RootsChat.Com

I have not logged in to Rootschat for a while, and have only just seen your query.  So, here goes:

Roy Ir Fus = Royal Irish Fusiliers), Bn = Battalion,  Pte = Private, Impt = Imprisonment, C.O = Commanding Officer, Wt. O = Warrant Officer, and A.O = Army Order.  The abbreviation which could be H.L would probably be Hard Labour.  The abbreviation [?]CM could be [Field?] Court Martial.

(Below I have moved the dates to the left for convenience)
24.9.95  Depot   Attested    Pte
8.1.96  2nd Bn    Posted
17.7.96  Awarded 14 days Impt [H.L?] by C.O for drunkenness & striking a Wt.O
17.7.96  In Prison
24.12.97  Awarded 14 days Impt [H.L?] for offering violence to his superior officer
[?].1.98  Awaiting trial.  Tried by [?]CM & convicted of striking his superior officer sentenced 84 days Impt [H.L?]
1.2.98  In prison.  Pte
1 May 98  Elected to serve under the provisions of Army Order of 2nd April 1898
26.10.98  !st Bn    Posted    Pte
1st to 14.6.99  Imp by CO for 14 days
26th Jun 99  In confinement awaiting trial
30th Jun 99  Convicted of making away with by destruction his Arms + sentenced 56 days impt H.L[?] and stoppages
24th Aug 99  Released
11.10.01  Granted [?] Pay.  Paid War Gratuity under A.O 5 of 1901
30.6.02   & A.O 134 of 1902
10.12.02  Reserve    Transferred
23.9.07  Discharged on termination of his first period of engagement.    Pte.

A brief summary: your man signed up in 1895 for seven years in the regular army followed by five years in the reserves.  He had a few 'bolshie' episodes (possibly due to boredom leading to over-imbibing alcohol since the incidents stopped when the regiment went overseas)which would have counted against him being promoted.  His two War Gratuities will be because of service in South Africa in the 2nd Boer War.


Hope this helps.
Philip

The next question involves what the handwritten bit in the bottom might say. I can make out the final segment which says, "showing NIL vol admissible", but even this is a bit cryptic.

Greetings.

I read this as:
CWSG Form to Accts 14A on 3/10/47
showing NIL (?) admissible.

As to what it means.......  Perhaps CWSG relates to the War Service Grant (which as far as I understand it was a kind of hardship grant for families of serving personnel , operated by the Ministry of Pensions).   I don't think the next word is vol, but I can't offer an alternative.

All the best
Philip

Burial details of Richard and Mary:
Richard SAMPSON buried 21 Apr 1770 St Agnes
Mary SAMPSON widow buried 5 May 1770 St Agnes

Did daughter Katherin survive and get married?
NO marriage (including spelling variants) found in Cornwall up to 1830 on Cornwall OPC

Catherine baptisms in St Agnes 1750-1800:
Katherin SAMSON daughter of Richard and Mary bapt 16 Sep 1765 St Agnes
Catherine SAMSON daughter of Samuel and Catherine bapt 13 Apr 1789 St Agnes
Catherine SAMPSON daughter of Thomas and Elizabeth bapt 30 Jun 1793 St Agnes

Mrs Catherine SAMPSON
Samuel SAMPSON married Catherine TONKIN 3 Jun 1786 St Agnes b (NOTE: this is probably Katherin TONKIN bapt 1764 St Agnes)

Burials for Catherine and mystery child in St Agnes
(a child of Richard) SAMPSON buried 17 May 1772 St Agnes
Catherine SAMPSON age 2 buried 13 Apr 1793 St Agnes
Catherine SAMPSON age 1 buried 27 May 1794 St Agnes
Catherine SAMPSON age 65 of Towan buried 26 May 1829 St Agnes

Summary
There are four Catherines: three children baptised Catherine SAMPSON (including variants) and Catherine nee TONKIN.
There are no marriages for Catherine SAMPSON (including variants).
There are three burials before 1837 for Catherine SAMPSON (including variants).

Likely solution:
Katherin bapt 1765 is the "child of Richard" buried in 1772 (no age recorded).
Catherine baptised 1789 was buried in 1793 (with an error of 1 year on the age).
Catherine baptised 1793 was buried in 1794 aged 1.
Catherine (nee TONKIN, bapt 1764) was buried in 1829 aged 65.

If Katherin was aged around 6 and buried  as "a child of Richard" it seems strange, but if she was neglected after she was orphaned it is not impossible.    If the parish minutes survive there might be a reference to what became of her after her parents died.

If the "child of Richard" is not Katherin, this would mean that this was another child born before Mary died in May 1770 who lived to at least 2 years of age without being baptised, AND Katherin was adopted and given a different surname OR Katherin was sent away from the parish.

When was Samuel born?

As you have his name and date of birth, maybe you can find him on the 1939 Register.  If he is recorded this would give a location and 'last known alive' date to narrow down the search.  Alternatively his wife might be on the 1939 Register without him which could indicate that he may have died before 1939.

There aren't that many Samuel COOPER deaths in the West Riding and very few in Bradford registration district, so it might be possible to narrow the search down to a handful of possibles then see if there are any death notices in local papers online.

Hope this helps
Philip

A number of years have passed so previously interested parties may no longer be listening in.
...............

I'm still here and most definitely still interested.  Many thanks for reviving this thread.

I haven't looked at the Hartley's jam (sorry! ) for a few years, so it's time I gave it fresh thought.  I have always been pretty certain that Martley is a misreading and am convinced by Hartley.  Placing Hartleys in the same location as Larchers is very significant.  I am intrigued by the idea of Ruth vanishing and Rebecca appearing but I wouldn't be brave enough to put money on it.  At the moment my thinking is: "there is strong circumstantial evidence to suggest that Rebecca is the daughter of the John Hartley who married Susan Corke".