Clack is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Croydon
Posts: 1,708
Default

That's a different Dorset Street, Bun. The one we are interested is Dorset Street, Commercial Street.

Rob
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-15-2011, 10:35 PM
Archaic Archaic is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Seattle area
Posts: 1,902
Default

Hi Rob.

Do you mean Dorset Street, Commercial Street and Dorset Street, Commercial Road are two different places???

RATS! If baffles me that London can repeat the same street names all over town. It's a wonder the mail ever got delivered.

Ok, thanks Rob, back to the old drawing board...

Best regards,
Archaic

PS: Rob, can you answer any of the other questions about how adjoining buildings & courtyards (messuanges) were divided up into separate addresses/properties? Thanks.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-15-2011, 11:59 PM
Rob Clack Rob Clack is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Croydon
Posts: 1,708
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Archaic View Post
Hi Rob.

Do you mean Dorset Street, Commercial Street and Dorset Street, Commercial Road are two different places???

RATS! If baffles me that London can repeat the same street names all over town. It's a wonder the mail ever got delivered.

Ok, thanks Rob, back to the old drawing board...

Best regards,
Archaic
That's why we have post codes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Archaic View Post
PS: Rob, can you answer any of the other questions about how adjoining buildings & courtyards (messuanges) were divided up into separate addresses/properties? Thanks.
Not really. My guess would be that 26 and 27 Dorset Street were separate properties. Numbers 1 to 12 Millers Court would be separate from 26/27 Dorset Street. So there would be three freehold properties in total. Millers Court would be a bit tricky as I don't think there would be an freehold for each dwelling (I mean each two story cottage which had two flats).
I think McCarthy only leased those properties and he didn't actually own them.

Rob
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-16-2011, 12:56 AM
Archaic Archaic is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Seattle area
Posts: 1,902
Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Clack View Post
That's why we have post codes
Smarty-pants!
OK, so why aren't the postal codes mentioned in records, journals, etc when street names are mentioned? Just to be cruel?? I've seen "Dorset Street, Portman Square" listed and I know that's a completely different area from our Dorset Street, but "Dorset Street, Commercial Road" and "Dorset Street, Commercial Street"... oh, gimme a break!
Hmm, maybe that's why so many American cities name their streets using the numerical system- the city fathers once got hopelessly lost in London and vowed to make things easier on their fellow citizens if they ever got the chance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Clack View Post
Not really. My guess would be that 26 and 27 Dorset Street were separate properties. Numbers 1 to 2 Millers Court would be separate from 26/27 Dorset Street. So there would be three freehold properties in total. Millers Court would be a bit tricky as I don't think there would be an freehold for each dwelling (I mean each two story cottage which had two flats).
I think McCarthy only leased those properties and he didn't actually own them. Rob
Oh, my impression was completely different. I thought the Miller's Court cottages behind #26 and #27 Dorset Street would have belonged to either one or both of the conjoined street-front houses.

If one owner owned both 26 & 27 it would be simple to enclose the old garden area, (messuange, whatever you want to call it) and add the two rows of cottages.

But maybe two different property owners decided to take advantage of their courtyard space and built whatever type of cottage they preferred- is that why the cottages on the #26 side appear to have been smaller than those on the #27 side?
(See attached diagram from Philip Sugden's book 'The Complete History of Jack the Ripper')

My impression was that none of the cottages were freeholds, but were legally "attached" to either 26 or 27, or both, and then the little flats were sublet. Maybe that's incorrect though.

I'm going from memory here, but I believe that in her Rippercast interview Fiona Rule said McCarthy organized a group of investors who went in on the Dorset Street properties because he promised them a good annual rate of return, something like 4%. (Please correct me if I'm misremembering.)

I don't know if McCarthy was one of the investors, or started as the manager/landlord and bought in as co-owner or sole owner at some point...not sure that has ever been established. Does anyone know?

Thanks and best regards,
Archaic
Attached Images
 
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-16-2011, 01:25 AM
Rob Clack Rob Clack is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Croydon
Posts: 1,708
Default

Hi Bun,

They usually just say Dorset Street, Commercial Street, so people are aware which is which. I think all post codes back then were a single letter and no number. So both the Commercial Street and Commercial Road, Dorset Streets should be 'E'.

I'm only guessing at Millers Court. The only way to tell for certain is to check the Land deeds, which I am not sure still survive. If they do there may be a mention in Fiona Rules book 'The Worst Street in London'. It's been a while since I read it.

Rob
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.