Arthur Battersby

135

C H on 27th March 2024

Old Bailey Online ARTHUR BATTERSBY. Sexual Offences; bigamy. 29th January 1838. Text type Trial account Defendants ARTHUR BATTERSBY Offences Sexual Offences > Bigamy Session Date 29th January 1838 Reference Number t18380129-514 Verdicts Guilty Punishments Transportation 514. ARTHUR BATTERSBY, alias Henry Napier Disney, was indicted, for that he, on the 15th of June, at Wellesbourne, in Warwick, did marry one Ann Muckleston, spinster; and that he, whilst he was to married, to wit, on the 14th day of August, 1837, at St. Martin-in-the. fields, feloniously did marry and take to wife one Sarah Ann Stovin, the said Ann, his former wife, being then alive; against the Statute, &c. MESSRS. CLARKSON and BODKIN conducted the Prosecution. REV. JOHN MUCKLESTON . I am a clergyman of the Church of England, and am the brother of Ann Muckleston. My sister became acquainted with the prisoner in the year 1826—my father was sub-chanter of Litchfield Cathedral—he and his family were then residing at Wellesbourne, in Warwickshire, but at the time the prisoner became acquainted with her, they were at Leamington—that acquaintance led to a marriage between the prisoner and my sister, which I performed at the church at Wellesbourne, in Warwickshire—the parties were the prisoner and my sister Ann—I have not been living from home lately—I last saw my sister about three or three and a half years ago—she was residing with my father just before the marriage—I was not part of the family—I was living in Litchfield—I saw my sister in London—it might be about four or five weeks after the marriage—I believe they were married on the 15th of June, 1826—I saw her again about a couple of months after the marriage—she has remained under my father's roof from that time—my father has not remained in the same place from that time till now—he has been from ill health travelling from place to place, and is now in Devonshire—my sister has lived under his roof, where he has been—if any body inquired at Wellesbourne there was no difficulty in finding if she were alive—her family were perfectly well known—in consequence of circumstances after this marriage, a divorce was obtained at the instance of the family, a mensa et toro, and we lost sight of the prisoner from that time to this—we had no certain intelligence of him since two or three months after the marriage—my sister returned home very ill. Cross-examined by MR. DOANE. Q. Had you known the prisoner much before the marriage? A. Very little—I was resident elsewhere—I had seen him before, but only for a short time—I came to perform the ceremony—he had been known to my father and sister for perhaps three months—this marriage took place at Wellesbourne Church, in Warwickshire—my father has been living in various parts of the country—he went to Bangor, where he was resident for three years subsequent to the marriage, and from thence to Tenby, in South Wales, and was there four or five years, and from thence to Teignmouth, where he is now resident—I cannot say what distance that is from Wellesbourne—perhaps it is 150 miles, he has been residing from 1826 at these three places—I have not seen my sister for three or three and a half years—my father was present at the ceremony also, two other sisters, and Mr. Grenville now, he was a Mr. Hughes then—the prisoner is the first husband my sister has had—he was married in the name of Battersby. MR. CLARKSON. Q. How old was your sister? A. Nineteen or twenty—my father has been in a bad state of health for twenty years—if any inquiry had been made for him in Wellesboume, in Warwickshire, there would not have been the least difficulty in ascertaining where he was—if any inquiry had been made of me by the prisoner or any one, I should certainly have told them—I was living at Litchfield, and have been ever since—the prisoner knew that I was there—I was sent for from there to marry them—that is forty miles from Wellesbourne—the prisoner never made any inquiries of me as to where my sister was. THOMAS MOSS . I am in the service of the Rev. D. Muckleston. I have lived with him sixteen years—I was present at his daughter's marriage with the prisoner—I went to church with her—they left Wellesboume for London that day—I think the young lady returned in six or seven weeks—I went to London for her—she was in John-street, Pentonville—the prisoner was not with her—I saw Mrs. Battersby on the 1st of this month, the was then alive. Cross-examined. Q. Did you see her in town? A. No, at Teignmouth, in Devonshire—she has been residing with her father ever since, except a few weeks, when she was on a visit. COURT. Q. Supposing letters had been sent to Wellesboume, would they have been forwarded to you? A. Yes, they were always sent—we left word at the Post Office, and they always Were forwarded. JOHN CHARLES STOVIN . I am brother of the young lady who was married to the prisoner—her name was Sarah Ann Stovin—I procured a copy of a register of a marriage in the parish of Wellesbourne—I examined it with the register—(this is it)—I also procured copies of the certificates of the marriage of my sister—(these are them)—I examined them with the several registers, and ascertained that they were true copies. Cross-examined. Q. How did you examine this certificate? A. By the church books—it was first copied by the clerk, and signed—I did not see it copied—I tested it by the books—I read in the original register of marriages in that church, and examined this with the book to see that it was correct—no one read it over to me—I compared them line by line—the clerk produced the register—I believe he had copied it out—the curate gave me the book—I examined every line of this with the register—it is correct—(the following certificate were here put in and read)—"Wellesbourne Church, 15th June, 1826, Arthur Battersby and Ann Mucklestone, both of that parish, married by licence."—"St. Michael's Chapel, in the parish of St. Martin-in-the-fields, 14th August, 1837, Henry Napier Disney and Mary Ann Stovin, both of full age, married by licence."—" Paddington Church, Middlesex, Nov. 18, 1837, Henry Napier Disney, batchelor, and Sarah Ann Stovin, spinster." MR. CLARKSON. Q. Did you think it necessary to call on the prisoner on the 16th of August last? A. Yes—he was lodging then in the Strand—I had some conversation with him about his views—he did not say one word to me of his having married my sister—I am sure this was after the 14th of August—I met him in the street about a month ago, I then gave him in charge of the officer—he had quitted my sister some time—I believe it was on the 29th of November—I have taken my sister under my protection—the least mention of the subject has been bakery to throw her into fits which she has been very subject to ever since the occurrence—she is not in a fit state to be brought into Court or give evidence on this subject—I have been obliged to call in a person used to the care of insane people, recommended by Dr. Monro—that was done under the advice of the medical men who have attended her. Cross-examined. Q. When you first met the prisoner you were not then aware he had married your sister? A. No; I was not—I was aware of it, I believe, two days afterwards—I believe I did call on him after I knew he was the husband of my sister—I certainly did call on him frequently—that was at the house of a Mrs. Lewis, who lives at No, 51, Manchester-street, Manchester-square—they were there perhaps three weeks—they afterwards removed to a cottage in Dudley-grove—I visited them there—I saw Mrs. Lewis there once or twice—I have most likely conversed with her about the prisoner—I of course have spoken to her on that subject as well as others—I was at that time on terms with the prisoner—upon my oath, I did not know at that time he had a wife living—I once taxed him with a report which I heard, but it was afterwards flatly contradicted, and I gave no farther credence to it—that was before my sister went to reside in Manchester-street—my sister resided is Charles-street, but the prisoner never resided there—my sister was a ward in Chancery, and did not wish to have the marriage known till the became of age—she became of age before they were married the second time, and then they lived together in Dudley-grove—I know my sister's handwriting, I believe this is her writing—(looking at a paper)—I cannot twear to it. MR. BODKIN. Q. At the time you taxed him with the rumour about his former wife, what answer did he make? A. He flatly denied having tham another wife living. EMILY DRUMMOND . I was present at the marriage of Miss Stovin to the prisoner at the Chapel of Ease, in Berney-street, on the 14th of August—the prisoner is the person who was married to her. ABRAHAM NEWLAND . I have been acquainted with the prisoner for some years—he began to call himself Disney about nine years since—he was doing nothing at that time in town, and I lost sight of him for many years—I never knew him in the army—in July, 1835, I happened to meet him in London, near Hungerford-market—I think he went by the name of Disney then—I met him again in 1836—I saw him on two or three days; on one occasion he alluded to his wife's family—he merely said that some member of his wife's family was residing in the country, at a place he mentioned—I think it was Litchfield—he did not mention his wife's name—it was the conversation of a moment—he did not ask what I thought of any thing he was about to do—he was over here I understand on leave of absence—he spoke of returning to Spain, and making purchases for officers who were there—he said at the conversation before, that it was probable he would go to Litchfield, or the place he mentioned, where some member or branch of his wife's family resided—he said he was very much attached to Miss Stovin, and he should be very sorry that any allusion should be made to the previous circumstances, to his previous marriage—this was after the marriage—he said her property was not as large as the papers represented it by any means. Cross-examined by MR. PHILLIPS. Q. Were you before the Magistrate? A. No, I was subpoenaed last night—I was in Whitecross-street prison—I asked the prisoner for money when I became acquainted, through the means of the papers, that he was about to be married—I sent to him to try if he would relieve me from my difficulties—I did not name any amount, I asked him to relieve me from my difficulty—that would be getting out of prison—I was in there for 120l. or 150l.—I mentioned the amount to him, but never demanded any sum from him—I sent a person to ask a loan—I do not recollect that I named any amount—I said a mm of money, 600l. or 700l.—I never named any sum to him myself—I did not solicit any myself—I do not recollect asking him for more than that—my messenger was a person of the name of Becker, of Vine-cottage, Charlton-place, New-road—I did not name any sum—I said he ought to give me 600l. or 700l., on account of my knowing all the circumstances of the case—I did not send any message by Becker—he knew all the circumstances before—we talked them over, and we then said that I was labouring under very great difficulties, and very much distressed; and I said to Becker, if he went there he might get some money, that would relieve me and assist him—I had no claim upon the prisoner. Q. Was not this conveyed to him, that if he did not come down handsomely, you would turn round upon him? A. No, that was not sent—it was said that we knew the circumstances of the case, and he had better give 600l. or 700l.—we did not get the money, and I am here as a witness, but the business had become known to the prisoner's friends before I said any thing—the thing could not have been known except through me or the prisoner—I expected he would have given me 600l. or 700l—I founded that on his fear that I would come against him—if I had got this money, I should have been silent on the subject—I gave no information all the family knew it—Mr. Becker brought Mr. Stovin to me after the prisoner refused the money—I did not know that Becker was going to Stovin's—he met Mr. Stovin accidentally—when Becker told me that the prisoner would not give 600l. or 700l., I said, perhaps he would give something less—I said if he will give enough to release me from prison—from 120J. to 150/.—I did not say "We will come down a little lower"—I did not say, "D—the fellow, we will appear against him"—I said we would not do any thing, we would be silent—I would have been silent under all circumstances. Q. How much was Becker to have had of the spoil? A. He was to have had a portion according to what we got—if 150l. was got, he was to have had half, but if 700l. was got, he was not to have 350l.—we were to share the money, but he was not to have half of the large sum—I do not recollect what he was to have of that—I remember an advertisement which I drew up—it is lost—it was an advertisement drawn up for the purpose of showing to Disney, that we might get the money—it was relating to his former marriage—it was an advertisement which I and Becker threatened to put into the paper, exposing the former marriage of Disney, and I told Becker to threaten him with it, but I told him never to do it—I did not intend to do it—I would not have done it—I would not have injured him to that extent. Q. How much was the money, or the acceptance you demanded of him, for the purpose of keeping that back? A. 600l. or 700l. was the most I ever asked of him—I know there was an acceptance spoken of—the former I forget, but the latter was 150l.—I do not recollect the amount of the acceptance I first demanded—to the best of my recollection it was not 1000l—I will not swear it was not mentioned, but I do not recollect it—I mentioned 3000l. to Becker, but I never intended that he should ask that. Q. If he had got the 25, 000l. as mentioned in the papers, you would have had no objection to have fleeced him of 3000l.? A. I certainly would have asked him for it—Mr. Becker was in prison—I met him there—he was there before I went—he is not there now—we were in the same ward—I had not known him before—I saw him this morning, and we had some conversation, but not in reference to my evidence, nor on reference to any message, but on the subject of the trial. MR. BODKIN. Q. At the time you were carrying on this sort of attempt, were you aware that the man's first wife was alive? A. I did not know that she was alive—I supposed she might be alive—I have been an acquaintance of the prisoner's for some years—I did not know Mr. Stovin, nor any of his family, before this circumstance. (General de Lacy Evans, M.P., gave the prisoner a good character.) GUILTY —Aged 30. Transported for Seven Years.

94

Dennis Nightingale on 19th April 2015

Born - Dublin City Ireland. Married. CF issued 45/138.