Potter Grange Goole part 2

We have had our first snow and I am keeping warm with the wood burner. I have had a cold which keeps coming back so it seems sensible to stay in and  come back to Potter Grange. I am writing this as a part two because now, in the 1880s the Potter Grange estate has been split between on one hand the farm and land and on the other new housing.

This is quite a lengthy post but I hope relevant and interesting!

 
Dunhill Road, Goole.  How it got its name!

We saw in part one that in 1881 William Henry Carter Dunhill, the owner of Potter Grange had married Alice Whittaker Norton, daughter of Charles, a solicitor of Dan y Coed Swansea.

Their son Marcus Francis Henry Dunhill was born in 1882.

In August 1883 there was an advert for the sale of the Estate at the Queens Hotel in Leeds. Messrs Hollis will sell

ALL that highly Valuable FREEHOLD ESTATE, known as Potter Grange," containing a good residence, with garden and farm buildings, and about 140 acres of building land, situate at Goole, in the parish of Snaith. the West Riding the county York. The estate. which will be offered in various lots to suit builders and investors, is in close proximity the North-Eastern  Railway Station at Goole and adjoins Booth Ferry road and the Hull and Doncaster Railway The land admirably suited for residences, and manufactories and works.  CHARLES NORTON, Esquire, Solicitor, Swansea. 

It looks as if 40 acres of land allocated for building and the rest kept for farming

In December 1883 the house  and farm land was to be let

TO BE LET, OLD POTTER GRANGE, a good DWELLING HOUSE, Garden, and Outbuildings, together with about one hundred acres of excellent warp land, situate between the North-Eastern Railway and Boothferry-road. The tenant has the use of a wharf on the Aire and Calder Canal, also five cottages on the same property with a small quantity of  land to each to suit the tenants. For particulars apply by to W. H. O. DUNHILL, Dan-y-Coed,  Swansea

William and Alice's second son Carlos Miguel Guillermo was born in 1888. I cannot find out why Carlos was given seemingly Spanish names - the English versions would be Charles Michael William.

Could it be connected with the fact that in 1887 he and his father in law Charles Norton, of Swansea, went into partnership to work and develop a gold mining property at Datango, Mexico, each putting in around  £4,000? [more of that later]

The Potter Grange housing estate

So the Potter Grange family gave Goole its street names - Dunhill Road, Carter Street, Marcus Street, Henry Street and Manuel St [not sure how this fits in!]

That same year the first new houses on the Potter Grange estate were offered for sale.

August 1888 

TO BE SOLD, at very moderate Price,  by Private Contract, in Lots or singly, to suit Purchasers, 18 excellently Built, Newly Erected HOUSES, in Carter Street, Potter Grange Estate, close to the new Recreation Ground. Commodious Back Premises and Garden. Leasehold for 150 years; ground rent 35s house.—Apply to Mr E. C. B. Tudor, C.E. Goole, or at our offices, E. & T. CLARK, Solicitors, Goole.

The downfall of the Dunhill family

All seemed to be going well for William and Alice Dunhill. But the 1890s saw a very public divorce and a prison sentence.

In 1891 we find the family in Newstead Hall near Wakefield with  several servants including a 13 year old page. Mr Dunhill was a the Unionist candidate for the Osgoldcross parliamentary seat and was reported as giving several speeches. But in February 1892 he suddenly disappeared from the Lowther Hotel where he was staying giving rise to many rumours in Goole. Later events explained where he was.

In 1894 the Dunhill family 'dirty linen' was very publicly aired in most newspapers.  I am including an abbreviated version of some of the reports.

The Sheffield Daily Telegraph, Wednesday, 23rd May 1894

In the Divorce Division yesterday before the President (Sir Francis Jeune) and a special jury, the case of Dunhill v. Dunhill (Frerichs intervening) came on for hearing. This was a petition of Mrs Alice Whitaker Dunhill for a judicial separation from her husband, Mr William Henry Carter Dunhill, a gentleman residing in London, having a residence at Newstead Hall, Yorkshire, and stated to have at one time been a candidate for one of the Parliamentary divisions of Yorkshire. The petitioner alleged that her husband had committed adultery with the Baroness Jeannie Frerichs. The adultery was denied and the respondent put in an alternative plea of connivance.

Mr Deane, in stating the petitioner's case, said there had been a supplementary petition charging cruelty, but he should not trouble the jury with that. He would rely upon the adultery. The husband alleged connivance on the part of the petitioner, and that she was a woman of violent habits, and that she had refused him conjugal rights.

The petitioner and her husband were married on the 5th October 1881, at the parish church of Cheverly, Cambridge, and there were two children of the marriage. They had lived at various places until February 1892. In 1889 they were staying at the Hotel Metropole, in London, and there made the acquaintance of the Baroness Frerichs. The two ladies became almost like sisters, visited each other, and there was no suspicion on the part of Mrs Dunhill of anything wrong until, in the early part of 1892, the husband made an excuse that he was obliged to go to Goole, in Yorkshire.

On the 12th February it had been arranged that they should give a dinner party at which the Baroness Frerichs was to be present. A day or two after the husband had gone, a letter came from the Baroness stating that she was unable to attend the dinner party. This surprised Mrs Dunhill and she made inquiries at Goole, and found her husband was not there. Then, knowing an invitation had been given him to go to Monte Carlo, she started off to Monte Carlo with another lady, and she discovered her husband at Nice. Going to a well-known restaurant, the London House, she saw her husband and the Baroness there having lunch together. It was stated they had been staying at the Hotel de la Paix, and passing as Mr and Mrs Dixon.

Cross-examined by Mr Bigham, Q.C., who appeared for the respondent, petitioner denied that she had not cohabited with the respondent since 1888. They had, she said, occupied the same room up to 1892. It was in 1890 they were staying at the Hotel Metropole, and they there made the acquaintance of the Baroness Frerichs. 

Replying to other questions, petitioner said that she visited the Baroness in London at her residence, 56 South Eaton Place. Subsequently she and her husband stayed in the Baroness' house five weeks, while her husband had influenza. Afterwards the Baroness visited at Newstead.

Did you invite the Baroness to take her breakfast in Mr Dunhill's bedroom at Newstead? - Yes, but I was there. In fact, did not the Baroness have her breakfast there while your husband was in bed? - Yes.

Further cross-examined, petitioner said that in December 1891 she and her husband went again to stay at the Baroness' house, and she slept in the same bedroom with the Baroness, and in the same bed.

Petitioner, in answer to other questions, said she had asked her husband to come back to her. She suspected that there was something wrong at Nice, but she had not got proof. She had traced them to the Hotel Des Isles Brittaniques, and found them living as Mr and Mrs Dixon. She asked her husband to come home.

Did not you send for this lady with whom you were at that time alleging adultery on the part of yout husband? - I sent for her to tell her that if she would give up my husband I would abandon the proceedings.

Did you that night sleep with that lady? - No, and we did not breakfast together. She came into my room there. After her visit I decided to withdraw the petition as she promised absolutely that she would not see my husband again. I heard afterwards that my husband joined her the same night. I have a separate estate of £600 a year.

Mr Kisch, who represented the Baroness, said she would give a denial to the charge of adultery.

Cross-examined by Mr Kisch, petitioner said it was not until the filing of the petition in June 1892 that she was sure of the adultery. She denied that in 1888 the Baroness told her about the divorce proceedings against her, or that she gave her reasons for not defending the suit. In February 1892 she wrote a letter to the Baroness, in which she stated :-

"Dear Old Girl, - I am sorry I vexed you tonight. Please believe me I only meant it in fun, and I did it in the hope that you would so treat it, and remain with us here until we all went abroad together. I think you were rather hard and unjust for supposing for a moment I wished to remain anywhere where I was not wanted, and most of all when you did not want one. I hope you will come round in the morning pretty early. - Yours, as always, Alice. - Life is too short for us to fall out in, and as you will know just now you do not want me. It is I who am in great trouble, and want your sympathy."

In re-examination, petitioner said she did not know about the divorce proceedings brought against the Baroness by her husband until she received a letter in 1891 from the Baroness on the subject, in which she said she should leave the case undefended sooner than let an innocent person be blamed, and she added that it was a plot against her from the first, but even that she would put up with, rather than other names should be brought into the papers. The Baroness had from time to time not only promised but sworn to give up the respondent and not see him again. Except for the Baroness, there had never been any real trouble between her and her husband.

An inquiry agent was called, who stated that Mr Dunhill had lived at the house occupied by the Baroness Frerichs at 46 Ashley Gardens, Victoria Street, London,  from September 1892 to June 1893.

This was the petitioner's case.

Mr Bigham, Q.C., with whom was Mr Priestley, for the defence, said that since 1888 the ordinary relations had not existed between petitioner and respondent. These strained relations went on until the acquaintance of the Baroness Frerichs was made. The petitioner appeared to have conceived an inordinate admiration and affection for that lady, an affection which was demonstrative and appeared to make her jealous of any attention that might be paid by anybody else to that lady. She afterwards went to Bridgewater, leaving her husband and the Baroness at the Hotel Metropole. He proposed to show that she invited the Baroness to Newstead, where the respondent had taken a house. There she invited the Baroness into her husband's bedroom to have breakfast, and was a party to familiarities that ought not to have taken place, her affection for this lady being such that she encouraged it and seemed to delight in it. If his instructions were right, she not only saw, but was a party to, familiarities between the Baroness and respondent - kissing and matters of that kind, which it was extraordinary she should submit to, much less encourage. On one occasion she offered to let the Baroness sleep in her husband's room, and she had also asked the Baroness to assist in making his bed. When they were in France in 1892, Mrs Dunhill stayed at Monte Carlo,  and the Baroness and Mr Dunhill at Nice, and after she had seen them at lunch together at the London Restaurant she invited them to go and dine with her at Monte Carlo. If that story were true, then the petitioner had connived at misconduct, and was not entitled to the relief which she sought.

   Mr Dunhill, the respondent, said that his wife had refused cohabitation since 1888. He said that when he stayed with his wife during an attack of influenza at the house of the Baroness, that lady went to stay at an hotel. Subsequently, when staying at Newstead, he was ill again, and the Baroness visited there. The Baroness had breakfast in his bedroom, while he was in bed.

Respondent, continuing his statement, said that at Nice, after finding him and the Baroness at lunch at the London House Restaurant, his wife appeared very friendly with the Baroness, and invited him and the Baroness to dinner, and they went. On a subsequent occasion, when he was with the Baroness, he met his wife, and she appeared amiable. His wife always called the Baroness "Jeannie" and "Dear."

Mr Kisch proposed to cross-examine the respondent, and this gave rise to considerable discussion, which ended in the President giving permission.

Mr Dunhill, the respondent, then said that at no time had his wife ever objected to his association with Baroness Frerichs, nor had she ever complained to him. She had never asked him to give up the Baroness. He settled £10 000 on his wife, so she had means to go on with the case, which he and the Baroness were ultimately forced on.

Will you explain why you took the name Dixon? - I did not wish it to be known I was in the South of France as I was a Parliamentary candidate at the time. I did not want my constituents to know. (Laughter)

You were expected to canvass the electors, instead of which you were at Monte Carlo with the Baroness? - Yes. (Laughter)

Why did the Baroness not pass by her name? - There was an allowance made to her under an order of this Court provided she did not use the name of Frerichs.

Cross-examined by Mr Bargrave Deane - He was 35 years of age. He was educated at a private school. He was a man of the world to a certain extent.

Where are you now living? - In Sackville Street.

Is the Baroness also living there? - Yes.

You heard your counsel state yesterday that your wife apparently assented to the life which was going on between you and the Baroness? - Yes.

What do you understand by the life? - Friendly relations.

Living together under the name of Mr and Mrs Dixon? - We only took that name abroad.

Cross-examination continued. - He told his wife he was going to Goole on business, and he was there for about six hours, after which he went abroad. He saw the Baroness the evening before he went to Goole. She came to call on Mrs Dunhill. He told the Baroness he was going on the Continent, and that he would first go to Paris.

Answering further questions, he said he returned from abroad with the Baroness. He subsequently went to Newstead Hall, and the Baroness also stayed there. He sent his wife a note, but he denied he refused her admittance. She was coming to remove her things. He did not hear the Baroness tell her when she came to the house that she might sleep on the doorstep. He denied that his wife had requested him to send the Baroness away.

Mr T. C. Worsfold, solicitor to Mr Dunhill, said he went to Newstead on the occasion of the removal of the furniture. Mrs Dunhill had attempted to break into the house. The Baroness was there, and the petitioner called her, "Jeannie, dear."

The Baroness Jeannie Frerichs was then examined by Mr Kisch. She said she was the wife of Baron Frerichs, but he obtained a divorce from her in an undefended petition. The decree was made absolute in January 1892.

Examination continued. She was always on very friendly terms with Mrs Dunhill until the end of January 1892. She told the petitioned about the divorce proceedings, and their relations were most friendly. It was not until 1892 that Mrs Dunhill made a complaint to her in reference to Mr Dunhill.

Asked why she passed as Mrs Dixon at Monte Carlo, she said she did not want her name to appear in the visitors' list. She was known to the hotel proprietor because she stayed there in 1888 with Baron Frerichs. Cheques were changed in her name. On the occasion of the lunch at Monte Carlo they were all friendly together. The witness detailed a number of times and places she had seen Mrs Dunhill, when she was always friendly. After the petition was filed she received a letter from the petitioner signed "Yours ever." Mrs Dunhill afterwards spoke to her about the writ, but the interview on the subject was not unfriendly. She told witness she would not put her in the petition if she could put anyone else in.

Cross-examined by Mr Deane - In regard to her divorce case she was the victim of a foul plot. She was married to Baron Frerichs on Derby Day, 1887, and he commenced divorce proceedings in 1890. Her name was previously Jeannie Hodge.

Do you represent yourself to be a woman of irreproachable charcter? - I never said that I was.

But I ask you? - I lived with my husband before he married me.

Do you mean you have not been a woman of loose life? - No, I have not.

Cross-examination continued - She left the house at South Eaton Place because it was not good enough. She had recently sworn that she was absolutely without means, which was true, as she was now a bankrupt. She denied that she had been the mistress of a man named Farnham, a married man. After the divorce she received £200 a year. The rent of the house in South Eaton Place was £80 a year. Mr Farnham's name was kept out of the case as a co-respondent. He was now in a lunatic asylum. He suggested making her an allowance if his name was kept out of the divorce proceedings. The sum mentioned was between £700 and £800.

Did he not between January and August 1892 give you £1300? - I do not remember the amount.

Cross-examination continued - His name was never mentioned as a co-respondent. When she went to Paris she met the respondent on the boat. He suggested them passing by the name of Dixon. He was now living with her in the same house in Sackville Street. She was the land-lady and he was the lodger.

What rent do you pay? - I have not paid any yet. (Laughter)

Has Mr Dunhill paid you any rent? - He pays me £2 a week for lodging only.

Cross-examination continued - There was no other lodger besides Mr Dunhill. (Laughter) She had dined with Mr Dunhill sometimes at the Savoy.

Re-examined - Mr Farnham did not want to appear as a witness. His name was never in the petition.

Mrs Dunhill was granted a judicial separation.

Bankruptcy

Things could only get worse and later in 1894 William H C Dunhill  was declared bankrupt.  The  report stated that

At tbe London Bankruptcy Court, on Saturday, tbe observations were issued under the failure of W. H Carter Dunhill, late of Newstead Hall, Wakefield, and of Potter Grange, Goole, and the Temple, London, barrister-at-law. 

The debtor, in 1887, entered into partnership with Mr. C. Norton, solicitor, of Cardiff, to work and develop a gold mining property in the E loro district, Datango, Mexico ; but which has not been worked since March, 1890, for want of funds. A receiving order was made in the Berkshire County Court in March, upon the petition of Mr. R H. R. Rimington Wilson, of Broombead Hall, Bolsterstone, West Riding of Yorkshire, and another receiving order was made in July upon the petition of a London creditor, and the two proceedings were consolidated. Debtor returned his gross liabilities at £27, 357, of which £2,077 18s. is unsecured, and assets £16,870, which represents the surplus value of the Potter Grange estate, Goole, after providing for the charges thereon. 

He states that he was called to tbe Bar in June, 1884, and practised down to 1888, since wbich time he has been engaged travelling. Since 1885 be has been director of the Mountain Wire Drawing Company (in liquidation), and of the Sonth Yorkshire Wine, Spirit, and Mineral Water Company, Rotherham, but has drawn very little in fees. In 1887 he joined Mr Charles Norton, of Swansea, in partnership to work and develop a sold mining property at Datango, Mexico, he putting in £4,186 and bis partner £4,000. He states that tbe partnership still exists, but that the property bas not been worked since March, 1890, owing to want of funds. 

That he took Newstead Hall, Wakefield, in 1891, and left there at tbe end of 1892. He attributes his failure to depreciation in the value of securities, to liabilities incurred by his wife, and to the heavy costs in the divorce proceedings brought by her in May, in which she got a decree of judicial separation. 

He settled £10,000 upon his wife upon marriage, in which sum be has a reversionary interest, and he states that his income and his expenditure have been about the same, viz., £1,000 a year. 

He states that in July, 1891 he had a surplus of £32.000 and that his rent from properties since then had been £1, 592 18s 4d. He puts down his household personal expenditure at £3,000; depreciation in the value of properties £12,050; expenses in respect of a proposed Parliamentary candidature £1,000 ; law costs in divorce proceedings £1,850 ; liabilities incurred by his wife £500. An unestimated asset of other property consists of a one-third share in the Mexican gold mining syndicate, estimated to be of no present value, and a claim against a railway company in connection with certain land at Goole, which, the debtor states, should realise a considerable sum. The debtor has lodged no proposal as yet. 

Prison

Meanwhile Mrs Dunhill's father, Charles Norton, the Swansea solicitor was also declared bankrupt. He absconded and refused to appear in court and was subsequently arrested and put in prison. He was later also charged with misappropriating client funds and in 1895 was sentenced to five years penal servitude.

Boer War

William Dunhill's two sons Marcus and Carlos both served in the army. He himself aged 41 joined up and served in South Africa. He remained in South Africa where he died in 1906 of cirrhosis of the liver. Carlos was killed in the First World War in 1915.  Alice lived in Kensington Place [possibly running a boarding house] died aged 81 in 1935 and is buried in Brompton cemetery. Marcus died in a London hospital in 1950 leaving £136

Back to Potter Grange

Thomas Huntington

Meanwhile Potter Grange itself was rented in the 1880s and 1890s to Thomas Huntington. He was a local man and had a flourishing draper's shop in the town and was a councillor. But  he also farmed at Potter Grange where he died in October 1899 aged 73. His obituary tells us that

 

He was the first representative of Goole in the West Riding Oounty Council, beating Mr. Ralph Creyke, of Rawcliffe Hall, after a stiff contest, by 7 votes. He continued to represent the Goole until last year, when, owing to failing bealth, he did not seek re election. He was a member of the Standing Joint Committee as a representative of the County Council till 1893, when he was appointed a representative of the magistrates on that committee. For many years Mr. Huntington was a member of the Board of Guardians, and formerly acted on the old Parochial Committee which managed the affairs of the town of Goole uantil the formation of the Local Board. He was one of the first elected members of the Goole School Board, on which he sat for 16 years, half of that period as chairman. In no department of public life did he perform more useful work. Mr, Huntington was born at Airmyn, and commenced business as a draper 60 years ago. In religion he was  Wesleyan, of a broad and tolerant spirit. He was resident of the Goole Liberal Association. He leaves a widow, one son, and three daughters.

Herbert Thomas Bennett

The new family at Potter Grange were the Bennetts. Herbert Thomas was 37 in 1901 and a farmer and potato merchant. He was the son of John Bennett who had founded Bennett Steam shipping and Sarah Ann Sykes and lived at Grove House.

Herbert Thomas and his wife Mary nee Taylor had married in 1885 and had children Stanley b 1886, Herbert Reginald b 1888,  Robert Granville 1893,  Marion 1895 and Herbert Thomas and John Taylor 1905[ twins]

On  4th Oct 1917 their son  2nd Lieut Robert Granville Bennett was killed

This is an extract from  a letter to his sister Marion

My dear Marion, Just a last wish for you to do in case of a serious accident to me which may occur during my vacation on the continent or elsewhere. Tis a beautiful day when this I write. Will you see that my suit-case and all its present contents are given to Edie Blyth, she has the key so you need not break it open. All the remainder of my silver, gold etc keep yourself. All money matters are fully booked up in my little ledger and of course you are to take all that remains. Tell every one that it is my sincere wish that not 1/16 of an ounce of black is worn, unnecessary expense and money is scarce.

                                           Your affec brother Granville

The Bennett family were still at Potter Grange in 1921. This is the driveway to the house.

Herbert Thomas and Mary left the area and moved to Ruddington but their descendants still live in the area today.  

In January 1925 the house and farm were put up for sale at the North Eastern Hotel. The owner was Lord Wittenham  aka George Denison Faber] but I have not yet found any local connections

It was described as the Potter Grange Farm and included outbuildings, stalls, granaries and piggeries together with 64  acres of arable land having been occupied for a number of years by Mr H T Bennett

It was bought by Albert W. Drury, solicitor, Goole, for £5,275.

John William Spetch

The farmer at Potter Grange from then until the 1939 was John William Spetch who was originally from Barmby on the Marsh.

The end!

This is as far as I am taking the story of Potter Grange. It later became an industrial estate known just as the Grange. It played a key part in early Goole history before even the Dutch river was dug, let alone the digging of the canal by the Aire and Calder Navigation.

So as we celebrate 200 years since the opening of the canal let's not forget some of Goole's earlier history.