John Frederick RUDGE

My second cousin, four times removed.

“At the West Bromwich Police Court on Saturday ….. a case of much interest to publicans was set down for hearing.

Mr. John Frederick Rudge, of the SWAN INN, Smethwick, and owner of the Galton Gardens, was summoned by

the police for selling intoxicating drinks on his grounds without a license. The offence alledged against the proprietor

of the house was that at certain periods of the year he held galas at his place, and that liquors were sold in a field at

the back of the house, but which could not be lawfully be considered part of the licensed premises. Mr. H. Jackson

defended.- Police sergeant Astbury was called to prove the case. He stated that on Whit Monday there was a fete

given at the back of defendant’s home in a field, situated about eight yards from the back of his buildings. It was

enclosed from the road by high boarding, and was separated from the house by two fences seven or eight feet high.

Intoxicating drinks were sold in canvas tents which were put up in different parts of the field. Some of the people

gained access to the ground by entrance through the house, and others through the doors at the top of the field …..

The case was one of the greatest importance to his [Jackson’s] client, and for that matter to other people as well,

because the question involved what constituted licensed premises. In this instance he should be prepared to show

the Bench that, for thirty years, the field had been used for gala purposes at holiday times and Mr. Rudge himself

had sold liquors on this ground for three or four years ….. consented to visit the defendant’s place, and the case was

adjourned for a month.”

West Bromwich Weekly News 19/6/1875

At the Birmingham Police Court on Wednesday morning, before Mr. Kynnersley (Stipendiary), an application was

made by Mary Jane Hadley, now residing at 120, King Edwards Road, Birmingham, for an affiliation order upon

John Frederick Rudge, landlord of the SWAN INN, Smethwick. Mr. A. Young (instructed by Mr. W. F. Hooper)

appeared for the complainant, and Mr. Nathan (instructed by Mr. Wilson) for the defendant.

Mary Jane Hadley, the complainant, said she was a married woman, her husband being in America, where he had

been since September 1881. Witness had been living in Holly Lane, opposite the defendant, whom she had known

for about two years. Some time in July or August of last year, during the absence of the defendant’s wife at

Blackpool, witness went to the defendant’s house and improper familiarities took place between them. A few nights

afterwards the defendant threw some dirt at her window and induced her to pay another visit to his house, where she

stayed some time. She went a third time, but never saw anyone at the house except the defendant. Mrs. Rudge

shortly afterwards returned, but left again at the latter end of the year, after which the defendant renewed his relations

with the witness. When it was discovered that witness was pregnant, the defendant said he would give her money

and some of Mrs. Rudge’s clothes if she would keep the matter secret. He gave her several sums of money. Witness

admitted that she had been intimate with other men. After the birth of the child, witness, in company with two other

individuals, went to the offices of Mr. Hughes, solicitor, West Bromwich, and signed a paper.

In cross examination, she said Mrs. Rudge asked her to swear the child on the defendant, in view of certain divorce

proceedings which were pending. Mrs. Rudge’s sister and mother said they would make it a good thing for witness

if she would swear the child. She was aware that the paper which she signed at Mr. Hughes’s office was a declaration

that a man named Cooper, with whom she had been intimate, was the father of the child, although she knew this to

be untrue. Mrs. Rudge did not promise to pay her £20 the day the affiliation proceedings were over, and £30 the day

the divorce came on.

In reply to Mr. Young, witness said she was a laundry woman. When witness went to Mr. Hughes’s office at West

Bromwich, Mr. Hughes said, ‘Who is the father of the child, Mrs. Hadley?’ Witness replied, ‘Mr. Rudge, of course.’

The solicitor said, ‘You’re not going to sign the declaration to that effect?’ and witness answered, ‘No, I am going

to sign it on Cooper, on account of Mr. Rudge, who is having a divorce from his wife, and she is not to know of it.’

The declaration was then produced, and was signed by witness, who afterwards went to an eating-house in New

Street, West Bromwich where Harris paid for the refreshments witness and his friend Bently had.

Mr. Young here read the declaration, which set forth that although she was acquainted with Rudge, nothing wrong

had ever taken place between them. She signed the declaration at the instigation of Harris, who told her that Fred

– meaning Rudge – would see she was not short of money.

Further evidence was given to the effect that the defendant had given the complainant money through the agency of

the man Harris, and had called at Hadley’s mother’s house for complainant.

The case for the complainant having concluded on Wednesday, Mr. Nathan opened the case for the defence. After

pointing out that the case was a most unusual one, because it was practically and avowedly a step to other

proceedings, he criticised the evidence for the complainant, and stated that he should be able to not only disprove

the allegation against the defendant, but to prove that he was the victim of a wicked conspiracy, got up by Mrs.

Rudge in view of her divorce proceedings. He should also prove what was well known outside, that the complainant

was a woman of a very immoral character, and was habitually intimate with a number of men with whom she at

different times cohabited.

Evidence for the defence was then called.

John Frederick Rudge, the defendant, said that last year his wife was away from home from the end of June till the

7th of July. It was true that on one occasion he threw stones at Mrs. Hadley’s window at night, but he only did so

to arouse the attention of a man named Hunt who lived there.

After other evidence had been given the Stipendiary made an order for the defendant to pay 5s a week and costs.

Mr. Nathan gave notice of appeal.”

Smethwick Telephone 19/7/1884

“Petty Sessions. Wednesday. The Smethwick Scandal. – John Frederick Rudge, publican, SWAN INN, Dudley Road (sic), surrendered to a warrant for non payment of bastardy arrears due to Mary Jane Hadley – upon the amount of the arrears £2 10s, with £7 11s being paid the defendant was discharged.”

Smethwick Telephone 29/11/1884