| Author |
Message |
    
Lindsey Millar
Inspector
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 330
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 4:33 pm: | 
|
Hi all,
I'm just curious to know how much Mary Kelly was in arrears, in pounds and pence. Does anyone know, or can work it out?
I'd be very grateful,
Lyn
"When a man grows tired of London, he grows tired of life" (or summat like that)
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1639
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 4:46 pm: |
|
Hi Lyn,
She was about 30 shillings behind.I think thats one pound 50 pence.Her rent was about 4 shillings a week so she was about 7 weeks behind.
Good to see you
Natsxxx |
Jane
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 292
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 4:51 pm: |
|
Hi Lyn
Mary was in arrears of 29 shillings, that is £1and 9 shillings in old money and £1.45p new money........
The average weekly wage in the year before was £1 11sh and 1d, so basically she was about the equivalent of one working mans weekly wage in arrears. I suppose today that would be maybe £200 - £250?
The average rent was 5s and 6d a week, but in lowere rented accomodation if was between 2s and 2d and 2s and 6d a week.
Mary's rent I believe was 4s and 6d a week or 22 and a half new pence.
lots of love
Jane
xxxxx |
Jane
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 293
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 4:53 pm: |
|
Hi Nats,
Sorry we must have posted at the same time, at least we both agreed! It would have been terrible if we had given totally different answers!!!!!
lots of love
Jane
xxxxxx |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1641
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 5:01 pm: |
|
Cheers Jane!
I just noticed too-but you have provided more information.Good to see you too Jane!
Natsxxx |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4171
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 7:18 pm: |
|
In the latest "Ripperologist" the point is made that Kelly's rent is actually a bit low, when compared with what she'd have paid for a week in a doss house.
Robert |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1733
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 2:03 pm: |
|
Hi Lindsay - this extract might be of interest:
The rent which Barnett and Kelly had been paying for the room was reported as four shillings and sixpence a week. To put this into perspective, the normal charge for a bed at a common lodging house was fourpence per night for a single bed and eightpence for a double. So, by way of comparison, if Kelly and Barnett had lived at one of the lodging houses in Dorset Street, they would have paid fifty six pence per week for their bed, or four shillings and eightpence. It has been argued that it is difficult to see how a couple in the situation of Kelly and Barnett could afford a room at such a rent, but in fact it worked out marginally cheaper than living in a lodging house. John McCarthy claimed at Kelly's inquest that the couple were in arrears with their rent to the sum of twenty nine shillings, and that the rent was due and was paid weekly. This raises two main questions which are 1) Why would a businessman such as McCarthy who operated within the financially precarious environment of the East End, allow such arrears to accrue and 2) why do the arrears amount to such an odd sum? The first of these will be looked at when we come to consider the possible relationship between Kelly and McCarthy. The second question hinges on the simple fact that the arrears due is not divisible by the weekly rent. If the rent were 4/6 per week then six weeks rent would have amounted to 27 shillings. So all we can say with certainty is that somewhere in excess of six weeks rent was unpaid. The most likely reason for the odd amount is that as Kelly lived yards from McCarthy's shop, and presumably did at least some of her day to day shopping there, it is possible that McCarthy extended to her, as one of his tenants, a small amount of credit. But again this is in the realm of speculation. What must be remembered is that twenty nine shillings in the East End was a considerable amount of money and does seem an unusually large amount for McCarthy to allow persons of the social and financial status of Kelly and Barnett to run up. |
Lindsey Millar
Inspector
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 331
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 3:19 pm: |
|
Hi all,
Thanks so much for the info!
I do indeed wonder why McCarthy allowed such arrears to acrue.
Anyway, thanks again!
Best,
Lyn
"When a man grows tired of London, he grows tired of life" (or summat like that)
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4174
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 4:31 pm: |
|
Lyn, i think there is another case of someone being allowed to accrue substantial arrears by his landlord, and that's Benelius.
As for McCarthy, I often wonder whether there was a fish fiddle going on.
Robert |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 544
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, February 27, 2005 - 5:07 am: |
|
I've said it elsewhere, but I really doubt much significance can be placed on the figure.
I know that some store owners after a robbery report a greater loss than what actually happened so that insurance will give them a bonus. If McCarthy thought the police, a long-lost relative or someone else would come in and pay the back rent, it's possible he might have decided to inflate it a bit.
Otherwise she might have been paying bits here and there and promising relatives would send the rest or something. McCarthy might have figured that it was worth the risk to try to collect rather than kicking her out an basically guaranteeing he'd get nothing.
Does anyone think Benelius was fish fiddling his landlady too?
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4179
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 27, 2005 - 5:39 am: |
|
Hi Dan
Re the fish fiddle, it's just a speculation of mine that Joe may have been stealing fish from the market for McCarthy, which might explain why McCarthy was patient about the rent arrears - waiting to see if Joe could set himself up in something similarly and mutually lucrative.
Or it might just be that McCarthy actually expected Mary to be able to gradually reduce the arrears, as she was young and apparently attractive. Her drink problem put paid to that.
Robert |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1734
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 27, 2005 - 11:21 am: |
|
Hi Dan
Your insurance scam analogy is interesting but somthing occurs to me. Wouldn't Barnett have been liable as he was a joint tenant rather than relatives or anyone else?
All the best
Chris |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1735
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 27, 2005 - 11:33 am: |
|
This may be a little off topic for this thread but there is something I have been trying to find info on for a long time. Does anyone have any info on how long Kelly's room lay empty after the murder and who was brave enough to take on the room as the next tenant?
Chris
(Message edited by Chris on February 27, 2005) |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 551
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - 2:39 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
Now hat you mention it, I do find it odd that McCarthy would go to MJK and not Barnett for the money. From the sounds of things, with Joe giving money to her (so she could spend it on booze or something else) instead of McCarthy, he didn't appear to have a direct obligation. I don't know how exactly that worked.
Yeah, and another thing with Barnett being involved is he'd probably have at least a general idea of what MJK really owed in rent, so McCarthy probably couldn't have inflated it that much if he had wanted to... Unless he counted on people like Joe and others to assume that the difference was due to her spending money on drink that she was supposed to put toward rent.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Jeff Leahy
Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 14
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - 6:52 am: |
|
I seem to have asked smilar questions about the rent some time back. A possibility that was put to me was the relationship between her and McCarthy. If Mary was a distant cousin or neice then it might also explain the size of arrears and why McCarthy delt with Mary rather than Joe.
I do find it intersting that McCarthy doesnt appear to have chased Joe for the money even after Kelly's death (business is business after all).
I would think someone could find the next tenant. Wasn't there a story that they couldn't get the blood off the walls or was I imagining that?
I know that twenty years later a young lady called Kitty was cut-up in very similar fassion to Mary Kelly in the Room above. Now theres a coincidence.
Jeff |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1738
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - 11:00 am: |
|
Hi Dan
Yes, as Barnett was living with Kelly until the 30th October, he may well have known the size of the arrears. It may be that McCarthy wasn't specifically dealing with Kelly, but just sent Bowyer to the room to see who, if anyone, was in. Of course, the other thing we cannot know is how often Mccarthy had chased his arrears before then. As the rent was due weekly, it may be that Bowyer was sent round every week to see if he could get anything. Also, there is no way of knowing if McCarthy ever did pursue Barnett for the money. Such minutiae, not central to the case, would be most unlikely to have been reported.
All the best
Chris |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1350
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - 3:37 pm: |
|
Hi,
According to 'The Times' November 10th 88, McCarthy states 'The deseased came to live with a man called Kelly a coal porter.
The remark .Came to live' implies that she moved in to that room and seems to imply that Kelly the coal porter[ Barnett] was the resident of 13 millers court and that she came to move in with him.
I would suggest that Barnett/Kelly in work at that time would have been the tenant of that room not MJK, who appears not to have an occupation apart from the obvious.
Of course upon moving out on the 30th october, he would therefore have been liable to any back rent up to that period and Mary only since that date.
I find it ludricous that a shrewd business man like McCarthy would have had the room in Mjk name, when Barnett was the breadwinner.
Regards Richard. |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1741
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - 4:13 pm: |
|
Hi Richard
I think the "came to live with" remark is one of the many spurious statements that were flying about at the time of the murder.
All the evidence suggests that Kelly and Barnett met at Easter 1887 and had lived together at various locations since that time. Miller's Court was simply the last of these places that they shared
Chris |
