RootsChat.Com

On the 1910 entry, the first line is a note of a "recognizance" , the two lines below are his previous convictions.

In this context the recognizance would have not have been related to bail, but would be the equivalent of being "bound over" or a "conditional discharge" today - i.e. he promised the court that he would behave himself in future ( but obviously didn't), and that could then be taken into account for future sentencing.

Same in 1919 - show that he had been in an industrial school in 1903, the recognizance in 1907 and then his convictions are listed.

"Computed from" is the date the sentence was deemed to be calculated as starting, and could vary to take account of time spent in prison awaiting trial.

If he committed a "civil" crime whilst AWOL it would be normal to be tried in the civil system - he would have been handed over to the military authorities at the end of sentence.

You have the number, but the file it relates to is probably long gone.

Even if it did survive it would only be a list of his convictions and the same information could probably be obtained by looking at newspapers, court records and prison records (which mostly do survive).

CRO records were digitised in the 1990s and other than perhaps for a few notable individuals paper records of that age wouldn't have been kept.

No proof of marriage (or name) would be required - the information is taken as the informant gives it. That is still largely the case today.

I would like to know if it was possible to register a child's birth in 1860 with the father's surname and mmn correct but they didn't marry till a few months after the birth of child? 

You are however misunderstanding how birth registration works  - In E/W the child was given no surname at all until 1969, so the entries are INDEXED under the surname of one or both parents depending on who is named on the entry, and their (claimed) marital status.

It is impossible to determine what is on the entry with absolute accuracy from the indexes alone.

Presumably it’s only minor changes made for an occasional copy to appear?

Just i’m helping a friend who has her grandmother’s original birth certificate (1914) ….. she was ‘adopted’ and i’ve just found an entry in her new name and registration district. My friend knows the details of the adopted parents but i didn’t expect there to be a second entry (presumably with incorrect details). Not available as a digital image but I have suggested my friend buys the pdf.

Occasional copies can be for any type of later correction to an existing entry - could be something very minor, to a very significant correction.

If you have found a second entry then that isn't an occasional copy, but could be a re-registration, or something else. If this was an adoption (pre 1926) then the adoptive parents shouldn't have registered the birth as their own, and if they did it was perjury.

If you want to post the name, or send me the details by DM I can advise further.

(in E/W) Before 1969 the informant column only shows how the informant signed the entry, and not their full name. On the quarterly returns sent to GRO the signatures would be written by the registrar in the same form the informant used, but not by trying to copy it exactly.

Certainly today the registrar would always check what the signature actually says (or is supposed to) so that it can be reproduced on certificates. Many are just a squiggle.

So either that is how the entry was signed, or there was an error made in copying it along the line. You could check by ordering a certificate from the registration office who hold the original register ( not GRO)