Catherine Clarkson - ALL REVEALED

    In the Supreme Court of NSW on the 14 June 1833, Catherine Clarkson swore an affidavit in open court to commence a suit of Equity.(51) This was brought about as a result of an Ejectment action brought against her on 1 January 1832 by James Holt. This action was contested by Mountford and Thomas as owners of the two portions of land in dispute.(52)
    Catherine's statement contained an account of the lives of the Clarkson family and some of their circumstances from the time of their arrival in the colony and was to give us some very interesting insights into their affairs.
    Catherine stated that she "emigrated to the said for the purpose of rejoining and living with her husband, Thomas Clarkson "whom she had married in England". Thomas at that time, she said, was a "convict attaint or prisoner of the Crown residing in Sydney, and was assigned unto this deponent (Catherine) shortly after her arrival in Sydney".(53)
    Catherine also stated that, she had "brought very considerable property to the said colony which she held in her own right and independent of her said husband".(54) With this she was able to purchase a piece of land "on which a house was erected situate and being at the corner of Elizabeth Street and High Street (now called Hunter Street)". John Parks was the vendor from whom she took a receipt for £38.(55)
£38-0-0    Sydney October 1806 Received from Mrs Catherine Clarkson the sum of £38 being payment for a House and ground situate in High Street with what timber is now lying on the ground and I have given to her full possession thereof. Pray receive by me.
    Jno X Parks (his mark)
    Witness present Thomas Russell.
    In August 1814, Catherine purchased another small portion from a neighbour, Mary Biggs.(56)
I agree to sell to Catherine Clarkson this twenty first day of August 1814 36 feet 8 inches of my land , side of Jane Muckle's land to Clarkson's fence within ---- inches of Clarksons Brewery? to be divided strate (sic) across from Ester Stubb's fence up to Jane Muckle's fence. To have and to hold forever free from all encumbrances ….Admons or assigns. For the sun of fifteen pounds and two pounds ten shillings to, be spent -- the receipt I acknowledge to have received.
                     Mary Bigges. X (her Mark)
    Witness     Catherine Clarkson
                      George Jubb.
    It was here that Catherine stated that she had resided continuously at this address and had made "very great improvements thereto" thus increasing the value of the property considerably.(57)
    Thomas, she claimed, carried on his business as a brewer separately and independently to her and acquired "very considerable property in the course of his trading".(58) His dealings with Daniel Cooper were extensive but that she, Catherine, considered Cooper had "by false representations prevailed upon Thomas Clarkson to execute unto the said Daniel Cooper a certain indenture of mortgage dated on or about the tenth day of August 1822". This was the mortgage of property for which Thomas received £1,775, plus interest. Catherine was to claim also that she knew nothing of the inclusion of the property in question in the said mortgage until recently and that it would only have been included in the agreement "for the sole purpose of defrauding or injuring her". (Whether she was referring to Thomas or Daniel Cooper as the "Injuror", is unclear).(59) She was also of the opinion that the whole mortgage was "altogether founded in fraud and that no money was due and owing from the said Thomas Clarkson to the said Daniel Cooper but on the contrary she believes a sum of eight pounds four shillings and sixpence was at the time due and owing from the said Daniel Cooper to the said Thomas Clarkson".(60) The mortgage she stated, was accompanied by a Warrant of Attorney which was collateral security for the payment of the said sum of the loan. The amount owing by Cooper was paid to her husband when the accounts were settled between them on 11 August 1822. In evidence of this, she produced a statement of this settlement "recently discovered amongst the papers of the said Thomas Clarkson".(61)
    Catherine's version of the court proceedings was as follows…     She conceded that the writ of Fieri Facias was issued on the 15 March which set a levy of £1,926/3/8 to be raised from the sale of Thomas' goods was executed and from this, the Provost Marshall was able to report....
Levied on account of this writ after paving off Mortgage debt and rent due by notice served £926/3/8.(62)
    Catherine was to state that she believed "that the amount so fraudulently secured by the said Indenture of Mortgage had been claimed by and paid to the said Daniel Cooper in addition to the said sun of £926/3/8" so raised by the sale".(63)
    In her opinion, that mortgage was invalid and Cooper should never have recovered the amount it constituted. Now he was after the further £1,000 which he claimed was the excess owing him.
    As a result of this, her home had been sold out from under her and now James Holt, the purchaser was trying to evict her. Catherine's complaint with him was that it was a conspiracy to defraud her of her home. This being brought about by Daniel Cooper, (who was no longer resident in the colony), through James Holt, who was carrying on Cooper's business in his absence. James Holt on the first day of the first term of 1832, "commenced an action of ejectment to recover the possession of the said two several pieces of land and house to which defense has been taken by Mountford Clarkson and Thomas Clarkson, who are sons of this deponent".(64)
    The Clarksons were now appealing to the courts for an injunction to restrain Holt from evicting them.(65)
    On the 24 October 1835 the case was dismissed out of Court as Catherine had not proceeded with the cause. 66) The reasons for this being, she had turned to the Court of Claims to lodge an application for ownership in opposition to James Holt.(67)     Image - Map, Portions in Dispute
    By the end of 1833, Catherine showing her determination to remain at her residence in Hunter Street, leased part of her premises to Thomas Smithers.(68) For a period of five years she leased "all that brewhouse, cellar, maltkiln. Bottom malt floor, coach house with yard and pump" reserving to her, Catherine, the use of the pump and well and the freedom to come and go on the land as she wished. These facilities were situated at the rear of her premises in Hunter Street and for the term she intended charging Smithers £74 for the first year and thence £100 per year.(69)
    As 1833 drew to a close, Catherine was preparing for the final act in this drama which would ultimately determine the ownership of this long disputed property. The Woodman would either remain the home of the Clarksons or would fall to a new owner.


 Page last updated -  7 July  2006