Silversmiths & Allied Trades - Dublin- 18th -19th Century
Re: Silversmiths & Allied Trades--Dublin--1832
BROWNE
Suffolk Street, Dublin
Dr. Rowley is removed from Great Georges-street, to Mr. Brownes, Jeweller, facing the Round church in Suffolk-street, where those who stand in need of his affilance , will by him be treated with the greatest regularity and humanity.
Source: Hoey's Dublin Mercury - 6th/8th December 1770
Trev.
Suffolk Street, Dublin
Dr. Rowley is removed from Great Georges-street, to Mr. Brownes, Jeweller, facing the Round church in Suffolk-street, where those who stand in need of his affilance , will by him be treated with the greatest regularity and humanity.
Source: Hoey's Dublin Mercury - 6th/8th December 1770
Trev.
Re: Silversmiths & Allied Trades--Dublin--1832
DENNIS M'KEWN
Castle Street, Dublin
Married
Mr. Dennis M'Kewn of Castle-street, Jeweller, to Miss Prim Fortutne of York-street.
Source: Hoey's Dublin Mercury - 10th/13th August 1771
Trev.
Castle Street, Dublin
Married
Mr. Dennis M'Kewn of Castle-street, Jeweller, to Miss Prim Fortutne of York-street.
Source: Hoey's Dublin Mercury - 10th/13th August 1771
Trev.
Re: Silversmiths & Allied Trades--Dublin--1832
RICHARD ARCHBOLD
Hoeys Court, Dublin
The not often seen mark of Richard Archbold:
RA - Dublin - 1813
RA - Dublin - 1813
Richard Archbold registered with the Dublin Company in 1803.
Trev.
Hoeys Court, Dublin
The not often seen mark of Richard Archbold:
RA - Dublin - 1813
RA - Dublin - 1813
Richard Archbold registered with the Dublin Company in 1803.
Trev.
Re: Silversmiths & Allied Trades - Dublin- 18th -19th Centur
FULLER JOHNSON - MARY ANNE JOHNSON - JOHN SAVAGE - RICHARD MOSELY
Parliament Street, later Eden Quay, Dublin
TRINITY TERM, 1830
JUNE 12.
Ex-parte Mary Anne Johnson
The petitioner complained of the finding of the Commissioners, by which the petitioner had been declared a bankrupt.
The petition stated, that in the year 1817, the petitioner married Fuller Johnson, who carried on the business of a watchmaker and silversmith, in Parliament-street, Dublin.– In 1823, Johnson died, having, by his will, given his stock in trade, and whatever he was possessed of, to the petitioner, who was also named executrix, and having proved the will, and taken possession of the effects, to the amount of £7000, continued the trading in the house in Parliament street, for her own account. In 1826, she agreed to sell the stock in trade to John Savage, for £4000, and on the 21st October, John Savage executed a bond, (with warrant of attorney to confers a judgment,) in the penal sum of £8000, to George Foster Ross, the brother of petitioner, as a trustee, for her separate use. In the same month, she married Savage. The trading continued in the house in Parliament-street, until the expiration of the term, in 1828, and afterwards was carried on by these two persons, in another shop, on Eden-quay, in the city of Dublin. On the 6th February, 1830, John Savage died, being indebted to Richard Mosely, the petitioning creditor, in £100, and upwards, for goods sold. The bill of parcels was directed to John Savage, and the account was settled by the acceptances of John Savage. It was discovered, after the marriage of the petitioner with Savage, that another person, who was living at the time of the marriage, claimed to be his wife, and the question was, whether, under these circumstances, Mary Anne Johnson was to be considered a trader, in co partnership with Savage, and liable to a commission of bankruptcy, for the demand of Mosely, as a joint debt.
Counsel for the petitioner contended, that Mosely, the petitioning creditor, was a creditor of John Savage, only, and had ho demand upon the petitioner. The trading of the petitioner, in her former husband's house, was merely as executrix, to wind up the affairs of Johnson. Savage had no share in that, nor had she any share in the business carried on by Savage, otherwise, than by sustaining the character of his wife. Is the misfortune of being deceived in a marriage, which it is now said is null, to have the effect of making her the partner in trade, so as to be liable to the debts of the person who misled her? Can the facts, constituting the crime of bigamy, be proved, after the death of the person charged with the felony? He might be able to shew, that the former marriage was void, and the marriage with Mr. Johnson was a valid marriage. The petitioning creditor pretends, that he really gave credit to Mary Anne Johnson, the petitioner, and that be knew the supposed-marriage was invalid, and that he made Savage the debtor in his books, from motives of delicacy ; the delicacy of a man who transacts with a person, whom, according to his own account, be knew to be guilty of a felony! This de facto marriage operates in the alternative. If valid, she was not competent to be a partner, and if null, he was not competent; being tainted with felony, to contract a partnership, particularly with the party wronged, and more especially for the benefit of a person having notice of the wrong. No doubt, if contrivance or fraud was shewn, in the inception of this relation, on the part of the petitioner, if, with a view to shelter her property, by means of a pretended marriage, she entered into a real partnership, in which she took the chance of gain, without, the risque of loss, this court, acting in bankruptcy, would get at the justice of the case. But the Commissioners have not proceeded in that course of inquiry. They passed by, those witnesses, who could have given the fullest information, as to the real relation in which these persons stood, and founded their adjudication upon depositions of persons less perfectly acquainted with the facts, and without having any documentary evidence before them, to affect the petitioner, for none such exists, at least none of a genuine character.
If the Court should think this a case for a Jury, the rule of convenience requires, that the plaintiff in the action should be confined to the proof of the act of bankruptcy, which was relied on before the Commissioners. The greatest inconvenience would arise from leaving that open, so that the petitioner might be under the necessity of being ready to defend an indefinite number of alleged acts of bankruptcy; and it is equally proper, that, pending the proceedings, the final examination should be suspended, inasmuch, as, should the petitioner be ultimately exempted from the operation of the bankrupt laws, a disclosure of her affairs would he a hardship on the one hand; and, on the other hand, if she refused to answer, or answered in an unsatisfactory manner, the Commissioners, in the uncertainty of the event, would probably not venture to compel full answers, by a committal, which might make them liable to an action, and would be an irremediable injury to the petitioner, far beyond what any damages that might be recovered by her, would repair.
Mr. Lefroy, (against the petition.)–Petitioner must now be satisfied, that her supposed marriage with Savage was a nullity, for her petition is untitled in her name of Johnson. From 1823 to 1826, it is admitted that she traded; it is said, she then sold the stock in trade to Savage, but no assignment is produced. A series of acts by her, from a date so early as within three months utter the pretended marriage with Savage, when two separate licenses were taken out, to trade in the articles of their business, one in the name of each as usual in cases of co-partnership, down to January, 1830, when in a proceeding, no doubt with her privity, to revive a judgment against her, she is described, agreeably to the provisions of the late act, requiring a description of the person against whom a judgment is revived, as Mary Anne Johnson, widow of Fuller Johnson.– All shew, that she was aware of the perfect nullity of her marriage with Savage; and if she, knowing that she was a feme sole, interfered in the management of the business, shared the profits, and appeared to the world as a joint traders, she cannot be now permitted to say, that she was not a partner with, and liable for the debts of Savage, incurred in that joint trading, and, consequently, a proper subject for a commission of bankruptcy.
Lord Chancellor.–This is a doubtful case, and the petitioning creditor must establish his debt against the petitioner, Mary Anne Johnson, in an action. This 1st fact, which it will be difficult for him to contend with, is, that he charged Savage, alone, and settled with Savage, alone, by taking his acceptances for the amount of the goods sold, which constitute his present demand upon Mary Anne Johnson, I shall not confine the plaintiff to the proof of any one act of bankruptcy; for I think a denial to him, by the petitioned, under the circumstances, will hardly come up to a denial to a creditor by a debtor, in the sense of the act of parliament; but it must be left, generally, to the Jury, to say, whether the petitioner is a bankrupt, under the true intent and meaning of the statute: and, in the mean time, I make no order to suspend the final examination.
Source: The Law Recorder - 23rd June 1830
Trev.
Parliament Street, later Eden Quay, Dublin
TRINITY TERM, 1830
JUNE 12.
Ex-parte Mary Anne Johnson
The petitioner complained of the finding of the Commissioners, by which the petitioner had been declared a bankrupt.
The petition stated, that in the year 1817, the petitioner married Fuller Johnson, who carried on the business of a watchmaker and silversmith, in Parliament-street, Dublin.– In 1823, Johnson died, having, by his will, given his stock in trade, and whatever he was possessed of, to the petitioner, who was also named executrix, and having proved the will, and taken possession of the effects, to the amount of £7000, continued the trading in the house in Parliament street, for her own account. In 1826, she agreed to sell the stock in trade to John Savage, for £4000, and on the 21st October, John Savage executed a bond, (with warrant of attorney to confers a judgment,) in the penal sum of £8000, to George Foster Ross, the brother of petitioner, as a trustee, for her separate use. In the same month, she married Savage. The trading continued in the house in Parliament-street, until the expiration of the term, in 1828, and afterwards was carried on by these two persons, in another shop, on Eden-quay, in the city of Dublin. On the 6th February, 1830, John Savage died, being indebted to Richard Mosely, the petitioning creditor, in £100, and upwards, for goods sold. The bill of parcels was directed to John Savage, and the account was settled by the acceptances of John Savage. It was discovered, after the marriage of the petitioner with Savage, that another person, who was living at the time of the marriage, claimed to be his wife, and the question was, whether, under these circumstances, Mary Anne Johnson was to be considered a trader, in co partnership with Savage, and liable to a commission of bankruptcy, for the demand of Mosely, as a joint debt.
Counsel for the petitioner contended, that Mosely, the petitioning creditor, was a creditor of John Savage, only, and had ho demand upon the petitioner. The trading of the petitioner, in her former husband's house, was merely as executrix, to wind up the affairs of Johnson. Savage had no share in that, nor had she any share in the business carried on by Savage, otherwise, than by sustaining the character of his wife. Is the misfortune of being deceived in a marriage, which it is now said is null, to have the effect of making her the partner in trade, so as to be liable to the debts of the person who misled her? Can the facts, constituting the crime of bigamy, be proved, after the death of the person charged with the felony? He might be able to shew, that the former marriage was void, and the marriage with Mr. Johnson was a valid marriage. The petitioning creditor pretends, that he really gave credit to Mary Anne Johnson, the petitioner, and that be knew the supposed-marriage was invalid, and that he made Savage the debtor in his books, from motives of delicacy ; the delicacy of a man who transacts with a person, whom, according to his own account, be knew to be guilty of a felony! This de facto marriage operates in the alternative. If valid, she was not competent to be a partner, and if null, he was not competent; being tainted with felony, to contract a partnership, particularly with the party wronged, and more especially for the benefit of a person having notice of the wrong. No doubt, if contrivance or fraud was shewn, in the inception of this relation, on the part of the petitioner, if, with a view to shelter her property, by means of a pretended marriage, she entered into a real partnership, in which she took the chance of gain, without, the risque of loss, this court, acting in bankruptcy, would get at the justice of the case. But the Commissioners have not proceeded in that course of inquiry. They passed by, those witnesses, who could have given the fullest information, as to the real relation in which these persons stood, and founded their adjudication upon depositions of persons less perfectly acquainted with the facts, and without having any documentary evidence before them, to affect the petitioner, for none such exists, at least none of a genuine character.
If the Court should think this a case for a Jury, the rule of convenience requires, that the plaintiff in the action should be confined to the proof of the act of bankruptcy, which was relied on before the Commissioners. The greatest inconvenience would arise from leaving that open, so that the petitioner might be under the necessity of being ready to defend an indefinite number of alleged acts of bankruptcy; and it is equally proper, that, pending the proceedings, the final examination should be suspended, inasmuch, as, should the petitioner be ultimately exempted from the operation of the bankrupt laws, a disclosure of her affairs would he a hardship on the one hand; and, on the other hand, if she refused to answer, or answered in an unsatisfactory manner, the Commissioners, in the uncertainty of the event, would probably not venture to compel full answers, by a committal, which might make them liable to an action, and would be an irremediable injury to the petitioner, far beyond what any damages that might be recovered by her, would repair.
Mr. Lefroy, (against the petition.)–Petitioner must now be satisfied, that her supposed marriage with Savage was a nullity, for her petition is untitled in her name of Johnson. From 1823 to 1826, it is admitted that she traded; it is said, she then sold the stock in trade to Savage, but no assignment is produced. A series of acts by her, from a date so early as within three months utter the pretended marriage with Savage, when two separate licenses were taken out, to trade in the articles of their business, one in the name of each as usual in cases of co-partnership, down to January, 1830, when in a proceeding, no doubt with her privity, to revive a judgment against her, she is described, agreeably to the provisions of the late act, requiring a description of the person against whom a judgment is revived, as Mary Anne Johnson, widow of Fuller Johnson.– All shew, that she was aware of the perfect nullity of her marriage with Savage; and if she, knowing that she was a feme sole, interfered in the management of the business, shared the profits, and appeared to the world as a joint traders, she cannot be now permitted to say, that she was not a partner with, and liable for the debts of Savage, incurred in that joint trading, and, consequently, a proper subject for a commission of bankruptcy.
Lord Chancellor.–This is a doubtful case, and the petitioning creditor must establish his debt against the petitioner, Mary Anne Johnson, in an action. This 1st fact, which it will be difficult for him to contend with, is, that he charged Savage, alone, and settled with Savage, alone, by taking his acceptances for the amount of the goods sold, which constitute his present demand upon Mary Anne Johnson, I shall not confine the plaintiff to the proof of any one act of bankruptcy; for I think a denial to him, by the petitioned, under the circumstances, will hardly come up to a denial to a creditor by a debtor, in the sense of the act of parliament; but it must be left, generally, to the Jury, to say, whether the petitioner is a bankrupt, under the true intent and meaning of the statute: and, in the mean time, I make no order to suspend the final examination.
Source: The Law Recorder - 23rd June 1830
Trev.
Re: Silversmiths & Allied Trades - Dublin- 18th -19th Century
ROBERT WOGAN
Parliament Street, Dublin
Noted as bankrupt in November 1774.
Bankrupts
Robert Wogan, Jeweller, of Parliament-street.
Source: The Hibernian Magazine, Or, Compendium of Entertaining Knowledge - James Potts - 1774
Trev.
Parliament Street, Dublin
Noted as bankrupt in November 1774.
Bankrupts
Robert Wogan, Jeweller, of Parliament-street.
Source: The Hibernian Magazine, Or, Compendium of Entertaining Knowledge - James Potts - 1774
Trev.
Re: Silversmiths & Allied Trades - Dublin- 18th -19th Century
ABRAHAM WEEKS
Island Street, Dublin
INSOLVENTS - Petitions to be heard in Dublin on the 22d Dec. next.
Abraham Weeks, late of Island-street, Dublin, clerk, and late a jeweller.
Source: The Irish Law Recorder - 1828
Trev.
Island Street, Dublin
INSOLVENTS - Petitions to be heard in Dublin on the 22d Dec. next.
Abraham Weeks, late of Island-street, Dublin, clerk, and late a jeweller.
Source: The Irish Law Recorder - 1828
Trev.
Re: Silversmiths & Allied Trades - Dublin- 18th -19th Century
SAMUEL CLAYTON
Dublin
DEATHS
April 1794.—At Waterford, at the very advanced age of 110 years, Mr. Samuel Clayton, formerly an eminent silversmith of the city of Dublin.
Source: Anthologia Hibernica - 1794
Trev.
Dublin
DEATHS
April 1794.—At Waterford, at the very advanced age of 110 years, Mr. Samuel Clayton, formerly an eminent silversmith of the city of Dublin.
Source: Anthologia Hibernica - 1794
Trev.
Re: Silversmiths & Allied Trades - Dublin- 18th -19th Century
HENRY FERNS
Dublin
Henry Ferns was noted as a Silver Chaser and Chairman of the 'Gold and Silver Smiths of the City of Dublin' in September 1841. He had been a member of that association since at least 1830.
Trev.
Dublin
Henry Ferns was noted as a Silver Chaser and Chairman of the 'Gold and Silver Smiths of the City of Dublin' in September 1841. He had been a member of that association since at least 1830.
Trev.
Re: Silversmiths & Allied Trades - Dublin- 18th -19th Century
DAVID T. PETER
14, Werburgh Street, later, Ranelagh Road, later, 54, Charlemont Street, Dublin
An example of the work and mark of David T. Peter:
DTP - Dublin - 1790
DTP - Dublin - 1790
David T. Peter served his apprenticeship under Owen Cassidy as from 1756.
He was recorded as a Quarter Brother in 1763, and made a Freeman in 1767. He registered his mark with the Dublin Company in 1784 and is thought to have been working up to 1806.
He is known to have taken one apprentice, David Henderson, in 1768.
Trev.
14, Werburgh Street, later, Ranelagh Road, later, 54, Charlemont Street, Dublin
An example of the work and mark of David T. Peter:
DTP - Dublin - 1790
DTP - Dublin - 1790
David T. Peter served his apprenticeship under Owen Cassidy as from 1756.
He was recorded as a Quarter Brother in 1763, and made a Freeman in 1767. He registered his mark with the Dublin Company in 1784 and is thought to have been working up to 1806.
He is known to have taken one apprentice, David Henderson, in 1768.
Trev.
Re: Silversmiths & Allied Trades - Dublin- 18th -19th Century
I thought folks might be interested in picture of David T. Peter's maker's mark with relatively little rubbing. This came off of one of a pair of lovely crested Old English Feather Edge With Shoulders pattern tablespoons hallmarked for 1772. I can post more pictures if anyone has an interest, as it is an uncommon pattern, particularly in Irish silver. Regards, WesternPA
Re: Silversmiths & Allied Trades - Dublin- 18th -19th Century
Hi WesternPA,
Trev.
Definitely, we'll be delighted to see them.I can post more pictures if anyone has an interest
Trev.
Re: Silversmiths & Allied Trades - Dublin- 18th -19th Century
Here you go! The armorial appears to be for a branch of the Mac Sweeney clan, if I have it right.
Re: Silversmiths & Allied Trades - Dublin- 18th -19th Century
Hi WesternPA,
Great spoons, thanks for sharing.
It's interesting to see such a late date for this transitional style of spoon, and shows how long it often took fashion to travel to the provinces, if these were London spoons you would expect them to be maybe twenty years earlier.
Trev.
Great spoons, thanks for sharing.
It's interesting to see such a late date for this transitional style of spoon, and shows how long it often took fashion to travel to the provinces, if these were London spoons you would expect them to be maybe twenty years earlier.
Trev.
Re: Silversmiths & Allied Trades - Dublin- 18th -19th Century
Hi Trev,
These date to 1772, so I would have thought they were right in the zone for this style, at least according to Pickford. Do you see this style in the 1750s?
Best,
WesternPA
These date to 1772, so I would have thought they were right in the zone for this style, at least according to Pickford. Do you see this style in the 1750s?
Best,
WesternPA
Re: Silversmiths & Allied Trades - Dublin- 18th -19th Century
Hi WesternPA,
That serves me right for being too dammed casual and not checking things properly! All the information was there to be seen and I just clean rode over it. Thanks for the correction.
It would appear that Dublin was very much up to speed when regarding fashion!
Trev.
That serves me right for being too dammed casual and not checking things properly! All the information was there to be seen and I just clean rode over it. Thanks for the correction.
It would appear that Dublin was very much up to speed when regarding fashion!
Trev.
Re: Silversmiths & Allied Trades - Dublin- 18th -19th Century
HENRY FLAVELLE
17, Leinster Street, later, 5, D'Olier Street, later, 43, Grafton Street, Dublin
An example of the work and mark of Henry Flavelle:
HF - Duty mark (1830)
See also: http://www.925-1000.com/forum/viewtopic ... le#p136225
Trev.
17, Leinster Street, later, 5, D'Olier Street, later, 43, Grafton Street, Dublin
An example of the work and mark of Henry Flavelle:
HF - Duty mark (1830)
See also: http://www.925-1000.com/forum/viewtopic ... le#p136225
Trev.
Re: Silversmiths & Allied Trades - Dublin- 18th -19th Century
FORWARD RUMLEY
67, Dame Street, Dublin
Retailer mark of Forward Rumley stuck on a teaspoon made by James Le Bas, assayed at Dublin in 1828:
Forward Rumley: Freeman 1820, Elected Warden 1826-29, Master 1828-30.
Forward Rumley was recorded as a Goldsmith, Jeweller and Watchmaker of 67, Dame Street, Dublin in Wilson's Dublin Directory - 1830
Trev.
67, Dame Street, Dublin
Retailer mark of Forward Rumley stuck on a teaspoon made by James Le Bas, assayed at Dublin in 1828:
Forward Rumley: Freeman 1820, Elected Warden 1826-29, Master 1828-30.
Forward Rumley was recorded as a Goldsmith, Jeweller and Watchmaker of 67, Dame Street, Dublin in Wilson's Dublin Directory - 1830
Trev.
Re: Silversmiths & Allied Trades - Dublin- 18th -19th Century
LAW & BAYLY
Dublin
An example of the work and mark of Law & Bayly:
L&B - Dublin
Other examples of the mark:
L&B - Dublin - 1796
L&B
See: http://www.925-1000.com/dlDublin4.html#M
Trev.
Dublin
An example of the work and mark of Law & Bayly:
L&B - Dublin
Other examples of the mark:
L&B - Dublin - 1796
L&B
See: http://www.925-1000.com/dlDublin4.html#M
Trev.
Re: Silversmiths & Allied Trades - Dublin- 18th -19th Century
JAMES WHYTE
43, Henry Street, Dublin
James Whyte - Dublin - undated
Late John Read & Son, College Green, Dublin.
Trev.
43, Henry Street, Dublin
James Whyte - Dublin - undated
Late John Read & Son, College Green, Dublin.
Trev.
Re: Silversmiths & Allied Trades - Dublin- 18th -19th Century
MERTAGH DOWLING
School House Lane, later, The Dial, Cook Street, Dublin
Mor. Dowling - Dublin - 1736-38
Source: The Dublin Daily Advertiser 1736-1738
Trev.
School House Lane, later, The Dial, Cook Street, Dublin
Mor. Dowling - Dublin - 1736-38
Source: The Dublin Daily Advertiser 1736-1738
Trev.