Great Marlow seems to have had some trouble attracting fair and diligent turnpike road toll house keepers. Several of the ads for taking over the lease of these came with wording along the lines of "the current occupiers did not reapply". Complaints ranged from failing to pay the rent, collecting tolls from those who were entitled to go through free of charge, letting others through who were supposed to pay, or using the toll houses to sell alcohol without a licence. In 1842, the toll house keepers of what was known as the Well End Gate (Dean Street, not Well End Little Marlow) or Seymour Court Gate were William and Sarah Neighbour. The powers that be might have felt the place was now in safe hands. William was on the surface a respectable butcher, or rather had been prior to taking on his latest role. The couple were clearly living there from the evidence that follows, so they were not one of the many absentee collectors paying someone else to do the job. (They did not own the lease, they had been paid to do the everyday collecting by the person that did). Unfortunately for those in authority, while William may not have had any criminal convictions, the rumour on the street was that this was more as a result of luck than angelic conduct!
William was age 38-49 depending on the source you look at. His wife Sarah nee Cres(s)well was the daughter of respectable Chapel /Spittal street baker James. They had married in 1823 and had a number of young children.
In 1841, William was seen leaving the town in the company of Samuel Smith*, a 20 year old groom who had also worked as a general labourer. The pair headed in the direction of Tetsworth. A few miles from that destination, the pair parted and Samuel continued into Tetsworth itself. He was seen browsing in the grocers shop of George Shrimpton. Perhaps something about Samuels behaviour aroused suspicion as his presence was remembered afterwards. When poor George came downstairs the following morning he discovered that had been a victim of a substantial theft. A plated pair of candlesticks, a cruet stand, and a large quantity of tea, coffee and tobacco was amongst ''divers articles" lifted from the shop. Some reports gave the value of the theft at 150 to 200 pounds worth of goods. That was a large sum. His mind went back to the visitors in his shop earlier that day who may have looked a little suspicious with hindsight. He recalled Samuel but as the suspect was a stranger, there were no immediate chance to interrogate him.
A month later London peddler Meyer Horwitz, a German, bumped into William Neighbour in Marlow. William knew the peddler was a man likely to be interested in buying a variety of objects. He mentioned he had a few things to sell and invited the peddler back to the turnpike house. Inside Sarah welcomed her visitor and left her husband to his business. Samuel Smith was already there along with friend James Bowles, a carpenter. The goods were not actually in the toll house said William but a short distance away. He left with Samuel who returned carrying a large red handkerchief, and once the door was safely closed, he revealed the silver cruet inside. The candlesticks were then bought out. Meyer must have had his doubts about the provenance of such items. He claimed to not be very interested in them as they were not quite his usual line. He might be willing to swap them for some jewellery he suggested but no, William said only cash would do. After a bit of haggling, Meyer said he bought the items in innocent good faith for half the initial suggested price. Hmm.
A little later Meyer said he was working near Tetsworth when he heard news of the grocer shop theft and in particular the description of the stolen candlesticks and cruet. He still had them it seems and subsequently felt he must come forward. It's likely that whether he really was not suspicious when first buying the items or not, he now realised the items were likely to be too hot to handle and the best he could hope to get out of the business was a reward for the conviction of the criminals. He said he was motivated by a wish to see justice done too. He went to Tetsworth and saw Mr Shrimpton. As a result the two returned to Marlow. Meyer was clearly a clever man as he decided to get as much incriminating information as possible out of Neighbour before going to the police. He went alone to the tollhouse where William Neighbour could be found. William expressed surprise at seeing Meyer again - "Holloa, young man, what? Are you here again!"- but relaxed a little when the pedlar said he had sold the last batch of items for a good profit and was hoping that the sellers would have something else to trade. William asked who Meyer had sold the goods to but Meyer replied that he need not be concerned, a good sale had been done. As a result of the information gleaned, all three Marlow men plus Sarah were arrested. The constable doing so heard Samuel accuse William Neighbour of being the one who had set up the burglary, to which William made no reply.
William and Sarah found themselves indicted on the charge of recieving stolen goods. William was at this time described as popularly known as a "notorious fence". If this was the case, the rumour had clearly not reached those responsible for appointing him to his position. They stood trial at the Oxford Assizes in 1842 alongside James Bowles and Samuel Smith who were charged with the actual theft.
It was quickly decided that there was no real evidence of Sarah's involvement and that any action she took would be under her husbands direction as it was considered at the time. What relief she must have felt as recieving stolen goods was a crime often treated as seriously as the theft itself. But the relief was short-lived. Because husband William Neighbour was convicted and sentenced to 14 years transportation. Both Samuel Smith and James Bowles had previous convictions for a felony so this pair were sentenced to transportation for life. It was the difference between having a previous conviction or not that was the stated reason for the difference in the men's sentences, rather than the different crimes they were sentenced for.
James Bowles admitted to his presence during the haggling over the stolen goods but said he had no part in it or the theft. It made no difference. Meyer had testified that once he had paid Neighbour, Neighbour had handed the money to Bowles.
Sarah may not have been transported but to loose her husband was also to loose her breadwinner. It was a sentence also very hard on her children. She did what many wives did in her situation, and moved back in with her family. In this case with her mother Mary Cresswell in Spittal Street. She worked as a laundress for some of the time.
William left Sheerness on the convict ship the Duchess of Northumberland with Samuel Smith - see below for the sailing dates. Once he arrived he was assigned various jobs, but even while in "service" to others rather than a chain gang, treatment could be strict. He spent 10 days in solitary confinement as punishment for being out after restricted hours and for being drunk. Other punishments include lashings for more drunkenness as well as using bad language. I believe he recieved his freedom in 1852 after which he worked for himself but under what trade I do not know.
Aftermath
Samuel's previous offence was to steal three shirt collars valued at 1s 6d from the property of Marlow surgeon Robert Colborne in 1840. For this he had spent 1 month in Aylesbury gaol.
He left England on convict ship the Duchess of Northumberland on 1st October 1842, arriving in Van Diemens Land 18th January 1843. He would survive less than 3 years, dying at the Cascades Probation station in October 1845.
James Bowles, age 33, was transported on The Triton on August 4th 1842, arriving at Van Diemens Land 19th December that year. He left behind a wife and child. Recommended for a ticket of leave 1857 and recieved a pardon later the same year. Prior to that James caused the authorities in Australia no end of trouble before he decided to knuckle down and get his freedom. Several stints in solitary confinement cames the way of James for using indecent language, neglecting to do his work and drunkenness on different occasions. More seriously he was marked as absent from muster in 1852 and had indeed absconded. He was found and sentenced to 18 months hard labour in a chain gang.
Written and researched by Kathryn Day.
**There were more than one Samuel Smith in Marlow at this time. I believe this Samuel's parents were Samuel and Elizabeth. The Samuel here is also not of the West Street family of that name. Lastly a Samuel Smith alias Zachariah Lee a man of gypsy heritage who was often resident in Marlow is a different person. He also had a 1 month stint in Aylesbury gaol for stealing (1842) but this was stealing wood from ash trees belonging to Mr Atkinson of the Rookery.
Related Posts:
Crime and disorder in old Marlow: here
The Marlow Turnpike toll gates: here
Every day life in old Great Marlow: here also the place to find other convicts/crime related posts.
To find every mention of an individual or family here see the A-Z person index in the top drop down menu. 4,400 people are listed and counting.
Sources:
1841,51 census transcripts from microfilm by Jane Pullinger.
Oxford Chronicle and Reading Gazette 08 January 1842.
Oxford Journal 5 March 1842
Oxford University and City Herald 5 March 1842
Reading Mercury 5 March 1842
Bucks Gazette 26 June 1841
Windsor and Eton Express 22 January 1842.
Australian Joint Copying Project - Microfilm Roll 91, Class and piece no HO11/13, page 218.
Australian Joint Copying Project - Microfilm Roll 91, Class and piece no HO11/13, page 161 (82)
Convict record James Bowles Tasmanian Libraries here
https://stors.tas.gov.au/CON33-1-36$init=CON33-1-36p183
https://librariestas.ent.sirsidynix.net.au/client/en_AU/tas/search/detailnonmodal/ent:$002f$002fARCHIVES_DIGITISED$002f0$002fARCHIVES_DIG_DIX:CON69-1-1/one
© MarlowAncestors