At a glance
The Grave
Life story
Further information
Death
Census and miscellaneous information
Reigate Foreign, Surrey
Philip aged 50, banker. Elizabeth aged 43. Theodore aged 11. Ernest aged 9. Albert aged 7. Alfred aged 5. Clothilde aged 2. Mary Mackenzie aged 48, sister, widow. Osgood Mackenzie aged 18, nephew. Walter Hanbury aged 25, nephew, insurance broker. Plus butler, page, cook, nurse and four servants.
The Firs, Teston Village, Kent.
Ernest aged 29, brewer. Clara aged 27. Muriel aged 5. Cecile aged 3. Philip aged 1. Gladys aged 1 month. Plus a cook, 2 nurses, groom and 1 servant.
Hay House, Pitminster, Staplehay, Somerset.
Ernest aged 39, brewer. Staying with his brother Albert, brewer and family.
"Amatola" Shakespeare Road, Worthing.
Ernest aged 49, brewer. Lucy aged 25. Sara Duckworth aged 48, mother-in-law, visitor, piano forte dealer. Plus 1 servant.
"Amatola" Shakespeare Road, Worthing.
Ernest aged 59, private means. Lucy Ann aged 35. Plus 2 servants.
2 Shakespeare Road, Worthing, Sussex
First name(s) | Last name | Relationship to head | Sex | Birth year | Age | Birth place | Occupation | Employer |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ernest Osgood | Hanbury | Head | Male | 1852 | 69 | Brixton, Middlesex | Brewer Retired | - |
Lucy Ann | Hanbury | Wife | Female | 1876 | 44 | Liverpool, Lancashire | - | - |
Grace Mabel | Ashton | Servant | Female | 1905 | 15 | Tonbridge, Kent | - | Private |
The Penny Illustrated 19th March 1892
Hanbury v Hanbury The petition was that of the wife for a divorce by reason of the alleged cruelty and adultery of her husband Mr Ernest Osgood Hanbury, partner in a brewery at Wateringbury in Kent. He denied the charges and pleaded that if the acts alleged were committed, he was a lunatic at the time and not responsible for his actions. The was also a plea of condonation. Mrs Hanbury, the petitioner, expressed the opinion that if he drank no more, he would never again be insane. Practically all the evidence heard on Monday had reference to the respondent’s state of mind and was put forward in support of his plea that he was a lunatic when the alleged acts of cruelty and adultery were committed. Witnesses agreed in reply to questions by the President, that drink was not the primary cause of Mr Hanbury’s insanity. Dr Henry Davy gave evidence as to Mr Hanbury suffering from acute mania and his having delusions. The respondent represented that he was a great personal friend of Mr Gladstone and that he was a great poet and a great musician. He announced his intention of being returned to Parliament and began to write a poem about Gladstone being "great and good" (laughter). Whenever he was going to write poetry, that was the premonitory symptom of an attack (laughter) after which he became metamorphosed. Very speedily did Sir Charles Butt and a special jury dispose of the case. St James’s Gazette 22nd March 1892 The Hanbury Divorce Suit To the Editor of the St James’s Gazette Sir I notice in a paragraph of your paper of yesterday’s date you draw attention to the divorce suit just ended (Hanbury v Hanbury). As a brother to the respondent may I claim your indulgence for a few lines in your valuable paper? To my idea and I hope to many others, the finding of the jury was contrary to all reason and against the most weighty evidence. First, it was proved by six doctors, two of whom are the greatest authorities in London (Dr Maudsley and Dr Savage, specialists on the brain), that my brother was undoubtedly afflicted with a disease of the brain known as "la folie circulaire" a specific type of recurrent mania and that when the attack was on him, he was not responsible for his actions. Secondly, that drink could not cause such disease but that some hereditary taint of the nervous system must have existed, which eventually terminated in his case in this awful malady. There can be no doubt that this disease was developed in March 1883, at the time of the severe illness of his eldest child (I may say his favourite child) the subsequent death of whom drove him quite mad. I was at the funeral and considered him quite out of his mind. The jury seemed to have reasoned that he was not mad, excepting when he was actually in the madhouse. It was proved by the nurse and other witnesses that during the intervals of the outbreak, he was of a most kindly disposition, and there could have been brought into court many other witnesses to have sworn that my poor brother is and always has been of a sensitive, loving and charitable nature to all mankind and also further, he was a most indulgent husband. Before closing this letter, I should like to add that my brother has been of extremely delicate health since babyhood and has had three serious falls- one as a baby from a bed; another when about four years of age, from a pony-chaise; and then later on at about eighteen years, from a drag. He was then picked up insensible. When a boy of about twelve years, I was at school with him for a year during which time he suffered intensely from religious mania and extreme absence of mind, show that even then his brain was affected. Was that from drink? I was with him at our old home continually after he left school till he was married, at the age of twenty-three years; and I can swear that he was always most temperate- in fact very abstemious- but suffering poor fellow, constantly from ill health (dyspepsia and weak heart) and seldom appeared in good spirits, but melancholy and depressed, not seeming capable of enjoying life. I am Sir, your obedient servant Frederick Barclay Hanbury 13 Lisgar Terrace, West Kensington.