"> Blood or Marriage linked relatives of Samuel ELSMORE
Search billions of records on Ancestry.com

NZS.com : New Zealand Web Directory and Search Engine
Edwin Edward ELSMORE


Family Links



  • Born: 23 Nov 1855, West Dean, Gloucestershire, England
  • Marriage: Mary Ann ANDRELL on 29 Apr 1880 in Grovetown, Marlborough, New Zealand
  • Died: 11 Jul 1904, Grovetown, Marlborough, New Zealand at age 48
  • Buried: Omaka Cemetery, Blenheim, Marlborough, New Zealand

bullet  General Notes:

Marlborough Express, Volume XXXI, Issue 39, 18 February 1895, Page 3
At the Polioe Court this morning, the adjourned oase was resumed in whioh Samuel Ellesmore oharged James Andrell, John Andrell, Charles Andrell, and Mary Ann Ellesmore, with having assaulted and beaten him at Grovetown on the 8th inst. Mr Allen, S.M., was on the Bench. Mr J. O'Leary appeared for informant, and Mr Sinclair for defendants, who pleaded Not Guilty." Mr O'Leary, in relating the oiroumstanoes of the case, said that it arose out of a maintenance oase of a few days ago, in whioh the wife, Mary Ann Ellesmore, sued the oomplainant. Samuel Ellesmore deposed that on Friday the 8tb, between 5 and 6 p.m he was riding to his mother's place at Grovetown, when he saw James Andrell lying alongside tho road intoxicated, and his daughter, Mrs Ellesmore with him. He (witness) asked her why she -did not take her father home. She threw a bottle of beer at him. Then James Andrell caught hold of the horse's head and foroed him to the ground. As soon as he was on the ground Mrs Ellesmore pitohed into him, after whioh he left, not caring to strike her. Another assault took plaoe at nine o'olook in the same evening, James Andrell met him on the road and rushed him he gave him no provocation. He (Andrell) had all his olothes off with the exoeption of his shirt, hat, and boots. He hit him two or three times Witness then hit baok, and Andrell fell into the ditoh, out of whioh witness lifted him. As he was doing so Andrell said admiringly, Sam, you're a man you knock me down and piok me up again." He had the old man on his legs when John and Charley Andrell came up and the former rushed him. He waß knocked down with a stiok by some one (he did not know who) and rendered unconscious. He struck Andrell only in self-defence. The assault was a very serious one, he having been laid up for ten days. Edward Ellesmore senr., laborer and father of oomplainant, deposed that at about 9 o'olook on the evening of the 8tb, James Andrill oame.to his door and asked hhn to come out you d\emdash old poacher." Andrell wanted to fight but witness refused and ordered him off the premises. Andrell went away and the next he heard was screaming on the road. He went out and saw Jas. Andrell running after one of hie grand- daughters. He interrupted him; Andrell turned round with a knife in his hand and witness hit him on the head with a stick. The knife fell to the ground. Then there was a big struggle. His son was further down the road with other people. Cross-examined Mr Sinolair How many hundred were there Witness (innooently.) Pigs do you mean (laughter). Mrs Frederiok Pbilpotts did not see much of the five o'clock fight, which took plaoe two or three chains from her gate. She saw Mrs Ellesmore throw a bottle at someone, and also stones or olods at Ellesmore while he was on horseback. She saw Jas. Andrell strike Ellesmore. In regard to the nine o'clock assault, Mrs John Andrill came to her, and asked her to let one of her boys part some combatants down the road, bb she was sure there would be murder. She ran down the road and watched the incident. She saw Mr Andrell and his two sons knooking the oomplainant about with a good thick stick. Then Mrs Ellesmore came up and took part in the assault of Ellesmore. The women (Mrs E. Ellesmore, Mrs Lane and Lizzie Ellesmore) were trying to take Ellesmore's part. Mrs Edwin Ellesmore, daughter of the last witness, Luoy Ellesmore, niece of oomplainant, and Mrs John Lane, also a relation of complainant, all of whom saw both alleged assaults, corroborated the foregoing evidence. For the defence, Mr Sinolair called Mary Ann Ellesmore, wife of oomplainant, who deposed that her father was resting on the road, she with him. when her husband came along on horseback. She was asking him to come home. Her husband asked jeeringly if she would help him in suoh oiroumstances. She told him to mind his own business. He would not go, and because the horse blocked the path she threw some dirt at it to make it move on. Ellesmore got off bis horse, and after aggravateing her father, rushed on him. She went between the two and got some severe blows on the face from her husband. She did not throw a bottle of beer at her husband and threaten to put it through his big head." Emily Lane threw the bottle, and broke it on a post. In regard to the 9 o'olook assault, when she oame along the road she found that the Ellesmores were the aggressors on the Andrells. During the fight her husband started strangling her brother. To save her brother's life, she hit her husband on the head with a stiok, and that ended the proceedings. She denied the complainant's statement of provocation on the part of the Andrell party. John Andrell, contractor, brother of Mrs Ellesmore, said that he oame into the 9 o'olock soene just when Ellesmore was lifting his father out of the ditoh. Elleßsore was only pretending to put his father on "his feet beoause he saw someone coming. He oorroborated the evidence of his sister in regard to the strangling and his rescue by her. He related the incident from start to finish making it appear that the Ellesmores were the aggressors and that the Andrells aoted only on the defenoe. At this stage the luncheon adjournment was made. On the case being resumed in the afternoon, Mr O'Leary entered upon his cross examination of John Andrell. James Andrell, contractor, deposed that during the afternoon row he was under the influenoe of drink. His story corresponded with that of his daughter. He then went on to give a graphic description of the evening scene\emdash a corroboration in detail of the foregoing evidence for the defence. If his sons and daughter had not come up and assisted him he would probably have been murdered. Mrs John Andrell and Charles Andrell gave evidenoe. Ethel Maud Thompson gave evidence in regard to the first assault, a portion of which she saw. His Worship gave judgment in favor of complainant. There was no doubt, he said, that the disgraceful and soandalous matter was instigated by James Andrell, and that an assault really was committed by all the defendants. James Andrell, being the ohief offender, he fined £3 with costs £4 17b in default one month's imprisonment. The other three defendants, John and Charles Andrell and Mary Ann Ellesmore, be fined 10s each, in default 7 days' imprisonment. He also required that the three defendants, James, John, and Charles Andrell, enter into their recognisances to keep the peace for a term of six months, with sureties of £20 each. A fortnight was allowed the pay the fines, and till to-morrow at 2 o'clook to find sureties. His Worship then administered a caution to all parties oonoerned, against a repetition of such a squabble.


Samuel married Mary Ann ANDRELL, daughter of James ANDRELL and Martha BAWDEN, on 29 Apr 1880 in Grovetown, Marlborough, New Zealand. (Mary Ann ANDRELL was born on 5 Nov 1861 in St. Agnes, Cornwall, England, died on 28 Apr 1902 in Grovetown, Marlborough, New Zealand and was buried in Omaka Cemetery, Blenheim, Marlborough, New Zealand.)

This site is a member of WebRing. To browse visit here.
Bravenet SiteRing The GENEALOGICAL RESEARCH SiteRing

This site owned by
Graeme Adams
Previous Site List Sites Random Site Join Ring Next Site
SiteRing by Bravenet.com
Free Guestbook from Bravenet.com Free Guestbook from Bravenet.com

Home | Table of Contents | Surnames | Name List

This Web Site was Created 29 Jun 2014 with Legacy 8.0 from Millennia