RootsChat.Com
Scotland (Counties as in 1851-1901) => Scotland => Topic started by: jennywren001 on Saturday 27 August 16 16:56 BST (UK)
-
Hoping someone has an idea what this offence entailed. My great great grandmother was found not guilty of this in 1881 in Fraserburgh. Most other offences listed in Fraserburgh Police Court Book, 1881 - 1896 (link below) are spelled out but a few are referred to by clauses of the G.P Act.
http://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/nmsruntime/saveasdialog.asp?lID=71564&sID=28119
Thanks
Jen
-
Trying to search for it, no results yet.
Could it be General Purposes Act?
-
General and Police Improvement (Scotland) Act, 1862 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_burgh
Stan
-
There is help on this at Aberdeen Archives but I've failed miserably to find what the offence is...
http://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/education_learning/local_history/archives/loc_policecourts.asp
Thanks
Jen
-
I can't find a copy of the Act online, but it seems to cover a lot of topics considering the number of clauses. I found one reference to a Clause 411.
Stan
-
It's not on legislation.gov.uk. There are copies in the three main law libraries in Edinburgh and probably in the Royal Faculty of Procurators Library in Glasgow and the Library of the Advocates in Aberdeen. I'll try to locate a copy.
-
Jennywren: The good news is that I've located the relevant statute.
The bad news is that the offence libelled covers an absolute multitude of offences that could be committed in a street to the obstruction, annoyance or danger of residents or passengers. The evidence of only one witness was required Even in the mid-19th century it's astonishing to think that some of the behaviour prohibited would ever take place in public. It forbade:
Exposing for show hire or sale any horse or other animal
Shoeing or farrying a horse
Allowing a bull to be in the street without a rope through its nose ring
Allowing a ferocious dog out unmuzzled
Allowing a rabid dog out in public (!)
Allowing a dog suspected of Canine Madness (!) out other than at specified times
Slaughtering or butchering cattle (unless run over in an accident)
Not having proper control of a horse drawn wagon, cart or carriage
Driving two carts without a suitable halter
Furious horse/carriage driving
Furious cattle driving
Leaving a carriage too long at the roadside
Pulling a tree, iron beam or stone without proper guidance
Leading or riding a horse on a footway
Leaving furniture or goods on a footway
Carrying an advertisement on horseback or on a carriage (!)
Hanging clothes or linen on a rail or fence
Writing on walls
Affixing bills or notices to a church, chapel or schoolhouse
Conveying slaughtered animals by cart without covering them up (!)
Rolling an item on the footway unless delivering it across the footway
Placing a clothesline across the street
Loitering for prostitution
Indecent exposure
Offering for sale an indecent publication
Discharging a firearm or firework
Flying a kite (!)
Making a slide in snow or ice (!)
Cleaning a cask or tub
Leaving building materials on the ground not enclosed for safety
Beating a carpet before 8 a.m.
Fixing a flower pot on an upper window without ensuring it will not be blown down
Throwing anything from a roof (except snow when it is safe to do so)
Permitting a person to stand on an outside widow sill to clean or paint it, unless the window is a basement one
Using threatening words likely to provoke a breach of the peace
Singing an obscene song or using obscene language
Jostling or annoying a person passing
Letting smoke or steam residue fall to the street
Leaving a cellar open without protecting it by a fence or rail
Throwing dirt or ash into the street, except for sand in times of frost
Keeping a pigsty to the front of a street
I suspect some of these were prosecuted rather more often than others, but all were forbidden by Clause 251.
-
djct59 many thanks for taking the time to find out this information. I must admit I didn't think one clause would cover so many 'crimes' it's a great list. Odd to think she could have been accused of loitering for prostitution or flying a kite! I'll never know I suppose what she was charged with but whatever it was she was found not guilty. Must admit as a child I was guilty of making a slide on the pavement and writing on walls ;D.
-
They could have simplified things by making it an offence to do anything anyone objected to ;D
Stan
-
The 'steam residue' one has got me a bit puzzled I can understand the smoke residue - that one sounds like you need your lum cleaned. When I was a kid and you put your lum up so many times your name went in the Dundee Telegraph - oh the shame :-[ I think my dad put ours up twice - then we had a gas fire fitted!
Jen
-
The precise wording (including the unusual use of capitals) of the offence for which a constable may lock you up is -
"Every Person who shall discharge any Smoke or Steam from any Premises (otherwise than from the Top thereof) into any such Street, or suffer or permit the condensed Water or Moisture from any Steam Pipe, Flue or Funnel to fall into or upon such Street:"
-
So dripping water! ;D ;D ;D
-
So dripping water! ;D ;D ;D
Not Quite .... :P ;D
Basically it was an offence to discharge steam/steam residue/ smoke etc unless from a chimney or vent at roof level where such measures as required for the dispersal were in place.
Think of it more as fledgeling Health & Safety legislation ::)
PS. This was still an offence in 1892 when this legislation was replaced by the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act 1892 which itself introduced a few more "offences" which would raise eyebrows today
-
I am hoping that djct59 or someone else can tell me to what offences Clause 345 of the General Practices Act pertained. Great Great Grandfather was guilty in Fraserburgh 1886. Go ahead and tell me; I can take it. 🙃
-
Clause 345 of the 1862 Act made it an offence, punishable by a fine of up to ten shillings, of allowing your chimney to catch fire (unless you could prove this was not due to omission, neglect or carelessness on your part or that of your servant). You also had to pay the expenses incurred in putting out the fire.
-
They could have simplified things by making it an offence to do anything anyone objected to ;D
What a good idea! I can think of hundreds of things I would make illegal just by objecting to them :)
-
So here is the irony of my 2xGreat Grandfather being found guilty of offending Clause 345 of the G. P. Act, allowing his chimney to catch fire in the winter of 1886 Fraserburgh. He was fined 2/6 or order to spend 1 day in jail. He paid £9 2 and 6, which I suppose is the cost of putting out the fire?
However, he was the keeper of the Fraserburgh jail! Either way, he was spending the night there. So I can picture him toting his bedroll to the cell for the night and telling the rest to move over some. :-)
Thank you, djct59, for the prompt reply!
-
The offending steam might, mixed with smoke, condense on a cold day & land on the washing. Folk living next to the railway had this problem.
Skoosh.
-
I note from Andrew Coyle's Inside; Rethinking Scotland's Prisons (pub. 1991) that in 1852 the population of Fraserburgh jail was zero, and the governor's annual salary was £13.0.0.
Presumably he had another job when not looking after no prisoners.
-
Then come Friday night? ;D
Skoosh.