|
|
Facts and Events
Conway Robert Haines was born in 1875 in the parish of Buckland, Gloucestershire, son of Amelia Ann Haines, formerly Spire, and her husband John Thomas Haines, a veterinary surgeon. Some time between 1875 and 1881 the family left Buckland (where they had lived in the hamlet of Laverton) and moved just over the county boundary to the large village of Broadway in Worcestershire. Conway appears in the 1881 census living with his parents and siblings at Broadway.
Conway has yet to be found in the 1891 census, but he was a witness to his brother Dennis William's marriage in 1893 in Broadway. A newspaper article from November 1895 appears to show that Conway had joined the army, serving as a soldier in the 13th Hussars, but had deserted. He returned to Broadway and sold his soldier's overcoat, which was not his to sell, resulting in the purchaser being brought before the magistrates. That is the last confirmed sighting of Conway.
In the 1911 census Conway's parents indicate that six of their seven children were still alive, indicating that Conway was still alive in 1911. Conway is not, however, referred to in his father's will in 1921, although whether that indicated that he had died or was merely out of favour with his father cannot be said.
References
- ↑ Births index, in General Register Office. England and Wales Civil Registration. (London: General Register Office).
b. Conway Robert HAINES, March Quarter 1876, Winchcombe Registration District, Volume 6a, page 441, mother's maiden name Spires
- ↑ Births index, in Gloucestershire County Council. Gloucestershire BMD Indexes. (Gloucester).
Child Surname: HAINES
Child Foremane: Conway R
Father Surname: HAINES
Mother Surname: HAINES formerly SPIRES
Year: 1875
District: Cheltenham
Office: Winchcomb, Cleeve
Register: 10
Entry: 263
- ↑ England. 1881 Census Schedules for England and Wales, Isle of Man and the Channel Islands: . (
Kew, Richmond, Greater London TW9 4DU, United Kingdom:
The National Archives (abbreviated TNA), formerly the UK General Register Office.)
Class RG11; Piece 2927; Folio 5; Page 1, 3 Apr 1881.
Address: Main Street, Broadway, Worcestershire
John T. Haines, head, married, male, 39 [1841/2], Veterinary Surgeon, b. Laverton, Gloucestershire
Amelia Ann Haines, wife, married, female, 43 [1837/8], Veterinary Surgeon Wife, b. Laverton, Gloucestershire
Hubert J. Haines, son, unmarried, male, 20 [1860/1], Assistant Veterinary Surgeon, b. Laverton, Gloucestershire
Eunice J. Haines, daughter, unmarried, female, 18 [1862/3], b. Laverton, Gloucestershire
Dennis W. Haines, son, male, 8 [1872/3], Scholar, b. Laverton, Gloucestershire
Lewis J. Haines, son, male, 7 [1873/4], Scholar, b. Buckland, Gloucestershire
Conway R. Haines, son, male, 5 [1875/6], Scholar, b. Buckland, Gloucestershire
Frank Haines, son, male, 1 [1879/80], b. Broadway, Worcestershire
- Worcester Journal, in United Kingdom. The British Newspaper Archive
Page 7, 16 Nov 1895.
County Petty Sessions.
...
EVESHAM.-MONDAY.
Before Mr. R.F. Tomes (chairman), Messrs. I. Averill, T. Adkins, A.H. Martin, and G. Hunt...
BUYING A SOLDIER'S OVERCOAT.-John George Cotterill, labourer, Broadway, was summoned for unlawfully and knowingly buying an overcoat from Conway Haines, a soldier in the 13th Hussars, on October 27. P.C. Fidler said that he received information that a suit of soldier's uniform had been found in a culvert on Broadway Hills, and he twice visited the New Inn, where he knew a soldier had been staying. He received the overcoat produced from defendant's mother. He said to defendant, "Well, John, you've made another good bargain." Defendant told witness that Conway Haines told him that the coat was his own property. Haines was hawking it for sale in the inn yard. Defendant gave him 17s. 6d. for the coat. Haines had deserted since he sold the coat. P.C. Groves, who has been a soldier, was called and stated that the coat was worth £2 in the condition it then was. John Burrows, Broadway, gave evidence as to defendant buying the coat. Haines said it was his own private property, and he was at liberty to sell it. The Chairman said that it was a very serious charge, but the Bench were not satisfied that the defendant bought the coat knowing that he was doing wrong. They dismissed the case, but hoped that it would be a lesson to him in the future.
|
|
