Author Topic: HACKNEY UNION WORKHOUSE  (Read 8519 times)

Offline dawnsh

  • Global Moderator
  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • ********
  • Posts: 15,546
    • View Profile
Re: HACKNEY UNION WORKHOUSE
« Reply #9 on: Wednesday 17 August 16 23:26 BST (UK) »
Hi Rosy

Welcome to Rootschat  ;D

According to her profile, Pam hasn't been online here since Sept 2013 but as long as her email address hasn't changed, should receive a notification that you have posted and hopefully come back soon.

Are you related to Abraham Hall?

the link to Ancestry doesn't work unless you have a subscription.

Dawn
Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Sherry-Paddington & Marylebone,
Longhurst-Ealing & Capel, Abinger, Ewhurst & Ockley,
Chandler-Chelsea

Offline snootycat

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 253
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: HACKNEY UNION WORKHOUSE
« Reply #10 on: Thursday 18 August 16 00:38 BST (UK) »
Thank you, I havent been on here for a while. Is there any way to found out why he went in in the first place? I have checked his records for a while, but I seem to recall he died there.

Offline areusch

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 18
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: HACKNEY UNION WORKHOUSE
« Reply #11 on: Thursday 18 August 16 10:31 BST (UK) »
Thank you, I havent been on here for a while. Is there any way to found out why he went in in the first place? I have checked his records for a while, but I seem to recall he died there.

I don't know why he was admitted - I'm not sure if it was ever recorded, but as far as I'm aware the only 2 reasons are: because they were too poor to support themselves(i.e. no employment available or perhaps too old/ill to be hired) or they were ill, disabled, or weak in some way (physically or mentally) and therefore unable to care for/support themselves.

He was first admitted 22/12/1900, then discharged by his own request 18.02.1901. He was readmitted 25.03.1901 and then 12 days later discharged to the infirmary. As he was admitted to the infirmary only four months after his arrival - he likely had poor health / was weak in general from poverty.

There is then an Abraham Hill, also born in 1859 who in the 1920s is admitted to Christchurch workhouse in Southwark, occupation as a carman.. perhaps it is a common name or perhaps the same person again?

Moderator comment: edited for content. Offering to download and send documents from subscription sites is a breach of the terms and conditions of your membership to that site. Please use the personal message system.

http://www.rootschat.com/help/pms.php



Offline snootycat

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 253
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: HACKNEY UNION WORKHOUSE
« Reply #12 on: Saturday 20 August 16 23:28 BST (UK) »
Thank you, I havent been doing any genealogy for quite a while as I ran out of things I could find out! I will restart though now I have a bit more to go on. He died from heart failure at the age of 64, caused by a leaky valve. In other words congestive cardiac failure. It would have caused a backflow of blood. We started be able to treat this in the 50s when we invented artificial valve, a relatively simple device. Died first Sept 1916 in St Albans Workhouse. He would have been progressively unwell some time before that. Presumably he was sent back or he returned home, perhaps fr his daughter to look after him or something. I also noted an Abraham Hall who did time, I have restarted my Ancestry subscription for now so I can look it up.


Offline snootycat

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 253
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: HACKNEY UNION WORKHOUSE
« Reply #13 on: Saturday 20 August 16 23:53 BST (UK) »
Having looked up the Abraham Hall who did time, the sentence was ten years for breaking and entering with Larceny at Hertfordshire Quarter Sessions in 1869. It looks like the same chap except that the following year he is entered on the census as living at home. Now there are three possibilities. One is that it is someone different, secondly he could have been cleared for some reason and lastly that his father lied on the census to cover up the fact he was in prison. Bearing in mind my experience with faux marriages, I would not think that is as unlikely as it might sound. However if it was him he definitely wasnt in prison for ten years as he got married and had children! Any ideas? I assume if he was sent to prison there should be some record of his arrival which, again I assume would show his age and if he was subsequently cleared there would be a record of that. i have never checked criminal records before! Having discovered how colourful the lives of our ancestors seem to be its never a good idea to discount anything!