Slander and libel in Norwich as family fortunes fall

Exchange Street Norwich, where in 1886 the publishers of the Daylight had premises near our Norwich solicitors. The following year, our Norwich solicitors moved to Castle Meadows, near the money lenders. Picture from George Plunkett's Norwich Streets.

It all started to go wrong for our Tunstall family in 1884 and 1885 according to Harry Skinner's bankruptcy statement two years later, reported in the Norfolk press. It is at this time he invests his sister, Rosa May's inheritance from her father in a farm at Burlingham St Andrew, which his mother knew, but his sister didn't. But it is also at this time, he realises the "farm is not answering," but he did not think he was insolvent.

   Harry is selected for, and attends, jury service in February 1885. In July that year, the Conservative agent, T.A.Rising, organises an open air meeting for all the new voters in the reorganised constituencies. The Norfolk press notes Harry's attendance alongside many labourers. He is also invited to a meeting with the Conservative candidate for the new constituency in a Lingwood schoolroom, where Harry moves a vote of confidence in the candidate, who is Mr Edward Birkbeck.

   1886 is the year which triggers major changes for the whole family, but Harry and Rosa May are not mentioned in the press until the following year, when our Norwich solicitors are involved in cross examining Harry when he files for bankruptcy (on the advice of his solicitor, Mr Rising). It is also our Norwich solicitors who summon Jane Betsy and Rosa May to Chancery over the James Pollard Skinner will.

   Our Norwich solicitors and their London agent appear in the lengthy press reports in the corruption and slander cases in 1886.

   The Eastern Evening News of 26th January 1886 reports on a case of slander at the Norfolk Assizes. The solicitor Stanley versus Mr Edwards who had been his client four years previously. Edwards accused Stanley of being a "thief and a swindler". Stanley warned Edwards the law was not all "beer and skittles" and he should have taken his advice. Edwards replied, "I wish I had been dead before I ever saw him."

   In March 1886, Stanley brought a case against the publishers of the Daylight for libel. Our Norwich solicitors were instructing the counsel for the defence and their London agent Martelli of Staple Inn instructed the prosecution.  On 20th February, the Daylight had published an article accusing Stanley of bribery and corruption. He was accused of inciting the solicitor for the Eastern Counties Loan Office to chase them with a cudgel: He was charged with removing expensive oak panelling from a rented house and putting it in his own home: The Daylight objected to Stanley acting in a legal capacity for the Norwich Loan and Discount Company, of Castle Meadows, which had previously sued them for libel. The Daylight said Stanley had hired premises next to the Loan and Discount Company and then sublet to them. Stanley was accused of trying to suppress a meeting at our Norwich solicitors premises in Exchange Street, where they had invited people to bring evidence against him. Our Norwich solicitors were accused of planning to serve a writ on the mayor.

   In May, the tables were turned. The publisher of the Daylight, who had served on the school committee with one of our Norwich solicitors on the school board, was found guilty of libel. He was completely ruined by the costs of defending himself against Stanley. He was imprisoned for three months, without hard labour. It was a  victory for Stanley. The judge was heard to remark the counsels were in the wrong seats. The publisher complained, after his sentence, his counsel had not called the many witnesses he had lined up to testify in his defence. He said he was a victim of "an inconsistent law." The Daylight publication was bankrupt. There were also financial implications for our Norwich solicitors, who moved their offices from Exchange Street to Castle Meadows. 

    In August, Stanley was back in court again being sued over taking legal fees for a property deal with a professional clown called Paston. Stanley was quoted in the press saying "Paston was a clown. He drank." The court decided Stanley could keep the money as a gratuity.

   In September uncle Sherwood William Page added the first codicil to his will, which removed brother-in-law, farmer and Bately trustee Alfred Neave from it as an executor. Neave was replaced by Stokesby farmer Peter Mellish Kett to act as trustee and executor together with Page's "sister-in-law" (wife) Louisa Bately.

   A hint the fortunes of the Skinner family are in the decline is in a report on the award of prizes in a Michaelmas horse sale in the Norfolk News in October. "Through some misunderstanding the judges overlooked the cart foal by Norfolk Wonder which was undoubtedly the pick of the yard sent by Mr James (Thomas) Skinner."

   It is also in Michaelmas 1886 Harry gave notice to leave the farm at Burlingham St Andrew according to his bankruptcy statement reports.

   A further hint of losses is in the December letter from Laura Sharpe to her sister Emma Jane in Stoke Newington. In it Laura asks if Emma Jane and Jo would like to spend their five hundred (from Emma's father, James Pollard Skinner) on buying the confectionary shop next door to their ironmongers and moving to Gloucester.

   The proposition is reiterated to Emma Jane's husband Joe by Job Sharpe, in an overwritten note on the back of Laura's letter. In it he says Jane Betsy's annuity top up from the lump sum put aside by her late husband James Pollard Skinner is not being paid. Job speculates the £360 put aside for it may be lost, or it may be Harry's. It is brother-in-law Frank Stebbings in Lowestoft and Rosa May who are querying it. Job is philosophical over it. He says they should be grateful to God for what they have and not worry about it.

   All these events build up to a crisis which comes to a head the following year and the family begin to split up completely.