From Jerripedia
Historic Jersey buildings
If you own this property, have ancestors who lived here, or can provide any further information and photographs, please contact us through editorial@jerripedia.org |
Property name
Piece Mauger
Other names
- Piece Mauger Cottage
- Piece de Mauger - as shown in the 1901 census
Location
Rue de La Piece Mauger, Trinity
Type of property
Two-storey 18th century country house and outbuildings, built in 1728 on land purchased in 1726
Valuations
- A cottage on the west of the property was sold for £415,000 in 2013
- Piece Mauger was sold for £625,000 in 2017
- Piece Mauger Cottage was sold for £345,000 in 2018
Families associated with the property
- Mauger: This family might be thought to have given the road and property their name, but it was more likely to have been derived from de Gruchy dit Mauger. This was a variant of their surname used in the 16th century by the de Gruchys of nearby La Chasse. Jean de Gruchy is recorded as owning in 1471 land in Maufant. His family in the 1540s brought a lawsuit against their cousins Guerdain over the inheritance of nearby, if not adjoining, land formerly owned by their shared maternal forbears Poingdestre dit Cosnard, in Maufant, the case continuing over four generations, into the early 17th century. The Guerdains gained the land, but parted with it, probably by sale to the Lempriere Seigneurs of Dielament. The latter, in 1726, sold land at the edge of Trinity, adjoining Maufant, to Thomas de Gruchy, fils Thomas, fils Jean. The condition of the sale was that Thomas should build a two-storey house on the site. This was La Piece Mauger, completed in 1728. It is thought that the land in Maufant, for so long a source of contention, may adjoin that of La Piece Mauger.
- De Gruchy: The de Gruchy family from that time actually lived at La Piece Mauger, Thomas being Thomas de Gruchy (1674-1762), husband of Rachel Vibert. It remained in the family until 1869, when it passed, through the female line, to John Pallot, who was farming there at the time of the 1881 census. His family is thought to have let, in about 1900, the house and land to their Binet relatives (below), but it remained a Pallot property.
- Pallot
- Binet: In 1901 farmer George Charles Binet (1851- ) and his wife Elizabeth Ann Mary, nee du Feu (1851- ) daughter of Edouard, were living here with their daughters Florence (1878- ), Lucinda (1881- ), and Mary (1893- ) and their son George (1888- )
- Becquet: In 1941 Wilfred Charles Becquet (1888- ), his wife Lilian Mary, nee Pallot (1886- ) and their sons Wilfred Pallot Becquet (1922- ) and Philip John Becquet (1926- ) were living here
Datestones
- TDG RVB 1728 - For Thomas de Gruchy and Rachel Vibert
- TDG MDF 1751 - For Thomas de Gruchy, son of Thomas and Rachel, and Marie du Feu [1]
- TDG MDF 1765 - For Thomas de Gruchy and Marie du Feu
- PDG EDG 1800 - For Philippe, son of Thomas and Marie, and Elizabeth de Gruchy
- PDG MNC 1825 - For Philippe de Gruchy and Marguerite Nicolle. Philippe and Marguerite were living at La Pièce Mauger in 1851, when he died as a result of a fall from his horse
Historic Environment Record entry
Listed building
Two-storey, five-bay house. Roughly squared granite with slate roof. Large box dormer on entire length of roof. Good range of earlier outbuildings. Farmstead shown on the 1935 ordnance survey map. [2] Regular courtyard plan.
Notes and references
- ↑ HER wrongly states that this and the next stone record the marriage of Thomas and Marie - a lingering reference to 'marriage stones', all of which were supposed to be corrected in their database. This statement illustrates just how misleading it is to refer to datestones as marriage stones, or to indicate that they commemorate marriages. Stones with dates 14 years apart could hardly both record the couple's marriage. Thomas and Marie were married in 1752. The first stone probably records work being undertaken on the house before their marriage in December the following year and the next stone probably records further work on the property
- ↑ This description suggests that the house is relatively young, but it undoubtedly has 18th century origins
