Joseph WILLS James John Montague WILLS James KINGMAN James John Montague WILLS Lewis Daniel KINGMAN Albert Charles KINGMAN Mini tree diagram


18231 - 7th Nov 19097

Lodging House Keeper2,3,4,5

Life History


Born in Cheltenham, Gloucestershire.1


Married Joseph WILLS in Cheltenham, Gloucestershire


Birth of son James John Montague WILLS in Cheltenham, Gloucestershire.1


Birth of son James John Montague WILLS in Cheltenham, Gloucestershire.1


Death of Joseph WILLS in Cheltenham, Gloucestershire


Birth of son Lewis Daniel KINGMAN in Cheltenham, Gloucestershire.2

22nd Feb 1854

Married James KINGMAN in Cheltenham, Gloucestershire.8

James Kingman married Mary Wills, the daughter of Ambrose Dance on the 22nd February 1854. Both are listed as being of full age and James was a labourer.

Their address is given as Adelaide Cottage, 8 Sandford Terrace.

James' father was William, a gardener, and Ambrose Dance was a labourer.

21st Jan 1856

Birth of son Albert Charles KINGMAN in Felpham, Sussex.1


Resident in Felpham Road, Felpham, Sussex.1

between 1871 and 1881

Death of James KINGMAN

between 1871 and 1901

Occupation Lodging House Keeper.2,3,4,5


Resident in 1 Mansion Parade, South Bersted, Sussex.2


Resident in 10 Parade Rock Gardens, South Bersted, Sussex.3

between 1891 and 1901

Resident in 9&10 Parade Rock Gardens, South Bersted, Sussex.4,5


Death of son Lewis Daniel KINGMAN in Westhampnett, Sussex

3rd May 1909

Wrote will in Bognor, Sussex (Rock Gardens #10).6

7th Nov 1909

Died in Bognor, Sussex.7

18th Nov 1909

Probate in Chichester, Sussex.7

Mary Kingman of 10 Rock Gardens, Bognor, Sussex, widow, died 7 November 1909.
Probate Chichester to James John Wills, tailor's manager.
Effects ?2047 7s


    James Kingman, a lodging-house keeper of Bognor, was bound over to keep the peace towards his wife, Mary Kingman. He appeared on a summons, and was ordered to give sureties, himself in ?50, and two others in ?20 each. The defendant had been drinking and then abused his wife, threatening to blow her brains out and to break her jaw.

    [Hampshire Telegraph - Portsmouth, Hampshire, England 28 August 1867
    Transcribed by Scott Kingman, April 2016]
    James Kingman was charged that, the 22nd of August, at Bognor, he did threaten to shoot his wife, as well as using other threats, whereby she was afraid he would do her some bodily harm, and thereby called upon him to find sureties to keep the peace. Mr Field appeared for complainant, and Mr Titchener for defendant. Complainant kept a most respectable lodging house in Bognor, and among others she had a daughter of the Lord Bishop of Chichester residing there. The defendant was a pensioner. The Bench required him to find sureties?himself in ?50, and two in ?20 each, to keep the peace for six months. As the sureties were not at once forthcoming defendant was taken care of by Mr Superintendent Pratt.

    [Brighton Gazette - Brighton, East Sussex, England 29 August 1867
    Transcribed by Scott Kingman, April 2016]


    Mr Kingman, pensioner, of Bognor, appeared for his examination. Bankrupt was supported Mr. Titchener, and Mr. Holmes, of Arundel, appeared for Mr. Sparks, the trade assignee to oppose. Mr. Titchener objected, upon the grounds that the trade assignee had a bill sale for only ?93, and yet he put it in for ?113. Some few months back the bankrupt had a fall out with his wife, and he was bound over to keep the peace towards her. Mr. Sparks was one of those who became surety. He put in a claim for the goods had under the wife; that (Mr. Titchener) had in his (Sparks) solicitor?s own handwriting. After he got the bankrupt out of gaol, he endeavoured to get a bill of sale; then sued bankrupt for ?113. not for ?111.  Was certain that the sum was only ?93 at the time.

    Mr Holmes said that of all the extraordinary cases to ever come across his notice this, he thought, was the most curious. After discussion between the legal gentlemen, His Honor said he must have a prima facie case made out before he could decide whether Mr. Holmes ought to oppose at the present time. Mr. Holmes stated that on the 8th of November, at two o'clock in the morning, the goods were removed surreptitiously. When the sheriff's officer took possession of the goods they were estimated at ?250. The same day inventory was in by the sheriff Kingman made himself bankrupt. (Mr. Holmes) asked for the list of effects, and was told that they had been sold by auction by Mr. Peat. The latter produced a list which came to be asked what other goods, and he (Mr. Peat) said that Mr. Titchener had bought them for ?111; he found that neither the bailiff nor the registrar had any power sell, and, therefore, he said to Mr. Sparks, if they have no right to sell this is a nullity and then Mr. Sparks, at considerable trouble and expense went to Bognor, and succeeded in procuring goods which had been sold for ?175; but doing this they had to get two search warrants, and to subpoena several witnesses from Bognor, and it was only owing to the vigilance and activity of the trade assignee that they had been able to secure the goods.

    Whilst the bailiff was in the house they were protected, and the morning had flown altogether, and they have since been found in several places in Bognor. When he re-examined bankrupt they would find that there were goods still missing.

    Mrs Kingman was a violent and excitable woman, and when his client went there with the officers, she locked the door, and tore the buttons off his client?s coat. However, wanted to show his Honor that the bankrupt should be indicted at the Assizes, for unlawfully detaining goods which ought to be given up to creditors, and to ascertain, if he knew where were the missing goods.

    His Honor having directed bankrupt to be examined, Mr. Holmes questioned him with considerable ingenuity, but failed to extract anything from him that would tend to give account to the missing goods. As the examination was very detailed, we shall only just give three points which seem to call for notice. Bankrupt said that Mr. Sparks and Mr. John Broker were his sureties, and he was obliged to get two sureties before he could come out of gaol. Was never in the front part of his house only the kitchen. His wife and servant took care of the house. He was pensioner, at ?14. 4 a year, and lived at Alexandra Terrace, Bognor. He did not know what of the goods removed on the eighteenth November, was at Portsmouth while they were removed. Did not go into the front part of house, and therefore, had no knowledge of what was missing. Never had a dozen words with Mr. Sparks in all his life. Mr. Sparks wanted him to sign a document, but his wife said he should not sign anything without her consent, went to Chichester on the 4th of December and filed himself a bankrupt, but should not have done it if he had not been forced to. He did not see Mr. Death, the bailiff officer, in possession when he returned. He sold part of the goods to Mr. George Howard, of Covent Garden, London, but did not know what he received for the goods and had spent the money.

    The schedule was produced and the statement for the six months around ?55, but no entry was made of the ?41. Bankrupt, in reply to his Honor, said, he thought it was given in. Further stated that he sold the goods to Howard in a lump, if there had been ?250 worth there he would not have known it. He did not know what was in the house. He had let lodgings. Sometimes he was there but had not been comfortable lately. Howard hired the stable to stow away the goods sold to him.

    Mrs. Mary Kingman, bankrupt?s wife, was then cross examined, but with the same result. She knew nothing. She admitted that the rooms were let for two, three, four, and five guineas per week according the season. Her husband had been served with writ on the 18th of November, and the goods were removed in consequence on the 18th. He gave orders for the removal of the goods. She thought they were her own, as she had paid for them. She knew Howard's wife, some of her children having been left with her while Mr. Howard went to India. He lived at 42. Great Windmill Street, Haymarket. She told Mr. Death that they were sold that afternoon, but was positive she did not mention the amount. She did not know of any arrangement being made for selling the goods. Did not know what became of the basket of linen which was there on the 24th, but missing on the 26th. Knew nothing about the list (a long one) of articles produced. She recollected taking hold of Mr. Sparks, and tearing his buttons off. It was on **day. She was just in the same temper then as now. She held him to prevent his flinging her across the room. Upon her oath she did not know of any goods in in Bognor belonging to her husband or herself.

    Mr. George Sparks produced a list of the goods missing from when the inventory was taken, and when taken under the bankruptcy. His Honor said no doubt there was great misconduct on the part of bankrupt and his wife, but there could not be a case of misdemeanour made out. The bankrupt?s discharge would have to be suspended for six months.

    [Chichester Express and West Sussex Journal - Chichester, West Sussex 21 January 1868
    Transcribed by Scott Kingman, April 2016]


    Mr. Malim applied for an order of protection for Mary Kingman against her husband, who deserted her in July, 1868, but had subsequently visited her with the view of despoiling her of the fruits of her own industry. Mr. Malim having submitted the facts of the case to the bench, called the complainant, who stated that she was the wife of James Kingman, formerly a coastguard stationed at Selsey. She was married to him on the 22nd February, 1854. They lived at Felpham for eleven years. She had one child by him, and he was at Greenwich Hospital School. Her husband deserted her on the 6th February, 1868, at Bognor. During his absence she had succeeded, with the assistance of a friend, in getting a few articles of household furniture and took lodgers. Her husband returned in the month of May of last year, and endeavoured to deprive her of her furniture and turn her out of doors. She had not seen him since. She maintained herself without her husband's assistance by her own earnings. She now asked for an order of protection against him, so that her earnings might not be despoiled by him. An order was granted.

    [Hampshire Telegraph - Portsmouth, Hampshire, England 08 May 1869
    Transcribed by Scott Kingman, April 2016]


    Edward Cooke v. Mary Kingman.-This was an action brought by the defendant for the recovery of a clock, over 3s., the value . Defendant is a married woman living at Bognor separate from her husband and in May, 1869, she obtained an order of protection under the Matrimonial and Divorce Acts from the magistrate of the county bench. Mr. Titchener appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Field for the defence. Defendant had given notice of special defence of coverture which was set aside by the Judge, the defendant being in the position of a femme sole with respect to contracts. The clock in question apparently belonged to Miss Lea, who was lodging with the defendant, and had employed the plaintiff to repair and return it. When it was returned Miss Lea had left defendants lodgings, and on discovering this Mr. Cooke applied to Mrs. Kingman for the clock, which she refused to give. Judge held that the verdict must be for the defendant, as the clock was not the plaintiff's property but belonged to Miss Lea. Temperance Lea v. Mary Kingman.-Mr. Titchener appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Field for the defence. Plaintiff sued the defendant for recovery of possession of certain household goods, or, the value thereof. In the month of April last, Messrs. Sparks and Sons obtained a verdict for, or the delivery of certain goods hired by Miss Lea, but on going to Bognor to get the goods, which Miss Lea was willing to give up, they only got a portion of them, as Mrs. Kingman would not let the remainder be removed. This action was therefore brought, but the Judge remarked that Messrs. Sparks and Son having already obtained a judgment for the goods or the value thereof, judgment should be enforced as against Miss Lea, and therefore he should find a verdict for the defence.

    [Hampshire Telegraph - Portsmouth, Hampshire, England 15 June 1870
    Transcribed by Scott Kingman, April 2016]


    The venerable judge of the Sussex County Courts had somewhat perplexing case to decide Friday last at Chichester. Two ladies gave very conflicting evidence, and under such circumstances the gallantry of judge was necessarily taxed. Miss Lea, of Bognor, who lets lodgings, fell ill; and Mrs. Kingman, who also keeps lodging-house, very kindly nursed the former during her illness. In this the two lodging-house keepers displayed better spirit than was shown Mrs. Lirriper and her rival, Miss Wozenham, of Norfolk-street, so graphically described in "Mrs. Lirriper's Lodgings." It appears that the goods with which the house of Miss Lea was furnished, belonged to an upholsterer at Arundel; and some of these goods were taken away by Mrs. Kingman. The latter alleged that she paid for them, and produced receipts to that effect. But Miss Lea declared that although the receipts were given the money was not paid and she let her sister lodging-house keeper have the goods because "she was stupid and confiding." The judge had to decide between the two, and ultimately gave verdict to the effect that the money had been paid, as shown by the receipts, and to the lady who was "stupid and confiding" this will be a lesson not again give formal receipts for money not received, in a ?stupid and confiding spirit?.

    [Hastings and St Leonards Observer - Hastings, East Sussex, England 23 July 1870
    Transcribed by Scott Kingman, April 2016]

  • SOUTH-COAST, facing sea, best location; well-furnished, three Sitting-rooms, seven Bedrooms, together or separately, with or without attendance; good cooking. Terms very moderate.?Mrs. Kingman, 6, Marine Parade, Bognor, Sussex.

    [Sheffield Daily Telegraph - Sheffield, South Yorkshire, England 11 January 1879
    Transcribed by Scott Kingman, April 2016]

  • A lodging house keeper charged with assaulting her servant.? Bognor. Mary Kingman, a lodging-house keeper, at Bognor, was charged with assaulting Isabella Jones, servant in her employ, on the 21st inst,?Mr. ? appeared for the defendant.?Complainant stated that on Monday last her mistress took a fowl out of the oven and placed it on the kitchen table. As witness wanted to lay the cloth she moved the fowl to one end of the table, whereupon the defendant struck her, and she would have fallen down if it had not been for the table.?ln cross-examination, she admitted that she told the defendant she would make her pay for it, and also that her mistress had complained about her about doing her work improperly.?ln defence, Louisa Wakeford, another servant in the house, was called as a witness, and said that although she was in the room she saw no blow struck .?The Bench dismissed the case.

    [Sussex Agricultural Express - Lewes, East Sussex, England 29 May 1883
    Transcribed by Scott Kingman, April 2016]

    Edward Athkistane Lewis Powell and Charles Frederick Bohan Boon, two students of the late Dr. Phillpot, of South Bersted, were charged with unlawfully ill-treating, abusing, and torturing dog Pagham, by tying two tin cans to its tail, on the 7th March last.? Mr. Cooper prosecuted on behalf of the R.S.P.C.A., and Mr. H. Staffurth defended.?Defendants tied two tin cans to a fox terrier?s tail with a handkerchief, and they also admitted throwing at it. ?The animal belonged to Mrs. Mary Kingman, Hock-buildings, Bognor, who said the dog?s tail was much swollen when it reached home, and it could scarcely walk about next day.?lnspector Osborn, R.S.P.C.A., deposed that he examined the dog on the 2nd April. The tail was very much swollen and cut, and there were several sharp cuts to the hind legs.?For the defence, Mr. Staffurth called Mr. Phillpot, South Bersted, who said defendants were pupils of his. Witness had animals of his own, and defendant?s also had, and had always found defendants particularly kind.?Cross examined: should not have done such a thing.?The magistrate reluctantly decided not to send defendants to prison, because of the injurious effect it might have upon their future careers. But, to mark their sense of the brutal character of the torture, they inflicted on the small animal, namely, all costs. They had never heard of more disgraceful case.?Defendants made arrangements for the payment of the money.

    [Sussex Agricultural Express - Lewes, East Sussex, England 21 May 1889
    Transcribed by Scott Kingman, April 2016]

  • WANTED, capable person to take entire charge of GOOD CLASS LODGING-HOUSE, let to families; must be good plain cook; find own help; having had the care of lodging-house would be preferred. ?Mrs. KINGMAN, Bognor.

    [Sussex Agricultural Express - Lewes, East Sussex, England 29 April 1899]

    WANTED. MOTHER DAUGHTER, to TAKE CHARGE good-class LODGING HOUSE. Let to families. Must be good plain cook. Mrs. Kingman, Rock-Gardens, Bognor.

    [London Daily News - London, London, England 08 March 1901]

    MAN and WIFE WANTED, to WORK good-class LODGING HOUSE, let in apartment. Must be good plain cook and capable.?Mrs. Kingman, 8. Rock-gardens, Bognor.

    [London Daily News - London, London, England 28 April 1902
    Transcribed by Scott Kingman, April 2016]


  • 1. 1861 England Census
    • RG9; Piece: 619; Folio: 53; Page: 6
  • 2. 1871 England Census
    • RG10; Piece: 1113; Folio: 6; Page: 5
  • 3. 1881 England Census
    • RG11; Piece: 1124; Folio: 13; Page: 20
  • 4. 1891 England Census
    • RG12; Piece: 842; Folio 14; Page 22
  • 5. 1901 England Census
    • RG13; Piece: 965; Folio: 15; Page: 22
  • 6. Will of Mary Kingman 1909
  • 7. Probate Index
  • 8. Marriage certificate
    • Cheltenham, Q1 1854, Vol 6a Page 535

Page created using GEDmill 1.11.0