Portway Tavern – rowleyregislosthamlets.co.uk

Families of the Lost Hamlets: The Levett family 2 – James Adshead Levett (1805-1878), and his descendants

My previous article was about John Levett and his connections. James Adshead Levett was the son of John Levett and Elizabeth Adshead. He was baptised at St Giles, Rowley Regis on 6 Jul 1805, followed by his sister Catherine Levett who was baptised at Halesowen Parish Church on 30 Jul 1813. James’s mother Elizabeth had died in 1822 and his father remarried in London in 1823.

I have limited myself in this piece mostly to those descendants who stayed in the immediate area of Rowley. There are many others who lived in surrounding towns and villages as well as much further afield but I have stuck for now with those who continued to be associated with the area of the Lost Hamlets. These lived consistently in Perry’s Lake and Gadd’s Green, Brickfields and Tippity Green.

Incidentally, I was very interested, in looking at various Levett Wills to see that at least some of them regarded Perry’s Lake as a separate place and not part of Rowley Regis, so that they gave their address as Perry’s Lake, near Dudley. All of the Lost Hamlets were, of course, within the parish of Rowley Regis but clearly at least these residents did not see it as simply part of the village.

Catherine Elizabeth Levett and the Thorne family

John and Elizabeth’s only daughter Catherine or Kate Levett married John Brooke Thorne, a widower and a Mercantile Clerk of Bradford Street, Birmingham at St Giles on 4 Oct 1837 and they later lived in Aston in Birmingham. They appear to have had only one child, Ellen Levett Thorne who was born in Aston in July 1838 but died aged 3 years and 8 months in 1842. In 1841 Ellen is not in their household, she appears to be with a Sarah Thorne, who was aged 23, living in Handsworth, along with two Finney children who were possibly related to William Finney who married Hannah Gaunt in 1833, although I have not been able to confirm any connection. Why Ellen was with Sarah Thorne is unclear and I have been unable to confirm any relationship between Sarah Thorne and John Brooke Thorne but it seems a considerable coincidence that the child should be entrusted to Sarah Thorne unless they were related.

At a later stage, on a family tree on Ancestry, there is a photograph of a beautifully bound Family Bible which has embossed on the front of it that it was presented to John Levett (1840-1922) and Sarah Petford (1844-1917) on their wedding day, 18^th March 1867, by ‘their aunt Sarah Thorne’. This John Levett was the son of James Adshead Levett the Elder and his only blood aunt was Catherine Levett who was married to John B Thorne. Was Catherine/Kate known as Sarah – I have not seen this suggested anywhere else although she was frequently referred to as Kate and all official documentation shows her as Catherine or Katherine or Kate. Or was this the unknown Sarah Thorne who was caring for John and Kate Thorne’s daughter in 1841? Sarah Thorne is very elusive in the censuses, does not appear to be in the Midlands over a period of forty years and this remains a mystery – unless there is a member of the Levett family who can tell me? I would love to know!

In later censuses John and Kate Thorne had Catherine’s nephew John Levett (the one who was later presented with that bible)staying with them in Birmingham in 1851, in 1861 a niece Lissie Levett aged 11 and born in Rowley, and in 1871, a niece Janet Pearson aged 10 and said to be born in Penkridge. However, I cannot work out who this child could be, as Catherine had only one brother and he did not have a daughter called Janet. However there is a birth registration in 1860 in Penkridge for an Esther Jane Pearson, and the Mother’s maiden name is shown as Thorne, so presumably Mary was the sister of John Brooke Thorne.

John Brooke Thorne died in 1873 and was buried in Key Hill Cemetery in Birmingham.

By 1881, the widowed Catherine had moved to Sutton Coldfield where in 1881 her unmarried niece Esther Pearson, aged 20 and also born in Penkridge, was living with her, together with a Mary Pearson, aged 46, who was married and a visitor, born in Stafford. Was Esther the Janet who had been staying in 1871? It appears that Esther was indeed Janet or rather Jane, because an Esther Jane Pearson was born in Penkridge in 1860 and her Mother’s Maiden name was Thorne so it appears that this was a niece of Catherine’s husband, rather than Catherine herself. Was Mary her mother? It seems likely. However, tantalising as this rabbit hole is, it is not directly connected with the Lost Hamlets area and I will resist exploring it further! For now, anyway…

Catherine Elizabeth Thorne’s death was registered in the first quarter of 1893 in the Dudley Registration District, although I have been unable to find her burial. Perhaps in her final years she came back to the family with whom she had clearly remained in close contact through the years of her widowhood. From the number of nieces staying with her in various censuses, it would be good to think that for much of her life ‘going to stay with Aunt Kate’ was a pleasing prospect. Catherine’s Death Certificate shows that she died of ‘senectus’ – old age, and that she died at 28 Tump Road, Blackheath (later Beeches Road) and her death was registered by Mrs Ann Barker, who had been present at the death. Who Ann Barker was and why Kate was there, I have no idea but her only brother and her nephew were both dead and several of his children were to die shortly afterwards so may already have been unable to take Kate in. It is possible that Kate was buried at St Paul’s churchyard, the burial records for there have not yet been transcribed for FreeREG. She was not buried at Key Hill Cemetery with her husband, according to their records.

James Adshead Levett the Elder 1805-1878

James was married to Mary Ann Bate on 21 Feb 1832 at Wolverhampton St Peter, the witnesses being H Adshead, possibly Harriet Adhead, his aunt and James Adshead who may have been his grandfather. The Adsheads appear to have been a Wolverhampton family. Perhaps James had been staying with his Adshead relations. The first child of James and Mary Ann- also James Adshead Levett (who I shall refer to as JAL the Younger from hereon) – was baptised at Dudley St Thomas on 27 May 1832, shown in the Baptism Register as James, son of James Adshead and Mary Ann Levett of Rowley. James’s occupation was given as Farmer, perhaps at Brickfield Farm which was still in the ownership of his father. Two more sons Richard in 1836 and John in 1840 followed. A daughter Elizabeth, again probably named for her Adshead great-grandmother, was born in 1849.

The Bate family – publicans and Victuallers in Cock Green

Mary Ann Bate gives her place of birth in later censuses as Rowley Regis and her ages in those censuses consistently compute to give her a birth year of about 1813. But there is no baptism at St Giles for a Mary Ann Bate in that period. There is a baptism in 1814 for a John, son of Richard and Hannah Bate of Cock Green where the father’s occupation is shown as Victualler so in the licensed trade and he was apparently her brother.

However, there was a baptism at Dudley St Thomas on 8^th Aug 1813 for a Mary Ann Bate, daughter of the same couple, Richard and Hannah Bate of Rowley, said to be a labourer so this appears to be the correct Mary Ann, and this was during is the period when extensive repairs were being carried out at St Giles which may account for the Dudley baptism.

Checking out my theory that Mary Ann’s Bate family were in the Licensed trade, I looked without success in the 1851 Census for Richard Bate and then for Hannah Bate and found her, by then a widow, listed at Cock Green, next door to Brickhouse Farm, aged 64 and a Victualler. This later became known as the Cock Inn and it certainly reinforces the idea that John and Mary Ann grew up as neighbours. I was then able to find that Richard Bate of Cock Green was buried at St Giles on 26 March 1832, aged 41, said in the Burial Register to have died of Dropsy.

Hannah Bate had also been at Cock Green in 1841, also a publican then and living apparently in the same household as her son Benjamin Bate, aged 37 and his family, although he had no occupation shown. Perhaps his mother was the licensee but he also worked in the pub.

Hitchmough shows that three members of the Bate family owned the Cock Inn between 1814 and 1873, with John Bate, mentioned above, the last of these. In 1818, a daughter Sarah had been baptised at St Giles to Richard and Hannah Bate of Cock Green but this time Richard’s occupation was given as a farmer, another instance of double occupations for victuallers. Multi-generation pub-keeping seems to have been quite common in Rowley!

There are numerous entries in the St Giles Registers for the Bate family and many of them are in the Cock Green area which was adjacent to Brickhouse so James and this Mary Ann would have known each other from childhood as neighbours. Why they were married in Wolverhampton is another matter, (although there is a marriage of a Richard Bate in Wolverhampton in 1808 so perhaps the Bate family had connections there, like the Adsheads). Or it may simply have been that Mary Ann was at least six months pregnant at the time of the marriage on 21 Feb 1832, as James Adshead the Younger was baptised on 27 May 1832 at Dudley, again, not in the parish so perhaps an attempt to keep a low profile on this. Or simply that James was in busisness there or perhaps that one or other of their families did not approve of the marriage, we cannot tell.

The 1841 Census shows James Adshead Levett and his family in Perry’s Lake where his occupation is shown as ‘Publican’. Richard at that time was 5 years old and John just 8 months old. Little James would have been nine and was not shown in the household, because he was with his grandfather John Levett at Brickhouse Farm. So by that time James had already moved from Brickhouse Farm to Perry’s Lake and become a publican, presumably at The Portway Tavern although it was not named as such in the census. We can narrow the date of that move down even more. At Richard’s baptism on29 May 1836, the abode is given as Cock Green and his father’s occupation as a Farmer but by the time John was baptised on 6 Dec 1840 his father’s address was shown as Perry’s Lake, although he was still shown as a farmer. So James and Mary Ann must have moved from Cock Green, in all likelihood from Brickhouse Farm, although possibly from Mary Ann’s family residence at Cock Green, to Perry’s Lake at some point between 1836 and 1840.

According to Hitchmough’s Guide to Black Country pubs, James Adshead Levett the Elder was the Licensee at the Portway Tavern from at least 1841 until 1887 and his son James Adshead Levett the Younger from 1887-1895, followed by William Levett from 1892-1896, some overlap there. Interestingly, Hitchmough lists the owner of the pub as Thomas B Williams and Lizzie Bate and also states that it was acquired by Ansells on 15^th June 1846 which seems a very early date, especially as Ansells itself was not founded until 1858, so I suspect that Ansells acquired it in 1946, not 1846. The name Bate is also of interest here as Mary Ann, the wife of James was a Bate so perhaps her family bought the pub.

But James appears to have had more interests than the Portway Tavern in Perry’s Lake, he was listed in the Poll Books and Electoral Registers as the ratepayer of Freehold houses there between at least 1841 and 1878, though there may be other Poll Books which have not yet been digitised.

In August 1847, the Worcestershire Chronicle reported that James Levett of Rowley Regis was summonsed before the Magistrates as P.C.Janson had charged him with

“permitting gaming with dice in his house, an ale house on the 7^th August. On the table were two dice and a cup, a man shaking it and money on the table for which they were playing. Defendant said that there had been a raffle at his house that night and afterwards the men did play for a few pence, but without his knowledge. – Fined 5 shillings and costs. “

In the 1851 Census, James and Mary Ann were at Perry’s Lake, though there is still no mention of the Portway Tavern and James’s occupation is shown as Colliery Clerk. It was quite common for publicans to have other jobs and if, as I suspect, Mary Ann was the daughter of a publican, it is quite likely that she would have been very involved in the management of the pub. Their children, shown as Richard aged 15 and Elizabeth aged 1 were at home but John was not.

In the 1861 Census, James is shown for the first time at the Portway Tavern and as a Victualler, along with Mary Ann, and their unmarried son Richard, now 26 and a shoe maker.

In the 1871 Census, James and Mary Ann are again shown at the Portway Tavern, and he is shown as a Licensed Victualler.

Perhaps there was a little rivalry between the Bull’s Head and the Portway Tavern – Hitchmough relates an account that after Thomas Williams had taken over the licence of the Bull’s Head in 1875,

“The pub prospered much to the reported displeasure of the Levett family who were running the PORTWAY TAVERN …… One night the windows of the BULLS HEAD were mysteriously smashed. The following night, Thomas, always called Master by his wife, was seen leaving his pub with a poker up his sleeve, and setting out over Allsops Hill. The following day it was reported that the windows of the PORTWAY TAVERN had been broken during the hours of darkness! The BULLS HEAD suffered no further damage.”

James Adshead Levett the Elder died , according to the Probate Record, on 23 Jun 1878, aged 75. Mary Ann had moved to Gadd’s Green by the time of the 1881 Census, described as a Retired Licensed Victualler, where her granddaughters Ellen Levett, aged 18 and Harriet Levett aged 9 were living with her. Mary Ann died 15 Jan 1890, according to her Probate Record, aged 76, her burial record states that she died in Perry’s Lake, she was buried on 20 Jan 1890 at St Giles.

The children of James and Mary Ann

Of the children of James the Elder and Mary Ann, James Adshead Levett the Younger and Richard stayed in the Perry’s Lake area for the rest of their lives. I shall deal with James in more detail later as he is the one I have most information about but this is what became of the other children of James Adshead Levett the Elder and Mary Ann:

Richard (1838-1907) and his family

Richard, the Boot and Shoe maker, married Mary Merris in 1863 at Dudley St Thomas and they had five daughters – Ellen in 1863, Hannah in 1864, Elizabeth or Lizzie in 1867, Harriet in 1872 and Mary Ann in 1875. Mary Merris died in 1878 and Richard never remarried.

Of these girls, I have been unable to find any trace of Ellen after 1881, no marriage or death.

Hannah married George Ward and they stayed in Rowley Regis, living in Perry’s Lake. They had two children Amy Ward in 1887 and William Ward in 1893. Alas Hannah also died aged 41 in 1906 and she was buried in St Giles on 26 Jun 1906.

Elizabeth (or Lizzie) had gone into service and was in Manningham, Yorkshire for the 1891 Census. I think it was this Lizzie Levett who died in the Sheffield area, possibly in the North Bierlow Workhouse and was buried on 9 Jun 1899 at the City Road Cemetery, Sheffield, Yorkshire, aged 31.

Harriet married John Rudkin and I have already uploaded a whole article on the Rudkin family. Harriet’s children were all born in Rowley, the last in 1909 but she then moved to Cannock in 1911 and later to Meriden and then possibly Nuneaton as that was where she died in 1956.

Mary Ann Levett married Charles Jones in 1897 at Reddall Hill and they lived in Ross in Rowley and later Oldbury. I have been unable to trace the couple after 1921 when they were living in Church Street, Oldbury with their five children and looking for Charles or Mary Jones is a difficult exercise!

So it appears that Hannah was the only one of Richard’s daughters to stay in Rowley and she had died by 1906.

John Levett (1840-1922) and his family

John Levett, the third son, married Sarah Ann Petford at St Giles in 1867 and they moved to live in Harts Hill, Dudley where they had ten children. These were Kate Elizabeth (1867), Fred (1870), Florence Mary (1872), Kezia Beatrice (1873), Daisy (1874), Harry Brooke (1875-1875), Janet (1877), William A (1879), Major (1881) and May (1887). Sarah died in 1917 in Dudley and John died in September 1922 in Halifax, Yorkshire where he was living with his daughter Daisy. So this branch of the Levett family had moved completely out of the Lost Hamlets area.

Elizabeth Levett and her family

Elizabeth Levett married Edward J Stamps in 1871 in Handsworth, Birmingham and they had one daughter Violet Stamps (1873) and three sons Edward Levett Stamps (1875), Thomas Bernard Stamps (1876) and Ernest Cecil Stamps (1877). The family lived in Sutton Coldfield until 1911 but by 1921 the widowed Elizabeth was living with her son Edward in Carshalton, Surrey where Elizabeth died in 1925. Another branch of the Levett family which had moved completely out of the Lost Hamlets area.

James Adshead Levett the Younger (1832-1895) and his family

In those days, it was quite common for boys to be apprenticed at about the age of fourteen, which was usually a seven year commitment. And James was apprenticed to Mr Gill of Bilston, a Provision Dealer, at the age of fourteen, which would have been in about 1846. Following my research on the Old Swinford Hospital School, and their apprenticing practices, it does occur to me that James may have attended the school but I have not been able to check their records, so the apprenticeship may simply have been arranged by his family. He apparently left before his apprenticeship was completed, with Mr Gill’s concurrence and went into the employ of Mess’rs Hallam and Spikes who may have been in Birmingham. Mr Gill had apparently always found James to be ‘a faithful, honest and industrious servant’ whilst in his employ. His new employers also found him steady and faithful until in 1850 he seems to have had a momentary aberration.

A spell ‘inside’!

In October 1850 James Adshead Levett the Younger was convicted at Birmingham of stealing five shillings and sixpence from his employer and sentenced to 12 months in Birmingham Boro’ Gaol, or possibly the Moor Street lock-up. (A new Gaol had been built in 1849 so if this was where James was held it was very new. Or he may have been held in the Birmingham Lock up in Moor Street, it is not clear.) James was now 19 but his former employers, both Mr Gill and Mess’rs Hallam and Spikes evidently did not think of him as an habitual criminal as Mr Gill expressed willingness to take him back into his employ. Mess’rs Hallam and Spikes were said to regard the taking of the money as ‘an act of peculation’, rather than a determined theft.’ and bore witness to his general honesty. Peculation is the act of illegally taking or using money, especially public money, that you are responsible for managing.

How do I know all this? Because in The National Archives is a letter to the Home Secretary [i] Sir George Grey, dated 10 December 1850, from the Mayor of Dudley Thomas Fereday, urging that James’s sentence should be commuted. This letter emphasised the good standing of James’s family in the local community, that the signatories had known them for many years and that they had always ‘maintained the highest character for honesty and integrity’.

The letter goes on that James’s mother had been ‘greatly depressed in spirits ever since his committal and her health which has been gradually declining, is now in a precarious state’.

The letter therefore asked the Home Secretary to consider remitting or commuting James’s sentence. The number and identity of signatories to this letter is impressive. The signatories were:- Thomas Fereday, Mayor of Dudley; William Crump, Incumbent of Rowley Regis; Samuel Nicklin, Churchwarden of Rowley Regis; Thomas Sidaway, Churchwarden of St Luke’s Church at Reddal Hill; William F Peart, Curate of Rowley Regis; Samuel Gill, Provision Dealer of Bilston, the former Master of J A Levett; Francis Northall of Rowley Regis; Charles Hallam, Tea Dealer, Birmingham.

Also appended to this request was a statement that “We the undersigned are desirous of certifying that the parents and family of James Adshead Levett whom we have known many years, have always borne a high character for honesty and integrity.” This statement had been signed by Isaac Budge, and Councillor Cartwright, both Magistrates for the County of Worcester and Stafford.

What an impressive list of supporters for the family had put together this letter. Did it work? It seems unlikely. There is a note on the outside of the paper that James would have immediate employment if he was released and that an answer was sent on the 4^th January 1851 but a scribbled note appears to say Nil and certainly James was still in prison at the time of the census in 1851. What a terrible time this must have been for the family. I found it touching that so many people of position and standing in the community tried to intervene to get James’s sentence reduced. And, it seems, James’s mother Mary Ann survived and lived on until 1890.

James Adshead Levett the Younger obviously served his time and rebuilt his life over the next few years. He married Elizabeth Smith by Banns on 26 Nov 1857 at St Mark’s Wolverhampton (Wolverhampton keeps cropping up, doesn’t it?) at which time he was a grocer in Tettenhall Road and their daughter Daisy, the first of ten children, was born in Rowley in 1858, with their abode given in the baptismal register at St Giles as Perry’s Lake and James’s occupation shown as Grocer, the trade he had been apprenticed to originally. A son William followed in 1860, twins Sarah and Mary in in 1863, Kate in 1865, Harriet in 1867, Nellie in 1870, Alice in 1872, Fred in 1873 and Amy in 1875.

In 1861 James Adshead Levett the Younger and Elizabeth, with William, are in Perry’s Lake, in a grocer’s shop, although Daisy is with her maternal grandparents William and Sarah Smith on Freebodies Farm on Turner’s Hill.

Another Bankruptcy? But in the Birmingham Journal of 12 May 1866 there was a Notice that there had been a First Meeting in re Bankruptcy for James Adshead Levett the Younger of Deritend, which is in Birmingham, a labourer, formerly of Rowley Regis, with debts of £204 6s and assets of £202. 5s 2½d, when an assignee was appointed. How strange that Bankruptcy should have been involved for a difference of a couple of pounds.

Did he move to Birmingham for a time in between the two censuses? Did his grocery shop run into trouble? Twins Sarah and Mary were baptised at St Giles on 9 November 1862, Kate Elizabeth on 30 Apr 1865, and James’s occupation in all of these was given as grocer. So if there was a bankruptcy, it appears to have been resolved very quickly because I have not been able to find any other formal Notices which are usually involved in the process. Other bankruptcies I have seen in this research have generated numerous advertisements and meetings but this one does not appear to have had this happen. Had it not been for the reference to the full name and James being formerly of Rowley Regis I would have thought that this was a case of mistaken identity. Or perhaps family realised what was happening and helped James out of his difficulty.

In 1871, the family are still in Perry’s Lake although James is now described as a Labourer. Elizabeth Levett, nee Smith, died in 1876, aged only 45 and was buried at St Giles.

Taking over the Portway Tavern

After his father’s death in Jun 1878, James Adshead Levett the Younger applied early in September 1878 for a new Licence for the premises in Perry’s Lake, apparently successfully. I cannot think this would have happened if James was still bankrupt.

In 1881, James was listed as a Licensed Victualler in Perry’s Lake, and his daughter Daisy, by then 23, was a grocer. Other children William, aged 21, a carpenter, Kate, aged 16 a pupil teacher and Nellie, aged 10, a scholar were also living with him. Twins Sarah and Mary, aged 18, were also listed in Perry’s Lake though not apparently in the same house but their occupations were described as ‘Licensed Victualler’s daughters with a note on the census ‘see note on Portway Tavern. Sadly the note is not visible but it appears that the flexible living arrangements of the Levett family in Perry’s Lake was well established. The twins were each married soon after that census.

In 1891, James was still at the Portway Tavern with his son William, and his niece Harriet. But in August 1895 he died and was buried at St Giles on the 30^th August.

What happened to James and Elizabeth’s children?

Daisy Levett was married in 1885 to Abner Payne but they do not appear to have had any children before her early death on 24 Oct 1902 at the age of 44. Daisy was buried on 31 Oct 1902 at St Giles.

William Levett stayed in the area and died on 5^th June 1904, his abode at the time of his burial on 8^th Jun 1904 was shown in the Burial Register entry as Gadds Green. He did not marry, so far as I have been able to discover and in his Will, his married sisters Catherine and Elizabeth were his executors. He was also 44 at the time of his death.

Mary Adshead Levett was married to Joseph Foley on 6 Sep 1881 at Halesowen and lived in Powke Lane and later Garratts Lane, before moving to West Bromwich, never returning to live in Rowley village. Though Mary and her daughter Sarah both later ran sweet shops in West Bromwich and Oldbury so they carried on the trading traditions of the Levett family. Mary and Joseph had five children of whom two died in infancy. The eldest son John James Adshead Foley died in 1902, aged only 19. 1902 , indeed the first decade of the 1900s, were terrible years for the Levett family. Mary’s remaining son Albert Edward married in 1915 but did not have had any children, so far as I can find and appears to have been divorced as his wife re-married in 1931. In the 1939 Register Alfred was living with his sister Sarah in Station Road, Oldbury, and was described as a retired Motor Engineer (incapacitated), whereas she was still described as a shopkeeper (Sweets and Tobacco). I have not been able to identify a death or burial for Arthur.

Mary Foley, nee Levett was living with her daughter Sarah in High Street, West Bromwich in the 1921 Census, both were widows and Mary died in West Bromwich in 1922, aged 59. I suspect that she and Joseph may have separated before 1901, and there is no evidence of them being together after 1891. Evidence suggests that Joseph ‘married’ his barmaid Amy Read, twenty years his junior, in 1901 (according to the number of years married shown in the 1911 Census) although I have not found any evidence of such a marriage or of a divorce. It is not impossible that a divorce did happen, although Mary Foley was still describing herself as married in the 1911 Census!

Sarah Adshead Levett, Mary’s twin, was married in 1882 at Netherton to George Perry, (whose brothers Samuel and Daniel kept the Why Not Inn in Reddall Hill, another pub-keeping family) and Sarah and George lived at Gadds Green and subsequently took over the Portway Tavern, although George seems also to have kept up his other occupation as an iron or scrap dealer. Sarah and George had five children, Ada, born 1888, Mabel born 1891, James, born 1892, Alfred born 1894 and Miriam born 1896.

Sadly Sarah Adshead Perry, nee Levett died on 28^th October 1902, aged 40, only four days after her oldest sister Daisy who was 44 when she died. Their funerals were held three days apart. And only weeks later on 31 December 1902 Sarah’s husband George Perry also died, aged 47, so that their children were orphaned.

Alcoholism seems to be an occupational hazard for publicans and all three adults who died in late 1902 died of alcoholism and related causes. There is also some evidence of epilepsy in the family, as epilepsy was given as one of the causes of death for Daisy and some years earlier, during the trial of James Levett for brewing offences, it was mentioned in evidence that one of Sarah’s children had suffered a fit on the evening of the alleged offence.

Of Sarah and George Perry’s children, the two older girls of the Perry family were living with their aunt Mary in Smethwick in 1911, both working as shop assistants in a draper’s shop. Ada went to New York, USA in 1912, marrying there and dying in Pennsylvania in 1964. I have been unable to trace her sister Mabel in this country after the 1911 Census but note with interest that a Mabel Perry of the correct age travelled to New York in 1914 and I wonder whether she went to join her sister there.

The two boys went to their father’s brothers at the Why Not Inn in Reddall Hill. James Perry became a mechanic and subsequently emigrated to Canada where he married and had two children, dying in Ontario in 1965. Alfred stayed in Reddall Hill, where he married and had one son, he had taken over the management of the Why Not Inn by 1921, that common family trade but died – yet another premature Levett death, at the age of 38 in 1933.

Little Miriam, the youngest at only five when her mother died, appears to have been adopted by the Pearson family who kept the Haden Cross Inn at Haden Hill. I believe that she married George Yarranton in 1927 and had two sons, dying in the Sandwell area in 1980.

Nellie Levett, the youngest of the children of James Adshead Levett the Younger married James Kirby in 1890 and they had ten children. They continued to live in the area, in Gadds Green and in Perry’s Lake. In 1921 the family were living at 7 Tippity Green, with nine of the children and two grandchildren.

The Kirby children were William James (1891-1941), Elizabeth (b.1892), Frederick (b.1894), Mary known as Polly) b.1895, Sarah Helen (1897-1906), John (b.1898), Miriam (b.1900), Mabel (b.1902), Samuel (b.1904), Ada (b.906), Lily (b.1908), Nellie (b.1911) and Beatrice May (b.1913). In 1939, for the Register commissioned for identification and rationing purposes, many of these brothers and sisters were living at 6 Windsor Road, with the oldest William as Head of the Household, their mother Nellie having died in 1925 and father James Kirby in 1937. At the time of James Kirby’s burial the abode is given as Hailstone House, Tippity Green so this part of the family had stayed in the immediate area. Nellie gave her children so many Levett Christian names there, familiar from her siblings and her wider family! Many of the Levett girls gave their children the names Levett and Adshead as second names, which can help a lot with tracing them in the records.

Born, as most of Nellie’s children were, on the cusp of the 20^th century, it is not always possible to trace their whereabouts properly, as records tend to be closed for privacy reasons for 100 years but it appears from those who I have been able to track, that many or most of this family stayed in or close to Rowley, often in the immediate area of Perrys Lake, Gadds Green and Tippity Green, true Lost Hamlets people.

The descendants of John Levett in the Lost Hamlets

So there we have the Levett family – from the arrival in Rowley of John Levett, from Stepney, London, grandson of the Nock family, in about 1800, through his children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren – they lived in the Lost Hamlets area for almost exactly a century, although their Nock ancestors had been there much longer – also spreading around the wider area and further afield. They ran pubs, shops and businesses, brewed ale, suffered bankruptcies, prosecutions and even prison and conducted bitter disputes with the Curate in that time. They married members of other families in the licensed trade numerous times. And the other familiar names of the Lost Hamlets families appear frequently on their family tree.

But by 1911 the last of this branch of the Levett name in the village had died, many of them after relatively short lives, and the family had suffered some grievous losses. At the end of that time, although there were descendants from the female line still living in the village, there were no Levetts who could trace their descent directly from the original John Levett.

Or were there?

Where did Levett’s Butchers , who I remember from Blackheath and mentioned right at the start of the first article, fit into this? I had not found any connection between this family and those Levetts. And when I double checked for Levetts in the village in the 1911 Census, I was surprised to see that there was still a John Levett with his family in Springfield in 1911 and his son Fred in the village, John keeping a shop in Springfield and Fred a butchers shop in Rowley village.

But that’s another story… and a third instalment to come about the Levetts!

[i] The National Archives Reference HO 18/294

A double charge against Licensed Victuallers at The Portway Tavern

The Portway Tavern 1889 -– Concealment of Wort – a Midnight Brew – Heavy Penalty

I came across this story while I was researching material on the Portway Tavern but am posting it separately as it is fairly detailed and lengthy. There will be a more general post on the Portway Tavern soon.

In 1889, James Adshead Levett Jnr and another man Joseph Pensotti of Cross Guns Street, Kate’s Hill faced a more serious charge of concealment of Wort.

A quick diversion – An Italian in Dudley?

The name Pensotti sent me off down a rabbit hole because I wondered how he came to be charged with this offence and whether he was Italian. Mr Pensotti was not a Rowley man, in the 1891 Census he was listed at the Cross Guns Street address in Kates Hill but listed as a Post messenger. That was his occupation in a couple of earlier censuses too which showed that he had been born in Dudley but in 1851 he was a publican in Dudley and prior to that I found an entry for him in a trade directory when he was listed in Dudley as a “Barometer, Thermometer etc Manufacturer”, along with three other men, all of whom had Italian names – Charles Cassera, Carlo Cetti, Andrew Comoli and Joseph Pensotti!

Intriguing. I wondered whether the ‘etc ‘ they were making included hydrometers which are using for checking the alcohol content of liquids? (almost certainly yes, is the answer!) Every brewery would be required to have these, I would have thought, as part of their tools of the trade. Perhaps his specialist knowledge led to him being involved in the brewing trade with James Levett.

A little more research informed me that many makers of barometers in this period had originated in Italy and moved to London initially and gradually spread around the country, and it seems likely that these men were all of Italian descent although they may well have been born here. Another little glimpse of unexpected things in the Black Country! There is a most interesting website about Italian makers of fine instruments, many from the Como area of Italy[i]. Since the decorative cases for the barometers would have been made of wood, it is interesting to reflect that the fine woodworking skills required for this would not have been so very different from those famous Italian makers of violins, Stradivarius, Guarneri and Amato who were also from Northern Italy within a few miles of Milan. The barometer pictured here was not made locally and is a Torricelli barometer from the mid-1800s but illustrative of the sorts of instruments made by Italian craftsmen.

Torricelli barometer, copyright unknown but will be acknowledged on further information being provided.

It turned out from evidence given at the trial that Mr Pensotti took no active part in the business and both men were executors of the late James Adshead Levett. Who had died in 1878, more than ten years earlier! Evidence was given that the entry in the book was made jointly which was why they were both prosecuted. Quite why this was still happening so long after James’s death is another mystery but I will investigate further.

Back to the Wort

What is Wort, I hear you ask? Well, I had to look it up too. Wort is basically a liquid made from grain intended to be turned into beer by yeast. Mostly water—about 80% to 90% for most types of beer—wort is mixed with extracts from the grain. This is what goes into the brewer’s mash tun, which is a large vessel where the brewer combines barley or other grains with hot water, initiating the process called mashing. Mashing is like a hot bath for crushed malted grains (usually barley). Immersing the barley in hot water releases enzymes that break apart the barley’s starches into simple sugars. This sugary substance is the unfermented wort.

The charge against Levett and Pensotti was that “they, being brewers, did, on the 31st March, use certain malt, to wit, 8 bushels, the brewing of beer, without making or having made an entry in the book duly delivered to and kept by them, as such brewers for such purpose, as by the statute in that case made and provided, as was required to be made. “ They were also charged with concealing six gallons of wort, on the 1^st May, so as to prevent certain officers of the Inland Revenue from taking an account of the said worts.

Tax evasion is nothing new, it appears. But I had not previously realised how strictly the brewing business was regulated by the authorities. But it appears that every single brewing had to be accounted for and recorded in this book.

The defendants pleaded guilty to the second charge which was therefore not gone into entirely, the reporter notes, although there was the information given below.

The entry for the two men in what was presumably the start of the brewing book, the court was told, stated that they intended to carry on the business of brewers for sale and which rooms within the premises were marked on a plan as those in which the brewing would be carried on. Other parts of the premises were not so marked but when an Officer (it is not clear whether this was a police officer or an excise officer) visited the premises on 1^st May he found ‘practically six gallons of wort’ in the fowl house, which was not part of the approved area. Two brewings had apparently taken place during that day, one in the morning and one was in the course of being collected. These worts ‘for no apparent reason’ were in the fowl house and was not brought to charge with the other wort. When spoken to about it, Levett had said that the wort was part of the first wort and had been put there to cool. The officers thought this was a very funny place to put it! The officers alleged that while they were making their survey, a son of Levett’s was heard to remark “they had got it now”, though they did not at the time understand what this referred to.

As for the other charge relating to malt concealment, it seems that brewers should make an entry in the brewing book twenty four hours before it was to be used. There was such an entry on the 29^th March, which made the officer think that there would be two brewings on the first April.

The Witnesses for the Prosecution

The Policeman’s Story

Police Constable Himan gave evidence that he knew both of the defendants, as James Levett ‘carried on the business of the public’ which was part of his division. He remembered something in connection with the 30^th March. He went to the defendant’s house that night from something he had heard about 12.15. He waited a few minutes outside the doors and at length saw them open. There were lights and lots of steam especially from the direction of the Brewhouse. Noticing the lights, he thought there was a police offence being committed. He therefore kept quiet and watched, and ultimately saw the defendant Levett come to the doors and look down the road, and afterwards heard him remark “It’s all right, Will,now.” Then his son William came and shut the doors. After that they appeared to be busy in the Brewhouse.

There being a space between the gates when shut the officer inserted a stick and lifted the bar which was placed across inside, and went into the Yard. He there saw the defendant Levett, standing by the door of the Brewhouse. He commented to Levett that he seemed busy and Levett responded that “We’re only brewing”. The Brewhouse door was open and he could see inside. He saw the son William and Levett’s brother Richard standing by the mash tub. One was emptying malt into it and he believed Richard was pouring in the malt while William was stirring it. He could see the steam rising from the tub. He told the court there was no doubt in his mind as to what they were doing, they were mashing malt up, he felt confident.

He noted that there were two females in the house at the time. He had first observed the brewing at about a quarter past twelve and from the time he first observed it to the time he went into the Brewhouse would be about twenty-five minutes. He was on the premises about twenty minutes to one. He saw Mr Levett, his son and his brother but did not see Mr Pensotti there and had never seen him in the house. He also noted that he had frequently seen lights and signs of persons being busy on Saturday nights but since this night he had not.

The Excise Man

The Excise Officer was John Stanislaus O’Dea, a good Black Country name if ever there was one! In fact I understand that it was common practice in those times for Excise Men to be drawn from outside the area so that they had no personal loyalties to distract them from their duties.

Mr O’Dea told the court that the defendant’s house was in his division. He delivered the Brewing Book and had surveyed the premises and made entries in the book. There was an entry in the book on the 30^th March to brew on the 1^st April. He visited the premises on the Monday and took the produce of the morning’s brewing. His survey book showed the temperature as regular. He was on the premises at nine o’clock in the evening and the brewing was then in operation and the produce of that brewing was collected next morning.

On being cross-examined, he had said that he personally knew nothing about the alleged brewing on the Saturday night or Sunday morning. The first intimation he had from the policeman was on about the 15^th April. He was asked whether he had sought out the policeman or whether the policeman had sought him out, to which he replied that he had met the policeman on the road and he had mentioned it to him. When he had gone to the premises, on the Monday evening, he found the produce was all regular and also the brewing which had taken place in the morning.

He had had considerable experience as an officer, and it would all depend on the circumstances as to the time it would take to remove the traces of brewing. They brewed nine bushels of malt which should produce 162 gallons of beer. There were worts in the vessels, the results of the brew, at one o’clock. The defendants had about eight barrels but he could not tell how many barrels were used for ale. Wort could be fermented at the temperature of the atmosphere. The fowl house was about 9ft by 6ft. On the Monday he went into the cellar; no barrels were gone. There were plenty of barrels in the yard of the defendants had chosen to use them.

The prosecution then asked further questions and he said that the brewing premises were close to the house and that Levett’s brother and mother lived near.

The evidence for the defence

The Levetts had a solicitor to defend them, a wise decision, I think. As lawyers in our courts do now, his first argument was that his clients had voluntarily pleaded guilty to the first charge of concealing the worts although he suggested that technically the question would have been raised as to whether it was or was not a concealment which had taken place, but over and above what the vessels would contain were these six gallons of worts which were put into the casks. Seeing the officer come onto the premises, the brewer, instead of letting them remain, foolishly, and, so far as the prosecution held, criminally, took the vessels into the fowl house. That was more a technical offence than a wilful intention to defraud the authorities of their proper due. No one could see why they wanted to conceal the worts as the duty on them only amounted to something like 1 shilling and 3 pence, knowing they were liable to such a heavy penalty.

The real point at issue with the other charge, however, was that it was alleged that on Saturday night or Sunday morning his clients used eight bushels of malt wort without entering it in the book. It was established beyond doubt that it was entered in the book that a brewing was to take place and that fact was in favour of the defendant. What became, he asked, of the 160 gallons which the prosecution alleged the defendants had brewed?

It would have been better if there had been any evidence to corroborate the police officer, because the witnesses for the defence would swear that the officer was never on the premises; his client was entitled to the benefit of any doubt about this. His client had pleaded guilty to one charge and could have pleaded guilty to the second charge but disputed this.

As regarded Mr Pensotti, he had nothing whatsoever to do with the business and was not liable for the first offence even if the prosecution held he was liable in the second. The prosecuting lawyer did not agree and said that Mr Pensotti had become liable by signing the entry.

The Witnesses for the Defence:

Richard Levett, the first witness, said that he was brewer for his brother. (Richard Levett was recorded in all other records I have seen as a Boot and Shoe maker, living in Perry’s Lake but this is another instance of people having more than one job and it may well have been that his brother did not pay him for this or perhaps in kind or he did this as a family habit or in lieu of rent.) He stated that he remembered the 30^th March, the Sunday and the following Monday. He brewed on the Monday at one o’clock. He was on his brother’s premises on Saturday but went home about seven, and returned again at seven on Sunday morning. He did not see Police Constable Himan. He had brewed for his brother for twelve months and had never brewed for his brother on a Saturday night. He usually brewed on a Monday morning and it took him seventeen hours to get through the brewing. He lived next door to the public house and his mother lived next door but one. The prosecuting counsel commented that they were all relatives in that little corner with which he agreed.

He then referred to a date in May when the supervisor was about when he had begun to brew about one o’clock. They bought their malt ground. It took him six or seven hours sometimes to get up steam. He did not remember anything about putting wort down the pigstye(sic). His brother usually carried the malt down. It was then shot into the mash tub and was stirred up with the mash rule. The police had never come into the Brewhouse and spoken to him when he was brewing.

He could remember that he had never brewed upon a Saturday night or early on a Sunday morning, he had never seen a policeman at the Brewhouse door on a Saturday, Sunday or Monday night.

The magistrates wanted to know more about how the wort had got into the fowlhouse, the subject of the first charge. He put the wort into the fowl house. He told Mr Davies (the supervisor) that he put it there. He put it into cans. He could work well up to the standard, that was to say he could get more out of the malt than was generally supposed to be by the law. He was told by his brother to put the cans in the fowl house to cool. (This evidence does appear to be somewhat less than consistent!)

William Levett, the next witness, was the son of the defendant and he also denied that brewing was carried on on the 30^th March on his father’s premises. They brewed the following Monday and he helped. He said that Constable Himan did not come into the Brewhouse and see them brewing, as they never brewed late on Saturday night or early on Sunday morning. On being cross-examined he stated that Himan had never been on the premises when they were brewing. His father had never said anything to him about the policeman being there. He did not know the cans were in the fowl house. He had no reason to say, when the officers were inspecting the premises that “It’s only the fowl house.” He did not exclaim “By —, he’s seen it now!”

Eve Taylor, charwoman, said she was cleaning the defendant’s house on Saturday night, the 30^th March and was there till two o’clock. She had never seen any brewing there on Saturday night or Sunday morning. Cross-examined, she said that she was no relation to the Levett family. She had hot water to clean with and the small boiler was used to heat the water. She remembered the night because Mrs. Perry’s child had a fit. Mr Levett, his son and daughter were all the persons on the premises at twelve o’clock. She did not see Richard Levett there after she went at ten.

Sarah Perry, daughter of defendant Levett, said that she was at her father’s house till eleven, and there were no preparations for brewing. She did not see her uncle Richard there after seven.

Nellie Levett, another daughter, said Constable Himan did not come to the house at all on the 30^th March.

The Verdict

The Magistrates then retired briefly to consider their decision. After only a few minutes they returned and Mr Bassano said that they had decided to fine Mr Levett on the first charge of brewing £40 and costs; in the second case of concealing wort he would be fined £5 and costs.

As to Mr Pensotti, they felt that they ought to make him feel he had some responsibility and fined him £5 and costs in respect of the charge of concealing wort.

The total amount of fines and costs was £56 1s 6d.

What a long and convoluted tale!

The Levetts obviously closed ranks in their evidence but it does seem odd to me to have a charwoman cleaning at two o’clock in the morning! A tidy up and clean around would surely not take several hours, especially when it was dark and lighting was probably quite poor.

I do not doubt that it would have been possible for some barrels of beer to have been spirited away to other houses before the Monday if an illicit brewing had taken place. I wasn’t at all clear either whether these offences all happened on the same night or whether there was one policeman or more. Why was the policeman on patrol at that time of night in this sleepy hamlet (unless it was to look for after hours drinking in the pubs and beerhouses, which may well have happened on a fairly regular basis!)? With dark streets and cold nights, it’s hard to imagine that there would have been much else happening in Perry’s Lake on a cold March night to require a regular police presence and I would have thought that he would have been quite conspicuous in his uniform, loitering in Perry’s Lake late at night. One can’t help feeling that Mr Levett and his establishment , for whatever reason, were being kept an eye on by the authorities!

A typical policeman’s uniform in about 1880 – copyright unknown.

There was also no reference in the evidence described to any smell of brewing – and yet the smell is quite distinctive – I can remember when I worked in Smethwick for a couple of years and travelled there past the brewery in Cape Hill, the smell when they were brewing was very strong, it must have been apparent to anyone nearby that brewing was taking place, late at night on a Saturday – perhaps local people knew and just kept their mouths shut! Or perhaps there was no brewing, as the Levetts claimed. I am surprised that the police constable did not mention this smell when he was saying that he was sure they were brewing.

Who do you believe? What would your verdict have been? I would be interested to hear your views!

[i] This is the site about Italian craftsmen in the UK. http://italophiles.com/london_italians2.htm