Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Joseph Martin + Dec. 23 1933

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by Robert Linford View Post
    Re Fred Wade, there is a police photographer of that name living 47 Jasmine Grove, Penge in 1901. He's working on own account. The thing is that the same man appears in 1911 and he is listed as retired from City Police. So is this a case of a photographer going on to become a policeman?

    He married his wife in 1896, but he had clearly been married before. Haven't traced him in 1891 yet.
    There's a Frederick Wade in the 1881 Census aged 25 (born c1856) from Tring. He's living at 124 Bishopsgate and is listed as a Police Officer. Doesn't say City or Met but Bishopsgate was City Police territory so maybe City.

    There is a City Police Officer Frederick Wade born c1855 in London Living at 25, Bartletts Bldgs, Thavies Inn in the 1881 census as well.

    Rob
    Last edited by Rob Clack; November 26, 2010, 01:18 PM. Reason: added another Wade

    Comment


    • #32
      Hi Rob

      The Tring one was City Police, he's definitely listed at the same time as the photographer Wade. The other one you mention, I just can't make work.

      Comment


      • #33
        There are a few Old Bailey returns for PC Wade when I did a lil gander on Wednesday.

        I just assumed it was a namesake.

        Monty

        Comment


        • #34
          Hi Robert,

          That's unusual then to have two Frederick Wade's working as City Police Constables born about a year apart.

          Rob

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Monty View Post
            There are a few Old Bailey returns for PC Wade when I did a lil gander on Wednesday.

            I just assumed it was a namesake.

            Monty
            It's a difficult one to work out.

            Rob

            Comment


            • #36
              Thanks for the census information Robert and Rob, I'm having dificulty getting my head round the info. though.
              Robert, maybe he was employed by the City Police as a photographer and so in 1911 he just put retired from City Police? Or did he actually say he was a retired policeman?

              Comment


              • #37
                Being a police photographer, with bodies waiting to be photographed and the threat of the sack, got one man out of Jury service anyway.

                Click image for larger version

Name:	Reynolds's Newspaper (London, England), Sunday, November 17, 1895 police photographer.JPG
Views:	1
Size:	44.9 KB
ID:	551014

                Comment


                • #38
                  It's "retired from City Police" Debs.

                  I don't know who the man from the White Horse was, but he seems to have been in demand.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Thanks Robert, so that could possibly mean he was employed as a photographer there do you think? Would he have been a bit old to join the force between 1901 and 1911 if he was listed as photographer in 1901?

                    lol, someone was annoyed about the man from the White Horse not doing his duty.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Hi Debs

                      Yes, I don't know whether there was an upper age limit on police recruitment, but joining after 1901 would have made him a bit old - and retiring by 1911 would have made him a bit young to retire, I suppose, if he'd only joined in the last 10 years. It's probably as you said, for some reason he wrote that he was retired from City Police instead of retired City Police photographer.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Rob C,
                        Haven't been able to email you today but your man James Edgar wasn't at 121 cheapside in 1885.
                        Kelly's directory of chemists and druggists 1885 lists under photographers, Thomas Richard Williams at 121 Cheapside.

                        This is from the Commercial Gazette 1882, but it's not very useful as you already know he was there in 82.

                        Click image for larger version

Name:	edgar 23 2 82 commercial gazette.JPG
Views:	1
Size:	14.3 KB
ID:	551015

                        Robert, thanks for that. I was just reading RJM's earlier post again and he mentions the City Police didn't have an official photographic department until 1939, so maybe that puts the mockers on my explanation for his 1911 description as 'retired City Police'?

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Bit of a mystery, Debs.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            James Edgar sold his studio at 121 Cheapside to Moses Coleman on February 7th, 1882. Edgar died in Stepney in 1893. I don't know where he was in between but I can't find a studio for him after this date.

                            Cheers,

                            Robert

                            Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post
                            Rob C,
                            Haven't been able to email you today but your man James Edgar wasn't at 121 cheapside in 1885.
                            Kelly's directory of chemists and druggists 1885 lists under photographers, Thomas Richard Williams at 121 Cheapside.

                            This is from the Commercial Gazette 1882, but it's not very useful as you already know he was there in 82.

                            [ATTACH]8566[/ATTACH]

                            Robert, thanks for that. I was just reading RJM's earlier post again and he mentions the City Police didn't have an official photographic department until 1939, so maybe that puts the mockers on my explanation for his 1911 description as 'retired City Police'?

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X