1
Scotland / Re: The phrase "Bail for bonds"
« on: Saturday 30 August 25 22:09 BST (UK) »
Incidentally, caution rhymes with (Waverley) Station. That catches a lot of non-Scots legal people out.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
2
Scotland / Re: Protocols for officially identifying dead bodies in Scotland (late 19th C.)
« on: Wednesday 18 June 25 23:09 BST (UK) »
There wouldn't be an inquest if he died in Scotland, as inquests don't exist in Scots law.
Fatal Accident Inquiries only began in 1895. Before that the investigation of sudden deaths was entirely at the discretion of the local procurator fiscal.
Fatal Accident Inquiries only began in 1895. Before that the investigation of sudden deaths was entirely at the discretion of the local procurator fiscal.
3
Fife / Re: Dunfermline Cemetery
« on: Wednesday 23 October 24 22:29 BST (UK) »
Odd that the biggest cemetery in Dunfermline District is missing...
Not sure if this link will assist - https://www.fife.gov.uk/kb/docs/articles/community-life2/bereavement-services/burials
Not sure if this link will assist - https://www.fife.gov.uk/kb/docs/articles/community-life2/bereavement-services/burials
4
Fife / Re: Dunfermline Cemetery
« on: Tuesday 22 October 24 20:50 BST (UK) »
There are several cemeteries within the general area of Dunfermline. Assuming you don't mean the one at the Abbey, the big one is on Halbeath Road, although there's a smaller one at Douglas Bank, Pattiesmuir, Rosyth.
They are all maintained by Fife Council- https://www.fife.gov.uk/facilities/cemetery
FindaGrave claims to have 6423 Dunfermline memorials noted, but I have no idea how accurate that claim is, or how good their record keeping/transcription might be.
They are all maintained by Fife Council- https://www.fife.gov.uk/facilities/cemetery
FindaGrave claims to have 6423 Dunfermline memorials noted, but I have no idea how accurate that claim is, or how good their record keeping/transcription might be.
5
Scotland / Re: Breach of the peace?
« on: Sunday 22 September 24 23:08 BST (UK) »
The short answer is "no". Breach of the peace in the 19th century was somewhat ill-defined in law. It was a catch-all term for a whole series of forms of behaviour that it was felt should be criminal, but fell below the solemn offence of mobbing and rioting (See M. Christie - Breach of the Peace pub. Butterworths 1990).
What was required was disorderly conduct or a departure from generally acepted standards of decency and propriety. The need for the offence to have a public element, which caused such problems in the early 21st century, was not yet clear in case law. Drafting of charges pre-1887 could lack precision, and minor cases seldom troubled the appellate courts. Being almost always prosecuted in the summary courts, it was not until 1954 that a preferred wording for the charge came into use.
What was required was disorderly conduct or a departure from generally acepted standards of decency and propriety. The need for the offence to have a public element, which caused such problems in the early 21st century, was not yet clear in case law. Drafting of charges pre-1887 could lack precision, and minor cases seldom troubled the appellate courts. Being almost always prosecuted in the summary courts, it was not until 1954 that a preferred wording for the charge came into use.
6
Sutherland / Re: Durness Parish Register - Part 2
« on: Thursday 30 May 24 22:09 BST (UK) »
Thanks for this. I think Angi Lamb took the photographs and Christine Stokes copied the text, but both are no longer with us.
DU C-13 is now illegible, but the text was "An Honest Man Is The Noblest Work of God" (taken from Alexander Pope's An Essay on Man
DU C-55 "Seek Ye First The Kingdom of God"
DU C-13 is now illegible, but the text was "An Honest Man Is The Noblest Work of God" (taken from Alexander Pope's An Essay on Man
DU C-55 "Seek Ye First The Kingdom of God"
7
Kilkenny / Re: James Campbell b: Kilkenny, Ireland
« on: Tuesday 21 May 24 15:44 BST (UK) »
Neale/Isabel
That's helpful. Counting back from 1808 fifty years gives a birthdate in 1758 as expected. That predates the parish register by six years.
All we know of Janet Banton/Benton etc is that she was from "Glasgow or thereabout", which could easily cover most of North Lanarkshire and perhaps some of Dunbartonshire.
That's helpful. Counting back from 1808 fifty years gives a birthdate in 1758 as expected. That predates the parish register by six years.
All we know of Janet Banton/Benton etc is that she was from "Glasgow or thereabout", which could easily cover most of North Lanarkshire and perhaps some of Dunbartonshire.
8
Kilkenny / Re: James Campbell b: Kilkenny, Ireland
« on: Monday 20 May 24 21:14 BST (UK) »
Quick piece of info: Janet "Betty" Banton was reportedly from GlasgowThere is no record of a birth or marriage of a Banton in 1770 -1800, or of a "Benton" in Glasgow in the same period, which is why I favour her name actually being Bannatyne.
I also suspect that Robert and Janet entered into an old Scots irregular marriage by declaratio de praesenti before she followed him to Ireland (perhaps pegnant?)
https://www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk/article/irregular-marriage-and-kirk-session-scotland
I also suspect that Robert and Janet entered into an old Scots irregular marriage by declaratio de praesenti before she followed him to Ireland (perhaps pegnant?)
https://www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk/article/irregular-marriage-and-kirk-session-scotland
9
Sutherland / Re: Robert Campbell alias Macarlishicicalister
« on: Sunday 19 May 24 16:18 BST (UK) »
Incidentally, you are correct that there are errors in Hew Morrison's copy of the Register published in 1911. Robert and Janet's daughter Janet was baptised on 30th October 1803 (missed from HM), and the child baptised on 30th November 1804 was indeed William.
A sponsor appears to have been the person who presented the child for baptism if a parent was not present, so I presume Robert was absent and the record should be read as "Janet, the wife of Robert, presented the child as sponsor"
A sponsor appears to have been the person who presented the child for baptism if a parent was not present, so I presume Robert was absent and the record should be read as "Janet, the wife of Robert, presented the child as sponsor"