Thomas COOK or COOKE (General)

by cejone, Monday, May 09, 2016, 20:04 (3129 days ago)

Married Ruth MARSHALL [baptised English Bicknor 1804] at Bedminster [Bristol] in 1832.
Father of George who appears in Coleford Baptist register of births 1833.
Father of William born 1835 but not baptised until 1842 at English Bicknor.
Father of Hannah born 1837 probably at Dixton, but again not baptised until 1842 at English Bicknor when Thomas is described as a Wharfinger of Coldwell.
In 1841 census Ruth, George, William and Hannah were living with her mother, Winifred MARSHALL, and with Hannah CLARK, possibly Ruth's sister, at Coldwell.
In 1851 census Ruth, George and Hannah were still living with Winifred at Coldwell and Ruth is a widow.
I have been unable to find Thomas in the 1841 census.
Nor have I been able to find his burial 1837 to 1851.
Can anyone suggest what might have happened to him?
Also does anyone know of his baptism?

Thomas COOK or COOKE

by Paul Andrews @, Shropshire, England, Monday, May 09, 2016, 23:09 (3129 days ago) @ cejone

There is a report in The Morning Post of Saturday April 18, 1840. Warrant issued for the arrest of Thomas Cook for the wilful murder of Robert Smith a flyman, aged 28, who had attended the Cheltenham Steeplechase.

The case was heard at the County Assizes 15 August 1840 and Thomas Cook was found guilty on the lesser charge of Manslaughter. He was sentenced to twelve months hard labour. This was reported in the Monmouthshire Merlin dated 29 August 1840.

There is no way of knowing from these reports if this is your Thomas Cook, but, if it is, it could explain why you have had difficulty in finding him in the 1841 census. This Thomas Cook is in Gloucester Gaol in the 1841 census HO107/356/10; Folio: 13; Page: 8.

Thomas COOK or COOKE

by cejone, Tuesday, May 10, 2016, 19:07 (3128 days ago) @ Paul Andrews

Thank you, Paul
I agree this is a possibility
I had a look at the reports of the Assize on 15 Aug 1840 in the Gloucester Journal and in the Gloucester Chronicle
Not easy to read, but the Thomas Cook there is described as a labourer
Wouldn't be the first time a newspaper has made a mistake on a occupation.
I will certainly follow up the census reference. That was very helpful

RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum