RootsChat.Com
Old Photographs, Recognition, Handwriting Deciphering => Handwriting Deciphering & Recognition => Topic started by: cliffkinch on Wednesday 17 May 23 11:38 BST (UK)
-
Hi Rootschatters
I have an exercpt from a page from the 1841 Surrey Assizes, most of which I can make out apart from the words I have underlined in red
Any help greatly appreciated!
-
The first word looks like "refusing?"
Can you post details so that can check original - nothing like the real thing.
-
Here is the page - hope it helps
-
deleted
-
refusing the petition on behalf of...?
-
Interesting that you have put "petition" as his wife Charlotte had petitioned for his release on 1st Feb 1841 so if it is petition, then "refusing" wouldnt make sense
As it is on the 1851 census he was in the same jail although he was only sentenced to 6 months ... whether he got out and re-offended is on my to-do list
-
It makes sense to me as it would appear that the Court is refusing the petition put forward by Charlotte on her husband's behalf.
-
It makes sense to me as it would appear that the Court is refusing the petition put forward by Charlotte on her husband's behalf.
You beat me to it ! Just fathomed that out now
Makes perfect sense as there is another book with the prisoner "outcome" which says "Nil" and that was posted in July 1841
As ever - thanks go out to all of you rootschatters with this query!
Cliff
-
I understood "Sureties for X months" to mean (a) an alternative to prison or (b) imposed with a prison sentence to ensure good behaviour on release.
David's sentence column shows only "Sureties for 6 months" - no prison sentence. There is an example of prison + sureties above David's entry (sureties recommended to be remitted Feb 1841).
Was Charlotte petitioning for repayment of sureties?
David's with Charlotte on the '41 Census.
-
Looks like he refused the sureties so was imprisoned in January
The 1841 census was taken in June 1841 so Im confused as there is still a note on his record in July?
-
Going back to the original document, it reads rather like a record of correspondence received, with the names of the writers in the left hand margin and the gist of the letters in the main part. I'm not an expert in these things and I haven't seen the 1 Feb record, but I'm wondering if this is correct:
Interesting that you have put "petition" as his wife Charlotte had petitioned for his release on 1st Feb 1841 so if it is petition, then "refusing" wouldnt make sense
Because if I'm right about the correspondence log, then it wouldn't really make sense. If this entry follows the pattern of the ones above, then it does seem to be saying that it's Charlotte who has refused the petition. What the petition was doesn't seem to be specified here - maybe for mercy, or for Charlotte to withdraw her complaint, or for her to stand surety - but she appears to have had the power to turn it down. But as I said, I'm not an expert.
ADDED:
In the light of later posts, especially #15, I probably got this wrong.
-
FindMyPast
David Wengfield (as transcribed)
"43 10 David Wingfield Committed 18 Jan 1841 to Horsemonger Lane Jail for 6 months for want of sureties in breach of the Peace
The prisoner is sent to be enabled to find sureties and to be sorry for his offences
Feb 5
Too early?
Ans'd 12 Feb 1841"
Whichever, he didn't serve 6 months in "Chokey" if he was at home on 6 June when Census taken - sentenced 18 Jan.
-
The prisoner is said to be unable.....
-
The prisoner is said to be unable.....
Diolch - makes sense.
-
The prisoner is said to be unable.....
Diolch - makes sense.
And I've just learnt a new word!
Diolch :)
-
David Wingfield was supposed to put up £50 in sureities as well as express penitence and I read it that he was unable to find the funds
And the pertition from his wife was for his release as he had expressed his sorrow for his actions and she was "truly miserable"
Sorrow he may have had but it seems in 1844 he was back in court charged with her "Attempted Murder" upshot was ... £50 sureities and he walked out of court with Charlotte as she mitigated the charge again
-
A full report of the incident in the April 1844 newspaper. It seems Charlotte was certainly prepared to stand by her man, come what may.