Family of George ORAM and Caroline POTTER

Husband: George ORAM (1826-1900)
Wife: Caroline POTTER (1829-1901)
Marriage 13 May 1848 Potterne, Wiltshire

Husband: George ORAM

Name: George ORAM1
Sex: Male
Father: Jonas ORAM (1798-1847)
Mother: Harriet GIDDINGS (1796-1861)
Birth 9 Jul 1826 Edington, Wiltshire
Christening 9 Jul 1826 (age 0) Edington, Wiltshire
Death 1900 (age 73-74) Wincanton Registration District, Somerset

Wife: Caroline POTTER

Name: Caroline POTTER
Sex: Female
Father: -
Mother: -
Birth 26 Nov 1829 Worton, Wiltshire
Christening Potterne, Wiltshire
Death 1901 (age 71-72) Clutton Registration District, Somerset

Note on Husband: George ORAM

At the time of their marriage, 3th.May 1848 they were living in Woolston, Berkshire.

In 1851 he was living in Edington, Wiltshire with his wife where he was a Farmer of 35 acres. He was 25 years old.


Extract from the Swindon Advertiser (newspaper) in 1855 -


Mr. George Oram, farmer, of Cliffe Pypard was charged by Amelia Jack, a modest, good looking young women, with having assaulted her,and also with having discharged her from his service. Mr. J.W.Browne appeared for the defendant. Complainant stated that she was hired by Mr Oram at last Wotton Bassett fair as dairymaid, at £9.10s per year, with 10s over at Michaelmas. On the morning of Thursday last she got up between five and 6 o’clock, her master getting up about the same time. Directly after she got into the kitchen, her master called to her to bring his smock. She went for it and as she was taking it to him he met her in the passage, and having blowed out the candle which she was carrying in her hand, he took held of her and commenced pulling her about. She resisted him and told him to desist. He however continued,pulling her about for as much as a quarter of an hour. She repeatedly called out for assistance and at length Mrs Oram came out of her bedroom,and addressing her husband, asked him if he was not ashamed of himself, when he let her go. Later in the morning Mrs Oram requested her to leave her service, saying that if she (complainant) stopped there, she (the mistress) would no . Mrs Oram offered her 2 pounds to go away. There was not so much money coming to her as wages as she had been there only a month. She afterwards accepted the 2 pounds and went home to her mother, who when informed of the cause of her leaving, instituted the present proceedings. Mr Browne cross-examined the complainant at considerable length, attempting to show that it was impossible for such a scuffle as the complainant had described to be going on in the passage without every person in the house being immediately made acquainted with the fact, and that Mrs Orams appearance on the stairs undressed, was not in consequence of any noise, but in consequence of her gown having been left the previous night in the kitchen to dry. The complainant also denied having on the morning in question, about 12 o’clock, when had into the parlour before her master and mistress, stated that her master had not touched her, or that she had requested a Mrs Smith, a washerwomen, to see Mrs Oram and say that if they would pay her (the complainant) £3 she would go home. Complainants mother having disposed to her daughter’s return home, assigning as a reason her master’s misconduct, Mr Browne, on behalf of defendant called the Mrs Smith alluded to, who stated that she heard Jack deny before Mr and Mrs Oram that Mr Oram had touched her on the morning in question, she was not in the room when this took place but was listening in the passage. She also stated that the complainant had requested her to see her mistress and try to get £3 for her to leave. This witness gave her evidence in a very unsatisfactory manner, her effort to screen the defendant at the expense of the complainant was very evident, and we think araingment for that offense which she imputed to Jack, viz perjury would do her good.


Mr Browne made a very able and ingenious address in defense of his client, arguing that it was improbable that he who was a highly respectable man should have been guilty of the conduct imputed to him, and submitted that it was a trumped up case, got up for the purpose of covering her own misconduct. Mr Hitchcock observed that it was not usual for masters to give servants who misconducted themselves £2, when they were not entitled to £1.


A former master of complainant, who was present in court, gave her an excellent character, she had been in his service two years and a half, and during that time had conducted herself to his perfect satisfaction. The bench having fully considered the case, Mr Denbeny announced the decision arrived at. He said they had given great attention to the case and Mr Oram had been very ably defended, but they were satisfied that in an unguarded moment he had been guilty of the assault, and committed a breach of trust which persons in his position were bound to maintain. It was his duty as a master to protect the morals of his servants. With reference to the other charge, the girl had received £2 as a compromise for her wages, and therefore they were unable to convict in that case. Had it been otherwise, they should have ordered payment of the whole of her years wages. The bench convicted him of assault and fined him £5.


The court regretted that they could not order the payment of further wages, but they felt bound to say that the complainant left the court with an unblemished character. Major Goddard (being the landlord of the defendant) did not sit in this case.


1"Kenneth Oram".