Dr Pierre Hope (Haupt)

Pierre Francois seems to have been given his first and second names name, because he is descended from one of the 3 brothers in the de Villiers family who came from Rochelle in France to settle in South Africa as wine growers. In every generation of that family one of the sons had this name and his grandmother was Anna Gertruida de Villiers, who was 4th generation descendant of Pierre de Villiers (1657-1720)

Pierre Francois Haupt married his cousin ( their fathers were brothers)

Johanna Maria Haupt  was 17 years older than him, at Marylebone Parish Church in London 3rd March 1882(.According to her), the actual  date is 3rd May 1882 on the marriage certificate .  He claimed to be 15 years old at the time.( This is corroborated in the Naval Papers he filled in when joining the "Olympic"  in 1917). 

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/29328/page/10205/data.pdf

Hope, instead of the said name of Pierre Francois. Haupt; and- I further give notice, , by a deed .poll dated' the 8th 'day of October, 1915, duly executed.

Pierre Francois changed his surname,due to the popular resistance to German names with the advent of Word War I. (1914-1918)  He is described as having dark to grey hair and having blue eyes and standing 5'8" high with a totoo on each arm 

He returned to live in Cape Town, where he and Johanna were divorced. By 1894 he was in financial difficulty, and was arrested for an outstanding debt, as he was about to leave on a boat going to England. A building Claimed he owed money for home improvements.

Pierre Francois joined as a RNVR Officer between January 1916- December 1918. He was posted to the Olympic on the 31. March 1917.

Dr Pierre Francois Hope as he was now known was a ships surgeon and worked for the White Star Line of Passenger/mail ships. He worked on the "Olympic" Titanic's sister ship - she was doing the Trans Atlantic Run and from 1908 to 1935 . His discharge papers dated 10.2.1917 state that he was born in 1867. His discharge no was 904034 and the Olympic no was 131346.

In September 1915, Olympic was requisitioned for use as a troopship; Olympic was quickly made ready war service and was painted in dazzle paint, to make it harder for the enemy to target her. Due to the fact that Olympic’s Captain, Captain Haddock, was unable to be released from his war time duties, Captain Bertram Hayes was given command of the ship. On 24th September 1915, Olympic departed Liverpool for Mudros, on her first voyage as a troop transport, onboard were around 6,000 troops. During that voyage, on 1st October, Olympic rescued 34 survivors from Provincia, a French steamer that had been hit by an Austrian submarine. After the rescue, a submarine was spotted and evaded by Olympic.

While in the eastern Mediterranean on 23rd February 1916, Olympic was attacked by a German U-boat, fortunately the torpedo fired from the submarine failed to hit the ship and Olympic escaped undamaged.

When the war was over on the 21st Jan 1920 Pierre Francois was issued the Mercantile Marine Medal and the British Medal

Olympic left Southampton on her last transatlantic voyage on 27th March 1935, arriving in New York on 5th April. This would be the last time that Olympic would make the journey that her and her sister ships, Titanic and Britannic, were intended for. Many of Olympic’s fixtures and fittings were auctioned off, and some can be seen today in places such as the SeaCity Museum in Southampton, UK and the White Swan in Alnwick, UK.

Pierre Francois was living at 60 Surrey Street, Strand at the time and Maria Johanna was living at 33 Manchester Street, Marylebone.Their first child Pierre Francois was born 3 months later ( August 1882.) They lived in the Uk for about 5 years where they had 6 children 4 boys and 2 girls. ''''''HOPE  PIERRE F  —  —  1928  Marriages & divorces  Holborn, London, England''''''    They were were divorced in 1897, when he was 29 years old and without an income other that his legacy which he used to obtain the divorce. Custody of the children given to the mother who was residing in Mowbray at the time of the divorce.He was married twice and his second wife died before he did.  In his last will dated April 2 1932  his address was given as   ‘Spes Bona’ 25 Chislehurst Ave, Finchley, Middlesex, England. But his domicile and origin to be the Union of South Africa.  He left money to the following •	Ernest Fitzgerald Williams of   38 Cambridge Road, Seven Kings, Essex     300 GBP

                      his son Gerald Fitzgerald Williams •	Edith Mary Ireland   25 Chislehurst Ave, Middlesex England       100GBP

                    her daughter Christine Adelaide Amelia Ireland  

This will states that Johanna Maria Haupt had already died.(1924) With Daniel Haupt Brown (minor residing with P F) - they inherited the residue of the estate of Daniel Egbertus Haupt.

HAUPT. 1897. 10th. Feb. Court documents Cape Town.

Marriage — — Matrimonial domicile — property.

This was an action for divorce instituted by Mrs. Johanna Maria Haupt against her husband, Pierre Francois Haupt, on the ground of his adultery.

The plaintiff's declaration set forth :

1 The plaintiff resides at Mowbray, in the Cape district;the defendant, her husband, resides at Cape Town.

2. The plaintiff and defendant were legally married at the parish church of St. Marylebone, in London,

     on 3rd Mar, 1882. The said  marriage still subsists, and there were born thereof six children; to wit, 

      four boys and two girls all minors. 

3. At the time of the celebration of the said marriage both the plaintiff and the defendant were domiciled in the

     Colony, and the said  parties were married in community in accordance with the law of their domicile, 

4 In or about July, 1896, at Cape Town, and subsequently on board the U.S.S. Greek, and thereafter during the years 1896 and 1897, and more particularly in January. 1897, at Cape Town, the defendant committed adultery with one Annie Steele.

4. The plaintiff claims : (a) A decree of divorce (b) A division of the joint estate, including therein the defendant's life interest in respect of certain interest, income, and dividends accruing under and by virtue of the will of the late Daniel Egbertus Haupt. (c) Custody of the children. (d) That the defendant be ordered to pay the sum of £100 per annum towards the support and maintenance of the said children. (e) Alternative relief and costs of suit.

The defendant was barred in default of filing plea. The defendant admitted (in court) the adultery, but contended that there was no community of property, and that the marriage with the plaintiff was not a legal one on account of the fact that he was not of full age at the time. 

Mr. McGregor appeared for the plaintiff, and the defendant conducted his own case in person.

Johanna Maria Haupt, now residing at Mowbray, said that she was born at Drakenstein in the Colony, and her maiden name was also Haupt. She left the Colony before she was married to the defendant, who had lived in the Colony up to that time. They went to England together, and were married at St. Marylebone parish church about a month after their arrival in England. The defendant was supposed to be studying for the medical profession. They remained in London while the defendant was studying for about five years, and then the defendant came out to the Colony, and she followed him. [1887]

There were six children of the marriage, four of whom were living with witness, while two of the boys were taken away recently by the defendant.

The eldest child was fourteen years of age. While they were in England she and her husband, who  were cousins, were supported by an uncle, who remitted to them a sum of about £200 to £260  per annum.  Witness had been permanently separated from the defendant since June, 1896.  She knew a certain Nellie Steele, and recognised her photograph (produced]. She was staying at Newlands, opposite witnesses house, and witness had seen her on one occasion quite drunk in the afternoon.  Since June she had seen Nellie Steele in company with the defendant and the two boys. 

The defendant, proceeding to cross-examine, asked the witness whether she had ever mis- conducted herself before her marriage.

The Chief Justice: You cannot put that question. You have not pleaded misconduct.

Cross-examination continued: She was married in May, 1882, and her first child was born five months after the marriage, the defendant being the father. She had condoned all previous offences by the defendant up to last June, and had condoned certain offences when he returned from the Transvaal.

By the Court : She wished to have the custody of all the children, but she had no means of her own to support them, and was dependent on what the defendant could give her. She thought she could maintain the children on £30 a month.

Frederick Orken Cheese, porter at the Royal Hotel, stated that he knew the defendant fifteen years ago, when he was living in England with Mrs Haupt as a married man. In June last the defendant came to the Royal Hotel with Nellie Steele, and they occupied the same room there, giving the names of Dr. and Mrs. Haupt. Since then he had seen them together at the Railway-station. Cross-examined : He could not say whether there was another Mrs Haupt staying at the hotel at the time. George William Steytler, secretary of the Colonial Orphan Chamber, said he was trustee under the will of the late Daniel Egbertus Haupt. Defendant had a life interest under that will, and received half of the total annual income from the estate, which amounted to about £1,000. The other £500 went to Daniel Haupt Brown. An arrangement had been made between the parties by which Mrs. Haupt received £17 a month and Mr. Haupt £7 a month. The defendant had surrendered his estate, and a loan had been raised to extinguish the debts, and defendant had Insured his life to secure the loan. The defendant's debts would be finally extiuguished in twelve or thirteen years. At present the creditors were receiving the net income less £24 a month.

Cross-examined : For the last six months he had paid the £7 a month to Mrs. Haupt on the defendant's instructions. Mrs. Haupt was the revisionary legatee after her husband's death . He was not aware that there was another bond of £2,000 upon the defendant's life interest.

By the Court: The payment of the £7 a month to Mrs. Haupt had been stopped since January. The defendant had been insolvent, but all his liabilities had been discharged by witness. The defendant then entered the box. He said that he was married on May 8, 1882, and was then fifteen years of age. His present age was twenty-nine. He had no means to go to England. Plaintiff took him to England, but he did not know where she got the means from. She there forced him to marry her and he found himself married before he knew what he had done. The Chief Justice : But there is no plea of fraud or anything of that kind.

Defendant (continuing) said that in the August after the marriage a child was bom Their married life had always been of a very unpleasant nature, both here and in England. He was not in a position to take steps to have the marriage declared illegal, and had had no means since his birth till the legacy came to him.

The Chief Justice : But you declared that you were of full age when you were married. The defendant said he remembered making no such declaration. He had received notice that morning of the intention of the mortgagee (Daniel Brown) to foreclose in respect of the bond for £2,000 on his life interest. The Chief Justice : But there is a complete cession to Mr. Steytler. How could you cede it to a second person.

Cross-examined: Daniel Brown was a co-legatee under the will.

Defendant, on leaving the box, and arguing upon the case, contended that his wife had not looked after the children, whom he had found in a state of neglect. She spent her time in going to religious meetings and Salvation Army meetings. He had no means, and only made enough to keep himself by an occasional speculation.

A decree of divorce was granted.

De Villiers, C.J. : The defendant denies the validity of the marriage, but I am satisfied that it was perfectly legal. He declared himself at

If he was a minor and if the marriage was •with his father's consent, he would have had grounds for restitution, but only within a reasonable time after discovery of the fraud No steps of any kind were taken, and now after several years of married life and after six children have been born of the marriage he sees to raise this somewhat defence to an action for divorce. The next question is whether or not the parties were married in community of property. Or if an ante-nuptial contract was executed . Therefore, if their matrimonial domicile was in this colony their marriage must be held to have been in community. The marriage took place in England, but according to the plaintiff's evidence, which I believe, the parties had gone there with the intention of returning to the Cape and residing here. Their relations lived here and the defendant's object in going to England was to study there for the medical profession. Clearly therefore the Cape was the matrimonial domicile, and in the absence of a contract the marriage must be held to have been in com- munity. The adultery having been clearly proved, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of divorce and to a division of the common estate. The Court will give her the custody of the minor children and order the defendant to pay her the sum of £1 per month, in respect of each child, until such child shall reach the age of sixteen. Buchanan, J., and Maandorp, J., concurred. Judgment for plaintiff accordingly. PIaintiff's Attorneys, Messrs. Fairbridge, Ardeme k Lawton.

Daniel Egbertus Pfeil Haupt In his last Will he left the farm Rustenburg near Stellenbosch (registered in his name) to his nephew Fredrik van der Graaf Haupt and the farm La Plaisier Merle at Groot Drakenstein (registered in his name) to Peter Canzius Haupt oldest son of Carl Albrecht Haupt (1810) & brother of Daniel Egbertus Haupt.

Nephew and God son Daniel Pfeil Haupt de Villiers - 500 pounds sterling

Daniel Francois Haupt (the elder) of Port Eliabeth - 500 pounds sterling

Anna Carolina Fock (married to Richard William Browne of Kimberly - 500 pounds sterling

Elizabeth Francis Haupt born Stuckeris married to his nephew Willem Adolf Haupt - 500 pounds sterling. (Willem's parents were Willem Haupt and Anna Carolina Stuckeris. Willem ( the father) was the son on Johannes Jacobus Haupt married to Elizabeth de Vos and owners of Picardie and Laborie farms at Drakenstein.)

Gertruda Catherina van der Byl - daughter of Gerhardus Abraham van der Byl-250 pounds sterling

Wilhelmina Fredrika Jacoba Haupt (his niece) -(12th child of CA Haupt 1810) - 500 pounds sterling

Jacoba Petronella Christina Canzius Haupt (7th child of CA Haupt 1810) his niece and widow of Jan Jurgen de Villiers - 500 pounds sterling

Anna Carolina le Roux (born Haupt) widow of Jacob Stephanus Le Roux - 800 pounds sterling

Pierre Francois Haupt (of Newlands) married to his niece Johanna Maria Haupt and Daniel Haupt Brown (minor residing with P F) - the residue of the estate

Pierre Francois illegitimate child was David Haupt Brown whose mother Elizabeth Maria Jacoba was his niece and ward and was the sister of Pierre Francois’ wife Johanna Maria.

Pierre Francois Haupt married his cousin Johanna Maria Haupt at Marylebone Parish Church in London. They had 6 children 4 boys and 2 girls are were divorced in 1897 with custody being given to the mother who was residing in Mowbray at the time of the divorce.

Daniel Haupt Brown (minor residing with P F) - they inherited the residue of the estate of Daniel Egbertus Haupt. Pierre Francois Haupt was a ships surgeon and worked for the Olympic Line of Passenger/mail ships to which the Titanic belonged. He is reputed to have worked on the "Olympic" Titanic's sister ship -doing the TransAtlantic Run.

Pierre Francois changed his surname to Hope due to the popular resistance to German names with the advent of Word War I. (1914-1918) He was married twice and his second wife died before he did. HAUPT. 1897. 10th. Feb.

Marriage — Minor — Fraud — Matrimonial domicile — property.

The marriage of a minor must be deemed to be valid until annulled by judgment of a competent Court, infidelity is not, per se, sufficient grounds for annulling a marriage. If either party is entitled to restitution by reason of the fraud of the other, proceedings must be taken within a reasonable time after discovery of the fraud. The matrimonial domicile must decide whether the marriage is in community or not.

The parties having gone to England with the intention of returning to this colony and residing here, the marriage took place during their temporary residence in England; Held that this Colony was the matrimonial domicile, and that, in the absence of an ante-nuptial contract, the marriage was in community of goods.

This was an action for divorce instituted by Mrs. Johanna Maria Haupt against her hus- band, Pierre Francois Haupt, on the ground of his adultery.

The plaintif's declaration set forth :

1. The plaintiff resides at Mowbray, in the Cape district;

the defendant, her husband, resides at Cape Town. 2. The plaintiff and defendant were legally married at the parish church of St. Maryle- bone, in London, on 3rd Mar, 1882. The said marriage still subsists, and there were born thereof six children ; to wit, four boys and two girls all minors.

8. At the time of the celebration of the said marriage both the plaintiff and the defendant were domiciled in the Colony, and the said parties were married in community in accordance with the law of their domicile, 4. In or about July, 1S96, at Cape Town, and subsequently on board the U.S.S. Greek, and thereafter during the years 1896 and 1897, and more particularly in January. 1897, at Cape Town, the defendant committed adultery with one Annie Steele.

The plaintiff claims : (a) A decree of divorce (b) A division of the joint estate, including therein the defendant's life interest in respect of certain interest, income, and dividends accruing under and by virtue of the will of the late Daniel Egbertus Haupt. (c) Custody of the children. (d) That the defendant be ordered to pay the sum of £100 per annum towards the support and maintenance of the said children. (e) Alternative relief and costs of suit. The defendant was barred in default of filing plea. The defendant admitted (in court) the adultery, but contended that there was no community of property, and that the marriage with the plaintiff was not a legal one on account of the fact that he was not of full age at the time.

Mr. McGregor appeared for the plaintiff, and the defendant conducted his own case in person.

Johanna Maria Haupt, now residing at Mowbray, said that she was born at Drakenstein in the Colony, and her maiden name was also Haupt. She left the Colony before she was married to the defendant, who had lived in the Colony up to that time. They went to England together, and were married at St. Marylebone parish church about a month after their arrival in England. The defendant was supposed to be studying for the medical profession. They remained in London while the defendant was studying for about five years, and then the defendant came out to

the Colony, and she followed him. There were six children of the marriage, four of whom were living with witness, while two of the boys were taken away recently by the defendant. The eldest child was fourteen years of age. While they were in England she and her husband, who were cousins, were supported by an uncle, who remitted to them a sum of about £200 to £260 per annum. Witness had been permanently separated from the defendant since June, 1896. She knew a certain Nellie Steele, and recognised her photograph (produced]. She was staying at Newlands, opposite witnesses house, and witness had seen her on one occasion quite drunk in the afternoon. Since June she had seen Nellie Steele in company with the defendant and the two boys.

The defendant, proceeding to cross-examine, asked the witness whether she had ever mis- conducted herself before her marriage.

The Chief Justice: You cannot put that question. You have not pleaded misconduct.

Cross-examination continued: She was married in May, 1882, and her first child was born five months after the marriage, the defendant being the father. She had condoned all previous offences by the defendant up to last June, and had condoned certain offences when he returned from the Transvaal.

By the Court : She wished to have the custody of all the children, but she had no means of her own to support them, and was dependent on what the defendant could give her. She thought she could maintain the children on £30 a month.

Frederick Orken Cheese, porter at the Royal Hotel, stated that he knew the defendant fifteen years ago, when he was living in England with Mrs Haupt as a married man. In June last the defendant came to the Royal Hotel with Nellie Steele, and they occupied the same room there, giving the names of Dr. and Mrs. Haupt. Since then he had seen them together at the Railway-station. Cross-examined : He could not say whether there was another Mrs Haupt staying at the hotel at the time. George William Steytler, secretary of the Colonial Orphan Chamber, said he was trustee und«r the will of the late Daniel Egbertus Haupt. Defendant had a life interest under that will, and received half of the total annual income from the estate, which amounted to about £1,000. The other £500 went to Daniel Haupt Brown. An arrangement had been made between the parties by which Mrs. Haupt received £17 a month and Mr. Haupt £7 a month. The defendant had surrendered his estate, and a loan had been raised to extinguish the debts, and defendant had Insured his life to secure the loan. The defendant's debts would be finally extiuguished in twelve or thirteen years. At present the creditors were receiving the net income less £24 a month.

Cross-examined : For the last six months he had paid the £7 a month to Mrs. Haupt on the defendant's instructions. Mrs. Haupt was the revisionary legatee after her husband's death . He was not aware that there was another bond of £2,000 upon the defendant's life interest.

By the Court: The payment of the £7 a month to Mrs. Haupt had been stopped since January. The defendant had been insolvent, but all his liabilities had been discharged by witness. The defendant then entered the box. He said that he was married on May 8, 1882, and was then fifteen years of age. His present age was twenty-nine. He had no means to go to England. Plaintiff took him to England, but he did not know where she got the means from. She there forced him to marry her and he found himself married before he knew what he had done. The Chief Justice : But there is no plea of fraud or anything of that kind.

Defendant (continuing) said that in the August after the marriage a child was bom Their married life had always been of a very unpleasant nature, both here and in England. He was not in a position to take steps to have the marriage declared illegal, and had had no means since his birth till the legacy came to him.

The Chief Justice : But you declared that you were of full age when you were married. The defendant said he remembered making no such declaration. He had received notice that morning of the intention of the mortgagee (Daniel Brown) to foreclose in respect of the bond for £2,000 on his life interest. The Chief Justice : But there is a complete cession to Mr. Steytler. How could you cede it to a second person.

Cross-examined: Daniel Brown was a co-legatee under the will.

Defendant, on leaving the box, and arguing upon the case, contended that his wife had not looked after the children, whom he had found in a state of neglect. She spent her time in going to religious meetings and Salvation Army meetings. He had no means, and only made enough to keep himself by an occasional speculation.

A decree of divorce was granted.

De Villiers, C.J. : The defendant denies the validity of the marriage, but I am satisfied that it was perfectly legal. He declared himself at

5

in the absence of proof to the contrary I will take it  that  this is true. But even if he was not his marringe must  deemed to be valid ... annulled by judgement of the Court,if he had not reached the age ofmajority at the  time of his marriage  with the plaintiff  the marriage would have taken place with his father's consent, he would have had grounds for restitution, but only within a reasonable time after discovery of the fraud

No steps of any kind were taken, and now after several years of married life and after six children have been born of the marriage he sees to raise this somewhat .... defence to an action for divorce.

The next question is whether or not the parties were married in community of property or if an ante-nuptial contract was executed . Therefore, if their matrimonial domicile was in this colony their marriage must be held to have been in community. The marriage took place in England, but according to the plaintiff's evidence, which I believe, the parties had gone there with the intention of returning to the Cape and residing here. Their relations lived here and the defendant's object in going to England was to study there for the medical profession. Clearly therefore the Cape was the matrimonial domicile, and in the absence of a contract the marriage must be held to have been in community. The adultery having been clearly proved, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of divorce and to a division of the common estate. The Court will give her the custody of the minor children and order the defendant to pay her the sum of £1 per month, in respect of each child, until such child shall reach the age of sixteen. Buchanan, J., and Maandorp, J., concurred. Judgment for plaintiff accordingly. PIaintiff's Attorneys, Messrs. Fairbridge, Ardeme k Lawton.

HOPE PIERRE F 1868 1932 1932 Deaths & burials Barnet, Middlesex, England

Name: HAUPT, Pierre Francois Year: 1934 (year of death) Volume: 6/9/4519 Source Location: Cape Town Archives Repository Reference: 43941 Source: Master's Office / Orphan Chamber, Cape Town (MOOC) Collection Name: Cape Estates Death Notice Index 1834 - 1951