Monday

Ridley, Henrietta Agnes - portrait of Henrietta Araminta Monck Browne


This miniature portrait is by Henrietta Agnes Schenley (1847- ) who married Charles Nicholas Ridley in 1884 and thus became Henrietta Agnes Ridley. This miniature portrait is signed H Agnes Ridley. Several other miniature portraits by her are known to exist.
In the 1901 census, she was living in The Lodge, South Warnborough, Hants with her husband Charles N Ridley, who was of independent means. They had a daughter Alberta M Ridley aged 15 , a governess and six servants. In the 1891 census, what must be the same family is living at the Grange, Groudhurst, Kent with Alberta aged 5 and five servants. Although the birth date is inconsistent, their daughter Alberta Mary Ridley appears to have been a god daughter of King Edward VII see List of godchildren of members of the British Royal Family ... Alberta Mary Ridley of South Warnboro'  England, was married at Jubbulpore, India,  on 22 April 1924 to a Colonel McLean. 

It is currently thought that Henrietta Agnes Ridley was a daughter-in-law of the sitter, with her husband Charles Nicholas Ridley (1852-?) being a younger brother of the Henry C W Ridley (1848-?) referred to below.

Henrietta Agnes Schenley came from a very wealthy family. Although born in England in 1847, she was living with her parents and siblings in Collins, Pennsylvania, USA during the 1860 census, where her mother at age 34, disclosed real estate and other assets in her own right totalling $1,700,000. By 1871 the family was back in England.

There is a photographic portrait of Henrietta Agnes Schenley herself, taken about 1855 at http://www.lifeinwesternpa.org/viewDetail.asp?ID=315

Research has revealed that Henrietta's mother was Mary Elizabeth Croghan, who eloped at age 15 from a boarding school in New York, with Captain Edward Schenley. The boarding school was in fact run by Edward Schenley's sister in law Mrs McLeod. This caused an international scandel and is well documented on the Internet, see Oakland: People: Mary Croghan Schenley and her portrait here.

However, Mary and Edward they seem to have lived happily in England and had a large family. When Mary Elizabeth Croghan Schenley died in 1903, the Chicago Tribune reported her estate was worth about $40,000,000 to $50,000,000 and she was one of the richest women in the world.

On the reverse the miniature is inscribed "The Hon'ble Henrietta Araminta Monck Browne, wife of Maj Gen Charles Ridley C.B. b. 1816 d. 1869 - Painted by H. Agnes Ridley 1922". Their marriage took place in 1845 and Major General Charles William Ridley CB (1812-1867) served during the Crimean War. In 1865-67 he was Colonel of the 53rd Regiment of Foot, which in1865-68 was mainly serving in Ireland, and Canada.

Although it was painted in 1922, this miniature was acquired with the associated portrait of Napoleon presented to Lady Elizabeth Monck, and thus forms part of its provenance. The portrait of Napoleon is engraved as being a gift from Marshal Ney to Henrietta's Araminata Monck Browne's grandmother, Lady Elizabeth Monck.

In the 1851 census, Charles Ridley (then a Lt Colonel) and Henrietta were living at 78 Chester Square, Belgavia, London with their daughter Louisa Katherine Ridley (1846-1920), their son Henry C W Ridley (1848-?), and also five servants. Louisa married Marcus Talbot Delapoer-Beresford in 1895. 829

The family was involved in a major court case in 1835 which needed to be resolved by the House of Lords;

APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CHANCERY IN IRELAND The Rev Marcus Monck Clerk Appellant Charles Henry Paget Esq Sir Charles Paget and Dame Elizabeth his Wife Dominick Browne Esq and Catherine his Wife and Henry Geo Monck Browne an Infant by his next Friend Respondents Practice GP Monck's estates in Ireland being charged with a jointure for Lady Araminta his wife by their marriage settlement whereby also he covenanted for payment to her of the sum of 300 I by his heirs executors or administrators out of his real or personal estate immediately after his decease were in the year 1777 settled to his own use for life with remainder to Henry Monck his eldest son in fee subject to a trust term for raising a sum to be applied as by deed or will he should appoint He died in 1804 having by his will bequeathed among other things all rents and arrears of rent due to him to Lady A her executors and administrators and he appointed her sole executrix Lady A declined to prove the will Henry Monck obtained letters of administration with the will annexed received the rents &c and died in 1815 having by his will devised all his real estates to trustees for the use of his two daughters their husbands and issue respectively in strict settlement subject to a trust term for raising a fund to pay his debts legacies and annuities and he thereby directed payment of 200 I a year to Lady A and her assigns for her life in addition to her jointure and gave her a legacy of 500 payable in twelve months after his decease and he gave an annuity of 400 a year to Ann Monck his sister in case she survived Lady A and upon condition of her releasing his real estates from all claims and he appointed Lady Elizabeth his wife his executrix She proved the will and filed a bill in Chancery against Lady A and Ann Monck against the testamentary trustees of the last mentioned term and of the inheritance of the devised estates and against the persons beneficially interested therein praying that the trusts of the will might be carried into execution and that accounts might be taken of the debts and legacies of the testator and of the charges affecting the real estates &c Lady Araminta in her answer claimed to be entitled to receive out of the real estates in addition to her jointure the said sum of 300 L with interest from her husband's death and the said annuity of 200 I and legacy of 500 I together with all the rents and arrears that were due to GP Monck at his death and a proportionate value of the timber planted by him on the devised estates The usual decree for an account &c having been made in 1818 and Lady A having died before any further steps were taken in the cause Ann Monck her residuary legatee and sole executrix proved her will and earned in a charge before the Master in pursuance of the decree and thereby claimed as such executrix the annuity of 200 and the legacy of 600 omitting the other claims made in Lady A s answer and in her own right she claimed the annuity of 400 offering to release the estates of Henry Monck from all other claims A final decree was made in that cause in 1821 and enrolled in 1822 In 1831 a second suit was instituted for sale of part of the devised estates and a decree to that effect was made and enrolled in 1832 In 1834 Marcus Monck the second son of GP and Lady A Monck having in 1832 obtained administration de bonis non to their respective estates and also to the estate of his sister Ann Monck who died in 1830 moved the Master of the Rolls for leave to prove before the Master in the first cause the unproved demands of Lady A or to file a supplemental bill which motion being refused he then moved the Lord Chancellor for leave to file a supplemental bill or such other bill as he might be advised That motion also was refused Upon appeal from his Lordship's order the Appellant sought to make a case for leave to prove before the Master under the decree of 1821 the unproved demands of Lady A or for a bill of review Held by the Lords without giving any judgment on the merits that the Lord Chancellor properly refused the motion for leave to file a supplemental bill and that the appeal was irregular in point of form in asking for relief which was not asked of the Court below the order of the Master of the Rolls refusing that relief not being appealed from PREVIOUS to the marriage of George Paul Monck esq with the Lady Araminta his wife the father and mother of the Appellant a marriage settlement was executed dated the 22d of April 1755 whereby the estates of the said GP Monck situated in the county of Westmeath in Ireland were settled on him and the issue male of the marriage in strict settlement charged with a jointure of 800 a year for the Lady Araminta payable half yearly and GP Monck thereby covenanted that in case she should survive him his heirs executors or administrators should out of his real or personal estate pay her 300 immediately after his decease In the year 1777 GP Monck and Henry Monck the eldest son of the marriage suffered a recovery of the settled estates and by deed declaring the uses of the recovery dated the 3d of December 1777 they were limited to the use of trustees for a term of one thousand years and subject thereto to the use of GP Monck for life with remainder to the use of the said H Monck in fee The trusts of the term were by sale or mortgage of the estates to raise such sums of money not exceeding 1 5,000 and to pay and apply the same in such manner and for such purposes as GP Monck by any writing under seal or by his last will should direct and appoint George Paul Monck died in October 1804 leaving Lady Araminta his widow and H Monck his eldest son and other children having by his will dated the 24th of May 1790 bequeathed all his ready moneyi rents and arrears of rent due and owing to him at his decease household goods and furniture with the lease of his house in Bath and all his personal estate to Lady Araminta her executors and administrators subject to the payment of his funeral and testamentary expenses and simple contract debts only declaring it to be his intention that the property so given to her should as far as in his power be exonerated from payment of his bond debts judgments mortgages and other incumbrances which he directed should be charged on his real estates only and he appointed her sole executrix of his will He afterwards by a codicil dated the 25th of May 1792 restricted the bequest of his household goods and furniture with the lease of his house at Bath to the natural life of Lady Araminta bequeathing it over after her decease to his daughter Ann Monck her executors and administrators but confirmed his will in all other respects Lady Araminta declining to act as executrix Henry Monck took out letters of administration with the will annexed and possessed himself of the personal estate and received the rents and arrears of rent of the real estate owing to GP Monck at his death but never as the Appellant alleged accounted for them to Lady Araminta Monck Henry Monck died in 1815 having by his will devised all his towns castles lands and other hereditaments to the use of trustees therein named for a term of four thousand years and subject thereto he devised one moiety of the said hereditaments to other trustees in the will named during the life of his daughterthe Respondent Catherine wife of the Respondent Dominick Browne upon trust to pay the rents and profits of the said moiety to her separate use during her life and after her decease to the use of the said Dominick Browne for life with remainder to the use of their second son in tail male with divers remainders over and he devised the other moiety of the said hereditaments subject to the said term to the use of the last mentioned trustees during the life of his daughter the Respondent Elizabeth wife of the Respondent Sir Charles Paget upon similar trusts for her separate use and after her decease to the use of Sir C Paget for life with remainder to their eldest son in tail male with remainders over The trusts of the term were declared to be by sale or mortgage to raise such sums as should be sufficient to pay the testator's debts funeral and testamentary expenses legacies and annuities The testator among other bequests directed the payment of 200 I a year to his mother Lady Araminta and her assigns during her life in addition to her jointure of 800 I under the above recited settlement and 400 a year to his sister Ann Monck in case she should survive Lady Araminta but upon the express condition that she released his estates from any claim that she might have on them He also gave a legacy of 500 to his mother to be paid at the expiration of twelve months after his decease and he gave all his personal estates and effects to his wife Lady Elizabeth Monck absolutely and directed that if any of his debts should be paid out of his personal estate Lady Elizabeth should in that case be entitled to be reimbursed out of the premises comprised in the term of four thousand years and he appointed her sole executrix of his will At the testator's death the Respondents CatherineBrowne and Dame Elizabeth Paget were his only children and co heiresses at law Lady Elizabeth Monck proved the will and in March 1816 filed her bill in Chancery in Ireland against Lady Araminta Monck Anne Monck Dominick Browne and Catherine his wife Charles Paget and Elizabeth his wife and Charles Henry Paget their eldest son making also the testamentary trustees of the term of four thousand years the trustees of the fee of the estates the incumbrancers thereon and several others interested under the will of Henry Monck parties defendants The bill after setting forth the said will and stating among other things that the testator was indebted at the time of his death to a number of persons and that several of them had applied to the plaintiff for payment of their demands prayed among other things that the defendants might set forth an account of the said real estates so devised as before stated and the right title interest &c they respectively had in them &c that Ann Monck might elect whether she would accept the said annuity of 400 I releasing all other claims which she might have to the said estates or insist upon her other claims and that she might set forth the same respectively that an account might also be taken of the debts legacies and funeral and testamentary expenses of the testator and also of any charges affecting the said lands and hereditaments and that the several creditors and legatees of the testator might be at liberty to come in before the Master and make proof of their several demands and that the trusts of the will might be carried into execution and a competent part of the lands comprised in the term of four thousand years might be sold for the purposes in the will mentioned The different defendants appeared and put in theiranswers to the bill Lady Araminta Monck by her answer admitted the will of Henry Monck particularly the bequests to her of the annuity of 200 and the sum of 500 and with reference to the estates devised she said that she believed they were the same estates that were comprised in the settlement of April 1755 whereby the jointure of 800 I and the sum of 300 were secured to her as above mentioned but which sum of 300 she alleged had never been paid to her She in her said answer set forth the will of GP Monck his death and administration to him by the said Henry Monck and she claimed to be entitled to receive out of the said real estates the two annuities of 800 and 200 and the two sums of 300 and 500 with interest on these two sums from the periods when the same respectively became payable together with all rents and arrears of rents that were due to GP Monck at the time of his decease and she also claimed such proportion of the value of the timber planted by GP Monck on the said estates as he was entitled to under the Irish statutes in that behalf she also claimed all the residue of his personal property after payment of his simple contract debts &c Ann Monck also by her answer admitted the will of Henry Monck especially the bequest to her of the annual sum of 400 and she claimed that annuity and brought forward several other claims against the said estates and declined to elect as prayed by the bill until her rights and claims were ascertained These answers were replied to but no evidence was gone into and the cause coming on to be heard on bill and answer in Nov 1818 a decree was made whereby it was ordered among other things that the Master should take an account of the debts legacies and funeral expenses of the testator Henry Monck andalso an account of the debts charges and incumbrances affecting his real estates and of the rents and profits thereof &c And it was declared that Ann Monck was bound to make her election between the reversionary annuity bequeathed to her by his will and her other claims in the pleadings mentioned affecting the estates before she was permitted to file any charge in the Master's office under the decree and it was further ordered that all creditors and legatees of Henry Monck and all persons having debts charges and incumbrances affecting his estates should have liberty to come in before the Master to prove the same Lady Araminta Monck died in 1818 soon after the pronouncing of the decree and before any further proceedings were had in the cause having by her will appointed her daughter the said Ann Monck her sole executrix who accordingly proved the will but no bill of revivor was filed in the said cause for the purpose of bringing her as the personal representative of Lady Araminta Monck before the Court Ann Monck in July 1819 carried into the Master's office her charge under the said decree and thereby claimed to be entitled as the executrix of Lady Araminta Monck to the arrears of the annuities of 800 I and of 200 and also to the legacy of 500 with the interest due thereon She also elected to take the annuity of 400 bequeathed to her by Henry Monck and offered to release his estate from any other claim that she might have thereon But she did not either by her said charge or otherwise in her lifetime bring forward the several other claims set forth by Lady Araminta Monck in her answer The Master by his report dated January 1821 found that Ann Monck was entitled as executrix ot Lady Araminta to an arrear of 500 on foot of the said annuity of 200 and also to the legacy of 500 L bequeathed to her by Henry Monck with interest on both sums and that she was also entitled under Henry Monck's will to her annuity of 400 No exceptions were taken to the report the cause came on for further directions in March 1 821 when by a decree then pronounced and which was enrolled in Nov 1822 it was amongst other things ordered and decreed that the Respondents Dominick Browne and Catherine his wife Sir Charles Paget and Elizabeth his wife or some one of them should pay to the plaintiff and the several defendants and creditors their respective demands with interest and also the costs of the defendants or in default thereof that the Master should within six months sell the several towns and lands comprised in the said term of four thousand years for the residue of the term for the purpose of paying the incumbrances No sale took place under that decree In November 1 831 the Respondents filed their bill against Lady Elizabeth Monck and the trustees of the feeof the real estates under Henry Monck's will The bill set forth the will of Hanry Monck his death and the probate of his will by Lady Elizabeth Monck the original bill filed by her the said order of November 1818 the Master's report and the said final decree of March 1821 and it stated that the Respondent Henry George Monck Browne was born after the date of the decree and that under the limitations of the said will he was entitled to an estate tail in a moiety of the said estates upon the decease of the survivor of Catherine and Dominick Browne and that no sale had been had of the estates comprised in the said term and that it would be greatly for the benefit of all parties interested in the said estates that a sale of the fee and inheritance of acompetent part thereof should take place with the said trust term instead of the said trust term only and J that the money arising from such sale should be applied in payment and discharge of the debts charges and incumbrances affecting the said estates The bill accordingly prayed that the fee and inheritance of the hereditaments and premises in the said trust term contained might be decreed to be sold and that the proceeds might be applied to discharge all debts and incumbrances affecting the same The defendants to that bill having put in their answers the cause came on to be heard upon bill and answer in May 1832 when it was ordered and decreed as prayed That decree was enrolled in the November of the same year Ann Monck died in September 1 830 The Appellant obtained letters of administration debonis noii to the estate of Lady AramintaMonck and administration to the estate of Ann Monck in February 1832 and he also obtained letters of administration de bonis non with the will annexed of his father GP Monck On the 20th of January 1834 the Appellant as administrator of Lady Araminta Monck moved the Master of the Rolls in Ireland in pursuance of notice entitled in both causes of Monck v Browne and Paget v Monck that he might be at liberty to go before the Master in the said first cause and file a charge and proceed thereunder to prove the several unproved demands made by the Lady Araminta Monck in her said answer viz first her claim of 300 with interest under the settlement of 1755 secondly her claim on foot of rents and arrears of rents of the lands and premises in the said settlement and pleadings mentioned which were due to GP Monck at the time of his decease and by him bequeathed to Lady Araminta subject only to his simple contract debts andfuneral and testamentary expenses and which to the amount of 7084 I Is 11 d were received and retained by Henry Monck as his personal representative and thirdly her claim to GP Monck's proportion of the value of the timber trees planted by him on the said estates as tenant for life thereof pursuant to statute in such case made and provided and which said several claims were by inadvertence omitted to be proved by Ann Monck the former personal representative of Lady Araminta in the cause of Monck v Browne and which she was entitled to prove against the outstanding estates of H Monck or otherwise that the Appellant as such personal representative of Lady Araminta Monck might he at liberty to file a supplemental hill or such other bill as he might be advised for the purpose of establishing such demands &c The Master of the Rolls declined to make any order on that motion On the 31st January 1834 the Appellant pursuant to notice entitled in both causes and served on the Respondents moved the Lord Chancellor of Ireland for liberty to file a supplemental bill in the first mentioned cause or such other bill as he might be advised for the purpose of establishing the several unproved and unadjudicated claims made by Lady Araminta Monck in her answer in that cause and as specified in the Appellant's affidavit filed in that cause on the 11th of January instant or for such other order as to his Lordship should seem meet &c Two affidavits were read in support of this motion one of them being the affidavit of the Appellant and entitled in the first cause and which was also used in support of the motion before the Master of the Rolls was to this effect It stated the bill in the first mentioned cause the answer of Lady Araminta Monckthereto and the decree of November 1818 therein pronounced and that Lady Araminta died before any further proceeding was taken therein having appointed the said Ann Monck her executrix It then stated that Ann Monck filed her charge in the said cause as hereinbefore mentioned but omitted the several other claims made by Lady Araminta in her answer that is to say the said claim of 300 with interest from the death of GP Monck all or any claim on foot of the rents and arrears of rents of the said settled and devised estates due to him at the time of his decease and amounting to 7084 Is lid and also the claim of the value of the timber trees planted by GP Monck on the said settled and devised estates as tenant for life thereof and which amounted to the sum of 5000 the affidavit then stated the Master's report of January 1821 the said decree of March 1821 and the proceedings in the second cause it then stated the death of Ann Monck in 1830 and that she had ever since the death of Lady Araminta her mother resided in England and was wholly unacquainted with the facts relating to the said unproved claims of Lady Araminta and that she was during her life time quite incompetent to have instructed her solicitor as to the facts and proofs incidental to those claims the affidavit then stated that letters of administration with the will annexed of Lady Araminta were granted to the Appellant in February 1832 and that thereupon he caused application to be made to the solicitor employed by Ann Monck as such executrix as aforesaid for the papers which had belonged to her in such right and that considerable delay took place therein before the Appellant's solicitor received the same and that thereupon very tedious searches and inquiries became necessary and were entered into on the part of theAppellant in order to ascertain the grounds on whick those unproved claims were founded and that the Appellant's solicitor used the utmost diligence to investigate the same The other affidavit read in support of the motion before the Lord Chancellor was the affidavit of Mr Henry Murphy the Appellant's solicitor It stated among other things that in November 1830 the said Henry Murphy received instructions from the Appellant to procure letters of administration to Lady Araminta Monck and Ann Monck and that he was not able to obtain the same until the month of February 1832 that upon obtaining such administrations he was instructed to apply for and after much delay succeeded in obtaining from their solicitor the papers and documents in the first mentioned cause belonging to them and that upon inspecting such papers it appeared that certain claims made by Lady Araminta in her answer and specified in the affidavit of the Appellant had never been put forward by her said executrix The affidavit then stated that the reason why such claims were not put forward was that Ann Monck and her solicitor had not in their power any evidence to prove the same and that it appeared by a case submitted to counsel by her said solicitor for the purpose of preparing proofe in the first mentioned cause that Lady Araminta Monck and Ann Monck were not prepared with evidence as to the planting of timber nor as to the arrears of rents from want of certain accounts referred to in the said case nor as to the claim under the said marriage settlement from want of the original deeds of April 1755 and of December 1777 The affidavit then stated that due diligence was used at the time to obtain the said deeds and that a notice in writing had been served on theplaintiff in the first cause requiring the production of the said deeds and that no answer had been returned thereto and that a fruitless application and search had been made for the original accounts on which the claim to the arrears of rents was founded The affidavit further stated that in the months of July and October last Henry Murphy and the Appellant had made two visits to the lands in the pleadings mentioned and that on such occasion Henry Murphy had discovered sufficient evidence to sustain Lady Araminta's claim for the planting and value of the timber mentioned in her answer and he had also discovered the name of the gentleman who had been conducting clerk and assistant to the land and law agent of Henry Monck and by his means obtained access to the papers which had belonged to the said testator's agent amongst which the original accounts were found and were then in the deponent's possession The Respondents opposed the motion and grounded their opposition on the reasons appearing in the affidavit of Mr Dobbin their solicitor which was read by their counsel and which stated among other things that the final decrees in the two causes were enrolled in November 1832 that Ann Monck in her answer in the first cause relied on her claims under the marriage settlement of GP Monck that Henry Monck bequeathed the annual sum of 200 to Lady Araminta during her life and also a legacy of 500 and to Ann Monck an annuity of 400 during her life upon condition of her releasing his estates from any charge claim or demand that she might have thereon The affidavit then stated that about the 1st day of July 1819 Ann Monck filed her charge under the first decree in her own right and as executrix of Lady Araminta claiming as above mentioned that the saidcharge was duly proved and the amount thereof and of l e annmty of 400 l had been paid from time to time out of the funds in the cause partly to Ann Monck and partly to the Appellant since her decease that Lady Araminta Monck by her last will bequeathed to Ann Monck 3000 to the Appellant 1000 and the residue of her estate and effects to Ann Monck and appointed her executrix The affidavit further stated that the deponent was altogether unacquainted with the demands stated in the Appellant's affidavit that all the persons who must have been acquainted with the facts relating to the said demands weer dead The Lord Chancellor by an order bearing date the said 31st day of January 1834 refused the motion with costs The petition of appeal prayed that that order be reversed or that the Appellant might have such other relief in the premises as to this House should seem meet Mr Wigram and Mr Lancelot Shadwell for the Appellant The unproved claims of Lady Araminta Monck which her personal representative seeks to establish against the real estates of Henry Monck consist first of the sum of 300 with interest from the death of GP Monck in 1804 secondly of the rents and arrears of rent that were due to him from those estates at the time of his death which exceeded 7000 as appears from the agent's accounts and thirdly of such proportion of the value of the timber planted by him on the estates as he himself was entitled to as tenant for life under the Irish statutes for encouraging the planting of timber trees To the first of these claims she was entitled under the covenant in her marriagesettlement by which her husband bound his heirs and executors to pay that sum out of his real and personal estate immediately after his death By his will he exonerated his personal estate from specialty debts and directed them to be paid out of the real estates which had been demised for a term in trust to raise money for such payments Henry Monck was both heir and executor and in either character bound by the covenant but he never paid that debt The rent and arrears of rent were expressly bequeathed to Lady Araminta and the general bequest to her of the personal estate carried her husband's proportion of the value of the timber planted by him These were all subsisting charges on the estates at the time of the decease of Henry Monck Those who represent him and his estates cannot object that Lady Araminta's representatives have not made these claims in due time for as he was both heir and acting executor of his father and received the rents and possessed himself of the personal estate he ought to have discharged those liabilities On his death in 1815 in answer to the bill then filed Lady Araminta distinctly set forth her claims Lord Brougham This appears to be an appeal motion I do not remember such an appeal in this House but I do not deny our jurisdiction The form is as your Lordship has stated an appeal motion was made to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland for leave to file a supplemental bill to establish those claims the Master of the Rolls having refused to make any order on a former motion made before him partly for the same purpose There was unquestionably a valid charge in respect of those claims on the estates of Henry Monck capable of being enforced at thetime of his death He devised the estates to trustees subject to a term also in trust and seventeen years have elapsed since Lady Araminta's death but a lapse of twenty years even will not bar equitable claims in circumstances not affording presumption of satisfaction Pickering v Lord Stamford a Lord Brougham Why limit yourselves to twenty years There is no fixed limitation of time In one case a lapse of thirty eight years was held to be no bar under the circumstances in another thirty five years did not bar equitable claims yet in a case in this House nineteen years were held to bar a claim under a bond though twenty years constitute the limitation in case of a bond No objection can therefore be made to these claims on the ground of delay The period of twenty years was mentioned because the lapse of that period was set up as a bar by the Respondents Another objection made to these claims is that Ann Monck in the charge filed by her in the Master's office released the estates of Henry Monck from any other charge claim or demand whatsoever that she may have thereon save and except the several claims thereinbefore set forth But Ann Monck's charge whereby she elected to take her annuity of 400 in preference to the various claims which she had set forth in her answer to the first bill against the estates of Henry Monck related only to what she so claimed in her own right by virtue of her father's marriage settlement and alleged dealings between him and H Monck and not to what she claimed as representative of Lady Araminta and the claims released by her were those which Henry Monck directed by his will to be released which were her own and could not a 2 Ves jun 272 & 581refer to these of Lady Araminta If the lapse of time and the enrolment of the decrees be put out of the case that release cannot prevent Lady Araminta's 7 ii representative from proceeding to prove these claims As to the enrolment the terms of the decree were of so specific a nature as not to prevent any one who had a debt to prove from coming in afterwards It is not unusual to let creditors go before the Master to substantiate claims after a long lapse of time while any part of the fund remains in court Gillespie v Alexander b Greig v Somerville c Lashley v Hogg d We ask no more than was granted in those cases we had a valid claim at the death of Henry Monck These claims are not barred by time which is to be computed from the death of Henry Monck who by his will must be taken to have recognised every debt due from him or affecting his estates The time that elapsed before his death cannot be taken to run against debts which he charged on his real estates It may be asked why did we not take out letters of administration sooner It is not necessary for us to account for the delay it is enough that we are creditors whose claims are not barred by lapse of time or presumption of satisfaction and we have a right to proceed to establish them But the delay is easily accounted for Lady Araminta made the claim by her answer in 1818 Ann Monck her executrix in order to prove the claim should have this evidence first the settlement containing GP Monck's covenant in respect of the 300 J secondly his will and thirdly proof that timber trees had been planted by him on the estates their value &c She having resided in Bath where Lady Araminta herself had resided and died 6 3 Russ 130 c 1 Russ & Myl 338 f 11 Ves 602 VOL III GGwas not in a situation to collect all this evidence although she used all due diligence to procure it Lord Lyndhurst The claims here made were as against an executor A new solicitor after a lapse of years came in and he claimed for the representative when the cause was wound up A recognition of such claims would lead to new claims on every change of solicitors in suits after all the proceedings in theui were brought to a close The House should look to the merits of this case It cannot be inferred from the fact of Ann Monck making some claims and omitting to make others for want of proof of them that she intended to abandon those which she omitted The Appellant has only recently obtained possession of the evidence necessary to support the unproved claims of Lady Araminta and is ready to establish them if permitted The estates of Henry Monck are still unsold and are amply sufficient to satisfy all the claims on them and the Appellant does not seek to disturb in any manner the existing proceedings in the causes We hope therefore that your Lordships will make an order giving him leave to go before the Master or to take such proceedings as he may be advised to take in pursuance of the proceedings under the decree Mr Pemberton and Mr Lowndes for the Respondents The Appellant now asks what he did not ask by his motion in the Court from whose order he appeals He does not now ask for leave to file a supplemental bill but for leave to go in and prove his claims before the Master under the decree which leave was refused by the Master of the Rolls and which the Appellant as appears by his notice ofmotion did not ask at all from the Lord Chancellor from whom he asked leave only to file a supplemental bill The Master of the Rolls refused the motion because the person whom the Appellant represents was a party to the original cause and ought before the hearing of the cause to have produced evidence of the claims alleged in her answer No one ever heard of a party in a cause applying for leave to go before the Master under the decree The Appellant now asks leave to file a supplemental bill not for the purpose of reviewing or disturbing the decree but to establish his claims It is not necessary to obtain leave of the Court to file a supplemental bill Lord Lyndhurst to Mr Wigram Why did you not file your supplemental bill without coming to the Court for leave claiming the benefit of the decree and that the Court would stay proceedings on it and the appropriation of the funds Mr Wigram We could not venture to do so without leave of the Court The Counsel for the Respondents The claims of the Appellant are as groundless in substance as his appeal is irregular in form Lady Araminta Monck possessed herself of her husband's personal estate out of which the 300 and the price of the timber also whatever it was were payable Both these claims were therefore annulled They were in fact claims against herself and were founded on a misapprehension The arrears of her jointure and of the annuity of 200 and the legacy of 500 were claimed by her executrix with interest the Master reported that she was entitled to them and these sums have been paid to Ann Monck as such executrix or to the Appellant Ann Monck in the charge filed by her in the Master's Office expressly released the estate of Henry Monck from any other charge claim or demand whatsoever that she might have thereon save and except the several claims hereinbefore set forth But it is suggested that the present claims were not released that she did not know of them at the time When Ann Monck carried in her claims on her own account and as representative of her mother under the decree in the first cause she and her solicitor were perfectly aware of the various demands which had been set up by her mother Counsel had been consulted as to the possibility of maintaining them It could not therefore have been from inadvertence that they were abandoned nor is it so pretended by Mr Murphy's affidavit it is of no importance whether they were abandoned on the ground that they were unfounded or that the party interested did not think fit to be at the trouble or expense of seeking for evidence to support them or that she chose voluntarily to release her brother's estate from them it is sufficient that having the sole legal and the sole beneficial interest in the subject she did in fact abandon those claims in the same manner as she abandoned all claims in her own right beyond those arising under the will of Henry Monck On the motion of the Appellant no order could be made that would have given him any right which he has not without order and the order which by his motion he sought to have pronounced would if it operated at all have the effect of altering a decree pronounced thirteen years ago and enrolled upwards of eleven years ago and not capable of being reversed or altered and no reason is given for the delay that has taken place in making the present claims Mr Wigram in reply It is a rule that though the prayer of a bill asks only for general relief you may afterwards ask for any specific relief but your Lord ships seem to be of opinion that on a notice of motion a a party must ask specifically for the relief he wants lest the other be taken by surprise As there was a clear understanding on the other side of what the Appellant meant to ask I apprehend your Lordships will observe that there is no fear of surprise Lord Brougham Whatever doubts I may have of the merits of this case on the lapse of time I have none on the form of the proceedings the course of which is very manifest There was first a motion before the Master of the Rolls for leave to go before the Master and take the benefit of the decree in the first suit or in the alternative to file a supplemental bill or for such other relief as the Court may direct which last words I consider as nothing or at most as mere surplusage The Master of the Rolls refused that motion he did not grant leave to go before the Master or to file a supplemental bill nor did he give the Appellant any other relief The next thing the Appellant did was to go before the Lord Chancellor not with an appeal motion which he might have made to discharge the order of the Master of the Rolls which would be opening the two alternatives of the former motion it would be a complaint that the Master of the Rolls had not given leave to go in to prove the claims before the Master in ordinary or to file a supplemental bill but instead of that the Appellant made another and different application to the Lord Chancellor It was only for leave to file a supplemental bill or for such other relief as the Court may direct That motion therefore was con fined to an application for leave to file a supplemental bill because I hold it to be perfectly clear that in case of a prayer for relief appended to a specific motion or intended to be made part of the case the notice of motion which is intended to apprise the opposite party of what is to be asked must convey to him something more specific than the general alternative such other relief as the Court may direct and that under that prayer nothing can be given by the Court except what is incidental to the particularity which precedes and is something short of the whole of that particularity or at all events something cjusdem generis I hold it therefore to be clear that under the notice of motion in this case before the Lord Chancellor it was not competent to his Lordship to have given leave to go in and prove the claims that not having been asked for but only leave to file a supplemental bill unless which sometimes happened before myself in the Court of Chancery the other party consents which would be consenting to the amendment of the motion in Court and would have been in effect consenting to the order asked for without notice at all It would have amounted to a waiving of the objection that might be taken for want of notice That is not however pretended to have been done in this case That is my opinion on this notice which is only for leave to file a supplemental bill taking it as if nothing had passed previously to this notice and as if no reference had been made to what passed previously But the case appears still stronger from the reference which is made in the notice to what passed at the Rolls Coupled with the confining of the notice given before the Lord Chancellor to one of the alternatives it was exceedingly calculated to mislead and to makeit be believed that upon further consideration the Appellant had advisedly refrained from asking both of the alternatives which had been refused at the Rolls and therefore had confined his application before the Lord Chancellor to one of the alternatives From the order of the Lord Chancellor refusing that relief namely leave to file a supplemental bill this appeal has arisen an appeal against what Not an appeal against the order refusing leave to go in and prove but to file a supplemental bill that is the shape of the case as it would first seem to come before us but observing that the case in that shape was not likely to be successful and finding that it might be held that the Court of Chancery had been right in refusing leave to file a supplemental bill as contrary to the course of proceeding and that the decision of your Lordships might be in affirmance of that refusal of leave to file the supplemental bill the Appellant applies now for what That he may have the benefit of the suit and file a bill of review or institute a new suit after the decree has been made which is a common case when a bill is dismissed because if you do not get leave to file another you are met by the plea of that decree and therefore the Appellant wishes to avoid the difficulty by having a bill of review He feels that he has no claim with respect to the supplemental bill that the Court below was right in having refused to give that unnecessary leave so unnecessary that if this order was to be affirmed or if it had never been appealed from the Appellant might just as well file such a bill and have made an application for any benefit under the suit incidental to the supplemental bill which he might have filed as if the Court had given him leave In this instance that being the case the Appellant seems to have mended his handand to have been minded to retrace the steps which e ad ta en ma wrong direction in Ireland and instead of making the application here for leave to ea supplemental bill he was minded to make an application such as that which he had made before the Master of the Rolls but not before the Lord Chancellor namely for leave to go in and prove the claims That appears to have been the course which the Appellant has adopted here but that is not a course in which we can carry him through because the question before us is Has or has not the Lord Chancellor in Ireland well decided in refusing leave to file a supplemental bill And we are of opinion that his Lordship rightly refused that leave in the case before us I do not wish to be understood in what I have said as by any means encouraging the Appellant to file a supplemental bill for aught I know it is the worst thing he can do I should rather hope that the parties may settle their differences without a suit After a lapse of seventeen years from the death of Lady Araminta Monck it will not serve the purpose of the Appellant to say that the delay was caused by want of a personal representative But who is the personal representative The Rev Henry Monck the Appellant he took out letters of administration in 1832 he was of age and might have administered many years ago the eldest son was of age in 1777 it is very likely that at that time the Appellant also was of mature age Then why was there no representative It will hardly do for him to explain the lapse of time by saying there was no personal representative for he might have been personal representative during any one of those periods and he did not choose to make himself so On all these grounds I have no hesitation in recommending your Lordships to affirmthe decision of the Court below and to affirm it with costs to be taxed Lord Lyndhurst I agree with the noble and learned Lord's opinion of the irregularity of this appeal in point of form and I recollect that Mr Wigram in his opening address was extremely desirous of getting rid of the idea that the decision of the Lord Chancellor was a confirmation of the decision of the Master of the Rolls because he thought that that might have some effect upon your Lordships decision and he therefore took occasion to state that the motions stood in different circumstances but the whole scope of his subsequent argument was to show that they were the same motions whereas they were quite different With respect to the merits of the case these claims are claims in a general account In the year 1802 the original testator died and Henry Monck did not die until the year 1815 There were thirteen years therefore in which Lady Araminta Monck might have filed a bill for a general account she never thought proper to do so and therefore it is not improbable that the result of that general account would not have been advantageous to her I think therefore upon the whole that the decision of your Lordships should be to affirm the decision of the Court below and to affirm it with costs of the appeal The order of the Court below was accordingly affirmed with costs.

Henrietta was descended from General O'Hara as outlined below in the
HISTORY OF PITTSBURGH


THE O'HARA FAMILY— The O'Hara family,
from which the O'Haras of Westem Pennsylvania are de-
scended, is of old and distinguished lineage, tracing its
descent to the ancient Celtic kings of Ulster. In 1409
there is a note of Bishop Bryan O'Hara and in 1485
of Archbishop O'Hara. In 1607, when an intended up-
rising in the North of Ireland was due, the O'Haras
hastened to enter the Spanish service.

Teige Buihde O'Hara, the last lord of Lcyney, was
killed by an O'Connor. His son was Teige Oge O'Hara,
who left two sons, John and Cormac, John the elder, for-
feiting his estate under the Cromwellian settlement of
Ireland. Cormac's son, Charles, was the father of Der-
mod, and Dermod had a brother. Sir Charles, Baron
Tyrawley. The baron's son, James, wa? the second Lord
Tyrawley. Felix, the son of Dermod, was a major in
Dillon's regiment of the Irish Brigade, in the service of
France. John, son of Felix, born in France, was also a
major in the same regiment. General James O'Hara,
the subject of this sketch, was the son of John. Sir
Charles O'Hara was created a baron in 1706, taking his
title from the castle and desmesne of Tyrawley in
County Mayo. His son. Sir James O'Hara, received his
first title in recognition of military services rendered
Queen Anne of England.

General James O'Hara was the first Napoleon of in-
dustry in Pittsburgh. He was the pioneer of the glass
industry, ship-builder and merchant, founder of the
Schenley and Denny estates in Pittsburgh, and the first
quartermaster-general of the United States army.

General O'Hara was born in Ireland, in 1752, received a
good education in France, and was commissioned in the
celebrated Cold Stream Guards. He emigrated to America
in 1772 and landing in Philadelphia, entered the service
of a firm in that city as Indian trader, an occupation
which took him to Westem Virginia. Afterwards, from
December, 1773, until March, 1774, he was employed by
Devereux Smith and Ephraim Douglas, of Pittsburgh, in
the same capacity. In 1774 he was appointed a govern-
ment agent among the Indians, and so continued until
the outbreak of the War of the Revolution. While thus
employed, he made many friends among the Indians and
acquired a knowledge of the wily Indian character as
well as a knowledge of many of their dialects, which,
added to his fluency in French, was of great value to
him in after years. His many hair-breadth escapes from
Indians and other dangers are more thrilling than those
of many a romance. Upon one occasion, having been
sent to the upper Moravian town on the Muskingtmi
river, he was apprised by a friendly Indian runner that
a party of hostiles were on their way to capture or kill
him. Heckvelder, the celebrated Moravian missionary,
immediately procured for him a conductor, and with
this Indian for a guide he set out for Fort Pitt They
were successful in throwing the hostile Indians off the
trail and reached Fort Pitt in safety. This Indian, with

his father, mother and entire family, was massacred by
the whites at Gnadenhutten a few years afterwards.

At the breaking out of the War of the Revolution,
James O'Hara enlisted in the Virginia regiment as a
private, but was almost immediately promoted to a cap-
taincy, and raised and equipped his own company. He was
stationed at Fort Kanawha, to hold the Indians in check
and prevent tiiem from aiding the British forces and
was with the famous expedition of General George
Rogers Garke against Vincennes and other border towns,
in pursuit of the Indians. The hardships of the march
were severe, but the success of the expedition insured
the safety of the western frontier from the savage in-
cursions of the Indians. After the successful completion
of that campaign, O'Hara's company was so reduced
(numbering only twenty-nine men) that it was annexed
to the Ninth Virginia Regiment, and Captain O'Hara
being relieved, was sent to Pittsburgh with dispatches.

In 1780, Captain O'Hara was appointed commissary of
the general hospital at Carlisle, Pa. In 1781 he was made
assistant quartermaster-general and attached to General
Green's command during the campaign against Com-
wallis in the Carolinas. From a brief diary kept by him
during that campaign,* it appears that he was present at
Cowpens, Guilford Court House, and Eutaw Springs.
Little is known of his participation in Greene's campaign
in the South, except that he was with "Mad Anthony"
Wayne's army and, as quartermaster, provided for the
same.

At the close of the war. Captain O'Hara returned with
General Wa3me to Philadelphia, where he married Mary
Carson, daughter of William Otrson of that city. From
there he took his newly-wedded wife to Pittsburgh, over
the mountains in a wagon, the only means of transporta-
tion except on foot or horseback. His residence then
consisted of a log house, but in it were all the comforts
and many luxuries of the age, including carpets, then
almost unknown in the western coimty. In 1789, Cap-
tain O'Hara, as presidential elector, cast his vote for
General George Washington to be first President of the
United States.

After the close of the War of the Revolution, Captain
O'Hara took the contract to furnish supplies to General
Harmar's army during the campaign against the western
Indians, and was appointed to act as quartermaster and
paymaster. In 1792 he was commissioned quartermaster-
general of the United States army and served as such
until 1796. In that capacity he accompanied General
Wayne, in 1794, in the campaign which brought the
Indians to terms. All the duties pertaining to these
various offices were performed with ability and fidelity.
His tours of inspection and supervision led him not only
through Western Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Ohio, but
to New York and Michigan, and through Illinois down
to Kentucky and Tennessee. These journeys were mainly
made on horseback by a trail or bridle path through an
otherwise trackless wilderness, or, if by water, in a skiff
or canoe, or, at best, a barge; but, whether by land or
water, encountering dangers from savage Indians and
savage beasts.

After his services in the Revolution and in the wars
with the Indians which followed. General O'Hara re-
turned to Pittsburgh and devoted his energies to mer-

cantile and industrial pursuits. He was the pioneer in
all the industries which have mad« Pittsburgh great. He
established a glass works in 1795 9nd the difficulties he
surmounted in accomplishing that undertaking can
scarcely be realized in this day. The pots were made
in Pittsburgh, but the clay for making them was brought
from Germany and Philadelphia, being transported from
the latter place across the mountains on the backs of
pack horses or mules. The expense was enormous, but
at last heroic endeavor was rewarded and the first bottle
of green glass was turned out at a cost of thirty thousand
dollars, quite a litde fortune in those days.

A project of more imposing and daring proportions,
so far as transportation was concerned, was General
O'Hara's original scheme to bring salt from New York
State to Fort Pitt. During the period when he was sup-
plying the northwestern army he found that salt from the
Onondago works could be furnished more cheaply than
salt brought from Baltimore. But great difficulty lay in
transporting it, as there were no good roads, no vessels on
the lakes, and no efficient means of water carriage down
the Allegheny river. All these had to be provided. General
O'Hara, however, quailed at nothing. He created die
entire line of transportation vessels on Lake Erie, buying
wagons and securing boats for the river carriage. The
road to French Creek from Erie was improved also.
Flour and provisions, packed in barrels suitable for salt,
were sent from Pittsburgh, General O'Hara reserving the
barrels in his contract The undertaking was a com-
plete success, the salt was set down in Pittsbtu-gh at
four dollars per bushel, and the salt-carrying trade over
the All^heny Mountains was done away with. Later
the price was brought to two dollars and forty cents per
bushel.

General O'Hara also built ships at Pittsburgh. They
cleared from this inland port and made voyages to Liv-
erpool, or South America, or West Indies, taking a
cargo of fur and peltries for the English port, and flour
for South America and the West Indies. In 1805 he
built the "General Butler," which sailed for Liverpool,
taking a cargo of glass for river ports and taking on a
shipment of cotton at New Orleans. A return cargo
was also taken on. Captain Samuel Lake was the cap-
tain, and W. C. O'Hara, the general's eldest son, was
supercargo. In May, 1807, the good ship again sailed
down the Ohio, but was captured by a Spanish schooner
in the Caribbean Sea and was taken to Vera Cruz. The
"Betsy," another vessel built by him, plied between Bal-
timore and the West Indies.

General O'Hara's hospitality was famous. His house
was always open to rich and poor alike. When Louis
Philippe, heir to the throne of France, came to Pitts-
burgh, together with General Moreau and other French
officers, the general entertained them. Prince Louis was
then in exile on account of the French Revolution. When
the Branch Bank of Pennsylvania was established in
Pittsburgh in 1804, General O'Hara was chosen one of
the directors and succeeded General John Wilkms, who
was the first president. This was the first bank estab-
lished west of the Allegheny Mountains.

General O'Hara died, in the sixty-seventh year of his
age, on Dec 21, 1819, at his home on Water street,
Pittsburgh, and the entire town mourned. It is said

that at his coffin the tears of the rich and poor were
commingled, for he had been the firm friend of both,
treating all with justice. His wife, Mary Carson O'Hara,
survived him several years. She died April 8, i834«
aged seventy-three. Issue: i. William Carson O'Hara,
who marri^ his cousin, Mary Carson; no issue, a.
James O'Hara, married Elizabeth Neville, no issue. 3.
Charles O'Hara, died young. 4. Richard Butler O'Hara,
of whom bdow. 5. Elizabeth Febiger O'Hara, married
Harmar Denny. (See Denny Family). 6. Mary Car-
son O'Hara, of whom below.

Richard Butler O'Hara, son of James and Mary (Car-
son) O'Hara, married Mary Fitzsimmons. Issue: i. Mary
Carson O'Hara, married William McCullough Darlington.
Issue : i. O'Hara Darlington ; ii. Mary O'Hara Darling-
ton; iii Hilbom Darlington, died young; iv. Edith
Darlington, married Samuel Augustus Ammon. Mrs.
Ammon died in 1920. 2. James O'Hara, married Eliza
Winston Pride. Issue: i. Anne Price O'Hara, married
the Rev. George Beecher and had, I. Lyman Beecher, who
married May Steele, and had Mariana Beecher and
George B. Beecher; II. Norman Buckingham Beecher;
IIL Katherine Beecher (died); IV. (korge Beecher
(died) ; V. Georgiana Buckingham Beecher. iL John
Price O'Hara, died young; iii. Mary O'Hara, married
Dr. Louis de Cazanovo and had James O'Hara de Caz-
anovo and Louis de Cazanovo; iv. Lucy O'Hara, mar-
ried (first) David Morrison and (second) Samuel
Balkan Schoyer; v. Richard Winston O'Hara (died) ; vL
Jane McDowell O'Hara, married Frederic G. Kay, and
had Alfred (joddard Kay and Lucy Starling Kay; vii.
John Price O'Hara (died). 3. Elizabeth Denny O'Hara.

Mary Carson O'Hara married William Croghan, of
Louisville, Ky. Issue: i. William Croghan, d^ed
young. 2. Mary Elizabeth Croghan, married Captain
Wyndham Harrington SchenlQr, of the British army
(both deceased). Issue: i. Elizabeth Pole Schenley,
married the Hon. Ralph Harbord. Issue : Edward Har-
bord, who married Evelyn, daughter of Riley Smith, and
had: L Bridget Harbord; II. Horatio Harbord, killed
in action in South Africa; IIL Florence Mary Har-
bord ; IV. Georgiana Agnes Harbord ; V. Emily Francis
Hart>ord, married Captain Des Barres, and had Augustus
Des Barres; VI. Ida Harbord. ii. Jane Inglis Schenley,
married the Rev. H. W. Crofton. Issue: I. Jeoffrey
Hugh Schenley CroftcMi; II. Mary Crofton, married
Henry Farquharson, of Eastbury, and had Richard Far-
quharson and Ronald Farquharson; III. Edrica Crofton,
married Captain Forester; IV. Hermione Crofton; V.
Millicina Crofton; VI. Violet Crofton. iii. William
Croghan Schenley, died young, iv. Henrietta Agnes
Schenley, married Charles Ridley, issue: Alberta Mary
Ridley, v. Edward Clarence Paget Schenley, died
young, vi. Richmond Emmeline Mary Schenley, married
Captain Charles J. Randoli^. viL Millicina Alice Isabel
Schenley, married (Colonel Frederic Gore. viii. Octavia
Hermione Courtney Schenley, married Commander Lord
Ellenborough, Royal Navy. ix. George Alfred Cx)urt-
enay Schenley, married Grace Aikinson Hughes, and had
Mary Una (jardner Schenley.

From "American Families of Hlstorio Lineage/' The
Americana Society, New York.

Alberta Mary Ridley was one of King Edward VII godchildren, as in the following list;

King Edward VII

Posted by at

1 comment:

Jennifer said...

Lovely history. Thank you.

Mary Croghan Schenley is the daughter of William Croghan (1794-1850) and Mary Carson O'Hara, and granddaughter of Maj. William Croghan (1752-1822) and Lucy Clark Croghan (1765-1838, both of Locust Grove in Louisville, KY. www.locustgrove.org Maj. Croghan's brothers-in-law were General George Rogers Clark of the American Revolution and William Clark of the Lewis and Clark expedition.

Several pieces in the collection at Locust Grove arrived through Croghan connections in England.

8:58 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)