John Thomas Jones, d Birmingham 1902

[MichaelGoodyear]

I'm stuck trying to find the second husband of my great grandmother, and am hoping someone out there has some knowledge of Jones in Birmingham around 1900.
John Thomas Jones married Martha Jane Goodyear (nee Ollerhead)in April 1901. The cert says he is 21, his father is dead, and was also named John, and a blacksmith. In December 1902, John was killed in an accident at work (Nechells Gas Works) leaving Martha Jane pregnant (their child, Amy was born in August 1903). At the inquest in December 1902, John is described as being 24, 27 and 29 (this is a year after he was 21!). I can't find him in the 1901 census; on the marriage cert his address is given as 3 Cato St, which I believe was the pub on the corner.
It's a bit of a long shot, but does anyone recognise John Thomas as part of a family they're researching? I've looked through 1881 and 1891 censuses for likely hits, but found nothing so far. Any help would be very gratefully appreciated.

 

[Alberta]

When John thomas died in 1902 his age was given as 27 making him born 1875.
1881 census
5 Bilhay Lane ,West Bromwich.
John T Jones age 37 b. Llanfyllen Montgomery Wales,Blacksmith in Iron foundry.
Elizabeth age 34 b. Munslow Shrops.
Annie E age 8
John T age 6
David L age 4
Mary C age 1
Sarah G age 1 month. all children b. West Bromwich.

They are still there in 1891 John T snr is a Blacksmith and John T jnr age 16 ,a Fitter.
There are 2 more children Florence age 6 and Henry age 4.

(Sorry,I didn't edited your post it was a mistake on my part.)

 

[MichaelGoodyear]

Thanks for the very rapid reply but I'm afraid this John Thomas Jones is another one! The family are recorded in both the 1891 and 1901 censuses, so John Sr is alive on the census date in 1901. That's only a few days before my John's marriage, so unless he died that week, or, of course, John was lying about his father being dead, it isn't him. When I first found it, I thought I'd struck gold, till they turned up in 1901. Mind you, he must have lied about his age at some point, so you never know. For now, I've kept this family as possibles, but I have a feeling it's not really them. Thanks again for your help.
Michael

 

[mikejee]

No 3 Cato St is not shown on the 1901 census, nor the 1900 or 1903 directories. These also show that the pub is no 1 Cato St.
Mike

 

[MichaelGoodyear]

Many thanks for such a promt reply.

Yes, I agee that's what the census says, and at first I wondered ifJohn Thomas Jones was just giving a ficticious address, knowing that No 3 didn't exist. I checked the actual church register, as well as the marriage record, and it's the same there. The best I could come up with was the pub was both 1 and 3 (especially as the first proper house in Cato St was No 5), so No 3 could have been the accomodation at the pub, which could have been where he was living. The truth is I do't really know, but it's yet another thing that makes this problem hard to solve! (It wouldn't be fun if it were easy!). I looked on an old OS map of the area, and the corner building in Cato St does look a lot bigger than the other houses, which made me wonder if the pub was 1-3. Do you know any where where details of theseold pubs might be recorded? It's no longer there, unfortunately.

Once again, thanks for helping.
Michael

 

[mikejee]

The corner pub was later listed as the Manor Arms, and presumably was called that before . It is not uncommon for bvuildings which occupy two plots to be just known by the number of one of the plots. It is possible that thye differentiated between the pub address (no 1) and the living quarters (no 2)

 

[MichaelGoodyear]

Yes, thanks, that was my thought. I'm pretty sure I've seen it listed in an earlier census as being both numbers; it's just a shame it wasn't in 1901!