On the wrong side of the law - John PARRY (1865 - 1918)

It often seems that some people are proud to have a convict among their ancestors.  Finding one certainly make research interesting, as there are usually more records concerning anyone convicted of a crime, than there are for those who never put a foot wrong.

But I must admit that I found it a bit of a 'heart-stopping' moment, when I first discovered a family member in gaol. "What did he do?", "Was it something horrible?", "Dare I tell the rest of the family?", were some of the questions that rushed through my mind.

Once I'd got over the initial surprise, I set about finding out more - after all, there's no point panicking because of 'unknowns'.  Discovering all the details of that case is still an ongoing process, since I need to take at least one more trip to Kew, in order to (hopefully) find the conclusion of the case and view the relevant documents.  So what I'm going to write about here is how discovering that my ancestor had been on the wrong side of the law led me to learn much more about him at other times of his life, including confirming a family story that he had been to America.

This all began back in early 2009 when, no doubt like many of you, I was eagerly awaiting the release of the 1911 census - the first census in which I would find people who I had actually known.  I was expecting to find my grandfather, Donald Martin PARRY, living in Hereford with his father, John, and sister, Rosina Jane, the children's mother having died in 1905, when Rosina was born.  

The children were easy to find, in Widemarsh Street, Hereford (reference RG14PN15703 RG78PN957 RD337 SD4 ED4 SN38):

But why were they boarding with an OLDACRE family, and where was their father, John PARRY?

Again, he was easy to identify - he just wasn't where I had expected him to be, since he was in Hereford Gaol (reference RG14PN15712 RG78PN957 RD337 SD4 ED13 SN215):

Further investigation revealed that John had been convicted of "Contempt of Court" and committed to gaol on the 23 March 1911, through the Sheriff's Court, Hereford.  He was finally discharged on the 9 December 1911, by order of the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division.

From my point of view, the date of his conviction was quite fortunate, as it was just ten days before the 1911 census was taken, on the 2nd April - if it had been at any other time, I might never have discovered this incident, or found confirmation of the family story!

The Contempt of Court case is the one that I still need to find the final documents for, along with, hopefully, the affidavits by those involved in the case.  But one of the pieces of information recorded in the prison book is a cross reference to any other convictions - from which I discovered that John PARRY had also been gaoled in Hereford in 1895, having been convicted at Abergavenny on the 11 March 1895, for debt.  The sentence was described in the prison book as "10 days or £6.14.3."

It appears John either chose to serve his time, or could not afford to pay the money, since he was not discharged until the 4th April 1895.

Back in 2009, I'd been able to visit Abergavenny and found a reference to this case in the "Abergavenny Chronicle and Monmouthshire Advertiser", for Friday March 15, 1895. In a column headed, "Abergavenny County Court. Monday, - before His Honor Judge Owen" there was a list of judgement summaries relating to several cases, including that of John PARRY.

The judgement read as follows:

 "Emanual COX v John PARRY ~ Mr Hodgens for the judgement creditor. Plaintiff said that he continually saw the defendant buying and selling cattle.  He had seen him with as many as 10 beasts at a time. Committed for 10 days."

[Looking back at my emails, it seems I did try to follow this up with the local archives at the time, to see if they held the records of the Abergavenny County Court, and whether there was any further information about the case. Unfortunately, I don't appear to have received any reply and don't seem to have tried chasing it up - yet another action to add to my 'todo' list!]  

I've been unable to recheck the judgement, or to check if there were any other reports of the case in the "Abergavenny Chronicle and Monmouthshire Advertiser", since copies of the newspaper for 1895 seem to be missing from the newspaper database, which is now on FindMyPast.

But, the important issue, from the point of view of this post, was that, from this case, I knew my great grandfather, John PARRY, had been in debt to Emanual COX.  

So, when I happened to spot another case involving a PARRY and COX, it obviously attracted my attention!  

In this other case, from 1893, a Richard PARRY was suing Emanual COX for the price of some cattle - which, it turned out, had been sold to Mr COX by my great grandfather, John PARRY, acting as an agent for the Richard PARRY!

I have found two newspaper reports relating to the case. Unfortunately, the first, in the Abergavenny Chronicle dated the 15th December 1893, is of poor quality so some of the words are unreadable. [It also doesn't seem to make sense in places!] 

However, I am transcribing below both that report, and the second, from the Monmouthshire Beacon, dated the 16 December 1893, because there are a few differences in the details, which might lead to the discovery of further information elsewhere.  [Since the case was a 'remitted action', there might also be earlier reports available, but I haven't yet been able to identify them.]

I have highlighted some of the additional information learnt through these reports.

REMITTED ACTION
Richard Parry v Emmanuel Cox. This was a claim for £30 for cattle sold, and the defendant pleaded a set-off as against John Parry, the agent of the plaintiff, who, it was alleged, did not disclose his principal.
Mr Corner (instructed by Messrs. Corner, of Hereford), for the plaintiff, and Mr Arthur Lewis (instructed by Mr Hodgens), for the defendant.
John Parry said he lived with his sister, at Walterstone. Until March or April, 1892, he sold cattle as agent for Mr Williams, of Crickhowell, but ceased to be employed by him about April 1892. A subscription was made by some dealers in the market with a view to giving him a start on his own account. He traded on that from April until July when he was in pecuniary difficulties.  He was then indebted to Emmanuel Cox for £31, which he still owed. He made his insolvency known and went to America. He returned in August or September. He saw Mr Cox, who asked him about paying him the money, and he told defendant that he had not got any money to pay with. He went on a cattle boat to America three times.  In April 1893, he was engaged by Mr Richard Parry, who was no relation to him. On the 15th April he attended the market at Abergavenny and helped the plaintiff to sell some cattle to the defendant. Two cattle were sold for [£18 10s?]  He saw the defendant two or three weeks after that in Hereford Market, and he asked witness whether he was along with Mr John Parry.  Witness told him that he was.  The witness detailed a number of other transactions with the defendant when he (defendant) paid him, and said nothing about stopping payment of the amount due to him.  On the 11th September he met the defendant at Monmouth and sold him cattle for £21 10s, and there was due £5 10s for a [heifer] sold to him before. The next day he met him in Abergavenny, and defendant said "..... about this £31 you owe me?  I owe you £30, if you will give me £1 we shall be square."  He said that as long as witness was working for Mr Parry he could owe it to Mr Parry instead of to him (the defendant) and could work it out.  Witness saw defendant on the following Wednesday and asked him for the money, when he said that he had put the matter in his solicitor's hands and his solicitor advised him not to pay. Witness told defendant that he did not believe that any honest solicitor would advise him to do such a thing as that. (Laughter.) I went with him to Mr Hodgens. Mr Hodgens asked me a lot of questions, and said that as we were old friends Cox did not want all his money at once, but would take £15 at a time.
By Mr Lewis: I got a commission from the plaintiff. He doesn't lend me money. I have not dealt on my own account since last April. He has lent me some money, but I have not spent it in the purchase of cattle. I may have said to Mr Hodgens "If you keep this money he won't let me have any more."  He divides the profits and lets me have money.  I bought some cattle for myself at Tymawr, in February, and Mr Richard Parry became responsible for the payment. I received cheques from defendant which were payable to Mr Parry. I endorsed some of them when they were payable to order.
Richard Parry said that he lived in Walterstone. In the month of April he employed the last witness to buy and sell cattle on commission.  He found the money and they divided the profits. He had helped the last witness to make deals with the defendant. On the 19th September he asked Cox for the money and he said there was a difference between him and John.
For the defence, Mr Philip Morgan said that he was at Monmouth on the 11th September and assisted in a deal between John Parry and the defendant. He heard John Parry distinctly say that he could not sell the cattle at the price offered by Cox for they cost him more money.
The evidence of the defendant was next taken, to the effect that the agent, John Parry, never disclosed that he was selling for the plaintiff. He made several payments of £22, £18 5s, £18 and £10 18s. He did not stop payment out of those sums because he was advised that stoppage was no payment, and he thought that difficulties might arise which would prevent dealing with John Parry.
Mr Hodgens gave evidence as to an interview he had with John Parry, when the latter stated that plaintiff let him have some money and they divided the profits. If they kept this money, plaintiff would not let him have any more, and he was not fit for any other business.

His Honour said that it was a case of considerable importance and interest. He could not get over the fact that the defendant had paid several sums of money without stopping the amount due from John Parry. He thought that upon the whole case the defendant either knew, or had reason to suspect, that John Parry was selling as agent, and judgement would go to the plaintiff.

[Abergavenny Chronicle, 15th December 1893]

Cattle Dealing. - Richard Parry sued Emmanual Cox for £31, the price of some cattle purchased by Cox of one John Parry, who although the same name as plaintiff was no relation of his, and had acted as his agent in the sale of the said cattle to Cox. Mr. Corner for the plaintiff and Mr. Lewis for the defendant. The case occupied a very long time in the hearing ; briefly the facts were as follows. 

John Parry was a man well-known in the markets as a dealers' agent, up to March 1892, when some of the dealers got up a subscription for him, and gave him £20, on which to start for himself. By the 15th July, John Parry found himself hopelessly in debt, and among  those to whom he was indebted was the defendant in this action, Emmanuel Cox to whom he owed £31. On the 16th July John Parry started for America, but returned in the following November, as  badly off as ever. On the 13th April 1893, he become agent to Mr. Richard Parry, the plaintiff in this action. He met defendant at Hereford market and told him he was now agent for Mr Richard Parry, same as he had formerly been for Mr.  Williams, of Crickhowell. On the 25th John Parry sold a couple of steers to defendant for £22, which Cox paid. On the 12th August he sold him two for £13, for which he paid. After that he sold some heifers for £18, and Cox when paying never spoke about stopping the money due to him from John Parry. In September John Parry sold some cattle to Cox for £30.  Cox told him the next time they met that if John Parry would give him £1, they would be quits.  John Parry said he could not do that as the cattle belonged to Mr. Richard Parry, and that he (John Parry), was only selling as agent. Cox refused to pay, hence this action.  Richard Parry deposed to John Parry being his agent, and in reply to the Judge, said he had been in the habit of giving John Parry £50 or £100, to go to market and fairs, and then divided the profits on the various transactions. The defendant said he did not know that Parry was agent, and the reason why he did not stop the money on their first transaction was that he thought it better to wait until the sum was nearer to that owing to him by John Parry. Judgment for plaintiff. 

[Monmouthshire Beacon, 16 December 1893]

There are a few pieces of information in these reports which seem to tell us something of the character of John PARRY.  He was well-known in the markets as a dealers' agent and, one would assume, must have been liked in order for some of the other dealers to have taken up a subscription on his behalf.  He also seems to have been trustworthy, if Richard PARRY was giving him £50-£100 to deal with, at a time when average weekly wages were often less than £2 per week.¹   The fact that John PARRY was  referred to as an 'old friend' of Mr COX, and that Mr COX seemed to want to continue dealing with him, perhaps also indicates a level of trust in the relationships.

As indicated above, the articles confirmed the family story that John PARRY went out to America - and, armed with the exact date, I was able to find an outward passenger list on Ancestry for 16 Jul 1892 that does indeed show a J Parry travelling from Liverpool to New York on the Gallia. Although that record just shows "A" for "Adult," rather than his age, the corresponding entry for a "John Parry, farmer", arriving in New York on the Gallia on 25 July 1892, indicates he was 26, which corresponds to his known birth in September 1865.

I haven't identified John's return to England - or the other journeys to America he supposedly made on cattle boats. But I have a similar issue regarding my grandfather, John's son, Donald, who went out to Canada in 1924 - I can find his outward passage but not his return and it has been suggested that, if he worked as crew, the entries might not be in the online databases.  

Other information, for example, that John was living in Walterstone with his sister, ties in with what is known about the family but also adds to it - in the 1891 census, John's widowed father, Thomas PARRY, was living in Walterstone, along with Elizabeth, John's sister, and Hannah, Thomas PARRY's mother.  I haven't identified an entry for John in that census but, in July 1893, his father, Thomas, remarried, so it would make sense that Elizabeth and John might have moved out before then, but still shared a property.

So, was John PARRY a poor businessman, to end up in such debt?  Or was he good at what he did, but the cattle dealing business just required a higher level of capital to fall back on? 

I will probably never know the answers to questions like that, but my (admittedly biased) view is that John PARRY was a 'good guy,' despite spending time on the wrong side of the law!   

Note 1: Tentative figures for average weekly wages taken from p70, "Wages in the United Kingdom in the nineteenth century," by Bowley, A. L. (Arthur Lyon), Sir, 1869-1957 available at https://archive.org/details/wagesinunitedkin00bowl/page/70/mode/2up