Skip to main content

Muckleston Family History Group

researching all references to the surnames Muckleston, Mucklestone, Muckelston and Mackleston please get in touch via the contact us page with any additional information or to correct any errors.

Home
About Us
Contact Us
Site Map
Member Login
Censuses
Family Mysteries
Family Members
A canadian Banker
A Fishy Tale
A Funny job for a fella
A Gentleman and an Office
A Gentleman retires
A Manchester childhood
A Muckleston authoress
A Muckleston's part in Au
A picture begets a thousa
A poet in the family
A Texas Oil Man
Alias Smith
An Aldermans will
An embezzler
A Fare Dodging Clergyman
An Ontario Surveyor
Barnados Boys
Edward J Mucklestons Atte
Elizabeth MPs wife and he
Elizabeth Muckleston of P
Frank Reginald Muckleston
From IT Girl to Tradegy
Gone Missing
Gruesome
Hannah Elizabeth Mucklest
He took a Mistress
Her husband was a bigamis
Irish Nell
Joseph - a Millionaire
Life after bankruptcy
National President of Ame
Ooops
Our very own Bill Gates?
Portrait of a father
Reputed sons
Rowland a family man
Samuel A Canadian Merchan
Samuel Roger Muckleston
Saucy
Steward of Talley
The Earliest Will
The School Mistress
William Jeffreys Mucklest
Family Stories
Wales to Winsconsin
Family Photographs
Obituaries
Main Family Tree
Bedfordshire Branch Tree
London Tree A
Mackleston Tree
Muckelston Tree
Wills
An Embezzler
 

The following is a transcript of a trial which took place in 1860 where Rowland Muckleston (b 1828) was indicted for fraud and larceny. The transcript is in places difficult to follow and I have therefore added the newspaper coverage of the trial which is a little clearer.

 

17.   ROLAND MUCKLESTON (32), was indicted for that he being a bailee of the sum of 94l. 10s., did unlawfully convert the same to his own use. Second Count for a larceny at common law. Third Count for stealing the order.

 

MR. SLEIGHconducted the Prosecution.

 

  WILLIAM ONION. I am a carriage-trimming manufacturer, at No. 40, Drury-lane—I first became acquainted with the prisoner in the middle of June, I think—he, at that time or shortly afterwards, entered my employment as town traveller, with a salary and commission—shortly after that it happened that I was short of money—I had a quantity of velvet in my possession—I had some conversation with the prisoner on the subject—he said that through some friends of his he could raise money for me on the velvets—I afterwards, by his instructions, sent the goods to Messrs. Werner and Falck, on 6th July, at Bury-court, St. Mary-Axe—the prisoner afterwards, on the same day, handed me 90l.(l = pounds)—he said it came from Werner and Falck's as an advance upon the velvets—I said that it was a very small sum for the amount of the velvets, and asked him if he could not obtain more—he said he would try, and on the next day he returned and said that Werner and Falck would not give more—I think he remained in my service about a fortnight after the 6th—he had told me that the period of loan was for one month—on 6th August following, I received a letter from him about the redemption of these goods—I saw him in the City and gave him a cheque for 94l. 10s., being the amount of principal and interest—it might have been the day following the advance of the money that I learnt the interest was 4l. 10s.; it was not at the time the money was advanced—the only conversation was that the rate would not be a very heavy one; perhaps 1s. in the pound for three months, and to my surprise I found it was a 1s. in the pound for one month—I gave him directions to take the cheque to the Union Bank, Temple-bar Branch, get it cashed, and to pay over the proceeds to Messrs. Werner and Falck—I gave him directions to leave the velvets at Messrs. Werner and Falck's to my orders—I saw him subsequently on the day I gave him the cheque, about 4 o'clock in the afternoon, and he stated that he had been to Werner and Falck's and neither of the partners were in, and that he had left the money with the clerk—I did not direct or authorise the prisoner to sell these velvets after giving him the cheque; I had done so previously—that cheque has been returned to me by my bankers as paid—the officer has it—the prisoner was not in my employ when I gave him instructions to sell; it was afterwards—the value of the velvets is 148l.—I paid that for them.

 

Cross-examined byMR. METCALFE. Q. Do you really mean that you did not give him instructions to sell after you gave him the cheque? A. No; I decidedly did not know that he was negotiating a sale after I gave him the cheque—I did not know that Mr. Cawley had given bills for them—I have been frequently to Mr. Michael's, but not about the velvets or the bills; I went merely because I did not know what had become of Mr. Muckleston—Mr. Michael said something to me about the bills—I did not see them, or what was written on them, or whether they were bills; he showed me some pieces of paper which he stated had been given to him, and which he stated to be bills, But I did not look at them—he offered to discount them if I would put my name to them—I did not ask him what arrangements he had made about the velvets—I do not think anything was said about them—I do not know why those papers, which were called bills, were produced; I did not know of their being in existence—Mr. Michael said that the bills were left with him by the prisoner for the velvets—that was about all that was said about the velvets—he asked me to endorse them, and I declined to have anything to do with them—I went there about 12th or 14th August—the cheque was given on the 6th—the prisoner, I believe, wrote several letters to me before I went there—I did not go there in consequence of any letter; I cannot explain why I went, but I was searching after Mr. Muckleston at the time—the prisoner said one day that he had been to Tottenham to Mr. Michael, and asked him to discount some bills he had—this was before I went to Mr. Michael—I do not think he said that those bills were for the velvets, but he said that they were bills of Cawley's; they were some which I expect were obtained by fraud—I had nothing to do with the bills or the discount—I do not know whether I should or should not have refused to receive the money if I had not been asked to endorse them—I said that I would not recognise any bills in any shape or form; all that I wanted was an order for my velvets, and that is what I told the prisoner—I first knew on Friday the 10th, that the proceeds of the cheque had not been paid, and after searching for the prisoner for a long while, I saw him come out at Mr. Michael's door, and spoke to him about the money—he told me he had been into Michael's at that minute to get him to discount Cawley's bill—it was two or three days after that, that he told me he had been to Tottenham, and after that I went to Michael's on the 12th or 13th—I did not know at the time, that the prisoner gave a bill for the 95l., but afterwards I did—that as before I gave the cheque; it was on 6th July that he gave the bill—I told the prisoner to pledge the velvets in his own name; that was for a trade reason, it was that people might not know that I was pledging—I did not wish the velvets to be brought back, that my clerks might not know that they had been pledged; they went into the books as so much cash from Werner and Falck on account—I knew something about Cawley before I gave the cheque—the only thing I know is, that he made sales to Cawley while he was in my employ, and I understood that Cawley's character was not such as I could trust, and I did not wish to do any more business with him—I never knew of the bills being given for these very velvets till the 10th—I cannot say whether I knew before the 10th that the prisoner was negotiating a transaction with Cawley—he wrote me some letters, saying that he could do something with the velvets; those letters are here—I did not know on the 6th that he had offered the velvets to Cawley—he said before the cheque was given that he could sell these velvets to Cawley, and I declined the transaction—he was authorised to sell up to the time I gave him the cheque, either for cash or for bills approved by me, but not Cawley's bills—I went to Cannon-street to Mr. Burke, to inquire about Cawley's reference—that was when the prisoner was in my employ, and about three weeks before I gave him the cheque; he then said that Mr. Cawley was proposing to buy the velvets—I consulted my solicitor a few days afterwards—I cannot tell you when the warrant was taken out, but it was a short time afterwards—I swear I did not say to Mr. Michael that I would not endorse the bills; and that if I did not get my money, I would have it in another way, that I would have the money or lock the defendant up; nothing of the kind; nor that I would shut his mouth, and the money would soon be brought forward, as Muckleston had some warrant for grain and some seed—I said that I had seen the person who sold some seed to him, but I did not say that I would lock him up, or have my money; nothing of the kind—I may have called there again afterwards going by—I do not think I called there between the time when the papers were shown to me, and the issuing of the warrant—I went with Newton once or twice either after or before the goods were shown to me, I cannot say which—I have no doubt I went there both after and before—I looked at some goods with Newton which Michael showed me, and Michael did not ask me to take those goods as part of the bills, but against the velvets—I certainly looked at the goods, but for no earthly purpose: there had been no end of propositions made by Michael, and I might have just touched the goods in a cursory manner, but as to looking at them I did not—I did not say, "When he is once taken, the money with all my expenses will be paid;" nor did I offer a reward of 50l.—I said nothing about taking him, but perhaps I had the warrant out at that time—I might have said that I intended taking out a warrant, but nothing about locking him up; or about locking him up, and the money would soon be forthcoming—not on either occasion—the warrant was put into the hands of Haydon, the city detective, who I afterwards met on 28th August, and told him not to execute it at present—Michael was there—Poole was not there at that time—I found Michael and Haydon together at some place where I was referred to from the detective-office, and not by appointment at all—my reason for telling Haydon not to execute the warrant, was, in the first place, because we could not find the party—we had been looking after him for three weeks, and there was a certain matter entered into at the time, in which I was regularly done, and which I was foolish enough to sign—this letter (produced) is not my writing—one name in it is, and also the Dear Sir"—I have seen Mr. Poole on no end of occasions—he told me on one occasion, to tell Michael to come down—I called on Mr. Poole, who said, "Michael has been here"—I called as a friend, but for no specific purpose—I have known him for years—this was a week or ten days afterwards—I called on Michael to say that Mr. Poole wanted him—I might have had an idea what Mr. Poole wanted him for, but Mr. Poole did not tell me—I did not know perfectly well that Poole was to settle the matters between me and the prisoner, and that Michael and I were to see him on the other side—there was not a word about settling, but Michael was constantly upon Poole, to try to settle it—that I have heard since.

 

Q. Why was it you told Haydon not to execute the warrant at present? was not it because you had put the matters into Poole's hands? A. As a referee; I said to Haydon that it might be referred to Mr. Poole to know whether I had a civil or a criminal case, or it was said in his presence; Haydon and Michael were by—that was after the warrant had been out for nearly a month—I believe Haydon went out of town—I did not tell Haydon on that same day, the 28th, to have the name written off the police books—I told him to suspend the warrant, that was all—I have no recollection of his saying, "In order to do that, I shall be obliged to have the name written off at the station"—he did not execute the warrant—he did not say that it was handed over to Moss by mistake when he went out of town—he said that he had sent Moss in to apprehend him, while to remained outside—Poole is a private gentleman; he has an office in London—he does not live at Southend, but his wife was very ill, and he was staying there, and she subsequently died—I do not know that that was the reason that he could not go into the reference—I know nothing about it—I called almost daily upon Michael—the cheque was payable to the defendant—I understand that the acceptance that he gave was in his own name—I have not seen it—I have heard since that it was for 100l.—I did not write a letter to him about Cawley's bills—I never wrote a letter—I did not write a letter asking for Cawley's bills; decidedly not—I never saw the bills, and do not know whether there was first a large one for 175l., which was afterwards broken up into four small ones—I know nothing of any bills of Cawley's—if I have said, "Not for these last bills," it must have been a slip of the tongue—I never wrote to him to ask him for the one large bill—no letter has been destroyed by my request, or in my presence.

MR. SLEIGH. Q. When did you first learn or know that an acceptance had been given by the prisoner for 100l? A. Within the last fortnight, and before I gave my oheque for 94l. 10s.—he did not tell me so at the time when he told me he had got 90l. in advance—I first knew of Cawiey through some goods being sold to him by the prisoner—it was through the prisoner that I first in my life heard of Mr. Cawley—I declined to have anything to. do with Cawley whatever, because I had made application to the reference, and likewise to the Trade Protection Society—that was while the prisoner was in my employment—I first heard of Mr. Michael through the prisoner—it was on 10th August that I first spoke to the prisoner on the subject of he cheque being cashed by him, and the proceeds appropriated to me—he said that he had not misappropriated the money; that he had sold the velvets for bills which Michael was to discount—I then stated that he had no authority to sell; that I would not take the bills or recognise them in any way—all that I required was my velvets, or an order for them to be given up—I repudiate the bills spoken of from beginning to end—I have since paid the money to Messrs. Werner and Falck, redeemed the velvets, and got them back into my possession.

MR. METCALFE. Q. Is that since these proceedings? A. Yes; since it came before the Lord Mayor—I have given an indemnity.

  ALEXANDER WERNER. I am a merchant, carrying on business at 3, Bury-court, St. Mary-axe—I have known the prisoner four or five months before this matter was inquired into—in July last he applied to me for an advance on some goods—I made the advance on 6th July—I gave him a cheque for 95l. upon certain velvet goods, and he gave me a promissory note and a memorandum of deposit in his own name—in the course of business that loan would have been repayable on 9th August, the bill was due on 6th August—I cannot say whether I saw him upon that day, I think it was afterwards—the bill was presented when due and not paid, and the prisoner came and asked for a renewal; the bill produced was for 100l.—I granted it, and the velvets remained in my hands—he afterwards called again and said, if any one said anything about the velvets, I was not to say anything about his business to anybody—I retained the second bill of 9th August that was not honoured, and since that I have had the amount of my advance and interest paid to me by Mr. Onion, and the goods taken away—the difference between the 95l. and 100l. was the interest.

Cross-examined. Q. You say you received an acceptance from the prisoner at the time you first received the goods? A. Yes; he gave me a letter of introduction which was satisfactory; it was from a very rich man—I advanced the money upon the bill and upon the goods—I advanced the money upon the bill, taking the goods as collateral security—this bill was given on the 9th to renew the other bill—I took this fresh memorandum of deposit at that time (produced)—the goods were in effect redeemed on that day and re-pledged—if the velvets had gone down in the market afterwards I should have sued Mr. Muckleston for the balance, they vary very much in the market—the prisoner told me that a person had bought the velvets—that was a day or two after the first bill was due, before the second bill was given; it was between the 6th and 9th—there are three days grace allowed—he said that Mr. Cawley, of Old-street-road, and somebody else would come and pay for the velvets—I gave him a cheque for 95l.—I offered him first 90l. for the velvets—I do not recollect that he said he wanted 5l. more for his own use.

MR. SLEIGHQ. Did you know anybody else in the transaction? A. No; I thought they were his own goods—the value of them is about 100l., not more.

  WILLIAM SPEELMAN . I am a clerk in the Union Bank of London, Temple-bar branch—Mr. Onion keeps an account there; the officer Moss has the cheque; this is it (produced)—I debited Mr. William Onion's account on 6th August—there was one 50l. note, No. 13,262, 20th June; three 10l. notes, Nos. 92,877, 8. 9, 23d May; and two 5l. notes, Nos. 44,350, June 26th, and 66,851, June 26th, and 4l. 10s. in cash.

  PHILIP BEYFUS . I am a cabinet-maker, at 91, City-road—I know the prisoner; previous to August last he was indebted to me; he called on me that day and paid me 69l. in notes and gold—I paid it into my bankers, the Union Bank, Princes-street, the following day—he owed me the money for furniture.

  CHARLES HEWITT . I am a clerk at the Union Bank of London, Princes-street—Mr. Philip Beyfus keeps a private account there, and also an account of the firm of P. and S. Beyfus—on 7th August, some money was paid in to the account of the firm—I personally received it either from Mr. Beyfus or somebody else—I believe it was from Mr. Beyfus himself—this (produced) is an extract I made from the books; 173l. 12s. was paid in, and amongst that there was a 50l. note, No. 13,262, dated 20th June; six 10l. notes, two of I which bore the Nos. 92,877 and 92,878, dated 23d May, 1860—there was also a 5l. note amongst them, dated 6th June, 1860, and numbered 44,350.

  JOHN MOSS . I am a detective officer of the City—on 15th September, I arrested the prisoner on a warrant, at his office, 50, Lime-street, City—I said to him, "Mr. Muckleston"—he said, "Yes,"—I said, "Rowland Muckleston"—he said, "No; Richard"—I said, "I have a warrant for Mr. Rowland Muckleston to apprehend him"—he said, "I am not Rowland Muckleston, I am a cousin of his; I am managing the business for him"—I was not satisfied with that, and arrested him—he requested to go to Mr. Michael's office, 10, St. Mary-axe—he afterwards said that his name was Rowland Muckleston.

Cross-examined. Q. You found upon him two letters, did you not? A. Yes; Haydon accompanied me to the office and he stayed outside while I went in—the warrant was handed to me when Haydon was about leaving town—I told the prisoner it was for misappropriating a cheque, and he said that the matter was settled, and that he had letters to show that it was referred to Mr. Poole.

MR. METCALFEtoMR. ONION. Q. Was any salary paid to the prisoner? A. Yes, there is a balance due to me now, 8l. which he was overpaid on the salary account—his salary was 3l. a week, and two and a half per cent on all paper hangings which he sold, and three and a half per cent, on all American cloths—there has been no settlement—I have no statement of the accounts with me—he was in my employ about three weeks—no balance was struck between us at the time he left, but there was a balance due.

MR. METCALFEcontended that there was no case for the Jury: the cheque came from the prosecutor with directions to receive the money, but the money came from the banker, and the question was whether that was such a bailment as was intended by the Statute, as the prisoner received no specific coin from his master, and the money received from the banker would not be in the prisoner's hands as a bailee, it never having been in his master's hands; and further, that he took up the velvets by means of the renewed bill, so that after the cheque was given the object for which it was given was accomplished, and if any offence was then committed it was re-pledging the velvets.MR. LEWISon the same side, contended that bailment is made up of two things, confidence and delivery, and that here there was no delivery, as the cheque was payable to the prisoner or bearer—that there was no direction by the prosecutor to the banker to deliver any specific chattel, and that there was no confidence between the banker and the prisoner, it was between the prisoner and his master (See Reg. v. Bull, Foster's Reports) THE COURTleft it to the Jury to say whether the notes were given to the prisoner for a special purpose, and whether he, instead of that, fraudulently transferred them to his own use.

GUILTY on the First and Second Counts only.— Confined Six Months.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 The following is taken from the Times newspaper and gives a clearer explanation of what happened

 

17 Sept 1860 – Police

As the court was about to rise, Mr Rowland Mucklestone, a gentlemanly-looking man, about 40 years of age, described as a merchant, and who had just been apprehended on a warrant, was charged, under the Fraudulent Trustees Act, with appropriating for his own use the proceeds of a check for £94 10s., entrusted to him for a specific purpose. It may be desirable to state that this section of this statute under which the proceeding before the Court was instituted enacts that if any person, being a bailee of any property, shall fraudulently appropriate or convert it to his own use he shall be deemed guilty of larceny. Mr Gammon conducted the complainant’s case.

28 Sept 1860 – Police

MANSION HOUSE – Mr Rowland Mucklestone, a merchant of Lime Street, underwent a final examination before Alderman Sir Robert Carden on a charge, preferred under the Fraudulent Trustees Act, of appropriating to his own use the proceeds of a cheque for £94 10s., intrusted to him for a specific purpose. Mr Gammon one of the under-Sheriffs, again attended to prefer the charge.

The evidence previously given went to show that in July last Mr W Onion a carriage trimming manufacturer in Drury Lane, authorised the prisoner, who was then in his service as a town traveller, to procure for him an advance of money upon some velvets worth about £150. The prisoner agreed to do so and a few days afterwards he obtained a loan of £95 for a month from Messers Werner and Falck merchants of Bury Court, St Mary Axe. £90 of which he handed over to Mr Onion, leaving him to understand that was all he had raised, and the velvets were deposited with them by way of security. Early in August just before the month had expired, the prisoner applied to Mr Onion for money to repay the advance, and that gentleman gave him a cheque on his bankers for £94 10s., with which to pay the principal and the interest and redeem the goods. But instead of applying the proceeds of that cheque in redemption of the velvets, the prisoner was proved to have appropriated them to his own use, and the complainant could neither obtain his money back nor his goods. Subjoined is the additional evidence adduced yesterday:-

Mr W Spelman a clerk in the Union Bank of London (Temple Bar Branch) deposed that Mr Onion, the complainant, kept an account there, and that his cheque for £94 10s was paid on the 6th August in one £50 note numbered 13262, three £10 notes, two fives and £4 10s in gold.

It was proved by Mr Philip Beyfus, a cabinet maker at 91 City Road, that the prisoner, who he knew, went there on the 6th August and paid him £69 in notes and gold for some furniture which had been supplied to him in March and April last. Mr Beyfus did not know the numbers of the notes, but he paid the money with other sums into the Union Bank the following day. A clerk from that establishment,  proved that the sum paid into the bank to the credit of Mr Beyfus ,was £173 12s and that it included the £50 note, two of the £10 notes and one of the £5 notes which had been paid at the Temple Bar branch of the bank to the prisoner, in exchange for the cheque of £94 10s given him by the complainant.

The prisoner expressed an earnest wish to be remanded for another week, to afford him an opportunity to produce evidence to controvert that adduced in support of the charge, which he had said he had hopes of being able to do so.

Sir R Carden reminded him that he had already been remanded three times, adding, that if such evidence as he had indicated had been forthcoming, he already had opportunities for producing it. He (Sir R Carden) had made up his mind to send him before a jury, unable as he was to resist the evidence which had been given against him, and, that being so, the prisoner could produce the witnesses to whom he referred on his trial.

 

The prisoner, finding he was about to be committed for trial, the Alderman refusing to entertain an application to accept bail.

 

28th November 1860 – Criminal Trials

OLD COURT – (before the recorder) Rowland Mucklestone, 32, a respectable looking man, described in the calendar as an agent, was indicted for feloniously appropriated to his own use a cheque for £94 10s that had been entrusted to him for a specific purpose, as a bailee.

Mr Sleigh was counsel for the prosecution. Mr Metcalf was counsel for the prisoner.

The facts of the case appeared to be of a somewhat complicated character and the nature of the charge will be more intelligible if the more material points are given in the nature of a narrative. The prosecutor was a Mr William Onion, who carries on the business of a carriage trimming manufacturer, in Drury Lane, and it appeared that he became acquainted with the prisoner in June last, and that shortly afterwards he entered his service as clerk and traveller upon a salary and commission, but he remained only a very short time in his service, although they still seemed to be on friendly terms. In the beginning of July the prosecutor wanted some money for a temporary purpose, and he applied to the prisoner to know whether he could procure him an advance on some carriage velvets. A day or two after this the prisoner told him he could do so, and requested him to send the velvets to the offices of Messers Werner and Falck upon the velvets, and he also said that the loan was to be for one month, and he had given a promissory note as collateral security. The prosecutor asked if he could not get a larger advance, and the prisoner said he would try, and on the following day he told the prosecutor that they would not lend more than £90. The promissory note became due on 9th August, and on the 6th the prosecutor gave the prisoner a cheque for £94 10s, £90 of that sum being to repay the money borrowed and £4 10s for interest for one month, which it seems were the terms on which the money was advanced, and the prosecutor at the same time directed him to get the cheque cashed and to take the money to Messers Werner and Co and clear the velvets, but he wished them to hold the goods for a short time to his order, as he did not wish them to have them brought into stock, after having pawned them. He saw the prisoner the same day and he then said he had been to Messers Werners offices and that none of the firm were at home, but that he had left the money with a clerk and that it was alright. A short time after this the prosecutor discovered that the money had not been paid to Messers Werners and he also ascertained that, of his only having obtained £90 from these gentlemen he had in point of fact, the sum really advanced had been £100 and that £5 was deducted for interest for one month, and that a cheque for £95 was given to the prisoner, out of the proceeds of which cheque he only gave the prosecutor  £90 so that he thus obtained £5 at the commencement of the transaction. It turned out that he afterwards appropriated to his own use the whole of the proceeds of the cheque for £94 10s that was given to him by the prosecutor to redeem the velvets on the 6th August.

The prosecutor was subject to a very searching cross examination by Mr Metcalfe with regard to the nature of a variety of transactions between the prisoner and prosecutor, and he admitted at one time he had given the prisoner authority to sell the velvets if he could get a customer for cash or bills that he should approve. He also said that he did not obtain a warrant against him until sometime after he discovered how the cheque had been disposed of, and that after the warrant had been placed in the hands of Haydon, the city detective officer, he requested him not to execute it, but to hold it over for a short time, and for the reason for this it appeared was that he was having some negotiation with the prisoner and his friends, with the object of the money being repaid to him, and there seemed to be very little doubt that, if the prosecutor had received his money, no criminal charge would have been preferred.

Mr Metcalfe addressed the jury at some length, on behalf of the prisoner, and he observed upon the peculiar nature of the transactions between the prisoner and the prosecutor, and contended that the present charge was merely an afterthought, and that the prosecutor had evidently only treated the matter as one of debt, and upon the grounds he called the jury to acquit the prisoner.

The recorder having summed up the evidence, the jury, after a short deliberation, returned a verdict of Guilty, but recommended the prisoner to mercy on account of the nature of the transactions that had taken place between him and the prosecutor.

Judgement was respited upon a technical objection made by Mr Metcalf as to whether, under the circumstances, the prisoner was a bailee of the cheque within the meaning under the Act of Parliament.

 

 

From The Times 1st December 1860 - Central Criminal Court.

Old Court before The Recorder.

Rowland Mucklestone, 32 who was convicted on Tuesday of unlawfully misappropriating a check for £94 10s that had been entrusted to him for a specific purpose, was brought up on Thursday to receive judgement.

The prisoner when he was called up assured the court though that undoubtedbly he had spent the proceeds of the cheque he had no intention to defraud the prosecutor.

The recorder said it was idle for him to say that he had no intention to defraud when it was proved that he had made use of the whole amount of the cheque to pay his own debts and the prosecutor had to pay the money a second time. The jury had, however, recommended him to mercy on account of the nature of the transactions that had taken place between him and the prosecutor, and, as he had already been three months in custody, he should only sentence him to be further imprisoned for a period of six months.

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This would appear to be Rowland born 28th April 1828 in Shrewsbury, Shropshire. He was the son of Richard Jeffreys Muckleston a Town Councillor and Shoe Manufacturer. He became a Burgess in Shrewsbury and following in his father’s footsteps became a Shoe Manufacturer but in `85` he was in Southwark, London. On 30 March 1852 he married Hannah Rogers, the daughter of a Tailor in Thanet in Kent. By 1856 Hannah was pregnant with their one and only child Rowland Ernest Muckleston, born on 17th December at their home in Kensington, but sadly things were not going well as far as the business was concerned and Rowland was going through bankruptcy. His business was given as a Wholesale Boot Manufacturer based at Hackney Road Crescent and his debts and liabilities were said to have been £13,000. Sadly his son’s life was to be cut short dying at just a few months old. He obviously found work where he could and having run up more debts, he found himself in the tempting position of having a cheque in his hand and debts to pay.

It would appear that after completing his prison sentence, his father having died while he was in prison, Rowland decided to emigrate to America. His father had left no will so it is assumed his estate was shared between Rowland and his two married sisters and on leaving prison Rowland may have decided to use whatever inheritance he had to start a new life.

 

Somehow Rowland managed to find at least enough money to move to the USA and travelled to New York. Between 1864 and 1866 having enrolled in Connecticut he was part of the US Navy and fought in the Civil War. On his enlistment papers he gave his occupation as that of Landsman. Hannah also travelled to New York and can be found living in a boarding house in Brooklyn in 1865.

 

After the war Rowland can be found in Pennsylvania where he is trading as a retail dealer and appears on an IRS tax assessment list. What contact he had with Hannah, who we assume went to join him in his new life, we do not know as Rowland remained in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and Hannah stayed in New York; although travel between the two locations is just over 100 miles and would have been relatively easy.

 

We have no record of a divorce but in 1872, 44 year old Rowland married 26 year old Mary Budd and between 1874 and 1889 she gave him four daughters. On his marriage certificate he gave his place of origin as Scotland, maybe he was concerned with his past creditors locating him. He also stated his parents came from Scotland.

 

He certainly moved around as his first daughter was born in New Jersey, the second two years later in Philadelphia but by 1878 he and his family can be found living in New York. It would seem that he continued to have bad luck as far as business was concerned as by 1880 he was working as a clerk in a Mercantile company in St Louis, Missouri.

 

Meanwhile Hannah who was clearly intelligent had enrolled on to a medical training course at the New York Medical College and Hospital for Women and became an Allopathic Medical Practitioner. She also remarried, to a James Carmichael in 1878 in Manhattan, New York, giving her name as Hannah Rogers Muckleston and after her marriage went by the name of Hannah Muckleston Carmichael. She had graduated the same year.  In 1873 James Carmichael had become Professor of Anatomy at the college so this is where they almost certainly met – the pupil married the professor,

 

Rowland died in New York in 1895 aged 67 and his “widow” Mary never remarried. In 1920 she was living with her youngest, and also widowed, daughter Bessie Bosworth.