Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

bailey vs duke of westminster

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • bailey vs duke of westminster

    i have a newspaper article from 19 jan 1935 published in an australian tabloid called 'smith's weekly'. the article is about a bailey family, father william and son alfred, of melbourne, and their supposed relation to the duke of westminster and his fortune. apparently their australian lawyer thought they had enough evidence to get their inheritance from him, and the article ends with the son alfred heading to london to prove his case.

    i can't find anything further. i am wondering if it ever went to court?

  • #2
    Morning Kyle............or evening?
    In google, Wikipedia, re Duke of Westminister there is a Family Tree which is of some interest but no indication of a Bailey dispute.
    The Duke would be rich and powerful enough to subdue anyone in those days.

    Comment


    • #3
      The only other reference I can find at the moment is from a book about Smith’s Weekly. It’s on Google Books as a snippet but by searching back and forth I’ve managed to piece together a fair amount of the article. May be worth checking the Times Law Reports.

      “Bill Bailey said that he and his dad were from an old Limehouse coster family and directly related to the Duke of Westminster. Anyhow, Mr Bailey worked his way over to England to claim the money, and after only a fortnight in England returned to Australia with a most odd tale. He claimed that on finding that the Duke of Westminster had control of the Bailey Millions he had gone to the Duke and said, "Well, Uncle Richard, I have come about the money which was supposed to revert to Dad." To that address the Duke had allegedly replied: "Your father was not in the country to get it. I got it and you've got to get it." With those words the Duke gave his Australian visitor a a five pound note "for refreshments" and departed forthwith for the races at Longchamps. From 1927 until 1935, Smith's kept the Bailey claim alive, and in the latter year a New Zealander Mr G. A. Smith, inspired by the newspaper's stories, went to England at his own expense to battle for the rights of the Victorian Baileys. Mr Smith..."
      Remember Smith’s Weekly
      Last edited by keldon; 25-06-13, 10:30.
      Phil
      historyhouse.co.uk
      Essex - family and local history.

      Comment


      • #4
        thanx alan, i can't find any baileys related to the dukes. my cousin thinks they are connected, but we can't even find evidence of the family in the article, it is the only source we have.

        phil, thanx for finding the the article. i had no idea smith's was still on it in 1937. how odd they are the only ones reporting it. they are not very reliable i know, but i would think something like this would garner attention.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by kylejustin View Post
          thanx alan, i can't find any baileys related to the dukes. my cousin thinks they are connected, but we can't even find evidence of the family in the article, it is the only source we have.

          phil, thanx for finding the the article. i had no idea smith's was still on it in 1937. how odd they are the only ones reporting it. they are not very reliable i know, but i would think something like this would garner attention.
          I have a vague idea we have had something on here before about this but can't be sure - just that the story sounds familiar.

          Margaret

          Comment


          • #6
            The case would have gone to Chancery, a court notorious for taking its time and all the Duke would have to do was to sit it out and wait till the claimant ran out of money for legal fees.

            I have a Chancery case in my family which went on for 77 years, yes, that's right, 77 years! In the end, the court awarded each claimant half of the disputed field.........

            OC

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Olde Crone Holden View Post
              The case would have gone to Chancery, a court notorious for taking its time and all the Duke would have to do was to sit it out and wait till the claimant ran out of money for legal fees.

              I have a Chancery case in my family which went on for 77 years, yes, that's right, 77 years! In the end, the court awarded each claimant half of the disputed field.........

              OC
              Sounds as bad as Jarndyce v Jarndyce in Dickens' Bleak House!
              Phil
              historyhouse.co.uk
              Essex - family and local history.

              Comment


              • #8
                there is a story of a bailey family inheritance being in chancery, which is why my cousin must have honed in on the article. he thinks william and alfred are descended from edward alfred bailey (1818-1894) who emmigrated from england in 1838. we only have the names of edward's parents, nothing else is known of them. there is a story edward's father sent him to australia as a remittance man, but edward cut all ties, and it is assumed it's his inheritance this chancery case is connected too.

                would this go to chancery in the 1930's? isn't that late?

                Comment


                • #9
                  There was a similar case about the Duke of Portland, I believe - can't remember the details....and the Tichborne affair, as well

                  Beverley



                  Comment


                  • #10
                    No, there is no statute of limitation for Chancery cases, so the 1930s wouldn't be too late at all!

                    OC

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      if there's a statute, does this mean any records would be closed? would they be on the national archives at all? i can't seem to find anything, so find it rather odd.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I can't remember exactly but I know there is something odd about chancery records in that they are not where you think they might be. I don't think they are routinely "filed" anywhere and I have a horrible feeling that each court appearance is indexed as a new thing, so it is difficult to find all the papers. Of course, the bulk of the working papers would be held by the solicitors involved.

                        It's also quite possible that the case isn't closed.......

                        OC

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Have a look at the National Archives Guide to Chancery records, which includes the period you're interested in. You wouldn't expect a "recent" case to come up on the National Archives Catalogue - they won't have been name indexed

                          The National Archives, Kew – Research Service Offered
                          Contact me via PM on Family Tree Forum or via my personal website - www.militaryandfamilyresearch.co.uk

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            it's all rather complicated isn't it?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Chancery always is!
                              The National Archives, Kew – Research Service Offered
                              Contact me via PM on Family Tree Forum or via my personal website - www.militaryandfamilyresearch.co.uk

                              Comment


                              • #16
                                It may never have reached that far. In an earlier career I came across several people who seeking to 'prove' various things: inheritance, ownership of property, wrongdoing. They would generate reams and reams of letters, documents, affidavits, etc, etc, but never have enough money to fully follow through with a full court case or could not find a solicitor and barrister willing to take on the case either through lack of money or because clearly the case had no foundation.
                                Phil
                                historyhouse.co.uk
                                Essex - family and local history.

                                Comment


                                • #17
                                  from the article, the family had a lawyer and the documentation. so it must have been money they could not use to get the case heard.

                                  Comment

                                  Working...
                                  X