4 Little Bears
Click on the bears
to return to
Home Page/Main Menu



FLINT Brothers

Ferdinand Frankenheim

As told under “Rancho Nacimiento”, three men on stolen horses committed “larceny”, whatever that meant, at the house of Ferdinand Frankenheim and Robert G. Flint.1

Who was this Ferdinand Frankenheim who apparently briefly touched the life of my great-granduncle, Robert Flint? There is no other mention of him in Ohles’ book. He was seemingly a Jewish merchant born in the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg, one of the 39 independent states in the German Confederation (1815–1866). When was he born? At his marriage in 1862 he gave his age as 30; that would put his birth about 1832. However, the 1901 census shows his age as 75; that would suggest about 1826 as his birth year. But in his burial record two years later, in 1903, he was still 75, which would correspond to a birth in approximately 1828.

At some point he traveled to London, England; I have not found documentary evidence of his initial arrival there. He left London for Hamburg in Jul 1851, according to an arrival document at London dated 8 Mar 1852.2 He arrived again on 26 Mar 1852, having left London 8 days previously.3 He arrived yet again on 20 Apr 1853,43 Oct 1853,5 and 26 Feb 1856.6

In most of these documents his occupation was given as “Merchant”, but in a couple the German word for merchant, Kaufmann, was used. In documents from 1864–1865, and again in 1882, Frankenheim’s occupation is stated to be “diamond merchant”.7 From 1886 to 1896, he was a “dealer in works of art”.8 In the very last mention of his occupation, two years before his death in 1903, he was a “curiosities agent”.9 In all these pursuits, he would seem to have been following in the footsteps of his father, Ludwig Frankenheim, who, according to an 1847 Hamburg city directory, kept a “stock of jewels, pearls, and antiquities, of polished precious stones and tools for goldsmiths”.10

On 3 Aug 1862 Ferdinand married Louisa Carr from Norwich, Norfolk. She was 18; his age is given as 30, though I suspect he may have been four or five years older. He is styled a “Gentleman”, residing at 13 Bloomsbury Square; his father is Ludwig Frankenheim, a merchant. Louisa’s address is given as 41 Brewer St, Golden Square, and her father’s name and occupation are blank. Ferdinand and Louisa were married at the registry office, St Giles (a district of London) by Walter Frewes, Deputy Registrar.11

After 3½ months of marriage, “on or about the eighteenth day of November One thousand eight hundred and sixty two”, Ferdinand deserted Louisa “without cause and from that time left her destitute”, or so she claimed in divorce papers filed thirteen and a half years later, in 1876.12

From August 1864 to January 1865 Frankenheim was undergoing bankruptcy proceedings—

“8 Aug 1864.—Failure of Mr Ferdinand Frankenheim, merchant, through extensive losses on the Stock Exchange; liabilities about £100,000.”13

“London, Aug. 8.

I regret to inform you that owing to heavy losses upon the Stock-Exchange I have been compelled to suspend payment. Messrs. Coleman, Turquand, Youngs, and Co. will prepare a statement of my affairs for submission to a meeting of my creditors at the earliest opportunity.

Your obedient servant,
FERD. FRANKENHEIM.”14

One of his creditors tried to accuse Frankenheim of preparing to flee his debts, until the plot was foiled by a judge—

“A curious charge of conspiracy was brought before Mr. Alderman Waterlow on Wednesday. Gustave Stoven, a commission agent, was recently charged with perjury in having made an affidavit to the effect that Ferdinand Frankenheim, a diamond merchant, was about to quit England to avoid arrest, this affidavit being put in as evidence in an action for recovery of a debt against Frankenheim. In consequence of an intimation from the Bench, the charge against Stoven was withdrawn, and summons issued against Mr. C. E. Bailey, broker, and Mr. C. Bradlaugh, solicitor, the plaintiffs in the original action, charging them with having suborned Stoven to make the affidavit in question. Stoven’s statement was that he was asked to sign the affidavit, but declined through fear of getting into trouble. He ultimately consented, made a statement at the prompting of Bradlaugh, signed the affidavit in his office and received the money, 3l., through a man named Crouchy. The remainder of the 10l. given for the affidavit was retained, he says, by the two go-betweens, Crouchy a bankrupt hotel-keeper, and a man named Daffner, who first introduced Stoven as a likely instrument for the purposes of the present defendants.”15

22 Sep 1864:

“COURT OF BANKRUPTCY: In re Ferdinand Frankenheim—The bankrupt was a diamond merchant, carrying on business in Bloomsbury Square. Of the amount due to secured creditors, the Metropolitan and Provincial Bank represents £40,000, holding certain shares as security. A meeting for choice of assignee was now held. . . . Mr J. Cooper (Johnstone & Co.), Lothbury, was chosen assignee.”16

23 Dec 1864:

“A meeting of the creditors of Ferdinand Frankenheim, Diamond Merchant, held at the Court of Bankruptcy, Basinghall-street, London, for the purpose of obtaining the consent of three fourths in number and value of the creditors then present or represented at such meeting to a resolution that this estate ought to be wound up under a Deed of Arrangement, Composition, or otherwise, and that the proceedings in Bankruptcy may be stayed for such period as the Court shall think fit.”17

A Saturday, 24 Sep 1864, article in The (London) Times is critical of banks that abet speculators such as Frankenheim who run up large debts they are unable to repay:

“Nothing further of a definite character has transpired with regard to the Leeds Banking Company, but it is believed that a balance-sheet will be presented to the meeting of shareholders on Monday. Meanwhile the statements regarding the debt of 50,000l. due to the bank by a Mr. Marsden, an ‘ironfounder,’ who appears a short time back to have been a publican, and previously a clerk at some ironworks, have contributed to increase the feeling as to the wholesome results of a nine per cent. rate of discount when it puts a stop to the career of such establishments. The proceedings yesterday in the London Court of Bankruptcy in the case of Mr. Frankenheim, in which it transpired that he had been helped on in his speculations by advances from two of the newly-formed joint-stock banks, one of which figures as a creditor for 40,000l., and another for 16,068l., have likewise strengthened the conviction of the value of the corrective process now in progress.”18

31 Dec 1864:

“Trust Deed. Debtor—Ferdinand Frankenheim, late of No. 25, Bloomsbury-square, in the county of Middlesex, but now of No. 2a, Saint Ann’s-road, Brixton, in the county of Surrey, Diamond Merchant. Trustee—James Cooper, of No. 3, Coleman-street Buildings, in the city of London, Accountant. . . . the debtor covenants with the trustee, that he will, within fourteen days from the registration of the deed, pay to the trustee a sum sufficient to pay all his creditors two shillings and sixpence in the pound, in full satisfaction and discharge of all their debts.”19

24 Jan 1865:

“FROM THE LONDON GAZETTE. BANKRUPTCY ANNULLED. Ferdinand Frankenheim, of 25, Bloomsbury Square, diamond merchant.”20

Two months after Frankenheim’s bankruptcy, one of the banks that had been a creditor at that proceeding now listed him as a partner—

25 Feb 1865:

“THE METROPOLITAN AND PROVINCIAL BANK (LIMITED)—Persons of whom the Company or Partnership Consists: [The list included] Ferdinand Frankenheim; 25, Bloomsbury-square; Gentleman.”21

Sometime between February 1865 and September 1868 Frankenheim arrived in San Luis Obispo County, California. He is believed to be the same person who was a merchant in England before 1868 and after 1873. I have not found him in any English records from 1868 through 1873.

In September the incident of larceny at the house of Ferdinand Frankenheim and Robert G. Flint occurred. Two months later a partnership that Frankenheim had had with Flint was dissolved—

24 Nov 1868:

“Notice is hereby given that the co-partnership heretofore existing in this county between the undersigned, under the firm name and style of FLINT & FRANKENHEIM was this day dissolved by mutual consent.
Robert G. FLINT
Ferdinand FRANKENHEIM
San Luis Obispo.”22

On 27 Dec 1868 F. Frankenheim arrived at San Simeon, San Luis Obispo County, aboard the steamer Gussie Telfair.23 Perhaps he was returning from a trip to San Francisco. Also on board was E Kestler, with whom Frankenheim was to have a partnership, which was dissolved the following year when Frankenheim bought Kestler out—

23 Oct 1869:

“THE COPARTNERSHIP heretofore existing between EDWARD KESTLER and FERDINAND FRANKENHEIM under the name of E. KESTLER & Co. is this day dissolved by mutual consent. All debts due to and from said firm are to be paid to and by F. FRANKENHEIM.
F. FRANKENHEIM
E KESTLER
Cambria
“THE UNDERSIGNED HAVING purchased the interest of Mr. E KESTLER in the above business, it will be continued under and in the name                F FRANKENHEIM
Cambria.”24

As in the case of Frankenheim’s partnership with Flint it is not clear what his partnership with Kestler was to accomplish.

San Francisco, 6 Mar 1870:

“MARRIED . . . In this city, . . . by the Rev. Dr. Cohn, F. Frankenheim, of San Luis Obispo, to Sarah Rothschild, of this city.”25

He was probably in his early 40s; she may have been only 18 or 19. There were two Sarah Rothschilds listed in San Francisco in the 1870 census. One lived in the 10th Ward, was enumerated on 19 Jul, and was listed with her parents, Henry and Hanora Rothschild, who were born in Hessen Kassel, a German principality. Daughter Sarah was born in California, was 18, the second of six brothers and sisters, and was “Attending School”. The other Sarah lived in the 8th Ward, was counted on 8 August, and was listed with her parents, Jacob and Minnie Rothschild, born in Poland. Their daughter Sarah, 19, also born in Poland, was the oldest of three sisters, and was “At Home”. If either of these was the Sarah Rothschild who married Ferdinand Frankenheim, she may have neglected to tell her family about her marriage.

On 22 Mar 1870, Sarah Frankenheim filed a homestead declaration in San Luis Obispo County. The declaration entry states: “Husband is Ferdinand Frankenheim”.26

On 4 Jun 1870 yet another of Frankenheim’s partnerships was dissolved:

“DISSOLUTION OF PARTNERSHIP.—The partnership heretofore existing between F. Frankenheim and George Rothchild, doing business in this place under the name and style of F. FRANKENHEIM & CO., has this day been dissolved, by mutual consent. Mr. F. Frankenheim pays all debts due said firm, and collects all due them

F. FRANKENHEIM.
J. [sic] ROTHCHILD.

San Simeon, San Luis Obispo County.
THE BUSINESS OF F. FRANKENHEIM & CO. will be continued in the same place, a[n]d the same firm and name of
F. FRANKENHEIM.”27

Note the difference in spelling between Rothchild and Rothschild. George (or J.) Rothchild was probably unrelated to Frankenheim’s wife.

Sarah and Ferdinand’s marriage did not last. On 13 Nov Sarah was awarded $100 per month alimony and $100 for counsel fees.28 One wonders if she ever got any money. On 7 Dec she was divorced from Ferdinand, on the grounds of extreme cruelty.29 Since he was already married to Louisa (Carr) Frankenheim in England, it is difficult not to conclude that Ferdinand Frankenheim was a bigamist.

27 Oct 1870:

“M. P. Jones and George H. Sanders vs. Henry Rothschild—The plaintiffs are partners, doing business under the firm name of Jones & Co.30 The complaint alleges that on or about the first day of March, 1870, Ferdinand Frankenheim was the owner of 3 promissory notes . . . Subsequently Frankenheim delivered all the notes . . . to Rothschild, to be held by him for the use and benefit of Frankenheim. On the 8th of September Frankenheim sold to plaintiffs all the promissory notes, . . . The defendant refuses to give up the same, and the plaintiffs pray judgment that he be compelled to do so.”31

Could it be that defendant Rothschild was disinclined to be accommodating towards Frankenheim because the latter was behaving with “extreme cruelty” towards his daughter Sarah? In little more than 5 weeks a Sarah Rothschild would be divorced from Frankenheim on those grounds. However, it is not proven that Henry Rothschild was Ferdinand Frankenheim’s father-in-law. According to a family tree at Ancestry.com32, Sarah Rothschild (1852–1928), the daughter of Henry, by the 1880 census was married to a Ben Solomon.

Frankenheim seems to have had a knack for being involved in complex court cases. Following are two examples that took place in England.

About 1857 Frankenheim was apparently making a practice of discounting bills or other commercial paper. That is, he would, for a fee, provide immediate cash for the bill and later collect its full value when it became due. The case of Murray vs Rosenbaum was an action by the payee against the drawer of a bill of exchange dated 2 Nov 1857, at 3 mo for £62. Rosenbaum said that he drew and endorsed the bill to Frankenheim to get it discounted, and Frankenheim returned it to him to get the acceptance altered by writing the particular branch of the London and Westminster Bank at which it was to be made payable. When it was returned to him it was endorsed by Frankenheim. Rosenbaum delivered it to one Edkins to get the said alteration made, and Edkins cashed the bill, defrauding Rosenbaum and Frankenheim. Thus Rosenbaum never received any value or consideration for the bill, and Murray never was a bona fide holder.

During the proceedings Frankenheim was called and examined.—

“I am a tradesman in Hanway street, Oxford street. When the bill was brought to me the word ‘city’ was not upon it. Rosenbaum wanted me to discount it, but I was short of money at the time. I returned it because the word ‘city’ was not on it.”

He was then cross-examined.—

“I have had a great many bills of Rosenbaum’s. I discount as many as I can get. I charge 6d in the pound for three months. I have done it cheaper than that. The bills were always met. . . . I thought he had very respectable customers.”

The jury awarded Murray, the plaintiff, £43.33

Thirty-four years later, on 9 May 1892, Frankenheim was a player in Nyburg vs Handelaar, a complex case in which the plaintiff, Nyburg, had bought a gold-enameled snuffbox for £130. He sold a half-interest to Frankenheim for £65, but retained possession and the right to sell. Nyburg then gave the snuffbox and other articles to Frankenheim to take to Christie’s auction to be sold. But Frankenheim pledged his share of the box to the defendant, Handelaar, as security for money he owed the latter. Nyburg sued to recover the snuffbox from Handelaar. The court ruled that Nyburg could not recover the box without paying off Frankenheim’s share. Nyburg appealed.

A second judge ruled that Nyburg could recover the snuffbox and that Frankenheim had acted improperly.34

Note that in both of these English cases, as well as the one in California, Frankenheim was neither plaintiff nor defendant, though the litigations never would have occurred if he hadn’t done something to cause them.

Returning to Frankenheim’s affairs in California, on 29 Oct 1873 Robert Flint, Frankenheim, and a William McGuire applied for a patent for 800 acres in Monterey Co, CA.35 This property would in all probability have been an addition to the northern part of Flint’s Rancho Nacimiento. Did Flint still have dealings with Frankenheim though their partnership was long dissolved? Or had the application been in the works for an extended period?

The next date associated with Ferdinand Frankenheim is from an affidavit filed by his English wife Louisa with her petition for divorce. Frankenheim had apparently left California for Germany. In her affidavit, she alleges that Ferdinand committed adultery with one Louise Schütt at Hamburg, Germany, from March through November, 1874.36 In her affidavit Louisa also asserts that Ferdinand committed adultery with a Louisa Carter at his residence at 26 Gerrard Street, Soho, Middlesex Co, from August to December, 1875.37

On 17 Jul 1876 “The Right Honorable Sir Robert Joseph Phillimore, Knight, one of the Judges of the Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division, sitting in open court at Westminster having taken the oral Evidence of the Petitioner, and the Witnesses produced on her behalf, the Respondent not appearing and defending the Suit, pronounced that the Petitioner had sufficiently proved the contents of said Petition, and decreed that the Marriage between Louisa Frankenheim, then Louisa Carr, Spinster, the Petitioner, and Ferdinand Frankenheim Respondent, be dissolved by reason of the said Ferdinand Frankenheim having Since the celebration of the said Marriage Committed Adultery Coupled with the desertion of the said Louisa Ferdinand [sic] for upwards of two years without reasonable Excuse unless reasonable cause be shown to this Court why this Decree should not be made absolute within Six Months from the making thereof.”38

Louisa’s divorce would thus have become final on 17 Jan 1877.

It would seem Ferdinand Frankenheim had a peculiar predilection for women named Louisa. He was married to Louisa Carr from 1862 to 1876. She accuses him of committing adultery with a Louise Schütt in Germany in 1874. The pronunciation of Louise in German is very similar to the English pronunciation of Louisa. His wife also accuses him of adultery with a Louisa Carter in London in 1875. Near the end of his life, in the 1901 census, he is living with a servant named Louisa Hoblyn. The only known exception to his penchant for Louisas seems to have been Sarah Rothschild, to whom he was bigamously married briefly in California in 1870. Perhaps Louisas were harder to find or less cooperative in California.

In 1882 Ferdinand Frankenheim, diamond merchant, now living at 34 Hanway St, Oxford St, London, was appointed trustee at the bankruptcy proceedings of William Alfred Hussey and William Henry Hawkins, Goldsmiths and Jewelers. As trustee, he was responsible for collecting debts owed Hussey and Hawkins, and for making such payments as were possible to their creditors.39

By 1886 Frankenheim seems to have gotten out of the diamond business in favor of dealing in art objects. Notices in The (London) Times record that he made purchases at Christie’s or Sotheby’s auctions on 10 May 1886, 17 Jun 1887, 9, 15 and 16 Jul 1888, and as late as 13 Jan 1896. His acquisitions included:

A “fine carbine richly carved and ornamented with gilt metal mounts, the butt inlaid with plate of silver engraved with portrait of Charles Albert of Bavaria, the barrel inlaid with monogram C. H. and ducal coronet in silver, fine German work”—£64.40
A deep gubbio lustred plate “painted with the subject of Metabus throwing his daughter Camilla into the river after binding her to the shaft of his lance, had a fine yellow and purple metallic lustre and was 10¾ in. in diameter—on the back was the signature and date ‘Francesco Xanto da Rovigo, 1538’”—£525.41

In 1890 “Ferdinand Frankenheim, residing and trading at 34 Hanway Street, Oxford Street, Middlesex, dealer in works of art” was bankrupt again.42 Apparently he was back in business by 1896, for in that year he bought “a Louis XVI. or-moulu cartel clock, of square form, chased with vases of fruit, altars, griffins, and other ornaments . . . at auction at . . . Christie, Manson, and Woods”—54 guineas.43

In May and June 1890 “Frankenheim Ferdinand, Hanway Street, dealer in works of art” was listed either under “Stationery, Printing, Fancy Goods, &c.” or under “Jewellery, Cutlery, Glass, &c.” in The Commercial Gazette, apparently a semiweekly business directory.44

In 1894–1895 he was a registered voter in the Borough of Mary-le-Bone, residing at 52 Acacia Road.45 According to the 1900–1902 voter registries, he is still in Mary-le-Bone, but has moved to 7 Bolton Road.46

In the 1901 census Ferdinand Frankenheim, 75, 7 Bolton Road, is a “Curiosities Agent” born in Germany but is now a British subject and occupies 2 rooms which he shares with a “General Servant Domestic”, Louise Hoblyn, 50, born at Looe, Cornwall. Her name is listed as “Louise”, but according to a Hoblyn genealogy—

“Joseph and Louisa[ Hoblyn]'s third daughter Louisa appears to have stayed in service. In the 1891 census she was working for a tailor called Frank Elbert in Hanway Street, Marylebone. In the 1901 census she is working for a 75 year old German called Ferdinand Frankenheim in Bolton Road, Hampstead as a general servant. I doubt that she would have ever returned to Cornwall.”47

Ferdinand Frankenheim died at 7 Bolton Road, St John’s Wood, Hampstead, early in January of 1903. He was buried on 6 Jan in plot 14, row 5, Hoop Lane Cemetery, Golders Green, London NW11.48

In the 1901 census “Louise” Frankenheim, “widowed”, resided in St Mary Newington, Southwark, London. Her household consisted of four boarders: Arthur J Lely, a mechanical engineer; M A Joheadon, manageress of a pub; F E Warmmyton, a chemist’s assistant; and Arthur Crouch, a commercial clerk.

Ten years later in the 1911 census, she is a boarder in the household of Robert Leigh and his half sister, Rachael Butler, at Sharsted St, Kennington SE, Newington St Mary, London. The engineer, A J Lely, who was Louisa’s boarder in 1901, is boarding in the Leigh household as well.

On 31 Aug 1913 Louisa (Carr) Frankenheim died at the age of 68 at Sharsted St, Kennington, London. She left a modest estate of £1614 16s 10d.49 She was buried on 4 Sep in South Metropolitan Cemetery (Norwood Cemetery, Norwood Road, Lambeth), after a ceremony performed by a W S Mathews.50

Notes

1 Ohles (1997), p 127.

2 Port of London Certificate of Arrival, 8 Mar 1852.

3 Port of London Certificate of Arrival, 26 Mar 1852.

4 A List of Aliens, Port of London, 20 Apr 1853.

5 A List of Aliens, Port of London, 3 Oct 1853.

6 A List of Aliens, Port of London, 26 Feb 1856.

Proceed to "Pirney's Farm in Canada"?

Go back to "Rancho Nacimiento"?

Return to "The FLINT Brothers in England, Canada, Indiana and California"?

Return to SHIDLER menu?

Return to home page/main menu?

Contact me?

7 The London Gazette, 13 Dec 1864, p 6575; The Edinburgh Gazette, 24 Jan 1865, p 85; The London Gazette, 16 May 1882, p 2327.

8 The (London) Times, 10 May 1886, p 6, col 5, "Art Sales"; The (London) Times, 14 Jan 1896, p 32, col 6, "Art Sales".

Search my site?

index        sitemap        advanced

site search by freefind
9 U K Census, 1901.

10 Hamburgisches Adress-Buch für 1847, p 128 (my translation).

11 High Court of Justice, Divorce Division, Court Minutes, Petition Filed 2 Feb 1876; Decree Nisi in the High Court of Justice: Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division–17 Jul 1876.

12 Affidavit sworn 1 Feb 1876 by Louisa Frankenheim and submitted 2 Feb 1876 to High Court of Justice with petition for divorce.

13 The Bankers' Magazine, v 24, p 905, @ Google Books.

14 The (London) Times, 9 Aug 1864, p 17, col 1, "Money-Market & City Intelligence".

15 The Spectator, v 37, p 1061, 17 Sep 1864, @ Google Books; The (London) Times, 15 Sep 1864, p 27, c 4.

16 The Solicitor's Journal and Reporter, v 8, p 929, 1 Oct 1864, @ Google Books.

17 The London Gazette, 13 Dec 1864, p 6575.

18 The (London) Times, 24 Sep 1864, p 17, "Money-Market & City Intelligence".

19 The London Gazette, 17 Jan 1865, p 245.

20 The Edinburgh Gazette, 24 Jan 1865, p 85.

21 Supplement to the London Gazette, 25 Feb 1865, p 1138.

22 San Luis Obispo Pioneer, v 1, n 48, 28 Nov 1868.

23 San Luis Obispo Pioneer, 2 Jan 1869; Peter E Carr, "Passenger Arrivals in San Luis Obispo County in 1868 and 1869", Bulletin of the San Luis Obispo County Genealogical Society, Inc., Atascadero, CA, v 29, n 1 (Spring 1996), p 2.

24 Daily Alta California, v 21, n 7169, San Francisco, 6 Nov 1869, p 3, c 2 (advertisement).

25 San Francisco Morning Call, 15 Mar 1870, p 3, c 2 [California State Library Microfilm Newspaper Collection].

26 Book A of Homestead Declarations, County of San Luis Obispo, California; accessed 26 Oct 2013.

27 Daily Alta California, v 22, n 7386, 11 Jun 1870 p 1, c 4.

28 Daily Alta California, v 22, n 7541, 13 Nov 1870 p 3, c 5.

29 Sacramento Daily Union, v 40, n 7041, 7 Dec 1870 p 1, c 3; The San Juan Echo, San Juan, Monterey Co (future San Benito Co), CA, 17 Dec 1870.

30 This is presumably the company that in 1878 and 1880 Robert Flint instructed to send advice to his brother Pirney on the latter's orchard in Canada.

31 Daily Alta California, v 22, n 7424, San Francisco, 27 Oct 1870.

32 "Raden-Aronson-Zyman-Trotzky-Nayhouse and more", owned by Linda Caciola.

33 The (London) Times, 28 Apr 1858, p 11, c 2–3, "Murray v. Rosenbaum".

34 The (London) Times, 29 Feb 1892, p 3, c 3, "(Before Mr. Justice A. L. Smith): Nyburg v Handelaar"; The (London) Times, 9 May 1892, p3c6–p4c1, "Nyburg v. Handelaar".

35 Land Records (ws).

36 Affidavit sworn 1 Feb 1876 at No 26 old Burlington Street in the County of Middlesex before John Pike, a commissioner to administer oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature, to accompany a petition for divorce filed the following day in the High Court of Justice.

37 Ibid.

38 Decree Nisi in the High Court of Justice, Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division (Divorce).

39 The London Gazette, 16 May 1882, p 2327.

40 The (London) Times, 9 Jul 1888, p 6, "Art Sales: Lord Londesborough's Collection".

41 The (London) Times, 18 Jul 1888, p 5, "Art Sales".

42 The Edinburgh Gazette, 13 May 1890, p 422, quoting The London Gazette.

43 The (London) Times, 14 Jan 1896, p 32, col 6, "Art Sales". Though no guinea coins have been minted since 1816, the term continued to be used, usually to represent 21 shillings, or one pound plus one shilling. It had aristocratic overtones and payment for art and other luxury items was often quoted in guineas well into the 20th century. ["Guinea (British coin)", a Wikipedia article.]

44 The Commercial Gazette (London, England), 14 May 1890, p 4; 28 May 1890, p 6, c 2; 11 Jun 1890, p 4, c 2.

45 London, England, Borough of Mary-le-Bone, East Division, 1894, list of occupiers entitled to vote both as Parliamentary Voters and County Electors, St John's Wood, Terrace Ward; London, England, Borough of Mary-le-Bone, East Division, 1894–1895, list of occupiers entitled to vote as Parliamentary Voters, County Electors, and Parochial Electors, St John's Wood, Terrace Ward.

46 London, England, Borough of Mary-le-Bone (West Division), 1900–1, list of occupiers entitled to vote as Parliamentary Voters, County Electors, and Parochial Electors, Hamilton Terrace Ward; London, England, Borough of Mary-le-Bone (West Division), 1901–2, list of occupiers entitled to vote as Parliamentary Voters, County Electors, and Parochial Electors, Hamilton Terrace Ward.

47 "The Hoblyn Family Tree".

48 JewishGen Online Worldwide Burial Registry (JOWBR) [database online]. Provo, UT: Ancestry.com Operations Inc, 2008. Original data: West London Synagogue of British Jews, Register of Burials.

49 England & Wales, National Probate Calendar, 1858–1966.

50 London Metropolitan Archives, Norwood Cemetery, Norwood Road, Lambeth, Transcript of Burials, 1913 Jan–1914 Jan, Register Type—Bishop's Transcript; Call Number: DW/T/0964.

Background pattern from Absolute Background Textures .