Other Events and Attributes:

• Census: 1891, Hackney, London, England
• Census: 1911, Hackney, London, England

Other Events and Attributes:

• Census: 1891, Hackney, London, United Kingdom
• Census: 1911, Hackney, London, England

Albert married Bertha Ursula VIOLLET on 19 Sep 1885 in Saint-Martin-in-The-Fields, London, England. Bertha (daughter of Andrew Charles Thomas VIOLLET and Ursula Maria MOORE) was born in 1858 in Marylebone, Middlesex, England; died in Jul 1946 in London, England. [Group Sheet] [Family Chart]

Other Events and Attributes:

• Census: 1891, Hackney, London, England
• Census: 1911, Hackney, London, England

Other Events and Attributes:

• Occupation: 1845; Law Clerk
• Census: 1871, Hulme, Lancashire, England
• Occupation: 1871; Railway Clerk
• Census: 1891, Hackney, London, England
• Census: 1911, Hackney, London, England

Andrew married Ursula Maria MOORE on 27 Sep 1845 in St Mary, Lambeth, Lambeth, England. Ursula was born about 1823 in St James, Middlesex, England; died in Apr 1881 in Chorlton, Lancashire, England. [Group Sheet] [Family Chart]

Other Events and Attributes:

• Census: 1841, Lambeth, Surrey, England
• Occupation: 1841; Professeur de Langues
• Occupation: 1845; French Teacher
• Census: 1871, St Giles in the Field, London, England

André married Harriet Frances JACKSON on 28 Jan 1824 in Tours, Indre-et-Loire, France. Harriet (daughter of Thomas Charles COLYEAR and Harriet BISHOPP, daughter of Henry JACKSON and Harriet BISHOPP) was christened on 8 Apr 1801 in St Giles in the Field, Middlesex, England; was buried on 12 Jan 1888 in Worthing, Sussex, England. [Group Sheet] [Family Chart]

Notes:

ROLLS’ COURT, Aug. 5.
COLYEAR V. MULGRAVE
 This case came before the Court upon a demurrer to an original bill, and a bill of revival and supplement, filed by Harriet Frances Colyear, one of the natural children or the late Earl Portmore, praying that certain agreements entered into between the late Earl and hisi only son, Brownlow Charles Colyear, in favour of herself and three sisters, might be carried into execution. It appeared that Lord Milsington was entitled after the death of his father, the then Earl of Portmore, to 5,000£, and 19,350£. 4 per Cents. This latter sum he afterwards assigned to a person named Bruce, as a security for moneys due to him. In 1817, Brownlow Charles Colyear, the only son of Lord Milsington, attained his majority, when he entered into agreements to discharge considerable debts of his father, and being desirous of making a provision for the natural children of his father, he agreed to purchase the interest of Lord Milsington in the sum of 19,350£, and to assign it with some other money, amounting altogether to 20,000£, to Mr. Surman, an attorney, that Lord Milsington, and Brownlow Charles Colyear, should have the power of avoiding the stipulations in the agreement, provided the provision made for the natural children of Lord Milsington was not interfered with. Before these arrangements were carried into effect Mr. Colyear went abroad, and there died in 1819, leaving a will by which he gave all his property to his father and made him his executor. In 1825 Lord Milsington, then Earl Portmore, succeeded in setting aside the deed asssigning the money to Bruce, and in 1834 the present bill was filed, which prayed that the female defendants might be declared to have a lien upon the personal estate of Mr. Colyear for the 20,000£.
 Lord Langdale, in giving judgment, observed that it had been contended that the parties were entitled to no releif from a Court of Equity, insamuch as the agreement to assign the 20,000£ to Mr. Surman for the benefit of the natural children have never been perfected. It had been further argued that Mr. Brownlow Charles Colyear had put himself in loco parentis. He did not think the facts bore out that statement, and had not been able to come to the same conclusion. The point which had been mainly rested upon was that the parties were entitled to a specific performance of the agreement ; but he could not concur in the opinion, as the agreement itself was never completed. It was unfortunate that Mr. Brownlow died before the arrangements were finally settled. His lordship then observed that he did not think a Court of Equity could enforce the agreement, and therefore he felt himself bount to allow the demurrer. (Source: Globe, 1836)