Catherine Clarkson - NOT TO REST IN
PEACE
Thomas Clarkson had been dead barely a fortnight
when a writ of Fieri
Facias, outstanding from the judgement of December 1822 and dated 2 9
January 1824 was put into force.
A notice in the Sydney Gazette announced the sale of
... "all the
following valuable lands and premises:"(1)
1) A
farm containing 70 acres or thereabouts situated in the district of Mulgrave P1ace, originally
granted to Henry Lamb.
2} A fare containing 120 acres, more
or less situate in the district
of Cooke, originally granted to Benjamin Johns.
3) That piece or parcel of land,
being one half of a moiety of a farm,
called Whitton's Farm situate in the district of Wilberforce.
4) All that capital stone built
messuaqe or tenement, with the yard,
garden, offices, and stores, thereto belonging, situate at the corner
of Hunter and Elizabeth St in Sydney, late the residence of the
defendant. (Thomas).
5) The owner's interest in a certain
windmill situate on, or adjoining
the Surrey Hills and East of the New gaol.(2)
6) Also a cottage or dwelling house
of the defendant's formerly
belonging to H Printz and now in the occupation of James Sly, situate
at the extremity of George St on Brickfield Hill.
7) Also all the defendant's household
furniture and brewing utensils.
The several properties were to be sold separately
"for the benefit of
the Estate" until enough money was raised to satisfy the levy imposed
by the Courts.
A week later, Catherine Clarkson of Hunter St,
petitioned the Governor,
to assign to her, a convict by the name of James Farrell, at present in
Government employ at Emu plains.(3)
I
humbly request, that you will be pleased to accede to such assignment
of the said James Farrell, as a Government servant to me. I have
recently Sir been left a widow with a large family, and this man may be
extremely serviceable to myself and fatherless children on which
account I most respectfully solicit, Sir that you will have the
goodness and humanity to direct that he may be assigned to me.
On 9 August 1824, Catherine's daughter, Sarah,
married the father of
her twins, Michael Cook, at St Luke's Church, Liverpool. Interestingly,
one of the witnesses was James Farrell.(4)
Michael Cook, a convict himself, arrived in the
colony in 1817.(5) He
was assigned to Thomas Rowley and had worked for him on the Clarkson
properties until 1822. He was then employed by Rev. Reddall(6) until
1824 when he received his freedom.(7) In 1822 Sarah gave birth to his
twins, Charlotte and Martha.(8) The reasons for their waiting to get
married until after Thomas' death are not clear, although Sarah's age
or Michael's freedom could have some bearing on that decision. Or
perhaps Thomas may have been the stumbling block here as there was
mention of Michael stealing porks from him at one time.(9) Michael
appeared to get on with Catherine though, and was accused in 1826 by
Robert Townson of supplying her with stolen flour.(10) In any case, the
young couple were united a few months after Thomas died.
In May the sheriff advertised that he intended to
sell the Clarkson
home, by auction, on 5 June 1824, unless settlement of the debt owed
Cooper was met.(11) As well as the payments already realised. Daniel
Cooper claimed a further £1,000 which he intended recouping.
It was this assault on her home that began the long
torrid fight that
Catherine put up for the "Woodman". She held tight to her home and
refused to release it without a battle, and what a battle it turned out
to be!
By mid June 1824, Cooper approached the courts to
settle the matter,
and immediately the various court officials began collecting the past
documents on the preceding actions between the two parties.(12)
William Freeman, clerk to Thomas Dean Rowe, (who was
the attorney for
the executors of Thomas Clarkson's Will) found a loophole which he
submitted to the court in the hope of canceling the proceedings on a
point of irregularity.(13)
He claimed the judgement of 1822 had ordered a writ
of Fieri Facias to
be executed, but on examining the writ, it appeared that no date or
amount of levy had been entered upon it. On further examination of the
writ in the Provost Marshall's Office though, it showed an amount of
£1,926/3/8 had been levied on 5 April 1824. That writ showed a
date of issue as being 29 January 1824 and had been lodged with the
Provost Marshall on 15 March but …
the
same does not appear to have been executed until the 5th April 1824
a period of 16 days after the death of Thomas Clarkson.(14)
It also showed £926/3/8 had been repaid but
£1,000 was
still owing and this was the amount in contention at the time. This
amount was left after Paying off the mortgage amount and Mr Norton's
fees. (the
solicitor)
Image of the Writ
The attorney representing Catherine Clarkson and
Thomas Rowley, as
executors of Thomas' Will, was Mr Thomas Deane Rowe, and in view of the
above irregularity of proceedings he made application for the action to
be set aside. This was agreed to by the courts and the officials then
ordered Daniel Cooper to show lust cause why
the
writ of execution issued upon the judgement sinned in this cause,
together with all subsequent proceeding} had thereupon, should not be
set aside for irregularity --- and that all Proceedings on the said
writ be, in the meantime, stayed.(15)
If proceedings had been halted at this point perhaps
Thomas' family
would have felt the benefits of his efforts, but it was not to be.
Daniel Cooper appeared before the Court as ordered,
to explain the
reason for the delay in executing the writ.(16)
Cooper explained that Thomas Clarkson had signed a
Warrant of Attorney
to cover the amount of a mortgage transacted between the two parties on
20 August 1822. In return, Cooper lent Clarkson £1,775 and
appointed 20 December 1823 as the final date for repayment.(17)
On that very day. Thomas approached Cooper appealing
for
an extension of time in which to make good his payment, claiming he was
.... "then engaged in a very lucrative business, and that if this
deponent (Cooper) would give him some indulgence in the payment of the
said money, he the said Thomas Clarkson, should be enabled to make the
same up without the sale of his property".(18)
In order to give Thomas the chance to meet his debt
in this manner,
i.e.: so he would avoid the loss of his property, Cooper claimed he
agreed to let the judgement lie over from 20 December 1823 until the
date it was finally put into force.
In support of this. James Hankinson, a Sydney baker,
swore that he was
well acquainted with Thomas Clarkson and could recall a certain
conversation with him about May or June last. (1823) It concerned the
renting of the stone mill, near the site for the new goal.
Thomas had said his interest in the mill was
concerned with his farms
and other property, which was mortgaged to Daniel
Cooper. .
Furthermore, Thomas told him he was greatly indebted
to Cooper and that
he'd just managed to get Daniel to delay the execution of his property.
He was greatly concerned with raising the money to pay the interest
owing Cooper, and that he was hopeful that the "great profits of his
brewery would enable him, in tine, to pay off the principal sum secured
by the mortgage"(19)
After reading the Affidavits of both sides, the
court ruled that the
irregularity had been satisfactorily explained and that the action
should proceed forthwith to recover the excess that Daniel Cooper
claimed Thomas still owed. The writ referred to had secured the payment
of the mortgage and the Attorney's fees but Cooper maintained there was
an excess still owing of £1,000.(20)
It was at this point that relationships between
Cooper and Catherine
Clarkson became so strained that they reached breaking point. Catherine
refused to commit herself to this further debt, having lost so much
already, and in any case. she was claiming that Cooper had been well
and truly paid and that according to an account she'd found among
Thomas' effects, it appeared that Cooper actually owed Thomas a small
amount of money. Catherine demanded that Cooper's books be
examined. Image - Clarkson's Account 1822
Cooper closed all the accounts between himself and
the Clarksons and refused to negotiate any further.(21)
Catherine clung to her home and anything else she
could salvage.
At this stage Catherine decided it was time to form
alternative plans.
Her security and that of her family was of the greatest concern and
alternate measures for accommodation had to be at least considered.
She sent a letter (a petition) to Governor Brisbane
on 2 September 1824
requesting the granting of a small portion of land "(in trust) for the
benefit of herself and family ... in such unlocated place as to your
Excellency may term meet". She described herself as being Thomas
Clarkson's widow and left with a very heavy family of seven. She stated
she had a small stock of horned cattle and was anxious to enter the
agricultural side of
life. Image of Catherine's Petition
She received a character witness from Thomas Moore,
of Liverpool. and
Robert Cartwright also added his endorsement.(22)
Towards the end of December 1824, the Governor,
Major General Sir
Thomas Brisbane, and his officious Colonial Secretary Frederick
Goulburn were recalled to England (partly through their continuous
quarrelling) but they were not to leave until December
1825. -
Because of all this internal political squabbling,
Catherine's petition
was not dealt with immediately and she was to find she had to
continually follow it up to get any action. Unfortunately by that time
Brisbane had left for England. (sailing through the Bass Strait and
thereby proclaiming the separation of NSW and Van Dieman's Land by
doing so), and Major General Ralph Darling who took up office on 18
December 1825, was left to finish off the negotiations and all
Catherine was left with, was the promise of the land.
The Sydney Gazette of 3 March 1825 ran an
advertisement offering the
letting of a premises which was unmistakably Thomas Clarkson's.(23)
WINDMILL
TO LET --- That large and commodious Stone Built WINDMILL
(formerly Clarkson's) adjoining the New Gaol. Has an excellent Dressing
Machine and the whole in the very best Order. Immediate possession may
be had. For further particulars apply to Mr Walker Hunter Street.
It was just over a year since the property was
included in the
Sheriff's sale of Thomas' goods. A survey map of South Head Road, drawn
up in 1828 locates the 5 acres of land "East of Woolloomoolloo'' and in
the vicinity of what is now bounded by Liverpool Street, Darlinghurst
Road, William Street and Forbes Street.(24)
A muster of the inhabitants of the colony taken in
1825 lists the
Clarkson family as follows:(25)
Thomas
freed by servitude Alexander 1806 7 yrs Died 1824 Sydney
Catherine
free
Alexander
1806 Widow
Thomas
B.C. 17
son of Widow Clarkson
Mountford B.C.
13 "
"
" "
Ann
B.C.
11
Daughter of Widow Clarkson
Mary
B.C.
9 "
" " "
Martha
B.C.
7 "
" " "
Charlotte
B.C. 4 1/2 "
" " "
The last two names entered under the Clarkson family
are actually Sarah
Cook's twins. These twins also appear again in the muster under the
name of Cook with their correct ages of 4 years. Sarah Cook is not
listed at all, only their brother Thomas and father Michael Cook, all
resident at Liverpool.
The above muster showing Martha's age as 7 years is
obviously
incorrect, as was Thomas', who was 15 at the time, and Mary who was 7.
In January 1825 Thomas Rowley and Catherine Clarkson
were served a writ of Fieri Facias for the £1,000.(26) They
quickly realised that the only means of raising the money was by the
sale of the "Woodman" and it was this property which was in danger of
being auctioned. In her desperate bid to retain her home, Catherine
turned to William Charles Wentworth for help.
Wentworth set about clearing up some of the debts
that were still owing
to Thomas, small though they were, they would all add up. He sent
letters to Mr George Smith of Windsor requesting settlement of a debt
of £10/-/-, threatening court action if the payment was not
forthcoming.(27) In similar fashion, a letter went out to Mr Capa Pass,
giving notification of a debt of £48/6/4 which required immediate
attention to Payment. This matter proceeded to court and on the 19 May
1826, before Justice Stephen, Catherine and Thomas Rowley recovered
their debt.(28)
Catherine was still not happy with Daniel Cooper's
accounts and was
pressing to have them examined. When she persisted with the claim that
Cooper had been paid in full. William C. Wentworth decided to approach
the defiant Daniel Cooper, who had not taken the accusation that it was
he who owed Thomas money, at all lightly, and was still refusing to
re-open his accounts to Catherine.
Letters began passing between Wentworth and Cooper's
Attorney in a bid
to alleviate the situation.(29)
Macquarie
Place 10 November 1025
Mr Daniel Cooper
left at the Waterloo Warehouse
I have been applied to by Mrs
Clarkson with respect to a compulsory
settlement of some old outstanding accounts between you and her late
husband, She says that she is ignorant of some of the gross items of
that account and that she believes you to have been already over paid
although she is aware that a balance has been struck between her
attorney and yours which brings her late husband in your debt to the
amount of £1000 --- Mrs Clarkson desires to open your account
with her husband from beginning to end and it is my opinion that a
court of Equity will give her this benefit. A suit in Equity however
will be better avoided perhaps by both parties; and I have therefore on
her behalf to propose that this business be left to the arbitration of
me on her part and any person that you may name on yours, with an
understanding that the late Mr Clarkson's accounts with you are fully
to be gone into and with further understanding that if the arbitrators
should differ on any points they shall call in an umpire.
I am Sir, Your Obedient Servant
W C Wentworth
The reply was relayed to the Clarksons as follows:
(30)
Macquarie
Place 15 November 1825
Mrs Clarkson
Hunter Street
Delivered personally
I beg to inform you that I have seen
Mr D. Cooper and also his
Solicitor Mr Norton on the subject of the letter which I wrote at your
insistence proposing to reopen the accounts between your late husband
and Mr Cooper and to submit all matters in dispute to arbitration. Mr
Cooper accedes to your proposal provided you can get anyone of
respectability except your son in law Mr Rowley to join with you in a
Bond to be accountable for what the arbitrators may award Mr Cooper.
I am Madam Your Obedient
Servant
W.C. Wentworth
On 1 December 1825 Wentworth consulted with
Catherine on the contents,
and replies to the two letters lately despatched to Daniel Cooper and
his Attorney on the subject of re-opening the accounts. The outcome was
a letter delivered to James Norton (Cooper's Solicitor) informing him:
(31)
...That
Mrs Clarkson is willing to leave all matters in dispute to your
arbitration and mine with an understanding that whatever balance may be
found to exist against her is to be by mortgage on the premises which
she now holds payable by such installments and at such periods as the
arbitrators shall appoint.
By the 23 December, Wentworth was still awaiting a
reply.
Page last updated - 7
July 2006