Jacobs and The Law

Starting with our oldest confirmed ancestor, David Jacobs, the Jacobs have had regular contact with the law, either civil or criminal.
Their main court involvement has been for bankruptcy although there have been several much more serious brushes with the law.

Those living in the UK will be familiar with more modern companies who went into bankruptcy on Friday trading as “World of Cotton” and re-opened on Monday trading as “Cotton World” (no slur on companies of a similar name is intended).

It would appear that the Jacobs, along with many others, operated on a similar principle.

This trend, well illustrated in the London Gazette, continued in Australia and New Zealand and is documented in their newspapers.

The big question is were they just poor businessmen, or were they playing the system? I’m afraid that my money is on the latter.

There are at least 21 entries in the London Gazette but many are duplicates put in on different days but hold no extra information and these extras have been omitted from this document.
Summary of names and addresses given in the notices.
Date	Who	Address(es)
1827 Mar 09	Henry Jacobs Moses Jacobs	Phoenix Glass Works, Phoenix St., Crown St., Soho Mansell St., Goodman’s Field
1829 Feb 29	Lewis Jacobs	Formerly of Nassau St.  Middlesex Hospital And late of 113 Tottenham Court Road
1829 Apr 28	Isaac Jacobs (Partner, not family)	Formerly of Charles St., Soho Then 382 Oxford Street Late of  408 Oxford Street
1829 May 19	Moses Jacobs Isaac Jacobs	Phoenix St., Soho
1833 Mar 05	Lewis Jacobs	Late of 113 Tottenham Court Road
1833 Oct 08	Moses Jacobs	Formerly 1 Wheelers Cottage, Hampstead Road (Out of business) 12 Charles St., Soho Square And at same time  Phoenix Glass Works, Phoenix St., Crown St., Soho
1834 Feb 18	Henry Jacobs Lewis Jacobs	41 Mansell St.  Goodman’s Fields
1838 Jan 19	Moses Jacobs	Formerly of 101 Berwick St., St James, Westminster Then a prisoner in Fleet Prison And the Debtors Prison for London & Middlesex Late of 101 Berwick St., St James, Westminster
1843 Feb 17	Lewis Henry Jacobs	At present, and for 9 years past, 2 High St., Newington, St Mary, Newington
1856 Feb 01	Isaac Jacobs Samuel Towers	46 & 56 Mansell St., Goodman’s Field Note, this is given only to show that following the break up of the partnership with Moses, Isaac continued trading from Mansell St., but with a new partner.
1856 Dec 16	Abraham Jacobs John Jacobs Henry Jacobs	14 Crown Street, Finsbury
1861 Apr 23	Ezra Jacobs	102 Middlesex St. [Name changed from Petticoat Lane]
1861 Apr 23	Henry Jacobs	27½  Duke Street
1869 Apr 30	Henry Jacobs	8 North Street, Quadrant, Brighton – Bankrupt

Similar entries are to be found in the New Zealand newspaper The West Coast Times

---

On the criminal side of things the Jacobs have appeared on both sides of the court as plaintiffs and defendants.

David Jacobs is the most prominent on the defendent side of the court.

We know from records of the Old Bailey, Newgate Prison and Woking Magistrates that he had a fascination for stealing, or attempting to steal, ribbon. In all the cases we have come across there has been serious doubt cast on his mental state. Truth or ploy? I doubt we shall ever know. David was also known to have used several aliases.

David first appears in 1777 having been accused of trying to steal ribbons from the haberdashery shop of  Mr Joseph Collins in Southwark. Unfortunately we don’t as yet know whether or not he was found guilty.

We next meet David in court in 1781 at the Old Bailey. He is again charged with stealing ribbon. On this occasion he is found not guilty but doubt is cast on his sanity: “(The prisoner called four Jews, who swore that he had been many years in a state of insanity.)”

His next appearance, as far as we know, is in 1798 when he is again charged with stealing ribbons but found not guilty. On this occasion he is charged under the name of SAMUEL Jacobs – this information came from his custody record at Newgate in 1801. Reference is again made to his mental health: “Dr. LEWIS LEO sworn. – Examined by Mr. Knowlys. The prisoner has been afflicted with lunacy several times, he has been in a state of confinement.”

In 1801 David is charged with the theft of ribbons again. On this occasion he is sentenced to 12 months at Newgate Prison. Two of his sons, Henry and Philip, give testimony as to his state of mind saying that he has been insane for the last 10-12 years.

The next to appear as defendent was Moses Jacobs in 1829.  “MOSES JACOBS was indicted for feloniously, unlawfully, and maliciously setting fire to a certain house in his possession, with intent to defraud Charles Pole , treasurer of the Sun Fire Office Company .” by setting fire to his factory and house which also involved the death of a woman.

He was found not guilty but the court record makes very interesting reading, and you have to wonder if he would have fared so well with a modern trial.

---

As plaintiffs we have several entries from the Old Bailey records where items have been stolen, or someone has tried to steal, from the Jacobs:-

• Henry Jacobs had 4 glasses, worth 4s (£0.20) stolen from him in 1826 by William Lewis, aged 42. Lewis was found guilty and transported for 7 years.
• A year later Henry is back at the Old Bailey charging two of his employees, James Carr and Alexander McCauley , with stealing 10 lamp glasses worth  4s (£0.20).  McCauley, aged 18, was found guilty and was confined for three months and whipped. Carr was found not guilty.
•  In 1861 Moses Jacobs was the plaintiff when he accused 25 year old Abraham Hart of stealing four decanters, worth 36s (£1.80) . Hart was found guilty and transported for 7 years.

At this point I think it is worth mentioning  how the law in London worked at this time.

 

The full article can be found at Old Bailey Online

This gives us a better understanding of how the law worked in those days i.e. it was largely the responsibility of the victim or witnesses to bring the villain, or suspected villain, to justice.

---

In New Zealand we have a report of another serious trial involving attempted murder. The intended victim was Sarah Hannah Jacobs, the daughter of Samuel Jacobs. The following article is from The West Coast Times.

There was considerable excitement, in town yesterday afternoon, when it was reported that & man named, James Cox had attempted to poison a girl named Sarah Jacobs, and, immediately afterwards (had thrown himself into the river. The whole of the circumstances in. connection with the case will be brought to light at the Resident Magistrate’s  Court to-day, as Cox was arrested shortly after the occurrence, and the police are engaged getting up the evidence. So far as we can ascertain of the mysterious affair, Cox, who is between forty and, fifty years of age, had been paying his addresses to a girl who has been employed as barmaid at the Royal George Hotel. His statement is that he was engaged to be married to her, and that he had received her own as well as her father’s consent, but that her brother, within the past day or two, had taken some steps to prevent the marriage. Whether this be true or not, it is beyond doubt that Cox went yesterday forenoon to the shop of Mr Williams, chemist, and by false representations managed to purchase twelve grains of strychnine. He stated to the chemist that he wished to purchase it for a farmer in the country. An hour or two after procuring the poison, he went to the Royal George Hotel where he met the girl, and asked her to have a drink. He went into the side room; and she brought a glass of port wine for herself and a little brandy in a tumbler for Cox according to his order. Mrs Hine saw him enter the room, and immediately went upstairs to dress. She had only been in her room a few minutes when she heard the girl Jacobs screaming. On being asked what was the matter, she stated that Cox had poisoned her. 

Before Cox left the room, the girl asked him what he had put in the glass, as the wine was very bitter. He shortly made off, and went towards the wharf entering the Belfast Hotel on his way, where he left his watch, pocket , book, and papers with Mrs Houston.

 He then proceeded hurriedly to the wharf, and jumped in the river close by the lower wingdam. He swam about in the river for some time until a boat came to his rescue. Constable M’Kenna  was then apprised of the fact that a man had jumped into the river, and was on the scene when he landed. The first statement made by Cox to the police was that it was no fault of his as Sarah Jacobs had drank out of the wrong glass. Detective Browne shortly joined Constable M’Kenna, and on hearing particulars, they arrested the prisoner and drove him to Dr Dermott. In the meantime, the friends of the girl had sent for Dr Rossetti. Both the medical gentlemen administered the necessary remedies to their respective patients, but nothing was shown to indicate that Cox had taken any of the poison. He is said to have vomited after being taken out of the water, but since then, he has shown no signs of illness. The girl vomited for some time before and after Dr Rossetti visited her, and there is no doubt that she swallowed some of the strychnine, though she has since recovered, and is pronounced out of all danger. In the tumbler out of which Cox drank, or is supposed to have drank, the brandy, several grains of strychnine were found adhering to the glass. The wine-glass out of which the girl drank the port wine, did not contain the same chrystalised specs, but she alleges that Cox wiped it with his handkerchief after  she had drank the wine. If this account be true, and Cox drank the brandy served him, he must have evidently intended to poison himself and her. In the meantime the affair is one of much mystery, as it is impossible to tell whether the poison was administered to the girl, and taken by Cox, or whether his statement is at all to be relied upon, as to her drinking out of his glass in place of her own. Cox has been well known in this district for years past. He was working for many months for the Jackson’s Bay Fishing Company, but has for months since, been out of employment. There is no doubt when he jumped into the river he contemplated suicide, but after being a few moments m the water he thought better of it, and commenced swimming for the shore, or towards the boat which was put off to his, rescue. The purchase of the strychnine in such a large quantity under the circumstances, clearly points that he intended to take his own or the girl’s life. That she swallowed a quantity of the poison is beyond doubt, though whether he also did so is very doubtful in the minds of the medical gentlemen. 

He has stated, since being lodged in custody, that he had written a letter which would furnish full particulars of the affair, but no such document has yet reached the hands of the police. Possibly a remand will be asked for to-day, should the said epistle and full testimony not he forthcoming.

The original article can be seen here.