Mary Ellen Graves

Alternate Names

     She was also known as Grives registered at marriage. She was also known as Mary Eleanor. Her married name was Glanville.

Birth, Marriage and Death information

     Mary Ellen Graves was born between 1860 and 1861 at SCT; Carlisle recorded in 1911 census.
     She married John Glanville, son of William Glanville and Ann Glaister, circa November 1880 at Whitehaven registered, CUL, ENG, Mary Ellen Grives and Mary Ellen Holmes both marriage this district and quarter with same GRO Reference as John.
     She died circa February 1925 at Whitehaven registered, CUL, ENG; recorded age 63.

Other information

     Mary and John Glanville had 10 children by the 1911 census, two having died by that date.
     On 21 January 1909 The Whitehaven News published:
Workmen's Compensation
Glanville v. Cammell, Laird, & Co.
Mary Eleanor Glanville, widow, Ennerdale Road, Cleator Moor, claimed £300 from Messers. Cammell, Laird, & Co., Workington, as compensation for the death of her husband, John Glanville, iron ore miner.
This was a case adjourned from last Court. For the plaintiff the allegation was that deceased died from pneumonia, supervening on a common cold, which he had upon him on August 27th, when he was hurt while at work in the pit; and that the pneumonia was induced as a result of the injury. It was a case wholly turning on the medical evidence, and as an important medical witness who attended the deceased in his illness was not available at least Court, having left the district, His Honour adjourned the case for his production and in order that His Honour might have the assistance of Dr. Tawse, the medical assessor of the Court.
Mr. Lightfoot was for the plaintiff, and Mr. Chapman for the defendants.
Dr. William Cunningham Dennison said that in August last year he was locum tenans for Dr. Byers, Cleator Moor. On the 11th August he was called to the house of the deceased, John Glanville. He found deceased sitting in the kitchen. He complained of feeling ill, but of no injury: simply pains in the head, body, and limbs. He said he started with a cold two or three days before, and on the Thursday he had a shivering fit in the pit. He admitted he fell down, but made nothing of it. Witness examined his temperature, and found it raised, and ordered him to bed at once; and then examined his chest. There was no trace of injury. Examining by percussion, he found an enlarged heart. With the exception of bronchitis there was nothing wrong with the chest. He examined the feet and found no swelling. He did not examine the legs above the ankles. He concluded the patient was suffering from influenza. Witness attended deceased from the 11th until the 21st. The pneumonia supervened in an ordinary way, and not as the result of any contusion.
Cross-examined: It was admitted deceased died from pneumonia. Dr. Byers, on the 22nd, found deceased suffering from pneumonia. Witness on the 21st did not find pneumonia. When witness left this district six months ago he heard nothing more of the case until four weeks ago. He had no memoranda to refresh his memory. He was able to speak with confidence of his recollection of this case. Before witness left the district he heard nothing of any accident. He had started to examine the deceased's chest, back and front, in the presence of the wife; and then he sent the woman out of the room as she was disturbing him. Witness was prepared to say that when the wife said he never in her presence examined the deceased's body, the wife was wrong. If there had been injury to the chest he would certainly have attached importance to it, in the condition the man was in. He did not agree that pneumonia would supervene on a common cold from injury to the chest that was imperceptible; but any injury would be dangerous in the debilitated condition of the deceased from alcoholic heart.
Dr. Byers, Cleator, said he was doctor for the men in the same employ as the deceased. He was called to deceased on the 22nd August, who told him he had fallen in the pit on his right shoulder. Witness examined deceased's body but found no trace of injury. He examined his chest and found he was suffering from pneumonia of the right lung. With attended deceased until he died, and gave a death certificate that the man died from pneumonia. There was nothing abnormal about the case; it was an ordinary case of pneumonia. He made a post-mortem and found that the heart was enlarged and fatty. The base of the right lung was pneumonic; the rest of the right lung congested but not pneumonic. There were old adhesions, pointing to diaphragmatic pleurisy.
Cross-examined: There was nothing either in life or in post-mortem to indicate that the pneumonia was the result of contusion. He should have expected that the pneumonia would have been more extensive, and that there would have been pleurisy if the pneumonia resulted from contusion. If the man received his injury on the 6th August there might be no traces of them when witness examined the man on the 22nd August, sixteen days afterwards.
Re-examined: He should never have dreamt of giving a certificate if he had thought there was the slightest connection between an accident and death.
Mr. Lightfoot, addressing His Honour for the plaintiff, repudiated the suggestion that his client had brought this case to levy blackmail; and claimed for her the same bona-fides as he (Mr. Lightfoot) was quite willing to accord to Messers. Cammell, Laird, & Co. Dr. Dennison went away from the district without knowing that there had been an accident; but the first thing Dr. Byers learns when he comes to visit the man next day is that he had had an accident and fallen on his right shoulder. Was it not far more likely that those who were attending on deceased would have recollection of the fact that Dr. Dennison would, attending one of many cases, so many months ago?
His Honour said he had very carefully considered the case, and he was very glad indeed that he had the very great benefit of having Dr. Tawse to consult in the matter, because the medical evidence was of supreme importance in the case and it was necessary, he thought that County Court Judge should have the assistance of a skilled man sitting by his side. He found as a fact that death was not the result of the injuries. He found also that it was not proved to his satisfaction that the chest was injured by accident. The injury to the leg was trivial. He found that death did not partly result from the accident. That being so his judgment must be for the respondents.