The original 'Stanbrook House' was in the parish of Powick, near Worcester. The St James's Chronicle of Tuesday 24 December 1811 reported "On Sunday last a fire broke out at Stanbrook House, in the parish of Powick, belonging to Dr. Briggs. The house had been under repair and improvement, and was nearly ready for the occupation of the family. The accident is attributed to the neglect of workmen employed in the house."
In 1835, with the encouragement of Bernard Short of Little Malvern, later the abbey chaplain, a community of English Benedictine nuns bought Stanbrook Hall at Callow End, Powick. This was a country mansion, built in 1755 by Richard Casean, of Worcester. The nuns had an abbey building built which was ready in 1838. It was named Stanbrook Abbey and the nuns remained there until 2009.
As a Roman Catholic, Emily would have been well aware of Stanbrook Abbey, but it is just possible that she was also aware of 'Stanbrook House', in Atlingworth Street, Brighton.
'Stanbrook House' in Cathedral Road, Cardiff, first appears in the press in the South Wales Daily News on Tuesday 22 September 1891. This is an advertisement for a "thorough Plain Cook as General Servant; also general to take housemaid's duties". Whether or not the post was filled, another advertisement for a "thorough Plain Cook; must assist in general housework" appeared in the South Wales Echo on Tuesday 8 December 1891.
The following day, 8 December 1891, the South Wales Echo carried an advertisement which made clear the nature of 'Stanbrook House':
STANBROOK HOUSE,
CATHEDRAL ROAD, CARDIFF.
TRAINED NURSES' INSTITUTE AND PRIVATE HOME FOR PAYING PATIENTS.
HOSPITAL TRAINED NURSES SUPPLIED
To private families for all classes of case, at shortest possible notice, on application to the Matron.
Telegraphic address—"HUMANITY, CARDIFF."
The same advertisement appeared roughly on a weekly basis until October 1892. On Friday 14 October 1892 the South Wales Daily News had news of a residential vacancy:
"There is a Vacancy as Boarder for an Invalid or Elderly Lady requiring special care and attention for permanency or otherwise; every home comfort.—Stanbrook House, Cathedral-road, Cardiff"
It last appeared on 23 November 1892 and then the usual advertisement resumed.
The beginning of the end was reported in the South Wales Echo on Tuesday 9 May 1893:
Notification of infectious Diseases.
CHARGES AGAINST CARDIFF NURSES.
At the Cardiff Borough Police-court this afternoon, the Stipendiary Magistrate (Mr T. W. Lewis, Dr. Paine, Mr Spencer, and Mr R. Bird on the bench) two cases were heard having reference to the measures taken by the corporation for preventing the spread of contagious diseases.
In the first case Miss Annie Elliott, a nurse at the Nursing Institution, Stanbrook House, Cathedral-road, Cardiff, was summoned for conveying an infectious case in a public vehicle without giving due notice to the driver, while in the second case Mrs Emily Boddington, the lady superintendent of the institution, was charged with refusing to give up to the sanitary authorities certain infected clothing.
Mr F. C. Lloyd, deputy town clerk, appeared for the prosecution. He said the summons against Miss Elliott was taken under the 126th section or the Public Health Act, charging her with exposing a child suffering from a dangerous infectious disease in a public conveyance without notice to the driver.
The section in question provided that "any person who while suffering from any dangerous or infectious disease, wilfully exposes himself without proper precautions against the spreading of the said disease in any street, public place, house, shop, or conveyance, or enters any public conveyance without previously notifying to the owner or driver that he is so suffering; or being in charge of such person who shall expose such sufferer."
The defendant was alleged to have been in charge of the person suffering. The infectious disease in question was diphtheria, which was one of a number of infectious diseases scheduled in the Act. It was of a somewhat dangerous character, the proportion of deaths of persons attacked being even as great as 30 per cent. The most important preventative measures are isolation and disinfection.
In this case the person attacked was a child who, while in a highly infectious condition, was removed in a public conveyance without the slightest intimation that she was infectious. The cabman when he was hired was told that he was required to fetch a gentleman, whereas it was a child who was removed. The cab had not been disinfected for a week after by reason of no notice having been given to the driver.
The child was not taken to an isolation hospital, but to a nursing home, where persons were received suffering from all the diseases.
The defendant was not an ignorant person—she was a trained nurse, and therefore should understand the danger to which she was exposing persons who were subsequently using the cab.
Wm. Henry Matthews, of Ryder-street, said he was the father of the child Beatrice Matthews, who was four years of age. On the 17th April, while suffering from diphtheria, she was conveyed from Green-street to Stanbrook House, Cathedral-road, in a cab by the defendant. He did not tell the defendant that the child was suffering from diphtheria, but from the general tone of the con-versation he led her to believe that the case was one of an infectious character.
The Stipendiary: Did anyone tell Miss Elliott the case was one of diphtheria?
Witness: I have no doubt in my own mind that she knew it was an infectious case.
Samuel Davies, a foreman driver to Mr T. H. Webb, cab proprietor, Cathedral-road, deposed to driving the child in charge of the defendant from Queen-street to the Cathedral. No intimation whatever was conveyed to him that the child was suffering from a contagious disease.
Mr Edward Walford, medical officer of health for the borough of Cardiff, stated that diphtheria was a dangerous infectious disease.
The Stipendiary: If any person suffering from diphtheria were driven in a cab is the next person using the cab liable to become infected?
Dr. Walford: Yes I think so.
Mr Edward S. Smith, surgeon, practising in Cardiff, deposed to attending the child Beatrice Matthews, who was suffering from diphtheria.
The Stipendiary (to defendant): The case has been clearly proved against you. I take it you do not deny the facts of the case?
Defendant: I did not know it was against the law. Had it been scarlet fever I should have given notice, but being diphtheria I did not think it was necessary to mention it.
A fine of £5 and costs was inflicted, or in default defendant was ordered to prison for one month with hard labour.
A similar summons had been issued against Mrs Emily Boddington, the lady superintendent of Stanbrook House Nursing Institution, but on the application of Mr Lloyd this was withdrawn, and she was proceeded against for refusing to give up the clothing of the sick child to the sanitary authorities.
In answer to the bench, Mrs Boddington admitted the charge, but said the articles were disinfected in the house, where they had every possible convenience for doing so.
Mr Lloyd said this was a charge which he must press. It was taken out under the Infectious Diseases Prevention Act, 1890, which had been adopted by the Cardiff Urban Sanitary Authority. By section 6 it was enacted that any local authority, or the medical officer of health for such authority, might, by giving notice in writing, require the owner of any bedding, clothing, or other articles which had been exposed to an infection or any infectious disease to cause the same to be delivered over to the officer of the authority for removal for the purpose of disinfection and any person who failed to comply with the requirement should be liable to a penalty not exceeding £10.
George Thomas, inspector of nuisances to the Cardiff Urban Sanitary Authority, stated that, acting under instructions from the medical officer of health, he proceeded to the Nursing Institution, Cathedral-road, on the 13th April, and asked for the clothing of the child, Beatrice Matthews. Defendant refused to give the articles up. She said she would not allow anything to be taken out of the house, urging that they were quite capable of disinfecting their own things.
The facts of the case were not denied, defendant being fined £5 and costs.
Advertisements for 'Stanbrook House' and its services stop abruptly at that point, but worse was to come.
The South Wales Daily News of Thursday 23 November 1893 gave a list of cases to tried at the Glamorgan Assizes, including Boddington v. Webber and Wilkinson. The case was adjourned to the following Tuesady which the South Wales Daily News reported on Wednesday 29 November 1893:
GLAMORGAN ASSIZES.
CIVIL BUSINESS.
The autumn assizes for the county of Glamorgan were resumed on Tuesday at the Town-hall, Cardiff, before Mr Justice Henn Collins, and common jury.
ACTION FOR TRESPASS.
An action was entered by Emily Caroline Boddington against Messrs. Webber and Wilkinson for damages for trespass, £340; a return of all goods seized, or payment of the value thereof, £400; and damages for the detention of the goods, £100.
Plaintiff was represented by Mr B. F. Williams, Q.C., and Mr Arthus Lewis, Mr Abel Thomas and Mr Ivor Bowen were for the defendants.
Plaintiff resided at 3, The Parade, Cardiff, and carried on the business of a nursing home. On the 29th of September, 1893, defendants, by their servants and agents, unlawfully broke and entered the plaintiff's premises and seized and carried away the household goods and other effects of the plaintiff, which they still retained in their possession.
Plaintiff gave evidence, and said that in August of this year she had been negotiating for the loan of some money, and was introduced to Mr Wilkinson on the 24th. A conversation ensued, in which witness said she wanted £150 or £200 for about three months, and also that she was engaged on a book which would be published in about two months, and in three months she would know whether it would sell or not.
On the 26th she received £60, and on the 29th £35.
An hiring agreement was produced on the 29th which she, after simply glancing over, signed.
The arrangement between witness and defendant was that she was to go through a form of sale, and she was to give an undertaking to take the goods back within three months. Not getting the undertaking, she went to Messrs. David and Evans, where Mr .Wilkinson informed Mr. Evans that there had been an absolute sale on the 29th September.
Witness crossed to Weston [-super-Mare, Somerset], and on her return discovered a furniture van outside her house, the furniture having been removed, and her library was scattered with her letters.
On the same day she received a letter from the defendant firm requesting her to give up possession of the furniture within an hour.
In consequence of the removal of the furniture she was obliged to give up the nurses' institute, and had since been living in lodgings.
Cross-examined by Mr Abel Thomas, Q.C., M.P.: She had a house in Weston which was not tenanted. She had no house in Belgium, but she had a houseful of furniture. She did not have an advance of £200 from Mr Pike, of Bristol, as the latter said she would have to make out her title to the furniture. The inventory of goods valued at £460 did not, she believed, include all the furniture she had in Cardiff. She told Mr Wilkinson that there was no rent due.
The case was adjourned until 10 o'clock this (Wednesday) morning.
The South Wales Echo reported in its 5pm edition that evening:
GLAMORGAN ASSIZES.
The Assizes for Glamorgan were resumed at the Crown-court, Cardiff, this morning, before Mr Justice Henn Collins.
The hearing of the case of Boddington v. Webber and Wilkinson, which was adjourned from the previous sitting, was continued. At the last sitting the cross-examination of Mrs Boddington was concluded.
Miss S. J. Cockrill said she had lived for some tine with Mrs. Boddington, and she accompanied that lady to the office of Messrs David and Evans.
Mr Wilkinson, who was present at that meeting, asserted the sale was an absolute one, and the plaintiff said there was an agreement whereby she might repurchase the furniture within three months.
A letter was written by Mrs Boddington under Mr Webber's guidance asking the firm to re-sell the furniture.
Cross-examined by Mr Abel Thomas, Q.C.. M.P.: The letter from Mrs Boddington asking the firm to re-sell the furniture was written at home, and not at the office.
Mr D. W. Evans (of David and Evans, solicitors) said Mr Wilkinson asserted in the office of his firm that the sale of the furniture was absolute. This statement, however, Mrs Boddington denied, as the auctioneers had promised to allow her to re-purchase the furniture. It was his opinion that the transaction was an attempt to avoid the Bill of Sales Act.
Cross-examined by Mr Abel Thomas: He refused to have anything to do with the affair because Mr Wilkinson had maligned him. Mr Wilkinson said Mrs Boddington might buy the furniture back.
Mr Charles Evans, an auctioneer of Cardiff, said he made a valuation of Mrs Boddington's furniture at Stanbrook House and Wellington-terrace, Cardiff. The value was £388 10s 9d.
By Mr Abel Thomas, Q.C.: The value of the furniture at Wellington-terrace was £43. Had he been estimating a sale. by auction the value would have been less. There were two valuers sent to value the furniture by order of the Court. They did not do so, because they could not get it in.
Mr J. J. Roberts, accountant, stated that he had examined the books in relation to the moneys received by the Nursing Institute.
Mr Wilkinson, a member of the firm of Webber and Wilkinson, deposed that he saw Mrs Boddington, who confided to him that she had certain debts to meet, and asked for a loan of £65. He suggested that she should have a sale of her furniture, but this the lady objected to, as it was not quick enough, and suggested that he should advance her £65.
Witness objected, as they did not advance money, and he could not do it without a bill of sale.
The plaintiff objected to the bill of sale on account of the publicity.
Witness then said the only way in which he could meet her would be for her to sell the furniture to the firm. He saw some furniture at Andrews', and some at the Parade, for which plaintiff asked £130.
Mrs Boddington said she wanted the money immediately,and asked for £60 on account. This witness thought he could safely advance.
Mrs Boddington agreed to give up possession of the furniture at Andrews', but asked that the goods at the Parade might be allowed to remain.
Mr Webber, the head of the firm, said they had nothing whatever to do with money lending, except as the agents of the Somerset Finance Society, and they never lent money on personal security.
The South Wales Daily News continued the story on the following day:
He [Mr Webber] certainly gave Mrs Boddington no directions for writing the letter referring to the re-purchase of the furniture.
Mr David Shepherd, auctioneer, and Mr G. Maddox, spoke to the valuation of the furniture.
Mr C. Clarke, auctioneer, deposed to having valued the furniture at £135.
Mr Abel Thomas then reviewed the evidence for the defence, and stating that every document from beginning to end showed that Mr Wilkinson was telling the truth when he said there was an actual sale. The transaction was not one of loan at all, and the defendants never had any suggestion of any desire that they should send back the goods until they received the plaintiff's letter of the 30th August.
Mr B. Francis William, in reply, said they had to consider whether it was an out-and-out sale by Mrs Boddington or was it, as the evidence substantiated, an advance to her for her accommodation, repayment of which was secured on her furniture.
It was the intention of Wilkinson - and it always was the intention of such people - to get their things to their auction-rooms in order that they might get their realisation fees. The plaintiff, he maintained, was not only entitled to the value of the furniture, but under the agreement, which really amounted to a bill of sale, she was entitled to retain it.
His Lordship: You are right on the main point. It is a trespass.
Mr B. F. Williams: It is a trespass to carry out the design which was formulated of getting this lady's furniture under its value.
His Lordship, in summing up, said it was relevant to inquire in this connection whether the defendants were money-lenders, or purely and simply auctioneers. In their advertisement, they stated that "money was lent on mortgage or personal security."
The jury retired, and on returning into court found a verdict for the plaintiff on the grounds that there had been no sale.
They awarded her in respect of the furniture, or its return £125 for the illegal trespass and £100 for the loss of business.
The last we hear of 'Stanbrook House' and its contents is in the South Wales Daily News of Thursday 1 March 1894:
SALE THIS DAY.
LESSER PARK-HALL, CARDIFF.
SALE OF VERY SUPERIOR HOUSEHOLD APPOINTMENTS,
Removed from STANBROOK HOUSE, CATHEDRAL ROAD, Cardiff, to the above Hall for the convenience of Sale.
The whole of the Goods are equal to new, having been only recently supplied by the following well-known firms, viz.:—
MESSRS MAPLE AND CO., HUGHES AND CO., AND SHOOLBRED AND CO., LONDON.
MR MORGAN MORGAN is favoured with instructions, by Mrs E. C. Boddington, to
SELL BY AUCTION,
At the LESSER PARK HALL, CARDIFF,
On THURSDAY and FRIDAY, the 1st and 2nd days of March next,
THE FOLLOWING VALUABLE
HOUSEHOLD FURNITURE AND EFFECTS:—
DINING AND DRAWING-ROOMS.
EBONIZED and GILT TABLE, LARGE GILT MIRROR 6-3 x 5-6, MAHOGANY BOOKCASE, rose-wood card table, rosewood sofa table, easy chairs in terra-cotta, maroon, and yellow silk plushes, SANDRINGHAM COUCH in TAPESTRY, OTTOMAN in OLD GOLD SILK, UPRIGHT GRAND PIANOFORTE in walnut case, bevelled-frame Venetian mirror, ebonized settee and 10 armchairs (en suite), mahogany octagon table, do. dinner-waggon, do. kneehole writing table, EXCELLENT DINNER and DESSERT SERVICES (by John Mortlock). walnut whatnots and music Canterburys, COTTAGE PIANOFORTE in walnut case, BRUSSELS and TAPESTRY CARPETS, Axminster and other rugs, framed engravings and autotypes after the great masters, SOLID MAHOGANY DININGTABLE, do. SIDEBOARD, do. dining-room chairs in morocco, AMERICAN ORGAN, 12 stops.
HALL AND STAIRCASE.
MASSIVE OAK HALL STAND and chairs, two hall lamps, stair carpet, brass rods, &c.
CONTENTS OF 10 BEDROOMS.
6ft and 3ft. 6in. IRON AND BRASS bedsteads, and French box spring mattresses, 3ft. wire-spring bedsteads, BEST GERMAN OVERLAYS, WHITE WOOL AND HAIR do., MAHOGANY WARDROBE (plate glass door), do. pedestal marble top washstand, do. chest of drawers, do. writing table, a 4ft. BEDROOM SUITE IN ASH, couch in cretonne. CHINA TOILET SETS (Copeland and Salisbury ware), Brussels carpets, blankets, sheets, huckabuck, and other towels, feather bolsters and pillows, &c.
KITCHEN.
MANGLE AND WRINGING MACHINE, Windsor chairs, tables, and the usual culinary articles.
The whole of the Goods will be on View on Wednesday, the 28th inst., and on Mornings of Sale.
SALE TO COMMENCE EACH DAY AT 11.30 AM.
And with that sale, the brief glory days of 'Stanbrook House' came to an end.
No comments:
Post a Comment