Person Index

Buckridge, Robert

Robert Buckridge
b: 1816
d: 10 SEP 1874
Biography
Note: Spelling of surname is spelt as Buckridge or Buckeridge

Birth Details
1858/5261, NR Buckeridge (sic), Mother: Ann, Father: Robert
- have not linked above birth registration to a person

page 5
...
CHRIST CHURCH IN ST JAMES''S PARISH
Some week after the 1855 earthquake, at a meeting of church members held on 15 February at St. James, River Hutt, the first Church Committee was elected: it included Messrs Buckridge and Welch as representatives of Christ Church, Taita. Church members, in 1859, successfully petitioned the Diocesan Synod to form the Lower Hutt and Taita districts into an ecclesiastical parish. In their petition they undertook to meet certain obligations, including meeting expenses of a resident clergyman and the cost of maintaining the two churches. They found these obligations difficult to meet during the 1860''s and 1870''s, when shortage of money was a recurring problem.

At a time when travel was by horse or on foot, the size of the parish (from Petone to Taita (sic - see note below)) made it difficult for one man to minister both churches. Ill health forced the Rev T. B. Hutton to retire in March 1858 and the parish was without a resident clergyman until 1861.
The Bishop requested Mr Barton, a lay reader, to conduct services at Christ Church. Services at St James''s were conducted by visiting clergy only occasionally and the building, neglected during this period, deteriorated and later needed costly repairs.

Page 6
Entries in vestry minutes suggest that relations between the two congregations were not always amicable. The Vestry recorded its displeasure when Christ Church''s contributions were in arrears or the churchyard needed attention. In September 1871 a meeting was held at Christ Church to "consider the advisability of constituting Taita into a separate parish with Christ Church managing its own affairs" but decided "the time had not yet arrived for such an arrangement." The next proposal to exclude Christ Church from the parish was made in 1885, when it was suggested Taita should be included in the parish of Upper Hutt (sic - see note below). Again no action was taken. Christ Church remained within St James''s parish until 1950 when boundaries changed and Taita Parish was established. (14)

Events that led to the creation of the new parish were to threaten the continued existence of Christ Church on its original site. State housing replaced farms during the period 1944-47 and the extension of the railway from Waterloo to Taita, completed in 1947, cut the Church off from the large new residential area. In 1945, however, attention was focused on celebrating Christ Church''s centenary.

-
Notes and References

(14) Vestry Minutes 1871, 1885
from ''Christ Church, Taita and the Christ Church Preservation Society. An outline of the their history. Written by Marion Knight in 1999.''
-
Ed Note
It seems more likely that Upper Hutt was included in the Parish so I think the Parish covered Petone to Wairarapa as stated in the Wellington Independent 25 October 1859. I am unsure when Upper Hutt became a separate parish it could have been in 1863 as I have not heard of Rev. A. Knell being at Christ Church or St James


Wellington Independent 1 May 1860
PUBLICANS LICENSES.- March being the General Annual Licensing month the following Licenses have been granted.
...
George Buck, Taita, Travellers Rest
Robert Buckridge (sic), Hutt, Albion
...
Robert Jillet, Hutt, Whitewood''s Hotel
...
John McHardie, Hutt, Highland Home
...
Robert Wyeth, Hutt, Barley Mow
...
John Blutchford (sic), Hutt, Aglionby Arms
...

Wellington Independent 2 December 1862
FOR SALE.
-
THE Entire Horse PLOUGH BOY. For particiculars, apply to the Groom, or to
R. BUCKRIDGE,
Albion Inn, Taitai.
Sept. 19, 1862.

Wellington Independent 15 January 1863
LANCASHIRE RELIEF FUND
Sum total of the collection - 70 pounds 17s od
Paid to Mr Hunter, together with - 14 pounds 5s 6d.
collected in No. 3 district of the Hutt
As announced in Indepndent and Advertiser - 85 pounds 2s 6d
G. H. JOHNSTONE
GEORGE G. BUCK - collectors
-
P.S. - Of the above amount, nearly 10 pounds was collected over his bar by Mr Robert Buckeridge (sic) of the Albion Hotel, Taita, Hutt Valley.

New Zealand Spectator and Cook''s Strait Guardian 12 November 1864
FIRE AT THE HUTT.- On Tuesday night last about 10 o''clock a fire broke out in the premises of Mr. Buckeridge (sic), junr., at the Taita, occupied as a butcher''s shop, which was completely destroyed. The building was close to Mr. Hughey''s store and Buckeridge''s (sic) "Albion Hotel," which were fortunately saved by the exertions of the neighbours. We understand that all the property in the building was saved with the exception of a rifle and a set of belts. The premises were insured in the Northern Insurance Office for the sum of 150 pounds.

Note all surnames spelt as Buckeridge
Wellington Independent 27 June 1865
THE HUTT ASSAULT CASE.
Robert, Edward, Ann (sic), Emily, and Eliza Buckeridge, were brought up on remand, charged with assaulting the police.
Mr Borlase, Mr Button, and Mr Buckley appeared as counsel for the defence.
Thomas Kinsella, deposed am a police constable and reside in Wellington. I left town on the 22nd instant by order of the Inspector, to execute a warrant on the heads of John and Edw. (sic) Buckeridge. They are the sons of Robert Buckeridge of the Taita. I was accompanied by Constable Brady, and arrived at Buckeridges'' about a quarter to eleven in the forenoon. Constable Brady pointed out the prisoner Edward to me as he was coming out of the stable. I went over towards him and told him that I was a corporal in the Wellington police force, adding that I had a warrant for the apprehension of himself and his brother John. He asked me for it, on which I told Brady to produce it. While Brady was reading it, Edward struck me in the face with his clenched fist, and then attempted to run away, but I caught him by the arm. With that, his father Robert Buckeridge came out and seized hold of me, while I was holding Edward. I was dragged down, and while on the ground was struck by Edward Buckeridge, and kicked by the father then Ann (sic) Buckeridge, the mother, came out. The father had hold of me, and I still clung to the son Edward. Mrs Buckeridge picked up a stone and struck me in the face with it. The father then rescued Edward from me, who ran away and stooped for a stone. He threw it at me, but it went over my right shoulder. The two young female prisoners pelted me, but though the stones hit me about my body my head was not touched. Emily Buckeridge hit me with a big stone on the knee. I then told the father that I would not leave the yard unless I took Edward with me, to which the father replied that he himself would bring both his sons into town. I agreed to that.
Cross-examined by Mr Borlase - I was in plain clothes when I went to Buckeridge''s to execute the warrant. I knew none of the family by sight. After I spoke to the man constable Brady pointed out as Edward, he did not go back towards the stable. I rode to Buckeridge''s and hitched my reins over the fence to the right hand side of the house. Brady hitched his horse at the left hand side, and after I had dismounted I went towards him, and he pointed out Edward to me. I had a hammer headed whip in my hand, but no revolver, nor had Brady. I did not strike Edward Buckeridge, but he struck me. After he had thrown stones at me, I struck him with the whip across the arm when (sic) he was standing with a stone in his hand. I did not hit him on the head with my whip, but when I grappled with him we fell down to the ground. I never called out to Brady to shoot Edward with a revolver, he had not one. The father did not try to raise either of us up, he kicked me about the ribs and thighs. I did not hear him say anything at the time. Mrs Buckeridge only threw stones at me. Then the girls came out and pelted me also. I did not tell the ladies that I was a policeman, but I told the father afterwards, not when I and the son were struggling on the ground. The father promised to bring his sons into town before he had seen the warrant. He did bring them into town, and when he was in town I arrested him also. Constable Brady was not in uniform when we went to Buckeridge''s house.
James Brady, deposed - I am a constable of police and reside at the Hutt. I went to Buckeridge''s with Kinsella on the 22nd June, to arrest John and Edward Buckeridge, sons of Robert Buckeridge''s Hotel, saw Edward standing at the stable door. I got off my horse, and while I was making him fast to the gate, Edward walked across the yard and I told him there was a warrant for his apprehension, he asked me to produce it. When I put my hand into my pocket to take it out, he turned to go away and Kinsella took hold of him by the arm, on which the prisoner struck him in the face, saying, "let go you b-, I''ll knock your brains out." He stooped to pick up a stone, and the corporal pulled him to the ground. I went over to the stable from which Edward had come out, in order to look for John, and saw Mrs Buckeridge with two stones in her hand. Mrs Buckeridge called to her daughters, who also came out with two stones each. Three of them threw stones at me on my way to the stable, and I turned round. I then saw Robert Buckeridge have hold of the Corporal while Edward was making blows at and kicking him. The women who had had been following me towards the stable then turned back and pelted Kinsella. I saw one stone strike him on the side of the head, Edward was rescued from us, and he ran into the house. Shortly afterwards he came out with what I took to be the handle of a stable broom in his hand. He said "come on you b- and see if you can take me." Robert Buckeridge and a neighbour named Roberts then came and asked me what the row was about. While they were speaking, the tallest girl, Emily struck Kinsella on the knee with a stone. Robert Buckeridge went into tho house leaving Edward and the three women on the road, still with stones in their hands. Robert Buckeridge came out of the house after a time and told me that he would try to persuade his sons to ride into town on their horses, but Kinsella said he must take them as prisoners.
Cross-examined by Mr Borlase. I spoke to Edward Buckeridge first. I told him that I had a warrant for his arrest. I put the warrant in my pocket, when I saw Kinsella struck. Kinsella pulled Edward down when he saw him stooping to pick up stones. Neither Kinsella nor I used the word revolver during tho disturbance. I went direct to the stable to look for John. On my return from my search I saw Robert Buckeridge holding Kinsella, and Edward Buckeridge kicking him. The woman threw the stones all the time they were out in the yard. Robert Buckeridge tried to persuade them to go in. I never heard the women say that Edward was being ill-treated. They were not silent, they were screaming and shiricking. I showed my warrant to Robert Buckeridge when he asked me to do so. About a quarter of an hour afterwards he told me he would try to bring the boys into town. I brought the sons in as prisoners, and Kinsella arrested the father on his arrival.
By the Court,- I am stationed at the Hutt. I have been there about fourteen months. I am acquainted with all the prisoners, their house is within my district, and I am often passing.
David Hughey, deposed, - I am storekeeper at the Taita. My premises adjoin those of the prisoner Robert Buckeridge. I was at home about 11 o''clock on the 22nd inst. I knew Kinsella by sight, and Brady very well. They passed my place on Thursday morning the 22nd inst, and I saw them enter Mr Buckeridge''s yard after making their horses fast. As they went in Edward Buckeridge met them. I could see him strike Kinsella and then a scuffle commenced, seeing which I walked into my house, and did not come out till it was all over. Buckeridge is my neighbor, and I did not wish to be in the in way.
Cross-examined by Mr Borlase, - I did not see Kinsella strike Edward. I saw Brady bring something out of his pocket, but I could not see what it was, or how the scuffle began. Brady, sometimes goes his round, on horseback.
Mr Borlase submitted that as the policemen were not in uniform, the women and Robert Buckeridge had only committed a common assault on a man whom they had seen struggling with a near relation. They had never seen the warrant, and were unaware that they were resisting the police. There was no proof of a deliberate onslaught having been made on the constable by them.
The defence was reserved, and the prisoners were committed to take their trial at the next criminal sittings of the Court.
Bail was demanded and accepted.

Wellington Independent 13 July 1865
Series of Assaults at the Hutt.-
On the 23rd of June, two young men named John and Edward Buckeridge, sons of Mr Robert Buckeridge, Publican, residing in the Taita, Upper Hutt (sic), were indicted for having committed an aggravated assault on Constables Lyster and Brady at the Lower Hutt. It would appear from the evidence that the prisoners acted in a most brutal and unprovoked manner, striking and ill-treating the constables even after they had relinquished the idea of arresting them. Another assault case involving the father, mother, and two sisters of the young men was tried on the 27th June, when the whole family was committed to stand their trial at the next criminal sittings of the Supreme Court, but admitted to bail. The causa belli in the first instance was a futile attempt on the part of the constables to apprehend John Buckcridge when drunk and riotous at the Lower Hutt, and in the second an equally unsuccessful attempt two days after to arrest the young men for the assault while they were on their father''s premises, when the father and woman kind (sic) seeing their kith and kin in danger rushed to the rescue and ejected the myrmidons of the law vi el armes.


Wellington Independent 2 September 1865
IMPORTANT NOTICE
FOR SALE
ONE OF THE BEST AND MOST VALUABLE PROPERTIES IN OR NEAR TOWN
MR W. ROBERTSON has been favoured with instructions from Mr R. Buckeridge, to offer for private sale, his well-known and truly valuable property, the
ALBION HOTEL,
TAITAI (sic), UPPER HUTT (sic),
containing 16 rooms, including bar, parlors, dining rooms, kitchen, yards, stabling for 20 horses, stock yards, and paddocks with 13 1/2 acres of rich soil, all fenced, including an excellent orchard (two acres) well stocked with choice fruit trees.
The only reason this truly valuable property is for sale - the owner having realised a competency wishes to retire into private life.
-
Title - Crown Grant.
-
For price and terms, which are most liberal, apply to the Auctioneer.
W. ROBERTSON.
P.S. - Any comment by the Auctioneer on this truly valuable property would be superfluous.

Wellington Independent 2 August 1866
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE''S COURT, WELLINGTON.
Tuesday, July 30, 1866.
(Before J. Coutts Crawford, Esq., R.M.)
...
ASSAULT AND ROBBERY.
Joseph Hayward and Martin Miller were placed in the dock charged with violently assaulting Robert Daniels, and also with stealing from the person of the said Robert Daniel the sum of four shillings.
Complainant, being sworn, said. I am a tin-plate worker, living at the Hutt. On Tuesday last I was at the Taita, in Mr. Robert''s shop, when the two prisoners came in, seized hold of me by the collar, and dragged me outside; they then threw me down, and rifled my pockets, taking from the pockets four shillings in silver, they then went away I got up and picked up a shilling and some coppers off the ground.
Cross-examined by Mr. Borlase, counsel for the defence - The prisoner Hayward keeps the Albion Hotel, opposite the shop where I was working. Miller is Hayward''s cook. I was in the tap of the Albion just before. Hayward accused me of taking money from his till. He said I had taken the money, and that it was marked. The blacksmith was in the shop.
Mr. Borlase — How many times have you been up for thieving
Witness — I can''t exactly remember.
Mr. Borlase — Were you ever brought up before the Supreme Court.
Witness — No, no!— Yes, I was.
Mr. Borlase — What for
Witness - For picking up a purse. (Laughter.)
Mr. Borlase — And what did you get for that
Witness - Nine months.
Mr. Borlase - Were you ever, at Wanganni, brought up for thieving?
Witness - No never for thieving, I have been occasionally had up for drunkenness.
Mr. Borlase — Has Mr. Whyte, at the Hutt, ever accused you of robbing his till
Witness — No
Mr. Borlase — That will do. Now don''t you leave the Court, as I shall have something else to say to you presently.
Duncan Bethune, sworn, said - I am a blacksmith. I work for Mr. Roberts at the Taita. The prosecutor was leaning over the lower half of the shop door, when the prisoner Hayward came up, and accused Daniel of robbing the till. Hayward said he had marked some money, he took five shillings out of prosecutor''s pocket, and called me to witness that three of the shillings were marked, this happened about 11 p.m. last Friday.
This closed the case against the two prisoners, who were at once discharged.
-
CHARGE OF ROBBERY AGAINST DANIELS.
Robert Daniells, the prosecutor in the previous case, was then placed at the bar, charged with having stolen 3s from the till of the Albion Hotel. From the evidence given by Mr. Hayward and Martin Miller, it appeared that Daniels had robbed the till, and that the money he took, and of which he afterwards said he had been robbed, was marked by Mr. Hayward. The prisoner was convicted, and evidence having been given of a previous conviction against him of robbing a dwelling-house, he was sentenced to three months'' imprisonment with hard labor.



Evening Post 26 November 1867
In the Police Court, to-day, William and Edward Buckeridge, and a lad named Edwards, were brought up on suspicion of having caused the fire which yesterday morning destroyed the stabling of the Albion Hotel, Taiti (sic). The evidence of Constable Brady was taken, and an adjournment granted till Thursday.
...

Wellington Independent 11 October 1859
HUTT AFFRAY.
HEARING AT THE HUTT. 28TH 1859
BEFORE HENRY ST. HILL, ESQ., R.M.
Wiremu Tako v. John Buckeridge, Walter Harris, John Harrison, and Henry Lewyn.—
A charge of unprovoked assault. This case first came into court on the 16th September, Mr. Brandon appearing for the complainant, and Mr. Ward for the defendants, but in Consequence of the non appearance of one of the latter it was adjourned after part hearing to the 23rd; the Bar investigation of this case absorbed the attention of the Court for the whole of that day, and at its close the Resident Magistrate stated that before arriving at a decision in a case of so important a nature, and when the evidence was so conflicting, he deemed it advisable to reperuse the evidence and deliberately weigh the respective statements of the witnesses; and for that purpose he would postpone his decision to the following Wednesday (28th) at the Hutt.
Complainant (the Chief Wi Tako) deposed to the following facts:��� On the 7th of the month he was returning to the Hutt from the Wairarapa. When he reached Mr. Harris''s place in the Upper Hutt he observed a half caste girl named Mary Harrison standing near Harris''s fence spreading clothes to dry. Mary Harrison is the daughter of complainant''s late wife by a former husband (an Englishman), and complainant now holds the relation of guardian to her; she is about 16 years of age and has been residing with complainant for many years she had been living at Harris''s in the capacity of house maid for several weeks prior to this date.) He rode up to her and saluted her in the usual terms. Mary Harrison told him she was uncomfortable in her present situation and wished to return home; he told her that she might please herself; she begged to be allowed to return at once; he according dismounted from his horse and accompanied her to the house to communicate the same to Mrs. Harris. Mrs. Harris and some other females endeavoured to prevent it and remonstrated with him for taking the girl away; to which he replied that it was the girl''s own wish to go, and he was bound to protect her. She was mounted on a steed and rode away with Wi Tako and his party. When they reached his settlement of Ohara they remained there for a short time to take some refreshment. Wi Tako with the girl and a party of six men proceeded down the Hutt road leaving the remainder of the natives at Ohara. After riding a few miles they met John Harrison, one of the defendant''s (Mary Harrison''s brother) with two other young men all on horseback. Harrison took hold of the bridle of his sisters horse and insisted on her going back with him, but failing in this he turned his horse''s head and rode along with the party, so also did his two companions. Harrison accused Wi Tako of running off with his sister and appeared to be very angry; they rode together for some miles when Harrison said something to his companions and then galloped off ahead of the party. The latter proceeded quietly down the road with Wi Tako at its head. When he came within sight of Buckeridge''s road-side Inn he observed John Harrison and several other young men standing in the road with their coats off and sleeves turned up and apparently ready for a fight. He dismounted and walking up to the former he remonstrated with him for his folly; Mr. Buckeridge senior, beckoned to him and they entered the house together, John Harrison accompanying them. He narrated the facts of the case to Mr. Buckeridge who then went out and spoke to the girl; he returned and stated that the girl refused to return to Harris''s, insisting on proceeding home with Wi Tako. Harrison then went out, and assisted by others pulled his sister off the horse and carrying her into the house, entered by a side door. Wi Tako attempted to follow but was held back by some whites; he afterwards entered but not finding her he turned to come out. When he reached the door, he found that a fracas had commenced outside between the natives and whites. As he emerged from the door the defendants assailed him. Lewyn struck him on the shin with a stick and he fell to the ground. Harrison then came up and struck him a blow in the eye with his fist, and Buckeridge Junior struck him on the lip with a piece of mud. Walter Harris struck him on the ribs. He remained insensible some time. When he came to himself the natives were all gone. He entered the house asked for a glass of water to drink, and washed his bleeding face. Suddenly he heard a great noise outside. He rushed out and found that the natives had returned in a most excited state, one armed with a tomahawk and the others with sticks, and were breaking the windows of the house and doing other violence. He saw that bloodshed was likely to ensue and seizing a stock whip he commenced to belabor (sic) them with it right and left, at the same time assuring them that he was not hurt. Finding that he whose wrongs they were avenging was flogging them unmercifully, they soon desisted, and departed in a body homewards, Mary Harrison, who had made her escape from the house, accompanying them. Complainant stated that he had received some very serious bruises on the face, ribs, and shins, and still suffered considerable pain from them.
He then called several witnesses, Natives and Europeans, to corroborate his statements''; after which several Europeans appeared for the defence, who contradicted some parts and qualified others of complainants evidence.
On the 23rd of September, at the Hutt Court, (as above stated) the Resident Magistrate having commented on the case, — speaking in the highest terms of Wi Tako''s discreet conduct on the occasion of this affray, and expressing his conviction that had he encouraged the infuriated Natives in their purpose great mischief, if not bloodshed, would have ensued — expressed his opinion that whatever paliation there may have been for the defendant Harrison (who conceived that complainant was taking away his sister without her consent) there was none for the other three defendants: John Harrison fined ten shillings, John Buckeridge, Walter Harris, and Henry Lewyn, fined 40s. each, and costs £2 6s. 6d.

Wellington Independent 13 July 1865
SERIES OF ASSAULTS AT THE HUTT.- On the 23rd of June, two young men named John and Edward Buckeridge, sons of Mr Robert Buckeridge, Publican, residing in the Taita, Upper Hutt (sic), were indicated for having committed an aggravated assault on Constables Lyster and Brady at the Lower Hutt. It would appear from the evidence that the prisoners acted in a most brutal and unprovoked manner, stricking and ill-treating the constables even after they had relinquished the idea of arresting them.
Another assault case involving the father, mother, and two sisters of the young men was tried on the 27th June, when the whole family was committed to stand their trial at the next criminal sittings of the Supreme Court, but admitted to bail.
The causa belli in the first instance was a futile attempt on the part of the constables to apprehend John Buckeridge when drunk and riotous at the Lower Hutt, and in the second an equally unsuccessful attempt two days after to arrest the young men for the assault while they were on their father''s premises, when the father and women kind seeing their kith and kin in danger rushed to rescue and ejected the myrmidons of the law vi et armes.

Wellington Independent 29 August 1865
CRIMINAL SITTINGS OF THE SUPREME COURT.
THE next Criminal Sitting of the Supreme Court will be held at 10 o''clock on Friday morning next, the 1st September. As will be seen from the list we subjoin, the calendar is a rather heavy one, and some of the crimes of a serious character. We would notice, however, that out of the list, eight of the prisoners have been sent down from Wanganui.
...
John Buckeridge and Edward Buckeridge - Assaulting constables.
Buckeridge Family - The same.
...


Wellington Independent 5 September 1865
SUPREME COURT.
CRIMINAL SITTINGS.
Satukday, September 2, 1865.
(Before His Honor Justice Johnston.)
The Court opened at 10 o''clock.
...
Monday, 4th September, 1865.
ASSAULT ON A CONSTABLE.
John and Edward Buckridge were placed at the bar, charged with assaulting police-constable Brady, at the Hutt, in the execution of his duty, on the 21st June last. Mr. Izard appeared for the prosecution; Mr. Borlase and Mr. Buckley for the prisoners.
Mr. Izard, in opening the case, said that the law looked on an assault on a police-constable in the execution of his duty as a more serious offence than an ordinary assault. He then proceeded to give a general outline of the case, after which he called the following evidence:-
David Lyster sworn, said - I am a police-constable, and was at the Hutt on 21st June last. At 4 o''clock on that day I was at the Hutt Police Station with Brady. We went over to Valentine''s, from information received from a man named Poole, where we found John Buckridge standing beside a man named Witt, who had his eye blacked. John Buckridge was moving about in a fighting way, so I requested him to desist. With that he caught hold of Brady by the coat, and said, "If you interfere with me, I''ll knock your _ head off." Brady was proceeding to arrest him, when the brother came up, and assaulted him. I went to help Brady, when Edward said he would serve me the same. I afterwards told both the prisoners, they ought to know better. I then went away from them, when John Buckridge followed me and struck me with his fist on the mouth, knocking one of my teeth out. He said at the time "take that, you _." As I was reeling he struck at me again, but I warded the blow. I then walked towards the station and met Constable Brady, who had gone for handcuffs. I turned round with Brady to arrest John Buckridge. He and Edward Buckridge picked up large stones with both hands. They said they they would brain the first who advanced. John then went into Austin''s shoe shop. He came out again running in the direction of Brady. I heard him using threatening language as he passed me. Both Brady and myself are well-known to the Buckridges. I saw John Buckridge then strike Brady with his fist, and Edward did the same. Brady pushed them off and went into Fagan''s shop. I ran towards the shop, when they began to pelt me with stones. I then went to the station when Edward said he would wait for me till I came out. About two minutes afterwards I saw John and Edward Buckridge going home.
Cross-examined by Mr. Borlase - I had been drinking at Valentine''s, but not with the prisoners, but with a man named Smith. I was perfectly sober. John Buckeridge did not appear to me to be much intoxicated. When Edward struck Brady he pulled John away. John took the principal part throughout the proceedings Edward appeared, however, to be assisting and not restraining John. I called a man to assist me, and he came with a life preserver, but it was not in consequence of that that John and Edward picked up stones. When my tooth was knocked out my lip bled, but I could not find the tooth.
Re-examined, - The witness described the position of Edward and Brady when they were together, and John said "let go."
James Brady, sworn, said, "I am a constable stationed at the Hutt. On the 21st June last, at about 4 o''clock in the day, I was called on by a man named Timothy Poole. In consequence of what he said I went to Valentine''s Hotel, where I saw both the prisoners. I saw John Buckridge holding a young chap named Thomas Witt. He pulled him down to the ground and struck him. I took John Buckridge into custody, telling him that it was time his proceedings on the road wore put a stop to. John tried to get away, and his brother came and asked me what I meant to do with John. I said he was in my custody, "don''t you interfere." His reply was, "you wouldn''t do that." I said, "don''t you interfere any more." He said "let go you __ or I''ll knock your head off." I had hold of John by the collar and arm. Edward put his knuckles on my hand holding John''s arm; I let go, and John having his right arm free struck at me in the face, but did not hit me. I then went to the station for handcuffs, and when I returned John and Edward began picking up stones as large as a goose egg or larger. Edward said "Brady, if you use the handcuffs to ny brother, I''ll use these, I warned him not to interfere, when he held up a stone in his right hand to my face, and said he would knock me down??? John Buckridge then went into Austin''s shop and on my following, the door was shut against me??? John afterwards came out at the back and said t??? his brother come on Ted, if Austin is what I?? said he is, let us go into the bobbies." They stil??? had the stones in their hands. John said he die?? not care for the bobbies, or all the people at the bridge. I walked over towards the bridge, John followed, put both the stones, he held in his right hand, and struck me with the left. I then went into Fagan''s shop when John followed me and said, "now you __ I''ve got you and will lei??? you have it." I walked into another room, when John burst in the door. Mr. Fagan and his work men with some difficulty got him out. Thomas Whitworth and Edward came up and after some persuasion induced John to go away with them ?????Edward struck me on the back of the shoulder when I had hold of John. He aimed at my face and that was the only time he struck me.
Cross examined by Mr. Borlase. - There was a scuffle going on between Witt and John when ?? first came up. I was perfectly sober. John was under the influence of liquor. I cannot remember the exact words I used to John, when I first laid hold of him. I was forced afterwards to let John go through the violence of him and his brother. I drew my staff on Edward hitting me, but did not use it. Edward hit me when first I had hold of John, and before I went for the handcuffs. When I was in the road, I could not see the back of Austin''s shop, but could see the path leading from it.
Re-examined. - John struck me after I got the handcuffs, but Edward did not.
Thomas Witt sworn said. - I am a laborer at Wairarapa. On 21st June last, I was driving Mr. Valentine''s trap. I saw John Buckridge on that afternoon. As I was going towards Poole''s omnibus, John Buckridge pushed me by the shoulder against the wheel. I told him, if I saw a policeman I would give him in charge, when he struck me on the eye, knocking me down. I had said nothing to him. The police then came up. I saw both prisoners subsequently going towards Fagan''s.
Cross-examined by Mr. Borlase. - I had had some drink at Valentine''s with Poole. He was drunk, and I said he was drunk, and I was not,??? although I had kept tally with him. I was the worse for drink. John Buckeridge (sic) was also the worse for drink.
Solomon Schlaifstein sworn - said, I am a jeweller, living at Lower Hutt, on the 21st June last, I was at Valentine''s, in the parlor. I saw through the window, John walk up to Lyster and strike him. The police afterwards called on me to assist them. I went out and saw that Brady had hold of John, and Edward separating them. John asked me what I wanted, and I said I had been called on by the police. Both John and Edward then picked up stones and throw them at me, and the police, and I went away.
Cross-examined by Mr. Borlase - Brady gave me a short stick before I went out, but I did not use it. The policeman Brady told me to use it, when John and Edward threw stones. Robert Styles sworn - said, I was at Valentine''s on the 21st June, and saw the prisoners in the bar. They had drink. I saw John throw Witt at the omnibus wheel and afterwards strike him. Witt said if he saw a policeman he would give him in charge. I saw the policeman come. Edward said he would take John away if the police would leave him alone. I saw a scuffle between them. When Schlaifstein was called on, Edward told him to go, and that if he used the stick he had, they would use stones.
Cross-examined by Mr. Borlase - Edward was trying to restrain John, and said to Schlaifstein and the police "you may do what you like to my brother, but don''t ill-use him."
Mr. Borlase, in addressing the jury, said he was about to produce evidence which would give the case a very different complexion from what it wore from the evidence for the prosecution. It would appear that Edward was sober and was doing all he could throughout to restrain John, who was a little the worse for liquor. The learned counsel then pointed out certain discrepancies in the evidence, and contended that in the confusion it could not be expected that the recollection of what occurred would be perfect. Neither Edward nor John appeared to have flung any stones, but only to have picked them up to protect themselves if necessary from the life preserver which Schlaifstein had. The only evidence against Edward was that of Brady, who might have made a mistake, and it would be borne in mind that Edward persuaded John to go away. The learned council then said he would bring forward evidence to prove that the police were drunk, and that the whole thing was a drunken row and could not bear the construction put upon it by the proseeution.
Robert Austin examined by Mr. Bukley (sic) - lon??? oath said On 21st June I was at the Hutt and saw John and Edward Buckridge at the bar at Valentine''s, and also outside. Lyster told John that he was drunk, and should be looked (sic) up. Lyster then went to the Police Station and brought over Brady. Edward was trying to get John away to his house. The police who had hold of John let him go, and Brady said, "hit him _ lay hold of him." Schlaifstein was there with a slung shot, but did not use it. Edward said "you are not going to knock my brother''s brains out as you did the Maoris." The police then went towards the station. I did not see the police hit with stones. I did not see John and Edward hit the police, and I saw the proceedings in the road from the commencement of the affray. The police were excited, but I cannot say whether they were drunk or sober. Cross-examined - When the police first came up they had Schlaifstein with them. Nothing took place to my knowledge between Brady and John, before Sclnaifstein was present, but there had been some disturbance between John and Lystor. I saw the prisoners square up at the police but I did not see the police hit. When John came into my house, he was as drunk as he could be, and asked me not to see him murdered by the police. I am not afraid of the Buckridges.
Martin Miller, examined by Mr. Borlase, on oath said - On 21st June I was cook at Valentine''s, and saw Edward and John arrive. I saw afterwards Brady holding John, and Schlaifstein with a life preserver. Edward said "two can play at that game, don''t knock my brother''s brains out" and then picked up a stone. I helped John into his cart when he went away.
By the Court - I cannot say that the police were drunk.
Thomas Whitworth examined by Mr. Buckley, on oath said - On 21st June last I was at Valentines. I had met John and Edward coining down and came with them. John was drunk. Lyster told John that if he did not behave himself he would take him to the lock up. John said he was not able. Lyster said he would show him he was and fetched Brady. John said ho would not go to prison with them. Brady then went to Valentine''s and procured the assistance of Schlaifstein, I did not see John hit Lyster while Brady was gone. When Schlaifstein came, John still said he would not go to prison. Brady told Schlaifstein to hit John with the weapon he had in his hand, when he refused to be caught hold of. Schlaifstein gave the weapon to Brady and said "you hit him." (A laugh.) It was then that Edwart picked up some stones, bub did not use them.
Cross-examined - John Buckridgeo called on me to assist him, but I did not interfere. Henry White, examined by Mr. Borlase, on oath, - said I am a butcher. On 21st June last I was at the Hutt, in the employ of Mr. Barber whose shop is opposite Valentine''s. I saw the prisoners on that day. John was drunk, and when the police wanted to take him, Edward offered to take him away quietly.
Mr. Izard said, that the evidence clearly established that an assault had been committed, and the evidence for the defence merely went to show that the witnesses did not see any assault committecl. There might be certain discrepancies in the evidence, but they went to prove the general truth of it, for except in a trumped-up story, it was not likely that all parties would agree in every single particular in their statements. He would therefore ask the jury, to find the prisoners guilty.
His Honor said there was a point which occurred to him; viz., that a constable could not apprehend a man for committing an assault out of his presence, which was not a felonious one, without a warrant. After some conversation with counsel, His Honor said that he would rule to the jury that the apprehension was good.
His Honor in summing up, said, that constables should endeavor to do their duty in the least unpleasant manner possible. One portion of the defence had entirely broken down, viz., that the constables were drunk, for which he congratulated the Province. It was not part of the business of the jury, to consider the degree of the assault whether it was merely a technical assault, or threatening by action to strike, or whether blows had actually been struck. All they had to consider was, whether an assault had been committed. He would remind the Jury that the police were justified in using any amount of force necessary to do their duty, even to using deadly weapons; it was therefore no mitigation of the offence to bring forward the fact of Schlafistein having a life preserver in his possession. With regard to the lawfulness of the apprehension if the jury were satisfied, that any of the constables had witnessed the assault of John Buckridge on Witt, or if they were satisfied that John was in a drunken and disorderly state, they would then have to consider whether force had been used by the prisoners against the constables. His Honor then read over portions of the evidence, commenting on them.
After a very few minutes consideration the Jury found both prisoners guilty, but recommended Edward to mercy.
Mr. Horner was called forward by the prisoners to speak as to their character, but he was unable to say anything important in their favor.
His Honor in passing sentence said that the law must be vindicated, however painful it might be; the sentence on John would be that he should be imprisoned with hard labor for 12 calendar months, and on Edward that he should be imprisoned for one calendar month. After passing sentence, His Honor said he was bound to say that he considered that the constables had behaved very well in the matter.
Robert Buckridge, Ann Buckridge, Emily Buckridge, Eliza Buckridge, and Edward Buckridge were then placed at the bar on a similar charge.
With the advice of their counsel, Messrs. Borlase and Buckley, they pleaded guilty.
His Honor said Counsel had exercised a very wise discretion in advising such a course. The ends of justice would be satisfied if Robert Buckridge would enter into his own recognizances for all parties, except Edward, for £300, and if Edward would enter into his own recognizances for £100, to come up and receive judgment when called on with the understanding that if they conducted themselves properly they would never be called on; to receive judgment.

Evening Post 16 October 1865
Licenses were this day granted by the Bench to Henry Morrow and Nathaniel Valentine. The application of Wm, Bannister was wihdrawn. A transfer from Robert Buckridge to Joseph Hayward was refused.

Wellington Independent 17 October 1865
LICENSING MEETING
The quarterly licensing meeting was held at noon yesterday
...
There were only two applications for licenses.
One of which was from Mr. Valentine, at the Hutt, the other from Mr. Morrow, for the Criterion Hotel, at the corner of Willis and Manners-street.
...
Mr. Valentine applied for a license for an hotel in course of erection by him at the Hutt. He produced plans of the proposed building, which were examined and found to be very satisfactory. His application was consequently granted, but he was informed that the license would not come into operation until July, unless another "Amendment Act" was passed by the Provincial Council in Apiil.
Mr. Morrow''s license was also granted by a majority of the Bench, subject to the same conditions.
Mr. Buckridge, of the Hutt, applied for leave to transfer his license to his son-in-law, Mr. Arthur Hayward, of the Wairarapa. After some discussion the transfer was refused, as the Bench were of opinion that it was too much like a family arrangement, and that, judging by the youth of his son-in-law, Mr. Buckridge would in reality continue the business.
The meeting then broke up.

Evening Post 17 April 1866
LICENSING MEETING
...
On the name of Robert Buckridge, Albion Hotel, Hutt, being called on, Insepctor Achison said that there was an objection to him on account of a judgement of the Supreme Court hanging over him.
Mr. Fitzherbert was in favor of granting the license.
Some other justices having spoken, it was resolved that the license would not be granted to Buckridge himself, but that if he produced a proper person, to whom he would transfer his license, then the license, would be granted.
The case was adjourned for a fortnight.
...

Wellington Independent 19 April 1866
ANNUAL LICENSING MEETING.
...
LIST OF APPLICANTS
...
Buck, George, Taita, Upper Hutt Travellers Rest.
Buckridge, Robert, Upper Hutt, The Albion.
...
Death, George, Manners-street, Coach and Horses.
....
Hughey, David, Taita, Taita Family Hotel.
...
Whyte, Andrew J. Lower Hutt, Whitewood''s Hotel.
Wilkins, John, Upper Hutt, The Highland Home.
...
MR. BUCKRIDGE''S APPLICATION.
In reference to the above application, Mr. Inspector Atcheson informed the Bench that there was an objection to renewing Mr. Robert Buckridge''s license for a public-house, known as the Albion Hotel, in the Upper Hutt, on the grounds that he was under a judgment of the Supreme Court for a breach of the peace.
Mr. Ludlam said that at a recent Licensing Meeting an application for the transfer of the license to Mr. Buckridge''s son-in-law had been refused, and that it was then considered that Mr. Buckridge himself should not have his licence renewed, but to show that the Bench did not wish to cause him any pecuniary loss, he thought that if anyone, not belonging to the family, wished the license transferred to him it might be done. After some further discussion, it was decided that the case should be adjourned for a fortnight.
...
Mr. David Hughey''s Application.
The application of Mr. David Hughey for a license to sell spirituous liquor at his store in the Upper Hutt (sic), which he was desirous of converting into a public house, was refused.
...

Evening Post 25 April 1866
Mr. J. H. Wallace held an extensive land sale at his new mart yesterday.
...
Mr. Buckridge''s property withdrawn at 2,100 pounds.
...
Previous to the sale, Mr Wallace provided a champagne luncheon, to which a numerous attendance did ample justice. The properties withdrawn are open for private treaty.

Evening Post 1 May 1866
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE''S COURT
...
Mr. Borlase applied for a transfer of the license to Joseph Hayward, of the Albion Hotel, Hutt, and submitted to the Bench a requisition signed by a large number of
the inhabitants of the Wairarapa, in which it was stated that Mr. Hayward was a proper person to carry on the business of a publican.
After some consultation between the justices, it was decided to grant the transfer, on the understanding that Mr. Buckridge''s connection with the Albion Hotel should cease in the month of June.

Wellington Independent 3 May 1866
ADJOURNED LICENSING MEETING.
...
MR. BUCKRIDE''S APPLICATION.
Mr. C. B. Borlase on behalf of Mr. Buckridge applied for a transfer of the license to retail beer and spirituous liquors at the Albion Hotel, Upper Hutt, to Mr. Joseph Hayward.
Mr. A. Ludlam begged to remind the Bench that at a previous meeting of Justices similar application had been brought forward, and had been refused on the grounds, that Mr. Hayward was Mr. Buckridges'' son-in-law, and that in reality there would be no transfer, as Mr. Buckridge intended to remain on the premises, and would be in fact, if not the ostensible, at least the real holder of the license.
Mr. Borlase submitted a numerously signed certificate from the residents at Featherston, in the Wairarapa, to the effect that Mr. Joseph Hayward was a fit and proper person to conduct the business of a publican, and added that a bona fide transfer was intended, and that it was Mr. Buckridge''s intention to quit the premises the district even - and take up his residence in the Wairarapa.
Mr. Ludlam said that two residents in the Upper Hutt had waited on him at his residence, and spoken to him on the subject, but that he had been unable to give them any information as to what the decision of the Bench would be in the matter. He was of opinion that the application should not be considered until Mr. Buckridge had actually quitted the premises.
Mr. Borlase replied that it was his client''s intention to do so as soon as possible, and said that in the event of his not doing so, he himself would be the first to request the Bench to cancel the license altogether. Under these circumstances the transfer Of the license was granted, and Mr. Joseph Hayward, with his sureties, (Messrs. William Cleland and William Milne) were then bound over in the usual manner.
...

Wellington Independent 3 July 1866
query Buckeridge

Wellington Independent 11 April 1867
ad for sale of R Buckeridge''s Estate including Albion Hotel

Wellington Independent 16 April 1867
WELLINGTON RACES.
FIRST DAY - TUESDAY, MARCH 26
...
Liquid refreshment was easily to be obtained. Booths had been erected by Mr Valentine, of the Family Hotel;
...
Mr Buckeridge of the Albion; while Mr Hicklng, of Whitewood''s and Mr Lamont, of the Panama Hotel, had combined their forces for the occasion,
...

Wellington Independent 16 July 1867
TUESDAY, 30th JULY, 1867.
PUBLIC SALE OF LAND.
MESSES BETHUNE & HUNTER will sell by public auction, at the Exchange, on Tuesday, the 30th July, at two o''clock.
LOT ONE,
To be sold in terms of Deed of Assignment,
That very excellent FARM, containing 50 acres, more or less, of superior land, being Suburban Sections Nos. 242, 244, 246, 306, 310, 314, and 315, all adjoining the Township of Featherston, and having valuable frontages to main roads together with the Dwelling- house, Out-buildings, &c, &c, the property of Mr J. Hayward.
Mr R. Buckridge, who resides on the premises, will be happy to show the house and land to intending purchasers.
...

Evening Post 11 December 1867
SUPREME COURT — CRIMINAL SITTINGS.
This Day.
(Before His Honor Mr. Justice Johnston.)
The Court opened at 10 o''clock this morning
ARSON
William Buckridge and Edward Buckridge, were placed in the dock, charged with having set fire to the stabling of the Albion Hotel, Taita, the property of Mr. Samuel Death.
Mr. Borlase appeared for the prisoners, and Mr. Izard conducted the case for the Crown.
Each of the prisoners having challenged six of the jurymen, and the panel being exhausted, a tales was taken.
Ford Wylie, a surveyor in the employment of the Provincial Government, produced a plan of the premises known as the Albion Hotel, showing the relative positions and distances of the hotel and the prisoners'' house, and the access to the former from the latter.
By His Honor ��� The distance from, prisoners'' house to the hotel by the road is 70 yards; the hotel stands back from the road 10 yards; the breadth of front of the hotel is 12 yards, and from the nearest corner of the building to the stables the distance is 6 yards; the back route to the stables from the Buckridges'' house is 70 yards.
By Mr. Borlase — The nearest accessible course between the Buckridges'' and the Albion stables, is 50 yards; the course pointed out to witness by constable Brady was 245 yards.
Samuel Death, proprietor of the Albion Hotel, deposed to having been awoke about 3 o''clock on the morning of the 25th November by hearing an alarm of fire, and to running out and discovering the S.E. end of a stable leased by him to Mr. Ross, to be on fire.
By His Honor — The whole stabling was consumed in about half an hour.
Examination continued — The prisoners came running to help put the fire out and save the hotel; they both worked very hard and well,
Cross-examined by Mr. Borlase — The prisoners came to and went from the scene of the fire by the road.
By His Honor - On the night of the fire it rained very heavily, and the following morning there were a few showers; the land at the back of the hotel is laid down in paddocks.
By Mr. Borlase — Witness knew the prisoners as neighbours, and always got on well with them; Edward kept a butcher''s shop, and supplied the hotel with meat.
His Honor asked, Mr. Izard if he were prepared to prove malice ?
Mr. Izard replied in the negative.
His Honor remarked that it was not in his power to stop the case, but he would very much like to know how, a conviction could be obtained.
Robert Ross, coach proprietor, residing in Wellington, was sleeping in the Albion on the night of the fire; he had three horses in the stables, which were rescued soon after the alarm was given; the large body of flames appeared to him to have originated either in the loft or from the loose box; the prisoners were running to the fire along the road; they were partially dressed, but Edward had on boots; they took an active part in rescuing property from the flames.
Constable Brady gave similar evidence to that already published, and deposed to having, when inspecting the premises of the Albion Hotel, discovered four different bootmarks at the back of the further end of the stable; the marks were those, of two pair of boots worn by two persons who had been walking from the stable that had been burnt in a direction going towards a paddock, and away from the Buckridge''s house; witness traced the bootmark along a cattle track into a grass paddock, where he lost them; found them again about thirty yards further on in Mr. Samuel Death''s garden, and traced them into another grass paddock, where he again lost them for about five yards, and picked them up again within four or five yards of prisoner''s outhouse.
By His Honor — The persons who had followed the track must have been walking in file, one set of marks being a little behind and to the side of the other; they were quite clearly to be discerned.
Examination continued — Witness have fully examined the tracks went over them again with Mr. Cleland, agent at the Hutt for the Liverpool and London, and Globe Insurance Offices, and then went to prisoners'' house; saw Edward Buckridge, to whom he said "I suspect the party who set fire to the stable came into your premises; "then he asked to see all the boots in the house; Edward readily complied, sent for his brothers, told them to take off their boots, took off his own, and gave them up; witness asked Edward to accompany him and examine the track, and he did go at once (boots produced and identified, those with iron heels and nails on soles as William''s and the pair with nails in the heels only as Edward''s); witness made an impression of the boots given to him, on the soft ground beside the bootmarks he had first discovered, and found the imprint made by William''s to coincide in every particular, length, breadth, general appearance, mark of iron heel, and number and relative position of nails in the sole; the marks left by Edward Buckridge''s boots were not so clearly discernible, but also corresponded with the original track as regarded the number and relative position of the nails in the heels.
Cross-examined by Mr Borlase — The Buckridges evinced no hesitation in showing their boots, and Edward readily went to inspect the track.
Hugh Cleland, storekeeper at the Hutt, corroborative evidence, but said that he would not swear that the impressions made by the prisoners'' boots corresponded with the marks near the stable; he was sure they did with the foot-prints on prisoners'' premises and in Mr. Death''s garden. After William Buckridge was taken into custody, witness said to him, "I am convinced the man who owns the boots which made the marks in the garden has something to do with the fire," the prisoner replied "Let them prove it."
Cross-examined by Mr. Borlase — The stables were insured for £250 in the London and Liverpool; the prisoners'' boots are colonial made, and not imported trade boots.
Sergeant Monaghan deposed to arresting the prisoner, and the discovery in his pocket of a few matches and, a piece of candle.
This concluded the evidence.
The jury stated that they Were not satisfied that the case had been made out against the prisoners, and returned a verdict of acquittal.
This concluded the business, and the Court adjourned till the 18th inst.

query Buckridge more about case

Wellington Independent 23 April 1868
ANNUAL LICENSING DAY
...
LICENSES RENEWED
The licenses renewed were those held by
...
Buck, for the Travellers'' Rest, Hutt;
...
Mary Corbett, Hutt;
...
Samuel Death, Albion Hotel, Hutt;
...
J. Osgood, for Whitewood''s Hotel;
...


Wellington Independent 16 December 1871
Appointment of Lighthouse Keeper, Somes'' Island.
Provincial Secretary''s Office,
Wellington, 21st Nov., 1871.
HIS Honor the Syperintendent has been pleased to appoint
MR. ROBERT BUCKRIDGE
Acting Lighthouse Keeper at Somes Island, Wellington Harbour.
By His Honor''s command,
HENRY BUNNY,
Provincial Secretary.

Evening Post 13 June 1872
The question of the legality of passengers who travel by mail coaches paying the toll of twopence each, levied on them by the Toll Gate Act Amendment Act, passed in the last session of the Provincial Council, was decided yesterday in the Resident Magistrate''s Court, Lower Hutt. Thomas Walker, of Greytown, and Robert Buckridge, lighthouse keeper, passengers by the Wairarapa coach, were charged by the collector of tolls on the Hutt bridge for refusing to pay the toll (the driver of the coach having refused, to pay the toll on the vehicle, the passengers become liable to the toll of twopence each). They were fined one shilling and costs.

Evening Post 10 August 1872
The people who have been spending their quarantine days on Somes'' Island were landed to-day - both passengers per Nebraska and patients. They and the luggage made two boat loads, and included Mr. Redman, his wife and wife''s mother, Dr. Bulmer. Mr. Holmes, the pilot, one Armed Constabulary, and ten passengers - one of whom is a lady - from the Nebraska. The latter have not been on the "smallpox" side of the island, but have been accommodated in the lighthouse and in tents. They speak highly of the kindness and attention shown them by Mrs. Buckridge, the wife of the lighthouse keeper.


-

Bolton Street Cemetery Record Robert Buckridge (sic), Date: 12/8/1874, Cemetery: Church of England, Plot: 5401 (sic), Burial, Grave

Karori Cemetery
Last Name: BUCKRIDGE
First Name: Robert
Deceased Date: 00-00-0000
Occupation:
Service Date: 12-08-1874
Service Provided: Burial
Cemetery: Bolton St
Section: C of E
Plot Number: 5401
Record Number: 94797

Death Details
1874/517, Robert Buckridge (sic), Aged: NR

Evening Post 10 September 1874
On the 10th inst, at the residence of Mr Lipman Levy, Robert Buckeridge (sic), aged 58 years, late lighthouse keeper Somes'' Island
-
Mr Buckeridge, formerly of the Taita, and latterly lighthouse-keeper on Somes''

Island, died this morning at the residence of L. Levy, Esq. Mr Buckeridge was a very old Wellington resident, but has for some time been in failing health, and last week was compelled to leave the island, and come over to the city for medical advice.

Death Details
1888/597 Buckeridge Ann 69Y - Date of Death 31/12/1887 from Death Registration

Carterton District Council Cemetery Records
Family Name: BUCKERIDGE
Given Names: ANN
Address:
Age: 69 years
Date Deceased: 31/12/1887 (sic)
Interment Date: 31/12/1887
Gender: F
Cemetery: CLAREVILLE
Plot: 31
Block NEW UNSEC
Grave/Ashes Burial
Reserved Date: 18/1/1888

Evening Post 31 December 1887
Death of a Pioneer Colonist.
[BY TELEGRAPH.]
(Our Own Correspondent.)
CARTERTON, THIS DAY.
An old pioneer colonist, the relict of the late Robert Buckeridge (sic), of the Hutt, died this morning at her son''s home. She landed in Wellington in 1842. Since her husband''s death, she has resided with her sons in Canterbury and Wairarapa. Three months ago she was seized with a paralytic stroke, and although Dr. Bey gave no hopes at the time she lingered on until this morning. Mrs. Buckeridge was widely known and beloved, and leaves a numerous family of sons, daughters, and grandchildren to mourn their loss. The funeral will take place at Carterton tomorrow.
Facts
  • 1816 - Birth -
  • 10 SEP 1874 - Death -
Ancestors
   
?
 
 
?
  
  
  
?
 
Robert Buckridge
1816 - 10 SEP 1874
  
 
  
?
 
 
?
  
  
  
?
 
Family Group Sheet - Child
PARENT (U) ?
Birth
Death
Father?
Mother?
PARENT (U) ?
Birth
Death
Father?
Mother?
CHILDREN
MRobert Buckridge
Birth1816
Death10 SEP 1874
Marriageto Ann Cording
Family Group Sheet - Spouse
PARENT (M) Robert Buckridge
Birth1816
Death10 SEP 1874
Marriageto Ann Cording
Father?
Mother?
PARENT (F) Ann Cording
Birth9 APR 1818
Death31 DEC 1887
Marriageto Robert Buckridge
FatherEdmund Cording
MotherAnn Unknown
CHILDREN
MJohn Buckridge
Birth1842
Death17 AUG 1918
Marriage1865to Eleanor WELCH
MEdward Buckridge
Birth
Death
FAnnie Buckridge
Birth1837
Death
Marriage18 MAR 1865to Joseph Hayward
FEmily Buckridge
Birth1841
Death25 DEC 1906
Marriage1866to Thomas Whitworth
FEliza Buckridge
Birth
Death
MWilliam Buckridge
Birth1849
Death20 JUN 1918
FMary Buckridge
Birth1862
Death
MRobert John Septimas Buckridge
Birth1839
Death20 JUN 1850
MRichard T Buckridge
Birth1852
Death24 OCT 1902
Marriage16 AUG 1884to Ellen Goode
FLucy Buckridge
Birth1858
Death29 JUN 1948
Marriage11 AUG 1875to Hugh Aplin at St Peters'' Church, Wellington
MRobert Buckridge
Birth1855
Death9 JUL 1914
Marriage5 MAR 1885to Zealandia Louisa Worth
Descendancy Chart
Robert Buckridge b: 1816 d: 10 SEP 1874
Ann Cording b: 9 APR 1818 d: 31 DEC 1887
John Buckridge b: 1842 d: 17 AUG 1918
Eleanor WELCH b: 1847 d: 22 JUN 1929
Amy Ansley Buckridge b: 1867 d: 26 DEC 1926
Isaac Pike b: 1850 d: 3 SEP 1921
Annie Buckridge b: 1837
Emily Buckridge b: 1841 d: 25 DEC 1906
William Buckridge b: 1849 d: 20 JUN 1918
Mary Buckridge b: 1862
Robert John Septimas Buckridge b: 1839 d: 20 JUN 1850
Richard T Buckridge b: 1852 d: 24 OCT 1902
Lucy Buckridge b: 1858 d: 29 JUN 1948
Hugh Aplin b: 1847 d: 4 AUG 1895
Robert Buckridge b: 1855 d: 9 JUL 1914
Zealandia Louisa Worth b: 1857 d: 18 NOV 1918
  • Top Surnames

    Unknown (118)
    Peck (69)
    Harris (63)
    Welch (61)
    Hooper (55)
    Hirst (52)
    Avery (51)
    August (48)
    Gaskin (44)
    Judd (41)
  • Wedding Venue Bookings

    To book a wedding email or phone Daphne Daysh 04 977 2055 or 027 687 2055

    (04) 977 2055 (home), (cell)