R Wade
Honor Code SignatorySigned 17 Jan 2015 | 22,073 contributions | 997 thank-yous | 438 connections
Signed 17 Jan 2015 | 22,073 contributions | 997 thank-yous | 438 connections
R Wade
Profile last modified
| Created 30 Dec 2014
This page has been accessed 3,779 times.
Only the Trusted List can access the following:
- R's formal name
- e-mail address
- biography
- family tree
- father's name
- mother's name
- siblings' names
Genealogist-to-Genealogist (G2G) Forum posts about R:
- R Wade is a Wonderful WikiTreer Jul 24, 2020.
- Robert Wade is a Wonderful WikiTreer Feb 10, 2018.
- Robert Wade is a Wonderful WikiTreer Dec 28, 2017.
- Robert Wade is a Wonderful WikiTreer Oct 31, 2017.
- Robert Wade is a Wonderful WikiTreer Jul 31, 2017.
I'm adding the children and their spouses to the site of John Wade's site. He's my sixth GG.
I've just started researching my family tree and need to check if I'm related to John Wade approx 1875 and Mary Louisa Wade 1879. On my family record I have them living at 10 Woodhead Road, Bradford according to the 1901 Census. I have John Wade's occupation as Boiler Makers Foreman. I'm getting confused because my source says they have 2 children John (1899) and Samuel (1901). I believe that Samuel was a jockey in Perth and died in a racing accident in 1922. (Sunday Times Perth Edition) I googled Jockey Wade Death and the newspaper article states that Samuel's dad was John Wade. When living back in England John Wade (1899) spoke to his grandaughter (my mother) about Palmyra , Freestone, Perth. Are you able to confirm if the Mary Louisa Wade (1879 approx) and John Wade approx (1875) were also the parents of John (1899) and Samuel (1901)? Many thanks Debs
Afraid I have no connection to the family, though I might have posted a comment on a wiki page in the past.
Saw the following: The Daily News (Perth, WA) Thu 18 May 1922
THE URABILLA TRAGEDY.
The case, John Wade and Mary Louisa Wade v. George Hoskins and O. Williams, in which applicants asked for £500 compensation under the Workers' Compensation Act, was continued and concluded in the Local Court, before Mr. A. S. Canning, yesterday afternoon. Mr G. H. Joseph appeared for petitioners, and Mr. T. A. L. Davy for respondents.
This case was a sequel to a recent racing accident, when the young apprenticed jockey, Samuel Wade, lost his life while riding Urabilla in the last race of the day, the Welter, at Canning Park races, on Saturday, January 21.
Under the Act applicants, as partial dependants, claimed for three years' earnings, or £400, whichever happened to be the greater, so long as the maximum did not exceed £500. For this reason counsel for applicants endeavored to show that deceased's earnings totalled more than £400, and counsel for the defence concentrated on proving that the money received did not amount to that sum.
The reason for two respondents being bracketed together was that Hoskins, deceased's master, lent Wade to Williams, a bookmaker, and owner of Urabilla, for the last race, and both parties denied liability under the Act.
Evidence was given by the parents of the deceased boy, showing that he contributed on an average £2 per week to the home.
Mrs. Wade stated that deceased had promised to put his earnings into a home for the family at Belmont. The father said that there were four young children in the family, and as the two eldest sons were married, they had been partially dependant on deceased.
The magistrate said that the whole case was in a nutshell. He (Mr.' Canning) quoted the definition of "employer in the Workers' Compensation Act, and remarked that if the words were interpreted as they stood, Hoskins was the person liable.
Inter alia; the Act stated, 'the latter, (employer) shall be deemed to continue to be the employer of the worker while he is working for that other person.'
On consideration of the evidence he (the magistrate) thought if would be adequate compensation if he awarded applicants £275 and costs; less the £25 already paid by respondents.
The question of indemnity, by which Williams can claim for the amount from Hoskins under the Act, was not touched upon.
At the request of Mr. Davy a stay of seven days was granted.
edited by R Wade