Trouble at t'mill

[Guest Jeremy]

Anyone know anything more about this?

From the London Morning Chronicle, 29 October 1855:

thanks,

Jeremy

[neddy]

Oldale apparently had claim on the property of Peter Wigfall, Whitehead it seems also had a claim and had possession, and sold on to Earl Fitzwilliam.

Some very dodgy dealings in this case.

It was only Millhouses Park and a few houses worth £50,000, can't see what they were arguing about

Like the bit in the article hit on the head with a teapot, wonder if it was a bullet shaped one.

[Guest Jeremy]

The whole thing seems to have dragged on for ages. This report is 20 years after the first one (to me forcing your way on to someone's property just to mow the lawn seems comical, but I presume that there was a point to prove).

Leeds Mercury Saturday 26 June 1875:

[Guest Bildeborg]

The whole thing seems to have dragged on for ages. This report is 20 years after the first one (to me forcing your way on to someone's property just to mow the lawn seems comical, but I presume that there was a point to prove).

Leeds Mercury Saturday 26 June 1875:

These Oldale people were my ancestors, and I have a huge amount of detail on the Millhouses claim, should anyone wish to see it.

Regards,

Bildeborg.

(My first posting)!

[Guest Jeremy]

These Oldale people were my ancestors, and I have a huge amount of detail on the Millhouses claim, should anyone wish to see it.

I would love to find out more about this story.

Jeremy

[Guest Jeremy]

From The Annual Register: A Review of Public Events at Home and Abroad, for the Year 1875:

(http://books.google.com/books?id=wD89Lnx_S_gC)

The Claimant To The Oldale Estates.—Very disorderly scenes have occurred in the Abbeydale Valley, one of the best suburbs of Sheffield. A working man named Joseph Oldale has, under the patronage of the local Magna Charta Association, laid claim to the Mill-houses Estate, situate in the valley, and estimated to be worth from 30,000l. to 40,000l. A few weeks ago Oldale and a number of friends went and took forcible possession of some of the fields and other property, but the occupiers ejected them. They next took possession of two fields occupied by Mr. Smith and Mr. Speight, and owned by Lord Fitzwilliam, who purchased them some years ago. They began to cut the grass and cart it away to Sheffield, although repeated attempts were made in the course of the day by the tenants and their friends to drive them from the field. A force of police was present, but they only interfered when a breach of the peace was threatened. At an early hour this morning Mr. Smith went with a number of labourers and erected a strong barricade across the entrance to the field, and a little later thirty of Lord Fitzwilliam's gamekeepers came up from Wentworth and took up a position behind it to protect it. They were well armed, and by no means invited an attack. Shortly after nine o'clock Oldale and a large following arrived from Sheffield and commenced an attack upon the barricade. Eventually they succeeded in pulling it down, and the crowd entered the field and were busily engaged throughout the day in removing the grass. They further threatened to remove the tiles from the houses of all the tenants on the estate who refused to recognize Oldale's claim, and also to pull up the rails of the Midland Company, whose main line from Sheffield to London passes through the property. The locality was visited by thousands of people, and the utmost exertions on the part of the police were necessary to prevent a breach of the peace. An application was at length made to the magistrates on behalf of Lord Fitzwilliam, and summonses were granted against Oldale and several of his principal friends for trespass, and for riotously assembling to commit a breach of the peace.

[Guest Jeremy]

Oldale was accused of forging an entry in the parish register to bolster his case.

From The Leeds Mercury March 25, 1858:

From The Morning Chronicle March 27, 1858

[Guest Jeremy]

There are a number of newspaper articles relating to this case transcribed at http://www.geocities.com/oldale2000/Data1/notes.html

This letter that was published in the Sheffield and Rotherham Independent on 22 June 1875 gives the Oldale side of the story:

TO THE EDITOR.-

In a recent issue of your paper you remarked that you would hold the scales of justice evenly between the parties, and say, " Let right be done. " As you have published a history of the case, as seen from the point of view of the present holders of the property, I claim, as a matter of right and fairness, that you should publish the history of the case as set forth by Mr. Oldale; and I will take care to state it as briefly as possible.

Mr. Peter Wigfall, of Sheffield, in the years 1782 and 1793, purchased the properties at Millhouses, the title to which is now in dispute, and held them to the date of his death. He had been a widower for years, and had a boon companion in Mr. Thomas Whitehead, who was not related to him. I know it is asserted that Mr. Thomas Whitehead was a second or third cousin of Mr. Peter Wigfall, but that assertion is without foundation.

Mr. Peter Wigfall, by his will, dated 17th May, 1812, after giving certain specific legacies not affecting the Millhouses estate, which is not mentioned in the will, gave all the residue and remainder, both of his real and personal estate, to Thomas Whitehead, and appointed him and Mr. Jackson executors of his will.

In 1813 a violent quarrel arose between Mr. Peter Wigfall and Mr. Thomas Whitehead, whereupon Mr. Wigfall expelled Mr. Whitehead from his house, and forbade him to enter it again. (I am quoting from the housekeeper, Mrs. Dronfield's affadavit.)

In the year 1814, Mr. Wigfall intermarried with Hannah Clark, having previously executed a marriage settlement, by Indentures of Lease and Release, dated 24th and 25th January, 1814, whereby he conveyed his freehold estates to Henry Jackson and his heirs, to uses, viz. :- To the use of Peter Wigfall, his heirs, and assigns, until the marriage; and, after that event, to the use of such persons, &c., as Peter Wigfall should by deed or will appoint, and, for want thereof, to the use of the heirs and assigns of the said Peter Wigfall.

This marriage and marriage settlement nullified the will above referred to, and left Mr. Thomas Whitehead without the shadow of a claim to any of Mr. Wigfall's property. The marriage settlement was duly registered at Wakefield and was irrevocable.

Mr. Peter Wigfall died on the 11th November, 1828, having outlived his wife, and having no one living with him except his house keeper, Mrs Dronfield. This lady has made affadavits to the effect that Mr. Thomas Whitehead took possession of Mr. Wigfall's house immediately after Mr. Wigfall's death saying "Here I am and here I mean to stick," and that he burnt the papers which he thought were against him.

It does not concern me to show that (what?) the will alluded to was anomolous and absurd, but as the other side base their claim upon it I simply remark that if the will had been genuine, and made as it purports to be, in the year 1812, it is strange that it makes no mention of the property at Millhouses, which was purchased in 1782 and 1793. And in order to show that the will was revoked, if it was ever made, by the testator, I may mention, that by that will Mr. Peter Wigfall devised a grinding wheel to Thomas Whitehead, but he afterwards sold it, which demonstrates a clear change of intention on the part of Mr. Wigfall, and the fact of Mr. Wigfall making sundry purchases of freehold and leasehold properties afterwards has nothing to do with the case.Mr. Whitehead's position appears to be this:- He found a will bequeathing to him a grinding wheel, which had afterwards been sold by the testator, and so he says he sold one property which he had bequeathed to me, and therefore I'll take the other property which he has not bequeathed to me. Whether the will was genuine or not I do not care to inquire, as it does not affect the case; the fact is admitted that the marriage and the settlement revoked the will, and therefore it follows that Thomas Whitehead and those who claim under him, claim to hold the property under the terms of a will which has been revoked.

Mr. Joshua Hodgkinson, during the lifetime of Mr. Peter Wigfal, built some houses on a portion of the Millhouses estate, and Mr. Wigfall, who was then an invalid, did nothing to prevent him. On the death of Mr. Wigfall, Mr. Whitehead demanded rent from Mr. Hodgkinson; but the latter laughed at Mr. Whitehead's impudence, and told him he had nothing to do with the estate any more than he had. Mr. Whitehead afterwards offered to grant Mr. Hodgkinson a lease, which was declined:

and if a pretended lease for 500 years is now in existence, it is not worth the paper or parchment it is written on, for the reasons above stated. The present occupier of that property told me personally that "the land was Mr. Oldale's, but the house was hers," and that they never paid rent.

In 1837, Mr William Speck claimed the property, and made out a prima facie case, to prove that he was heir-at-law to Peter Wigfall; but he did not at that time know of Mr. Wigfall's third marriage or of the marriage settlement, and he lost his action on the will being proved. The name of Hannah Oldale was mentioned in court, and led to Mr. Speck seeking out the representatives of the Oldale family, who, it was asserted, were dead; and he handed over to Mr. Joseph Oldale, the present heir-at-law, the whole of his papers, &c., Mr. Speck acknowledging that Mr. Oldale was the rightful heir.

Thomas Whitehead had considerable difficulty with some of the other tenants, who refused to pay any rent to him, and since his death, refused to pay rent to his son, Mr. George Whitehead - and neither Thomas Whitehead or his son took any proceedings to enforce their demands.

In 1855 Mr. Joseph Oldale proceeded to take forcible possession of some of the cottages at Millhouses, and barricaded the doors. Mr. Whitehead besieged him and got him out. Some proceedings were taken before the magistrates against Mr. Oldale in consequence, but the case was dismissed - the magistrates had no juridisction as the question of title was raised.

In March, 1857, Mr. Oldale recovered possession of the Millhouses estate in the Court Of Exchequer of Pleas at Westminster. Mr. George Whitehead went to the tenants to get them to sign papers authorising a solicitor to enter appearances for them - the tenants on the Millhouses estate refused to sign the papers - and no appearance was entered for that protion of the property claimed. Mr. Whitehead, however, succeeded in getting four tenants of leasehold property in Hereford street to sign the papers, and they, with Mr. George Whitehead, appeared and defended for that part only. Therefore, it was considered (as the judgement says) that Mr. Oldale do recover possession of the Millhouses estate, and that he have execution thereof forthwith. Immediately after the Sheriff had given Mr. Oldale possession, Mr. Whitehead filed an affadavit, in which he stated that he had intended to appear as landlord, but had failed to have his appearance entered as required by Sec. 173 of the Common Law Procedure Act, 1852, and had wrongly entered his appearance for part of the property only (viz.., that in Hereford street) - under the 174th section of the Act. In reference to this matter being heardon a summons, Mr. Catchpole writes, "We licked them. They tried this morning to open the whole case, saying that they ought to have appeared as landlord; the Judge would not let them." The Judge, in fact, said he could not undo what a brother judge had done - judgement must stand; and the judgement and warrant of possession have never been set aside, but are as good today as they were on the 24th. March, 1857.

The action then proceeded with reference to the leasehold property; but, owing to the Statute of Limitations, Mr. Oldale was advised to withdraw the record. He did so, and filed a bill in Chancery. The defendants costs were taxed at £118.12s.6d., and Mr. Oldale went out of the way to avoid being arrested for that amount. He was afterwards arrested for the amount and taken to York Castle, where he remained for two years, and was the first bankrupt disharged from custody at York under the Bankruptcy Act, 1861. He was directed to prosecute his bankruptcy in the Sheffield County Court, but on applying there he was told they knew nothing about it, and he did nothing in the matter for eleven years.

In the year 1868, Mr. Oldale brought an action of ejectment in the Sheffield County Court against Thos. Gregory, the tenant of one of the cottages at Millhouses. Mr. Oldale rested his claim on the judgement of the Exchequer of Pleas. In answer, it was urged that Mr. Oldale was a bankrupt, and the Judge told him the objection as to his bankruptcy was fatal, and until he got his bankruptcy removed from the file he could not recover the property in his own name.

An action was once brought against Mr. Oldale for illegally distraining some goods, and not being properly defended judgement was given against him for payment of £15 damages. A judgement summons was issued against him for that amount, but on the matter coming before the Judge, and the judgement of the Exchequer of Pleas being produced, the Judge reversed his former decision, and added, "He had a right to send the bailiffs," and made the plaintiff pay the costs.

The practice of the Common Law Courts is not as stated by you, but as that is a legal question it will readily be understood by all who read the two sections of the Common Law Procedure Act, 1852, which I have quoted.

In your article of Saturday last you say that Mr. John Whitehead was appointed trustee of Thos. Whitehead's will, in the room of Mr. Gillatt, on the 2nd. Aug., 1870, and you proceed to state that he and his brother, George Whitehead, in exercise of the trusts contained in the will, sold the property to Mr. B.P. Broomhead in 1861. This statement reads so very like Irish that I may be excused thinking there is a mistake, as it is a very funny thing to find a man selling property nine years before he was appointed a trustee.

In the year 1873 Mr. Oldale paid his creditors 20s. in the pound, and gave instructions to have his bankruptcy annulled. Owing to a number of frivolous objections nine months were wasted before the order was obtained, and that having been done, he now claims his property as in his former estate.

As to what has taken place subsequently your readers are already aware of.

Yours truly,

E.C. PENNY