Se: Ättlingar | Noteringar
William Compton, född [in (year)] 1745, Bere Regis, Dorset, död den 25 oktober 1805, Bere Regis, Dorset (livslängd: 60 år).
[Notering 1]
Gift den 14 maj 1770 med
Jenny Satchell, född [in (year)] 1754, Bere Regis?, Dorset, död den 22 december 1776, Bere Regis, Dorset (livslängd: 22 år) [Notering 1-1]
... barn
... barn
... barn
... barn
... barn
... barn
... barn
... barn
Totalt: 44 personer (exklusive makar).
| [J S - 79yr. Will of John Scutt of Preston, Dorset - 1837, Feb 20 - Prob:11/1873.] [Salisbury & Winchester Journal, Wiltshire Mon 06 Feb 1837. Died, Jan 30, at Sutton Pointz, Dorset, Mr. Scutt, sen.] [1837 Jan 23 also noted.] |
| [Salisbury and Winchester Journal, Monday 15 March 1824. Wednesday was married, at Martins-town, by the Rev. W. R. Churchill, Mr. Wm. Scutt, of Moreton, to Mary Anne, eldest daughter of Mr. Homer, the former place.] [Sherborne Mercury, Monday 11 January 1836. John White, charged on oath with feloniously stealing a quantity of hay, on the 25th day December last, the parish of Hilton, the property of William Scutt - Acquitted.] [Sherborne Mercury, Monday 06 June 1842. To Henry Ker Seymour Esq., High Sheriff for the County of Dorset. Mr, WE, the under signed, Freeholders and Others, habitants like County of Dorset, request you call a Meeting of the Inhabitants of this County, on such early day may suit your convenience to join in an Address of Congratulation to her Majesty on her escape from the late diabolical attempt on her life, to express our extreme grief and horror that any person should he found within these realms capable of committing wicked and traitorous an act against Her Royal person - William Scutt.] [Salisbury and Winchester Journal Sat 26 Jan 1856 Dorsetshire. Dorchester - We regret to announce an accident which occurred on Saturday last Mr. William Scutt, of Bere Regis, who was thrown out of his gig, and had his thigh broken. It appears that the tire the wheel became loose and frightened the horse, when, unfortunately the reigns broke and running against the bank, the gig was upset. The accident occurred near to Mr. Scutt's house, to which he was immediately conveyed, and we are sorry to say he is still in a very precarious state.] [W S - 77yr.] |
| [Salisbury and Winchester Journal, Monday 15 March 1824. Wednesday was married, at Martins-town, by the Rev. W. R. Churchill, Mr. Wm. Scutt, of Moreton, to Mary Anne, eldest daughter of Mr. Homer, the former place.] [M A S - 82yr.] |
| [Hampshire Advertiser, Saturday 19 February 1876, On the 5th instant, at Bournemouth, William Scutt, Esq., aged 49.] [W S - unmarried.] |
| [Wareham. The case of Egginton v. Scutt, submitted to arbitration, was fully gone into at the Town Hall, on Friday and Saturday, before an arbitrator. The plaintiff in this case is Mrs. Sarah Charlotte Elizabeth Egginton, wife of Mr. John Lloyd Egginton, of Cirencester, and the defendant is John Thomas Homer Scutt, corn and seed merchant of Blandford, and who until recently carried on business as a farmer at Bere Regis. Plaintiff's claim was for balance of half-year's rent due at Michaelmas 1883 £119 12s 3d; damages for alleged overcropping and bad farming £597 10s; for loss of manure of corn crops £114 10s: for selling off the produce of three acres of clover cut twice £26; for leaving 104 acres foul £150; for 44 acres left to grass, foul £44; neglecting to repair buildings, gates, fences, &c, £10; total claim £1,067 12s 3d. Against this the defendant had entered a counter claim (in which he denied owing the balance of £119 12s 3d) as follows: For money paid for seed sown, as agreed £41 6s 3d; valuation of tillages, labour, Ac, thereon, as agreed £62 13s 5d; sowing down permanent pasture £15; straw and vetch haulm left on the premises £35 3s 6d; total £157 3s. 2d. Defendant also denied the charge of bad farming. The action, which was brought in June 1884, came on for hearing at the last assizes at Dorchester, and was then referred by the learned Judge, by the consent of the parties, to the arbitration of Mr.W.W. Ravenhill, barrister-at-law, before whom the case was commenced on Friday. Mr. Bullen (instructed by Messrs. T. White & Son of London) was for the plaintiff, and Mr. C. W. Mathews (instructed by Mr. Brennand of Blandford) was counsel for the defendant. Mr. Bullen said it was agreed when the case was at Dorchester that the question of custom should not be gone into, and the question before the arbitrator that day was whether the defendant had cultivated the land reasonably and properly, according to the laws of good husbandry, and if he had not, to what damage was the plaintiff entitled. Mr. Mathews said he did not dispute that, but he would like to call the attention of the arbitrator to the fact that at Dorchester the plaintiff abandoned the heads of claim numbered from three to seven, and since the foundation of all that arose out of defendant's alleged departure from farming according to the custom of the country, he should submit with regard to those heads of claim that they were not open at that hearing. He submitted that under the terms of reference the plaintiff in effect abandoned the claims under those several heads, and the heads of claim left open for consideration were the Ist, 2nd, and 8th paragraphs of the statement of claim, in regard to which none arose from the question of custom. Mr. Bullen said the only thing withdrawn was as to whether or not there existed such a custom. They did not abandon the contention as to whether defendant farmed according to the custom or not. The arbitrator said if the case was stopped, the parties would be put to considerable more expense. If there was any doubtful submission, he would take the evidence and separate the particular headings in his finding, and decide whether right or wrong. He would take notice of the objection. Mr. Bullen, continuing, paid there was, as far as he knew, no question as to title or as to terms of tenancy. Defendant had for years held various parcels of land under the plaintiff, and there was an agreement of the 22nd June 1864, in which the defendant agreed "to farm and manage all the premises in good order and good condition." The first item of the claim was for balance of rent. Mr. Mathews: The amount of rent is disputed. Mr. Bullen said he understood the defendant claimed some reduction, but he should prove that the reduction made by the plaintiff owing to bad times had been for specific times. So far as the other parts of the claim went, they referred entirely to damage arising from bad farming, or acts performed in contravention to good farming. This would be proved by gentlemen who were experts in the matter, who would, he believed, satisfy the arbitrator that the claim was a fair one, and only what a landlady had a right to expect, if entitled to damages. He then called Mr. William Trinder of Cirencester, who said he had been agent for the plaintiff for the Dorset estate since 1881. The defendant rented 452a, 2r. 10p., at £755 for the whole, plus the tithes. In December 1881, witness, by plaintiff's instructions, made a reduction in the rent of £120 for the year; and in November 1882, a further reduction on the half-year of £60. Defendant was informed of this abatement at the audit in June 1883. In the following December, defendant paid him £290 on account, being allowed £1 3s for repairs, and £5 14s 9d for small bills, leaving a balance due of £119 12s 3d to the plaintiff. Defendant at that time asked for a further sum for grass seeds, and refused to go to a reference generally. He also claimed £60 abatement of rent, which witness said he had no instructions to allow. Defendant had given notice that he should quit the farm at Michaelmas 1883. In October 1883, defendant had a sale on the farm of hay and straw, the sale being announced of a quantity of good old clover hay and barley and oat straw. Defendant remained after Michaelmas for the purpose of consuming the hay and straw. Witness could not let the farm till last Michaelmas, except about 140 acres. He had had to repair gates and fences since. Cross-examined by Mr. Mathews: Witness succeeded Mr. Rodwell, who was plaintiff's agent for 25 years. He had no previous experience of Dorset land, but went over the estate two or three times a year since 1881. Mr. Rodwell was not present as a witness. Did not know to what sum the land was assessed. The abatements down to that day had been allowed to all the tenants. In a letter in December 1882, the defendant intimated his intention of quitting the next Michaelmas. A reply to that letter admitted £15 of defendant's counter-claim for sowing to pasture a piece of land. Mr. Bullen said that as to defendant's counter-claim the item of £41 6s 3d was admitted, and the three items of £62 13s 5d, £15 and £33 5s 6d were admitted to be subject to valuation. Cross-examination continued: Defendant wanted his rental reduced, to which plaintiff refused to accede, and defendant said he must give up the farm unless he was granted a permanent reduction of 20 per cent, on the rent. Defendant wrote on 18th October 1883, giving particulars of his claims. From November 1882, to October 1883, witness made no complaint, and plaintiff's claim was first made in December 1883, after the defendant's. Westfield. of 139 acres, was let to Mr. Little, in October 1883 at £175. Had no recollection of defendant offering £450 rent for the remainder of the land with the buildings after that. In February 1884, a valuer was sent to look over the land. The grass of the land was sold in 1884 for £100 to a Mr. Cobb. Mr. Homer's tender to cultivate the land was not accepted, but terms were come to with Mr. Edison of Dorchester. Plaintiff had another large farm in the neighbourhood on hand. Mr. James Rawlence of the firm of Rawlence & Squarey, land agents of Salisbury, said he went on the land on 26th February 1884, and found some of the land very foul. Some portions were cross-cropped and some over-cropped. There was no manure or a very small portion on the farm. The straw and hay he understood had been sold and carried off the farm, and he saw no means how it was to be kept in cultivation. In 1882 266 acres were cropped to corn, pulse, and seeds; in 1883 229 acres were cropped to the same; the quantity over cropped being 199 acres. He reckoned £407 10s damages for this, at the rate of 50s an acre. For the hay and straw being sold off and leaving no manure £114 10s; two crops of hay sold off clover, 13 acres £20; extra foulness of 104 acres of land £156; foul state of 44 acres sown to grass in 1883 £44; half cost of labour for repairs, &c, £10: total £948. Cross-examined: He did not go over the farm buildings, and did not go into the yard, but saw a small quantity of manure there. Had made his calculations as to excessive over-cropping on the custom of the country. He went by good and bad farming. He did not know that the "three- field" system prevailed in that neighbourhood. He was on the land nearly the whole day. He made allowance for growth of couch in the intervening months after the mild winter, but he took it there was little appreciable difference. He constantly found the foulness of land a dispute between the out-going tenant and the landlord, and in his experience it was frequently a subject of claim. Taking the time which had intervened and all the circumstances into consideration the farm, in his opinion, was left in a worse condition than farms generally were. In further examination the witness got rather muddled as to the amount of foul land, and in one set of three fields of 47 acres the whole put the foul land at 48 acres! He believed he went over each of these three fields. He adhered to his figures that 104 acres of the total of 125 he visited were foul. He had heard that all this land had formerly consisted of common fields. Reexamined: £2,800 might be a large or small sum to spend on land for four years, according to what was taken out of it. James Davis, estate carpenter to Mrs. Eggington, said that he went over the farm with the last witness. In the following May (1884) he went over it again with Mr. Symonds, pointing out the various fields and giving information with another man named Bullock. In his opinion a good deal of the land was foul. He remembered seeing some stacks of barley and oat straw formerly on the farm which were sold. This witness was not cross-examined. Mr. Daniel Symonds, land agent and surveyor of Dorchester, said he went over the land in question on the 26th May, 1884. Some portions were very bad and some very passible. He calculated the damage to the landlord as follows: According to the information received of the cropping in 1882 and 1883, the total acreage of arable was 295 acres, out of which 266 had been sown to corn and pulse, and in 1883 329; and he considered this 199 acres more than ought to be so cultivated, and put the damage at £497 10s. In 1883 there were 40 acres sowed to trifolium and vetches, which he considered ought to be sowed to turnips, damage £100; 229 acres, he took of corn had been grown on the farm in the last year, and straw sold and loss of manure, damage £114 10s ; 13 acres of clover land mowed twice and hay removed, damage £l per acre; land more than ordinarily foul, damage £156; of the land sown to seed, 44 acres were unclean, and he put the damage at £44; he put the half-cost of repairs to buildings, fences &c. £10.Cross-examined: He did not think a mild winter would affect the condition of the farm much, and the distance of time would not affect his opinion. He calculated on the on the four-field system, which prevailed there as far as he knew. He did not know that the three-field system prevailed at all in the neighbourhood. He did not know the system of quit as you enter. It might or might not exist. He supposed if there had been an incoming tenant, he would have begun cleaning the land, and witness would have seen it in a different state. Re-examined: He did not think the three-field system would be suitable for light land, to farm it profitably. This was the whole of the evidence adduced on the part of the plaintiff. Mr. Mathews then addressed the arbitrator on behalf of the defendant. The land in question had, he said, formerly been common fields, being enclosed about the years 1842 or 1843, from which time, and before, defendant had lived upon the land, formerly assisting his father, who held land under plaintiff's predecessor. In 1851, defendant became a tenant under the plaintiff, having a holding of 21 acres, which was increased from time to time until 1873, when Westfield was the last addition. Early history held it that Mr. Drax, formerly M.P. for Wareham, had whether for electioneering purposes or what he did not know let out this land to tenants of a class who could not afford to cultivate it, and consequently it became poverty stricken to a degree. Defendant had done everything he could to improve the condition of the land. The rental had always been extremely high, and up to taking Westfield defendant had paid £560 for land the gross estimated rental of which was £400, and gave an additional £195 for Westfield. Mr. Rodwell was for 25 years agent to the plaintiff and the land was under his constant supervision, but there was never anything in the nature of a complaint, nor was there from Mr. Trinder between 1881 and 1833. Under the general depression defendant found he could not go on paying such excessive rent, and as the reduction asked for was not acceded, a notice was given at Michaelmas, and three months after Mr. Scutt sent in a claim for materials spent and left on the land, there being then nothing at all against him in the nature of a complaint or claim. He would point out the pressure, or the inducement, held out to defendant to remain on if he would, whilst as a matter of fact the greater part of the present claim was in respect to the year 1882, and there had been no complaint as to selling off or of the general appearance of the land. Time and money were expended for the purpose of keeping the farm on, and the defendant after Westfield was let, offered £450 a year for the rest of the farm, and taking into consideration the reduction made, there would be only a loss of £25 a year to the present plaintiff. Here was proof of the conduct of a good husbandman, for defendant had every intention of keeping on the farm, and actually tendered to keep it on after the notice, and anything contrary to good husbandry would have been altogether opposed to his own interests. Nothing could speak stronger than this fact as to the good conduct and intentions of the defendant. Mr. Scutt left, yet no claim was made. There were surveyors on both sides, and there was appreciably no difference between the evidence of the two in the plaintiff's case. Mr. Rawlence had driven through a portion of the land, but his evidence wanted detail to give weight, detail to give weight, whilst Mr. Symonds's information, upon which his calculations were based, was not even derived first hand, and however skilfully those calculations were based, they were formed on shadowy material, and dealt with things in the rough rather than in detail. It came to a question of good or bad husbandry, and if he established the fact that there had been good husbandry the greater heads of the claims for damages would disappear. He should show that there had been no irregular system since the enclosure but good practice. Taking into consideration the foul state of the land when entered on, the high rental, and the expenditure on it, he thought the claim exceedingly unjust. If a tenant bad taken the farm when defendant went out they would have heard nothing of plaintiff's claim. What had been proved? He had heard no evidence of damage of any description to the plaintiff, only it had been estimated that from 1883 to 1885 the farm was untenanted. But a part of the farm, about 140 acres, was let within a fortnight of defendant's leaving at a good rent. Here was a practical test. During the defendant's tenancy, Mr. Homer steam-cultivated the land at 15s an acre, and after defendant had left he tendered to plaintiff's agent to do it at 12s an acre. He should prove that the alleged foulness of the land did not exist he didn't say that the surveyors visions were distorted by going on a certain side and he thought he should be able to prove that the selling off of hay and straw was done year after year, and was being done by other tenants of the plaintiff; and with regard to the matters made so much of, the landlady and her agents were cognisant of everything taking place on the farms, and he thought that the best record of good husbandry on the part of the defendant was the pressure brought to bear upon in seeking to induce him to remain upon the farm which he had done so much to improve. The learned counsel then called the defendant. Mr. John Thomas Homer Scutt said he was a corn and seed merchant at Blandford, and up to 1853 carried on farming at Bere Regis, where he helped his father in farming before 1851, when he took land himself, holding it under Mr. Drax. There was no system pursued, except three crops in succession. Witness went on increasing his holding until 1873, when he took Westfield, in which year it was twice, cultivated and cleaned, it being in a very bad condition. He paid £80 13s 6d valuation for Westfield, and on going out £121. He spent a large amount, about £2,838, in corn, cake, and manure, on the farm between 1879 and 1883. There was nothing the matter with the land when he left, provided it had been taken on when he went out. He offered Mr. Trinder £450 a year for the rest of the land after Westfield was left. He kept down as much land as he could to grass, and the last two years he had good crops of corn. There was a quantity of turnips and grass in Westfield. He had never taken more than two straw crops in succession. He growed in 1883, 49 acres of wheat, 80 of oats, and 134 of barley and the remaining third was pulse crops, turnips, and grass. This was not overcropping, considering the quantity of land he had down to grass, his number of stock, and the money it cost him. He remained on the farm to thresh his corn and he was then consuming straw. He left 25th March. He had sold off the straw and hay for 30 years, and in his opinion had a right to do so. When he went over the land with Mr. Rawlence the foulness had increased, but there was not the quantity foul as stated. Mr. Rawlence was on the farm no more than one hour and a half. Besides the manure seen by Mr. Rawlence there was a quantity in three other yards. Witness paid £580 rent before he took Westfield. In 1883 he sowed to white straw crops 115 acres. He did offer Mr. Tremmer to accept a reference, except wlth regard to the dilapidations. As other witnesses could not attend on the following day, their evidence was now taken, the cross-examination of the defendant standing over. Mr. George Wood Homer, of Athelhampton Hall, next gave evidence. He occupied several farms. He knew both of the four and three-field systems being applied to such land, and no roots came into the system of three-field. The tenant would be justified in selling hay if no agreement existed to the contrary, and if he was spending a deal of money on the land it would be good farming to sell. He should think with Mr. Scutt's considerable expenditure he would be quite justified in taking two-thirds to white straw crops, and in selling off straw and hay. He knew the land. If there was convenience in buildings, a large quantity of straw might profitably be consumed on a farm. The time from defendant's leaving would make an enormous difference, especially on light land. The land ought to be cleaned in the autumn following a corncrop. In a mild winter the couch would spread very rapidly. If a man found stubble he could leave stubble, and he considered with regard to foul land that, in the absence of agreement, on the four-field system, a man would leave one-fourth foul. He considered that on payment of such a rent a man ought to be allowed to farm as he liked. (Laughter.) He tendered in June 1884, to cultivate the land for 12s. an acre. He had 12s an acre. He had never seen a farm given up all clean and he had never known a claim paid for leaving land in a foul condition. Cross-examined: His tender at 12s was to cultivate twice in a place. If a man was under an agreement to consume the hay and straw, of course he was bound to do it. Mr. Thomas Alner Homer, retired farmer, said he had had great experience in farming. He knew Mr. Scutt's farm; it was always a "couchy" country. It had always been under a three-field system, and that had been good husbandry. He farmed in Bere Regis five years, and sold off straw and hay which he did not want to consume, which was done generally. He farmed in Westfield himself. Mr. Charles Besent, farmer, of Bere Regis, and well acquainted with the parish, said he knew the lands prior to their enclosure. The system of cultivation since its enclosure had not been a very particular one, but he understood that the tenants did pretty much as they liked so as to farm well and pay their rent. There had been great difficulty in the last few seasons in keeping land clean. He had known two straw crops taken succession; had done it himself, and was a tenant of Mrs. Egginton. He should expect about a fourth to be in a foul condition on a farm like Mr. Scutt's. He believed the latter's farming to be good. He had no hesitation in saying the greater part of the land was in a better; condition when Mr. Scutt left it than when he took. Cross-examined: His was arable land. He should not, he thought, himself sell off the straw of two successive crops. He held some land under lease which he cultivated on the four-field system. He sometimes sowed barley after wheat. The case was then adjourned till the following morning. The arbitration was resumed at half-past nine on Saturday morning. The first witness called was Mr. H. C. Galton, overseer of Bere Regis, to produce the rate book. Mr. Bullen objected to the assessment being put in, as he contended it was not evidence on the issue! He further objected on the ground that the rate was no evidence of the value of property as between landlord and tenant. The arbitrator noted the objection. Mr. Henry C. Galton produced the rate books for 1883 and 1884, the valuation of which was made in May 1882. The gross estimated rental of the 454a. 3r. 27p. of land held by Mr. Scutt was £498 13s 7d, and the rateable value £145 19s 10d. The extent of the Mill land was 33 perches, gross estimated rental £70, and rateable value £56. On the rate of 9th Oct., 1883, 139a. 3r. 2p. were transferred to Mr. Little's name, leaving 315 a. 25p., the gross estimated rental of which was £358 13s 7d, and the rateable value £312 19s 10d. The defendant was then cross-examined by Mr. Bullen on his previous day's evidence. Witness said he had been a corn and seed merchant about 30 years. He seeded down vetches on the farm, and did not consider this an exhausting exhausting crop. His father held about 48 acres of Eastfield before he did. Witness took this on in 1872 or thereabout. Did not remember what vetches he had in 1881. He might have had 260 acres sown to corn in 1883, in which year he should think he had about one-third not to corn. Under the four-field system he would have had about one half in corn each year._ He did not "sweat" the land to its uttermost during the last two years of his tenancy. He thought of leaving about five or six years before, but did not then pursue the same course, but might have grown more corn. He did not know of the agreement of 1864 nor was it read to him. He had a right as a good husbandman to take two successive straw crops. He remembered his father s handwriting, and swore it was not his signature in the book produced. William Scutt, of Filliele, was not related to witness's father. Witness sold some of the hay and straw. It might have realised £287 10s 6d but he didn't remember. This would be for the whole farm. Mr Besant bought a rick for £20, and Mr. Tozer one for £15. He should think he had about 200 head of stock in 1883 Between Sept 1883, and March 1884, he had on the farm whilst staying on there, six horses, four cows, and some pigs. He spent on the land in 1882 about £450, and close on £500 in 1883, not including seed. The manure in his yards had been made since Michaelmas. During the last year he might have been taking a little more straw than if he had been going to stay on. Mr. Rawlence was not on the farm from 12 to 3.30. Re-examined: In 1880 he had no wheat and very little lentils. In 1881 he had less than the proper proportion. He had never before finally determined to give up the farm. It was not fair to say he exhausted the land because he was leaving, as he only knew he was going in September 1883. He consumed all the hay and straw he could on the farm, but there was very little pasture, and no building accommodation for stock. By the Arbitrator: He should say that tares and vetches would not exhaust the land more than half of what white straw crops would, and he should say the same of pease. Mr. William Jesty, farming at Bere, said the defendant's land was cultivated very highly. Cross-examined: Mr. Scutt always made a difference in crops every year. He believed he sowed more trifolium, vetches, and pease, in the last two years or so than before. Re-examined: The land was well fed, and he should think no improper quantity of anything was grown. By the Arbitrator: As between man and man he shouldn't think Mr. Scut ought to pay anything for over-cropping. He should not have expected as the land was well fed, and he could have made the land pay if taken after harvest. He should not have expected compensation if the rent was reasonable, say £1 an acre, and should at that rent have expected nothing for overcropping or cleaning. Mr. Henry Tozer, a tenant of Mrs. Ergington's, farming at Bere, said defendant's land adjoined his. He thought it had been in a good state of cultivation on the whole, but had varied, but to no greater extent than other farms. He thought the taking of two straw crops quite proper. Cross-examined; It had been his habit to cultivate as soon as possible after harvest. He took his farm in 1874. and only found a rick of meadow hay on it. Mr. Henry Richards, appraiser and farmer, of Chilbridge Farm, Wimborne, gave evidence as to making a valuation on all the land, except that let to Mr. Little at Michaelmas 1883. He then valued the tillages at £62 15s 5d. £15 was in his opinion, a reasonable charge for sowing down 10 acres to best pasture. Mr. Bullen said he would accept Mr. Richards's valuation as to the tillages and pasture. Witness continuing, said he knew Mr. Scutt's farm well, and thought Mr. Scutt was about the best farmer in Bere Regis. It was his own practice to take two straw crops in succession after two seasons of different treatment. It was scarcely fair to form an opinion of land as left after five months neglect, but a practised man would be able to judge in a measure. He saw the crops growing on Mr. Scutt's land and on the land adjoining, and Scutt's were superior. There was no common system formerly adopted with regard to the lands. In the absence of a contract to the contrary, he thought a tenant had the right to do as he liked with the straw aud hay. Land must be very foul to cost 30s an acre for cleansing. The rent paid by Mr. Scutt was stiff. He was surprised to hear Mr. Scutt's offer of £450 was rejected. Cross-examined: He himself consumed his hay and straw on his farms and spent £1,000 a year on feeding. He had had more couch within the last two years than for the last 30. He as a rule, cultivated directly after harvest. He had noticed no falling off in Mr. Scntt's land within the last two years. By the Arbitrator: Defendant would be justified in selling straw and hay he couldn't consume, unless restricted by lease or agreement, especially considering defendant had to recoup himself for a bad entry. Mr. George Edward Richards, valuer and auctioneer, gave evidence as to having valued the vetches, haulm, and straw, left on the farm at £35. He agreed with his father's evidence. Couch grew very rapidly between the time of harvest and the spring. He should consider it no contravention of good farming on a farm like this to sell hay and straw where the defendant entered it bare, and there was no specific agreement to the contrary. Mr. John Homer Scutt, son of the defendant, proved keeping the books, and extracted the amount expended on the farm between 1879 and 1881 to be £2,831. In 1878, £600 was spent. A good quantity of swedes were grown on the farm. Mr. Alfred Scutt, another son of the defendant, proved extracting items from the accounts for the valuation. In his opinion the land had been properly cultivated by his by his father. Mr. Samuel Cobb, farmer of Bere Regis, said he had been a tenant of Mrs. Eggington's for about 40 years. In his opinion Mr. Scutt's cultivation of the land had been very good, as no-one in the neighbourhood grew better crops. Ho bought some grass on the farm in 1884 for £100, and it was good. He offered £95 this year for the hay off it, which was not accepted. There was nothing wrong, farming as defendant farmed, in taking two straw crops. The hay and straw were sold off in the neighbourhood. Crossexamined: The hay he bought for £100, came off 29 acre and included the after feed. Mr. Walter White, farmer, Burton, Wool, and formerly a tenant of Mrs. Eggington, said it was generally recognised as good husbandry, after taking nothing from the land for two years, to take two straw crops in snccession. It was general to sell the hay and straw off the land. Crossexamined: The spring of 1879 was a very bad one for cleaning land. Charles Standfield, shepherd, formerly in the employ of the defendant, said that a great deal of the land was in a foul condition when defendant entered it. Nothing was very wrong in it when defendant left. The peas were horse feed twice, and this could not be done with very foul land. A fair average number of sheep was kept. In 1883 there were about 40 acres of swedes, and before that there had been more roots. The land was left in fair condition. Cross-examined: In 1883 there were about 200 fat sheep and about 150 lambs on the farm. Mr. Charles Bascombe, farmer and tenant of the plaintiff at Bere Regis, agreed with the evidence of the farmers who had preceded him as to the straw crops and selling off. John Barnes, labourer, long in the employ of Mr. Scutt, spoke as to the land being well cultivated, and in much the same way as other farmers in the neighbourhood. There was a heavy crop of trefolium in 1883, and the crops produced were better than those around. The land was left better than it was entered on. Cross-examined: All the crops in the last year were good, except the peas which were blighted. John Barlow, in the employ of Mr. Eddison, steam engine proprietor, of Dorchester, gave evidence as to going on the farm in March and April 1883, and cultivating, The land was in good working order and there was no trouble in getting the engine through it. The condition of Mr. Scutt's farm was "not much worse than some of them." (Laughter.) Some of it was a little dirty, but there was no unusual proportion of foulness. This concluded the evidence for the defence. The Arbitrator then asked Mr. Rawlence and Mr. Richards what they thought was the proper proportion of stock which should have been kept on a farm like this. Mr. Rawlence said, in his opinion, there should be about 500 breeding ewes with lambs; it was not a place to keep more than three or four cows; and he should think that from 10 to 20 young beasts should be kept during the winter to consume the straw; there ought to be a pair of horses for 60 acres; and four or five breedings sows with young pigs. Mr. Mathews said that Mr. Scutt had kept 16 horses on the farm. Mr. Richards agreed with Mr. Rawlence's estimate, but said that with regard to the beasts a question for consideration was as to the accommodation afforded for stock in the winter. This concluded the case.] [J T H S - 59yr.] |
| L A S - 80yr., lived at Llantrissant, Broadstone, Dorset. To Walter Henry Scutt (son - corn merchant). |
| M A G - 72yr. |
| [H G - father:John Gile.][H G - 68yr.] |
| [Frances Ann, daughter of William & Mary Ann Scutt of Hilton.] [F A S - 21yr.] |
| [Census 1851-61-71-81 Dorset.] [E E S 65yr., spinster. To Walter Henry Scutt (corn merchant).] |
| [Western Gazette, Somerset, Friday 21 August 1868. County Petty Sessions, Saturday. Before H. Williams, Esq. (chairman,) R. O. F. Steward, E. Saunders, G. Warry, and W. L. Henning, Esqrs. A labourer named King was summoned by Mr. John Scutt, farmer, of Preston, for a breach of the Master and Servant Act. The master, it appeared, had dismissed defendant, who was a yearly servant, for not fulfilling his orders. The latter had offered his services every day since. The case was dismissed.] [R S - 80yr.] |
| 2 children by previous marriage. S S 66yr. |
| [11 Jun 1872 Robert Scutt junior of Sutton Poyntz to William Lucas, Miller of Bindon Mills, East Stoke D.1369/A/14/1/68.] [R S - 64yr. He was buried after the Coroner's Inquest.] |
| H S 81yr., bur 1935 Jul 22, lived at 1 Prospect Place, Upwey. To Robert Scutt [son] (naval pensioner). |
| J S infant. |
| [Salisbury and Winchester Journal, Wiltshire, Mon 02 Mar 1835. Married, Feb 23, at Preston Church, near Weymouth, by the Rev. Mr. Piers, Mr. John Scutt to Miss Caroline Cooper, niece of C. Gill, Esq., of Wyke Oliver Farm.] [Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper, London, Sunday 10 January 1847. Ref: Mr John Scutt the Guardian. The fate of the labourer. Evidence of Susan Galpin, daughter of the deceased miller, and sister of the deceased William Miller. Susan Galpin, of the parish of Preston-cum-Sutton states that she is a married woman, having three children. Her husband is a thatcher; sometimes he works for Mr. Wallis, at Preston, sometimes for his son Josiah, at Sutton; his earnings at day-work are eight shillings per week when upon the farms; thatching he does by piece-work; its done by the square, for which he used to get two shillings and sixpence, but sixpence is now taken off; thinks by working hard that her husband could get two shillings per day in fine weather. Out of his wages he has to pay one shilling per week for house rent; nothing is allowed to them, except at the fall of the year, when they get a hundred faggots, which they pay two shillings for cutting. Her father, mother, and brother lived with them, who paid nothing for house-rent. Her father was sixty-seven years of age when he died. He worked for Mr. Wallis forty or fifty years as a carter; latterly he has been unable to follow that occupation, and was employed doing odd jobs, at bird-keeping, for which he received six-pence a day. When he was ill at home he received nothing from the farm, but for the support of himself and his wife he received one shilling and sixpence and a loaf from the parish. Her father kept off birds until within a week of his death; he had had bad breath for some years; was sometimes better, sometimes worse. He was taken ill with influenza on Thursday the 17th, he continued to get worse every day. The union doctor came to the parish to see other people, and she left word for him at a neighbour's to come to see her father and brother, who were both lying ill at the same time. He (the doctor) came; he did not say much to her father, hardly anything; he did not say that he would send him any medicine, nor did he do so; her father had nothing from the doctor at all. He came the second time to see her brother, and left as before, without ordering her father anything. Her father had nothing to eat or to nourish him but dry bread, and sometimes a little tea, without milk or sugar. After two or three days he could not relish even the bread, it was so dry and stale. Her father had often expressed a wish that he could have some of the broth that had been sent for her brother, which he did get a little of. The day before her brother died, young Mr. Wallis came to see them, as he had heard that her brother (who had died two days before) had been starved, and he wished to know all about it. After he left he sent father in a dinner of pork and potatoes, which he relished and ate very heartily, He died the next day. No clergyman attended him in the parish, but a Mr. Brown and another came to see him once from Weymouth. My brother was thirty-two years of age. He has worked for Mr. Wallis twenty years, or more. He never worked for anybody else: He earned five shillings a week, never more. He was always good to his father and mother. There never could be a better son or brother. We never had an angry word with him. About four months ago he was summoned before the magistrates of Weymouth, as the father of a bastard child by Ann Chalker, living at Weymouth, and was required to pay one shilling and sixpence a week towards its support, which he stated he was unable to do from his wages. They let him free then, but afterwards had him arrested at the farm, and taken to Dorchester gaol, where he remained three months; when he came out he was very well, and looked very nice in his face, and said that he never was better. He went to work on the 7th for a week. On the 10th he went again, but felt very unwell, and said, "Mother, I seem so bad that I don't know how I shall get through the day." She tried to persuade him to stop at home, but he said, "What shall we do to live if I stop at home?" He went to work, but returned early, and did not go out after. He got worse and worse. The doctor was attending in the parish, and we left word with a neighbour, who he thought he would be visiting, for him to call. He came as soon as he received the message, and saw my brother; after he had done so, he desired us to send to Weymouth, and he would send a bottle of medicine, which he did, and my brother took it. He called again in three days; that was on Thursday, the 17th, when he said he would change the medicine, and send another bottle. He never called after. My brother gradually sank, and died on the Monday night. He never earned more than six shillings after he left prison. Mother applied to Mr Hine, the relieving-officer for relief; he gave her nothing, but asked to see my brother, he came to the cottage and saw him, and then told my mother to come to the union (four miles), and what there was for him he should have. I went; mother was not able. I waited two hours, and saw Mr John Scutt, the guardian, go in; When all the rest of the applicants had left, Mr. Hine told me there was nothing for my brother. I asked what he was to do; if nothing was allowed him he would starve. He said, "I can't help it; there is nothing for him." I asked for an order for the house. He asked if I thought he would come in; to which I said that he must, as there was nothing at home for him to live upon out of one shilling and six-pence for three of them. He talked very rough to me, which I did not like. He told me that my brother was to walk in, and that if he could not walk, he was to get a cart. I told him that he was too ill for that, for my mother was obliged to dress and undress him; to which he said, "Never mind that, there will be somebody here to do it for him; he must come in." He then gave me the order for admission. Upon my return home, I told my brother that there was nothing for him, which very much troubled him, but that there was an order for him to go to the house, at which he cried very bitterly and said that he had not the power to go. I took it very hard, put on my bonnet, and went to master's. I told Mrs. Wallis what had passed with the relieving-officer, and she said how bad it was to be treated so badly. Mr. Wallis first told me to apply. I borrowed an arm-chair of Mrs. Wallis, who told me to fetch a cup, and she would give my brother some broth. I took it home, and gave it to him: he seemed a bit better. Mrs. Wallis sent him same more to nice after that; father was lying ill and had some of it. Sunday night my brother had the last of it, not quite a teacupful; he looked up upon us all, and said, "Now my broth is done, I'm done." He went to bed about nine o'clock. All that night he had nothing to eat or drink. Next day (Monday) he said he wished he had a drop more broth. Mother asked him to have a bit of bread soaked in hot water: he said yes, he was so very hungry, he could eat so much. He had some bread and water on that morning, and had nothing else all that day or night. He slept with my eldest boy, who is about ten years old. My mother covered them up with what clothes she had it was a very sold night and then went to bed. Towards morning mother called out to my son, and told him to put his hand against William to see if he was warm and covered up. My son said, Oh, mother, William is so cold, and feels stiff," at which mother got up and found him dead! Both my father and brother were buried in one grave. There was no inquest upon the bodies. My brother's complaint was what is called influenza; he had shortness of breath before that; but it is my opinion, and that of all the rest of our family, that he died for the want of sufficient nourishment. Mr. Placket, the doctor, said he would have got well, and able to be about in two or three weeks, if he had gone to the house.] [Chester Chronicle Saturday 26 April 1856. The Agapemone near Bridgewater. A few days ago, farmer named Scutt, occupier of a farm near Carnington, attempted suicide at the Agapemone, Charlinch. He is now under surveilence of two-keepers. Differences importance have broken out amongst the members of the above singular fraternity. The "Prince" is said to have declared himself to be nothing more than mortal and not that spiritual caste he has hitherto professed to be. He has left his flock for Plymouth, add his departure has caused wonderful transformation in their internal regulations; instead of playing hockey" on the Sunday, they have become amazed, and now trust for their protection to prayers to the Almighty. Mr. Scutt was a man of considerable property when he joined Prince, made it all over to him, and this self-beggaring the supposed cause of his rash attempt on his life. Sherborne Journal.] [Western Gazette, Somerset, Friday 22 February 1867. Weymouth. Sheep Stealing. On Friday last, George Harris was committed for trial at the ensuing assizes, charged with stealing two lambs from the farm of Mr. John Scutt, at Preston.] [Western Gazette Fri 02 Apr 1880 44412: 4 West Walks Terrace, Dorchester. MR. T. Ensor has been favoured with instructions to Sell by Auction, on Wednesday, April 7th, 1880, the valuable, substantial, and modern Furniture, 7-octave Pianofort, x Oil paintings, Feather beds, Bed and Table linen, China, Glass, 180oz. of Silver plated articles, Breech-loading double gun, a few books, and about 100 dozen of Choice wines, consisting of 1863 and 1868 ports, sherries, and claret, late the property of Mr. John Scutt, deceased. Particulars given in catalogues, to be had of the Auctioneer, 54 South Street, Dorchester, three days before the sale. May tie viewed on the afternoon of Tuesday, April 6th. The sale will commence at one o'clock. The sale will be held at four o'clock.] [J B S - 79yr.] |
| [Mon 02 Mar 1835, Salisbury and Winchester Journal, Wiltshire, Married, Feb 23, at Preston Church, near Weymouth, by the Rev. Mr. Piers, Mr. John Scutt to Miss Caroline Cooper, niece of C. Gill, Esq., of Wyke Oliver Farm.] [C S 81yr.] |
| [father John Scutt, yeoman.] [Taunton Courier & Western Advertiser, Somerset, Wed 23 Oct 1867, Marriages, October 10, at St. Mark's Church, Torquay by Rev. Walter James, - John, eldest son of Mr John Scutt of Weymouth, Dorset, to Emma, fourth daughter of Josias Croad, Book's Castte Farm, Broomfield, Somerset.] [Western Gazette, Somerset Friday 01 January 1875. Mr John Scutt, junr., of Winfrith, kindly provided each of his labourers, with the material for a good Christmas dinner in the shape of a fine piece of beef.] [J S - 40yr.] [Western Daily Press - Saturday 21 March 1914. Bridgwater Will Dispute. Yesterday the Court Appeal allowed an appeal from Arthur and Edward Angus Scutt and the Misses Helen Scutt and Florence Evelyn Scutt, all beneficiaries under the will of the late Mr John Scutt, jun., from decision of Mr Justice Neville dismissing an action by them against Thomas Henry Ensor, of Dorchester, the surviving trustee of the will of John Scutt, jun., and against Messrs J. P. Croad of Bosoombe, and T. F. Barham and J. Willshire Croad, Bridgwater (the executors of the late Mr Josias Croad, who was also a trustee of John Scut's will), and against the executors of the will of Mrs Kellaway (previously Mrs Scutt and the relict of John Scutt, who was the third trustee). The object of the action was to get indemnify from the estates of Josias Croad and Mrs Kellaway for losses occasioned to the estate by the retention of shares a Bridgwater cake mill. Mr Jenkins, K.C., for the appellants, said that the late Mr John Scutt, jun., left estate worth £13,000 net. Part of the estate was 100x£20 shares of the Bridgwater and West of England United Farmers Pure Linseed & Cotton Cake Company, Ltd., which afterwards changed its name to the Bridgwater Oil Mills, Ltd. The company paid substantial dividends, but these fluctuated, and eventually the company into liquidation in 1891. All the company's debts and liabilities were paid, and the shareholders received, by way of final divident £3 on every £20 share. The questioned decision was whether there was any breach of trust of the then trustees of the will in holding the shares from the testator's death in 1878, and whether the estates of the trustee in question were liable for the difference between what the shares could have been sold at within a reasonable, time after the testator's death and the £359 received way of final dividend. Evidence had been called at the trial to show that in 1884 the shares changed hands at £18 each. Mr Justice Neville had decided that the trustees were not in a position to realize the shares until after the death of Mr Scutt's widow, but this, counsel submitted, was wrong. Mr Peterson, K.C., for the respondents, argued that the Judge had decided rightly. Their Lordships decided that the learned Judge had approached the matter from an erroneous point of view, and referred the case back to him.] |
| [Taunton Courier & Western Advertiser, Somerset, Wed 23 Oct 1867, Marriages, October 10, at St. Mark's Church, Torquay by Rev. Walter James, - John, eldest son of Mr John Scutt of Weymouth, Dorset, to Emma, fourth daughter of Josias Croad, Book's Castte Farm, Broomfield, Somerset.] [Western Daily Press - Saturday 21 March 1914. Bridgwater Will Dispute. Yesterday the Court Appeal allowed an appeal from Arthur and Edward Angus Scutt and the Misses Helen Scutt and Florence Evelyn Scutt, all beneficiaries under the will of the late Mr John Scutt, jun., from decision of Mr Justice Neville dismissing an action by them against Thomas Henry Ensor, of Dorchester, the surviving trustee of the will of John Scutt, jun., and against Messrs J. P. Croad of Bosoombe, and T. F. Barham and J. Willshire Croad, Bridgwater (the executors of the late Mr Josias Croad, who was also a trustee of John Scut's will), and against the executors of the will of Mrs Kellaway (previously Mrs Scutt and the relict of John Scutt, who was the third trustee). The object of the action was to get indemnify from the estates of Josias Croad and Mrs Kellaway for losses occasioned to the estate by the retention of shares a Bridgwater cake mill. Mr Jenkins, K.C., for the appellants, said that the late Mr John Scutt, jun., left estate worth £13,000 net. Part of the estate was 100x£20 shares of the Bridgwater and West of England United Farmers Pure Linseed & Cotton Cake Company, Ltd., which afterwards changed its name to the Bridgwater Oil Mills, Ltd. The company paid substantial dividends, but these fluctuated, and eventually the company into liquidation in 1891. All the company's debts and liabilities were paid, and the shareholders received, by way of final divident £3 on every £20 share. The questioned decision was whether there was any breach of trust of the then trustees of the will in holding the shares from the testator's death in 1878, and whether the estates of the trustee in question were liable for the difference between what the shares could have been sold at within a reasonable, time after the testator's death and the £359 received way of final dividend. Evidence had been called at the trial to show that in 1884 the shares changed hands at £18 each. Mr Justice Neville had decided that the trustees were not in a position to realize the shares until after the death of Mr Scutt's widow, but this, counsel submitted, was wrong. Mr Peterson, K.C., for the respondents, argued that the Judge had decided rightly. Their Lordships decided that the learned Judge had approached the matter from an erroneous point of view, and referred the case back to him.] [E K - 79yr.] |
| [Father, yeoman.] [Western Gazette, Somerset, Fri 04 Dec 1891. Nov 26, at St. Paul's Church, Bath, by the Rev. Angus Clerk, vicar, Francis Godfrey White, of Anerley, S.E., to Elizabeth, only surviving daughter of the late John Scutt, of Preston, Weymouth.] [E W - 79yrs.] |
| [Western Gazette, Somerset, Fri 04 Dec 1891. Nov 26, at St. Paul's Church, Bath, by the Rev. Angus Clerk, vicar, Francis Godfrey White, of Anerley, S.E., to Elizabeth, only surviving daughter of the late John Scutt, of Preston, Weymouth.] [Fri 19 Aug 1921, Western Gazette, Somerset. Swanage, Death - Mr. F. G. White. The death occurred at Havelock, Cranborne Road. Swanage, on Thursday, Mr. Francis Godfrey White, the ripe age of 80 years. Deceased, who was the son of the late Mr. George Mitchell White, cheese factor, Warminster, Wilts, was educated at Warminster Grammar School, and was for many years in business in London, in the employ of Messrs. Copestake, lace importers. He married in 1893 Elizabeth Scutt, daughter of the late Mr. John Scutt, of Preston, Weymouth. On retiring from business he resided for about eight years in Frome, Somerset, and came to Swanage in 1903. The funeral took place Saturday, St. Mary's, Swanage, deceased being interred in the same grave as his wife. The mourners were: Mrs. S. A. (niece), Mr. P White (nephew), Mr. A. (wife's nephew), Alice Yerbury (servant), Mr. Dowdswell, and Mr R. Slade. |
| [Father - yeoman.] [Taunton Courier, and Western Advertiser, Somerset Wednesday 01 January 1868 - Marriages. December 19, at the parish church St. Mary's, Bridport, the Rev. Melville Lee, rector, Charles, son of John Scutt, Esq., Preston, Weymouth, and Bessie, second daughter Gerard Samson, Esq., Bridport.] [C B S also County Magistrates for Dorchester Petty Sessional Division.] [Evening Telegraph - Monday 03 February 1908. Found Dead in a Field. Mr Charles Scutt, chairman of the Executive Committee, Dorset County Council, was this morning found dead in two feet of water in a field close by his home at Preston.] [C B S - 65yr. of Wyke Oliver, Preston, nr. Weymouth - farmer & Justice of the Peace, Dorset - d:Lodmoor, nr.Weymouth. To Charles Edwin Scutt (theatre manager), Alfred John Scutt & Edward Angus Scutt, (both farmers). The London Gazette [1909] Charles Scutt, Esquire, J.P., Deceased - Pursuant to the Statute, 22nd and 23rd Vict., c.35. All persons having any claims or demands against the estate of Charles Scutt, Esquire, deneased, late of "Wyke Oliver," Preston, near Weymouth, Dorset, J.P. (who died on the 2nd February 1908, and whose will was proved in the Blandford District Probate Registry, on the 27th August 1908, by Messrs. Charles Edwin Scutt. Alfred John Scutt, Edward Angus Scutt, Edward Barnaby Duke, and Henry Branson, the executors therein named, are required to send particulars, in writing, of such claims to us before the 1th February 1909, after which date the estate will be distributed, having regard only to those claims of which notice shall have been received, Dated this 5th day of January 1909. Lock, Reed & Lock, Dorchester, Dorset - Solicitors for the Executors.] [Friday 09 August 1918, Western Gazette, Somerset. Messrs. Henry Duke & Son are favoured with instructions to Offer the above Resourceful FreeHold Landed Estate for Said Auction, their Property Sale-room, Dorchester, on Saturday, August 24th, at 3.30 p.m. Lot 1. Watercombe Farm, about Acres, famous mixed holdings, memorable as the Home of the world-famed Watercombe breed of sheep, established and bred there with such success and service to the Down Sheep of this Country by the then Tenant, Mr. Thomas Homer Saunders who was followed by his son, Mr. Thomas Chapman Saunders; was succeeded the late Mr. Charles Scutt, whose son, Mr. A. J. is the present Tenant. The occupation of this notable Farm has, therefore, remained in two families of leading Dorset Agriculturists for upwards of 100 years.] [Hastings & St Leonards Observer, Saturday 08 February 1908. MR Scutt sen. We regret to record that Mr Scutt, the popular local Manager of the Hastings Theatre, has sustained a sudden bereavement by the death of his father Mr Scutt, sen., who lived near Weymouth, was Justice of the Peace for the county of Dorset, and vice-Chairman of the Guardians at Weymouth, was County Councillor and member of one of the oldest families in Dorsetshire. At the meeting the Theatre Directors, Thursday, a vote of was passed to Mr. Scutt.] |
| [Taunton Courier, and Western Advertiser, Somerset Wednesday 01 January 1868 - Marriages. December 19, at the parish church St. Mary's, Bridport, the Rev. Melville Lee, rector, Charles, son of John Scutt, Esq., Preston, Weymouth, and Bessie, second daughter Gerard Samson, Esq., Bridport.] [E S 84yr., (widow) lived at Wyke Oliver, Preston, Weymouth. To Charles Edwin Scutt (theater manager) & Edward Angus Scutt (farmer).] |
| [Mon 17 Sep 1832, Sherborne Mercury, Dorset, England. Game listes: Scutt, Thomas - Sutton Poyntz.] [T S 62yr. Cannington, Melancholy Death. On Saturday Mr Scutt, a Princeite, Chilton met with his death in a sad manner. was on one of their farms, watching chaffcutter at work, and the horse going slowly he kicked it to make it go faster when the animal gave sudden jump, and the pole of the machine caught Mr Scutt on the back and threw him with violence against the wall, whereby his skull was fractured, causing instantaneous death.] |
| [S S 57yr.] [This is the Last Will and Testament of me William Galpin of Dorchester in the County of Dorset, Cooper made and published this fifth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty six in manner following that is to say: First: I give and devise and bequeath All that my messuage dwelling house or Inn called the Phoenix Inn together with the stables cellars and other buildings gardens rights members and appurtenances belonging thereto now in the possession of my son George Galpin as my tenant And also all that my messuage or dwelling house adjoining The Phoenix on the East side thereof with the rights members and appurtenances belonging thereto now in the occupation of Mr Clenister as my tenant. And also all that my new built Malthouse with its rights members and appurtenances in lying behind The Phoenix and now in the occupation of myself and my son William And also all that my messuage or dwelling house with the rights members and appurtenances thereto belonging now in the occupation of William Somer? and others as my tenants And which said messuages and hereditaments are situate in the parish of All Saints in Dorchester aforesaid and all other my freehold hereditaments and premises (if any) in that parish unto and to the use of my said son George GALPIN his heirs and assigns for ever Upon this condition nevertheless that he or they do and shall within the space of two years next after my death pay unto each of my daughters Charlotte, Eliza the wife of George Lock of Blandford Forum in the County of Dorset Innkeeper and Sarah the wife of Thomas Scutt of Preston in the County of Dorset Yeoman, or to their satisfaction respectively effectually secure to each of them the sum of one thousand pounds sterling together with interest for the same in the mean time at the rate of four pounds per cent per annum in equal half yearly payments And in case of default in the performance of this my condition by my said son. Then and in such case I give devise and bequeath all and singular the said Messuages or dwelling houses Inn Malthouse and other hereditaments above described with their respective rights members and appurtenances unto and to the use of and equally between my said Son and daughters Charlotte, Eliza and Sarah and their respective heirs and assigns for ever as tenants in common,And I give and bequeath unto my said son George the goodwill and right of carrying on my business of a cooper. And I give and bequeath all those my new built and other leasehold business situate on the east side of Gaol Lane in the parish of All Saints aforesaid which in their unimproved state I lately bought of Mrs MASTERS together with their respective rights members and appurtenances unto my son William Galpin his executors administrators and assigns for and during all my estate term and interest therein And also I give him my said son William the sum of two hundred pounds sterling Also I give and bequeath all that my leasehold messuage or dwelling house with the garden rights members and appurtenances thereto belonging situate on the Cornhill in the parish of Saint Peters in Dorchester aforesaid and now in the occupation of George CLARK Stationer as my tenant unto my son John his executors administrators and assigns for and during all my estate term and interest therein Also I give and bequeath All that my other leasehold messuage or dwelling house with the garden rights members and appurtenances thereto belonging situate on the Cornhill in the parish of Saint Peter aforesaid on the South side of the said last mentioned messuage or dwelling house and now in the occupation of Thomas Pouncy, Saddler as my tenant unto my daughter Martha her executors administrators and assigns for and during all my estate term and interest therein. All the Rest and Residue and Remainder of my estate and effects both real and personal and of every sort and kind and wherever situate after and subject to the payment of my just debts funeral and testamentary expenses and the charges of proving this my will; i give devise and bequeath the same and every part thereof unto and to the use and for the absolute benefit of and equally between all my said sons and daughters and their respective heirs executors administrators and assigns as tenants in common and I hereby nominate and appoint my said three sons George William and John joint executors of this my Will and here revoking all other wills by me at any time heretofore made I declare this only to be my last. In Witness whereof I the said Testator William Galpin have to this my last Will contained in two sheets of paper to the first thereof set my hand and to this seventh? and last my hand and seal the day and year first above written. Wm Galpin. Signed sealed published and declared by the said testator William Galpin as and for his last Will in the presence of us at his request in his presence and in the presence of each other have subscribed our names as witnesses J Stone; G Symonds; J Bishop. Proved at London 10th February 1837 before the Judge by the oaths of George Galpin; William Galpin and John Galpin the sons the sole executors to whom administration was granted having been first sworn duly to administer.] |
| S C S - infant. |
| Charlotte (Sarah) Scutt - 60yr., unmarried. |
| E S - 1yr. |
| father - yeoman. T S - infant. |
| E J S 79yr., unmarried. |
| [Tue 08 May 1855, Sherborne Mercury, Dorset. Dorchester. Fire, on Thursday afternoon a serious fire broke out on the premises of Mr. G. Scutt, Martinstown, near Dorchester. It was first perceived in the brewhouse chimney, and very speedily extended over the whole of the business premises. The whole of the brewhouse, wine cellar, grinding house, malt house, stables, and cart houses were entirely destroyed; also, the season's malting, a considerable quantity of barley, beans, mixed corn, bricks, brewing utensils, casks, and from 700 to 800 hogsheads of strong beer. The fire also destroyed the summer-house, and the whole of the thatching on the garden wall; the dwelling-house adjoining was saved by the timely use of the Dorchester fire engine, and the Dorchester police kept watch during the night. The estimated loss is about £5,000.] [Salisbury and Winchester Journal, Wiltshire Sat 08 Dec 1855. George Daw, a mason, at Charminster, was charged with having feloniously stolen some lead belonging to Mr. George Scutt, at Martinstown. This was the first case brought before the Bench under the recent Criminal Justice Act 18 and Victoria c.126. From the depositions which were taken, it appeared that the prisoner had been for some time past working for Mr. Rogers in the rebuilding of some premises which were accidentally destroyed by fire, and was seen in Dorchester a few days ago offering lead for sale. The identity of several of the pieces having been clearly established, the prisoner pleaded guilty to the charge, and a good character from his former employer, was sentenced one month's imprisonment with hard labour.] [Salisbury & Winchester Journal Mon 30 Nov 1840. Accident Friday last, a serious accident happened Mr. George Scutt, of Martinstown, whilst out shooting. He had a double-barrelled gun, and observing that the end of the ramrod protruded a little beyond the muzzles, he put his left hand to force it into its socket, when, from the trigger being, it is supposed, caught something, the contents of one of the barrels were discharged, blowing the forefinger of his left hand completely off, and much shattering the other fingers. Messrs. Wallis and Curme, surgeons, of Dorchester, were immediately sent for, and under their care Mr. is now proceeding very favourably.] [Salisbury & Winchester Journal Sat 03 Apr 1852. Head of Stock, Portable Thrashing Machine, Wagon, Dung Put, Implements, Ac. HIGHER HYDE FARM, 2 Miles from Bere Regis, from Wareham, and 2 from Wool Railway Station. MR. E Saunders has been favoured with instructions to Sell by Auction, at Higher Hyde Farm, on Monday, the 5th of April, 1852, The whole of the Live and Dead Farming Stock, the property of Mr. George Scutt, leaving the Farm; also the .....] [Salisbury & Winchester Journal Sat 24 May 1856. Upway - Independent Friendly Society. The annual festival of this society took place last week, in this picturesque little village. The rendezvous was the Ship Inn, where procession was formed, consisting about members of the society, each bearing neat wand, and adorned with rosettes. After perambulating the village, to the music of Wellspring's brass band, the members attended Divine service at the Church. Prayers were read by the Rev. Talbot Baker, and an appropriate discourse was delivered by the Rev. Archdeacon Buckle, from Matthew XXV., 30. At the conclusion of the service the members proceeded to the Ship Inn, where they partook of good and substantial dinner, provided by Mr. and Mrs. Bushrod. Mr. Scutt, of Martinstown, presided, and the active secretary, Mr. G. Scutt, occupied the vice-chair. After dinner .....] [The London Gazette [1875] NOTICE is hereby given, that the Partnership which has for some time past been carried on by George Scutt the elder, and George Scutt the younger, under the firm of George Scutt and Son, at Winterborne, Saint Martin, in the county of Dorset, in the trade or business of Wine and Spirit Merchants, Brewers and Maltsters, was this day dissolved by mutual consent, As witness our hands this 31st day of March 1875. George Scutt, senr. George Scutt, jr. George Scutt of the Brewery House, Martinstown. GEORGE SCUTT, Deceased - Pursuant to an Act of Parliament 22 & 23 Victoria, chapter 35, intituled " An Act to further amend the Law of Property, aad to relieve Trustees." NOTICE is hereby given, that all persons having debts, claims, or demands on the estate of George Scutt, late of Winterborne Saint Martin, in the county of Dorset, Common Brewer, Maltster, and Wine and Spirit Merchant, deceased (who died on the 9th day of December 1879, and whose will was proved by Daniel Symonds, the surviving executor named in the said will, in the District Registry attached to the Probate Division of Her Majesty's High Court of Justice at Blandford on the 13th day of February, 1880), are hereby required to send in writing, the particulars of their debts, claims, or demands, to the said executor, at the offices of Messrs. Andrews, Son, and Huxtable, South-street, Dorchester, on or before the 15th, day of January next, and that after the said 15th day of January next, the said executor will distribute the assets of the said testator amongst the parties entitled thereto, having regard only to the debts, claims, or demands of which he shall then have notice; and will not be liable for the assets, or any part thereof, so distributed to any person of whose debt, claim or demand they shall not have had notice at the time of such distribution. Dated this 8th day of December 1880. ANDREWS, SON, & HUXTABLE, South Street, Dorchester, Dorset, Solicitors for the said Excutor.] [Wed 07 Apr 1875, Morning Post, London. PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED. G. Scutt, sen., and G. Scutt, jun., Winterborne, Dorsetshire, brewers.] [G S 76yr.] |
| S S 69yr. |
| [nns 1872 Aug 11 Winterborne St Martin] [G S (full) bachelor, brewer, Winterbourne St. Martin - father:George Scutt, yeoman. S S (full) spinster, Nether Cerne - father:Samuel Symes, yeoman.] [Salisbury and Winchester Journal, Wiltshire Sat 14 Sep 1872. On the 5th inst., at the Parish Church, Nether Cerne, by the Rev. T. J. Brown, vicar, George Scutt, jun., of Winterborne St. Martin, to Sophia, fifth daughter of Samuel Symes.] [The London Gazette (1875) Notice is hereby given, that the Partnership which has for some time past been carried on by George Scutt the elder, and George Scutt the younger, under the firm of George Scutt & Son, at Winterborne, Saint Martin, in the county of Dorset, in the trade or business of Wine and Spirit Merchants, Brewers and Maltsters, was this day dissolved by mutual consent, As witness our hands this 31st day of March 1875. George Scutt, senr. George Scutt, jr.] [Wed 07 Apr 1875, Morning Post, London. Partnerships Dissolved. G. Scutt, sen., and G. Scutt, jun., Winterborne, Dorsetshire, brewers.] [G S 76yr.] |
| [nns 1872 Aug 11 Winterborne St Martin] [G S (full) bachelor, brewer, Winterbourne St. Martin - father:George Scutt, yeoman. S S (full) spinster, Nether Cerne - father:Samuel Symes, yeoman.] [Salisbury and Winchester Journal, Wiltshire Sat 14 Sep 1872. On the 5th inst., at the Parish Church, Nether Cerne, by the Rev. T. J. Brown, vicar, George Scutt, jun., of Winterborne St. Martin, to Sophia, fifth daughter of Samuel Symes.] [S S 74yr.] |
| Census 1851 Dorset states Fanny S. Scutt. F J S 16yr., residence: Winterborne, St. Martin. |
| S S - 77yr., unmarried. |
| [Mary Ann Scutt also noted.] [M A S 1yr., residence: Winterborne, St. Martin.] [Sat 18 Nov 1843, Sherborne Mercury, Dorset. November 12, at Martinstown, Ann, the youngest daughter of Mr. George Scutt, aged 2 years.] |
| William Edward Hawkins married Mary, daughter of George Scutt of the Brewery House, Martinstown, who bore him two sons and three daughters; but it seems that he impeded any plans on the part of his children to marry. The eldest, Charles William Francis Hawkins (1876 - 1964), preferred like his father to live in Stevens Farm House, though, by 1940, he had built a bungalow called Manor Lodge in a pleasant tree-covered paddock to the west of the Manor House (it was burnt down in about 1980 and was on the site of the present Manor Grove), where he lived with his sisters Florence and Eva. As autocratic as his father, Charlie and his sisters occupied the squires pew in church - the forward pew on the south side, with cushions on the seats - and it was he who donated the church clock in 1956, in memory of Florence (who had recently died), and of their parents. The energetic Charlie Hawkins was in his eighties when he finally gave up Manor Farm and after his death it was bought by his tenant, John Weedon Marsh. Charlie's brother Arthur survived him by a couple of years and was the last of the Hawkins to reside at Martinstown. He died unmarried in a nursing home at Broadstone in 1966, ending an association with the village that had lasted nearly 200 years. The many buildings that they built or improved, their stewardship of the farms, and the monuments in the parish church, are the family's enduring legacy. |
| E A S - 89yr. spinster, lived at 48 Longstone Avenue, Harlesden. |
| NOTICE is hereby given that the Partnership heretofore subsisting between us the undersigned, Sarah Goldsmith, Harrison Charles Ambrose and William Francis Scutt carrying on business as fruiterers and Greengrocers at Number 10 Bull's Head Passage and Number 5 Grand Avenue, Leadenhall Market in the city of London under the style or firm of S. G. Harrison has been dissolved by mutual consent as and from the thirteenth day of November 1896. All debts due to and owing by the said late firm will be received and paid by the said "Charles Ambrose and William Francis Scutt - Dated this thirteenth day of November 1895. SARAH GOLDSMITH HARBISON. C.AMBROSE. W.F.SCUTT. W F S - 75yr., unmarried, lived at 17 Nightingale Road, Harlesden. |
| Mon 13 Jul 1829, Salisbury and Winchester Journal, Wiltshire. Married at Martinstown, near Dorchester, on the 9th inst. Mr. James Wallis, of Holworth, to Miss Scutt, only daughter of Mr. Scutt, of the former place. |
| [Yeoman of Holworth (1831)]. [Mon 13 Jul 1829, Salisbury and Winchester Journal, Wiltshire. Married at Martinstown, near Dorchester, on the 9th inst. Mr. James Wallis, of Holworth, to Miss Scutt, only daughter of Mr. Scutt, of the former place.] |
| J S W 23yr. |