FORENAMES:Archibald Wyndham also recorded as Windham
BORN:20 09 1801
BAPTISED:26 10 1801
AT:Sunbury on Thames, London
FATHER:Charles Bishop Esq., of Sunbury Middlesex. Died 13 Oct 1815 aged 65 years
Appointed H.M. Procurator General by George III in 1804. This was the title of the Treasury Solicitor to the government.
MOTHER:Marianne Fremantle, died early 1832
SIBLINGS: 1] Charles Twistleton Bishop, d 05 01 1815, Cape of Good Hope
Charles Twistleton served in the 21st and 16th Dragoons.
Cornet, 16th Dragoons, 19 10 1808; Lieutenant, 16th Dragoons, 21 02 1811.
`His funeral was attended by Gen. Baird the Commandant of the garrison, Col. Pigot, and the other officers of the regiment, and most of the officers of the garrison. He was the eldest son of Charles Bishop, Esq. H.M. Procurator General.'
2] John Bishop, bc 1794, d 10 05 1848 aged 53 years
John inherited the family house at Sunbury on his father's death in 1815.
3] Marianne Frances Bishop, b 18 09 1795, cx 15 10 1795 Old Church St Pancras, London
4] Frances Catherine Bishop, b 21 05 1797, cx 08 06 1797 Old Church St Pancras, London
5] Selina Theresa Bishop, cx 12 08 1798 Old Church St Pancras, London
6] George Thomas Bishop, b 04 04 1800, cx 03 05 1800 Old Church St Pancras, London
7] [Archibald Wyndham Bishop]
8] Louisa Bishop, b 29 01 1803, cx 26 02 1803 Old Church St Pancras, London
9] Theresa Caroline Bishop, b 18 07 1806, cx 16 08 1806 Sunbury on Thames, London
10] Frederica Emma Bishop, b 13 02 1808, cx 15 03 1808 Old Church St Pancras, London
11] Freeman Heathcote Bishop, b 22 05 1811, cx 18 06 1811 Old Church St Pancras, London
Plus 3 other as yet unknown children
NOTES:Charles Bishop and Marianne Fremantle married 26 05 1790 Old Church St Pancras, London
One of their sons, possibly Charles Twistleton Bishop, was born 14 04 1793 `at his house in Russel-place, the Lady of Charles Bishop, esq...'
COMMISSIONED:Cornet 17 12 1818
APPOINTED:Cornet 11th Light Dragoons 17 12 1818 by purchase vice Clarke/Clark promoted
Lieutenant 11th Light Dragoons 30 07 1822 without purchase, vice Brisco, deceased
Captain [in Army] 13 08 1825
Captain 4LD from Half-Pay 23 12 1825 vice William Heydon/Haydon who exchanges
Captain 7th Dragoon Guards 14 05 1829, vice Thomas Unett who retires upon Half-Pay receiving the difference
EXCHANGED: 11th Light Dragoons to ___
Captain Half-Pay to Captain 4LD 23 12 1825
Captain 4LD to Captain 7th Dragoon Guards 14 05 1829
TROOP NO:Jan 1826: Depot Troop
Jul 1826: Troop 1
Jan 1827: Troop 1
Mar 1828: Troop 1
TROOP CAPTAIN:Jul 1826: Self
Jan 1827: Self
Mar 1828: Self
EMBARKATIONS:01 03 1820 HC Ship Atlas England [11LD]
09 01 1826 England
DISEMBARKATIONS:09 07 1820 HC Ship Atlas Madras India [11LD]
1826 Bombay India
RETIRED:Captain 7th Dragoon Guards, week ending 22 01 1835
DIED:26 05 1842 South Audley Street London aged 41 years
BURIED:1842 Vault under the chapel in South Audley Street
Removed for reinternment 19 04 1859, without further ceremony, in All Souls' Cemetery Ref. 30984
COURT OF CHANCERY CASE:Bishop v. Countess of Jersey and Others [reported by W. Hackett, Esq.]
This was a bill filed by Mrs. Bishop, against Sophia, Countess of Jersey, and the other members of the banking firm of Child and Company. It appeared, that Mrs. Bishop was, in the year 1842, on the death of her husband, Captain A. W. Bishop, left in possession of property, consisting principally of 81,000 guilders, of 2 10s. per cent. Dutch bonds, and 60,000 guilders 4. per cent. Dutch bonds; and as her husband and his family had, for a long time, banked with Child and Company, and had great confidence in the firm, she still continued to employ them as her bankers, and allowed them to receive the interest on the Dutch bonds. In fact, such confidence had she in the firm, that she left them the management of her income, and acted under their advice and suggestion as to the investment of the property. Sometime in 1847, Mrs. Bishop went to the bank of Child and Company, about her account, and saw William Wood, at that time a partner in the house. On this occasion Wood stated that he thought the Dutch bonds were an objectionable form of security, and that they were not so safe as heretofore. He also said that he knew of a good and safe investment for 5000 at 5 per cent., and advised her to sell the Dutch bonds, and lend the 5000. out of the proceeds on the investment of which he spoke. The advice appeared to Mrs. Bishop to be good, but as the sum was large, and she was ignorant of business matters, she thought it her duty to communicate with her relations, and particularly with her brother-in-law, as to the propriety of the step. Wood thereupon said that the investment must be accepted or declined at once, and that there was no time for consultation with anybody. Eventually, Mrs. Bishop was persuaded by Wood to authorize Child and Company to sell the Dutch bonds; and she also signed a document authorizing Wood to invest 5000. of the proceeds in the manner proposed, and agreed, at the suggestion of Wood, that the residue of the proceeds should be applied by the firm in purchasing bank stock, in her name, and on her account. One of the documents signed by Mrs. Bishop was an authority to Messrs. Child and Company to sell the whole of the Dutch stock, and to invest the balance, after reserving 5500., in bank stock, dated the 18th January 1847 [by mistake for 1848.] The other of these documents, was a cheque on Messrs. Child and Company, directing them to pay to Mr. Jackson, or bearer, 5000., and was dated the 27th January 1847 [by mistake for 1848.]
The Dutch bonds were accordingly sold out for the sum of 8173 2s 6d., and 2653 4s. were expended in the purchase of 1340. bank stock, in the name of Mrs. Bishop. Wood appears never to have invested the 5000.; but, in order to conceal the transaction from Mrs. Bishop, for a long time he led her to believe that the money was safely invested; and in order to deceive her more effectually, the 5000. was duly put to the debit of Mrs. Bishop as having been paid on the 28th January 1848, to a Mr. Jackson; and on the 28th July 1848 and the 28th January 1849, respectively, she was credited with 120 7s 1d., being one half of a year's interest on 5000. at five per cent., less income tax. In July 1849, the plaintiff heard that Wood had become insolvent, had decamped to America, and had ceased to be a partner in the firm of Child and Company. Upon receiving the intelligence, Mrs. Bishop called at the bank, and having mentioned the foregoing circumstances to one of the partners in the firm, he said that "some of their people" were, before the absconding of Wood, aware of his appropriation of the 5000.; that they [the partners] regretted her loss, but that they did not consider themselves liable to make it good.
This was the plaintiff's case, as it appeared from her own affidavit. On oral cross-examination her testimony was substantially the same. In addition, however, to what she had stated in her affidavit, she said that Wood informed her that it was his son who required the 5000., and that he was in a good way of business; and also, that she received from him a promissory note made by his son, and a policy of insurance on the son's life.
The Solicitor-General and Mr. Cairns, for the plaintiff, argued, that the defendants must be made liable for the fraudulent conduct of Wood. First, on the ground that the transaction was sufficiently within the scope of their business, all the circumstances having occurred at the banking-house, and the plaintiff being thus lef to believe that she was dealing with Wood as a partner. Secondly, that the defendants were at any rate, from the facts of the case, affected with notice, and must, therefore, be held to have adopted the transaction... Mr. Willcock, Mr. Ogle, and Mr. Cotton, for the defendants, were not called on.
Judgement: The Vice-Chancellor. I feel quite satisfied that the plaintiff cannot succeed, although I have great sympathy for the position in which she, a female, has been placed; nor does it remove my sympathy for her, that she was guilty of great imprudence in not consulting her friends on what she was doing. If she had asked their advice, it might have prevented the mischief which has occurred. However that may be, the question I have to deal with is one of law, according to the principles on which this Court administers justice; and the question is as between the plaintiff, who is quite an innocent party, and other persons likewise iunimpeached, which of them is to be the sufferer? ... About the end of 1847, Mrs. Bishop began to doubt about the validity of the security of the Dutch bonds. She stated first that this doubt was a suggestion of Woods's. But on cross-examination she states that some friends suggested their insecurity; that then she consulted Wood, and that he represented the Dutch bonds as [ not] safe. I presume that the word not must here have been omitted. She then gave him authority to sell the bonds, and the money produced by the sale came into the bank. Wood thereupon offered to lay out 5000. of the money on good security, which was understood to be that it was to be lent to Mr. Wood's son, who was carrying on a prosperous business. Mrs. Bishop said that she would like to consult her friends: Wood then said there was no time for delay, and that she must make up her mind at once. Wood's conduct here was clearly fraudulent; he misled Mrs. Bishop, for the security at all. However, he induced her to give him the following document:-
"London, 18th January, 1847.
Messrs. Child and Co.
Sell the whole of my Dutch stock, and invest the balance, after reserving 5500., in bank stock.
Eleanor Bishop.
4 per cents., and 2 per cents.
19th January."

The bonds were accordingly sold out, and on the 27th of the same month Mrs. Bishop drew a cheque for 5000. The cheque was [in the body of it] in Wood's handwriting, and was in the ordinary form, payable to Mr. Jackson or bearer; but of course any other name besides Jackson's might as well have been there. Thus far it is clear that the bankers have done nothing more than their duty. It is in the ordinary course of a banker's business to sell out government securities or foreign securities. But it is contended on behalf of the plaintiff that she was induced by fraud, on the part of Wood, to draw the cheque: and that it having been obtained on the faith of the representations of a partner in the bank, made in the bank, and therefore [as Mrs. Bishop must have thought] made on behalf of all the firm, they must be considered by implication to have been cognizant of the transaction, and must therefore be held liable. Now, taking the evidence of Mrs. Bishop, given in her own behalf, but looking at it apart from the natural bias which influences people in their own affairs, and taking it as pressing most strongly in her favour, what is the inference to be drawn from her statement? What is the fair view in which to look at it? It is stated that Wood, not only in the bank, but on behalf of the bank, represented the proposed investment as a good security. Now, one of two things must be meant by this statement. Either Wood said [which is not at all probable], "My advice to you as a partner, is to invest your money on this security," or something similar; or, which is most likely, and is, I think, a fair inference from the evidence, she thought, and took for granted, that all he said to her was as if it came on the part of the bank itself. Another inference from her representation is this, - Wood did not say I will invest the money in good and unexceptionable security, the best security that can be got. She knew that it was to be lent to W. Wood, jun., a person engaged in business. She knew perfectly well that it was not an investment in the funds, but was to be in the shape of a loan to Wood, the son. There is no doubt that he also represented that the security was a perfectly good one; no doubt, when he handed to Mrs. Bishop the promissory note, and indorsed on it the guarantee, and gave her the policy of insurance, that in doing so he committed a fraud, that is to say, that he took advantage of Mrs. Bishop's ignorance of business. But I do not think that these false representations can make the firm, of which the party making them was a partner, liable for the loss. But then it is said, that it is the practice of bankers to invest money in government and other securities, and therefore, that the transaction came within the scope of their business. I do not think that this proposition is strictly correct. It is not the practice of bankers to take a roving commission as brokers or money scriveners; no one can suggest that such a general mode of investing money is adopted by banking-houses. But this is their practice: if I want to sell out a sum of stock, I give the bank power to do so, and give it directions to sell out; or if I have a balance at my bankers and wish to invest it, the bank will, upon the express instructions of the customer, lay out the money in the purchase of particular stock, and debit the customer's account with the amount, without any cheque, but simply on the footing of a letter of instructions, which is very different from the case of a cheque payable to bearer. In the case I have just put, if there was any fraud on the part of any one partner, all would be liable, because it would be a transaction in the ordinary course of business. But such a case is not in the smallest degree applicable to the present one. It does not becime a representation on the part of the banking firm, because one partner in a bank gives advice, and recommends a person to lend money to his son, a man in trade. This lady is, no doubt, much to be pitied, but am I therefore to say that the partners of this person are bound by his representations? I do not therefore, think, assuming that the defendants personally were not cognizant of the transaction, but merely sold out the Dutch bonds, and paid the cheque drawn on them, that the fact of the person to whom the cheque was paid having been a partner in the firm can make them liable for fraud. And as to what was urged by the plaintiff, that this was a matter within the ordinary scope of a banker's business, I confess, as I previously observed, that although it may be a banker's duty to make any particular investment, directed by a customer, yet this transaction was quite out of their ordinary course. Then it is contended, that although it be not within the ordinary scope of their business, yet there is evidence to show that they knew of it, and that they are liable as being affected with notice. The evidence is this. In May 1849, Wood absconded, and the defendants desired Mrs. Bishop's niece to inform her of the fact. Mrs. Bishop accordingly called at the banking-house and had an interview with Mr. Shepherd, one of the partners. Mr. Shepherd stated that "some of their people" knew of the transaction of the 5000. Upon which Mrs. Bishop said, "What, before Wood absconded?" and after some hesitation he replied, "Shortly before he [Wood] absconded." Now this is an admission by one who was not a partner at the time the transaction took place, and is not one of the persons sought to be charged; and the representation amounts to this, that "some of their people" knew of it before the time of the absconding of Wood. Knew of what? Why, that Wood induced her to sign a cheque, to give it to his son, on what he represented as good security, when he only gave a promissory note, and a policy of assurance on the son's life. How can this be considered evidence of knowledge by the partners? There is, therefore, no ground for the assumption that at the time the transaction took place any of the partners knew of it; nor for the assumption that any of them knew of it till after Wood absconded. There is nothing to show that any one in the place knew of it except Mr. Shepherd, and considering that he was not a partner at the time of the transaction, it would be contrary to all the rules of evidence to make his admission binding on the other partners... But then it is said, assuming that up to the time of the payment of the cheque everything was correct, yet the subsequent transactions, such as the entries to the effect that different sums of money were paid half-yearly by Jackson into the bank, serve to mix up the other partners in it. And the question is raised whether that does not amount to a representation on the part of the banking firm, that this sum of 5000. was lent to Jackson on good security, or a representation of something of the sort. Now, what does it really amount to? Nothing more than this: that on the day specified such a sum of money was paid into the bank to the credit of Mrs. Bishop, purporting to be half a year's interest on 5000., by a person named Jackson.
Then the plaintiff says, was the money really paid into the bank? There is no charge in the bill that the entry was ficticious; and even if the money were not paid in, I cannot say that in that case the bank would be liable. But there is really no ground for saying that the bank did not receive the money. Another question has been raised, as to who paid the money in? As to that, any person paying money into a bank can pay it in any name; a banking firm, therefore, by putting a name in their books, only represents that on such a day a sum of money was paid in; but it is not their business to inquire further, and ascertain by whom it is really paid. What does it signify to them who pays it?
I have, therefore, come to the conclusion that the plaintiff's case cannot be supported on any of the grounds on which it has been contended that she has a right to make the partnership liable, and that the bill must be dismissed with costs.
Mr. Cotton, for the Countess of Jersey, waived her right to costs.
Solicitors, Oliverson & Co.; J. C. & H. Freshfield.
1ST WIFE:Eleana/Eleanor Markland
MARRIED:08 10 1833 St George's Hanover Square, London
DIED:Tuesday 15 03 1892 at 23 Aldford Street, Park Lane, London, widow of Captain Archibald Wyndham Bishop of the 7th Dragoon Guards aged 79 years.
NOTES:Bride: Only child of the late Lieutenant James Markland, 33rd Regiment and Leonora Nightingale.
Granddaughter of Sir Edward Nightingale 10th Bart. and Eleanor Nightingale, daughter of Robert Nightingale of Kneesworth.
Groom: Captain 7th Dragoon Guards
1851 CENSUS:Middlesex, St George Hanover Square, May Fair, District 10
Ref: HO107/1476
24 South Audley Street
Freeman H Bishop, Blank, Unm, 39, Assistant Curate of Grosvenor Chapel, born Middlesex London
1861 CENSUS:Middlesex, St George Hanover Square, May Fair, District 11
Ref: RG9/45
23 Chapel Street
Eleanor Bishop, Head of Family, Widow, 48, Fundholder, Scotland
Plus Housekeeper, Lady's Maid, Housemaid and Footman
1871 CENSUS:Middlesex, St George Hanover Square, Mayfair, District 8
Ref: RG10/102
23 Chapel Street
Eleanor Bishop, Head, Widow, 58, Fundholder, Scotland
Plus Butler, Lady's Maid, Housemaid and Footman
TNA SOURCES:WO/12/637-638
PROB 11/1574/98 Will of Charles Bishop
PROB 11/1963/239 Will of Archibald Wyndham Bishop [not consulted yet]
LONDON GAZETTES:No 17436, 02 01 1819
No 17911, 05 04 1823
No 18689, 30 06 1829
HART'S ARMY LISTS: A List of the Officers of the Army and of the Corps of Royal Marines War Office, 1833
PRESS/ALMANACKS: The Gentleman's Magazine, Apr 1793
The Gentleman's Magazine, May 1811
The Gentleman's Magazine, Apr 1815, p373
The Gentleman's Magazine, Oct 1815, p382
Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine, Volume 1819
The Asiatic Journal and Monthly Register for British and Foreign ..., Volume 9 1820
The Asiatic journal and Monthly Miscellany, Volume 21 by East India Company, 1826
The Ladies Museum, March 1832, p. 144
The Gentleman's Magazine, Volume 154 1833
Caledonian Mercury Thu 22 01 1835
The Gentleman's Magazine, Volume 173 1842
Notes and Queries 1850, p. 183
The Dundee Courier & Argus Friday 18 03 1892
Notes and Queries, Volume 135 by William White, 1917
Reports of Cases decided in the High Court of Chancery by Charles S. Drewry, John J. Smale, 1854
The Equity Reports, 1853-1855: Michaelmas term, 1853 to Michaelmas term ... by George French
Observations on Matters of Prize, Appendix VII, John Frederick Pott, 1810
LINKS: Challis - Peninsula Roll Call

4th Light Dragoons Index