The Tunaley vs Mousley Court Hearings of 1853-1855
Download A More Detailed Account of the Mousley and McKenzie cases in pdf format Background to the Court Hearings of 1853-1855 As a result of losing the case "Tunaley v. MacKenzie" in 1824 - click here for "The Dancing Exploits of Thomas Snape Tunaley"- Thomas Snape Tunaley was then faced with paying all costs incurred. That case having followed McKenzie's letter of complaint published in the Derby Mercury 30th July, 1823, relating to Thomas Tunaley's refusal to sign "Articles of Co-Partnership" (click here). In fact those costs were paid on Thomas's behalf by William Eaton Mousley, solicitor and Mayor of Derby 1845 and 1846. Mousley, at that time, a close neighbour of Thomas Snape Tunaley and resident in Exeter House on Full Street. Mousley also the brother-in-law of Francis Boott the physician and botanist. In return, a plot of land owned by the Tunaleys was handed over to Mousley in what appears to have been an informal and covert transaction, for which Mousley made no payment for the next 29 years. Remarkably, this McKenzie case and the subsequent transaction involving the costs incurred had serious repercussions following the death of Willam Mousley in 1853 when it was wrongly assumed by his executors that the plot was part of Mousley’s estate even though, legally, it was still owned by the Tunaleys. William Eaton Mousley (ca. 1787-1853) was a partner in the solicitor's firm of Mousley and Barber. He was a magistrate and alderman, and owner of a substantial amount of local property. William was married to Antonietta (nee Hardcastle) the sister of Mary Hardcastle who was married to Francis Boott, the physician and botanist and to whom Mousley was brother-in-law by marriage. Antonietta and Mary were the daughters of John and Lucy Hardcastle (nee Swift), Lucy having been the childhood friend of Mary Tunaley - see http://www.tunaleyfamily.com/Mary-Tunaley.pdf and the suspected illegitimate daughter of Erasmus Darwin. In 1803, Robert Tunaley (1744-1820) had leased a plot of land by virtue of a “mortgage by demise", the plot of land referred to in the court case documents as a “Field" - no details found in 1853 court papers of exact location but the agreement made 13th July 1803 "between Thomas Saxelby, Nathaniel Edwards, Richard Forester and William Wylde on one part and Robert Tunaley now deceased of the other part".
by whom James Oakes Junior (1788-1845) was then employed.
A “mortgage by demise" was a long-term lease (in this case 500 years) but normally included a redemption clause allowing the lessee to purchase the land. Robert evidently took advantage of this clause because Constantia Tunaley was able to furnish proof of ownership in the subsequent 1853-55 court hearings (see later). Oddly though, the lease, on redemption, had to be fully terminated by assigning the property to a trustee for the remainder of the term. The trusteeship, having been passed down the family from the original James Oakes Snr, now held by James Oakes (3) of the Riddings, who as revealed came to the 1854 hearing to present an Affadavit.
Robert died 1820 with ownership of the plot of land passing to his widow, Constantia Tunaley. As mentioned above, Thomas Snape Tunaley, having lost the MacKenzie court case in 1824, had the costs paid on his behalf by William Eaton Mousley, but in return it seems an informal and covert transaction took place whereby Mousley now took full control. of the “field". Whether the “field" had already been leased to Mousley is unclear but it seems all Mousley’s rentals were now waived for the following 29 years until his death in 1853, after which unforeseen consequences came to the fore. Firstly, given the covert nature of the 1824 deal, there was an incorrect but understandable assumption on the part of William’s sons that they, the Mousleys, not the Tunaleys, held legal ownership of the plot of land. Secondly, not mentioned in documents but relevant to a subsequent challenge to Constantia’s later will, is whether or not her other son, Robert James Tunaley, a doctor living and practising in Wymondham Norfolk, knew anything at the time of that deal. William Eaton Mousley, "widower", died Wednesday 5th Jan 1853, wife Antonietta (nee Hardcastle) having died Derby, 1st Quarter 1848. Mousley’s will proven 24th January 1853. An extraordinary sequence of events then followed starting with a Bill of Complaint presented by Constantia Tunaley to Court "Trinity term", 1853. No details available of contents of Bill of Complaint but the crux of the Bill evidently related to the assumption of ownership of the "Field" by the executors of William Mousley's estate. And clearly his estate could not be settled until this new case was heard.
1853 First court appearance
was presented by Constantia Tunaley to the Court. No details are available of the contents of Bill of Complaint but it is assumed the crux of the Bill related to William Mousley's estate having included ownership of the "Field". The Defendants, Willaim Eaton Mousley Jnr, and John Hardcastle Mousley, "duly appeared and put in their answers 20th July 1853".
1854 Bill amended 22/4/1854
22/5/1854.""An affadavit of Thomas Snape Tunaley, an affadavit of James Oakes (and others) the exhibits therein filed 19/5/1854. Constantia Maria Rock legal and personal representative of the Complainant exhibited the Bill to the Court 27th May 1853.
all the estate to her daughter Constantia Maria Roch (nee Tunaley) with no legacy to her two sons. Constantia Maria Roch (nee Tunaley), given as “widow", appointed as sole executor/executrix. Constantia’s will duly proved 29th July, 1854. In the event, Constantia’s will was to be challenged by her sons, but clearly neither her estate nor the challenge to her will could be heard or settled until after the Mousley case itself was settled.
5th August 1854 Defendants duly served notice that the case was now revived with Constantia Maria Roch acting now as the legal and personal representative of the deceased complainant.
Final hearing on Wednesday 24th January 1855. No-one appearing for the defendants - unsurprising. as Constantia Rock's case now effectively proven with defendants' priority to keep costs to a minimum and to settle William Eaton Mousleys estate at the earliest opportunity.
mortgage by demise dated 13/7/1803 in the Bill mentioned made between Thomas Saxelby, Nathaniel Edwards, Richard Forester and William Wylde on one part and Robert Tunaley now deceased of the other part"."The Complainant being willing and thereby offering to pay to the Defendants what if anything upon the taking of such accounts as this honorable Court should think fit to direct might be found due from the Complainant or the Estate of Robert Tunaley in the said Bill mentioned to the estate of William Eaton Mousley deceased either in respect of the Costs incurred in the suit of Tunaley vs McKenzie or on any other amount."."The defendants should direct all deeds and writings relating to the said mortgaged premises.to the custody and power of the Complainant Constantia Maria Rock And that in default of the Defendants paying to the Complainant such principal interest and costs by the time aforesaid (six months from date of hearing) the Defendants should be absolutely debarred and foreclosed from all equity of redemption of said mortgaged premises". This result followed quickly by the death of Thomas Snape Tunaley, aged 54 years, 17th April 1855, Mill Field, Wigginton,Tamworth. Cause of death: "phthisis pulmonalis" (tubercolosis). Thomas's will signed by him and witnessed on the morning of his death. Thomas’s illness and untimely death no doubt triggered in significant measure by the stress of his exclusion from Constantia’s will and the later hearings. Thomas's estate: £1500.
___________________________________
Although too late for Thomas, Constantia’s will was finally revoked by the Chancery Court following the Tunaley Court Cases of 1857.
Constantia Tunaley on reaching the age of 21 years. Download a Full Detailed Account in pdf format
|
