Sydney Gazette, 28 July 1821
This is sequel to 100 Years of Disappointed, Disgruntled, Discredited Husbands. I have transcribed the longer advertisements/letters where the text might be too small to read and included the image, except where it’s an ongoing debate wherein I have just included the text.
TO THE PUBLIC.— WHEREAS Mr. Thomas Arkell (my Husband), having published in last Week’s Gazette that he will not hold himself responsible for any Debts or Expences by me contracted, he having been separated from me by Deed, bearing date the 21st of June last; and looking upon that Advertisement as calculated to injure me in the separate Trade which Mr. Arkell, by the Articles of Separation, covenants I shall in future carry on, on my own separate Account and Name, as a feme sole Trader ; I deem it necessary, for public information, to state the following Matters :—
Previous to my marriage with Mr. Arkell, the greater part of my freehold and other estates, value more than £4000, were assigned to Trustees, in trust, for my sole and separate use, notwithstanding my intended coverture ; and upon Mr. Arkell and myself agreeing to separate, we mutually named two Trustees with whom Mr. Thomas Arkell covenanted that we should at all times thereafter separate and live apart from each other ; and that I should, notwithstanding such my coverture, carry on trade on my own separate account, as a feme sole trader, and to enable me so to do, and to indemnify my said husband, for any act of mine in trade or otherwise, as well all the property settled before the marriage for my sole and separate use, as the stock in trade, household goods, and the premises now known by the name of the Nottingham New Inn, were assigned to trustees, to suffer me to occupy the premises, and to carry on the trade thereof, for my own sole and separate use, as a feme sole trader ; with which premises, stock in trade or any dealing in respect thereof, the said Mr. Thomas Arkell covenanted with the trustees, under a very considerable penalty, not to interfere or to claim any interest or property therein hereafter, or to molest me in my person or trade in any wise ; and all the goods and effects were conveyed to such Trustees to protect them from any interference or claim, either by Mr. Arkell, or any person claiming under him ; and also, upon trust, to suffer me to sell the same and trade therewith, as a feme sole trader; and, by the Deed of Separation, the said Mr. Thomas Arkell covenants with the Trustees, that as well the goods so assigned as all future purchases made by me for carrying on the trade, should continue, and from time be deemed and taken to be vested in such Trustees, for the future protection of them against Mr. Arkell, or any other person, and possession of the house and effects in the Nottingham New Inn were delivered upon the trust :— and, by the Deed of separation, the Trustees covenant with Mr. Arkell to pay all debts, if any, that were due by me before the marriage, to which he, by such marriage, might be liable ; and any sums he might be deemed in law liable to pay, either for maintenance or by reason of my carrying on such separate trade, and all costs and expenses eventually to arise to him in respect to the same.
And to prevent all future attempts to injure me in my trade, I do hereby give Notice, that the Trade of the Nottingham New Inn has been legally assigned by Mr. Thomas Arkell, my husband, to Trustees, upon trust, for them to suffer me to conduct and carry on the Inn and Trade, for my sole and separate use and profit, as a feme sole trader ;— and I wish it to be understood, that no goods, purchased by me in future for carrying on such trade or otherwise, are intended to be deemed as having any claim of payment from my said husband, but to be paid by myself or Trustees, for which they are fully indemnified, by the effects so assigned ;— and Mr. Thomas Arkell, my husband, is not to receive or take payment, from any person or persons whatever, for any goods or other effects, matters to arise in respect of the said Inn or Trade thereof, and all such payments are in future to be made by and to me ; and if any goods or other property have been supplied by my order for the trade of the said Inn, or otherwise, before or since my marriage with the said Mr Arkell, which I have not already paid or called upon and arranged the payment for, the account is to be furnished to me, at the Nottingham New Inn, in Pitt-street, and, if just, shall be forthwith arranged and settled by me, or my said Trustees. MARY ARKELL
Approved— GEORGE CROSSLEY, FRANCKS WOOD. — Trustees.
Sydney Gazette, 28 July 1821
JANE SPENCER, Wife of FRANCIS SPENCER late of the Black Horse, Clarence-street, Sydney, consider it a duty incumbent on me to answer an Advertisement published against me, in last Week’s Gazette ; I acknowledge that we parted by consent, but with my husband’s desire, that I should leave this Colony for Van Diemen’s Land ; I left the house he was then in possession of; the same morning I went on board the vessel ; when I arrived at the Derwent I obtained a place of service, and should have remained there with credit, but my said husband, Francis Spencer, followed me, and enticed me from my service, under pretence that he intended to settle at Port Dalrymple, he then persuaded me to return to my service, during this time that he came to this Colony to bring the children with him ; but finding myself disappointed, through his long delay, and likewise being left in a situation which is no disgrace to a married woman, I was advised by my mistress, Mrs. Ransom, to return to this Colony, hoping that I might find a home, instead of which I found that my former servant, Mary Howell, is now in keeping by my husband, and has got the charge of three of my children ; I beg leave to ask the Public at large, whether I have been guilty of faults which I am charged with ; if any one can come forward and testify against me, let me die the death of Jane Shore, otherwise let me have the justice due to JANE SPENCER
Sydney Gazette, 25 August 1825
WHEREAS I CATHERINE DAVIS, of Cambridge-street, Sydney, arrived in this Colony in September, 1808, and intermarried with my present Husband, WILLIAM DAVIS, in January, 1809, at Parramatta, by the Rev. Mr. DICKSON, a Roman Catholic Clergyman. The Matrimonial Ceremony was performed in the presence of Thomas Harpur and Sarah Chidley, who ore since married and residing at Windsor. At the period I was married to the said William Davis, he was a Government Man to an Overseer in the Lumber-yard, named Abbott ; shortly after my marriage I made application to Colonel PATERSON for a Ticket of Leave for him, which he granted. We having no property at that time, hut what we acquired by our daily labours, I made application and obtained a Licence to carry on a Public-house, which I retained for the term of 12 years, without intermission, and with an unblemished character; and in the interim, obtained his Emancipation ; and shortly afterwards, through my intercession with several respectable Gentlemen now living, obtained for him, from Governor MACQUABIE, his Free Pardon, and from my indefatigable exertions, acquired the property he is now possessed of. I therefore deem it an unprecedented hardship, that the said William Davis should, after a lapse of seventeen years’ residence in this Colony as his lawful Wife, attempt to break through his said Marriage, as during that time there appeared no impediment as to the validity of my Marriage with him, but is now from some unaccountable motives, trying to set it aside, by asserting that I have a Husband living in Ireland, which is totally false, for I positively assert that I have not, nor ever had any other Husband but the said William Davis. Sydney, March 28, 1826. CATHERINE DAVIS.
Sydney Gazette, 29 March 1826
JAMES JACKSON, Drayman, my husband, having cautioned the Public against giving me credit, and also basely insinuated that I had gone to live with another person improperly and against his consent I feel it a duty alike to those friends who have encouraged my industry, whereby I have been for the last five years enabled to maintain myself, when he would have, starved me and my child, to make the following statement to the Public .I appeal to any tradesman with whom I have at any time dealt, whether I have not punctually paid every demand. It may be seen by referring to the newspapers, that I was compelled to bind my husband over to keep the peace twice within three months, in fear of my life he has since knocked me down like a beast in my house, attempted my life with a knife, and now has turned me and my babe in the street with a bed and sofa, and my clothes. When I left his house I had not one shilling in the world, to which I readily consented. For the satisfaction of my friends, I beg to inform them that I am under the roof of Mr. & Mrs. Priest of Melville-street, whose respectability is unquestionable and I will be exceedingly thankful for any needle work, either at home or at the houses of those who may be pleased as heretofore, to employ me.
37, Melville street, April 6, 1837.
Colonial Times, 11 April 1837
The Tasmanian, 14 April 1837
PUBLIC NOTICE.—The undersigned in reference to a publication in the last “Australian” giving a report of the action I instituted against my husband in the Court of Requests and obtained a judgment for the full amount for the benefit of all my creditors. Mr Sawyer escaped only, by making a suitable apology. The Commissioner resolved, under the New Marriage Act, to compel him to provide for me such respectable means of support as were proportionate to his means. Mr S. it is proved possesses property to the amount of £9 000. My proportion, therefore is an allowance at Bank interest of £300. But the character of the transaction, the heartless design to cast aside the claims of a wife, who has been his faithful partner in life, in prosperity and adversity alike ;— and without her striving efforts, he would not in all probability to day have been worth a shilling. This he knows ; but because he sees some one else, he makes an inroad upon our hithertoo domestic happiness :—turns me out of doors and would have me a beggar and a wanderer through the streets. But the Commissioner of the Court steps in to my relief ! He interposes and prevents the unmanly conduct of my husband being brought into play. I repeat my former notice of caution to persons not to buy any property of my husband without my approval thereof in writing.
The Australian, 10 April 1841
TO THE PUBLIC-Whereas my husband. John Catley, late Gate-keeper to the Female House of Correction, having cautioned the public not to give me any credit, in consequence of leaving my home without cause or provocation, I beg to lay the particulars for my so doing before the public, to judge whether I had not sufficient cause. On the 24th May last, he brought a Female Prisoner, a turnkey of the Factory, to my house, entertaining her to tea. Shortly after the female left, he followed, making the excuse, that M he had forgotten to have a key at the Prisoners’ Barracks. My husband and I had proposed to go oat that evening ; but, finding he did not return, I had my suspicions, and named them to Mrs. Thorpe, a neighbour, who kindly offered to go with me in search of him. We went to the top of Liverpool street, sod found him outside a house, by the chimney, with his arm round the waist of the female prisoner he had been entertaining at my house. It being a moonlight night, we saw them distinctly ; and, being in a passion at the suspicious and indecent manner I caught them in, I made towards him, when he knocked me down with his fist, upon reaching our home, he kicked me down stairs. I then left him, and went to the Police Magistrate, swearing I was in fear of my life, and praying protection. He appeared at the Police-office ; and the magistrate, under these circumstances, dismissed the case, without allowing ne a maintenance, for which I prayed, or binding him over to keep the peace towards me. He then advertised me, and also sent a notice to a friend of his, where I was stopping for protection, not to harbour me. He left the house we lived in, moving the furniture at midnight, so that I do not know where he is at present ; and I am kept out of my clothes and home, being dependent upon a friend of his for my existence. I now leave it to all prudent and impartial persons to decide if I left without cause ; and, should Her Majesty’s Attorney-General see this,, I trust he will notice the treatment I have received upon my affidavit.
June 10. ANN CATLEY.
The Courier, 17 June 1842
Hobarton Mercury, 19 January 1855
(A report on that trial.)
MY HUSBAND advertised me, ELLEN LAKEMAN, in the paper of August 6th. When I arrived at Mr. Bailey’s, on the 4th, I asked her if she would be so kind as to let me stop for the night, and she said yes. She said, “Your husband is over at Cockram’s, Mrs. Lakeman.” I said, “In the old shop again as usual.” I asked Mrs. Bailey if she would be so kind as to send her little boy over for him, as I wanted him to come over.” He came and insulted me, calling me of the lowest, and told me that falsehoods were told to him about me at Cockram’s Hotel by his man George Richmond — all which is a fabrication. This was put about after they found out that all belonged to me. As for saying I left my home without my husband’s consent he was in Perth at the time and I only found my way into Perth to obtain protection. I got protection. As I could not get a passage in the mail-cart there was a gentleman in the district who gave me one on the morning of the 5th. Lakeman and Mr. O’Neil, the policeman, came to Mr. Bailey’s house and asked if Mrs. Lakeman was there. Mrs. Bailey said, “Yes, come inside.” I said those were nice expressions you called out in Mrs. Bailey’s house on the evening of the 4th. O’Neil said we did not come here to kick up rows in Mrs. Bailey’s house, and said, “Don’t you kick up rows.” I said I was only asking for the words my husband said on the evening of the 4th. Lakeman asked me for his bank-book, and I told him what was his was mine, and that he was going to the grog-shop to “boose” — that is Cockram’s hotel. I have gone after my husband a time or two, and I demanded Cockram to let me see him, and he was thrown into a room not fit for pigs to lay in — such a place as you would not expect to find in a public-house. On the fifth I went to ask Mr. Foster for a passage. When I got in the mail cart Lakeman was so drunk that he could hardly stand and Cockram ran out and pulled him in, and he asked Lakeman where was he going to, and he said he was going to speak to me (Mrs Lakeman), and he was coming out again and Cockram pulled him into what they call the large parlour. Mr. O’Neil, the policeman, was standing near the mail cart, and I said “Mr. O’Neil, there is Mr. Lakeman, drunk as usual” I asked Mr. Foster for a passage, and Mr. O’Neil said he would be heavily loaded. I said if he was to look after his duty as Mr. Foster did he would be all right, and Mr. Foster made me an answer and said he would give me a passage on the 6th. Lakeman and his boon companions put their heads together and Lakeman was persuaded to have my name in the paper.
Serpentine, Sept. 6, 1880.
The Inquirer & Commercial News, 22 September 1880
MR COCKRAM OBJECTS.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE INQUIRER.
Sir, — Would you kindly allow me space in your valuable paper for a few lines. In your issue of the 22nd of Sept. I noticed an advertisement, or letter, signed “Mrs. Lakeman, Serpentine.” I am very much obliged to Mrs. Lakeman for thinking it worth her while to put my name in print ; but I shall be more obliged if the next time she does me the honor of mixing my name up in her family affairs she will adhere to the truth, which she has not done in this instance. I have not the slightest objection for her or any one else to point out the room in my house “not fit for pigs to be in.” It appears to me her object in putting such nonsense in the paper is to injure me ; but if it was such she will probably find she has overshot the mark, and I would advise her for the future to let my name and business alone, and recollect the old proverb that “those who live in glass I houses should not throw stones.”
— I am, yours truly, EDWARD COCKRAM.
Serpentine, October 13, 1880.
The Inquirer & Commercial News, 20 October 1880
Mrs. Lakeman Further Explains.
IN the issue of the Inquirer of the 20th instant I observe Mr. Cockram’s objection. It is quite in accordance with such as he to object to any person leaving their premises, as long as they can pay. But, if all his money is spent, his property sold, and his credit gone, then would Mr. Cockram relieve his wants, comfort him in his afflictions, or nurse him in sickness ! In my opinion a house of refreshment for casual travellers should never be converted into a place for unlimited drinking— where persons residing in the neighbourhood could remain drinking for three or four days. Mr. Cockram Bays, “I would advise her in future to let my name and business alone.” But, when he considers it to be his business to allow a farmer to squander his money, neglect his business, and leave his wife with an uneasy mind, I consider it to be that wife’s business to draw her husband away from such places of un limited drinking. I do not want to quarrel seriously with my husband, but I would, and will, use my bumble endeavours to prevent him from being imposed upon by any publican ; for when my husband is ruined I shall have to share his ruin ; as I have also to assist him in earning the money he is thus liable to squander. But my greatest concern is not for the money, so much as for the loss of time, the loss of his company, and the danger be incurs, both morally and physically, by associating with such characters as are to be met with in the public houses of Western Australia, who will never allow a person to go home as long as they can. And this is not only tolerated, but encouraged, by the publican, who is the gainer by such transactions, and does not want such “business”‘ to be interfered with. Mr. Cockram says, “If a person lives in a glass house, he should not throw stones.” This is one of those expressions used by individuals, who by nods, winks, allusions, and abscissions ; strive to injure reputation without making any positive assertion which would render redress available. Such people often injure, or strive to injure, a person’s character, without criminating themselves, and are l?shed into satire by the powerful pen of Pope, where he says, “At every hint a reputation dies.”
Hoping the husband I still love will learn to distinguish between hypocritical flatterers, thoughtless publicans, pot-house loafers, whose sole business and aim is to fleece him, and a wife who is bound to share his sorrows, attend him when sick, condole with him in adversity, and encourage him and endeavour to advance him in prosperity. — I am, his in sorrow,
Serpentine, October 25, 1880.
The Inquirer & Commercial News, 27 October 1880