Google+ Badge

Saturday, December 20, 2014

42.1.b Jemima and Andrew son Andrew Montagu Isaacson Durnford - His death and his will!

.
Andrew Durnford and his misfortunes

From the family life events, we have learnt about the loss of the expected fortunes associated with the lands in Fenton and other place which belonged to Jemima's grandfather, Anthony Isaacson and his share of the John Roger's wealth.

What we don't know or understand is why Anthony Isaacson left his estates to his eldest daughter.

Then her reasons for not leaving the estate to her remaining siblings.  Perhaps she was ill-advised at the time of making her will, Frances died in 1752, and the final court decision was made nearly 60 years later.  There is no way of understanding if Jemima's parents Anthony and Hannah's London home had to be sold and the funds distributed to the remaining heirs of Frances.

With both parents dead before any court ruling was established, the loss of such wealth must have been rather hard to take.

Then there was the estate of his uncle Thomas Durnford, who was in New Orleans.  He had a lawful challenge to that will, and then there were the vast estates of his father's in Bermuda.  As the eldest son and heir he felt he also had a right to inherit, despite the fact that his father had clearly made two wills.

Sometime around 1833, there was the challenge to Thomas's will, but did Thomas have any assets?
  
We know that when Mary Hadley died in 1839 he had three young children by her, to care for. At the time they were living in Northchurch, Hertfordshire.




Amelia as 10 years old, Montagu was 8 years old and Sarah was around 3 years of age.

In 1839, there is a William Hadley living in Whiteheath Gate in Causeway Green, in Rowley Regis in Staffordshire, his father and his brothers were also in the same area.  Mining was carried out in the area.       (Lots of Hadley's lived in the locality)

Who cared for these children?

In 1841 he has the children along with Eliza his daughter with Harriet and they are living in Windmill Lane in Surrey.

Then in 1848, he was in January staying in one of Mary Hadley's father's houses in Canal Street Wolverhampton, and later in that year he is living with a minister and his wife in Camberwell in Essex.  The only child listed as being with him was his son, Montagu, who it was said was from Granville square Pentonville.  Perhaps he was at school somewhere near there.

In 1851 he was with his daughters in Lancaster, when both he and his son Montagu were arrested and charged for fraud.  They both spent time in the local prison.  By this time it seems to be

Once again, who looked after the girls?   Perhaps he may only have had Sarah with him.

By 1851 Amelia was married to Edward Hinton and they were in London, and partners in a school.

In fact Amelia did not seem to have a good life at all, up until the 1880's.  She had a daughter Sarah Amelia Hinton who was a school mistress.

In 1852 Partnership Dissolved, London Gazette, Edward Hinton, Amelia Hinton, Jame Waghorn and Elizabeth Waghorn of the School Governess Family and Clerical Agency 8 Soho Square (so far as regards Edward Hinton and Amelia Hinton)   

 They left the partnership and maybe that was when they separated.

In 1861 in County Magistrates' Chamber  Abingdon

The Rev. N Dodson chairman and EK Lenthall Esq - Amelia Hinton of South Hinksey pleaded guilty to a charge of stealing a gown, the property of Thomas Spiers and was sentenced to one month's imprisonment, with hard labour.

1880

At Southwark Police Court London on Wednesday Thomas Sizeland proprietor of Sizelands Family Hotel York Street Waterloo Road, appeared in answer to a  summons obtained by Amelia Hinton, 6 Henrietta Street Brunswick Square for unlawfully detaining two trunks, one wooden box and other articles her property.  Mr Ody appeared for the complainant; Mr Roland Ward appeared for Mr Sizeland.  The complainant who it appears, has figured in the Divorce court, and has had a decree obtained against her by her husband, Mr Hinton, was sworn and stated that she resided now at Wakefield Street Brunswick Square. 

She became acquainted with Mr Palmer three months since who had become a correspondent in the Divorce Court.  They came from Yorkshire on Saturday, October 16th last.  Palmer was arrested on Thursday week last on some charge or other.  When she returned in the evening she found the bedroom door locked, and she was told that she could not take her property away till the bill of 32pounds 10 shillings was paid.

Cross examined by MR Ward: They had stopped together at Leeds in an hotel - the Griffin.  He received letters there addressed to Ms. Palmer.  On one occasion she had told Mrs Sizeland that she was not married to Palmer

Mr Ward, on the part of Mr Sizeland indignantly repudiated the statement that his client was aware that they, Palmer and Hinton were not man and wife.  Mr Sizeland he contended under the circumstances had a perfect right to law to hold the property in question until his legal claim was settled.

The magistrate, in dismissing the case, said that Mr Sizeland had every reason to believe that Palmer and the complainant was married and hotel keepers must be protected.


 Who, what and why of his children in 1851.


His son Andrew Durnford (with Barbara Blake) is living in Collingwood Ontario and he took responsibility for his two unusual sisters living in Torquay.

His daughter Jemima Durnford died and her son, was also a lawyer.  He was called to the Bar in 1846 as a Special Pleader; on the Midland Circuit.  He was a Member of Parliament.

His son Frederick Durnford with Harriet lives in Lambeth Surrey and is a Parliamentary Agent.
He lived at Walton on Thames and in 1873 he and his son Henry Montagu Durnford dissolved the partnership Durnford and Co, and William Woodall remained.  Frederick seemed to do very well for himself with his legal background.  Frederick died in 1900, at a Lunacy hospital in Essex, he was 95.

Alfred Durnford, who went with his family to Canada, was admitted to London in 1851 as a Spectacle maker.  In 1850 when his daughter was born he was living in Richmond, St Mary Magdalene Parish, and in 1851 with his wife and Anne, George, Alfred and Eliza was living with his in laws.   His daughter Harriet was living with her uncle Frederick, and her aunt Eliza at his house, along with his family.  


William George Durnford is also a Parliamentary Agent and lived in London between 1840 to 1863.  On 17 May 1861 it was reported in the London Gazette that he was to be a Lieutenant in 12th Surrey Rifle Volunteer Batallion.  George married in 1880 and his son was born in 1883.  Monague Neville Durnford was a solicitor, he died in 1949, and left an estate of over 40,000 pounds to the Public Trustee.  He also died in a Sanitarium.


His son Montagu John Felton Durnford?  well he ended up in Australia.  The how, when and why for him may never be known, but by the time of his father's death, he had at least 3 children.

His daughter Eliza lived with her brother Frederick and also for some time with William and their families.

His daughter Amelia Durnford obviously had her own problems

Sarah Durnford - What became of her?  She has a niece called Sarah Durnford as well. 

Caroline Susannah  Montagu Durnford   -  1831 was alive in 1854.  

His twins at Devon were possibly not involved with his affairs, although he spent some time in Exeter.

Of his family, the only cousin alive in 1858 was Major George Durnford.

His brother Anthony Durnford died in 1849.



A very diverse family indeed.

However in 1851 he probably came to the lowest point in his life, or was he a man suffering from early onset dementia?  His actions certainly display some of those symptoms.


In 1851 both Andrew and his son were the talk of the country, being reported in the newspapers of many towns and counties.  They were charged in Lancaster.



The Westmoreland Gazette of 8th February 1851 s

Early in December last, Carnforth Lodge, a genteel residence which is situated about six miles from Lancaster, and which had for some time been advertised to be let, was taken by a gentleman calling himself Lieut-Col Durnford.  The family consisted of the father, a son and three daughters.  They appeared to live in the greatest privacy, neither being visited nor visiting.  Almost daily they took a drive out in an open carriage, and often visited Lancaster. 

When the police visited to apprehend Durnford, one officer was dispatched to gain admittance, if possible.  The gate leading to the house was, however, locked but they scaled it and effected an entrance.  When they got to the foot of the stairs they heard footsteps descending, and soon Colonel Durnford made his appearance with a cavalry sword in his hand.  Mr Wright detailed the nature of his visit, when Colonel Durnford attempted to draw his sword, but Mr Wright rushed upon him and secured his right hand.  The son, with a brace of pistols in his hands, was close behind his father, and the police officer collared him, and all struggled together.

In the struggle the colonel pulled a pistol from some portion of his dress, and presented it at Mr Wright, who immediately struck it from him and the two were then dragged from the house on the lawn in front and disarmed.  The three pistols were found to be loaded with powder and ball and primed.  The prisoners were then conveyed to Lancaster  On the same day they were brought before the magistrates, at the Town Hall, when the magistrates room was densely crowded by a large number of tradesmen, the majority of whom had been visited by Colonel Durnford who was a debtor in their books.

 The elder prisoner gave his name as Andrew Montague Isaacson Durnford and the younger as Monague John Felton Dunford.  The elder was muffled up in a large blue military cloak, with crimson lining and collar and appeared to be between seventy and eighty years of age.  The younger appeared to be about twenty!

The first hearing was adjourned, and then on Thursday they were again brought up and charged with obtaining game by representing himself as C. Bower, Esq of Sunderland.  He denied the charge and called upon his son, daughter and maid servant to prove that on the day the game dealer said he was in Lancaster he had never left home, nor had his carriage been out.  He stated he was a lieutenant-colonel in the Scotch Fusilier Guards and was then in receipt of pay from the army.  He had written to Lord Somerset and expected an answer on the following day which would prove that he was a lieutenant-colonel in the Scotch Fusilier Guards!

After hearing the evidence on this day, the prisoners were then removed to the castle.








In one report it states he had his three daughters with him, but which three?

 Was it Caroline, Sarah and maybe Charlotte from his marriage to Harriett Westwood as her husband had died in 1849?   Was she then the helper for the children as she had been in 1841 along with her sister.

      Both Caroline and Sarah seem to have vanished into thin air!!!!







                           CHARGE AGAINST THE YOUNGER DURNFORD
                     for obtaining Goods by False Pretences.

Montagu John Felton Durnford was then indicted for having, at Lancaster, obtained by false pretences, a gun and two pistols, the property of James Shaw – The prisoner pleased not guilty, and was defended by Mr James.  The prosecution had been entrusted to Mr. Segar. 


The latter gentleman being engaged in the other court, Mr Justice Cresswell waited a few minutes, and then said it must not be understood that one court only was to sit at a time, as it would be very inconvenient for the administration of justice. 

Mr Clark, the attorney for the prosecution, then returned with a message that Mr Segar was engaged in the other court.  Mr Justice Cresswell” That is the answer, I suppose, and it is a short mod of saying” and you must wait”. It is not consistent with my office that I should do any such thing.  

Let the case go on – Mr Cross then took the brief for the prosecution and called James Shaw was deposed as follows:  I am a plumber in this town and I know the defendant, Montague John Felton Durnford.  

He came to my shop on the 27th January and said he had come to order a single-barrelled gun, with a flint lock, and a brace of pistols.  He said that he was a commissioned officer in the Rifle Brigade.  I said to him that I thought he was very young to be a commissioned officer, and he replied that babies sometimes had commission bought hem, and their pay was going on; and that his “pa” had bought him one four or five years since.  

He gave a description of the gun he wanted making.  The pistols were to be flint ones.  In consequence of that I ordered the gun and pistols to be made for him.  I did not let him have any gun at all. 

He said he was an officer in the Rifle Brigade.  I should not have let him have them had he not described himself as such.  

Cross-examined:  The young gentleman I believe was residing with his 
father at Carnforth Lodge. On the 23rd of January I let him have a gun on hire without any difficulty.  He continued in the shop some time after he had ordered the gun.   –

By the Judge: I can’t say whether it was before or after this talk about the commission that the order was given. 

 By Mr James: I had not the gun or pistols in my possession, but they had to be made.  By the Judge: I can’t say whether I asked him any question when I took the order for the gun.  He asked the price, and I told him that it would be £2 10s or £3.

Mr Roberts, a clerk from the War office, was called to the box, when his Lordship, addressing the jury, said there really had been no fraudulent representations within the meaning of the statute, and directed an acquittal.  

Mr James applied for the discharge of the prisoner, but was informed that there were other indictments against him.


      CHARGE OF OBTAINING GOODS BY FALSE PRETENCES                                     AGAINST BOTH PRISONERS.

       Andrew Montague Isaacson Durnford, 77 and Montague John Felton Durnford, 19, were then charged with having obtained, at Lancaster, by false pretences, one couch, one table , three sets of bedsteads, two beds, seventeen chairs, and other articles of furniture, the property of Samuel Bond, on a conspiracy to defraud.

      Both the prisoners were defended by Mr. James.  As Mr Segar was still engaged in the other court, Mr Cross then too charge of the brief for the prosecution.


       Samuel Bond was then called, and said: I am a furniture broker in Lancaster.  On the seventh of December last, the elder defendant came to my shop, with a young person whom he addressed as his daughter.

       He said he had been recommended to me to purchase some furniture.  He said he was a lieutenant-colonel, on half pay in the royal artillery.  

       He took out a letter from his pocket and showed me the direction, and said, “That is my address.  I have taken Carnforth Lodge from Mr Gregg.”  He read the letter, and said, yes it from Mr Gregg.” 

      The address was, “Lieutenant-Colonel Durnford, Carnforth Lodge.”  He said he wanted very few articles of furniture, and he merely wanted a few goods till his own arrived from London. 

      At this time he handed me a list with ten or twelve articles upon it.  He selected the goods upon the list, and a great many more.  I asked him to leave me his address, as the man that brought the goods would require his name. 

      He pulled out an envelope, which appeared to be written in a female hand, and left it with me.  I gave it to the man, and he took it with him to Carnforth Lodge. 

      He stated that he would pay in two instalments, but nothing was said as to the time they would be paid.  He said that he had a very poor pay, taking into account his long services. 

      He did not say anything about the amount of his pay, but that he was on half-pay.  On the Monday following, I sent the goods to the amount of £23.  On the Tuesday afternoon I went to Carnforth Lodge and saw both the prisoners there.  

      They both ordered different article to be made.  I found nothing at all in the house.  The younger prisoner came over between the 20th and 23rd of the same month.

      He told me that his father could not give me any more security than he had given me.  I told him that he had given me none, and he said I thought he said he would pay you at two instalments.  

      He told me, also that his father was a person of very poor means; that he had only twelve shillings and sixpence a day, but that he himself had some little property that had come through his mother.  

      He said their pay was due at the end of March.  I then said, if that was the case, he could accept the bill I had sent him.  He said his father would sooner cut his hand off than do it, but he would send him over.

      The father called in the course of a few days alone.  He told me that he would not give me any more security than he had done, and I again told him he had given me none. 

      He said he had promised to pay in two instalments, and I told him that in an account like that, one-half ought to be in cash.  He said he was not able to pay so large an amount at once, but he would pay at three instalments, and added, “If you are dissatisfied with that, you may take  your goods back.”  I said, “I’ll take them back.” 

      He then said, “You won’t leave me without a bed in the house.”  I said I would certainly remove them at once.  

      I afterwards went over to Carnforth Lodge, and told him that I had come over to make arrangements for the removal of the goods.  He requested me to allow them to remain until the Monday, as by that time he should have his goods from London and others which he had ordered from Mr Townley, of Lancaster. 

       He offered me some compensation for the carriage of the goods out.  I left him with the           understanding that I was to come on the Monday.  

       On the Sunday the younger prisoner came to  my house and said that hiss father had consented to accept the bill, but he wished the bill altering to meet the date of his pay.  

      The bill produced is the same.  He wished me to alter it from 23rd to the 28th, as his pay then became due.  If the representation had not been made in the first instance, I should not have let him have the goods. 

      I got the half-pay list, and found that there was a “Lieutenant Colonel Durnford, Royal Artillery,” on it.




If he had represented himself as an ensign, I should not have sent the goods until I had ascertained the amount of his pay.  He said he was a person of very small means.  His expression was, “I tell you candidly I am a person of very small means, and have recently retired for the army,” or words to that effect.  The old man said he did not like bills, as he had got into difficulties with giving bills for brother officers.  I did not commence the charge before the magistrates and never of such a thing.  I sued him on the night of the second examination.

David Symthe said, I am a tea dealer, in Lancaster.  On the 7th of December the prisoner came to my shop, and introduced himself by saying, “I am Lieutenant-Colonel Durnford, and I have taken Carnforth Lodge in this neighbourhood, for three years.  I wished to be supplied with goods, and shall pay for them quarterly.  I am receiving a lieutenant-colonel’s pay quarterly, and on the receipt of that settle all my accounts.” He ordered 11/4 lb of tea, 1lb of coffee, and six pounds of sugar.  I did not see the younger prisoner at that time, but saw him on the 28th of December.  He called to say that he wished to have some more sugar for his father Lieutenant-Colonel Durnford, which he obtained.  I was induced to lend him the goods upon his representation that he was a lieutenant-colonel, and in receipt of the pay.  He said he was receiving the pay of lieutenant-colonel during the conversation.

      Thomas Cook said, I am in the employ of John Wilkinson saddler, and on the 11h December last, the elder prisoner called at our shop and ordered a set of harnesses.  He wrote his  name on the slate as Lieutenant Colonel Durnford, Carnforth Lodge.

      John Wilkinson said I am a saddler in this town.  On the 13th December last, the two prisoners called together at my shop.  The elder one stepped out of the carriage and told me of an order that he had given to my man.  He told me the description of his harness.  I saw he young man about three days later.  He came to the shops and said he wanted a new saddle.  He said he would have patent leather for the harness instead of plain.

      I have seen him several times since.  He told me that his father was Lieutenant-Colonel Durnford, and that he belonged to the Scotch Fusiller Guards.  They afterwards cam together to my shop.  This young man told me that he had been brought up at Eaton and that he had a commission given him.  I was induced to part with the goods because I believed him to be a Lieutenant-colonel.

      George Jackson, a clerk at the Post Office, deposed told hearing the parties describe one another as uncle and nephew, and the younger prisoner to call himself Mr Isaacson.

       Tobias Atkinson, a magistrate of the county of Westmoreland, was called to prove that he had witnessed a declaration made by the elder defendant for the payment of his pay as an ensign.

      

Mr John Roberts said he was a clerk in the War-office and had been in that capacity for the last forty-two years.  In the army list he did not find the name of Andrew Montague Isaacson Durnford, as a lieutenant-colonel on half-pay.  There is no lieutenant-colonel with 12 shillings and 6 pence per day.   There is no such person as Montague John Felton Durnford in the army.

Cross examined Andrew Montagu Isaacson Durnford, of the Scoth Fusillier Guards, sold out in 1807.  It is a common thing for a person to retain the title of lieutenant-colonel by courtesy, when sold out.  If I were writing to him as a gentleman, I should address him as lieuentat-colonel but he has strictly no claim to military rank, but it is always retained on the priniple that "once a captain always a captain".  Mr Durnford first became an ensign in the 60th Foot or Rifles.  He was afterwards removed to the Second Royal Veteran Battalion, and retired on full pay on the disbandment of that corps.  I am aware that the young man is down for an ensign without purchase.  The application was made for it by Ensign Durnford on the 5h February 1849, and an answer was shortly afterwards returned by Lord Fitzoy Somerset that his name was put down upon the list.

Joseph Monks said that he was he station-master at the Milnthorpe Station.  About 5.45 on Saturday morning the 25th January the prisoners came to the station with a van.  It contained ten packages of luggage in hampers, boxes and there appeared to be bedding.  They were addressed to Mr Isaacson, Newcastle.

Malcolm Wright, superintendent of police apprehended the prisoners and deposed to the denial of the elder Durnford that he had ever represented himself to have been of the Royal Artillery.  In the house he only found one feather bed, and there were no pillow.

Mr James then addressed the jury for the defence, and after a quarter of an hour's consultation, a verdict of "Not Guilty" was returned, and the prisoners ordered to be discharged,



                                       --------------------------------------------------------

     Various newspaper stories can be found, the residents of Lancaster were horrified that such goings on were happening in their town, and they made it clear they wanted the Durnford's gone.

      Later the cost of the court case was questioned in the town records, the prosecutor spent much more than he should.


 Part of his argument was the cost of getting the witnesses for testimony!

Carnforth



Medieval Carnforth is likely to have been similar in form to the loose linear village along North Road, depicted on Yates’s county map of 1786. This road to Burton joined the road from Warton at Carnforth Lodge. 

Carnforth was part of Warton parish and it did not have its own church until 1875




It seems like he was grooming his son in all the wrong aspects of life!




His pension turned over to Sir. W. Kirkland in 1857 on certificate of incapacity.Andrew              was a Lt. Colonel in the third Foot Guards .

That indicates he was not in control of his facilities in 1857.

 No doubt he was in an asylum, but which one?


Before the will, his son Andrew Montague Isaacson Durnford II wrote to the authorities in 1811, outlining his position regarding his situation.


A letter written by his son AMI Durnford II in 1811.

"To Field Marshall His Royal Highness The Commander in Chief The Memorial of Andrew Montague Isaacson Durnford

Humbly Therveth [Servant] That Your Memorialists [referring to himself, one who write a memory] Father late a Captain in the Third Regiment of Guards and Lt. Colonel having been obliged by Pecuniary Embarrassments [financial trouble] to Resign his Commission in the Third Guards and not having been allowed to Sell his Company [military company] had no means of relieving himself, he has in consequence continued absent from his Family and Your Memorialist with four other Children have been left with the Mother [Barbara Ann Shea Blake] without any Means of Support.
  
           That Your Memorialist being now in his Fifteenth Year and having received a Suitable Education is Anxious to Serve his King and Country in the Army. but having neither Money nor Friends to Support him humbly solicits Your Royal Highness's Protection and trusts that from the Services of Your Memorialists Family this Appeal to Your Royal Highness's will meet with a favourable Consideration.
     
Your Memorialists Grandfather was in the Engineers near Thirty Years, he Commanded at the Demolishing of the Works at Dunkirk in 1772 and Served in America with Sir H Durrard under Sir H Clinton and Died On Service on a Foreign Station. His Brother was Lt Governor of Pensacola and at the taking of the Island of Saint Vincent’s and Memorialist has an Uncle (Lt. Colonel Durnford) now in the First Regiment of Foot Guards.
     
Your Memorialist therefore Most Humbly Prays Your Royal Highness will take the Circumstances of his Case into consideration, and that, You will be pleased to Recommend Your Memorialist to be Appointed to an Ensignery in the Army.

Which is Humbly Submitted
signed] Andrew Montague Isaacson Durnford
Calhet(??) July 19th 1811

I do certify that all the circumstances above related with respect to the family of W. Durnford are well founded. I served lay[?] with his grandfather and great uncle, who were officers of the prim(?) respectability(?) in the Corps they belonged [?] to.


(signed) Harry Burrard Dew[?]"





Now his will



LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF ANDREW MONTAGUE ISAACSON DURNFORD

This is the last will of me, Andrew Montague Isaacson Durnford, an Ensign on the Retired list of the Second Royal Veteran Battalion and formerly of the parish of Saint Marylebone and a Captain in the Third Regiment of Foot Guards

Whereas under the settlement dated the 16th day of February 1796 made previous to my marriage with Barbara Ann Shea a sum of three thousand pounds not invested in the sum of four thousand two hundred and eighty three pounds fifteen shillings and five pence Bank three per cent annuities and standing in the name of the accountant General of the Court of Chancery in trust in a cause.

Wherein I and others were plaintiffs and Stair Stuart and others were defendants now stands limited upon thrust after my decease and the decease of the said Barbara Ann Shea jointly or by me alone after her decease and which power of joint appointment was never exercised and which sole power of appointment has not been and is not intended to be exercised by me to be transferred to all and every the child and children of the said marriage equally to be divided between and amongst them, share and share alike, the shares of sons to be transferred to them at their respective ages of twenty one years and the shares of daughters at that year or marriage after the decease of the survivors of me and the said Barbara Ann Shea or of the survivor of us shall be considered as vested interests and be transmissible as such to their executors or administrators.


And whereas there were issue of the said marriage five children namely Andrew Montague Issacson Durnford now residing in Barrie in Upper Canada, Jemime Durnford (afterwards the wife of George Pencork but now deceased) Arabella Durnford, Eliza Durnford and Edward Philip Durnford. 

And whereas the said Edward Philip Durnford was born on the 15th day of February 1803 and died interstate on the 14th day of August 1824 on board her Majesty's ship Leven, then of the Island of Madagascar and whereas the said Edward Philip Durnford having attained the age of 21 years and having died interstate I am entitled as his father and sole next of kin to his fifth part of or share of the monies and funds comprised in the said Settlement. 

And I intend to take out administration to him. Now I do by this my Will give the said fifth part or share of the said Edward Philip Durnford of and in the monies and funds composed in the said settlement and all other monies, shares or interests in the said monies and funds under the said Settlement which is the next of kin of the said Edward Philip Durnford or as the next of kin of any others of my said children I may have power to dispose of at the time of my decease unto Thomas Hyde Durnford of Surrey Grove, Surrey Square in the County of Surrey. Gentleman and Frederick Burgh West of King Street Westminster Saro Stationer their executors administrators and assigns upon the trusts following that is to say upon trust I shall not have done so to take out the __________ letters of administration to my said deceased son and to any others of my children who may be then dead interstate leaving me their sole next of kin and to take such proceedings as may be necessary to receive the said shares of the said monies and funds out of the Court of Chancery and after receipt thereof upon trust in reimburse and pay themselves or to other the persons advancing the same all costs incurred by them or me in relation to the said administrations and the proceedings whether taken by me or them and also the expense of proving this my Will and to stand possessed of the surplus of the said monies.

Upon trust to invest the same in the public funds or upon Government or real securities or railway bonds or debentures or preference or guaranteed shares or stock at the discretion of my executors or trustees or trustee and to pay the income thereof to and equally between my following daughters (not being children of the said Barbara Ann Shea) namely Eliza Durnford, Charlotte Louisa Westwood Woodman widow Amelia Maria Isaacson Durnford and Caroline Susanna Montague Durnford and the survivors of them share and share alike during their respective lives and the whole to the survivor of them after the decease of the others of them during the remainder of her life the share of each daughter in the part of whole of the said income to be for her separate and unalienable use and disposal independently of any husband and for which her receipt alone shall be a sufficient discharge and after the decease of the survivor of _____________ the said daughters. 

Upon trust to divide the principal of the said fund equally amongst all the children of my said daughters who shall be living at the time of the decease of such survivor and if there shall be no children then living of any of said daughters then upon trust to pay the same to such persons absolutely as the survivor of my said daughters shall whether married or sole and if married notwithstanding her overture by her will appoint to receive the same.  

And whereas I am the eldest son and the surviving member of my father Andrew Durnford, formerly a Major in the Royal Engineers and who died at the island of Bermuda in 1799 and as said heir and executor I am entitled to real and personal estate in the said island left by my said father which I have not yet been able to recover. 

And whereas I am also entitle as one of the heirs and next of kin of   Thomas Durnford late of New Orleans deceased to a share of real and personal property there for the recovery of which powers of Attorney have been sent to New Orleans. 

Now I give all the property of every description to my said father and of the said Thomas Durnford and also all other property monies and effects to which I am entitled or which I can dispose of by Will unto the said Thomas Hyde Durnford and Frederick Burgh West their heirs executors and administrators upon trusts sell and convert into money all such parts thereof as shall not consist of money and to stand possessed of the monies to arise by such conversion and of all other monies which may come to their hands from the said estates and property or otherwise and thereout to pay all expenses incurred in relation thereto and all other expenses of my executors which may not then have been paid out of my other __________ and after payment thereof to pay to my son Alfred Durnford the sum of one hundred pounds (£100) and to stand possessed of the residue of the said monies upon such and the same trusts and subject to the same powers for the benefit of my said daughters Eliza Durnford, Charlotte Louisa Westwood Woodman, Amelia Maria Isaacson Durnford and Caroline Susanna Montague Durnford and the survivors and survivor of them and their children and subject to the same restrictions and with the same powers of disposition as I have already declared with respect to the share of the monies and funds to which I am entitled under the said _______ Indenture of Settlement. 

I appoint the said Thomas Hyde Durnford and Frederick Burgh West trustees and executors of this my will and I authorize them and the survivor o f them and the executors or administrators of such   survivor to retire from the trustee of this my will and __________ such retirement or in any other event to appoint any new trustees or trustee of this my will either in the place of any retiring or deceased trustees or trustee or in addition thereto and I empower my trustees or trustee or executors for the time bound to give valid discharges from any money which                  shall be paid to them or him and from time to time to vary or alter any funds or securities upon which any part of my property may be invested.  In revoke all former wills and declare this to be last and only subsisting will.

In Witness whereof I have to this my will contained on five sides of paper signed my name at the end or foot of the fifth and last side thereof this eleventh day of September one thousand eight hundred and fifty four. 

A.M.I. Durnford - signed by the said Andrew Montague Isaacson Durnford as and for his last will and in the presence of us both present at the same time who in his presence and in the presence of each other have hereunto subscribed our names as Witnesses this 11th day of September 1854.



William George Durnford  (his son and Mary is his wife)
Mary Milner
Matilda Brittle



The strange thing about his will is that he left not one penny to Montague, his youngest son, and his partner in crime.  What had occurred for Montague to not be mentioned?

He also signed his will in front of his son William George Durnford, a solicitor himself, however he also did not benefit from the will.

Some questions just will have to remain as one of our ancestor's mysteries, that is until more records are digitised!


The executors of the will are Thomas Hyde Durnford and Frederick Burgh West. 
Frederick was in partnership with William Robinson as Law Stationers.

That just leaves Thomas Hyde Durnford,   Was he a relation of Andrew's or a coincidence?
      
  







    

No comments:

Post a Comment