Alice (Surkitt) Buckby (1893 - 1971)

Born 11 Mar 1893 in Toseland, Huntingdonshire, England

Ancestors

Died Mar 1971 at about age 77 in Kettering, Northamptonshire, England

Biography

Alice was born in 1893. She was the daughter of Josiah Surkitt and Ellen Revell.

She had a daughter, Edna Mavis Sarl Surkitt, on 23 May 1913 in Biggleswade registration district. The father was John Sidney Sarll.

The Biggleswade Chronicle Fri 23 Jan 1914

Biggleswade Petty Sessions Wed 21 Jan 1914 Sidney John Sarll, Gamlingay v Alice Surkitt, single woman, Tempsford

Mr Chaundler, solicitor, appeared for the applicant; and Mr George Passingham, solicitor, for the respondent.

In the course of this case, Mrs Nibbs, who was called to give corroborative evidence, stated in cross examination that her son was fined for assaulting Sarll at Caxton Bench in November last.

The respondent, giving evidence on his own behalf, stated that after this case had been heard, some suggestion was made to him about this girl.

In cross examination he said that after the assault case was over young Nibbs said “He has made me pay, we will make him pay for the support of the child”. There had been some talk of scandal and he (witness) had denied it and meant to put a stop to it.

The Magistrates after a short retirement considered that there was sufficient corroborative evidence of very clear and definite statements made by the applicant and they made an order accordingly for the payment of 2/0 a week

The Biggleswade Chronicle Fri 21 August 1914

Biggleswade Petty Sessions. Wednesday

Alleged perjury

Alice Surkitt, domestic servant, Tempsford and Ada Knibbs, married woman, Gamlingay were charged that they did unlawfully and wilfully make a statement that they did in proceedings against Sidney John Sarll, at Biggleswade Petty Sessions, which they knew to be false, contrary to Section 1 Sub section 1 of the Perjury Act.

Mr Donald Prynne, barrister, prosecuted on behalf of the Public Prosecutor; Mr Alexander Farr, solicitor, Bedford, appeared for the defendant Surkitt; and Mr H. G. Langley, solicitor, Bedford appeared for thr defendant Knibbs.

The case against Surkitt was taken first. She pleaded not guilty.

Mr Prynne, in opening the case, detailed the circumstances that led up to this prosecution. He said he was glad the defendant had the benefit of being defended by Mr Farr. The girl Surkitt was a single woman living at Tempsford, and from June 1911 up to the end of February 1913, she was in service in Gamlingay, and she apparently left the service at that time because of her condition. On May 23rd 1913 she was delivered of a child. After that, but not till December 31st of that year a summons was issued in this Court for bastardy proceedings, in which she alleged that the father of the child was a man named Sarll. That summons came on for hearing on the 21st January 1914 and at the hearing it became necessary for Surkitt to give evidence. Luckily, perhaps, a somewhat elaborate note was taken, more elaborate than usual, by the learned clerk. He then went over the evidence given, and said that Sarll denied anything further than passing the time of day with the girl.

The Chairman: Are you making the charge of perjury on her falsely stating this man to be the father of the child or that she falsely alleged intimacy with him

Mr Prynne replied that Sarll denied he was the father of the child and also the alleged intimacy upon the dates given

Proceeding, Counsel referred to the dates, saying as to the first, August 28th 1912 that Sarll was engaged to be married to the lady to whom he was now married, and that were spending almost every evening together, and there was no opportunity at all for him to be with the girl Surkitt. On 2nd September he did not think there could be any doubt that Sarll was never with the girl. He went to catch a horse and was kicked in the mouth, and was attended by Dr Palmer, who would produce his book showing the date and give evidence as to the injuries. Sarll was then so injured that he was subject to periods of unconsciousness. On the 13th Sarll was with a friend named Allen, and they went to a Cinema Show.

Mr W.F.A.Fletcher, clerk to the Magistrates of the Biggleswade Division, said that on the 21st January of this year a summons was heard, which was issued at the instance of Alice Surkitt. The then defendant in that summons was Sidney John Sarll of Gamlingay, tailor. The proceedings were upon a summons for bastardy. Amongst the witnesses called was the defendant Surkitt, who was sworn in the usual way. He made a note of her evidence as she gave it at the time. She said her name was Alice Surkitt, that she was delivered of a female child on 23rd May 1913 of which she said “I allege Sidney J Sarll of Gamlingay, tailor, is the father”. Mr Fletcher then quoted certain dates given by the girl Surkitt.

The Chairman: At the hearing before the Magistrates on 21st January was any witness named Dr Palmer called.

Mr Fletcher: No

The Chairman: Or any witness named Allen

Mr Fletcher: No

Sidney J Sarll said he was a tailor and lived at the Cock Inn and assisted his father. He was married in April 1913. He appeared at this Court on 21st January to answer the summons issued at the instance of the defendant Surkitt. Defendant went into the witness box and alleged that he was the father of her child. He denied this or that intimacy had ever taken place between them. Surkitt was employed in August 1912 at premises opposite to witness's, by Messrs Woodhams and Co., and witness kept some fowls on some land adjoining those premises. He was in the habit of going there to feed the fowls occasionally. He had seen her there occasionally and had passed the time of day. He had never on any occasion stopped there for any length of time talking to her, kissed her or taken any liberty with her. He had never given her any presents. He was married in April 1913 and had been engaged three years. Defendant went on to refer to the dates mentioned by the girl Surkitt and denied that he was in her company as alleged. He bore out the statement made by Mr Prynne in his opening statement as to his movements on those dates and about his being injured by the horse.

Cross examined by Mr Farr: Until the hearing of the summons on January 21st last, nothing had occurred to refresh his memory of events sixteen months before. He could not say what he was doing on certain other dates mentioned by Mr Farr. He knew a man named Careless who kept a shop near where witness lived and also a boy named Jarvis. He did not see Careless on the evening of the accident, nor did he go to the shop and purchase anything.Careless did not say to him “Well Sid, you are not dead yet​” . Witness did not reply “Oh no, after three or four hours rest I am all right”, neither did he show Careless where his tooth had been knocked out. He denied that between 6 and 7 o'clock in the evening he was standing against his shop door. He knew no reason why Careless and Jarvis should come and say anything that was untrue about him but if they said they saw him on the night of the accident and had a conversation with him concerning it they would be telling lies. He had never mentioned till today that on 28th August if it were the evening before Sandy Flower Show he would be at the Rev Crouch's. He could not see why he had not mentioned this before. The defendant had never personally alleged until the issue of the summons that he was the father of the child. Dr Palmer stated that he lived at Gamlingay. He attended Sarll on 2nd September 1912 at his home, the Cock Inn. As near as he could remember he went between 5 and 6 o'clock. He had been sent for before, but he was not then at home. He went as soon as he returned. When he went into the room, Mrs Sam Sarll, his sister in law was there, an d also he believed his sister. Sarll was suffering from shock and was delirious. His mouth was swollen, there was blood in his mouth, gums lacerated and teeth missing. He did not think he could have left his bed that night. He attended him again on the 5th and 6th September. He made entries in his day book on the same days that he made the attendances. Cross-examined: The concussion was not serious enough for me to attend again the same night. I only fix the hour I attended from memory. I feel confident it was not before 5 o'clock because I was on my round. The round contains three or four villages. Replying to the Chairman, the witness said he did not always put down the entries in his book in the order in which he saw the patients. He put them down as he thought of them. Mrs Lilian J Sarll, wife of Sidney John Sarll said she was married in April 1913. She was engaged to be married about a year. During that time she used to see him every night, except whilst he was away. She saw him every night during August 1912. She went away on the 12th September. Sarll met with the accident on the 2nd September 1912. She had not seen him previously that day. They sent for her to see him in the evening. He was then in bed, 6.30. He did not know her at the time. He came round later. She was there an hour and a half at that time. During that 1 ½ hours he came round just a little. He did not leave his bed. After that time witness went downstairs and then she was up and down until she left the house about 10.00. She did not see him out of his bed during that time. He got up next day. She had never seen Sarll talking to Surkitt. Cross-examined: She first heard of the proceedings taken against her husband after she was married. She used to see Sarll every night during August and September 1912, unless he was out.; Mrs Alice Ann Sarll, sister in law to Sidney Sarll, said she remembered the accident. She would not have remembered the date had she not seen the bill. She was sent for in the middle of the afternoon. It was between dinner and tea. When she saw him first they had just put him upstairs. He was quite dazed. Dr Palmer came after tea. They had tea about 5 o'clock and Dr Palmer came about an hour afterwards. She did not leave the house until half past 10 o'clock. He did not leave his bed. She did not think it would have been possible for him to have done so, he was too dazed. He was sound asleep in bed when she left at 10.30. She first seized upon the importance of a particular day after the hearing at Biggleswade. She then saw the bill and found that the accident was upon that day. George Naylor, farmer, Gamlingay, said that he had some horses to graze for Mr Sarll of the Cock Inn. He made a note at the time he had the horses. He produced the book in which he had made the entries. They were there 14 weeks. He made a note the same night they came in, also when they were taken away, the 2nd September. Sidney Sarll and a boy came for them soon after dinner. They had to go to the bottom meadow to fetch the horses. Sidney Sarll had to go away without them because he got kicked. He had to be taken away in a trap. Witness saw him after the accident. He was very bad, he did not know where he was. Sarll came to fetch the horses just before tea time, between 4 and 5 o'clock. Later in the evening they sent two men for the horses. He made the note in the evening in order to render his account. James Taylor Palmer, Gamlingay, retired chemist, said he remembered the occasion of the accident very well. He saw Sarll in bed with his teeth smashed and his mouth swollen. Sidney Willian Allen, residing at Maida Vale, London said he had known Sarll two years now. He first knew him when he went to stay with him on the 7th September 1912. He stayed there till the 14th. He slept with Sarll at the Cock Inn from the 8th. They went out together also played billiards. The lady, now Sarll's wife was with them sometimes. On 13th September he helped them at harvesting. Sidney played billiards with them after tea, later they went to a show a little way off. Sidney was with them all the time. They returned at about 10 o'clock and witness and Sidney went to bed together. Witness had not seen the defendant, Surkitt, before going to Bedford. Cross examined: He could not say Sarll was never out of his company during the evenings of the whole of this week. This was the case for the prosecution. Addressing the Magistrates for the defence, Mr Farr urged that as to the first date the statement of the prosecution was not such as would justify them in sending his client for trial. As to the second date he should call evidence of respectable people whose word was in every way as good as that of the witnesses on the other side, to the effect that Sarll was seen outside his house on the same evening after the accident. He urged that there must be substantial corroboration, but the statements varied greatly and he asked the magistrates to say that his witnesses evidence was as good as that given for the prosecution and not to send his client for trial. Charles Careless said he lived at Gamlingay. He knew Sarll well in August and September 1912. He remembered the day he met with an accident. He could not remember the date of the month. He saw him on the same day at about 7 o'clock in the evening. He came up the street to witness's shop. Witness had heard of the accident and said to him “You are not dead yet then”. Witness had been told he had had a nasty knock in the mouth. Witness said to him “You have had a nasty knock”. Sarll had shown witness his mouth. Witness said that he could see he had had a knock. Sarll came to his shop for macaroons. Witness understood he was kicked in the morning. He was told soon after dinner. The next witness was a boy named Jarvis aged 12 who said he remembered Sarll meeting with an accident. He had been helping Sarll keep chickens. He did so when Surkitt was at Woodhams. He was employed by Sarll. He had seen Sarll and the girl kiss once or twice. On the day of the accident he saw Sarll going along in the direction of Mr Fowler's shop. Witness saw him from his house with his mother at the time. His mother was not able to come today. Cross examined: He saw Sarll in the street. But for the two teeth he had had knocked out you would not have known the difference. He was sure it was the evening of the day that the accident happened because he had been told Sarll had met with an accident. He had previously seen him at the shop. His lip was swollen. He never told anybody about seeing them kissing one another. Re-examined: He heard about the accident at dinnertime on the same day he saw Sarll out in the evening Arthur Housden said that at a few minutes to 1 o'clock he was going up to the Cinques at Gamlingay on the day of the accident. Sarll was going in a cart in the opposite direction. It would take about two minutes to reach his home. Sarll nodded to witness. He knew witness. Witness was quite sure it was before dinner. Witness saw blood on his chin. Cross examined: He fixed the time at a few minutes to one because he was going home to dinner. He went by the church and could see the church clock. It was on a Wednesday in August. He was going to fetch potatoes from Mr Garrard’s. It was on Wednesday the 28th August. He heard the same day at dinnertime that Sarll had met with an accident. Re-examined: Witness could see the blood on his chin. Mr Garrard had got the date. He knew he met Sarll on the day he met with an accident. Mrs Knibbs replying to Mr Farr, said Sarll kept his fowls in a building adjoining hers. On 2nd September she went to Woodham’s place and saw Sarll and Surkitt under compromising circumstances just as it was getting dark. On 13th September she saw them again a little later in the evening. She told no-one but her husband. She put the dates down on a piece of notepaper, the first note being 2nd September, the second on the 13th September. The girl had no knowledge that she had made these notes until the proceedings at Biggleswade Court in January. She signed the document after the second date. Cross examined: She told no-one what she was going to say at Biggleswade. The girl called with the baby in September. She said she supposed she would have to come. She said she did not know what the trouble was between her son and Sarll, only that her son had spanked his head. He appeared at Caxton and was fined for it. Re-examined: She was subpoaened to give evidence at Biggleswade last January. The girl was pressing her to give evidence for her from September to December. Witness did not wish to give evidence before Christmas on account of the Christmas trade. The defendant was about to be called but without hearing her, the Magistrates retired to consider the case and on returning to Court the Chairman said the prosecution having failed to satisfy the Court that there was evidence upon which any jury could possibly convict, the Magistrates dismissed the charge. The Magistrates Clerk then subject to anything Mr Prynne had to say he would suggest that the other case stand over for a week. Mr Prynne agreed to this course and said that would be time for the matter to be considered and should any other course be decided on in the meantime the parties would have due intimation. The Court rose at 6 o’clock having sat since 11 o’clock with a three quarters of an hour adjournment at quarter to two

She married William Dickens in the Sep quarter 1919 in Caxton registration district, Huntingdonshire.^[1].

After William's death Alice married Ernest Charles Buckby in the Dec quarter 1929 in Kettering registration district, Northamptonshire.^[2].

She had a son, Colin Buckby.

She passed away in 1971 in Kettering.

Sources

1. ↑ England and Wales marriage registration index. Sep 1919 Caxton vol 3b page 1223
2. ↑ England and Wales marriage registration index. Dec 1929 Kettering vol 3b page 458