| Name |
HALSTEAD, Hartley |
| Birth |
1847 |
Thornton in Craven, Yorkshire, England  [1] |
| Gender |
Male |
| Ω Census Son |
30 Mar 1851 |
Cam Lane, Thornton in Craven, Yorkshire, England |
| Ω Census Son |
30 Mar 1851 |
Cam Lane, Thornton in Craven, Yorkshire, England [2] |
- a Worsted and Cotton Hand Loom Weaver, living with his wife Sarah, daughter Elizabeth and sons Hartley and Henry
Witness Role: Principal: William HALSTEAD
|
| Ω Census Son |
7 Apr 1861 |
Scout Bottom, Newchurch, Lancashire, England |
| Ω Census Son |
7 Apr 1861 |
Scout Bottom, Newchurch, Lancashire, England [3] |
- a Cotton Beamer and Twister, living with his wife Sarah, daughters Elizabeth, Margaret and Sophia, and sons Hartley and Henry, boarder Robert HALSTEAD
Witness Role: Principal: William HALSTEAD
|
| Census |
2 Apr 1871 |
Scout Bottom, Newchurch, Lancashire, England |
 Census |
2 Apr 1871 |
Scout Bottom, Newchurch, Lancashire, England [4] |
|
| Census |
3 Apr 1881 |
Thorn Cottage, Brampton, Derbyshire, England |
| Age: 33y |
| Census |
3 Apr 1881 |
Thorn Cottage, Brampton, Derbyshire, England [5] |
| Age: 33y |
| Occupation |
3 Apr 1881 |
Thorn Cottage, Brampton, Derbyshire, England |
| Insurance agent |
| Occupation |
3 Apr 1881 |
Thorn Cottage, Brampton, Derbyshire, England [5] |
| Insurance agent |
| Newspaper Article |
9 Feb 1882 |
Sheffield, Yorkshire, England |
| Sheffield Independent - 10 February 1882 |
| Newspaper Article |
9 Feb 1882 |
Sheffield, Yorkshire, England [6] |
| Sheffield Independent - 10 February 1882 |
- A Curious Action
Wm. Richard Warner Hobson, 95, Milton street, collector v. Andrew Bellamy, 60, Division street, manager.— Mr. A. S. Binney appeared for the plaintiff, who sought to recover £9. 8s., alleged to be due from the defendant under somewhat peculiar circumstances. Mr. W. J. Clegg appeared for the defendant. Mr. Binney was permitted to amend the particulars of the claim, which was for the recovery of £20 paid for the goodwill of a certain collecting book. The plaintiff gave credit for £10. 12s., which had been paid by the defendant for his benefit, leaving the actual amount claimed £9. 8s. — Mr. Binney, in stating the case for the plaintiff, said that Hobson was appointed by Mr. Bellamy, who was district manager of the Liverpool Victoria Legal Friendly Society to collect the premiums at Sheffield, and afterwards he was appointed to take the Chesterfield district. When he received the latter appointment he was told he could have the book which had belonged to a person named Halsted, who had been collecting in the district, for £20, Mr. Bellamy offering to sell it to him at that price. The plaintiff paid that amount on Oct. 20th, and for some time after the 12th of that month the plaintiff continued to conduct his business of receiving premiums for the insurance of persons in this friendly society, and obtained an interest in the amounts he received, for he was to be paid for every new member ten times the amount of the first premium. The plaintiff received notice of dismissal from the defendant, and was requested to give up his collecting book, which he refused to do without remuneration. The defendant then took out a summons against him before the magistrates to compel him to deliver the book, but the plaintiff reminded Bellamy that at the time he paid £20 for the book he (Bellamy) told him he could have the same amount for it at any time. On the day before the summons was returnable, on the 15th November, Bellamy saw the plaintiff in the presence of witnesses, and then agreed to withdraw the summons and pay the plaintiff £25 on Nov. 29th, upon him giving up the book. The defendant never paid the money, and the plaintiff sued only for the £20 which he had paid for the book, not for the £25 agreed upon. The plaintiff, in his evidence, bore out the facts as stated by Mr. Binney and a witness named Hartley Halstead was also called. He stated that he formerly had charge of the Chesterfield district, and when he gave it up he had not accounted for £17 due to the society. When the £20 for the Chesterfield book was paid over to Bellamy he handed £3 to the witness and kept the £17 in discharge of the amount due to the society. — Witnesses were called to prove that the defendant promised to pay the plaintiff £25 upon him consenting to give up the book. — Mr. Clegg asked whether Bellamy would be the proper person to be sued, seeing that he was only agent of the company, and that it was not a personal matter at all. — His Honour : If he makes it a personal matter, it becomes one; the evidence is that Bellamy promised to pay £25 on the 29th of November. — Mr. Clegg, in defence, remarked that that was a case of very great importance so far as the company was concerned, because, if they were responsible for the amounts that were paid for the collecting books, and they could not discharge a servant without paying him the amount of money he had given for the collectorship, of course it would be a very serious matter to them. In this case the man Halsted was in debt to the amount of £17 to the society, and he could not see his way to get out of the difficulty, and therefore he authorised Mr. Bellamy to sell his interest in the district or "round." There could be no interest in the book, as by the rules of the society the collectors were to remain in office so long as their conduct should be satisfactory, but when dismissed they were to deliver up all books and papers in their possession. Of course that rule could not be carried out if the collector had a lien upon the books, for the amount which he might have paid to a previous collector. In this case Mr. Bellamy acted as the agent of Halsted, who, by receiving the money, acquiesced in what bad been done. Thus matters went on for a short time, and the conduct of the plaintiff not being satisfactory, Mr. Bellamy was instructed to dismiss him, and summoned him to compel him to deliver up the book. The plaintiff gave up the book and got a receipt for it from the defendant, and if any promise to pay £25 had at that time been made, nothing would have been easier than for it to have been stated on the receipt. Even if his Honour were satisfied that the £25. had been promised he submitted that the defendant was acting as the agent of the company in negotiating for the book.— His Honour: He might have no authority from the company.— Mr. Clegg pointed out that the defendant was manager for the company, and asked whether the giving up of the book was a sufficient consideration for the promise that was made. — His Honour: It is more like giving £25. to put an end to litigation. — Mr. Clegg observed that it would be a good consideration if the litigation was between the parties to the negotiation. Would his Honour draw the inference that the defendant had some interest in ending the litigation? — His Honour: Yes: to get possession of the book without having the litigation between himself and Hobson exposed to the public view. — Mr. Clegg said the case was a very important one, and if his Honour should decide against them the company would have to make very different arrangements with their agents. — His Honour: I think the arrangements are very loose. — Mr. Clegg said the company seemed to have done in this way. If a person was an agent leaving a district they had allowed him to say who should be his successor, and very likely in the present case they were dissatisfied with the plaintiff's conduct, and he was unable to get someone to take to his district, and therefore he had done what he could to prevent the company from going to collect from the persons who were members of the society by keeping from them the book. He put it that it was not a matter of right, but merely a question between the parties themselves, the company not interfering in the matter.— Mr Binney: I say the company know nothing about the transaction. — Mr. Clegg urged that if his Honour by his verdict compelled Bellamy to pay that money it would simply be £20 out of his pocket, and he would have received no benefit at all. His Honour: How is it that the successor of the plaintiff at Chestertield paid nothing for the collectorship?— Mr. Clegg: I should think they did not consider it worth anything. That is a matter of arrangement between the collectors ; the company do not recognise anything of this kind.— The defendant was then put into the box and examined as to the particulars of a set-off claim for £12. 6s. 3d. He said that the society did not recognise the selling of interests in districts from one collector to another. He admitted that when the plaintiff gave up the book to him he promised to give the plaintiff £25 if he found everything in the district all right, but upon going round he found that the plaintiff had collected in some instances two weeks' contributions, but he only accounted tor one. The collectorship for Chesterfield was to a man named Pritchard, who bad had charge of another district, and owed him some money. He gave Pritchard the Chestertield book and £5, and wiped off the account that was owing, whilst he said the collectorship of the district Pritchard had previously undertaken for £30. He got value for the Chesterfield bock in that way.— His Honour reserved his judgment.
|
| Newspaper Article |
18 Feb 1882 |
Sheffield, Yorkshire, England |
| Sheffield Independent |
| Newspaper Article |
18 Feb 1882 |
Sheffield, Yorkshire, England [7] |
| Sheffield Independent |
- SHEFFIELD COUNTY COURT. Thursday.— Before T. Ellison, Esq., Judge.
Claim by an Insurance Agent.
Judgment was given in the case of Hobson v. Bellamy, heard a week ago. Mr. A. S. Binney then appeared" for the plaintiff, Mr. Wm. li. W. Hobson, collector, Milton street, aud Mr. W. J. Clegg represented the defendant, Mr. Andrew Bellamy, manager, Division street, and the claim was for a sum of £20, being the value or amount of money paid on the sale of the goodwill of the Chesterfield district collecting book of the Liver- pool Victoria Friendly Society. The plaintiff credited the defendant with £10. 12s. received by him on account of the plaintiff. Hobson was formerly agent to the society in Sheffield, but sold his district for £55, and removed to Chesterfield, for which district he paid a sum of £20. After working the district for some time he was discharged by the society, and he alleged that afterwards the defendant promised to pay him £20 for bis books. For the defence, it was alleged that no such promise was made. — His Honour said the weight of evidence was in favour of the plaintiff, and he gave a verdict for him.
|
| Newspaper Article |
9 Sep 1882 |
Chesterfield, Derbyshire, England |
| Derbyshire Times and Chesterfield Herald - Saturday 9 September 1882 |
| Newspaper Article |
9 Sep 1882 |
Chesterfield, Derbyshire, England [8] |
| Derbyshire Times and Chesterfield Herald - Saturday 9 September 1882 |
- CHARGE OF EMBEZZLEMENT AGAINST A NEWSPAPER AGENT AT CHESTERFIELD
On Tuesday afternoon, at the magistrates Clerk's office, West Bars, Chesterfield, before E. W. Barnes, Esq., Hartley Halstead, described as a newspaper agent, residing at Brampton, appeared to answer a summons charging him with embezzling certain sums of money, amounting all to £34 Os. 7d. the property of Mrs Sarah Ford, proprietress of the Sheffield Sporting Tissue. —Mr Cutts, solicitor, appeared to prosecute, whilst defendant conducted his own case. —Mr Cutts, opening the case, stated that defendant was engaged as agent in January last to work the several districts around Chesterfield for the sale of the Sporting Tissue. It was his duty to distribute the papers, receive the money for them either weekly or quarterly, and to remit the same to the prosecutrix at Sheffield. Defendant went on in this way for several months but failed to send the money. In July last a traveller came over from Sheffield and saw defendant about the money. He was asked for the check book, and counterfoils, and handed them over after having being pressed, when it was found that a sum of £18 had been received by the defendant, but which he had not remitted to the prosecutrix. Various other sums had been received by the defendant, amounting to £37 Os. 7d.—Mr William Ford, son of Mrs Sarah Ford, of Sheffield, said that on January last he saw the defendant at the office and he was appointed agent to sell the Sporting Tissue in the neighbourhood of Chesterfield, Clay Cross, Staveley, and Whittington. Defendant had to distribute the papers and to receive the subscriptions. Some of the subscriptions were weekly and others quarterly. On receipt of the money from the subscribers it was his duty to remit the same to the proprietress at Sheffield. Defendant received thirty-three per cent, commission on the sale of the papers. During the time the defendant was in his mother's employ, several small sums had been sent, but he did not know how much. —John Woodland Humphrey, Union Lane, Sheffield, traveller for the prosecutrix said it was his duty to receive money from various agents appointed by prosecutrix in each town for the sale of the Tissue, and also to pay their commission. On July 20th witness came and saw defendant at his house at Brampton. He told him that he had come for the money which he had collected for Mrs Ford. In reply defendant said I am very sorry, but I have not got any money." Witness said how is that," and defendant replied " I have been ill and have spent it." Both of them came down to Chesterfield and on the way he asked him about the Clay Cross, Whittington Moor, and Staveley accounts. These were quarterly subscribers which were 13s. each. Defendant said he had collected the subscriptions for these places in advance, to the 25th of September next, and that he had spent that also. Defendant was then told he must not receive any more money on Mrs Ford's account until he heard further. Witness again went to his house on the 22nd July, and again on the 24th. On the latter date witness asked for the check books and counter foils from the quarterly subscribers, and defendant admitted receiving the money which amounted to £18 12s. Defendant had also received other monies from weekly subscribers amounting to £21 odd. Witness obtained the information from the subscribers themselves who stated that they had paid defendant the money. During the whole time defendant was in their service he had only sent £6 3s. 5d., having then previously deducted his commission.—Defendant denied the charge, alleging that he had paid the bills with the exception of about £8, which sum he was willing to pay if they would send him a bill. He however, failed to show any receipts for the same.—Defendant was then committed to take his trial at the next Quarter Sessions, bail being allowed.
|
| Newspaper Article |
21 Oct 1882 |
Derbyshire, England |
| Derbyshire Times and Chesterfield Herald - Saturday |
| Newspaper Article |
21 Oct 1882 |
Derbyshire, England [9] |
| Derbyshire Times and Chesterfield Herald - Saturday |
- Brampton.—Embezzlement by a Newspaper Agent
Hartley Halstead, 34, agent, was charged with embezzling at Brampton, on June 25th and other days, various sums of money amounting to £34 Os. 7d., received him on behalf of Sarah Ford, his employer. —Mr. Weightman prosecuted. —Mrs. Ford is the publisher of the Sporting Tissue, printed at Sheffield, and prisoner was engaged to sell the paper in the neighbourhood of Chesterfield, Cloy Cross, &c, and to collect the subscribers' accounts and remit them weekly or quarterly, accordingly as they were paid. He had omitted do this, and when Mr. Humphreys, the prosecutrix's traveller, called upon him, he pleaded that he had been ill and living on the money had got, and that his deficiency amounted to £28. —In defence, Hartley read a long statement to the effect that he had no felonious intent, and that he was prosecuted simply because he refused to accept and pay bills of a fabulous amount which they sent in to him, and which they reduced from £50 to £34. —The jury found the prisoner guilty of embezzling £8, and recommended him to mercy.—Prisoner sentenced to three months' hard labour
|
| Newspaper Article |
25 Aug 1886 |
Sheffield, Yorkshire, England |
| Sheffield Daily Telegraph |
| Newspaper Article |
25 Aug 1886 |
Sheffield, Yorkshire, England [10] |
| Sheffield Daily Telegraph |
- ALLEGED ILLEGAL VOTING IN THE CENTRAL DIVISION. ALDERMAN SEARLE’S VOTE
Yesterday morning in the First Court of the Sheffield Town Hall, before the Stipendiary, an application was made by Mr Christopher Porrett, Conservative Agent, for a summons against Ald. Searle, ex Chairman of the Board of Guardians, for a breach of the Registration Act, 1885. Mr. Porrett handed up to his Worship sworn information, in which it was alleged that Ald. Searle voted in the Central Division in the last election, while his residence qualification was in the Hallam Division. The Stipendiary granted the summons, which has been made returnable for Friday next, the 27th instant, the same day as has been fixed for the hearing of the summons against Mr. David Ward. The information on which the summons has been granted as follows:—. Borough of Sheffield, to wit.—The information of Hartley Halstead, of 1 house, 12 Court, Trippet lane, in the said borough, agent, taken before me, the undersigned, one of Her Majesty’s Justices of the Peace for the said borough, this 24th day of August, one thousand eight hundred and eighty six, who saith that Richard Searle, of 53, Birkendale view, in the said borough, leather merchant, on the 6th day July last, at tho parish of Sheffield, in the said borough, having his name entered on the register of Parliamentary voters more than once, namely, in the several divisions the Parliamentary borough of Sheffield, wit, in the Hallam Division and in the Central Division of the said borough, without any note placed against any such entries such as is in the 5th section of the Registration Act, 1885, mentioned, and being entitled to vote only in the said Division, wherein he was registered as a voter in respect of his place of abode, and having his place of abode therein, and being prohibited by the said Act, by Section 5 thereof, from voting in the Central Division of the said borough, or in any division thereof other than the Hallam Division, or in respect of any entry other than the said entry of his name in the register of voters in the Hallam Division, and knowing that he was prohibited aforesaid from voting in the Central Division of tho said borough at the election hereinafter mentioned, unlawfully did vote in the said Central Division of the said borough an election of member to serve in Parliament for the said Central Division, holden on the 6th day of July last, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace of our Lady the Queen. (Signed) H. Halstead. Exhibited before me this 24th day of August, 1886, Sheffield, aforesaid. (Signed) Ed. M. E. Wblby.
|
| Census |
5 Apr 1891 |
110 Trippet Lane, Sheffield, Yorkshire, England |
| Age: 43y |
| Census |
5 Apr 1891 |
110 Trippet Lane, Sheffield, Yorkshire, England [11] |
| Age: 43y |
| Occupation |
5 Apr 1891 |
110 Trippet Lane, Sheffield, Yorkshire, England |
| Fish dealer |
| Occupation |
5 Apr 1891 |
110 Trippet Lane, Sheffield, Yorkshire, England [11] |
| Fish dealer |
| Census |
31 Mar 1901 |
18 Morpeth Street, Sheffield, Yorkshire, England |
| Age: 53y |
| Census |
31 Mar 1901 |
18 Morpeth Street, Sheffield, Yorkshire, England [12] |
| Age: 53y |
| Occupation |
31 Mar 1901 |
18 Morpeth Street, Sheffield, Yorkshire, England |
| Fishmonger (hawker) |
| Occupation |
31 Mar 1901 |
18 Morpeth Street, Sheffield, Yorkshire, England [12] |
| Fishmonger (hawker) |
| Death |
1907 |
Sheffield, Yorkshire, England [13] |
| Person ID |
I354 |
HalstedMaster |
| Last Modified |
13 Nov 2025 |
| Family 2 |
LIVERSIDGE, Susannah Maria, b. 1858, Carlton, Nottinghamshire, England d. 1937, Sheffield, Yorkshire, England (Age 79 years) |
| Marriage |
1877 |
Ecclesall Bierlow, Yorkshire, England [17] |
| Children |
| | 1. HALSTEAD, Hartley, b. 1878, West Derby, Lancashire, England d. 1878, West Derby, Lancashire, England (Age 0 years) |
| | 2. HALSTEAD, Charles Robert, b. 2 Apr 1879, Toxteth Park, Lancashire, England d. 1941, Sheffield, Yorkshire, England (Age 61 years) |
| | 3. HALSTEAD, William Augustus, b. 18 Jun 1880, Sheffield, Yorkshire, England d. 1965, Sheffield, Yorkshire, England (Age 84 years) |
| | 4. HALSTEAD, Annie Sophia, b. 30 Mar 1882, Chesterfield, Derbyshire, England |
| | 5. HALSTEAD, Florence Elizabeth, b. 1884, Sheffield, Yorkshire, England d. 1884, Sheffield, Yorkshire, England (Age 0 years) |
| | 6. HALSTEAD, Eleanor Alice, b. 21 Mar 1885, Sheffield, Yorkshire, England d. 1889, Sheffield, Yorkshire, England (Age 3 years) |
| | 7. HALSTEAD, Ernest Herbert, b. 1891, Sheffield, Yorkshire, England d. 1891, Sheffield, Yorkshire, England (Age 0 years) |
| | 8. HALSTEAD, Frances Maud, b. 1894, 63 Garden Street, Sheffield, Yorkshire, England d. 1910, Ecclesall Bierlow, Yorkshire, England (Age 16 years) |
| | 9. HALSTEAD, Emma, b. 16 Apr 1896, 18 Morpeth Street, Netherthorpe, Yorkshire, England d. 1896, 18 Morpeth Street, Netherthorpe, Yorkshire, England |
| | 10. HALSTEAD, John, b. 1896, 18 Morpeth Street, Netherthorpe, Yorkshire, England d. 1896, 18 Morpeth Street, Netherthorpe, Yorkshire, England (Age 0 years) |
|
| Family ID |
F48 |
Group Sheet | Family Chart |
| Last Modified |
13 Nov 2025 |
1847 - 1907 (60 years)