Person:John Maddox (31)

John Maddox (or Maddock) was baptised on 19th June 1791 at Shillington in Bedfordshire, son of a labourer called John Maddox and his wife Elizabeth.

When John was about 22 years old he married Elizabeth Walker in the neighbouring parish of Pirton in Hertfordshire. They went on to have six children together between 1813 and 1824. Their eldest child was baptised at Pirton, the next two at Shillington and the youngest three at Barton in the Clay.

Some time between 1824 and 1828 the family moved a few miles further south to Harpenden. Elizabeth died at the age of 39 and was buried at Harpenden on 17th July 1828. Two of John's children died in Harpenden in the early 1830s.

In 1839 John married again. His second wife was a widow called Hannah Nicholls, formerly Filby. They married at St Albans, a few miles south of Harpenden, where they were living at Snatchup's End. They later returned to Harpenden, appearing in the 1841 census in the Cold Harbour area of Harpenden, with John working as an agricultural labourer. Two of John's children, Charles and Elizabeth, were living with them, as well as a baby granddaughter, Ann, who was Elizabeth's daughter. Hannah's son Daniel Nicholls also lived with them.

In 1850, John and his son Charles were convicted of stealing poles. John was sentenced to six weeks in prison, with the court noting that it was his first time in jail. Charles had previous convictions, so received a slightly longer sentence of two months. Later that same year, Charles was back in court, being tried for stealing silver spoons and a ring. John gave evidence in defence of his son, describing how the police constable had searched their house and casting doubt on the constable's description of how the spoons were found. Charles was acquitted.

The 1851 census finds John and Hannah living at Back Lane in the Cold Harbour area of Harpenden, with Hannah's son Daniel. John was still working as an agricultural labourer, whilst Hannah was a straw plaiter. By 1854 they had moved a little way down the Lea valley to the Folly area of Wheathampstead. In 1854 John and his stepson Daniel were involved in an altercation there with a neighbour, John Hanley or Handley, which led to John Hanley being fined for assaulting John Maddox, and Daniel Nicholls being sentenced to six months in jail for assaulting John Hanley.

The 1861 census finds John and Hannah still living at the Folly in Wheathampstead. Hannah died in 1866. After her death, John went to live with his son Charles, who had moved to the nearby town of Luton. John appears in the 1871 census living with Charles and his wife Hannah at 90 Burr Street in the High Town area of Luton. John died at Burr Street on 29th January 1879, aged 87.

1. ↑ England. Births and Christenings, 1538-1975. (FamilySearch, Ancestry.com, Findmypast).

   ch. 19 Jun 1791, Shillington, Bedfordshire: John son of John & Elizabeth Madock
   
   ch. 26 Oct 1794, Shillington, Bedfordshire: John son of John & Elizabeth Maddock
   ch. 26 Oct 1794, Shillington, Bedfordshire: Martha daughter of John & Elizabeth Maddock
   
   ch. 17 Nov 1799, Shillington, Bedfordshire: John son of John & Elizabeth Maddock

   Needs to be confirmed at Bedfordshire Record Office. It is worth noting that there are three John Maddock baptisms at Shillington around this time, all with parents called John and Elizabeth, yet no burials. It therefore seems likely that John was baptised more than once. Certainly the second baptism was on the same day as a sister, Martha. As an adult John gave his place of birth as both Shillington and nearby Barton and gave his father's name as John.

2. ↑ England. 1841 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 HO107; Piece 441; Book 4; Folio 31; Page 15, 6 Jun 1841.

   Address: Cold Harbour, Harpenden, Hertfordshire
   John Maddock, male, 45 [1791-6], Ag Lab, b. outside Hertfordshire
   Hannah Maddock, female, 30 [1806-11], b. Hertfordshire
   Charles Maddock, male, 20 [1816-21], Ag Lab, b. outside Hertfordshire
   Elizabeth Maddock, female, 25 [1811-16], Pl[aiter], b. outside Hertfordshire
   Ann Maddock, female, 11 months [1840], b. Hertfordshire
   Daniel Nicols, male, 9 [1831/2], b. Hertfordshire

3. ↑ England. 1851 Census Returns for England and Wales. (
   Kew, Richmond, Greater London TW9 4DU, United Kingdom:
   The National Archives (abbreviated TNA), formerly the UK General Register Office.)
   Class HO107; Piece 1713; Folio 97; Page 4, 30 Mar 1851.

   Address: Back Lane (listed immediately after Cold Harbour), Harpenden, Hertfordshire
   John Maddox, head, married, male, 70 [1780/1], Ag Lab, b. Barton le Clay, Bedfordshire
   Hannah Maddox, wife, married, female, 41 [1809/10], Straw plaiter, b. Wheathampstead, Hertfordshire
   Daniel Maddox, son, unmarried, male, 17 [1833/4], Ag labr, b. Wheathampstead, Hertfordshire

4. ↑ England. 1861 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 RG9; Piece 827; Folio 29; Page 22, 7 Apr 1861.

   Address: Folly, Wheathampstead, Hertfordshire
   John Maddock, head, married, male, 74 [1786/7], Labourer Ag, b. Shillington, Beds
   Hannah Maddock, wife, married, female, 55 [1805/6], b. Wheathamstead, Herts

5. ↑ England. England and Wales. 1871 Census Schedules. (
   Kew, Richmond, Greater London TW9 4DU, United Kingdom:
   The National Archives (abbreviated TNA), formerly the UK General Register Office.)
   Class RG10; Piece 1573; Folio 63; Page 11, 2 Apr 1871.

   Address: 90 Burr Street, Luton, Bedfordshire
   Charles Maddock, head, married, male, 50 [1820/1], Farm Labourer, b. Barton, Bedfordshire
   Hannah Maddock, wife, married, female, 49 [1821/2], Laundress, b. Sundon, Bedfordshire
   John Maddock, father, widower, male, 83 [1787/8], b. Shillington, Bedfordshire, Blind

6. ↑ Deaths index, in General Register Office. England and Wales Civil Registration. (London: General Register Office).

   d. John MADDOX, March Quarter 1879, Luton Registration District, Volume 3b, page 310, aged 92 [1786/7]

7.   Hertford Mercury, in United Kingdom. The British Newspaper Archive
   Page 4, 23 Feb 1850.

   HERTS. ADJOURNED EPHIPANY SESSIONS,
   MONDAY FEBRUARY 13.
   STEALING POLES, AT HARPENDEN.
   John Maddocks, aged 62, and Charles Maddocks, aged 23, labourers, of Harpenden, were charged with stealing, on Saturday, the 26th January, three oak poles, and twenty-four poles, the property of Mr. George Davies, at Harpenden. It appeared that the prisoners were employed by the prosecutor when the property was missied: it was afterwards found on the premises of the prisoners, who lived together. Verdict - Guilty. John Maddocks, who had not previously been in prison, was sentenced to be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for six weeks, one week solitary. Charles, who had been in gaol before, was sentenced to be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for two calendar months, one week in each month solitary.

8.   Hertford Mercury, in United Kingdom. The British Newspaper Archive
   Page 4, 31 Aug 1850.

   MIDSUMMER ADJOURNED SESSIONS.
   MONDAY, August 26
   Alleged Housebreaking, at Harpenden.
   Charles Maddox was charged with breaking into the house of George Davis, at Harpenden, and stealing therefrom four silver spoons.
   Mr. Parnell prosecuted, and Mr. Hawkins defended the prisoner.
   Maria Gray stated that she kept the house of her pehew, the prosecutor, at Harpenden. On the morning of SUnday, August 18, she fastened the doors and windows, and went to chapel; on returning, at one o'clock, she took a ring off her finger, and placed it on the drawers in her bed-room. She afterwards went out again to chapel, and did not return until 8 o'clock at night, when she found a window open, and the mark of a nailed shoe upon a chair inside, within reach of the window. She did not miss anything at that time, but, on Munday morning, found the cupboard-door open, and four tea-spoons, which were placed there, gonel she also found that something had been done to the lock of the drawer, and, on opening it, saw the things turned upside down, and missed the ring. Knew the spoons by some black marks made on the by vinegar, which had been eaten with pickled salmon the night before. The spoons belonged to witness's nephew. The ring produced was her own. Gave information to police-constable Richmond, on Monday morning. The same initials ("R.B.") were on the four missing spoons, and on two others left behind.
   Cross-examined: I should have known the spoons, if the vinegar marks had not been on them; I tried to remove them, but failed. When I went out on Sunday morning, I left the shepherd (Hopkins) in charge of the premises, but did not see him when I returned.
   Geo. Richmond, police-constable, examined: I went to the house where prisoner resides with his father, on the Monday, and searched the bed-room and bed; I found four spoons and a ring under his bed, which was placed on the floor. I did not find the prisoner at home, but apprehended him next morning at Chiltern-green, near Luton, five miles from Harpenden.
   Cross-examined: I identified the spoons by the initials, "T.B.," the same that were on the remaining two.
   Mr. HAWKINS: Those are not the initials on the them.
   Cross-examination contuned: Mrs. Grey told me that I should find black vinegar marks on them. She did not tell me the initials, but I had two spoons to compare the others with. A gamekeeper, named Sibley, went with me. I called to him to go to the back door, while I went to the front; he went upstairs and was present during the search; he was with me when I found the spoons; I have not asked Sibley to come here to day. No objection was made to the search, although I had on warrant. There was a candle in the room upstairs, and that was alight when I commenced searching the bed. The candle went out when we were searching up the chimney. I have had no quarrel with the prisoner, and never asked him to give me up any money. When I shook the bed a bundle of rags fell out and the spoons dropped from the bottom, and I showed them to old Maddox (prisoner's father) while they laid on the floor.
   Mrs. Grey recalled: The prisoner knew my premises; he had worked for my nephrw.
   Cross-examined: I can't swear he worked for my nephew; it was in my absence. Richmond knew my premises, but I should not think he knew them so well as prisoner; he had never been in the room from which the property was taken. My shepherd (Hopkins) is not here.
   John Maddox examined: I am the prisoner's father. He had been living in my house up to the time he was taken into custody. He slept in the little bed-room, which he had to himself. My son was at work with me the whole of the Monday; he came with me within a quarter of a mile from home, and some one told him the policeman was after him, and then he would not go home. I saw the policeman with the spoons in his hand, but did not see him pick 'em up. I lifted up the bed for him to search.
   Cross-examined: My son was told the policeman was after him about some apples. It is not true that Richmond showed me the spoons on the ground before he picked them up. After he had looked some time, Richmond threw himself across the bed, and then said, "I gave got what I want." I did not hear anything fall before that.
   Mr. HAWKINS addressed the jury for the prisoner, in a long and animated speech. He denounced the conduct and the evidence of police-constable Richmond in unmeasured terms, urging that he should have gone in the day-time to make his search, instead of deferring it till night. He (Mr. Hawkins) should call a woman who made the prisoner's bed in the middle of the day, and who would state that neither the spoons nor the ring were there then; and as the prisoner did not go home from the time he left it in the morning, until after the policeman had made the search, it was obvious that he could not have placed them there. The father of the prisoner - who had given his evidence in a straightforward manner, which could leave no doubt on the minds of the jury, that he was the witness of the truth - distinctly denied that the policeman pointed out to him any spoons lying on the ground, and also stated that he never heard them fall, and never saw them till the policeman showed them to him in his hand, after he had leaned over the bed in a position which would have enabled him to do anything he pleased, without being seen. He (Mr. Hawkins) complained of the absence of the shepherd, and more particularly of Sibley the constable's own ally. Why was not he here to prove the finding of the spoons? Why was the case left in dependance upon the uncorroborated evidence of police-constable Richmond? His statement relative to the finding of the spoons was to a great extent contradicted by one of the witnesses for the prosecution: and he (Mr. Hawkins) should call another witness, who would show that it could not be true. After continuing to remark on the evidence of Richmond with unusual severity, and advising the jury to regard it with great caution, Mr. Hawkins called
   Esther Humphreys, who said: I live next door to Maddox, I know the father and the mother of the prisoner. I remember the evening on which the search was made by Richmond. I made the bed in prisoner's room on the afternoon on which the search was made, in consequence of Mrs. Maddox being ill. I made the bed in the usual way, turned it over, and swept underneath. I saw no spoons, and I am sure I must have seen them, if there had been any. I am no relation to prisoner.
   Cross-examined: Mrs. Maddox is my aunt, but she is only step-mother to the prisoner. I have made the bed for nine weeks.
   Mr. PARNELL: Come now, Esther, don't you keep company with the prisoner. Come, tell us, don't be ashamed of it.
   Witness stammered out something which was understood to be an admission that the prisoner was her sweetheart, but she must have misunderstood the question, for a neighbour interrupted the learned counsel as he was proceeding with the cross-examination, and stated that the witness was a married woman, and had two children.
   Mr. PARNELL replied on the evidence for the defence, reremarking that the speech of the learned counsel on the other side, amounted to a charge of conspiracy against police-constable Richmond. It was assumed that he had stolen the spoons, and was then villain enough to endeavour to fasten the guilt on the prisoner, by falsely pretending to find the spoons in his bed. He left it to the jury to say whether there was the slightest ground for such an imputation as that. If the statement of Esther Humphreys were true, that of the constable must be false; but the latter could not be depended on; and as there was nothing in the evidence of the elder Maddox, which was materially inconsistent with what Richmond had stated, he had no doubt that, in spite of what the learned counsel had said, the jury would give the credit that was due to the constable's evidence.
   The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN recapitulated the evidence with great minuteness, remarking on the discrepancies between the evidence of Richmond, and of the elder Maddox. The learned counsel for the prosecution, in his reply accurately represented the tendency of the defence. The question for the jury was the credibility of Richmond, whose evidence was quite irrenconcileable with that of the witness called for the defence. If they believed the policeman they could not give credit to Humphreys, and if they believed her, they must disbelieve all that had been said by the policeman. The jury would bear in mind the admission of Humphreys, that she was intimate and kept company with the prisoner.
   The man, who had previously stated that the witness Humphreys was a married woman, asked whether he might speak?
   The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN replied that the Court could not hear him.
   [The Magistrate had evidently not heard the previous statement of the man, which was indistinctly made at a moment when there was considerable bustle in the Court.]
   The jury, after a short consultation, returned a verdict of Not Guilty.
   The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN recalled police-constable Richmond, and said: After what has passed the Bench wish me to state that there is no imputation on your character.
   Police-constable Richmond: Thank you, sir.
   Mr. PARNELL wished to know the grounds on which the jury had returned their verdict. If it arose out of a belief that identity of the spoons was not sufficiently proved, he should go on with the indictment, charging the prisoner with stealing the ring; but if not it was of no use carrying the case any further.
   The FOREMAN said the jury were of opinion that there was even less evidence in the ring case than in the other.

9.   Herts Guardian, in United Kingdom. The British Newspaper Archive
   Page 4, 12 Sep 1854.

   HERTFORDSHIRE,
   ST. ALBAN'S.-Liberty Petty Sessions, September 2nd.-Present: Capt. Fosket, and Rev. Dr. Bowen.-Daniel Nicholls of Wheathamstead, who a short time since was charged with stealing a horse and cart, and acquitted, was committed to the Hertford sessions for trial, on a charge of committing a most violent assault with a large stick, on the person of John Hanley, on the night of the 26th ult., near to the Folly Farm.-The complainant's head exhibited some marks of severe punishment.
   ...John Hanley of Wheathamstead was ordered to pay 18s 6d and expences within a fortnight, or 3 weeks imprisonment, for having on the 22nd ult., assaulted John Maddocok.

10. ↑ Luton Reporter, in United Kingdom. The British Newspaper Archive
    Page 8, 8 Feb 1879.

    DEATHS.
    Jan. 29, at Burr-street, High Town, Luton, John Maddock, aged 92 years.