..........How
The Newspapers Reported The Court Case
The account on the left is from 'The Essex Weekly News' the
one on the right is from 'The Essex County Chronicle' The two accounts
of the court case vary slightly. The one on the right you can read
OK, the one on the left we've typed in the centre of the page.
You will read that George was a bit of a rascal and the
truth is that a trust fund for his first wife
Christiana Musgrove was set up for £12,000,which was a huge sum of money in 1870
equivalent today to over six million pounds based on average
earnings.The Trust was set up for the benefit of George's first
wife, and on her death would pass to George, and on his death to their daughter
Christiana. Bear in mind that George's wife was to die within months
of this settlement and that he married his second wife Emily within
one month of her death. |

|
Chelmsford
County Court
June 6
(Before his honour Judge Abdy)
DANBURY CURIOUS CASE UNDER
A POST NUPTIAL SETTLEMENT.
"SHABBY STEP-PARENTS"
Christiana
Jessie Langman, through her husband Thomas Langman formerly Landlord
of The Cricketers Inn Danbury, against George A Musgrove and Emma
Musgrove his wife. This was a claim for an account to be taken
of the sum of £60' money received by the defendants for the plaintiff
under the terms of a post-nuptial settlement. Mr
Kenyon Parker' barrister. appeared for the plaintiff; Mr W. Turner, was for
the
defendants.
Mr Parker said the plaintiff was entitled to a sum of money
under a post-nuptial settlement, which received that under a will Mrs Musgrove
( the first wife of the defedant and mother of the plaintiff; she has since
died, and the defendant married the present female defendant) was entitled
a sum of £12,000, and she wanted to make a voluntary settledment
of it.
£6000 was at once transferred to the trustees, under the settlement
and the remaining £6,000 was assigned to the trustees under the settlement,
which was on trust for Mrs Musgrove for life, after her death for George
Musgrove and after that to Cristiana Musgrove the presnt plaintiff. In
October 1885 the plaintiff was about to be married to Mr Langman, and she
applied to the trustees, with the consent of the defendants, for an advance
of £60 for providing for her trouseaux. This was agreed to and Mr
Starling the solicitor handed to the plaintiff, in the presence of Mr and
Mrs Musgrove
a cheque for £60, and at the same time telling the defendants that
it was trust money and that it was all to be expended for the benefit of
the plaintiff.
The parties went to the Uhion Bank and cashed the cheque in gold Mrs Musgrove
put in her bag, They then went to a Post Office and prepared an order for
£14 which Mrs Musgrove remmitted to Messrs Hill their brewers, in
payment of bill. They proceeded from here to several shops, purchasing
a lot of
things for the defendants and also some things for the wedding outfit.
The plaintiff received no part of the £60 in money; the dress came
to £14
.. 4s .. 6d. The marriage of the plaintiff took placr on the 4th November
and on applying to Mr Musgrove for some money he gave her 2s and
said, "Now you have married Tom Langman he must keep you." In
some correspondence that followed between the solicitors Mr Tanner admitted
the debt of £14
the brewers' bill which would be paid as soon as certain prosedures in
Chancery were settled.- Mr Parker called Mr Starling who corrobated.
Mrs
Langman the plaintiff who will be 20 next October said that after drawing
the £60 from the bank Mrs Musgrove sent £ 14 to her brewers
and bought herself a lot of china etc out of the plaintiff's £60;
witness received nothing of the £60 on that day for herself, but
on the day of her marriage her step father gave her 2s
and said her husband must keep her.
Cross-examined; Her wedding took place from the Cricketers, Danbury, where
she had been living with Mr and Mrs Musgrove: she did not autorise Mrs
Musgrove tyo get the dinner and tea service for the wedding breakfast.
Mr
Tanner said it was clear on the evidence that Mr Musgrove had nothing to
do with the expenditure of the £60, which was spent by Mrs Musgrove
and Mrs Langman. He submitted that Mr Musgrove had acted fairly and honestly
- by offering the £14 admitted as soon as the account of the income
of the trust fund had been taken by the court of Chancery: and by offering
to keep Mrs Langman.
His honour said he was going to tax Mrs Musgrove all he could, for as dirty
and shabby a piece of conduct as he has ever listened to. The learned
Judge strongly denounced the conduct of Mr and Mrs Musgrove towards this
young girl and said he wanted to mark his indignation at it. He should
order that an account be taken against both of the defendants and what
ever sum of money was owing was to be handed over to the plaintiff. He
hoped the something of benefit to the plaintiff would come of it. The costs
would follow the judgement.
|

|