Born: 19 October 1861 in Tredegar, Monmouthshire, Wales
- Gladys Eleanor Lyons 1892 - 1972
- Lewis Marcus Lyons 1894 - 1953
- Claude Lipman Lyons 1895 - 1975
- Dorothy Winifred Lyons 1898 - 1988
- Brenda Margaret Lyons 1909 - 1999
1881
1891
1901
.jpg)
Abraham and his family are at "Milverton", 52 Walter Road, Swansea, Wales. Abraham is 49, a pawnbroker and jeweler and has his own shop. Augusta is 37 and is an antique dealer also with her own shop. The children are Gladys Ella age 18, Lewis Marcus age 16, Claude Lipman age 15, Dorothy Winifred age 13, and Brenda Margaret age 1 year old. They have two servants, Elizabeth McIndoor, a widow age 41 who is the cook and Elizabeth Lewis age 21 who is the housemaid. The house has 12 rooms
The family is still at "Milverton", 52 Walter Road, Swansea, Wales. Abraham is 59, still a pawnbroker and jeweler and has his own shop. Augusta is 46 and a housewife. Peggy, age 11 years and 9 months, is the only child still living there. The domestic servant is Hilda Bowens, age 22
Trade Directory
.jpg)
.jpg)
13 October 1933 in Swansea, Wales at almost 72 years of age. Buried in the Townhill Cemetery, Swansea, Wales in Townhill section C, Row 3, Plot 8
Hebrew translation: Here [lies] buried / the member [ha'chaver] Avraham son of Yehuda Leib / died 24th Tishrei 5694 /may his soul be bound in the bond of [eternal] life.
.jpg)
SWANSEA JEWELLER Death of Mr. Abraham Lyons
Mr. Abraham Lyons, a prominent member of the Jewish community in South Wales, died at his home in Walter-road, Swansea, on Friday night, aged 72.
Mr. Lyons, who was a well-known Freemason, was taken suddenly ill while attending a meeting of the Indefatigable Lodge, Swansea, on Monday last and never regained consciousness.
A native of Tredegar, Mr. Lyons had, since he was a boy, lived at Swansea, where he had been in business as a jeweller in College-street for many years.
The senior lay member of the local Hebrew congregation, he was the representative of Swansea Jewry on the Board of Deputies and was prominent in Zionist matters both locally and nationally.
A Past Master of the Indefatigable Lodge he had held provincial honours in Freemasonry. He leaves a widow, two sons, and three daughters.
,%201858-1995(167).jpg)
A WELSH BREACH OF PROMISE CASE,
In the Court of Queen’s Bench on Saturday the case of Godman
v Lyons was concluded. It was an action to recover damages for a breach of a promise
to marriage, and the defendant, among other things, pleaded “infancy”. Mr.
Winch, in opening the case, said both parties to the action were of the Jewish
faith. The plaintiff was the daughter of an outfitter at Merthyr Tydvil, and
the defendant was a furniture dealer at Tredegar. In June, 1882, the acquaintance
commenced. The plaintiff was visiting Mrs Isaacs at Ebbw Vale and was there introduced
to the defendant. After that the affairs proceeded very speedily, and on the
12th June 1882, the defendant’s father wrote to the plaintiff's father in these
terms: - Sir, I have this morning received a letter from my son, of Tredegar,
asking my opinion about your daughter. No doubt you are also aware that they
met last week and fell in love with each other. My son writes to me to this
effect. Of course it is your duty to ask your daughter the same effect (then
followed some Hebrew words), The writer continued – “I myself have not the
least objection, knowing you and your late dear wife since the first day I came
over to this country. It is my desire to see my only son married respectably
(more Hebrew). “My son has a good business at Tredegar. I seed not say math
about him. He is well known (more Hebrew).
Mr Justice Hawkins: What do you say is the effect of this
letter, including the Hebrew? (Laughter)
Mr Winch: That the son had requested his father to arrange
the terms on which the marriage could be carried out. On the 23rd
June the plaintiff’s and defendant's fathers and Mark Lyons, the defendant’s
half-brother, met at Swansea, and it was arranged that the marriage should take
place and that the lady’s dowry be £400, and the betrothal took place. A
day or two afterwards the defendant gave the plaintiff an engaged ring, and
everything was arranged. He would refer to one or two letters that passed after
this, and they, as usual, contained exaggerated language, such as sounded very
silly when read out in court, but which when the letters were received was
thought very beautiful. (Laughter)
On the 27th June, 1882, the defendant wrote "Darling
Esther, I arrived home quite safe. I can hardly say how delightful I spent the time
in your company all day Saturday and yesterday. I wish it were Thursday, but I
must content myself “and he concluded, “with love to all, and though last, not
least accept the same yourself”. On the same day he also wrote to the plaintiff’s
brother-in-law: “Dear Hyman, - Thanks for your congratulations and good wishes.
My engagement to dear Esther makos me very happy and nothing will be wanting on
my part to make her comfortable.” On the 30th June there was another letter to
the plaintiff:- “Dear Esther, - Come safe home. I say ‘home’. What is home
without a mother" (Laughter)
Mr. Justice Hawkins: Without a mother! What does he mean by that?
(Laughter)
Mr. Winch: - Your Lordship will see the turn of it. The
writer went on: “Tell me what is home without a wife? (Laughter) Ah, never
mind: I picture our own home that is to be, and it consoles me for my present
inconvenience, although my landlady, dear old thing, does her best.” (Laughter)
Mr. Justice Hawkins: "Dear old thing” is in parenthesis, as if
it were unimportant. (Laughter)
Mr Winch: He further said, I received no letter this morning:
I dare say I shall have a letter tomorrow ; if I do not I shall go
distracted" (a laugh) - and he concluded "I will ever remain your
fond lover, Abraham.” In another letter he said, “I am, as the butchers say, in
prime condition- (laughter) -hoping that you have no cause to complain." (Laughter.)
This correspondence went on down to October 1882, and there was one letter
which showed that everything was arranged for the wedding. It was to come off on
the 25th October ; the lady bad bought her trousseau, and a house had been
hired for the young people to live in. On the 15th September the plaintiff met
the defendant at the railway station and thought there was some change in him,
and on the 18th his father wrote to her father, “My dear Goodman, - You
are probably aware that I was not quite satisfied with the match between your
daughter and my son from the beginning. I think that they are unsuited, and for
the happiness of all parties concerned the engagement must be broken off. I
have consulted with my son upon the subject and he is quite satisfied that it
should be so.” The reply was, “I am in receipt of your letter, which has caused
me much pain. As the appointed time is only five weeks off, you are aware of
the preparations already made. I was not
aware of your objections till after receiving your letter. I trust you will not
take such a rash step but all will be settled satisfactorily.” On the following
day the young lady herself wrote :- “Darling Abraham – I would not put pen to
paper after the sorrow given me, but I believed that some cruel person has been
the agent of this. I am now four months engaged to you, and now within five
weeks of our appointed wedding, you want to break off the contract. I would ten
thousand times have preferred death than that I should be the public talk. I
remain, your troubled, Esther.” The learned counsel, in conclusion, said that
he believed that the secret of all this was that the defendant had become
engaged to another young lady who was considerably richer than the plaintiff.
Then, as to the defence, the defendant said that he was an infant ; but he was a remarkably developed infant. (Laughter.)
Mr Justice Hawkins: He says himself he is “in prime
condition.: (Renewed laughter.)
Mr Winch: He was wonderful infant, and he had been
conducting for two years a large business in Wales. Such was his precocity.
(Laughter.) He (Mr. Winch) advised the jurymen If any one of them had a son of
17 or 18, with whose condition they were not quite fascinated, to send him down
to Wales, and just see what it would do for him. (Laughter.)
Miss Esther Rebecca Goodman, the plaintiff was then called
in support of the statement of her counsel.
Mr.- Raphael Goodman, the plaintiff’s brother, said Mr.
Lyons, sen., said in the defendant’s presence that the business at Tredegar was
a first-class business, and that the defendant was making £10
or £12
a week profit.
This was the case for the plaintiff.
Mr. Abraham Lyons, the defendant, was called. He said that
in March, 1882, he was proposed for a Freemason, and, in answer to a question,
he said he was 21, but he was not, though he was in his 21st year. He was not
aware that he would be asked that question until he was in the hall. The
business at Tredegar was his father's, though it was promised to him when he
got married. There never was any profit from it, he believed.
Mr. Justice Hawkins: Then your father was going to set you
up nicely. (Laughter.)
Witness: He did not remember it being said in his presence
that the profits were £10 or £12 week.
Cross-examined: Since he had broken off with the plaintiff
he had become engaged to a young lady, the daughter of a gentleman in the North
of England.
Other evidence having been given, and the judge having
summed up,
The jury having considered the matter for an hour, said they
felt compelled to find for the defendant, but at the same time they expressed
their sympathy for the plaintiff, and they trusted that the verdict would not
carry the costs.
JEWISH BREACH OF PROMISE.
Mr. Justice Hawkins and a common jury on Friday, in the
Queen's Bench Division, heard the suit of Goodman v. Lyons, which was an action
to recover damages for breach of a promise of marriage, and the defendant
pleaded among other things infancy.
Mr. Winch was for the plaintiff, and Mr. E. Pollock for the
defendant. Mr. Winch said that both parties to this action were of the Jewish
religion. The plaintiff, Miss Esther Rebecca Goodman, was the daughter of an
outfitter at Merthyr Tydvil, and the defendant was a furniture dealer in
Tredegar. In June, 1882, the defendant was introduced to the plaintiff. On the
12th of the same month the defendant's father wrote to the plaintiff's father,
saying, "I have this morning received a letter from my son of Tredegar
asking my opinion about your daughter. No doubt you are also aware that they
met last week and fell in love with each other. My son writes to me to this
effect. Of course, it is your duty to ask your daughter to the same effect. I
myself have not the least objection, knowing you and your dear wife since the
first day I came over to this country. It is my desire to see my only son
married respectably." After this there was a family meeting at Swansea,
and it was arranged that the plaintiff's dowry should be £400, and the
betrothal took place. A day or two afterwards the defendant gave the plaintiff
an engaged ring, the usual love letters passed, a house was taken, the
plaintiff obtained most of her trousseau, and the wedding was fixed for the
25th of October, 1882. On the 18th of September, however, the defendant's
father wrote to break off the engagement, and said, "I think that they are
unsuited, and for the happiness of all parties concerned that the engagement
should be broken off. I have consulted with my son on the subject, and he is
quite satisfied that it should be so." The learned counsel, in conclusion,
said that the defendant had pleaded that he was an infant; but he was a most
remarkably developed infant.
Mr. Justice Hawkins. And in one of his letters he says that
he is in "prime condition." (Loud laughter.)
Mr. Winch. His precocity was such that for two years he had
been managing a large business in Wales. Miss Goodman, the plaintiff, was
called in support of the case.
Mr. Raphael Goodman, her brother, deposed that the
defendant's father said in the defendant's presence that the latter was making
£10 or £12 a week profit by his business. This was the case for the plaintiff.
Mr. Abraham Lyons, the defendant, was called. He said that
the business at Tredegar was his father's, though it was promised to him when
he got married. There never was any profit from it, he believed. He did not
remember it being said in his presence that the profits were £10 or £12 a week.
Cross-examined. Since he had broken off with the plaintiff he had become
engaged to a young lady, the daughter of a jeweller, in the north of England.
To Mr. Justice Hawkins, He was not engaged be married to her.
Mr. Lewis Lyons, the defendant's father, produced a
certificate that his son was born on the 19th of October, 1861. He had had that
certificate ever since the birth was registered. He had never heard that there
was no such entry in the register itself.
When the case was resumed on Saturday, the defendant's
father, in cross-examination, said he went himself and registered the birth of
the defendant. Mr. Lewis was the registrar. He did not remember signing the
book. His name, "Lewis Lyons," was upon the certificate, but it was
not his signature. He told Mr. Lewis the date when his son was born, and he
gave witness the certificate there and then. He did not see the registrar write
in his book, nor see him write at all. The book in which witness had entered
the births of his children was not a book of prayer or the Pentateuch. It was a
religious book of meditations, and he took that book because it was the one he
valued most, as his father had sent it to him from Poland. It was a Hebrew
book, and he himself wrote the date of that birth, 19th October, 1861. The
defendant was born on Saturday, the 19th October, and witness made the entry on
the next day, Sunday.
Re-examined. -The entries were in English. There were also
entries in Hebrew on the other side opposite. The Hebrew entries referred to
the children. The two entries were made at the same time. He had no entry in
Hebrew as to Abraham; the Hebrew entries referred to the girls. The certificate
had been in his possession ever since November, 1861. He first heard of his
son's engagement to the other young lady who had been mentioned ten months ago,
whilst the engagement with Miss Goodman was broken off in September, 1882.
Mrs. Sarah Lyons said that she was the mother of the
defendant. He was born on the 19th October, 1861. She knew nothing about the
book, and never interfered about books, for she was no scholar. She could not
read, and could tell nothing about the certificate of birth.
Cross-examined. Her husband kept his books in the bookcase
in the room where they had their meals, and there were about one hundred of
them there. She had never noticed the one in question. She could not tell the
dates when her other children were born. To Mr. Justice Hawkins. She
recollected the date when the defendant was born, because he was the first boy,
and they always kept his birthday. Mr. Edward Williams Lewis said that he now
kept a marine store at Tredegar, but he was from 1854 to 1873 registrar of
births and deaths there.
The certificate of the defendant's birth was in his
handwriting. He gave it on the 15th November, 1861, to Mr. Lewis Lyons, the
father of Abraham Lyons.
Cross-examined. The entry of which the certificate purported
to be a copy was not in the book, and it was a great omission of duty that he
had not entered it in the book.
Mr. Justice Hawkins, -What is that book? The register of
births.
Witness continued. -He was bound to enter all births, and
the person who gave him the information signed the book. He did not know how it
was that there was no entry in his book. He must have made the certificate out
before the original entry was made, and then that entry was never made. It was
a great error on his part, but it unfortunately occurred.
Have you on any other occasion given a certified copy of
what was not in the register? It is not often I was asked for a certificate. He
did not recollect giving the certificate in question.
Mr. Justice Hawkins, in summing up, said that a very grave
question was raised as to the genuine- ness of the certificate, and that the
jury would have to determine. He had no wish to prejudice the minds of the jury
in any way, but the defence set up, even if true, was an exceedingly shabby
one, and they would probably have been very glad if no evidence had been given
upon it. But still, if the defendant had made this promise before he was
twenty-one, he would not be responsible for having broken it. If they were
satisfied that he was under twenty-one when this promise was made, they would
have no right to throw aside the evidence of that because they had sympathy
with the girl.
The jury having considered the matter for an hour, said that
they felt compelled to find for the defendant, but at the same time they
expressed their sympathy for the plaintiff, and they trusted that the verdict
would not carry the costs.
On Monday, Mr. Edward Pollock, for the defendant, now
applied for judgment for his client. Mr. L. Hart, for the plaintiff, mentioned
that the jury, in giving their verdict expressed the hope that it would not
carry costs. Mr. Justice Hawkins: Only they have not to certify. I have. He
added that he had made up his mind to give judgment for the defendant, but
without any costs. At the same time, he should make the defendant pay some
costs. The promise of marriage and its breach were as clearly proved as anything
in this world. could be, and yet the defendant had made the plaintiff bring up
witnesses from Wales to prove it. He also asserted that a reasonable time und
not elapsed for the performance of the promise. The defendant had therefore
deliberately made the plaintiff waste her money in giving evidence upon these
matters. He ordered the defendant to pay all the costs occasioned in this way,
and this would apply not only to the costs of the witnesses, but to a
proportionate part of the briefs, fees to counsel, and so on. He gave the
defendant no costs on the issue on which he had succeeded, and for this reason
among others: He thought that the girl - having had brought to her knowledge
that the young man had, when he was about to be admitted among the Freemasons,
said that he was of age - had very good reason for disbelieving him when he
said he was not. She was therefore quite right in insisting upon his proving
his plea of infancy. The question of infancy might be absolutely set at rest by
searching the register of circumcision, if in there were any such. He thought
that the jury were quite right in finding, as they did, upon the facts that
were before them. Judgment for the defendant.
