Person:Catherine Cox (23)

Watchers
Catherine Cox
 
m. 1 Jul 1861
  1. William Cox1862 -
  2. Elizabeth Ann Cox1865 - 1930
  3. Thomas Cox1867 -
  4. John Henry Cox1870 - 1955
  5. Arthur Cox1873 - 1877
  6. Catherine Cox1875 -
  7. Martha Cox1878 - 1965
Facts and Events
Name Catherine Cox
Gender Female
Birth[1] 1875 Barnack, Northamptonshire, England
Christening[2] 28 Mar 1875 Barnack, Northamptonshire, England
Census[3] 3 Apr 1881 Barnack, Northamptonshire, EnglandBack Lane
Census[4] 5 Apr 1891 South Kyme, Lincolnshire, England
Census[5] 31 Mar 1901 Seaton, Rutland, EnglandThe Rectory

Catherine Cox was born in 1875 at Barnack in Northamptonshire, one of seven children of a wheelwright named Thomas Cox and his wife Elizabeth Turner Ward. When she was nine years old her father Thomas died, after which she was brought up by her mother, who in turn was financially supported by Catherine's older brothers.

Catherine went into domestic service. In 1891 she was living at South Kyme, Lincolnshire, with her sister Elizabeth, who had married a publican called Samuel Taylor Coulson. By 1901 she was working as a parlour maid for a clergyman named Charles Cartwright, who was rector of Seaton, Rutland. In 1904, she was engaged to a man named Richard Alfred Manton from Seaton, who died whilst under anaesthetic having an operation to remove an abscess in his leg.

Catherine has yet to be traced after 1904.

References
  1. Births index, in General Register Office. England and Wales Civil Registration. (London: General Register Office), Secondary quality.

    b. Catherine COX, June Quarter 1875, Stamford Registration District, Vol. 7a, 319

  2. Church of England. Parish Church of Barnack (Northamptonshire). Parish registers, 1695-1974. (Northampton: Northamptonshire County Record Office), Primary quality.

    No. 996 / 28 Mar 1875 / Catharine / Thomas & Elizabeth / COX / Barnack / Wheelwright

  3. General Register Office. Public Record Office (PRO) RG 11 General Register Office: 1881 Census Schedules. (The National Archives), RG11/3194/38/5, 3 Apr 1881, Primary quality.

    Address: Back Lane, Barnack, Northamptonshire
    Thomas Cox, head, married, male, 48 [1832/3], Wheel-wright Mast Emp 1 man, b. Barnack, Northamptonshire
    Elizabeth Cox, wife, married, female, 46 [1834/5], Wheel-wt's wife, b. Great Hale, Lincolnshire
    William Cox, son, unmarried, male, 18 [1862/3], Wheel-wt's son, b. Barnack, Northamptonshire
    Thomas Cox, son, male, 14 [1866/7], Butcher's boy, b. Barnack, Northamptonshire
    John H. Cox, son, male, 10 [1870/1], Scholar, b. Barnack, Northamptonshire
    Catherine Cox, daughter, female, 6 [1874/5], Scholar, b. Barnack, Northamptonshire
    Martha Cox, daughter, female, 2 [1878/9], b. Barnack, Northamptonshire

  4. General Register Office. The National Archives (TNA): Public Record Office (PRO) RG 12 General Register Office: 1891 Census Schedules, RG12/2577/195/16, 5 Apr 1891, Primary quality.

    Address: South Kyme, Lincolnshire
    5 or more rooms occupied
    Saml Coulson, head, married, male, 45 [1845/6], Innkeeper, employer, b. South Kyme, Lincolnshire
    Eliz Coulson, wife, married, female, 25 [1865/6], b. Barnack, Northamptonshire
    Susan Coulson, daughter, female, 9 mos [1890], b. South Kyme, Lincolnshire
    Catherine Cox, boarder, single, female, 16 [1874/5], Domestic Servant, employed, b. Barnack, Northamptonshire
    John Collingwood, boarder, single, male, 19 [1871/2], Labourer, employed, b. Lierton?, Lincolnshire
    Martha Faulkner, boarder, single, female, 18 [1872/3], Domestic Servant, employed, b. Billling Hay?, Lincolnshire

  5. General Register Office. The National Archives (TNA): Public Record Office (PRO) RG 13 General Register Office: 1901 Census Schedules, RG13/3018/55/5, 31 Mar 1901, Primary quality.

    Address: The Rectory, Seaton, Rutland
    5 or more rooms occupied
    Charles Wm Cartwright, head, married, male, 55 [1845/6], Clergyman (Church of England), employer, b. Brandon, Suffolk
    Alice Mary Cartwright, wife, married, female, 51 [1849/50], b. Cheltenham, Gloucestershire
    Arthur Hy Cartwright, son, single, male, 25 [1875/6], b. Tostock, Suffolk
    Francis Geoffrey Cartwright, son, single, male, 20 [1880/1], b. Mileham, Norfolk
    Lydia Ann Spencer, Servant, single, female, 28 [1872/3], Cook (Domestic), b. Stanion, Northamptonshire
    Catherine Cox, Servant, single, female, 26 [1874/5], Parlour Maid (Domestic), b. Barnack, Northamptonshire
    Betsy Skelton, Servant, single, female, 16 [1884/5], Housemaid (Domestic), b. Stapleford, Leicestershire
    Ernest Hippey, Servant, single, male, 19 [1881/2], Groom (Domestic), worker, b. Norcott, Rutland

  6.   Grantham Journal, Saturday 13 Feb 1904

    THE DISTRESSING FATALITY UNDER CHLOROFORM AT SEATON
    DEATH BY MISADVENTURE
    An inquest was held at the Three Horse Shoes Inn,
    Seaton, on Saturday night, before V.G. Stapleton,
    Esq., coroner for the southern division of Rutland,
    concerning the death of the young man, Richard Alfred
    Manton, who died unexpectedly while under an anaesthetic,
    on February 4th, as reported in last week's
    Journal. The following jury was empanelled, viz.,
    Messrs. Wm. Crowden (who was chosen foreman),
    Robt. Crowden, Jno. Thompson, Jno. King, Harry
    Hudson, Hy. Barfield, Arthur Stanger, Wm. Watkin,
    Jno. Kirby, Wm. Burns, Geo. Stanger, Geo. Drury,
    and Wm. Thompson.-Mrs. Sabina Bradshaw, of
    Mowacre Hill, near Leicester, a married relative, identified
    the body as that of Richard Alfred Manton,
    whose home was at Seaton. He was a carpenter, and
    aged twenty-four last August. The deceased did not
    live at home with his father and mother; he had been
    at Ashby-de-la-Zouch, but came home three weeks ago
    last Thursday, on account of illness. Death took
    place about 12.30 on Thursday afternoon. Witness
    last spoke to deceased after the doctor had got into
    the room, and told him he was going to give him
    chloroform: this was about ten minutes to twelve.
    Deceased did not like the thoughts of it. When Dr.
    Bell came in first, she was not in the room; witness
    and her sister followed him up. He asked the doctor
    if he should suffer much afterwards, and he replied,
    "Only a little soreness." The doctor told him he was
    going to administer chloroform before witness got into
    the room. He said he did not like the thoughts of
    going under the operation. The doctor stated that
    the operation would not take many minutes, and
    deceased eventually consented to have it done. Witness
    came out of the room, and her sister likewise left.
    Her sister was not well, and asked the doctor if he
    would wait until another day, but he seemed unwilling.
    The patient would have got well without the operation
    but it would have taken longer. Dr. Bell called
    them after he had performed the operation, and her
    sister went and held the basin for him to wash the
    wound out. Then Dr. Bell thought he was coming
    round. But deceased began to retch: he was not sick -
    and she asked if she should hold his head up? Dr. Bell
    pulled his head and shoulders off the bed, and tried to
    bring life back again. He seemed to choke: she could
    tell the sickness came up into his mouth and kept
    going back again. Witness then went for his father,
    who, on getting there, took his head from the doctor
    and laid it back on the pillow. He was quite dead.-
    Kenneth Bell, registered medical practitioner, residing
    at Uppingham, deposed that he had seen the deceased
    on nearly alternate days during the last three weeks.
    He was suffering from a large abscess in the thigh. It
    was supposed to have arisen through a slight injury,
    but they could not say that for certainty. Witness
    went to see him on Thursday about twelve o'clock. He
    spoke to the mother first, and told her that he had
    come to perform an operation by chloroform. He had
    told her some days previously that it would probably
    come to that. When he saw deceased on Thursday,
    in his opinion the time had arrived
    for the operation: it had to be done some time. The
    abscess had been opened; the operation was to lay it
    right open, in order that it might drain properly. That
    was the usual procedure in cases of that description.
    He saw the deceased upstairs after seeing his mother,
    and told him he propsed to operate. Naturally, he
    did not like the idea at first, but as he pointed out that
    it would have to be done sooner or later, he then
    seemed quite willing to have it done. He did not
    object to having it done after witness had explained
    things: in fact, he consented. Deceased's aunt and
    mother came in towards the end while witness was
    persuading him. They left the room when he began
    to administer chloroform, as they did not like the idea
    of it, and he told them he could get on at present without
    them. He administered the chloroform in the
    usual way on a towel, and he should think deceased
    had about two teaspoonfuls altogether. Then he
    opened the abscess. As soon as he had done the cutting,
    he called deceased's mother in to help him. He
    did not remember speaking to him. Deceased was
    beginning to come round, and he then commenced to
    retch. Witness did not think he was sick at all: he
    thought he was only retching. Next witness noticed that
    he had stopped breathing, immediately after he began
    to retch. He pulled his shoulders over the edge of the
    bed, in order that his head might hang down, this
    being done to let the blood get to the head. No
    result followed, and witness thought he was practically
    dead as soon as he noticed him. Witness tried
    artificial respiration later, but without success.
    Witness had been in practice nearly six years as a
    doctor. During his College career and in practice
    he had administered anaesthetics by himself before.
    He considered, in this case, that he used the customary
    precautions, and did it quite properly. Deceased was
    not a strong man, but, beyond that, he did not think
    there was any disease anywhere. In his opinion, the
    cause of death was heart failure, due to the after-effects
    of the chloroform.-The Coroner: I suppose
    the chloroform was given to deaden the pain?-The
    Doctor: Yes; to render him unconscious, so that he
    should not feel anything.-The Coroner: Then I am
    to understand that the chloroform was given in the
    usual way?-Dr. Bell: Yes; in the usual way.-The
    Coroner: Without any hurry?-Witness: Yes.-The
    Foreman of the Jury: Was he quite strong enough
    to have the chloroform administered?-The
    Doctor: Yes, I think he was.-A Juryman
    (Mr. Kirby): Is it usual for one
    doctor alone to give the chloroform?-The
    witness said that very often it was done in
    minor operations; but in serious cases, if they
    wanted to keep them under the anaesthetic, they required
    two. It was customary to do so; it was very
    often done.-The Juryman: Is it a usual thing to give
    chloroform on a full stomach?-The Doctor replied
    that he did not consider it proper to give it thus as a
    rule. He did not consider this man had a full stomach;
    he had been living on "slops."-The Juryman: Was it
    Mr. J.T. Manton's wish this operation should be
    done?-The Coroner: At twenty-four, deceased was
    supposed to have a mind of his own.-Another Juryman
    (Mr. W. Thompson) said he believed deceased
    had rheumatic fever several years ago, and if this left
    his heart debilitated, would it not render him unfit for
    the anaesthetic?-The Coroner asked the doctor
    whether he had attended him for rheumatic fever?-
    Witness stated he had attended one of the sons of Mr.
    Manton for something, but whether this was the one
    he could not say: it would be two or three years since.-
    This juryman also asked, as Mr. Kenneth Bell was
    acting with his father (Dr. T. Bell) in business,
    whether the father was cognizant of the operation?-
    The Doctor replied that his father had discussed this
    question, and he told witness that (Thursday)
    morning he might as well do it that day.-
    Mr. J.T. Manton, jun. (of Peterborough), a brother
    of deceased, but who was not present at the commencement
    of the inquiry, asked-"Is it possible for a doctor
    to perform an operation and administer chloroform at
    the same time?" He also enquired as to who gave
    consent to the operation being performed?-The
    Coroner, by way of reply, reiterated those pertion of
    the depositions of Mrs. Bradshaw and the doctor having
    reference thereto.-A Juryman (Mr. W. Burns)
    said he always thought that it was a general rule to
    have two doctors when chloroform was administered?
    He himself had been under operations.-The Coroner
    said he had made independent inquiries the day before
    of medical gentlemen, and found it was done in minor
    cases by one.-A Juryman (Mr. Drury): Who consented
    for the chloroform to be given?-The Coroner
    said he wished the jurymen would pay attention, and
    he then proceeded to read the evidence of Mrs.
    Bradshaw, where consent was given by deceased in her
    presence.-The Doctor, further questioned, said he
    told the deceased at the time, but he did not tell him
    before that day. He had, however, acquainted Mrs.
    Manton with the conditions days before.-Mr. J.T.
    Manton further inquired if it was possible for the
    wound - it was a gash - to be bleeding for some hours
    afterwards, as this was the case when he got to his
    parents' home at night? Would the jurymen like to
    go and see the wound?-It was not thought necessary
    for the jury to do so.-The Doctor: Blood would be
    oozing from the cut vessels.-The Coroner: Was it
    an artery cut?-The Doctor: Very likely it was: a
    small artery might have been cut, but not such a one
    that would cause death.-Mr. J.T. Manton: I should
    like to say it is my father's wish to have a post-mortem
    examination.-The Coroner said he would take the
    evidence of deceased's mother if they wished; but the
    jury were able to spare her pain, as the depositions of
    the aunt and doctor coincided, and she was not called.
    The Court was then cleared, and the Coroner very
    ably summed up the evidence. He said that he did not
    consider it necessary, from the report which reached
    him, to order a post-mortem examination, but
    if they thought it advisable, they could have the
    inquest adjourned for that purpose. In his opinion,
    there was no necessity for it. (The jury expressed
    assent to this view.) It seemed clear, on the
    evidence of the aunt, that the deceased quite understood
    that he was going to have the operation under
    chloroform. In regard to the operation, it went off all
    right, and, apparently, it was when the deceased was
    "choking" that he seemed to stop breathing. The
    doctor's evidence in no wise differed from that of
    deceased's aunt, and it seemed from the evidence of
    the aunt and the doctor that the operation was performed
    in a proper way. It was true there was an unfortunate
    ending to it, but, occasionally, these things
    did happen in cases of this sort. It was well said - It
    is God that gives, and man only administers medicine.
    If the doctor had not been guilty of gross ignorance
    and neglect, it was simply a death from misadventure:
    it was simply a very unfortunate accident. If they
    were satisfied there was neither ignorance nor neglect,
    it was their duty to return their verdict accordingly.-
    After some deliberation, the jury unanimously
    returned a simple verdict of "Death from misadventure."-
    The inquiry lasted nearly two hours.
    The unfortunate young man's end in so distressing a
    manner elicited the greatest concern and sorrow, not
    alone in Seaton, but throughout the district, and
    much commiseration was expressed with the bereaved
    relatives. The funeral was on Monday afternoon, in
    Seaton churchyard. The Rector (Rev. C.W. Cartwright)
    being away, the Rev. R. Waltham, R.D.,
    Rector of Glaston, read the burial office. Nine couples
    of mourners followed, viz., Mr. and Mrs. J.T. Manton
    (father and mother), Mr. H.T. Manton, Miss Ellen
    Manton, Mr. Herbert Manton, Mr. Edward Manton,
    Miss Myrtle Manton (brothers and sisters), Miss Kate
    Cox (deceased'sfiancee), Mr. and Mrs. A.J. Manton
    (Lyddington), Mr. A.E. Manton (Lyddington), Miss
    Kate Tyler (Edithweston), Mr. Albert Roach (Leicester),
    Miss Lizzie Woodward (Edithweston), Mr. T. Cox,
    and Miss Martha Cox (Barnack), Mrs. Arthur Cox
    (Leicester), and Mrs. A. Roach. Four young men -
    Messrs. Cecil Baines, J. Cooper, G. Hudson, and S.
    Lack - were the bearers. Wreaths and crosses of
    lovely white flowers were sent as follows:-"From
    his heart-broken brother Tirrel, and Family"; "To
    my dear Alf., from his sorrowing Kate, 'Not gone from
    memory, or from love; but gone to our Father's Home
    above'"; "With love and deepest sympathy from
    Ellen and Martha" (Misses E. Manton and M. Cox);
    "From the Rev. and Mrs. Charles W. Cartwright,
    with deep sympathy"; "From his loving Aunt
    Sabina, with deepest sympathy"; "With deepest sympathy
    from Sarah Ann and Arthur Manton"; "With
    deepest sympathy, from his fellow workmen, F. Owen
    and R. Hood" (Ashby-de-la-Zouch); "With deep
    sympathy, from Mr. and Mrs. W. Crowden"; "Mr.
    and Mrs. A. Cox, Leicester, with deepest sympathy.
    'Leaving him to sleep in trust till the Resurrection-
    day'"; and "From Mr. and Mrs. Hudson and family,
    with deepest sympathy and respect."