Bristol’s Love and Law cases: an exploration of romantic scandals and marriage disputes in Bristol’s history
Bristol, a vibrant city known for its colourful street art and rich culture,[1] also holds a fascinating history of love and romance which leads to complicated legal entanglements. Over the centuries, court records and newspaper archives have revealed a tapestry of romantic scandals and marriage disputes that not only entertained but also shaped societal norms and legal precedents. Particularly ample in past cases and the evolution of bigamy through time, Bristol’s past is rich with stories where love and law collide dramatically.
Photo credit: Adobe Stock
The Trail of Sarah Baker
In the 18th century, the crime of bigamy was considered a serious offence under English law, and the case of Sarah Baker, also known as Sarah Wicks, is a fascinating example of how such cases were handled at the Old Bailey (also known as the Central Criminal Court of England and Wales).[2]
The case revolved around her first marriage in Bristol and her later unlawful union in London. According to court records, Sarah Baker married Nicholas Bedgood in Bristol on December 13, 1761. Their marriage was legally registered, and witnesses, including a clergyman named Rev. William Davis, confirmed the union. However, years later, Sarah moved to London and married John Wicks, falsely claiming to be a widow. This second marriage, which took place around 20 months before her trial, led to her arrest when it was discovered that Bedgood was still alive and working in Bristol.
Sarah’s crime came to light when Bedgood unexpectedly confronted her in London. Witness Thomas Barber, who was present when Bedgood saw Sarah, described how he immediately called her a “blackguard” and threatened to beat her, revealing his shock and anger over her second marriage. However, according to Sarah Baker, she believed that Nicholas Bedgood had another wife before she married him, implying that their marriage was invalid.
This revelation of Bedgood’s other wife was brought up by witness Mary Brent, who had known Sarah when she was young in Bristol. Brent explained that Sarah had been married to Bedgood but had later become pregnant. It was after this that an older woman arrived, claiming to be Bedgood’s lawful wife.
Despite Sarah’s defence that her and Bedgood’s marriage was invalid due to her suspicion of Bedgood’s previous wife, leading her to believe she was free to wed again, the court ruled against her. Benjamin Holkway, a clerk from St. Lawrence Jewry, confirmed that Sarah had married John Wicks in that church on the 11th of September 1764, while Bedgood was still alive, which convicts her under Bigamy.
The exact sentence Sarah Baker received was not recorded, however her conviction of bigamy was based on the legal framework of the Bigamy Act of 1603,[3] which was part of English common law at the time. The Act made it a felony for a person to marry someone while their first spouse was still alive, unless:
The first spouse had been absent for seven years without being heard from.
The first marriage was legally dissolved through annulment or death.
Since Nicholas Bedgood was still alive, and Sarah had no legal grounds for remarriage, she was found guilty. Some viewed this judgement as overly harsh, given her genuine belief in Bedgood’s previous wife which led to their invalid marriage.
Photo credit: Adobe Stock
Adolphus Maddock: Bigamy?
Following the Sarah Baker trail case, the case of Adolphus Maddock[4] continued to expose the consequences of bigamy, a crime that was strictly prosecuted under English law. Maddock, a resident of Bristol, was convicted in 1851 for marrying two women while his first wife was still alive, a direct violation of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and the legal precedents surrounding marriage fraud.
The story begins in Bristol on 2nd July 1846, when Maddock and Mary legally wed at the Bristol Registry Office. One of the key witnesses to this marriage was Charles Smith, a warehouseman from Bristol, who later testified in court that he had been present at the wedding and had personally verified the marriage registry. Smith further confirmed that Maddock and Mary lived together in the same house as husband and wife in Bristol after the ceremony, proving that the marriage was legitimate and recognized by law.
Despite his existing marriage, Maddock proceeded to marry another woman, Elizabeth Surridge, on November 7, 1850, at Old Bethnal Green Church in London. This wedding was witnessed by Eliza Welldon, who testified in court against Maddock.
However, this crime only came to light when Thomas Gardner, a police officer, was approached by Maddock’s first wife, Mary, who provided evidence that her husband had unlawfully remarried. The police obtained official marriage records from both ceremonies, and upon comparison, it was evident that Maddock had committed bigamy.
During his trial, Maddock attempted to defend himself, claiming that he had spent 14 years abroad in the East and West Indies, India, and America, and was unaware that his first marriage was still legally binding under English law. Additionally, he argued that his first marriage should not be considered valid as the ceremony took place in a room rather than a church. However, these claims were swiftly dismissed by the court, as he had knowingly obtained a legal marriage certificate for both of his weddings.
Additionally, Old Bailey ruled that Maddock’s actions clearly violated Section 57 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, which states that “Whosoever being married shall marry any other person during the life of the former husband or wife shall be guilty of a felony and shall be liable to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding seven years.” At the time, bigamy was a serious criminal offence, carrying penalties of imprisonment or even transportation - a common sentence in the 18th and 19th centuries, where convicted criminals were sent overseas to serve their punishment instead of being imprisoned in Britain.
Maddock himself was sentenced to 12 months of confinement, enforcing and showcasing how ignorance of the law was no excuse and that marriage laws were to be strictly upheld, especially in cases involving fraudulent remarriage.
Photo credit: The Bank Store
George William Lucid: Marriage For Money
Bristol not only had an abundance of bigamy cases, but also cases involving fraud, such as the case of George William Lucid.[5] George William Lucid, was a man who preyed on women by promising marriage while secretly orchestrating financial frauds. Under various aliases, including George W. Leslie, Lucid gained the trust of unsuspecting women. Eventually, it led to his downfall and conviction under UK fraud laws.
During the 1900s, Bristol was known for its commercial and banking activities and became an attractive setting for Lucid’s schemes. This is due to Bristol’s prominence as a major trading port which necessitated the development of a robust financial infrastructure to support its merchants and trade operations.[6] This certainly helped Lucid orchestrate his financial frauds, allowing him to exploit Bristol’s expanding infrastructure to his advantage.
Lucid’s fraudulent activities came to light when multiple women, including Mary Jackson and Annie Sutton Gresswell, accused him of obtaining money under false pretences. His modus operandi involved introducing himself as a wealthy and well-connected land and estate agent with financial troubles, convincing his victims to lend him money under the assumption that they were aiding their future husband.
One of Lucid’s primary victims, Mary Jackson, resided in Bristol and had been led to believe that her financial contributions were helping Lucid pay off a mortgage in Clifton. She later realised that the money she provided was never used for legitimate purposes but rather to sustain his fraudulent lifestyle. This deception, combined with similar complaints from other victims, led to his suspicion and involvement of the authorities.
Eventually, authorities traced his fraudulent activities to multiple locations, including Brighton and Kensington, where he was arrested. His financial web unravelled as the police gathered testimonies from his many victims, ultimately securing his conviction under the Larceny Act 1861.
The Larceny Act 1861 states: ‘whosoever shall, by any false pretence, obtain from any other person any chattel, money, or valuable security with the intent to defraud, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and being convicted thereof shall be liable to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding five years.’
The prosecution under the Old Bailey eventually concluded that Lucid’s repeated deception of women by feigning love and financial need constituted fraud. His actions were not mere romantic betrayals but deliberate financial exploitation. The legal principle of false pretences was key to his conviction, as he had knowingly misrepresented his financial status and intentions to extract money.
In present times, the laws have evolved, the Fraud Act 2006 effectively addresses fraud by false representation, offering a clear legal framework for prosecution. It remains highly effective in tackling financial crimes in an increasingly digital and complex landscape. However, the fundamental legal principles, such as strict marriage laws, that secured his conviction remain relevant.
Photo credit: Bonza Sheila
Bristol’s history of romantic scandals and marriage disputes reveals that while laws evolve, the core issues of love, trust, and deception remain central to legal proceedings. Cases of fraud, broken engagements, and financial deceit once litigated in Bristol’s courts still find modern parallels in family law and fraud cases today.
Despite this, over time UK laws have strengthened protections against financial and emotional exploitation in relationships, with legal precedents ensuring justice in cases of deception. Yet, these historical cases continue to shape Bristol’s past, serving as reminders of the complexities of love and law.
[1] Prestige Student Living, ‘What Is Bristol Famous For? 15 Things’ (2020) < https://prestigestudentliving.com/blog/what-is-bristol-famous-for> accessed 8 February 2025
[2] Old Bailey Proceedings Online , ‘Trial of Sarah Bake , spinster , otherwise Sarah, wife of Nicholas Bedgood’ (1966) < https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/record/t17660409-35?text=bristol> accessed on 8 February 2025
[3] Cambridge Law Faculty, ‘CELH 2023 Annual Lecture: Women and the Crime of Bigamy in English Law, 1603-2023' (2024) < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjA98NtScy0> accessed on 8 February 2025
[4] Old Bailey Proceedings Online ' Trial of ADOLPHUS MADDOCK’ (1851). <https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/record/t18510407-1018?text=bristol> accessed on 8 February 2025
[5] Old Bailey Proceedings Online, ‘Trial of LUCID, George William, otherwise George W. Leslie’ (1911) <https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/record/t19110627-55?text=bristol> accessed on 8 February 2025.
[6] Jean Manco, ‘The Beginning of Banks in Bristol’ (2007) < https://www.buildinghistory.org/bristol/banks.shtml> accessed on 8 February 2025